War on Women

Oh, please: Pro-Lifers accused of forcing mothers to “co-parent with their rapist”

They’ve tried scaring rape victims into thinking Mitt Romney will take away their abortions. They’ve falsely attributed a lone politician’s ignorance about rape to the rest of the pro-life movement. They’ve distorted the words of those who defend innocent babies conceived by rape. The left has a fever, and the only prescription is more shameless exploitation of rape for political gain.

At the Huffington Post, Ethan Rome has an editorial recycling the usual narrative: “fanatical fundamentalism … tantamount to violence against women … Todd Akin … revoke access to birth control”…blah blah blah. But amidst the drivel was one bit of fear-mongering I hadn’t heard before:

Isn’t it an act of violence to force a woman to carry to term the child of a rapist who commits an unspeakable act of violence against her — and then to sentence her (in most states) to a lifetime co-parenting the child with her rapist?

Whoa! Pro-lifers want rapists to have parental rights? When did this happen? The link goes to a commentary by Rome’s organization, Health Care for America Now (a far-left advocacy group for socialized medicine), claiming that the “GOP abortion stance would allow more rapists to assert rights to co-parent children conceived in rape”:

Thousands of women all over the country who now can legally end a pregnancy caused by rape would instead be forced to carry the child to term. In most states, that means submitting to the rapist-father’s assertion of paternal rights regarding visitation, religion, education, health care and countless other issues. And this week, the GOP convention will adopt a platform endorsing the no-exceptions abortion plank. Welcome to the GOP’s shocking approach to women’s rights.

It turns out that in 31 states, a woman who carries a rape pregnancy to term has no effective way to block the rapist from asserting his paternal rights over the child he forced on her. In those 31 states, it is not unusual for a rapist to assert his parental rights over his victim’s rape-child, according to lawyer Shauna Prewitt, who wrote a 2010 article about it in the Georgetown Law Journal. The mother will be at risk of spending decades co-parenting with her rapist and encountering him at family events for the rest of their lifetimes. The stakes are enormous for the estimated 25,000 to 32,000 girls and women impregnated by rape each year.

What comes next are a few paragraphs on the nightmare rape victims experience in such situations, then some generalized prattle on how awful and extreme and stupid those nasty Republicans are. What does not come next is any connection of the former to the latter. The piece doesn’t delve into how the current status quo came about or whether Republicans favor parental rights for rapists (maybe that’s because, for instance, HCAN’s political pals had a little to do with that sort of thing in Massachusetts?).

At Mother Jones, Dana Liebelson and Sydney Brownstone explain what’s going on in some of these states. Their piece is worth reading in full, but the gist is that some disgracefully have no protection whatsoever for mothers of rape-conceived children, and the rest have varying degrees of protection, with most of the differences and roadblocks to fuller protection revolving around disagreements over how certain authorities should be of an alleged rapist’s guilt before revoking his parental rights.

The rights of the unborn and the injustice of killing them, even if they were conceived in rape, stand on their own and must be recognized regardless of what a state’s other laws say. The blame for giving rapists access to women and children lies not with those who protect the children, but with those who…well, give rapists access to women and children.

Even so, there’s no reason why a state seriously considering banning rape abortions couldn’t take up the parental rights issue during the course of negotiations over the issue. In fact, pro-lifers should commit to taking up this cause themselves. And while there’s probably some room for legitimate disagreement on the fine print of mechanisms, evidentiary standards, etc., I see no reason why bipartisan agreement couldn’t be reached on some humane, commonsense minimums.

For instance, it seems to me that, at the very least, the standard of evidence necessary to keep the rapist away from his victim and her kids should be lower than the standard necessary to put him away for life (though with some care to ensure that innocent fathers cannot be cut off from their children based on false rape charges) – and fathers should be awarded nothing regarding their children until their rape investigations and trials are completed. And convicted rapists should automatically lose any and all access to the children they sired, period.

Moreover, why isn’t this issue – where women are actually victimized by someone, then subjected to additional, very real suffering by the law – the “War on Women’s” centerpiece? Why aren’t those shouting the loudest about women’s rights and dignity working to stop this, instead of spending all their moral capital on killing babies, forcing contraception on private institutions, and perpetrating pay inequality myths?

If our pro-choice betters decided to put their perpetual indignation to good use for a change and began a campaign to reform the law in these states, the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers and Republicans would join them. It would be a rare moment of actual bipartisan accomplishment for the common good.

Answer: because pro-choicers don’t actually care about women generally, or rape victims in particular, much more than they care about unborn innocents. As we’ve discussed before at great length, pro-choicers are pretty much useless on rape whenever it comes to anything other than pushing abortion. The latest entry on that front, by the way, concerns then-state Sen. Barack Obama in 1999, refusing to support a bill letting sex crime victims have the records of their cases sealed, citing “constitutionality” concerns. Because the guy who brought you ObamaCare is such a stickler for constitutional fidelity. Sandra Fluke, call your office…

  • support_rape_victims

    I would just like to add that this entire discussion is incredibly insensitive to the life-altering trauma that a rape victim goes through. If she becomes pregnant and you want her to carry her baby to term, do not pass a law that forces her into that role. If forced to carry a child to term by a law, it simply reinforces that, once again, events are happening to her without her having any say or any control or any power. This will not help her heal from the traumatic event. Instead support her and provide counseling and acknowledge that she has been horribly wronged (in a way that you cannot understand if you have not been through it) and help her heal from her life-demeaning experience. And than talk to her about how she can save the innocent life of her fetus.

    • “this entire discussion is incredibly insensitive”

      Yes, I guess we should just pretend the innocent baby doesn’t exist, and sweep their killing under the rug. That would be much more sensitive.

      “do not pass a law that forces her into that role.”

      If that baby is a live person with unalienable natural rights, then we don’t have a choice. Justice demands we protect that baby’s rights in addition to his or her mother’s rights. The temporary hardship of pregnancy simply does not outweigh the permanence of death in any substantive moral calculus.

      “events are happening to her without her having any say or any control or any power.”

      Which is why we punish the one responsible for putting her in that situation – the rapist. Something horrible happening to someone does not mean there are automatically no ethical boundaries on what she may do to alleviate the situation. In fact, the whole point of having law is to *prevent* our emotions and individual interests from having a say in whether anyone’s rights are protected, so that transcendent justice and natural law are not left to the subjective enforcement of individuals.

      “This will not help her heal from the traumatic event.”

      Many will tell you that the abortion won’t erase the trauma of the rape itself, and can often simply add even more trauma. We can and should try to help her heal in ways that don’t involve killing an innocent person.

