[footfoot]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Pregnancy is 9 months. Women who are raped suffer for a lot longer than that anyways. After your body is violated, nothing is ever the same again. Without exception, women who are raped NEED to be in psychotherapy for years after a rape, whether or not they want to be, because of the heightened suicide rate of raped women.

No-one said that a woman's life is worth less than a fetus's, and if a woman is impregnated by a rapist, her pregnancy should be monitored not only by an obstetrician, but by a therapist or psychologist as well. If it is found that the woman is seriously suicidal due to the rape and/or pregnancy, then it should be terminated. Although a tragedy, it is better that one life end than two.

Otherwise, yes. I condone a raped woman completing the pregnancy. 9 months is such a short time to give in order to allow a baby to grow to have the chance at a full life.

9 months is a very long time to carry a child as a result of rape. It forces one to not only mentally but physically live with the consequences of sexual violation. Not to mention that it isn't like any woman can just suddenly interrupt her life for a pregnancy. It affects work, relationships (what would her lover, parents feel?), as well as significantly her own future and present mental health. Thus, in effect, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child by rape is cruel and unusual punishment two times over.

I fully condone medically necessary abortions. Again, it is better for one to die than two. I'm sure that most of the pro-lifers on this site would agree with me. However, if there was a chance that my baby would live, even if I died, I would want the doctors to save her. She was everything to me, even before she was born, and I can't stand the idea of her not being in this world. Of course, in this circumstance, I would never force my feelings on another mother.

If you won't force your feelings on another woman, why would you in any situation? It is fine if you believe abortion to be morally wrong, but it isn't fair to force this moral on another woman. She might find it morally reprehensible for mothers to smoke or drink with children in the womb but she can't legally stop them from doing it.

The adoption issue is a whole other debate.

There is a shortage of adoptable babies in Canada and the USA at the moment, which is why anyone who wishes to adopt has to consider adopting internationally. More adoptable children here at home would make life easier for the millions of willing parents who are unable to conceive a child.

I posted in a previous abortion debate the statistics of the foster home system and how it works, referenced from a government website. I don't know how to retrieve my post, so I'll just summarize that most children who enter the foster care system also leave it within one year. Most children in the foster care system are in fact fostered by a family member, and not some group home institution.

First: Sure there may be a shortage of BABIES to adopt but there are half a million foster kids in the system. Kids. Every year a child is in the system is another percent lost in their chance to be adopted because people don't want to adopt broken children or those they can't bond with (harder to do with children who have been in the system for a while).

The answer to this "shortage" is not "put more in the system!!". That's like feeding the monster instead of banishing it. We need to encourage people to adopt older children. Need to put into place systems that help kids adjust to life outside of the system so they are more adoptable.

SECOND : I do not believe that bolded statistic to be entirely true. Perhaps it is true for children under the age for 3, but it is certainly not true for the older children (the bulk of the foster care system is made up of 5-15 year olds). I think that statistic is probably confounded by children hopping to and from homes and in and out of the system (unstable biological homes).

Let's also not forget the 20,000 kids that age out of the system each year. These kids are often just left to their own devices when they turn 18. "Several foster care alumni studies show that without a lifelong connection to a caring adult, these older youth are often left vulnerable to a host of adverse situations" (link)

That is all to say that the foster care system should not be a go-to solution to any problem. For those people concerned about childrens' lives, why don't we find ways to help the lives of LIVING children before we spend billions of dollars on fetuses, which legally (before a certain point) are not considered living despite what some may personally feel?

You say that by asking that women not terminate their pregnancies to save the life of the unborn baby they carry we I don't believe that anyone ever said that. Pregnancy does not cause a woman to die, in most cases. And as I said before, I condone medically necessary abortions. Most women can go about their lives during pregnancy, interrupted only by the occasional doctor's appointment. So I really don't see your point here.

This has already been responded to by a poster, but i'll reiterate that pregnancy can be a humongous obstacle and inconvenience to a woman. She can lose her job (especially in this economy), not have the financial means to support a pregnancy in pre or post natal care, it affects her relationships (pressure that if she has the baby her lover will not support it), and generally it is a mental and physical load that some women can not or are not in the position to take.