Skip to comments.Having my rapist's baby is the best thing I ever did
Posted on 09/09/2009 5:42:49 PM PDT by Dan Middleton
My life is proof that something good can come from something so terrible. And I don't regret my last minute change of heart one bit.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
A woman who has been raped is already a victim. I think forcible rape should be a death penalty crime. For the rapist.
To expect or encourage her to abort the baby after a rape is to push her into being a perpetrator.
Abortion does not “unrape” or heal us.
For her to give life to an innocent child (that is half hers) and either care for it or give it to a loving couple is difficult but also healing. It gives her back the power in a terrible situation, and helps her to be a genuine force for good. The few women who actually carry through on this will attest to it.
Not to mention that the baby is a completely innocent party and has done nothing to deserve execution. I have heard several times that Oprah Winfrey is the product of a forcible rape. I don’t have any evidence for it though.
OTOH, do we need to carry on more bad genes?
Wow. That’s commitment.
Who says it’s genetics? Maybe it’s the pagan godless society lower part of the bell curve?
You are assuming being a rapist is genetic. I am not convinced of that.
You assume that the problem is genetic; that needn’t be the case.
National Right to Life always pushed for exceptions.
What if the baby’s a girl?
How can a society be both pagan and godless?
Liberals reveal their hostile anti-life attitude when they saddle the injured woman with the burden of killing her own child. What a despicable act. And perpetrated in the name of "reproductive rights."
Cornered, me you did.
good souls can compensate for bad genes
Yep! You owe me a beer.
Secular humanists/atheists aren’t pagans in the technical sense. At least pagans ask for the guidance of a creator, even if they’re dialing the wrong number. (If only they’d check the Phone Book!)
>Yep! You owe me a beer.
You can collect at the Palin inauguration in 2012.
This is an extremely touchy area. I am pro-life, but I simply couldn’t in good conscience demand, by force of law, a woman who is the victim of rape or incest carry the pregnancy to term. If we tried to return to pre-Roe laws without that clause, no state in the country would be able to enact pro-life legislation to curtail the bulk of abortions done in the name of “convenience.”
I posted this on the duplicate thread for this article, so I’ll repost it here.
Just some interesting history in Britain about NOT blaming the baby of a rape.
I think the ancient Saxon(?) code said that if a woman had a baby with a foreigner, the baby and descendants could not hold land until after 8(?) generations. But, if the woman had been raped by a foreigner and had the baby, the baby was treated as a full citizen. I find it interesting that a zillion years ago people didnt blame the baby, but nowadays the baby is likely to be killed!
And so every woman who wants an abortion will cry rape.
Oprah was a VICTIM of forcible rape twice, by family members. She became pregnant at 14, which I believe she says is a product of one of the rapes.
Could you, in good conscience, tell a young woman who has been raped (including even if by her own father) that she must, by penalty of law, be forced to carry the produce of an evil act to term ? I couldn’t. Mind you, I’m not talking about to the point where the fetus is viable, but in the brief period following the act. We can argue that the fetus is innocent, that goes without question, but this has legitimate claim to be a personal violation of the woman and psychological punishment (yes, again, you could argue she would suffer it even going through with the abortion, too).
I hate being put in the position of sounding like the pro-abort brigades, for whom most have no sense of morality when it comes to the unborn, but I’d rather see us successfully outlaw abortions of convenience (of which may be as high or higher than 90% of all those performed), than go the all-or-nothing route which sees abortion remain 100% legal. No state, no matter how Conservative, will approve of restrictions that include forcing the woman to carry even with rape and incest. You have to know that. It’s the difference between women engaged in risky behavior that should know better vs. those that are innocent of engaging in questionable or risky behavior. I’ll add, too, I knew someone who came perilously close to being a victim of incest, and had she been forceably impregnated, if forced by the state to carry, she would’ve committed suicide. No amount of “counseling” would’ve stopped her.
But you haven’t dealt with what she said.
What if every woman who wants one claim they were raped. What do you do? How do you prove weeks or months after the fact that she wasn’t?
I am sorry but one evil act doesn’t justify another evil act. How can violence upon your child undo violence that you suffered yourself? All you are doing by abortion is making the mother a killer. Abortion is murder. I believe in taking back any ground we can in the matter of abortion but the ultimate goal should be that abortion is outlawed. A baby is a baby no matter how they came to be. Either we believe that in all cases or we don’t believe it at all. Abortion is also another act of violence against the mother. The “produce of an evil act” you describe is A BABY! Again even all of that aside, there would convienently be ALOT more reported cases of rape if rape is the only way you can get an abortion. And that would be a FURTHER injustice on the women that have truly been raped.
It would have to be proved. It’s a criminal act, and the perp would and should have to be prosecuted. If you threw out “Oh, I was raped,” as a falsehood to obtain an illegal abortion that is unjustifiable, then that person should be prosecuted for alleging a false crime.
So she would have to prove she was raped. To whom? What panel are you setting up to be the judge of this?
What is the threshold? Prove beyond a reasonable doubt, by the preponderance of the evidence? And would the process be just a traumatic as carrying the child? Actually asking her to go over the details of the incident bit by bit.