      “Instead support her and provide counseling and acknowledge that she has been horribly wronged (in a way that you cannot understand if you have not been through it) and help her heal from her life-demeaning experience.”

      Um, are these mutually exclusive with protecting her child? Are there pro-lifers somewhere who don’t already believe in these things?

      • very good.

      • Beth

        You can take a single line out of a well-rationalized comment and play on it for your own good if you want, but I see past your pro-dick, pro-life bullshit.

    • I always thought that if I was raped and got pregnant I would have to give the baby up because I wouldn’t be able to look at the baby and not see the face of the rapist. I was wrong. My daughter did get gang raped and did get pregnant. She lost the baby. I don’t see that baby as a rapest’s baby. That is my daughter’s baby and my grandchild and we both miss her or him.
      There are many testomonies from women who were raped and had an abortion and how to them it was a second rape.
      Then there is the testamonies from the babies themself (the ones carried to term) They are all glad that they were born.
      try looking at the silent no more on youtube and listen to them. Also try Rhamah internation. I went to training run by this group. The founders all have had abortion and now regret it. It was not the easy out that they were told it was.

      • Beth

        Shut up, dumb ass! Maybe skip the pro-life bullshit training and take an English class! DERP!


        (Rolls eyes at dumb Republicans.)

  • You do realize, dear Calvin, that you’re just extending the life of Mourdock’s insult by advocating for an overhaul of rapists’ parental rights laws? And you’re delusional if you think this is fertile ground for “bi-partisan agreement”. Contemplating laws to protect families from their rapist patriarchs is a non-starter. Time and effort would be much better served making sure his seed isn’t offered a special class of protection in the first place.

    • We don’t want the children of rape to have “a special class of protection”. We advocate exactly the same standard with regard to any baby, whether concieved in rape, in love, in fornication, or in IVF.

      • If that is *such* a respected position why are Mourdock and Akin both on the verge of tossing away easily won Senate seats in deeply pro-life friendly territories?

        • Once again substituting an argument from popularity in place of substantive moral thought, I see.

    • If you think the issue’s a non-starter, than your quarrel is with Mr. Rome, not me. If it’s not the danger he claims, then admit he’s a hack falsely hijacking the issue to fear-monger and return to the real issue. If it is, then let’s work together to set things right. Is this really that difficult for you to grasp, or are you just stuck in contrarian mode?

      “a special class of protection.”

      Right. “Special class.” Because apparently it’s currently legal to kill all sorts of innocent people after birth……..

      • Yes, it would be a special — and absurd — class of protection to give rapists the right to see their progeny carried by the victims of their crime. There would be no other class of victim that gets subordinated to their perpetrator in a fashion like that.

        • Wow. Just…wow. Just when I thought the ethical freakshow couldn’t get any more backward.

          I guess we should start offing post-birth kids conceived in rape, too. Just think of all the pleasure their rapist dads are getting out of their existence! Can’t have that!

          • Your article is a freakshow; an abortion — pardon the phrase — of commonsense. It’s amazing that you don’t recognize that. Or you’re trolling.

  • Beth

    I have no idea why old white men are trying to legislate my vagina, but this is the perfect example. Why don’t you grow a uterus and we’ll go from there.

    • “I have no idea”

      Indeed. Why don’t you take some time to familiarize yourself with the real issues and positions of the debate, rather than bumper-sticker gibberish, then come back and try to weigh in.

      • Beth

        The real positions and issues of the debate are that it’s MY BODY to do what I please with… that includes killing the fetus of MY unborn child if I choose.

        Why don’t you take your tiny penis, shove it up your ass, and focus on something that could actually happen to you?

        This conversation has absolutely motivated me to get pregnant (because I’m a “real woman” who ovulates monthly) and then have an abortion just to add to the statistic and show you how GREAT of a job you are doing of bitching online about things that don’t concern you.

        • Basset_Hound

          What’s the point in using logic with someone so demented that she will deliberately conceive a child in order to kill it to spite nameless strangers. Sick.

      • Beth

        A question, dear Calvin. What exactly would you do if you were raped and became pregnant? Oh wait, that’s not a realistic “opportunity” for you, proving my point. Join 2012 and show a little open-mindedness.
        Subject: [liveactionnews] Re: Oh, please: Pro-Lifers accused of forcing mothers to “ co-parent with their rapist”

        • Obviously, I’m not claiming to know what the experience would be like or how strong I’d be in that situation. The temptation would be there, no question. And y’know what? That’s all the more reason why I wouldn’t want law to leave that option on the table. Because as much as I hope and think I’d do the right thing, I wouldn’t trust myself enough to let my own personal fortitude be the only thing standing between pain/fear/temptation and an innocent baby’s death.

          • Solntsye

            Now that’s interesting…an interesting concept to contemplate. Okay, let’s run with this premise for just one second! Let’s say you were in said situation and trying to live through something as horrific as this, and let’s say (in this bizarro world where men get pregnant) abortion for any reason were illegal. You’re so sick and sore, still trying to come to grips with being attacked, now finding out your life is going to be permanently changed, knowing that no decent woman will ever be interested in you after all this, you lose your job over being too ill to go to work, you lose your home and transportation because of lack of funds, you can’t even afford food (if you weren’t too sick to eat it, that is)…your life is effectively, for all intents and purposes, over. Yet, there is no way for this awful illness to end, only with an unimaginable agony that is enough to terrify you- and rightfully so.

            Knowing abortion is illegal, yet wanting out of this situation unlike anything else ever in your life…would you go for an illegal abortion? Or, would you go even one step further- sick as hell and with your life in complete shambles, alone and without any trace of your life before this hell commenced- and commit suicide?

            Sorry to sound so cheery! But this is what it is like. So do you think you’d go the back alley route or worse?

    • Basset_Hound

      REALLY Beth? How about the idea that an unborn baby is a human being, not chattel or property. I’ll bet you didn’t know the vast majority of pro-life activists are WOMEN.

      • Beth

        Actually, an unborn fetus is exactly “chattel or property.”

        Chattel- an item of unmovable property

        Yeah, I’d say that’s exactly what it is. Like I’ve told the rest of you idiots… you should probably be focusing on education reform. It’s obvious you all missed English 101.

        • Basset_Hound

          Ironic that you should lecture us about education reform and “English 101”, when you were obviously asleep for Biology 101. An unborn child is a human being in an early stage of development..

        • Since you’re so much more educated than the rest of us, suppose you look back on the last time in our history a group of people were defined as “chattel”……

        • Solntsye

          Seriously, you sound like you’re about to stroke out. If anybody needs to get a grip here, it would be you.

    • Ceckiz Gzz

      who is this crogmanon woman? no body is messing with your promiscuous life, but we are concerned about that baby’s life. I have an uterus! I ovulate naturally every month and don’t need to cry for abortion or pills. Keep it natural if you are a real woman!

      • Beth

        So… real women don’t use abortion or birth control and ovulate monthly? What about women who have polycystic ovarian syndrome and don’t ovulate monthly? What about women who are past menopause? According to your ridiculous statement, these people are not considered a “real woman.”
        Also, it’s “cro-magnon.” That term actually refers to early humans. Judging by your 1960’s comments, I’d say you are a lot closer to being “crogmanon” (LOL) than I am.
        Get a grip, lady.

        Subject: [liveactionnews] Re: Oh, please: Pro-Lifers accused of forcing mothers to “ co-parent with their rapist”

  • A H

    Pro-lifers may not want it per se, but rapists are allowed parental rights in 31 states. It’s an unintended consequence of carrying a rape pregnancy to term that is real. You don’t have to look very far to find incidences of women being forced to coparent with their rapist. google ‘rapist parental rights’ for plenty of very sad examples.

    • A H

      And no, I’m not suggesting abortion is a better option, even though I believe it should be available as an option. Women who keep their children should be protected from this, no matter what side of the abortion issue you stand on.

  • Abortion = Solution. Now you don’t have to live the rest of your life raising a kid you did not want, conceived from a disgusting act one random unlucky day

    • Basset_Hound

      Ever heard of adoption? That way the woman doesn’t have to raise a “kid she doesn’t want, conceived from a disgusting act”…a loving couple gets the opportunity. Then the rapist is punished, not someone else who is just as much a crime victim as the woman.

      • yeah because 9 months of pregnancy is what a girl who was raped wants to do. if you’re pro-life you should be forced to be on the list to adopt. there’s a law for you to go along with the zero abortions law you lifers want so badly. you don’t get to say “ever heard of adoption?” unless you’ve been raped and carried it for 9 months then put it up for adoption. only then do you have that right. and even if you that did happen to you and you can say that. not everyone wants to, or even can do that. so try to use your brain and quit making our world a stupid place

        • Basset_Hound

          Your argument that I “should be forced to be on the list to adopt” is a total non-sequitur. The way to aid a rape victim is provide counseling and support…NOT to perpetuate the crime on the unborn child. And please…take a remedial English course before you lecture someone else about “using your brain” and “making our world a stupid place”.

          • please point out my poor english? not capitalizing the letter to begin a sentence? it’s pretty easy to do, but i’m lazy. plus, not capitalizing the first letter doesn’t make someones english poor. Are you happy now? Now onto more important issues other than confusing writing style with poor English. Quite honestly, being forced have have a child by law is just a punishment after being raped. You could also argue that if abortion were illegal, illegal abortions would take place. Which is very unsafe. Abortion isn’t a new thing, its been around for a long long time. Plus the global population is skyrocketing. No need to help those numbers increase from terrible circumstances such as this. And then we’re back to the tedious argument of, is it a life or is it just stem cells? It’s all matter what you believe. No sense in arguing about beliefs. Nor is there sense in trying to force beliefs on other people. We need to focus on the greater good.

          • Basset_Hound

            Several things to address here…

            You argue that abortions “have been around for a long time”,
            and that they took place even though they’re illegal. Drunk driving is illegal. Drunk driving still takes place. Since the law doesn’t stop it from occurring by your logic, we should decriminalize it, and everyone would be happy. Right? The fact is that when abortion was illegal, there were fewer abortions…a LOT fewer. In the years following the
            Roe decision, the rate rose precipitously…from 485,000 in 1971 to 1 million in 1976. That’s a 100% increase in just five years.

            Just because abortions are legal, doesn’t mean they’re safe. Clinics around the country have been found to engage in unsafe practices and improper procedures. Legislatures in several states attempted to implement comprehensive safety regulations (in line with those of other medical procedures) only to be sued by abortion providers.

            Your information about the global population is out of date. Industrialized nations around the world are experiencing an alarming DROP in the birth rate and an aging population. In the developing world, widespread poverty have more to do with corrupt governments, the misallocation
            of resources and the lack of economic opportunities than they do with “exploding populations”.

            We can argue about beliefs, but if we have a society where certain members are expendable and where the strong can gain an advantage by harming the weak for their own convenience we don’t have a society based on freedom and choice, we have anarchy. It seems that the criteria for being “expendable” keeps expanding. Then “working for the greater good” becomes a moot point.

          • You’re not even worth the time to respond anymore. I’m thankful abortion is around and kept legal

        • concerned christian teen

          that “it” is a human being… refering to a baby as it is like me calling you it… do you like that very much?

        • My daughter was raped and got pregnant then lost the baby. Abortion does not help the women. There are many testamonies to this fact. Abortion is a second rape to them. I have heard may testamonies from women who have been though this. I would adopt a baby in a heart beat to save his or her life. The baby my daughter had is her baby and my grandchild.

          Lifenews has testamonies as well as The Silent no more campan and Ramah international.

          • Detroiter327

            There are also a majority of women who felt relieved and would disagree with you.

          • Beth

            And it’s spelled “testimonies” so pardon us sane humans for not taking your illiterate sob story to heart.

          • Beth

            Oh, I missed one. You sure are a smart bunch. How about c-a-m-p-a-i-g-n. Pathetic that people can’t spell “campaign” when we are in the midst of one.

            Maybe you right-wing assholes should focus on education reform in the schools! It’s obvious you could all use some education.

    • Ceckiz Gzz

      that’s not the opinion of several persons who were born after their mothers were raped and had the COURAGE to give them life, and give them into adoption. Solution? sounds more ignorance of the real problem. Most raped women admit they chose to have the baby and avoid a SECOND WOUND in their life.

      • Beth

        I was adopted when I was supposed to be aborted and I am still pro-choice because I’m sane enough to realize that it is MY body to regulate how I decide…. not how you see fit. Luckily.

        • Boy, for someone casting so many aspersions on other’s intellects and educations, you sure seem to have missed out on introductory human biology. From the moment you first came into existence, you were never part of your mother’s body. You always had a distinct body of your own.

      • Detroiter327

        Im curious how you can assume you know the thoughts and actions of most raped women.

    • you do have to live with the regret. Abortion is a second rape. It odes not help a woman. Try listening to testamonies from these women themselves. Abortion is still muder.

      • Beth

        “Testimonies.” Try shutting your big mouth and running spell checker, idiot.

