Monday, February 23, 2009

Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths

Another one of my great pro-deathers on a different post went off on me about women who have been raped or are the victims of incest, that they should be allowed to commit murder as well. She wanted to know what degree I have that allows me to say to "stop worrying about the mother and start worrying about the baby".


You do not need a degree to know immorality and evil. You do not need a degree to recognize that additional violence does not solve the problem nor make the pain go away the mother feels from the rape or incest.


And let's not forget that abortions due to rape and incest account for around 2% of the abortion total for the year. Is killing babies so important to the left wing of this country, that they have to pound incest and rape as much as they do? They are certainly trying to make it appear as if rape and incest is the root cause behind many more abortions than they really are.


And that's pretty disgusting.


But to the anonymous baby-killer here's a guy with a Ph.D.


David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

"How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?" complains an indignant supporter of abortion. "And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist's child?"

Every pro-lifer has heard these same challenges in one form or another. They are the emotionally charged questions designed to prove either 1) that pro-lifers are insensitive "fetus lovers," 2) or ethically inconsistent, allowing abortion for some circumstances but not others.

Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way help them to recover from the assault. Thus, the pro-lifer is left in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the sanctity of life is more important than the needs of the sexual assault victim with whom everyone should rightly sympathize.

But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from 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, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.

Second, some believe that their child's life 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.

Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.

Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may sense 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 was destroying, she can be nurturing.

If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion? This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic view of abortion.

Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time 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 ramifications on a woman's life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?

In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.

Abortion involves a painful examination of 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. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.

This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an 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 other women.

Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them.

This was the experience of Jackie Bakker, who reports: "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."

Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom they see as being "guilty for letting 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.

According to Kathleen DeZeeuw, "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."

The case against abortion of incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion.4 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 true loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the incest victim may treasure her pregnancy because it offers her hope of release, and the hope of finding a nurturing love, her pregnancy is a threat to the exploiter. It is also a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge that the abuse is occurring. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members. (And people like my anonymous baby-killer is one such coercer)

For example, Edith Young, 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 providers who ignore this evidence, and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest, are actually contributing to the young girl's victimization. They are not only 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.

Finally, we must recognize that the children conceived through sexual assault also have a voice which deserves to be heard. Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud of her mother's courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie proclaims: "It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become."

That's a slogan we can all live with.

References

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. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.

3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).

4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

First off, I am not crazy nor a pro-deather.I am married with two teenage daughters.I stumbled onto your site and was actually enjoying reading the posts,as it seems their is some intelligent thought being given to what is being said,on both sides. However on the post I did comment,two things...you never really answered the persons questions about gay/lesbian adoption, and who get's the sin, as well as the deaths of children from war's. The other is that even though you have managed to find a counter point to my argument about some rape and incest, there are still unanswered questions such as,a mentally disabled person becoming pregnant as well when it comes down to the health of the mother.

Sherri Lynn

The Rockin' Traddy said...

Hello Sherri!

Here's the post you are referring to I think:

Exactly who get's the mortal sin?
A) the rapist
B) the person who was raped
C) the Dr. performing a legal abortion

The answer as I see it, is they all commit grave acts based on the scenario.

The rapist for raping the woman, the victim of the rape commits a grave act if she decides to kill the unborn baby inside her, she does not sin by being raped of course, and the doctor performing the immoral abortion is committing murder and therefore is guilty of a grievous sin.

As far as innocents being killed in war, the Church does not condone unjust war, that is, war for war's sake.

Pope John Paul II and our current Pope Benedict XVI have both spoken out on several occasions about war and hunger.

There are many fine organizations that have dedicated themselves to eradicating hunger, and helping the innocents of war and famine. http://www.alliancetoendhunger.org is a great way to help. Because it is our responsibility to help relieve these people however we can.

The innocents killed in war is a tragedy to be sure, but unfortunately I feel we have to pick our battles, and with 1.3 million babies being aborted in the U.S. this past year, this is the current battle we are fighting.

And rightfully so as it is God's law, Exodus 20:13, from the Latin Vulgate: non occides which translates to "Thou shalt not kill". No guess work there as to what God meant, in my opinion.

And as far as gays adopting children, let me tell you a story.

I know a white gay couple, two male hairdressers. They were allowed to adopt two black boys several years ago.

The one fellow, we'll call him dad #1, ran around on dad #2, going to gay clubs, meeting anonymous men for sex, going to a certain part of the public park where our children play to perform oral sex on strangers in the brush. He is also a drag queen and regularly has "shows" for a local community theatre group.

How do you think the boys turned out with such a role model?

I cannot speak of the youngest boy, but the older one has followed in the footsteps of dad #1. He is living an immoral life just as his father still does to this day, he is also proudly a drag queen, just like daddy.

So I have seen first hand the descent into Hell this couple has made, and how through their immorality they have also dragged at least one of their "sons" along for the ride.

I do not agree that gays should be allowed to adopt children. If men were to marry and have babies, then God would have given them compatible parts. He made the female for the male as it reads in scripture. God did not make a man for Adam, he made a woman.

As it says in Genesis 1:21-25 (and I know these particular verses piss off many feminists!)

21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. 22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

If these gay people want children so badly, perhaps they need to reevaluate their lives, come home to God's Church, ask his forgiveness, amend their lives, and live their lives as God asks them to.

When you stop to think, it isn't really so hard to figure out, is it?

Thanks for stopping by.

Anonymous said...

Roaming Catholic writes: Join the crowd, Rockin'T. I lost track of how many times I was told, when defending a pro-life position, of why I am not considerate in the cases of rape and/or incest? The funny thing is that I am defending the Church's teaching on Life with fellow Catholics who should know but are very ignorant to it!! Go figure that one out?

The Rockin' Traddy said...

Ya know, I don't even think it's ignorance any more. People today think they are far too clever to fall for that "outdated dogma and medieval thinking" that the Church offers.

I say it's time to thin the Catholic herd. If they don't believe in what the Church teaches, why in heaven's sake do they stick around? If I were a Buddhist for instance, and didn't believe in whatever crazy ass stuff they believe, then guess what? I wouldn't be a Buddhist anymore. I would leave. I wouldn't hang out praying to stone Buddha's in my garden and then go bitching about a belief that I don't agree with anymore.

If they want to go, then go. It's no skin off of my nose. And the music at my NO parish just might improve!

Anonymous said...

I see that you have used Reardon as you rebuttal, however I have one for you.....

Although Reardon is a man of various talents, perhaps his greatest are being inventive and getting attention. Reardon was sued for stealing the website code of a group he opposed.

Although Reardon has been known mostly for his advocacy against abortion, he has a substantial, if lesser-known, interest in voting operations. Self-described as a bio-ethicist in the anti-abortion world, Reardon was actually trained as an electrical engineer and has a degree from the University of Illinois.

In 2006, Reardon himself was accused of hacking the website code and look of a group whose politics he opposed, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (MCLC), which advocates for stem-cell research. Reardon was ordered by a federal district judge in Kansas City, Missouri, to stop operating a website that “illegally uses, mimics and copies the look, feel, graphics, coding and photos” of MCLC. Judge Gary A. Fenner wrote: “(T)he elliotinstitute.org website appears to be an unethical attempt to confuse Missouri voters into thinking that MCLC and the Elliot Institute are somehow affiliated.”



While Reardon designates himself as “Dr. Reardon” and claims to have a Ph.D. in bio-ethics, his 1995 degree traces to the Pacific Western University in California, identified as a “diploma mill” business delivering degrees for a fee without coursework, according to investigators for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. (Pacific Western University has since changed its name to California Miramar University.) Some states have passed laws against the use of diploma mill credentials, including North Dakota, which makes it a misdemeanor to use a fake degree in connection with business, and Illinois, where one cannot be used to obtain employment.

He co-authored and published a book with Julie Makimaa, who travels the anti-abortion circuit, arguing that women who are raped are better off if they continue a pregnancy caused by a violent encounter than have an abortion. Another publication, “Victims and victors,” uses selected statements of women who have had abortions to claim that women suffer post-abortion trauma, despite scientific studies that show the opposite.

Reardon's peer reviewed studies are a source of scientific controversy. His research and methodology have been criticized by, among others, Brenda Major of the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara

In an interview with Frank Pavone of the far-right Priests for Life, Reardon “analyzed” pro-choice activists, saying: “they are deep in denial and (because of) the defensiveness of their abortion, they surround themselves with women saying abortion is a good thing.” Reardon told Pavone: “We have to be much more vocal that we care about women… we want to protect them.” The use of post-abortion “healing,” he argues “is a great evangelization opportunity for the Church.”

Traddy, not sure if this is the guy who you want to back up your argument about rape and incest victims.

Sherri Lynn

The Rockin' Traddy said...

Ah, yes! When you cannot discredit the truth, discredit he who gives it! Right out of the "how to win at politics" playbook! You should work for Nancy Pelosi!

I could have chosen any of a dozen people to back up my points, but I chose and stick with him.

Abortion under any circumstances is unacceptable. That's it period. I'm not here to argue with pro-deathers who want a forum to spread their poisonous ideas about killing babies.

Ok?

Thanks for stopping by!