I understand the reason why people want to give a exception for rape. I don’t agree with it but I understand it.
I just don’t think it can work practically.
So you would say to the person I know, “tough, you carry it.” I understand that it is innocent life, but in the moments after the act, when it isn’t a viable fetus, given such a crime of rape (and rape by the victim’s own father !), I consider it equally as reprehensible to tell a crime victim that they will be further punished beyond the initial act for something that they didn’t ask for. There’s no good in any of this, but if the rights of a victim comes second to a small clump of cells well before viability, you’ve given the feminist radicals all the ammo they will ever need to keep the abortion mills going full tilt.
...And as I already stated, you would have to prove you were the victim of rape. Now, if you want to counsel young women to consider carrying to term the product of rape or incest, go right ahead, but it should go no further than personal persuasion. But on every other front, where the excuse is “it’s just inconvenient”, and no crime was committed (except that of stupidity), that is no excuse.
It’s not a clump of cells, it’s a developing human being.
It’s both, until it becomes viable.
So the police will act as judge and jury as to whether a rape happened? Please tell me where they get such powers?
And she’s not without recourse, she can still be a witness to his prosecution, and she can still give the baby up for adoption.
Rape sucks, so does abortion. Making a woman an accessory to murder does not make the pains of being a rape victim go away.
I find it reprehensible that you would consider abortion and answer to her problem. I have counseled young women who have had abortions. It isn’t an answer. It ADDS to the the problems they were facing.
Alot of women who have abortions become depressed, suicidal, promiscious, addicted to alcohol and drugs etc. A woman who has been raped is standing on the edge; adding abortion to her emotional problems is pushing her over the edge.
ABORTION IS NOT A REMEDY EVEN FOR RAPE.
AND I WOULD NEVER SAY “TOUGH YOU CARRY IT” Your argument (abortion for rape) is what got us this unlimited access to abortion that we have now (remember Roe V Wade). She claimed that she was raped but was not.
Slippery slope with the viable fetus argument. If that is the case, most babies can’t survive before 22/23 weeks even with medical intervention. Is is still okay then?
“if the rights of a victim comes second to a small clump of cells well before viability”
What right does she have that supersedes the rights of the baby that is growing insider her. You are saying that her “right” to an abortion (which doesn’t actually exist) supersedes the rights of the child to LIFE (which is an actual right).
I stated my position. When the act occurs and is reported to the police, when the victim is then taken to the hospital and evidence collected, that’s when it would be performed (however method that would be, via pill or otherwise). If she falsely reported rape, she would be charged for doing so.
And that is no recourse, you present a crime victim with only one alternative, they carry the product of violence to term, for which places them in potential jeopardy if they try to harm or kill themselves during the time period. You make young women second-class citizens. How do you not see that is wrong ? That’s how the subhuman Mohammadans treat their women, as slaves or property, not as equal to men under the law.
But rape does suck, incest even moreso, and so is abortion, and so is telling the woman victim, “hey, tough luck, hun, the state will be wise enough to keep you from killing your rapist’s progeny, but you can put it up for adoption after 9 months, and you get to testify, too !” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s WAY too far into totalitarian for me. You got me 90% on all the other ludicrous non-reasons to abort the unborn for willing participants to the procreation act, but this is where it stops for me. Pre-Roe made such reasonable allowances in the modern era.
See post #36.
How do we justify offing the baby when we aren’t even willing to give the death penalty to the rapist?
You don’t treat a woman as a second class citizen. You care for her and help her. You aren’t treating her as a slave by not allowing her to kill a child. I am sorry but men and women are not the same. Men can’t have babies so there is no way to treat them equal under the law in this case. If a man was sodomized would you commit further violence against him? Would you let him do something to harm someone else even if it helped him get over what happened to him? You don’t commit more violence against a women either. A women shouldn’t KILL her child even if it would help her to heal which it will not do anyway.
I had a miscarriage last year, I was only 4 weeks pregnant. My family mourned for that baby. I was afraid I was going to have to have a D and C done. A friend of mine had to have a D and C after she miscarried and she said it was horrible. An spontaneous abortion in itself is horrible, surgery to finish the job even worse. I could not imagine if I had chosen to have the surgery to actually take the life of my baby. You don’t seem to understand the fact that this baby is alive. Abortion is killing a living human being. You keep calling the baby a product of violence. The baby is just as much an innocent as the woman. The women loses her innocence and does untold harm to her own conscience if she decides to murder her baby. She will have a harder time recovering from THAT than the rape. ABORTION IS MORE VIOLENCE, NOT AN ANSWER.
Well, then change the law to make it punishable by death. My posts above state my position on the subject of victim’s rights.
You cant reason with people who base their ethics on the situation. Yes carrying a baby that is the result of rape would be hard. Abortion would be worse than that. No matter what a baby is a baby and should be cherished not ripped apart in their mother’s womb.
