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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 521-524 next last
To: P-Marlowe
The fact is that 99.999999% of all abortions occur after the heart begins to beat

Like I said earlier, let's not argue fringe cases, but pick the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

Pro-aborts try to confuse the issue with these fringe cases, which amount for 1% of the abortions,
whereas they don't want to talk about the 99% of abortions done out of convenience for the "mother".

281 posted on 04/06/2010 1:01:35 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The same argument could apply in cases of abortion. If there is no act of "birth" then God could not say he knew you before you were born, because you were never born.

Now you use the 'blood is life' argument. I'd stop if I were you. You're now arguing against yourself.

282 posted on 04/06/2010 1:03:32 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Eagle Eye
Like I said earlier, let's not argue fringe cases, but pick the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

Well that's what everyone was arguing. Eagle Eye simply pointed out that from a strictly biblical standpoint, "life" does not exist until there is "blood". He made a valid point (IMHO) and people were treating him as if he were promoting partial birth abortion.

283 posted on 04/06/2010 1:04:07 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Sounds like a “don’t know when life begins” argument.
So, if you don’t know when life begins,

you expose a lot of your morality by where you choose to err.


284 posted on 04/06/2010 1:05:55 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Eagle Eye simply pointed out that from a strictly biblical standpoint, "life" does not exist until there is "blood". He made a valid point (IMHO) and people were treating him as if he were promoting partial birth abortion.

No, you simplify his argument. He also stated that because there is no life until there is blood, there is no life preceding birth. And we pointed out that there was blood and flesh prior to birth. Thus, his argument was false. And we've been treating him based on his invectives toward us, which you simply ignore.

285 posted on 04/06/2010 1:06:44 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Now you use the 'blood is life' argument. I'd stop if I were you. You're now arguing against yourself.

Actually I was simply arguing against your position (which was internally inconsistent, unless you also believe that contraception is murder).

BTW what will happen to me if I don't stop?

286 posted on 04/06/2010 1:07:08 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The fetus is alive whether there is blood in it or not.

Saying that the life is in the blood does not say that without blood there is no life.

Leviticus 17 is not a valid argument for abortion not being murder. The whole chapter is dealing with sacrifices and the eating of blood, not related to murder or whether something is alive without blood being in it.

So no, that is not a valid argument.


287 posted on 04/06/2010 1:08:21 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

It is my understanding that Protestant teachings about contraception were changed in the mid-20th century.


288 posted on 04/06/2010 1:10:49 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: MrB; bcsco; wagglebee; Eagle Eye; metmom; xzins; calex59
Sounds like a “don’t know when life begins” argument. So, if you don’t know when life begins,

I can state without hesitation that life is present when the heart begins to beat. Beyond that, I cannot find a legitimate biblical argument for making the killing of the fetus a "murder". It may be in the eyes of God, but I am not going to speak for God on that point. God does make it clear that if there is blood flowing, then there is "life".

you expose a lot of your morality by where you choose to err.

Tell me about me. What have I exposed?

289 posted on 04/06/2010 1:11:21 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; bcsco; Eagle Eye; xzins; MrB; calex59
The question then becomes at what point does the flesh have "life".

No. The question is whether the flesh is human or not. Changing it to whether it is life is merely a diversionary tactic.

Killing animals is not murder. Murder is the killing of a human being by another human being. THAT is what God prohibits.

290 posted on 04/06/2010 1:11:41 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Actually I was simply arguing against your position (which was internally inconsistent, unless you also believe that contraception is murder).

As wagglebee pointed out earlier, Christians believed that up to and including much of the past century. And no, I don't believe it is inconsistent. Murder occurs when something living is destroyed intentionally through malice. contraception prevents that living thing from being formed. That's the technical response.

The Biblical one is far more involved. Does it go against God's will? I'm not sure Jeremiah 1:5 says that. Contraception prevents a fetus 'forming in the womb'. God is speaking of knowing us before 'I formed you in the womb'. Thus He is speaking of a formed fetus. Others may look at this differently.

BTW what will happen to me if I don't stop?

Nothing. I was merely pointing out your getting argumentative with yourself.

291 posted on 04/06/2010 1:13:53 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; bcsco
If Jeremiah 1:5 is your sole basis for arguing against abortion in the first 21 days, then would you not argue that contraception is Murder as well?

You are arguing the atheist position very well. No. It's not the same and you know it.

You could try turning the other cheek.

So could he.

292 posted on 04/06/2010 1:15:08 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: metmom; MrB; bcsco; wagglebee; Eagle Eye; xzins; calex59
Leviticus 17 is not a valid argument for abortion not being murder. The whole chapter is dealing with sacrifices and the eating of blood, not related to murder or whether something is alive without blood being in it. So no, that is not a valid argument.

Then why does the bible refer to murder (hundreds of times) as the "shedding of innocent blood"?

If there is no "blood" then how can you call it the "shedding of innocent blood"?

Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

293 posted on 04/06/2010 1:15:36 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“you” collectively.

I think you fully understand what I meant, and I’ll leave “telling about you” to you, since you’ve obviously got your bristles up.

As to the issue, the heart starts beating at around 7 days, IIRC...
How many abortions occur before the heart starts beating?
Is it 0? Probably.


294 posted on 04/06/2010 1:16:03 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

You see? This is an example of you arguing against yourself. If it is wrong, it cannot be a valid argument. So, it's either right, and valid, or wrong and invalid. Take your pick, but don't argue against yourself.

295 posted on 04/06/2010 1:18:05 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You are arguing the atheist position very well.

I am making points entirely by reference to scripture (which I believe to be infallible).

So how does my pointing out from scripture what the scripture actually says "arguing the atheist position"?

The problem is that you are NOT arguing the scriptural position.

So could he.

So you only turn the other cheek if it is reciprocal?

296 posted on 04/06/2010 1:19:01 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
So you only turn the other cheek if it is reciprocal?

So, pointing out one sides invectives while ignoring the other side's is proper?

297 posted on 04/06/2010 1:20:42 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom; bcsco; wagglebee; Eagle Eye; xzins; calex59
I think you fully understand what I meant, and I’ll leave “telling about you” to you, since you’ve obviously got your bristles up.

I'm not the one with my bristles up. I made no judgment about your morality, but you seem to have made up your mind about mine. I'm just curious as to what you think my "morality" is? I've been posting on Free Republic for over 10 years now and most everyone knows my political and religious positions. You seem to have made a moral judgment about me based on a single post in defense of the arguments made by another poster.

So please tell me what that post reveals about my morality. If not, then please ping the moderator and have your post removed.

As to the issue, the heart starts beating at around 7 days, IIRC...

Well if that it when it starts, then that is when it is biblically justified to prohibit it entirely. I believe it is 21 days post conception, however.

298 posted on 04/06/2010 1:24:24 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; xzins; bcsco; Coleus; narses; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; MrB
Then why does the bible refer to murder (hundreds of times) as the "shedding of innocent blood"?

Note the key word of INNOCENT. The death penalty, established by God, does not qualify as murder. Why? Because of the guilt of the person involved.

Murder is not simply the shedding of blood, but of *innocent* blood. Therefore, the argument that murder must only involve the shedding of blood is invalid.

Sorry, it is a valid argument. It may be wrong, but it is a valid argument nonetheless.

If it's wrong, it can't be a valid argument.

299 posted on 04/06/2010 1:24:39 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
So, pointing out one sides invectives while ignoring the other side's is proper?

Do demand that everyone else turn the other cheek before you do?

300 posted on 04/06/2010 1:25:23 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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