Skip to comments.One Rape Two Victims
Posted on 02/20/2012 4:05:30 AM PST by Kaslin
Dear Professor Adams:
I appreciated your article on abortion (whether you'd abort Hitler). I read on your page on Facebook that you've gotten hate mails after the article, I know you always get lambasted by the intolerant left. It means you're doing what's right. Anyway I wanted to send you this message, because I appreciate all your efforts. Almost 30 years ago, when I was 19 I was raped. I learned a month later that I was pregnant as a result. Everyone urged me to abort, but what struck me at the time was that that baby was as much a victim of the rape as I was. And it didn't deserve to be punished for it. I decided to carry the pregnancy to term, and place the baby up for adoption. In 1982, that baby was born and he was given to a wonderful Christian family, and I know that he has been a joy to them. I lost nothing by carrying that pregnancy to term. It didn't hurt me, or cause me to miss out on anything. There is nothing that can't be postponed to preserve an innocent life. Anyway, I wanted to add my voice to those who contact you in thanks for providing a much needed message to so many, especially young people. I hope your clarion call, strikes home. God bless you.
Dear (name deleted):
I appreciate your kind note. It helps to explain why women who experience unexpected pregnancy due to rape are less likely to abort than those who experience unexpected pregnancy due to consensual sex. In the aftermath of the rape, your encounter with evil caused you to think very deeply about the prospect of inflicting pain and violence upon another. You could not even imagine consenting to violence against another human being. Not after what happened to you. You dealt courageously and head-on with a very important question: Isnt it better to suffer evil than to inflict evil?
In a sense, the question is an easy one. The assumption of those supporting the rape exception (to criminalizing abortion) is plainly silly: that aborting the product of rape will put an end to the suffering of the rape victim.
After only a month, your suffering was barely beginning. I have known women who have been raped and not experienced a single nightmare for many months. But when those nightmares began, they went on for years and years. Counseling helps such women. But it will not bury the memory entirely. Terminating the life of a product of rape can no more cause a woman to forget a rape than terminating the life of a product of casual sex can cause a woman to forget a one-night stand. It is just plain common sense - the kind that often eludes us when we discuss abortion.
The callousness of those who encouraged you to get the abortion is revealed by asking a couple of simple questions: What about the life of the rapist? Do we even remember the time when we used to execute the rapist rather than executing the baby for the crime of rape?
That was not a rhetorical question. It was in my lifetime. Before 1966, no state allowed for abortion in circumstances of rape. And no Supreme Court decision prevented states from executing for the crime of rape. In 1973, the Court said states cannot protect the product of rape from execution via abortion. In 1977, the Court said we must (repeat: must) preserve the life of the rapist because the constitution demands it. Today, some people applaud the right to kill the innocent human while shielding the guilty rapist from execution. In fact, they call themselves humanists. Some even call themselves humanitarians. I prefer to call them intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt, or both.
Of course, those who argue for the rape exception do not really believe in it. In order to have a rape exception, there would first have to be a presumptive rule against abortions for mere convenience. Such a rule would mean that men could no longer use women for sex and then use abortion to divorce themselves from the consequences. And that would involve learning to respect a womans body. This is hardly a goal of the sex-driven pro-abortion-choice male.
You stated correctly that there are two victims for every rape. There are also two victimizations of the same woman for every rape. The first is when a man uses the woman by forcing her to have sex against her will. The second is when another man uses the rape victim again in order to justify abortion. Both men are really the same. They are willing to use violence in order to get sex. That is why there really are no pro-choice men. There are only pro-choice males.
a truly bizarre stat that popped up a few years ago: Pregnancy is statistically more likely with rape than with consensual sex.
Here is a little analogy.
You are kidnapped and left on a deserted island, where you must make the best of it.
The kidnapper leaves their 2-year-old with you. Do you kill the 2-year-old, since you had them forced on you?
Could it be because most people engaging in consensual sex use birth control of some kind whereas a rapist isn't much inclined to do the same?
You should train the little so-n-so to hate the kidnapper and help you kill him - slowly and painfully - if he ever comes back.
Those pretending that abortion is necessary to protect victims of rape or incest are liars.
This is evidenced by the simple fact, no such law, citing those restrictions, has EVER been proposed by anybody.
I would like to see a source for that before I even consider believing it.
Stupid premise. Something you couldn't possibly know. Would Hitler's mother have aborted him? Obviously not, since she did not.
Did Santorum’s wife ever say she would never have an abortion? Likely so, yet she did (due to circumstances she couldn't possibly know). We can not know the future in this life.
The only reason for an abortion is “the life of the mother”, as it was in Santorum’s wife's case. More accurately, it should be only when BOTH lives are at stake and a choice for at least ONE life is the only life option.
(In other words no later term abortions for any reason. Deliver, don't abort).
Abortion should only be allowed under these extremely rare circumstances.
As I recall the article it was a big study done by actual scientists, and it was the damnedest un-PC thing I think I’d ever read. I recall wondering why they didn’t just bury the results a la the WHO and 2nd hand smoke. It should be findable as it was well within the Internet era.
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.