Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault
Life News ^ | 4/5/10 | Amy Sobie

Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?”

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this “fact,” it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a “rapist’s child.”

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and 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 prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their children’s lives 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.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, 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 destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock 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 deep ramifications for a woman’s life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel “let it happen.” Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a “quick and easy” way to avoid dealing with the woman’s true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child “conceived in rape,” feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:

Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.”

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, “It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

That’s a slogan we can all live with.


Citations

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.

3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.

4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-524 next last
To: Hank Kerchief; bcsco
Apparently you do not believe what you defend is the truth, else you would not tell the lie that a fetus is and infant.

You're making a distinction without a difference. An infant is just as much a human being as a fetus.

A baby born two months premature, at 7 months gestation is at the same level of development whether in utero or not. But if it's preborn, it's called a fetus. After delivery it's called an infant.

So how is bcsco lying by calling abortion infanticide?

41 posted on 04/05/2010 5:40:30 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.

~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
42 posted on 04/05/2010 5:53:20 PM PDT by Issaquahking (Help Sarah Palin! go to - http://www.conservatives4palin.com - You know what to do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking

“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”

~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

I love Ronald!

I have Reagan in His Own Hand, where he explains his decision to allow abortion in the case of rape and incest. I didn’t realize he had that position until I read it “in his own hand”.

ampu


43 posted on 04/05/2010 6:02:11 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“There is no practical difference between the value of a fetus and the value of an infant.”

See how you people obfuscate everything. The practical difference is between a fetus and an infant, is not their “value,” but the fact a fetus is not yet born. A fetus is not an infant. You cannot go into a store and find clothing marked “fetus.” Why is that? You not only defy reason, you want to destroy the English language.

I know you have no interest in the fate of the unborn, and are only interested in putting over your political agenda to control others. Why in the world would you want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of government—and not God? Whose agent are you anyway?

Hank


44 posted on 04/05/2010 6:10:50 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Can't believe that I'd that I'd be to the right of Reagan. All things are possible. It's to bad the whole thing is just a "what if" coughed up by the far left. The numbers are not there, but the left likes to keep the door open to justify partial birth abortions murders.
45 posted on 04/05/2010 6:14:43 PM PDT by Issaquahking (Help Sarah Palin! go to - http://www.conservatives4palin.com - You know what to do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“What political agenda would someone being advancing by using abortion as the issue?”

You don’t know? (I do not believe you for a minute.) So you do not want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of the government? A government that one day can make all abortions illegal and the next day demand anyone with more than two children abort all future pregnancies. You really do not see that abortion must not be a government or political issue, because once your say a government ought to be the agency that decides such things, it will surely decide them against you.

Hank


46 posted on 04/05/2010 6:17:23 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; presidio9
throw her in jail?

Since abortion is a species of murder, it remains murder even when the murderer is a victim of another crime herself.

However, victims of rape who commit an abortion have reason to expect clemency. I believe they should be dealt with very leniently.

47 posted on 04/05/2010 6:18:32 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
you people obfuscate everything

The point is that a fetus is an innocent living human being. There are indeed distinctions between babies before their birth,-- fetuses,-- and babies that are already born, but neither kind is killable.

To insist on the clinical "fetus" is obfuscation; "baby" simply drives down the salient fact that they are innocent and human, and alive.

48 posted on 04/05/2010 6:24:23 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Do you get your definitions from Biblical sources?


49 posted on 04/05/2010 6:35:05 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“You’re making a distinction without a difference. An infant is just as much a human being as a fetus.”

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it is germane to the discussion. I certainly would regard an infant a human being, because it is born. All human beings are born. A fetus is not born and is not regarded as a human being either legally or Biblically. Notice that all ages are from the date of birth, not conception.

An infant has been born, and fetus has not. I think even you can understand that.

I am opposed to abortion and am very alarmed by those who claim to be opposed to it but use lies and obfuscation to promote their views, because it has the opposite result and cancels the efforts of those of use who honestly oppose abortion.

Hank


50 posted on 04/05/2010 6:41:16 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
Sorry, but you will encourage sexual assault without a rape exception... encourage people to choose life, but don’t dare make it the law to carry a rapists child...

Never compromise on matters of righteousness and evil.

If you do, you sell your own soul out, and in this case, you degrade our culture.

There really isn't any gray area on matters of life.
51 posted on 04/05/2010 6:43:53 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Some will call you pro abortion and a baby killer even though you could be 100% against abortion but because you fail to effectively impose your will on others then you will be a baby killer and pro abortion.

You obviously don't know me very well, and are therefore barking up the wrong tree. I have zero use for libertarianians who hang out on this conservative website. Libertarian and Conservative political philosophies have the same root, but otherwise couldn't be more different.

There is one, and only one reason to oppose abortion: Because it is always EXACTLY the same thing as murder. If I did not feel that way, then I would agree with you, that it's a "personal choice issue." I think that people who feel that way are dumbasses, but at least I can understand their position. The ones I can't understand are people who feel uncomfortable about abortion, but still fight to keep it "Safe, legal & rare." Would you please explain to me, Mrs. Clinton, why abortion ought to be "rare" if it's just a surgical proceedure?

