Quantcast

Comments about ‘Abortion in cases of rape: New rifts in old debate’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
freedomingood
provo, Utah

Does anyone realize how big the big government would have to be to make abortion illegal and actually enforce it?

Women have practiced abortion since at least Egyptian times with as little as herbal tea.

The proven way to reduce abortion in OUR present culture is sex education and easy access to birth control.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

I cannot comprehend the logic of some believers here. They insist that life is so sacred that abortion is murder...except when the life was created through rape? Why is the life produced through rape less sacred? Either way, the life is innocent. Whatever rationalization can be used to justify abortion due to rape starts a slippery slope that can easily justify any "unwanted" pregnancy. The position is incoherent.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

Though abortion entails the killing of, at least, one human being, in the case of rape, in whatever form, taking that life, tragic though it may be, is justified.

It is part of the tragic consequences of rape and it is the offending party who is responsible for both the rape and the death of the child and that person or persons should be held accountable to the full sanction of the law for such crimes.

anotherview
SLO, CA

re:AScientist

I don't know if you are male or female.
Have you ever carried or given birth to a child? Childbearing is not just physically demanding, but emotionally demanding as well.
Many churches--including the LDS church--allow rape and incest exception for abortion, so apparently they don't view abortion as exactly murder.

Rape is a very violent, emotionally and physically devastating crime for its victims. Imagine now you are required to endure a very physically and emotionally demanding 9 mons all because you were the victim of a crime and will be giving birth to your tormentor's child. Some rape victims might make that choice, but no women should be REQUIRED to carry their rapist's child.

There are many places in the world who view rape victims as trash. For example in Rwanda, rape was used as a tool of war. Thousands of women were raped, and some of those women became pregnant. Not only are the rape victims looked on as trash and rejected by their families and Rwandan society in general, the children born of rape have been shunned by society as well.

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

The position is coherent if one understands the emotional and physical burden by the rape victim mother and that endured by the child. It appears to be ambivalent only to those on either side who are rigid and lack compassion.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

"a loose coalition of abortion-rights and women's-rights activists is growing increasingly frustrated with President Barack Obama's administration" because he won't write an executive order that breaks the law to suit them.

Wow! There are many of us who are frustrated with President Barack Obama's administration constant breaking of our laws.

samhill - Great point!

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

The answer is simple, found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Fifty shekels is about 575 grams, or about $370 at current prices.

Every child deserves a mother and a father and the Bible gives us clear instructions to support both Biblical Marriage and Traditional Families and to end a loophole allowing abortion. I am fairly certain that AG Reyes and Gene Schaerr would be glad to take the case all the way to the supreme court, because we know that biblical definitions of marriage are important.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Samhill, Badgerbadger

I'd be curious to know how you think termination of a pregnancy caused by rape in time of war is in any way "family planning". The law in question forbids the use of foreign aid to fund termination of pregnancies for family planning. The executive order requested by the abortion rights and women's rights activists would merely say that termination of pregnancies caused by rape in time of war is not being done for family planning purposes and is, therefore, something that could be funded by foreign aid. That makes perfect sense to me, and I think the executive order should be issued. Why do you think these women should be forced to gestate pregnancies started by rape?

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

@Stormwalker:
Are you seriously suggesting that rape victims who become pregnant must marry their rapist and that the rapist must pay her father $370 because "every child deserves a mother and a father"?

This is why some reject religion.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

To "Furry1993" who asks, "I'd be curious to know how you think termination of a pregnancy caused by rape in time of war is in any way 'family planning'"?

I don't consider it, in any way, "family planning".

I consider the killing of the unborn child or children produced by the rape of a victim, whether planned by the rapist or not, to be the worst possible of the many tragic consequences of the crime of rape, blame for which rests solely with the perpetrator of the crime.

I am very much pro-life and would hope the victim could be magnanimous enough to allow the child or children to live. But, I can find no reason for compelling her to do so when she was an unwilling participant in the conception and simply another victim. Responsibility for the crime and all its consequences is completely that of the rapist.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments