She doesn't have to actively terminate it, she could just continue her life without consideration for it and it'd probably die naturally.  If she was a smoker and/or drinker and didn't quit, or she continue having an active/athletic lifestyle for too long.  The reason abortion is chosen is that it's a clinical procedure and is therefore safer for the mother, but the important part is that this isn't something that she can deal with without changing how she previously lived, so it's definitely forced charity.  The fetus is not violating her right by choice (it doesn't have any yet) but it is by its existence.

You're right, the fetus is not being given a choice in this matter, but unfortunately I can't ask the fetus to weigh in on the matter, and if I could I'd likely have a different viewpoint on the whole thing.  So without that to go on I think the decision should be left to the conscious person most affected by the decision: the rape victim.  

Any of those actions she takes are known to risk or cause death to the fetus, so it would be effectively the same as actively terminating it, though.  And I was referring to charity in terms of participating vs. not participating.  That is, if I don't give someone food, for example, my lack of action is not what caused them to starve to death.  Whereas, in this case, the lack is exactly what causes it.  

And the contention one might raise with that is that, either way, someone has to give up something.  And one of them cannot choose in the matter, so it would be a violation of its rights to choose for it.

Any of those actions she takes are known to risk or cause death to the fetus, so it would be effectively the same as actively terminating it, though.  And I was referring to charity in terms of participating vs. not participating.  That is, if I don't give someone food, for example, my lack of action is not what caused them to starve to death.  Whereas, in this case, the lack is exactly what causes it.  

And the contention one might raise with that is that, either way, someone has to give up something.  And one of them cannot choose in the matter, so it would be a violation of its rights to choose for it.

It`s also about dignity and respect. A baby cannot live without the support too.
No human should be treated less because he can`t fully express his humanity. Human life is valuable since inception.

No, we don`t know what will come out of her carrying out the pregnancy, like we don`t know how people will handle every other problem in their lives. What we know is that when a life is terminated, that`s it. It`s a certainty that it`s all over.
You are right, i don`t know exactly what she needs to overcome, so i`ll just say what people need to overcome their problems: strength, love, trust, support, etc. I`d add God, but like everything it`s up to people to open themselves to faith.
What i do know, is that there`s nothing that God gives us that we can`t handle it, even the hardest things. What we must always avoid is basing actions on suffering. Because those are the realities we choose, for whatever happens in our lifes.

Any of those actions she takes are known to risk or cause death to the fetus, so it would be effectively the same as actively terminating it, though.  And I was referring to charity in terms of participating vs. not participating.  That is, if I don't give someone food, for example, my lack of action is not what caused them to starve to death.  Whereas, in this case, the lack is exactly what causes it.  

And the contention one might raise with that is that, either way, someone has to give up something.  And one of them cannot choose in the matter, so it would be a violation of its rights to choose for it.

No I don't and that's not what he said. He didn't say it's God's plan. Here's his full quote: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

It is perfectly clear to me that Mourdock is saying the life created from the rape is sacred, not the act of rape.

He said it badly, but Let's break it down:

"life is that gift from God"

"horrible situation of rape"

"when life begins"

"God intended to happen."

What's he is saying is life is a gift from God even when it comes from rape. He's not saying God puts rapists in the path of women to create life, and he isn't saying that God's plan is for women to be raped. He is only talking about what God intents for the child. God loves all children regardless of how they were conceived.

Here is his explanation:

"What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life," Mourdock said. "Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that. That's sick. Twisted. That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life."

People are taking this man's words and extrapolating negative intent for political ends. In my opinion they are intentionally misrepresenting him, while knowing what he meant isn't even news worthy.

supporting the killing of unborn babies is much more closely aligned to what the devil is advocating.

Again, I don't think Mourdock is saying "God intends rapes to happen." I think he's saying "given that a rape has happened, if the woman gets pregnant from that rape, then God intended that pregnancy to happen." In other words, God doesn't have control over whether the rape happens, but He does have control over whether the woman gets pregnant.

I strongly disagree with that position, because I can't imagine that God intends for 30,000 raped women to become impregnated each year, in the USA alone. Do you really believe He intends for all of those raped women to become impregnated?

fetus: "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"

baby: "an extremely young child; especially : infant"

Before my daughter was born, she was a fetus. After she was born, she was a baby. I believe that the moment of birth is when someone becomes a person. And I believe that pregnant women, not the government, should make the decision of whether or not to terminate a fetus.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby