One of the most horrific crimes that a woman can experience is sexual assault.
Following a sexual assault, women find themselves struggling to recover from this traumatic event.
What can make this recovery even more difficult is that, in a small percentage of these cases, the victim of sexual assaults become pregnant with the assaulters’ child.
So what should the woman do?
Abort the baby?
Keep the baby?
More often than not, the woman decides to keep the child.
Many sexual assault victims see birth as a selfless, loving act that helps bring healing from their horrific experience.
Many pro-choice advocates believe “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” [2].
The Elliot Institute did a study that dealt with women who had become impregnated through sexual assault [3] and found that of 164 women, an overwhelming 73% chose to give birth.
What this shows is that women do not automatically want an abortion after assault, and having an abortion actually just makes the situation worse – it ends an innocent life that had no part in the crime of the assault.
Oftentimes, the women who do have abortions become unhappy with their decision and regret it.
Giving birth can be seen as a selfless, loving act that helps bring healing from the horrific experience of rape.
——–
References
[1] Johnston, Robert. (2008). “Reasons Given for Having Abortions in the United States.” Johnston’s Archive, 9 Oct 2008. Web. 15 Jun 2011. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
[2] Reardon, David C. (2004). “Rape, Incest, and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths.” Elliot Institute, http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/
[3] Ibid.
——–
Image from www.survivorsofabuse.org
I ONLY AGREE ON ABORTION IF MOTHER & BABY ARE AT RISK. LIFE OR DEATH & MAYBE INCEST!!
I am very happy to hear that you are against abortion in almost every case, gennifer! I would agree with you that, in the rare case of a potentially fatal pregnancy (the only case I am aware of is an ectopic pregnancy). The reason I hold this position is because if no action is taken, then both the mother and the fetus will die. Therefore, it is better to save one life, than lose two. However, your indecision on in case of incest seems to be inconsistent with your otherwise pro-life position. Perhaps I can help you and other readers to see the reasoning behind the pro-life case.
Pro-lifers like yourself contend that, from a scientific standpoint, the unborn are distinct, living, whole human beings. Furthermore, we see that there is no relevant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today, such that those changes would justify killing you at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons to say that you had no right to life in the womb, but you do now. In short, you are just as valuable now, as you were in the womb from the moment of conception.
From what I can tell of your comment, I would guess that you agree with most (if not all) of what I just said. If that is the case then, what justification would there be for an abortion in the case of incest? For example, if a child is conceived of rape, and carried to term, we would not say that you could kill a born 2 year old child because he had been conceived of incest. But why would one not be justified in killing a 2 year old if he was conceived of incest? Because he is a valuable human being just like you and I. Therefore, if the unborn are valuable like the 2 year old, we can no more kill the unborn in the name of incest than we would a 2 year old.
I hope this helps to clarify the primary reason that one should defend the pro-life view.
Sincerely,