Sarah Palin stance on abortion: Rape isn't an excuse.

dwb.adn.com...

Read the full article. In it, it details the governor race were they were queried on various issues. The one issue which piqued my interest was this one;

Oil and gas, the main issue of the campaign to date, took a back seat to social issues like abortion, education, public safety and rural Alaska.

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

Well, what do the folk here think of that?

A very hard question!
Does one accept the fact that the child is unwanted and maybe put it up for adoption, or does one take a rape = evil stance and terminate the pregnancy?
Very hard!
Each individual must decide for themselves.
Is the sanctity of life an overriding factor in all things or is life weighed and measured by convenience?
I would stand with Sarah Palin on this one.
There are many other views.
This is mine.

Big distinction between making a choice for herself or her own child vs forcing other mothers/ women to do the same.

If she supports the repealing of Roe vs Wade she has lost my support anyhow, but I will definitely dislike it if she goes further and puts a no "rape- exemption" clause on it.

Frankly I think its moronic to force a rape victim to have the child of a rapist... I find it very, very hard to see how anyone could think otherwise. However, each to his/her own I suppose.

A lot of pro-life people feel that the child should NEVER be murdered.

If a woman has been the victim of rape, then why force her to then turn around and murder her own child? That puts a double burden on her.

She's already dealing with being raped.
Why force her to deal with murdering her child too?

44soulslayer - it's not 'moronic' to have 'the child of a rapist'. What is 'moronic' is to force someone to kill their own child and to have to deal with all the mental anguish that comes with doing that. That child is the child of the victim as well.

Govenor Palins belief in this area makes some sense from a psychological point of view. She can liver her life by it. So can those people in her church. As long as people in this country are allowed to choose for themselves in this situation there is no problem. And there is no worry that she'll get the law changed. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and that genie can't be put back in the bottle.

FF, would there not be a lot of resentment from the mother, raising the child of her rapist? I know what you mean, but wouldn't raising the child cause more psychological grief? Because all you'd see would be a child that never should have been brought into the world and it'd be a lot worse if the child looked like the rapist.

maybe abortion should be illegal, maybe the child should have rights from the moment it has been conceived. once your pregnant your pregnant.

if the mother doesnt want the child she should give it up for adoption.

i think maybe by having an abortion the mother wants to "undo" the rape, but thats impossible.

abortion is murder.

Each and every woman in this United States of America should have the right to choose what they want for their bodies. The government will never be able to know what hardships each woman is facing in their lives. Is the government going to make women who want an abortion take a test to determine whether or not their situation permits an abortion? Example, Sally Jo had sex with her boyfriend Billy Bob, she's 14, he's 15, they want to get an abortion because she's too young and he's too young. Government decides "NO" you have to raise this baby, otherwise you are a murderer.... Jane Doe gets raped and gets pregnant... Government says "NO" you have to raise this baby, it's your fault for not having a home alarm system, thus its your fault you got raped.
Well, anyways, my point is that, as a woman, I should have the right to choose what I want with MY body. It's my/our (women) lives.
This is why I will be voting for the presidential candidate that is going to let me keep my rights, not McCain and Palin.

Originally posted by MacDonagh
a child that never should have been brought into the world

See, this is the basic area where people such as yourself, and pro-lifers like me and Sarah Palin see things differently.

I don't believe there is a single child who has ever been born that "shouldn't have been brought into this world." I believe that every life is precious, and that there are no mistakes or coincidences.

Every child that is conceived is here for a purpose, and that child deserves the same right to live that each of us enjoys.

Sorry but this one doesn't fly with me, a rape victim should never be Forced into carrying the seed of her rapist as this may impose a physiological damage and feeling of punishment toward the raped victim.

People that never has been raped can no imagine the pain that the raped victim has to carry just because of the act, top that with an unwanted pregnancy and this victim could be facing a long time series of mental instability just to save the child that never is going to be wanted by the mother and if giving away have to face one time in his or her life the way it was conceived.

No, sorry but this is more deeper that many pro lifers make it look like, because their interest here is not the victim and unwanted child but to make an issue of saving another fetus for the cause so the victim wishes doesn't mater to them neither their well being and once the child is born who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

A rape victim should always have a choice.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by marg6043]

1. She didn't say it ways above her pay grade to answer that question.

2. They asked her what her viewpoint or opinion was.

3. She hasn't signed no anti-abortion bills that I know of.

4. It is hard to say what anybody would do until they are actually in that situation.

Abortion is a woman's choice. Some agree, some don't. But just cause one doesn't agree with her opinion doesn't mean one shouldn't respect which side of the issue she chose to represent.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Big distinction between making a choice for herself or her own child vs forcing other mothers/ women to do the same.

If she supports the repealing of Roe vs Wade she has lost my support anyhow, but I will definitely dislike it if she goes further and puts a no "rape- exemption" clause on it.

Frankly I think its moronic to force a rape victim to have the child of a rapist... I find it very, very hard to see how anyone could think otherwise. However, each to his/her own I suppose.

If you people are basing all your arguments on Roe vs Wade, you're seriously misinformed. she became pregnant and wanted to abort it, so she claimed she was raped in an attempt to get a legal abortion. Today she is an anti-abortion activist.

McCorvey, claimed before Roe that she had been raped, was 21 and pregnant when approached by attorney Sarah Weddington about suing for the right to have an abortion. McCorvey never had an abortion, because the decision came too late. She carried the baby to term and gave her up for adoption. McCorvey later admitted that she had not been raped (ibid., 8/11). ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" featured exclusive interviews with McCorvey, in which she renounced her role in the abortion advocacy movement and declared that "abortion is wrong."