  • concerned christian teen

    what i don’t get is why a raped mom can’t carry the baby to term then give him or her up for adoption… thousands of parents would love to have a child… why should how the baby started life have anything to do with whether or not the baby is allowed to keep on living… if some one beats me up does that mean i have the right to go to his house and shoot his child in the head? no! then why should an innocent baby be murdered because his father was a bad person? Abortion actually hurts women more than most people imagine. if a raped woman decides to abort the baby and it’s done wrong, she might not be able to ever have another child again, even of her choice. ABORTION IS MURDER!!!!

    • Solntsye

      The reason why raped women may choose to abort rather than place for adoption is because pregnancy, itself, is pure hell…even in the best circumstances (a happy couple wanting the baby). And after nine months of pure, unadulterated hell, she gets to endure the ungodly agony of labor and delivery. All that, for absolutely nothing.

      That is why abortion is chosen. I’m not implying by this statement that I agree with what I’ve said here, I’m purely just explaining why abortion may be chosen. Personally, I hope and pray for the sake of the baby, that the raped mom can find a way to be willing to carry and deliver. But I certainly can not blame her for choosing not to.

      • Kristiburtonbrown

        Just a thought – you’re way overexaggerating when you say that pregnancy, even in the best circumstances is “pure, unadulterated hell”. Uh, where did you get that? I’ve been pregnant and yeah, I was uncomfortable, a bit sick, and had other strange things happen to my body, but it wasn’t hell at all. Even labor and delivery, while very painful and hard was not “ungodly agony.” I realize that some women have it worse than me, and some better. But let’s not go around making such an absurd blanket statement about pregnancy and delivery as a whole =)

        • Solntsye

          Yes you were one of the lucky ones. I don’t like to go into detail of my pregnancies, as nobody loves to sit and chat about war wounds, but I will give some details.

          With each baby, I was horrendously sick before I was even due for that time of month. So each time I took a test and had a positive (I never had a pregnancy “scare”, as any time I got sick to this magnitude, I knew I was pregnant…and I was correct each time). With all three of my kids, I knew I had each of them at day 16-19 post conception, per jelly-on-the-belly ultrasound. We could see them that early because I was (and still am, just not as much as when I was in my 20’s, lol) a rather slim woman to begin with, so external imaging them that early was not difficult.

          I never knew I could physically have so much pain or be as tired as I was- I fell asleep behind the wheel several times, and did wrap my car around a pole once. I was so tired it was painful. But sleep was elusive, as the entire time (for each baby) the hot and stabbing non-stop pain of my chest kept me awake. I could doze while vomiting, though…just let in roll out of me and onto a towel, and that was the other non-stop joy. First it was the usual water/food; then (once eating was no longer in play) it was water and bile; then the coffe grounds of gastric bleeding; then straight blood…and none of this abated, for nine solid months, for each pregnancy.

          Like I said, I was a rather slim woman at 5’6, before my first baby I weighed 100-102ibs. The morning after I had her, I clocked in at 87 ibs. With my second baby, the morning after delivery, I was 94 ibs. The morning after my third, I was 92 ibs. Needless to say, I was emaciated after each pregnancy, but so relieved the absolute hell of it was over each time. And you better believe we did everything possible (short of me on the pill) to keep it from happening, after our first one. But of course when it happened twice more despite our best efforts…well, what can you do?

          I was so sick each time that, with my first one, I lost my job. My employer didn’t like my non-stop ralphing (and it was about every 20 minutes, lasting about 15 minutes each time…even while “sleeping”). Nor did she like my “narcolepsy”, as if I sat down for one moment, I might just tip over and start to sleep…or ralph…or both. She explained that she couldn’t run her business with me like this, apologized, and fired me. I had been there a year and had never taken time off, was always on time, did my job and never made any comment to anyone about anything. When I started the illness on my second time around, I resigned from the job I had…it was either that or get fired again, as I knew this wasn’t going to stop until after I delivered (and I was right again). I wasn’t working by time I had my third baby.

          Without a job, I had no benefits. So each delivery was alone at home. My husband’s employer for our first two offered no benefits to workers, so we were dependant on my jobs…but those were gone, so there was that. For my first two, I had a friend catch for me (with me helping); the last one hubby finally got brave and did the honors. But after nine months of pure hell, feeling beaten within an inch of my life, to then going through labor/delivery?! All I can say is, each time it was pure hell. There is nothing else I can call it. There are no words to describe how ungodly painful it is. To this day, I’m not sure if all the vomiting I did during each delivery was just the continuation of the non-stop ralphing of the pregnancy, or if it was a result of how much agony I was in.

          So that was my experience three times around. After my first time, when I saw a positive test for babies 2 and 3, my heart sank, knowing what I was in for. When I saw it for the second time, I truly did think about committing suicide- I just didn’t want to live through that hell again! I didn’t end it because of my first baby, and because of my husband. If I would have been single, and never had my first, I’d have jumped off the nearest bridge…no question.

          I love my kids, and I love my husband, but even in this “best case scenario”, I would have rathered be dead than go through pregnancy, labor/delivery. That’s why, I really would never be willing to carry a baby that came from a rapist. Sorry, I just could not go through that special kind of absolute hell for a baby conceived in a violent and degrading act.

          So your pregnancy sounds like one of the easy ones, and that’s great for you. But not all of us girls get lucky like that. So maybe you shouldn’t be making “such an absurd blanket statement about pregnancy and delivery as a whole”? Not trying to sound argumentative, but when you make pregnancy and delivery sound like a walk in the park…you aren’t quite telling the truth, and I know this…three times over. That’s why I could never blame a girl for not wanting to go through with it for a rape baby.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Wow, you definitely went through a lot to have your kids. I definitely recognize the incredibly hard times that some women – like you – have. But I think our two stories illustrate my point – pregnancy is neither a walk in the park nor “unadulterated hell” for all women. There are some on both extremes, but most fall somewhere in the middle. My point was simply that we shouldn’t make a blanket statement to tell people that their pregnancies will be just like ours, since that’s not true.

          • Solntsye

            Okay, considering the difference between your experience and mine, I’ll go along with you that maybe not every pregnancy is identical. It’s hard for me to imagine it any way other than what I had though! Maybe it’s because that’s all I know, three times through. I remember when I got to the fourth month of my first, and when none of the illness slowed…just praying I’d die soon- it hurts so insanely bad to bring up blood! And when I saw the positives for my third and fourth?! I wanted to die, right when I saw each. I thought about suicide more than once, but stayed because of my husband (and later, kids 1and 2). It’s so unbelieveable for me to imagine any gal being happy seeing a positive! I love my kids, but I sure didn’t love what I went through for them.

            But now my big question (and this is the crux of the whole matter to me): If I were raped and became pregnant as a result, do you think it would be fair to expect me to go through that, as a result of my rape? Is it okay to punish me for my rape, with an experience like that?

            I know I’m asking you a ticklish question there, and I apologize for even asking…a thousand apologies! But this is what reverberates most in my mind whenever we go down the path of babies conceived via rape. I’m pretty sure we’ve chatted this over before, and I think I’ve made it clear that I don’t encourage aborting the baby…yet couldn’t blame the woman if she did (for obvious reasons, when I picture myself). I can’t help but feel we’re throwing raped mom to the dogs when we insist she carry, putting her through hell for a violent attack on her, punishing her.

            Thanks for reading and considering!

    • Detroiter327

      If they want a child so badly they can adopt one of the 100,000+ children that are already in foster care. First of all, I think anyone who has been raped would take offense with you relating it to someone getting “beaten up”. But lets work with this flawed analogy! If someone were to beat you up, obviously you dont have the right to shoot their offspring in the head. But, if we are to use your analogy you would be forced to see/interact with your assailant on a daily or weekly basis for the rest of your life. In over half the states in our country a woman could be forced to co-parent with her rapist.

    • Beth

      Seriously… come back to this conversation when your “concerned christian teen” ass is old enough to procreate. Children don’t have a place in adult conversations.

      • Lark

        Beth, you are being reactionary and rude (I can’t say you “are” because I do not know you, but you are certainly being both in this particular discussion thread). You don’t have to agree with someone, you can even think they are ridiculous, but you are not behaving like an adult…which is ironic considering your above comment. Your name calling is embarrassing to read…as in, I am embarrassed for you.

        • Basset_Hound

          Thank you, Lark. I was waiting for someone to say this.

      • Bubbalouwee

        Have the stork deliver the little fellow to my place. A baby conceived in rape would be as lovable as a baby conceived by loving parents. Have you ever considered that the baby conceived in rape may help the mother heal from the trama of the rape? Pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Her husband, St. Joseph, was about to leave her before God revealed to St. Joseph in a dream the circumstances of her pregnancy. Our Lady knows about facing difficulties. Turn to her for help and she will lead you to her Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

        • Solntsye

          As a person, Bubbalouwee, I like you; and I like the things you believe. From what I read, you are one of the good guys.

          And I agree with you, a baby conceived either way is still a baby, completely innocent. Of course many people (such as yourself) would be more than happy to adopt if the raped mom didn’t want to raise the baby, but the question is: What if the raped mom is unwilling to go through the pregnancy, labor and delivery?

          Perhaps a pregnancy may help some women heal after rape, but another question that comes to mind is: What if the raped woman only worsened (from every aspect- emotionally, physically) with the pregnancy? The pregnancy not bringing healing, but rather causing her death (whether by suicide or starvation/dehydration)…then what? Is it more important she stay pregnant if it will surely cost us her life (and quite probably the life of the baby as well)?

          • Bubbalouwee

            Thanks for your kind words. Now, regarding your question. I do not like all the ‘what ifs’. There is so much that happens in life that is totally unexpected and there are many things we worry about that never take place. One needs to trust in Divine Providence. Trust in God is vital to leading a good life. Your question is basicly bordering on a life of the mother situation. I hate these sinerios. I would not want to lose the mother if the situation is so bad that you cannot save the infant, but if only the mother or the baby may survive, then the mother is faced with making the choice of whether or not to give up her life for the well-being of her infant. Doctor Gianna Beretta Molla was faced with this choice. She died in 1962 at the age of 39, sacrificing her own life for the safety of her fourth child. She was canonized a saint by Pope John Paul II in 2004. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made an heroic choice to save the life of her child but I do not think this would be the expected norm.
            St. Gianna Beretta Molla, pray for us.

          • Bubbalouwee

            Mental health and the normal difficulties of pregnancy is not a life threatening issue for the mother. I think St. Gianna Beretta Molla was dealing with uterine cancer, thus she had a life threatening physical condition. In modern day society in the USA, abortion is legal throughout the nine months of pregnancy and the culture of death proclaims this is how it should be with easy access to every women for mental health reasons. What a lie. Suicide rates are substantially higher for women following abortion than the normal population. Thus, when we are discussing life of the mother situations, we need to be sure we are referring to her physical health, such as the situation St. Gianna was facing.

          • Solntsye

            Thanks for the reply. I don’t know if you’re following the entire discussion here, but I’ve been chatting with Kristi just above here. I explain how I see compulsory pregnancy after rape as a punishment to the raped woman, should she not want to carry after rape. But it also is a difficult thing for me to abandon the innocent baby conceived by such violence. This whole thing is a constant upset for me!

            I know what your answer will be, of course. But I’d be interested to hear your explanation to my above comments. I’m looking for justification, you see. I’m trying to understand how we can ignore the plight of the woman. If you read about my experiences above, you might be able to see where I get my convictions…and understand why this whole issue has me so torn.

            Hoping I’ll see a reply! Have a great day!

          • Bubbalouwee

            Does suffering have a purpose? Can we find meaning in suffering? Can suffering be used for our own sanctification and for the benefit of others? Jesus Christ went to the cross for us. How much suffering am I willing to endure for love of God and others? Life is nothing but suffering. We need to find meaning in suffering and faith in God should tell us that suffering has value. I see you suffered considerably during your pregnancies. Have you ever considered offering up the suffering you endured during your pregnancies to Jesus for the benefit of another person? Perhaps a women is battling despair after taking the life of her child. Perhaps a women is contemplating abortion but really wants to have her baby and needs strength to make the choice for life. We could go on with other scenarios, but you get the point. I believe suffering is a mystery, and it most certainly has value.

          • Solntsye

            I’m not understanding this concept, although trying to. I would think the most noble thing we can do is try to alleviate suffering? I came very close a few times to thinking that life was no longer worth living, and considered ending it. I only held on for the sake of my loved ones, not for my own skin. I’d have been far happier to have been away from all my illness. How is this a good thing?

            I know this whole ideology I’m toying with can also extend into euthanasia, and all its’ implications. Yet I can’t help but wonder how can not stopping suffering be good? Heck, we criticize people who let their pets suffer too long in their last days! So how can we condone the suffering of humans? Although I also would never advocate aborting a seriously ill baby either. I would far rather give IV pain meds and let nature do whatever it will do.

            And even if we were able to make a raped mom completely comfortable throughout her pregnancy, how can we justify forcing her through it when she conceived in a non-consensual act? I understand the baby doesn’t have to justify being there, but how do we justify forcing an unwilling to be pregnant, raped woman into the pregnancy that resulted?

            Thanks for reading and responding! I swear, I really am trying to see this!

  • how would a rapiest know that he got the woman pregnant? He would hide away and not reveel himself to anyone. A confessed rapist is going to jail isn’t he? Abortion after a rape is a second rape. Just listen to the women themselves. Abortion is murder. It doesn’t help. and abortions have a bigger risk then women who carry to term. A women is twice as likely to commite suicide than women carry the baby to term.

    • Timmehh

      Once a certain amount of time has passed, it is incredibly difficult for a woman to prove that she has been raped. The rapist can then claim that they had consensual sex, and that the child is his. Most women are also raped by men that they know, so it isn’t too hard to see how he would find out she was pregnant.

    • Beth


      Dumb shit.

    • Detroiter327

      Its quite hard to prove you were raped. Many states also have a statute of limitation for rape. So it is possible for a “confessed rapist” to avoid jail time. http://www.relieffundforsexualassaultvictims.org/resources/statutesoflimitationcrim-D.pdf

  • Detroiter327

    I understand why everyone gets all salty on this topic, I really do. But what comforts me is the fact that this is the most insanely hypothetical of hypothetical situations that will arise with abortion. Forcing women to carry the product of their rape to term will never be a legal reality… ever. The polls that pro lifers like to toss around showing their gain also illustrate the firm line the American people have drawn on this issue. Politicians who openly admit they believe this are ostracized. Even the most conservative websites deem those who believe this as out there. Hell! They even label them a danger to the Republican party! The day this happens I will invite Rush Limbaugh over for dinner and serve up my horse as the entree.

    Should we make progress on the horribly odd problem of women being forced to co-parent with their rapist? Of course. But as far as no exception for rape or incest? Everyone can stand on their soap box and scream about murdered babies, bloody fingers, or whatever hyperbolic nonsense they want. Its not going to make a difference with this issue. Ever.

    On a side note! Since abortion is a “human rights issue”, please look at a map of countries that have no exception for rape or incest. The majority of these countries are also notorious for their horrible abuse of human rights.

    • “scream about murdered babies, bloody fingers, or whatever hyperbolic nonsense”

      Just calling the truth about abortion “hyperbolic nonsense” neither makes it so nor absolves you of moral culpability for siding with it.

      “Its not going to make a difference with this issue. Ever.”

      Yawn. Your various historical predecessors believed the same things about their supposedly-perpetual victories over the various groups they wanted to oppress, too. Thankfully, the good guys decided to take their chances with sticking to the right thing, and held out far longer than the pro-life movement has been working.

      “The majority of these countries are also notorious for their horrible abuse of human rights.”

      Really? You’re going to invoke “abuses of human rights” in the same breath as you’re defending one?

      • Detroiter327

        1.Comparing yourself to to someone who ended slavery or a fascist regime really helps provide evidence for your “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” diagnosis.

        2. Have any commenters preformed an abortion and then typed with literal bloody fingers while commenting? I doubt it. Hyperbolic nonsense? Check! Is abortion legally or medically considered “murdering a baby”. Legally? No. Thats why abortion is legal. Medically? No. Thats why someone invented different terms for the different stages of development. Thats why you dont take your 9 month old child to see a perinatologist. Thats why you dont see a pediatrician if you are having pregnancy complications. Hyperbolic nonsense? Check!

        3. The same thing you are campaigning for is enacted in mostly fascist and cruel societies. Also, attempting to criminalize abortion has never been a legitimate part of the human rights movement. Attempting to bestow such a title on yourself is both exaggerated and narcissistic.

        4. Debate everyone all you want. This will not change the outcome of the situation on abortion in the case of rape and incest. Ever.

        • Basset_Hound

          Would you call Poland a “fascist and cruel society”. In 2011 they proposed legislation that would remove the “rape and incest” provision from their already strict law. This was in response to a petition drive that collected over 600,000 signatures in just two weeks. Unfortunately the EU has put a kebosh on their plans. Spain has also moved to restrict the abortion of disabled babies. So I guess that makes them a cruel society too.

          • Detroiter327

            No but I would consider the other 90% fascist and cruel. Feel free to look them up!

          • Basset_Hound

            Oh, you mean the EU court’s attempt to override the laws of the individual countries and mandate abortion on demand as a “human right”? The same court ruling that violates freedom of thought, conscience and religion of individual physicians and forces them to perform abortions regardless of their personal beliefs? Wow. That’s freedom!

          • Detroiter327

            According to the EU courts abortion is a human right. You might want to correct that “attempt” part.

          • Lark

            I was thinking the exact same thing…

        • “Comparing yourself to to someone who ended slavery or a fascist regime really helps provide evidence for your “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” diagnosis.”

          Hardly. I’ve never claimed to have courage, accomplishment, sacrifice, or any other heroic virtue to a greater degree than the average decent person, and I’ve certainly never claimed to have them anywhere near the degree of those movements’ heroes. The only thing I claim to have in common is that I side with human rights against my generation’s tyrants and monsters.

          Frankly, I see my advocating for the unborn to be the *bare minimum* duty of any decent human being who understands the issue. So it’s not that I see my side as so much above the norm; it’s that your side is so far below it.

          #2: More semantic detours from a faux fact-checker. Yawn. You know full well what I’m referring to by “the truth about abortion.”

          “The same thing you are campaigning for is enacted in mostly fascist and cruel societies.”

          Then it’s all the more remarkable that you support an extreme that not even “fascist and cruel societies” will go to, isn’t it? This whole guilt-by-association idiocy is another attempt to avoid direct, logical discussion of the real issue. If something is right, it’s right regardless of who else does it.

          “Also, attempting to criminalize abortion has never been a legitimate part of the human rights movement.”

          A claim you can only make if you’re defining “human rights movement” as something other than “those who fight for human rights.”

  • Lark

    I enjoyed reading this. Thank you for taking on a very sensitive subject, Mr. Freiburger.

    Looking at the comments was really disconcerting. Some were very though-provoking while others are….very reactionary, to say the least.

    Focus should be on eliminating the “crisis” in a crisis pregnancy, not eliminating the pregnancy (forget who first said that!). Abortion doesn’t undo the terrible act of violence a raped woman suffered. I never stopped to consider how unprotected women are in most states from having to co-parent with the man who raped them. Wow…can you say messed up legal system????? No wonder so many women who abort don’t feel they have any other options. Abortion is a “band-aid”. As long as it’s presented as the “best” option for so many women facing a crisis pregnancy, I don’t believe the legal system will be fixed the way it needs to be.

