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 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 521-524 next last
To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins
Now if someone wants to claim that Jesus has divine blood because of his miraculous conception (you do agree with me on that, don't you?) and that his blood never mixed with humans descended from Adam then I can't argue with you. That pure, innocent blood is the only means by which our sins could be cleansed and forgiven.

Again, this IS NOT what the Bible says. Read Genesis 3:15, it says HER seed, that means the Blessed Virgin Mary. Read the first chapter of the Gospel of Saint Luke. Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of His mother and carried in her womb and He takes His humanity from her.

441 posted on 04/08/2010 1:21:29 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Buggman
Look at the many differences between Jesus and God.

Paul identifies Jesus Christ as the creator of all things. John identifies Jesus Christ as the person to whom Moses spoke on Mt. Sinai. John in Revelation identifies Jesus Christ as the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega and The Almighty.

Clearly Jesus is God. The Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. As wagglebee noted, Matthew 28:19 notes that Baptism is in the Name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (plural). The first verse of the Bible identifies God as both singular and plural.

You accuse others of not looking at the plain verses that somehow identify Jesus as not being the Eternal God, but there are dozens of verses which clearly and unequivocally identify his Divinity and his co-eternal deity with the Father.

You just choose to ignore those verses.

Now if someone wants to claim that Jesus has divine blood because of his miraculous conception (you do agree with me on that, don't you?) and that his blood never mixed with humans descended from Adam then I can't argue with you.

It seems you believe in Jesus as some kind of Chimera (half god/half man), but the Bible describes Jesus as 100% Man and 100% God.

442 posted on 04/08/2010 1:40:32 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee
You know, if someone's going to disagree with a theology, he should at least know what said theology actually teaches.

Shalom.

443 posted on 04/08/2010 2:10:34 PM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
It seems you believe in Jesus as some kind of Chimera (half god/half man), but the Bible describes Jesus as 100% Man and 100% God.

Not so.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The Bible is pretty clear...God is god and Christ is a man who was in the flesh...totally in the flesh. Check the definition of 'en' and look at a greek preposition diagram. Do your research and look for yourself!

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

100% God and 100% man is nonsense and this verse plainly states that if one does not confess (say with mouth what is believed in the heart) that Jesus came completely and totally in the flesh...well you can read it for yourself.

Jesus either came COMPLETELY in the flesh or he did not. Bible says he did. I agree with the Bible.

Clearly Jesus is God. The Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God

And somehow you are still going to say that God is one and that there is only one God?

Paul identifies Jesus Christ as the creator of all things. John identifies Jesus Christ as the person to whom Moses spoke on Mt. Sinai. John in Revelation identifies Jesus Christ as the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega and The Almighty.

No. No. And No.

With each of those assumptions you have to deny straightforward verses that word for word make that impossible.

Cling to your traditions, not my problem, but I can tell you have only accepted what others have taught you and drank the kool aid. You have not examined your own beliefs critically, cherry picking verses to support your ideas.

To understand Paul (who actually saw the resurrected Jesus while no man has seen God at any time...) you have to realize that as I said before, the punctuation is not always properly supplied in the KJV and the KJV authors certainly had a trinitarian bias.

Are you really saying that Jesus existed in some sort of spiritual form to talk to Moses, then one day some how became a baby? Talk about something from ancient mythology! Did Jesus exist in God's foreknowledge? Most certainly! But trying to say that the word Lord in the OT means Jesus is stretched pretty thin.

What truly puzzles me is that you can state that Jesus is God and then have no explanation of any of the differences between Jesus and God...one being invisible and never seen, one being seen by many; one never being tempted and the other being tempted in all ways; one praying to the other, one praising the other as his son who is well pleasing...etc, etc, etc.

Jesus claims to be God's son. God claims Jesus to be his son.

But you can toss all that aside due to a handful of misunderstood scriptures?

444 posted on 04/08/2010 3:06:42 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 442 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Are you denying that you implied that I would burn in hell?


445 posted on 04/08/2010 3:11:51 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 440 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Buggman
And somehow you are still going to say that God is one and that there is only one God?

Absolutely.

No. No. And No.

Wow.

Do you want the verses or do you know which ones I am referencing? Do you deny the truth of those verses? Or are you claiming that somehow you know more than the scholars who translated them or the Early Church Fathers who cannonized the scriptures?

Cling to your traditions, not my problem, but I can tell you have only accepted what others have taught you and drank the kool aid. You have not examined your own beliefs critically, cherry picking verses to support your ideas.