Source

reply to post by marg6043


A rape victim should never be "ALLOWED to carry the seed of her rapist" followed by: "a rape victim should always have a choice."

So, which is it? We force abortions on rape victims or we let them decide?

I like how pro-choice seems to mean forced abortion with you and Flyers ("then why force her to then turn around and murder her own child") even though the two of you are on opposite sides. Last time I checked nobody was being forced to abort anything. If somebody is being forced to abort well that's just messed up and it needs to stop.

I'm sure there are women out there who have had children by rape and love their children just as I'm sure there are women out there who have had them and resent them just as there have been non-rape pregnancies aborted then the decision regretted and others who have regretted not aborting even though they wouldn't admit it.

Abort all you want. It's never been an issue for me. I don't care one bit. Jam wet-vac up inside and suck the skull bits out and maybe if we turn them into smoothies we'll live 2 months longer. I really couldn't care less. But then I've kept my peter out of trouble until I was able to afford children. Sue me for not being a compulsive idiot like so many apparently are.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by marg6043

 

A rape victim should never be "ALLOWED to carry the seed of her rapist" followed by: "a rape victim should always have a choice."

First of all I love he way you bring the issue with self righteousness, as usual you miss the point.

Allowed is due to the way that pro-lifers wants to impose the right of a fetus to life even if the act of conception was by forced rape as the OP said it should no be an excuse that along should not be allow.

I stand by my choice of words, A rape victim should always have a choice, not one that is forced into them by politriks or religious bias.

Rapes have many faces and is one in particular that is the worst of all, forced rape that the victim doesn't even know the person that attack them.

Most cases of rape either the Victim knew the raper or the raper is somebody that the victim even have a relationship with.

Again all the case deserve the victim to be the one making the choice of abortion or not.





[edit on 9-9-2008 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

I stand by my choice of words, A rape victim should always have a choice, not one that is forced into them by politriks or religious bias.

Okay.

But you said:

a rape victim should never be allowed to carry the seed of her rapist

So which is it?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
44soulslayer - it's not 'moronic' to have 'the child of a rapist'. What is 'moronic' is to force someone to kill their own child and to have to deal with all the mental anguish that comes with doing that. That child is the child of the victim as well.

As with many 'written' statements on this site, you have misunderstand 44soulslayers statement. He/she simply stated that it is moronic to force the mother to give birth to a rapists child. If the mother chooses to do so it is not moronic. That is simply a matter of misquoting someone which seems to be the crux of the presidential race once again.

Obama is against drilling!!! BS He has stated many times he is for it but insists that it is not the fix all!

Palin is part of an extremist church too! BS, she is part of a church system that can be found virtually anywhere in this country.

It's all a bunch of crap and quite frankly I'm sick of it. People putting words and meanings in other people's mouths.

As for the topic, it IS a very valid argument and a very TOUGH choice. Me personally, sorry, couldn't do it. However, am I one to TELL others that they cannot make that choice?

Who am I to say whether or not it will burden her further? It's her body and it has already been violated. That alone will most likely haunt her for the rest of her life. However, I will NOT impose my will on another human being. That is NOT what government should be doing in cases like this. It should be up to the individual.

thisguyrighthere

I am sorry I know understand the mistake I made when using the word allow I guess my usage of the English language show my mistake when trying to express my self as English is not my first language.

It actually took me a while to see my mistake.

I should have say force into carrying the see of their rapist.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Is all my fault.



[edit on 9-9-2008 by marg6043]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by marg6043

I stand by my choice of words, A rape victim should always have a choice, not one that is forced into them by politriks or religious bias.

Okay.

But you said:

a rape victim should never be allowed to carry the seed of her rapist

So which is it?

And again, I find another person trying to twist the MEANING of someone's statement simply for the purpose of inciting them into an argument. It is OBVIOUS what the poster was stating because of what they said in their first statement. For you to pick on this 'mistype' is pathetic.

It is obvious they meant that a rape victim should never be 'forced' to carry the seed of their rapist.

My god people, get a clue and stop bickering and nit picking. There are serious stances on this issue and Palin's stance is just as valid as any others.

The real question should be this.

Do YOU want someone else (Palin) making decisions for YOU or YOUR family if something like this (God forbid) ever were to happen to YOU or YOUR family? Or would you rather leave that decision up to the person that was actually RAPED?!!

reply to post by dariousg


Its my fault for no been careful on how I chose the words, I fixed the original post.

I guess sometimes I get carry away with words and English not been my first language doesn't make it any easier.



[edit on 9-9-2008 by marg6043]

When it comes to abortion my opinion is that it should be illegal after a certain trimester. If we start making it illegal when the mother becomes pregnant then I believe we're opening up a whole can of worms. What's next masturbation will be illegal? Should birth control pills be illegal?

I don't know. The 2nd trimester is a point where it should be illegal in my opinion

reply to post by galatea


Exactly, it's when government allows religion to intermingle that we get more control. I'm sorry, like I said, I would NEVER support the choice of someone I know to have an abortion but I would never hold it against them in the case of a rape.

Government MUST keep church and state separate. Religion has forced so many restrictions on people (not saying it's all bad at all so don't flame me on the point of going to hell and so on). Religion is a control system and government is SUPPOSED to be a 'for the people' system.

Do we really want government telling us what we can and cannot do? Even if it fits with YOUR (as an individual but not a WE as the people) point of view? (This is NOT directed at galatea, just the people who are for this complete removal of choice)