 |
 |
 |
|
Oregon Stats
What Are the Most Common Reasons for Women Choosing Abortion?
Source: 2004 Alan Guttmacher Institute study reported in September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. What About Rape & Incest? With all of the publicity given to rape and incest as reasons for needing abortion-on-demand, it would seem that many of the over 45 million induced abortions since 1973 were performed on women impregnated by rape. This is not so. Only 7% of induced abortions are committed for “hard cases” such as rape, incest and fetal handicap. These situations are called “hard cases” because of the intense emotional strain such situations bring upon the families involved. Statistically, pregnancy from rape or incest is extremely rare. Several investigations have concluded that pregnancy from rape occurs in a maximum of 2.2% of victims. Reliable studies from incest treatment programs also suggest that pregnancy is infrequent. Out of three surveys, two reported a one-percent-or-less pregnancy rate and one reported no incidences of pregnancy. The low rates in rape and incest related pregnancies are backed up by several medical realities:
The vast majority of the over 1.3 million abortions each year are obtained for social or financial reasons – not for rape and incest. A survey of 1,900 pregnancy woman at 38 abortion facilities around the country conducted by a leading pro-abortion organization revealed that 1% of the women claimed that they were victims of rape or incest. When a pregnancy does occur from rape, induced abortion should not be considered the best or only solution to what feels like an insurmountable problem. There are other alternatives. No decision to kill an unborn child and endanger the mental and physical health of a woman should be made hastily. All such situations should be approached with compassion, dignity and love for both innocent victims – the woman and the unborn child. The question could be asked, “If pregnancy from rape or incest happens so seldom why not permit abortion when it does occur?” The question is best answered with another question raised by former abortionist Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., in his book, Aborting America. Dr. Nathanson asks, “Does the terrible emotional turmoil that rape stirs up in the woman justify the elimination of the [unborn child] that is produced by the rape?” Nathanson answers his own question by saying, “…The intent and moral statues of the act of intercourse does not alter the value of the [child] that may result…if a part of the human community were not at stake, no woman should be required to undergo the degradation of bearing a child in these circumstance, but even degradation, shame and emotional disruption are not the moral equivalent of life. Only life is.” Another equally important question raised when considering abortion as a solution to a rape or incest pregnancy is, “Should an innocent baby be killed for the crime of the father?” The obvious answer is “No.” Our whole judicial system in American is based on punishing the criminal, not the victim. Yet, when an unborn child’s life is taken, another innocent victim paid for a crime he or she did not commit. Apart from the moral questions, there are some very important practical considerations. For example:
Source:"Abortion: The Hard Cases” brochure produced by the NRL Education Trust Fund, Washington, D.C. What About Fetal Handicap? Like pregnancies from rape and incest, the prospect of giving birth to a child who will be mentally ill or physically disabled presents a family with a social and moral dilemma that on the surface could be unbearable. The dilemma is often characterized by concert for the unborn child who should not have to live a life of suffering. Abortion, then, is put forth as the best option for relieving the suffering. In reality, however, the concern is most often for those who would care for the handicapped child and the suffering they would experience. As in rape and incest situations, there are other alternative to the abortion and elimination of a handicapped member of the family. A basic consideration frequently overlooked during public discussions about killing such individuals through “eugeneic” abortion is that abortion violates their fundamental rights as human beings. C. Everett Koop, M.D., a world-renowned pediatric surgeon and former U.S. Surgeon General, explained that, “It has been my constant experience that disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go together. Some of the most unhappy children whom I have known have all their physical and mental faculties and on the other hand some of the happiest youngsters have born burdens which I myself would find very difficult to bear. Our obligation in such circumstances is to find alternatives for the problems our patients face. I don’t consider death an acceptable alternative.” Source:“Abortion: The Hard Cases” brochure produced by the NRL Education Trust Fund, Washington, D.C. What About the Quality of One’s Life? The issue of abortion in the cases of rape, incest and fetal handicap points to a larger and even more basic issues that we in American must face. The question we must answer is, “By what standard will we measure the value of human life?” Asked another way, “What basic principle will we use to decide who should live and who should die?” Every society has such a standard. Until 1973, the standard recognized by U.S. law was that all human life is valuable and should be preserved. This included unborn human life. However, the Supreme Court set aside that standard in the Roe v. Wade decision which made abortion-on-demand legal. In setting aside the previous standard, the Court raised up another very dangerous one. The standard for determining who should live and who should die in American is no longer a moral and civil rights one – it is a social or utilitarian one. The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was the event that switched American from a stable civil Rights standard to a fluid utilitarian one. “Choice” has become the expression of the belief that a mother has the right to kill her unborn child, and that the unborn child does not have a legal protected right to life. Traditionally, Western ethics have always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage of development or the condition of health. This longstanding concern is reflected in the preamble to our Declaration of Independence which place an individual’s right to “life” before and individual’s right to “liberty” or “pursuit of happiness.” This universal and compassionate respect for life has been the cornerstone of Western medicine for over 2,000 years and has been expressed in such medical documents as the Declaration of Geneva from the World Medical Association. Adopted in 1948, a portion of the declaration states “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception until death.” Today, however, we are seeing the value of life ethic being replaced by a quality of life ethic. As evidence of this, some medical schools that use the Declaration of Geneva as a commencement oath are dropping the phrase, “from the time of conception” from the clause beginning, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life.” Much of our medical community and many groups in society are accepting death as an answer to medical and social dilemmas. Abortion-on-demand is legal. Reports of infants being allowed to dies after birth – infanticide – are increasing. Suicide is encouraged through manuals that outline methods of “relieving suffering.” Legislation advocating suicide is being proposed and passed in state legislatures and is being promoted through movies and the media in general. The obvious problem with such a trend is that once life is devalued, it is very difficult to draw the line. All human worth is placed in jeopardy. Who will be the next group to be labeled as unessential to society and unworthy to live? Fortunately, not everyone is comfortable with death as a solution to social problems. “Choice” proponents recognize this. That is why abortion is never referred to as killing. As a society we are still offended by killing. As a society we have not accepted it as a way to resolve social conflict. However, these attitudes are changing. Source:"Abortion: The Hard Cases” brochure produced by the NRL Education Trust Fund, Washington, D.C.
|