    If you think a wanted baby is a person from the start (if not, I’d like to know just when they magically become a human being and thus worth protecting), than it follows we must protect the unborn–ALL of them, wanted or not–from the beginning. Not at the mother’s expense, but *as much* as the mother. Both their lives are precious. It still boggles my mind that to many a child’s worth is determined solely by factors so outside their control until they are born. A pregnant woman who wants her baby is murdered and it’s double homicide. A woman doesn’t want her baby and she can legally abort…

    Also, are we forgetting that women who have abortions, no matter the reason, are statistically at higher risk for depression, suicide and (in some cases exponentially) breast cancer? No woman deserves that, especially a woman who is the victim of such a violent and deplorable crime.

    And I have been pregnant. It wasn’t easy, but it certainly wasn’t “hell”. Are we forgetting that a child conceived in rape gets half their chromosomes from their mother???? It’s not *just* the rapists baby….and that baby has his/her own DNA, blood type, etc. It’s a unique human being worthy of love, regardless of how horrible a human being his/her father is.

    Just an opinion. Take it or leave it. Bottom line, it comes down to whether or not you think an unborn baby is a human being. If yes, it’s got to be from the start (if not then, when?). And if yes, than the circumstances of his/her conception do not define his/her worth. Their worth is inherent, just like any born baby.

    If you don’t think an unborn baby is a person….than it makes no sense to be against abortion on demand (even aborting just because the baby is a girl and the mother doesn’t want a girl), late-term abortion or even partial birth abortion, and if an unborn child is killed because their mother is murdered, than that should mean nothing in a court of law. Right?

    Whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, exceptions don’t make much sense.

    • Basset_Hound

      Excellent post.

  • Dave

    If they’re admitting to being the father, and the mother is claiming it’s rape, why isn’t the father being locked up?

    Just thinking out loud here…

    • Detroiter327

      Its quite hard to prove you were raped. Many states also have a statute of limitation for rape. So it is possible for a “confessed rapist” to avoid jail time. Read the articles that Calvin linked to.

  • peach

    “For instance, it seems to me that, at the very least, the standard of evidence necessary to keep the rapist away from his victim and her kids should be lower than the standard necessary to put him away for life”

    ??? 97% of rapists won’t spend a day in jail. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates The system is waaaay more flawed than you seem to realize.

    • Detroiter327

      Welcome back!

    • And back to form, imagining nonexistent errors in my writing, as usual. Nothing I’ve written above claims or implies that the system is adequately punishing rapists.

      • peach

        You suggested the solution was as simple as passing a law that would prevent convicted rapists from getting parental rights. I pointed out to you that the majority of rapists will never be convicted so your solution isn’t that helpful.

        • No, I talked about addressing the laws THE ARTICLES I’M RESPONDING TO REFERRED TO. Further, the VERY QUOTE YOU CITE is talking about about how you SHOULDN’T need a conviction to keep a rapist away from his victim and her kids. The very quote!

          Sorry, Peach, but at some point you really have to start trying to understand posts before complaining about them.

          • peach

            “…and fathers should be awarded nothing regarding their children until their rape investigations and trials are completed. And convicted rapists should automatically lose any and all access to the children they sired, period.” You wrote this, right?

          • …………aaaaaaaaaand?

          • peach

            Well I think we can take it from that quote that you think that if a “father” goes through trial and isn’t convicted he should have rights to the child. You said nothing should be awarded to “fathers” UNTIL the investigations and trials are completed which implies that after all that they can go ahead and access their children if they weren’t convicted? As I already stated, the majority of rapists will never be convicted, if they even get to trial in the first place.

            In THE VERY QUOTE(!!!!) I cited, you said the standard to keep rapists away from their victims should be less than the standard necessary to put the rapist away for LIFE. A life sentence is practically a non-existent punishment for rapists, so what are you defining as less than that? The fact is, the majority of rape cases won’t go to trial and there will be no investigations and standards of evidence. So do you believe that in those cases, a rapist (and note, I am calling him a rapist, not a father, he does not deserve that title) can go ahead and fight for parental rights? Please actually respond to my argument and my question this time instead of just foaming at the mouth.

          • You don’t have any argument or meaningful question, Peach. You have false inferences that exist only in your own mind, created by either reading comprehension problems or pathological biases. That’s it. I trust the rational, unbiased readers to understand what you deliberately don’t.

          • peach

            Well fuck you too Calvin. I know it’s hard to have a woman put you in your place.

          • peach

            And because I know the original reply I left will be deleted, I will ask you another question. Don’t you want more people on your side? Don’t you think it would be helpful for you to explain how I’m supposedly misunderstanding your article? Wouldn’t it be better for you not to treat other people so rudely? I don’t think Jesus would approve of you quite frankly. Your defensive posturing is pitiful. Detroiter said you have Narcissistic Personality Disorder…I think you’re a straight-up psychopath.

          • For the benefit of our readers, the original reply Peach was referring to was, “Well f*** you too Calvin. I know it’s hard to have a woman put you in your place.” It had to be deleted because of the f-bomb, but I think it’s illuminating for people to see Peach’s knee-jerk willingness to (crassly) slander people as sexists. It only adds support to my assessment of Peach’s conduct and and highlights the complete lack of interest in fairness and accuracy she brings to this conversation, meaning that no amount of explanation on my part would persuade Peach to stop misrepresenting my writing. (And keep in mind, this is no isolated incident, but the latest in a long record of disingenuous and generally unscrupulous commenting from Peach.)

            Nowhere do I say or imply that rapists are being adequately prosecuted and punished, that escaping a rape conviction is some kind of automatic green light for parental rights, etc. And I simply do not believe it is plausible for reasonably competent, fair-minded people to infer such a message. Even so, if a reader without your record poses similar questions, I will give that person the benefit of the doubt. But I won’t waste time with you.

          • peach

            Your knee-jerk reaction was to call me stupid and crazy so how is that any better? You’re right that you didn’t (outright) say anywhere that rapists are adequately prosecuted. But you don’t seem to care about that. That’s my problem. You acknowledge these laws are problematic but you don’t seem to know just how bad it really is and you don’t seem to care. I can tell just by reading the title of this article that you find this problem fickle as you so flippantly dismiss it with an “oh, please.” You want women to be forced to carry their rape babies whether or not they’d be protected.

            This is why people think you hate women and this is why people think pro-lifers don’t care about the baby once it’s actually born. And I don’t like your attitude. It’s not worth your time to back up your arguments and refute my points, but you do have plenty of time to piss and moan that I’m not being fair? In that case, don’t waste your time with me at all. Don’t reply to me again.

