Yes, I Would Force Rape Victims to Carry Their Rapists’ Babies

Abortion is a very controversial issue.  Feminist groups have claimed that women “have a right to choose.”

What exactly is that supposed to mean?  Women have a right to choose salad dressings?  Pizza toppings?  Lipstick colors?

Oh, feminists mean THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL THEIR BABIES?

Wait, that doesn’t seem right.

“But what about victims of rape?”

Okay, now this is getting kinda dark.  But let me assert that, yes, I would force rape victims to carry their rapists’ babies.

I find myself in good company.  First, Priests for Life:

The woman who has been raped has undergone a terrible trauma and injustice. We care about her. We will help her. Such pro-life organizations as Fortress International and Life After Assault League exist to bring the rape victim healing and strength and help her get on with her life. Nobody should minimize or ignore the pain of a rape victim. We want to show her love.

Will an abortion help her? First of all, the abortion will not un-rape the woman. The tragedy has happened and nothing can change the past. Second, abortion brings a trauma of its own. To see abortion as a magic wand that brings relief but no pain is to ignore the pain of countless women who suffer for years and decades after abortion. Such groups as WEBA (Women Exploited By Abortion), American Victims of Abortion, and Victims of Choice provide ample proof that abortion hurts women. I know of women who have been raped and then had abortions, and are in counseling not for the rape but for the abortion! In rape, the trauma is “Someone hurt me.” In abortion, the trauma is “I hurt and killed someone else — my child.” That brings even more grief.

Why is rape wrong? Because someone attacks the body of an innocent person. Why is abortion wrong? Because someone attacks the body of an innocent person. That is why both rape and abortion should be rejected.

We care about the woman who is raped. We care about the child who is conceived. Why can’t we love them both? Why can’t we protect them both?

A rape that results in pregnancy directly involves three people: the rapist, the victim, and the child. The victim should be helped, and the rapist should be punished. But to say the child should be killed is to punish the wrong person. Suppose your father committed a terrible crime and the police came to your home, arrested you, and had you sentenced to death? The unfairness of that is obvious. Yet that is the same unfairness that occurs if a child conceived by rape is aborted.

We should also know the results of some important studies. Pregnancy occurs in 0 to 2.2% of rape victims. Furthermore, most rape victims who become pregnant want to keep their babies. The pressure to abort often comes from someone else. Of all the abortions performed in America, fewer than 1% are because of rape.

Second, Harvard students:

It’s widely held that when dealing with abortion, rape and incest are special cases. Most people will say abortion is the closest thing to a solution in such cases. Even those who disagree — who point out that an innocent child shouldn’t perish for the sins of his father — often share the popular assumption that abortion would be something of a relief to the woman who’s been victimized. In short, the notion is that the interests of the woman and her child are in conflict: What’s good for one is bad for the other.

But is that true? Some Harvard students think otherwise, and a few months ago they decided to put forth their dissenting view in a very public way.

In October, members of Harvard Right to Life (HRL) put up about 400 posters in student housing entitled “Women Deserve Better,” one of which featuring a woman identified as “Candice.” “I was raped and therefore ‘justified’ in my abortion, but it didn’t change a thing,” she said. “I suffered because I was led to believe that taking my child’s life was okay. It was not, and I have been living with that for five years.” The poster went on to give contact info for a local crisis pregnancy center, reminding readers that “there is help for unplanned pregnancies.”

It was a message many people didn’t want to hear. Within a few days half the posters had been torn down or defaced. A student quoted in the Harvard Crimson admitted tearing up one poster, complaining it was “coercive” and imposed on her “personal space.” (“That’s moral judgement I don’t want to look at when I go into my room every day.”) And though school officials at first spoke up for HRL’s free-speech rights, after a few weeks of emotionally charged controversy — with some students claiming the posters committed “revictimization” by dredging up rape victims’ memories — HRL ended up agreeing to submit future materials on the topic to Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.

There’s no question that discussing a topic like rape calls for great sensitivity. But it’s doubtful that the reason for the intense backlash was that victims would be traumatized by the very mention of rape: There’s no controversy when sexual-assault centers feature victims in their ads. The real reason for the anger was probably expressed by a Harvard Crimson student columnist, who fumed: “What bothers me is that HRL has taken a feminist idea, that women deserve better, and co-opted it to deny women rights.” There you have it: If you’re not for “abortion rights,” you don’t care about women. It’s yet another case of the left claiming a sort of moral monopoly.

It’s a shame, if not a surprise, that the issue HRL tried to raise largely got lost in the process. Their point, after all, is that abortion is not only morally wrong, but it also harms the women it’s allegedly going to help. It’s a devil’s bargain: It promises relief from a seemingly unbearable burden in return for sin, but it ends up bringing burdens that are truly unbearable.

And lastly, a Ph.D. who has studied the effects that women face after having an abortion:

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?” complains an indignant supporter of abortion. “And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist’s child?”

Every pro-lifer has heard these same challenges in one form or another. They are the emotionally charged questions designed to prove either 1) that pro-lifers are insensitive “fetus lovers,” 2) or ethically inconsistent, allowing abortion for some circumstances but not others.

Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way help them to recover from the assault. Thus, the pro-lifer is left in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the sanctity of life is more important than the needs of the sexual assault victim with whom everyone should rightly sympathize.

But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.

Second, some believe that their child’s life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.

Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing.

If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion? This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic view of abortion.

Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman “un-pregnant.” Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with ramifications on a woman’s life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?

