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 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 521-524 next last
To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
You do realized that your position on the Trinity is not only heretical, but that it is wholly outside the historic Christian doctrines of all branches of Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics since the first Century?

Do you attend a church at all, or are you one of the many "Lone Christians" who eschew formal religious gatherings and make up their own doctrine as they go along?

381 posted on 04/07/2010 5:59:36 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I posted it because it had to do with the original thread topic - should abortion be allowed in cases of rape or incest. I haven’t read every comment on the thread (not enough time right now), so I apologize for it not being germane to the topic of when does life begin.

I still hold that “life” begins when growth starts, both in humans, animals and plants. There can be no growth without life. What else makes things grow, if not life?


382 posted on 04/07/2010 6:17:05 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I still hold that “life” begins when growth starts, both in humans, animals and plants. There can be no growth without life. What else makes things grow, if not life?

Twinkies.

FWIW my point has been that in passages too numerous to post here, the Bible states that the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have yet to encounter a clear verse that you could use to show that there is life in the flesh (from a biblical standpoint) before there is blood in the veins.

If you have such a verse I would be glad to see it.

383 posted on 04/07/2010 6:22:20 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I know what you are saying... and I also think we could never get that through, so we have to take what we can get.

I’m just pointing out how hypocritical the argument is that abortion is ok when someone is raped. It’s still the life of an innocent. Either it’s ok in all cases, or it’s wrong in all cases.

By the way, I’m not saying this to you, I’m just trying to open the eyes of someone on this board who might not have thought of the topic in this way.


384 posted on 04/07/2010 6:38:13 PM PDT by TNLawyer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; Eagle Eye

Good policy is not necessarily the right thing to do. What is the slippery slope that traps the human race if it agrees to kill what it knows to be human life?

Getting God’s perspective correct is the first order of business, as I see it.

We then build our policy DESPITE the difficulties it might cause.

I have argued in the past exactly as you are now: prevent implantation and you have not killed a human.

But what if it is a fact that only truly living joinings of sperm and egg are those that implant?

One thing we have learned is that the contraception generation has come to believe that it determines who lives and who dies. That was the slippery slope.

And that is the logic of the Health Care philosophers who dreamed up the death panels.


385 posted on 04/07/2010 6:52:51 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I’m not arguing from a biblical standpoint, just a universal, easily undestood, common sense and scientific standpoint. Not that I have something against the Bible, but there are plenty of people such as Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and agnostics or even atheists who believe abortion is wrong, or could be convinced, and biblical passages are not enough to convince them.


386 posted on 04/07/2010 7:00:52 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: xzins
One thing we have learned is that the contraception generation has come to believe that it determines who lives and who dies. That was the slippery slope.

That's it.

387 posted on 04/07/2010 7:02:32 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: dsc; bcsco; wagglebee; P-Marlowe
Thank you all for your responses and just so you know, I am not a Libertarian, just an old R.N. who has seen terrible things regarding this issue.

My take on it is that absolutely no abortion under any circumstance is extreme and harmful to some patients.

On the other hand, abortion on demand is also extreme and harmful to society, souls and patients. Not to mention the fetus.

I think there are certain cases that merit compassion for a patient’s life, health and well-being, even if that means the end of anothers life to promote that one life.

As an example, when one takes the life of another to preserve ones own life or that of another person, it is then justifiable.

I am not here to disrupt this thread, but to share my own idea on abortion. As a noob, I just wanted to share my POV on this so I am not a closet FReeper.

388 posted on 04/07/2010 7:03:10 PM PDT by JouleZ (You are the company you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’d say life starts when you attach to the uterine wall. Only then can you get the nutrition you need.

I see your point about other religions and the effect a resort to the “Bible” would have for them and I agree with you.

As a Christian it seems that God would only invest a body with a spirit after it is viably attached to its source of nutrition - mom.


389 posted on 04/07/2010 7:07:33 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: patriot08
I do believe abortion is murder, but I just could not raise that baby

When I think of my kids, I never think of them as my husband's kids.

When women have a baby from being raped, I believe they think of him or her as my baby. Not as that rapist's baby.

390 posted on 04/07/2010 7:08:40 PM PDT by carenot (We'd rather hold on to the myth than fight for the reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: carenot

Perhaps they do (think of the baby as their baby).
But I just couldn’t. Every time I looked at it, I would relive the horror. I’d wonder if it was a ‘bad seed’.


391 posted on 04/07/2010 7:11:54 PM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Great find. Thanks for posting.