We’re not going to see eye to eye on this. But make no mistake, forcing a young woman, by the state, to carry the product of an act of violence to term is telling her she HAS no rights. She didn’t ask, nor willfully engage, in behavior that would bring about mutual consent for the creation of a child. You’ve already decided that a fetus that hasn’t reached viability has more rights than an adult woman, who remains at the mercy of her rapist’s actions for at least the next 9 months. I cannot fathom how wrong that is (even if your intentions towards the unborn are honorable). And when I speak of equal, I’m talking equal rights under the law. Men and women are different, but basic rights, and victims rights, should be clear-cut and not unequal. If men could carry children, you better believe they’d have a rape/incest clause.
I am sorry for your loss of your unborn child. As I’ve stated, there is no good outcome in any of this, but if you can convince a woman — willing — not to terminate at the start, go right ahead, kind persuasion isn’t coercion, but I cannot, in this instance, give a wholesale endorsement to the state dictating a woman remain a victim of a crime she did not consent to for 9 months. I put myself in a young woman’s shoes, and my response is, I’d want that reminder of violence, of violation, out of me at once. She needs to decide what is right for her as a victim of crime and not have the state dictate to her what she will do, making her cease to be a free citizen. Totalitarianism is never right, even when done in the righteous cause of morality.
I am assuming Oprah aborted the baby?
Every situation we encounter requires a decision to be made, and hopefully it is the best one that can be made on the basis of ethics and morality. Unfortunately, this is a subject with which several conflicting moral questions converge that, despite what we say, have no clear-cut superior solution (or really just degrees of bad and having to make the best of a horrible situation). It is an issue of life, you are right, but I am right when it is an issue of victims rights of a female citizen and coercion by the state (however well meaning). Maybe at some point in the near future, innocent women will be able, by whatever means, to prevent a pregnancy via such a vile act, rendering abortion in this case moot. Let’s hope that happens as soon as possible.
I can see that we aren’t going to agree. A pregnancy is a natural thing that happens not something forced by the state. What the state has done is INFRINGE on the right of the child to life by allowing the mother to kill her child in the womb.
Why do you oppose unlimited access to abortion? And you still haven’t answered the argument about the continued violence against the woman’s body, to her emotions, and to her unborn child. You seem to think that abortion will cure her of the rape. This couldn’t be further from the truth. If abortion were illegal, the woman would still have rights. She wouldn’t and shouldn’t have the right to KILL her child. She would have the right to give the child up for adoption or keep the child. She would have the right to justice under the law against her attacker. She would have the right to receive medical care and counseling. You think because she can’t KILL her baby that she has no right. Do you oppose abortion because it is wrong? Do you oppose abortion because it is the taking of an innocent life? If those are your reasons, then rape doesn’t negate those reasons. If it is wrong, it is wrong. You don’t seem to have a very sure foundation for your ethical standards. AGAIN, abortion is MORE VIOLENCE FOR THE WOMAN. IT WILL DO MORE HARM TO THE WOMAN not to mention the violence and death to her child.
The state is not forcing her to carry the baby, the state is protecting the life of the baby.
You have bought into the pro-abort’s lie to women that once they have the abortion it will solve their problems. That once the baby is removed they can get on with their lives as if none of it happened. That it will bring them “closure”.
It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t solve their problem, it exacerbates it.
Well said. I am too tired and wordy too get my point across this efficiently. And I use too incorrectly.
“I put myself in a young womans shoes, and my response is, Id want that reminder of violence, of violation, out of me at once. She needs to decide what is right for her as a victim of crime and not have the state dictate to her what she will do, making her cease to be a free citizen. Totalitarianism is never right, even when done in the righteous cause of morality.”
So if a woman is raped in a shopping mall, does she have the right to burn it down so she doesn’t have a reminder of the violence that happened to her? If you say no, why not? The government should not be able to dictate to her what she will do, or she will cease to be a free citizen! Oh, the shopping mall isn’t hers to do with as she pleases is it. Someone might get hurt if she burns down the shopping mall. Well I guess she can have her abortion because it is HER body and noone is getting hurt. Right? Oh wait, she isn’t aborting herself. The baby inside her ISN’T her body. It is a unique and SEPERATE human being. SHE DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESTROY THAT BABY. It may be legal but it isn’t a God given right as described by our Constitution.
I don’t question either of your commitments to the pro-life cause, but I’ve already stated my position many times, and the other point, for which both of you either refuse to see, or worse, find acceptable, that the state would forceably prevent a crime victim from any action other than carrying her rapist’s spawn to full term. That neither of you sees that a state-imposed totalitarian action to impose your personal view of morality in this action, infringing on the rights of a victim, is wrong is deeply troubling.
And for the other point, do I believe termination “solves the problem” ? It solves the punishment of carrying your rapist’s crime to term. Is it a wonderful solution ? Nope, it’s terrible. But the only thing more terrible is telling the victim, a woman, that she hasn’t the right - when she hasn’t done anything wrong to get herself in such a predicament - to decide for herself what to do.
We argue as Conservatives about individual freedom, and you take that away when you put the rights of criminal sperm ahead of a female citizen. And there’s nothing more for me to add here (other than, again, to reemphasize I oppose Roe, I think it was a horrible decision, and that abortions borne of convenience when no criminal behavior resulted in pregnancy, are utterly inexcusable).