That’s a lot of outside sources, but I think it is important to read this stuff.  The Left pretends to have a monopoly on morality.  Somehow, by opposing abortion, pro-lifers are supporting discrimination against women.  What about the future-women, who are murdered by abortion?  What about THEIR rights?

For some reason, the Left fumes whenever pro-life candidates state their beliefs.  This is from The Raw Story:

A list of responses from this year’s candidates indicate that 78 Senate and House candidates answered that they are “pro-life without discrimination,” meaning they don’t agree with any exceptions to a ban on abortion.

The list was flagged earlier this week by Charles Johnson at the Little Green Footballs blog. Johnson counted 112 candidates who hold that view of abortion, but a Raw Story count of the listed candidates found 78 who have won their primary and indicated they would make no exceptions to allow abortion.

…………………………………………………………

Among the more notable candidates backing a full abortion ban are Christine O’Donnell, running for the Senate in Delaware; Rand Paul, running for the Senate seat from Kentucky; Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann; and Missouri Senate candidate Roy Blunt.

But the list does not include a number of candidates known to hold that view, including Sharron Angle, who is running for Sen. Harry Reid’s seat from Nevada, and Joe Miller, running for Senate from Alaska.

The influence of the tea party movement on this year’s elections may have something to do with an apparent increase in the number of Republicans taking a hard-line stance on abortion, reported Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post.

“The Republican Party is, without actually talking about it, this year nominating a group of candidates for top-of-the-ticket races that are more extreme on the issue of abortion than any other slate of top-of-the-ticket candidates in any other year,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported in August.

Maddow criticized the “small-government conservatives” who supported a full abortion ban, suggesting they’re hypocritical for believing “government should be big enough that it can monitor every pregnancy in the country to ensure that every single woman who becomes pregnant is forced by the government to carry that pregnancy to term.”

I think liberals like Rachel Maddow are sick individuals in need of psychotherapy.  It isn’t about “carry that pregnancy to term.”  I also find it interesting that the rise in pro-life candidates is being attributed to “the influence of the tea party movement,” according to some dummy at the Huffington Post.  Last time I checked, they were rallying against government’s tax-and-spend mentality, not the yearly murder of 42 million people.

I should also point out that supporting abortion is supporting the disproportionate murder of minorities.  According to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, “black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.”  It’s no coincidence that Planned Parenthood sets up shop in minority areas.  They even opened what some have termed an abortion “super-center” in a neighborhood in Houston.  It is no coincidence that this neighborhood is home to large black and Hispanic populations.

Abortion is justifiably referred to by some as a genocide.  I don’t believe the conspiracy theories that abortion is white America’s attempt to wipe out blacks.  However, black women get a disproportionately high number of abortions.  Getting back to my original point, that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, I want to reiterate that my view is not way out of the mainstream.  Nearly 25% of Americans think that Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-life.

The rights of man are concisely summed up in The Declaration of Independence:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can’t have the second or third right without the first:  Life.

 

It’s widely held that when dealing with abortion, rape and incest are special cases. Most people will say abortion is the closest thing to a solution in such cases. Even those who disagree — who point out that an innocent child shouldn’t perish for the sins of his father — often share the popular assumption that abortion would be something of a relief to the woman who’s been victimized. In short, the notion is that the interests of the woman and her child are in conflict: What’s good for one is bad for the other.But is that true? Some Harvard students think otherwise, and a few months ago they decided to put forth their dissenting view in a very public way. 

In October, members of Harvard Right to Life (HRL) put up about 400 posters in student housing entitled “Women Deserve Better,” one of which featuring a woman identified as “Candice.” “I was raped and therefore ‘justified’ in my abortion, but it didn’t change a thing,” she said. “I suffered because I was led to believe that taking my child’s life was okay. It was not, and I have been living with that for five years.” The poster went on to give contact info for a local crisis pregnancy center, reminding readers that “there is help for unplanned pregnancies.”

It was a message many people didn’t want to hear. Within a few days half the posters had been torn down or defaced. A student quoted in the Harvard Crimson admitted tearing up one poster, complaining it was “coercive” and imposed on her “personal space.” (“That’s moral judgement I don’t want to look at when I go into my room every day.”) And though school officials at first spoke up for HRL’s free-speech rights, after a few weeks of emotionally charged controversy — with some students claiming the posters committed “revictimization” by dredging up rape victims’ memories — HRL ended up agreeing to submit future materials on the topic to Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response.

There’s no question that discussing a topic like rape calls for great sensitivity. But it’s doubtful that the reason for the intense backlash was that victims would be traumatized by the very mention of rape: There’s no controversy when sexual-assault centers feature victims in their ads. The real reason for the anger was probably expressed by a Harvard Crimson student columnist, who fumed: “What bothers me is that HRL has taken a feminist idea, that women deserve better, and co-opted it to deny women rights.” There you have it: If you’re not for “abortion rights,” you don’t care about women. It’s yet another case of the left claiming a sort of moral monopoly.

It’s a shame, if not a surprise, that the issue HRL tried to raise largely got lost in the process. Their point, after all, is that abortion is not only morally wrong, but it also harms the women it’s allegedly going to help. It’s a devil’s bargain: It promises relief from a seemingly unbearable burden in return for sin, but it ends up bringing burdens that are truly unbearable.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Yes, I Would Force Rape Victims to Carry Their Rapists’ Babies

Filed under Controversial, Politics

Comments are closed.