392 posted on 04/07/2010 7:13:07 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee
I don't see anything in the verse: "the life is in the blood thereof" to say to me that that is the total story. And especially so since we are talking about "spirit" and "physical."

While the life is in the blood is true, it does not necessarily mean that without blood there is no life or that with blood there is always life.

There is plenty of life that exists that has no blood but is living and growing.

Likewise there are bodies of those who have died, which still have blood in them.

By the reasoning of the argument that the life is in the blood therefore a fetus cannot be considered alive because it has no blood, any thing that doesn't have blood in it is not alive, it only has the appearance of life, and then any body which appears to be dead that still has blood in it, can't be declared dead after all, it must be alive.

The *logic* fails miserably.

393 posted on 04/07/2010 7:13:25 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: metmom
and then any body which appears to be dead that still has blood in it, can't be declared dead after all, it must be alive.

Good point!

394 posted on 04/07/2010 7:27:50 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; P-Marlowe
I’m not arguing from a biblical standpoint, just a universal, easily undestood, common sense and scientific standpoint. Not that I have something against the Bible, but there are plenty of people such as Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and agnostics or even atheists who believe abortion is wrong, or could be convinced, and biblical passages are not enough to convince them.

Exactly. To someone for whom the Bible has no meaning, arguing against abortion from a Biblical standpoint has no meaning. The whole debate about when life begins using the Bible as that basis, is only going to maybe settle the issue for believers. Unbelievers will remain unconvinced.

That's why I prefer to argue from the *scientific* position.

That is, DNA establishes the humanity of the fetus.

The life is determined by the signs of life that the growing fertilized egg displays such as growth, cell division, respiration, reaction to stimuli, ...

Looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it's bad for evolution because it destroys a pool of genetic material necessary for evolution to occur.

395 posted on 04/07/2010 7:37:35 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
FWIW my point has been that in passages too numerous to post here, the Bible states that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Which would mean that cells are never alive and the recently deceased are.

The Bible is not a science text P-Marlowe.

396 posted on 04/07/2010 7:49:08 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

So you could give it up for adoption. There are many infertile couples who long for a baby to raise as their own.


397 posted on 04/07/2010 8:06:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The Bible is not a science text P-Marlowe.

Why is it that nobody reads what I post?

I had earlier stated that from a scientific viewpoint, I do not believe there is any legitimate argument but that life begins at conception.

But I was not arguing the scientific issue, I was arguing the theological position, and from there I was making the point that there is a valid theological argument that life (for the purposes of legal protection) begins when the first heartbeat occurs (which is generally around the 21st day after conception). I have questioned whether or not there is a scriptural basis for concluding that a fetus should be considered "life" before the baby has a detectable heartbeat.

For some reason (I don't know, maybe it's me) but nobody seems to be addressing my point.

After this thread I am considering just getting out of the whole pro-life thread business. Nobody here seems to want to view the issue from anything other than their own pre-conceived ideas, whether it be from a pro-life viewpoint or a pro-abortion viewpoint. If nobody is going to bother to question their own position, then we are just spinning our wheels here "Don't bother me with the facts and don't bother me with your logic, I have already made up my mind."

398 posted on 04/07/2010 8:17:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: JouleZ
Thank you for standing up for yourself. We all have different experiences that affect our views. What I wrote, however, is still true. This is an anti-abortion website, so keep in mind that you could find your stay 'bumpy'. You wrote: " On the other hand, abortion on demand is also extreme and harmful to society, souls and patients. Not to mention the fetus.

I think there are certain cases that merit compassion for a patient’s life, health and well-being, even if that means the end of anothers life to promote that one life.

As an example, when one takes the life of another to preserve ones own life or that of another person, it is then justifiable.

The numbers of abortions where the fetus is destroyed to preserve the life of the mother are relatively small. It's a fact that most abortions are for the convenience of the parent(s). Restricting these would go a long way toward minimizing the problem.

Yet, there would still be the residue where the mother's life comes into play. I would suggest that there are also a high number of these cases where the mother has also acted in a cavalier way sexually. Something to consider.

The simple fact is, enough information has been presented here to define a life as being 'pre-birth'. And most abortions destroy a developing life. Thus, to a considerate World, abortion is, indeed, murder.

I know, I've said I wouldn't respond here, however I was one who wrote to criticize you so felt obligated to respond. I can assure everyone, I will not again.

399 posted on 04/07/2010 8:17:59 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; JouleZ

Abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is justified, because both mother and baby die otherwise - at least most of the time if not all the time, maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Other than that, there are very few times that a pregnancy will kill a mother.


400 posted on 04/07/2010 8:31:27 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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