MovieChat Forums > Ashley Judd Discussion > Ashley Judd Explains Why She Chose To Ha...

Ashley Judd Explains Why She Chose To Have An Abortion After Being Raped

posted 6 years ago by TMC-4 (20476)
63 replies | jump to latest

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/ashley-judd-explains-why-she-chose-to-have-an-abortion-after-being-raped.2304782/

"As everyone knows, and I'm very open about it, I'm a three-time rape survivor. And one of the times I was raped, there was conception, and I'm very thankful I was able to access safe and legal abortion," Judd said. "Because that rapist, who is a Kentucky-ian, as am I, and I reside in Tennessee, has paternity rights in Kentucky and Tennessee. I would have had to co-parent with a rapist."

Ashley Judd is speaking out in favor of women's right to choose, saying she is thankful she had to safe and legal abortion when she became pregnant after being raped.

The 50-year-old actress had revealed several years ago that she was the victim of incest and sexual assault. At Tina Brown's 10th annual Women in the World Summit on Thursday, Judd spoke about the issue of abortion, which was legalized nationwide in 1973 after a landmark Supreme Court decision and which conservative lawmakers want to abolish. Last month, Georgia's Republican-controlled legislature passed a ban on abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur before a woman even realizes she is pregnant. Judd and many other Hollywood actors vowed to boycott the state if the bill, one of the country's most restrictive anti-abortion measures, was passed.

https://m.eonline.com/news/637480/ashley-judd-recalls-incest-and-being-raped-twice-in-powerful-essay-about-violence-towards-women

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

Wow, Judd is a fantastic actress. I never had any idea she faced this kind of thing in her life. It seems to indicate to me what the whole fanatical anti-abortion thing in America is really about, making women subservient to men. ( as a man ... this is something I cannot be objective about ) It has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, as all the rest of these people's policies are about as anti-life as you can get. Like the saying goes the anti-abortion fanatics love you until you are born, then it's you're on your own, grist to be exploited by the system after that.

The question of abortion seen through Ashley Judds experience seems to me to be the definitive way to see this question ... whatever our philosophical thoughts and feelings are about any of it, in practical terms it needs to be women who determine whether they want to get an abortion or not, and the people who oppose that are just wrong, like the people who rioted in D.C. on the 6th. This country has no way to shut down on groups like this that are big time wrong and drag the rest of the country backwards. It will be the death of us.

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

This is the conundrum though once you start on making moral decisions about this issue. Once you decide that you can impose morals on other people for your own reasons, however many people might agree, you end up in a big mess. Like if all human life is sacred, and an embryo turns into a human life at some point, then why would it matter how the human life came about?

To get completely ridiculous about it, what if someone has a jar of sperm and a bottle with some eggs, and mixes them together knowing that an embryo will be created in the absence of anything to sustain it ... is that murder?

Any way you look at it, it only makes sense to let the woman make that decision.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

My problem with anti abortionists is how black and white this is to them. Like, no matter how entrenched you are, making a rape victim raise their rapists child is just wrong. I feel if you argue otherwise you are just doing it to not give any ground to the other camp. And at that point I fully lose respect for someone's opinion.

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

It is all basically logic with different starting premises. If you start defining life in some particular way and then declaring other people must think alike .... it is dysfunctional thinking.

I believe if you can look into the workings of the brains of people who think like that you would find that the logic behind this is inconsistent and spun towards some display of egotistical power from those people who would control others ... and thus people with certain opinions should be discounted ... like impeaching a juror at a trial because they are prejudiced and cannot perceive the issue objectively.

The problem is that American democracy has no way to do this ... we have to suffer through having people who are still fighting the fucking Civil War and want to drag everyone else back - and are quite serious and willing to use force, any kind of force, cheat, ... the problem is that social and political hygiene demands that we cannot let backward ideas proliferate in society.

We have a model for that, we would not allow someone who thinks it should be OK to murder people continually bring that up for legislation ... except today if you are rich enough with the right connections apparently ... and least if you are in the Republican party you can virtually do that, rationalized by saying it is a necessary action.

Now we have rich and powerful elites that can choose the news we get, the thoughts we can express, they can hire people on the internet to make it seem like anyone is terrible and even drive them to suicide by fooling them with a facade of vicious BS News, or actions that happen online. We have a real problem on our hands with this technology, but also with the ability to spin crime and evil into an acceptable legal argument? We are close the end of this country unless we are very careful.

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

It's not that males should have no say in the abortion question, it is that the males that do are not making their anti-abortion decision based on any formal or logical reasoning but selfish anti-female point of view. There is just something wrong, wrong thinking and wrong doing about a male, or a female that seeks to control someone else based on their particular view of how the world works - when it clashes with modern science, modern morality and modern rights and justice.

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

Is a rape fetus an abomination, a product of a hate and a crime? Does that over-ride any rights to humanity that might have some time later in life ... like after it is born?

For example, if a women is raped and an embryo is conceived ... if it is possible to surgically remove that embryo and implant it in another women, or a machine and brought to term ... what would be the point of that? To create a person where there are no real parents or anyone to love it. Or are we creating an assembly line of kids for people who want to have children but not go through the actual process of making one?

Should a woman have the right to destroy an embryo created and removed in that way, as sole owner, or controller of it, or should part of her family's germ line going back to the dawn of time be forced to have part of their descendants be a rape child that has no relationship to its ancestors and only exists because some religious dogma is forced on women?