LOL!

I left a non-Trinitarian Cult only to be presented with the truth of the Trinitarian Gospel.

Are you now or have you ever been a Jehovah's Witness?

446 posted on 04/08/2010 3:22:20 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You just choose to ignore those verses.

Not at all, I just let the scripture speak for itself and use the clear and unambiguous verses for the foundation then build from there.

Y'all seem have your theology then mold your verses around to support it and sweep the inconvenient ones aside.

As wagglebee noted, Matthew 28:19 notes that Baptism is in the Name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (plural).

That verse is one that is somewhat controversial in that Eusebius quoted from pre 4th century texts many times but his quotes said only 'in my name'. Add to that there is no evidence that the trinitarian baptism formula was ever carried out by those who were first hand witnesses...all baptisms were in Jesus' name, not father son holy spirit.

Again, funny how you expect me to jump thru hoops with your every challenge but nothing from you in return on how Jesus can be God if no one ever saw God, etc, etc, etc.

447 posted on 04/08/2010 3:41:51 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 442 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; xzins; wagglebee; Buggman
That verse is one that is somewhat controversial in that Eusebius quoted from pre 4th century texts many times but his quotes said only 'in my name'. Add to that there is no evidence that the trinitarian baptism formula was ever carried out by those who were first hand witnesses...all baptisms were in Jesus' name, not father son holy spirit.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the United Pentecostal Church?

448 posted on 04/08/2010 3:57:19 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins; Buggman
Are you denying that you implied that I would burn in hell?

Yes, I absolutely deny it.

449 posted on 04/08/2010 4:10:53 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

More than an implication, IMO.


450 posted on 04/08/2010 4:18:46 PM PDT by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; wagglebee; xzins; Buggman
Are you denying that you implied that I would burn in hell?

If you read scripture anything like you read posts, then it is no wonder you have all these heretical positions.

Wagglebee was joking about TV preachers and Megachurch pastors, so unless you are either a TV Preacher, a Megachurch pastor or a wannabee either of those, then there was no implication that the "burn in hell" comment was directed to you.

Frankly as a longtime member of a "megachurch", if anything, it was a dig at me. :-)

451 posted on 04/08/2010 4:26:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: verity; Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; xzins; Buggman
More than an implication, IMO.

Nonsense.

Read my post, I didn't even say that those who believed such heresy were going to Hell.

I suggested that megachurch pastors and televangelists who lead people astray with such heresy would. Eagle Eye's homepage clearly states that he does government contract work, so there is no possibility that I was referring to him.

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
You should teach a class or maybe start your own Religion.

If anyone is planning to start a new religion, especially one that denies two thousand years of Christian belief, I would suggest a "megachurch" and eventually a weekly TV show. The trick is to get as many members as possible and to give regular (at least monthly) sermons on tithing. Then speak of how God wants everyone to be very wealthy and use yourself as an example.

Know that you will probably burn in Hell for leading so many astray and you will be ridiculed endlessly for your bizarre beliefs; but if you do it right, your earthly rewards will at least be plentiful.

435 posted on Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:13:50 PM by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

452 posted on 04/08/2010 4:37:38 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; verity; Eagle Eye; P-Marlowe; Buggman

Do you mean to tell me I can’t tell anti-Trinitarians that they’re going to burn in hell?

Shucks.

I mean....they don’t know the real God....

just sayin’...


453 posted on 04/08/2010 5:00:42 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 452 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe

Next thing I know I’ll be told that I can’t make snide remarks about P-M being a Pentecostal snake handler.


454 posted on 04/08/2010 5:02:55 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe

Be careful!

P-M is my favorite Snake Handler


455 posted on 04/08/2010 5:05:24 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 454 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe

Mine too!


456 posted on 04/08/2010 5:07:19 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee
Be careful! P-M is my favorite Snake Handler


457 posted on 04/08/2010 5:11:52 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
Here is a better picture:


458 posted on 04/08/2010 5:21:08 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins

So which group scored higher on the IQ tests? The Snake handlers or the snakes?


459 posted on 04/08/2010 5:23:38 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins

The guys with sweat pouring off of them are probably more intelligent than the snakes, but not as intelligent as those of us who don’t pick them up in the first place.

Read Acts 28, Saint Paul didn’t know the snake was in the firewood.


460 posted on 04/08/2010 5:30:34 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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