          • Solntsye

            Calvin makes mention that there’s no reason why any state that would consider banning rape abortions can not also bring up the parental rights issue simultaneously. It’s a no-brainer that pro-lifers would like to see rapists properly prosecuted and sentenced, unlike how they are currently. The “oh, please” comment would be because no pro-lifer would ever want or encourage a rapist to be able to have any sort of parental rights or ANY access to his victim or kids resulting from his attack. All of this is common sense, Peach. Anybody with an IQ greater than 10 could figure that out. It’s also pretty blatantly obvious that the HuffPo article was nothing more than a smear campaign.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Here’s the ultimate question that (I believe) Peach is trying to get at:
            If a woman is raped, and paternity is established, but rape CANNOT be
            (rather than consensual sex), then how, if at all, does the man lose his
            paternal rights?

            As Peach pointed out, and what you refuse to consider, because so few rapes are prosecuted, and so few of those prosecutions result in convictions, this leaves a lot of women who have been raped, have children, and have no legal recourse to sever their rapist’s parental rights.

            That’s why this issue isn’t a “no-brainer,” and it doesn’t really matter what Calvin “thinks” should happen, because that’s not the reality of the legal system and the reality that women live in.

            also won’t be continuing to engage in this dialogue, in large part
            because my computer seems to have developed a new inability to post on
            this site. It just doesn’t seem to register at all when I click post?
            Too frustrating.

          • peach

            Thank you! Yes that’s what I was getting at.

  • Detroiter327

    Happened across this very recent piece of news that is very relevant to this debate:

    • Basset_Hound

      Did you notice the list of “Related Stories” on this page, particularly the second link regarding abortion law in the various EU countries. EVERY SINGLE ONE had limits. Many mandated counseling and required waiting periods for the procedure. They also had gestational limits, often as early as before the end of the first trimester. So according to your logic and claims to expertise, all the countries in the EU are “fascist, cruel societies”. BTW, here’s the link. I copied it to my list of resources…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

    • Basset_Hound

      Did you notice the list of “Related Stories” on this page, particularly the second link regarding abortion law in the various EU countries. EVERY SINGLE ONE had limits. Many mandated counseling and required waiting periods for the procedure. They also had gestational limits, often as early as before the end of the first trimester. So according to your logic and claims to expertise, all the countries in the EU are “fascist, cruel societies”. BTW, here’s the link. I copied it to my list of resources…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

      • Detroiter327

        I am actually all for mandate counseling, and I am fairly ambivalent on waiting periods. Personally I feel that we should model our abortion policy on France. Nice try, but this dosent change anything.

        • Basset_Hound

          Okay, let’s take a look at France….

          “The woman must claim to be in a “state of distress” because of her pregnancy. After 12 weeks, abortions are allowed only if the pregnancy poses a grave danger to the woman’s health or there is a risk the child will suffer from a severe illness recognised as incurable. If this is the case, two doctors must confirm the risk to the health of the woman or foetus”

          What is a “state of distress”? What is a “grave danger to the woman’s health”? If there were some clear criteria that the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman’s life, I could go along with this. However, according to Doe vs. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, “health” is defined so broadly that it means anything.

          And how does one define a “severe illness recognized as incurable”? Down’s Syndrome? Spain has proposed revising a similar provision in it’s law because they’ve come to realize that those with Downs Syndrome and other disabilities are deserving of legal protection, and grow into citizens that are fully capable of participating in society.

          As for this provision…..

          “A pregnant girl under the age of 16 may ask for an abortion without consulting her parents first. But she has to be accompanied by an adult of her choice.”

          REALLY???? A 16 year old can’t be given an aspirin by the school nurse without parental consent. Why should she be able to seek out an invasive medical procedure without consulting her parents first? Especially if the hospital will have to get her parent’s permission should the abortionist botch the job and she needs treatment. It’s common knowledge that a teen’s brain is still too immature to consider the long term implications of decisions they make. They act on impulse, misread social cues and engage in all kinds of risky behavior. And what if the “adult of choice” is the 22 year old sexual predator who impregnated her in the first place? This only opens up teens to exploitation.

          However, I’ll grant that mandate counseling is a step in the right direction, albeit a tiny one.

          So, I’ll ask again, are the countries in the EU all “fascist and cruel”?

          • Sorites Paradox

            “It’s common knowledge that a teen’s brain is still too immature to
            consider the long term implications of decisions they make. They act
            on impulse, misread social cues and engage in all kinds of risky

            So clearly, we should allow these immature teens to make the decision to have and raise babies by themselves, right?

            What if a parent wants a teen to have an abortion? Do you think the teen should need permission to give birth? Why should a teen need parental permission for abortion but not to give birth? If a teen isn’t mature enough to decide on an abortion for herself, then why should she be considered mature enough to decide on gestation and giving birth, much less raising a baby, for herself?

          • Basset_Hound

            “So clearly…..”

            ABSOLUTELY NOT. The parents should STRONGLY recommend that the child be placed for adoption or they should work together as a family to provide care for the child.

            “Should a teen need permission to give birth?”

            Ridiculous question. The teen is a MINOR, under the care of her parents. Her parents are responsible for giving consent for medical treatment.

  • Timmehh

    Sigh…reading through all these comments is just depressing.

    • Basset_Hound

      No kidding.

  • ProTruth2

    The blame for giving rapists access to women and children lies not with those who protect the children, but with those who…well, give rapists access to women and children.

    Women and children aren’t kept under lock and key, you know. Because rapists are often fathers, husbands, and boyfriends, rapists have ‘access’ to women and children unless restraining orders are enforced, shelter space is available, and law enforcement agencies and courts recognize domestic violence and address it appropriately. There used to be bipartisan agreement that protection of women and children from rapists was a good thing that should be facilitated by the Violence Against Women Act. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to block continuation of the act on the grounds that it might protect immigrant women, a group that LiveAction allegedly cares about.

  • AHM

    You are forgetting the fact that the rape has to be reported and then tried in a court of law EVEN IN STATES WHERE RAPISTS DON’T HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS and then be convicted before his parental rights are terminated. Many rapes are not the violent dark-alley variety and occur in much more insidious manners. Older men manipulating and preying on younger susceptible women, boyfriends emotionally and physically abusing their girlfriends and coercing them via threat to “consent” to the deed. Many of these women are too afraid to even come forward with their stories until years later and some choose to seek out abortion secretly to hold on to some sort of the little amount of personal control they have over their lives.

    A rapist seeks to control his victim. What better way to seek control then to rape a woman and keep her under your control while she is forced to remain pregnant with your child. Since a woman can’t even put a child up for adoption without the consent of the “father” (I put that word in quotes for a reason) she is shit-out-of-luck if he refuses to consent. Then she is faced with no options. You may sugar-coat it anyway you like, but this is the harsh reality faced everyday by many women. Their reproductive organs and ability are used to keep them in bondage.