In any case, you misunderstood me. As far as I'm concerned, ALL abortions are murder. They have ZERO to do with the "rights" of the mother. And any more who has an abortion is complicit in that murder. I leave that one up to God to sort out. It's still a sin, even if you say you weren't fully aware of it. My point was this: If we could end the argument, and save millions of lives at the expense of the thousands of unfortunates who were conceived through rape, we ought to do it. I'm about saving lives, not who gets punished and why.

Get this through your tiny libertarian head: Nobody on this thread is or will ever try to impose their will on you. I'm assuming you can't have an abortion. If you could, the right to life still trumps all others.

52 posted on 04/05/2010 6:46:17 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

No, why? Isn’t it obvious by itself?


53 posted on 04/05/2010 6:56:30 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; houeto; metmom; Hank Kerchief

Hank Kerchief is a hit-’n-run, apparently. Having dinner with my wife, sitting and reading while she watches ‘Dances With The Stars’, I’ve given him enough time to reply.

His post made no sense to me. I don’t know what I supposedly lied about, unless it was acquainting fetuses with infants. Not a very conservative minded viewpoint that.

Anyway, I personally can’t get beyond the idea that for whatever reason, rape, incest, [here’s your chance to name one], a decision for abortion is a decision to prevent the life of one who can’t speak for oneself. I shudder when I think of what women who have been subjected to rape and incest go through. I could never attempt to believe I could understand it. But to compound that travesty with a second - the destruction of a life - just isn’t an answer to me.

Wagglebee, I read what you wrote about women you’ve known, and the trauma they’ve been through considering carrying the baby of a rapist. I can’t tell you I could deal with that. That’s why I understand when you speak of some of them committing suicide. But what of the alternative? By aborting the fetus created, aren’t they guilty in God’s eyes of killing their infant? Does God look any differently on that fetus than on one created by its mother and father?

These are all things we as humans have trouble getting our minds around. Our answers, for what they’re worth, are fraught with human frailty at best. And I certainly can’t claim superior knowledge or wisdom. All I can say is, I vote for life. As troubling as that may be, as difficult as I’m sure it is for some to agree, I still vote for life. That infant had no hand in what created its being. It should not be made a victim of our inadequate wisdom.


54 posted on 04/05/2010 7:05:48 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

I see you’re back. I expect an answer to me regarding your garbled and unintelligible post. Anytime will do...


55 posted on 04/05/2010 7:08:51 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

By legalizing abortion you have put the fate of the baby in the hands of the government and the government’s hands are stained red from the blood of all those babies butchered because it failed to protect them from murderers.

Government is a necessary force in maintaining order and a civilized society. What you are advocating is anarchy.

No form of government is perfect, but a government ruled by law protects the freedom of its citizens, ALL of them. And laws are necessary to rein in the government and yet at the same time allow them the teeth necessary to maintain civil order.


56 posted on 04/05/2010 7:19:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
See how you people obfuscate everything. The practical difference is between a fetus and an infant, is not their “value,” but the fact a fetus is not yet born. A fetus is not an infant.

Yes, people obfuscate everything. And so do you. Actually, in God's eyes there is no difference, so it doesn't matter what 'practical' difference there is between men. All life is created by Him. And all life is intended for His honor. Remember the words 'Suffer thy children to come unto me'? Before we can suffer them to His presence, we must suffer to insure they are born as His gift to us.

Why in the world would you want to put the fate of the unborn in the hands of government—and not God? Whose agent are you anyway?

That's exactly what we're saying. That fetus, that infant, is God's design. Can you rightly tell me that fetus created by a rapist will not be as precious in God's eyes as a child than one born of natural, loving parents? Can you? Who are you to speak for God? Who are you to say nay when He has already allowed this to happen?

This is our imperfect world; not God's. God gave us our freedom and what we're discussing is a result of our inability to cope adequately. If you honestly believe God is judging in these births, you are so wrong. It is we who are judging, you one of the foremost judges by saying what you do. I feel sorry for you. To bring God into this as you have, you are defiling His name.

57 posted on 04/05/2010 7:20:07 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

What I don’t know is what you’re accusing me of based on my stance on abortion.

Murder is wrong, period. Recognizing that is not a political agenda and it’s not a political agenda to expect the government to deal with murderers.


58 posted on 04/05/2010 7:21:08 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Hank Kerchief

Hank Kerchief’s is a circular argument. He argues that to outlaw abortion is to put control in government, yet the legalizing of abortion, whether with, or without, controls does the same thing. He can’t have it both ways from a government intrusion stance.

Yet our point is beyond government intervention. It’s the sanctity of life. Period. And yet, if there is to be government intrusion, it is in the belief that it would be better if government intruded in favor of life, not in favor of deciding what life is worthwhile, and what life isn’t. It’s that simple.


59 posted on 04/05/2010 7:25:56 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; Raycpa
See how you people obfuscate everything. The practical difference is between a fetus and an infant, is not their “value,” but the fact a fetus is not yet born. A fetus is not an infant. You cannot go into a store and find clothing marked “fetus.” Why is that? You not only defy reason, you want to destroy the English language.

You people?

We obfuscate nothing. YOU'RE the one doing that. It's simple. We think that a human being is a human being no matter what stage of development, unlike you who determines humanity by a trip through the birth canal.

60 posted on 04/05/2010 7:32:02 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-524 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson