The callousness of those who encouraged you to get the abortion is revealed by asking a couple of simple questions: What about the life of the rapist? Do we even remember the time when we used to execute the rapist rather than executing the baby for the crime of rape?
That was not a rhetorical question. It was in my lifetime. Before 1966, no state allowed for abortion in circumstances of rape. And no Supreme Court decision prevented states from executing for the crime of rape. In 1973, the Court said states cannot protect the product of rape from execution via abortion. In 1977, the Court said we must (repeat: must) preserve the life of the rapist because the constitution demands it. Today, some people applaud the right to kill the innocent human while shielding the guilty rapist from execution. In fact, they call themselves “humanists.” Some even call themselves “humanitarians.” I prefer to call them “intellectually bankrupt,” “morally bankrupt,” or both.
Of course, those who argue for the “rape exception” do not really believe in it. In order to have a rape exception, there would first have to be a presumptive rule against abortions for mere convenience. Such a rule would mean that men could no longer use women for sex and then use abortion to divorce themselves from the consequences. And that would involve learning to respect a woman’s body. This is hardly a goal of the sex-driven pro-abortion-choice male.
You stated correctly that there are two victims for every rape. There are also two victimizations of the same woman for every rape. The first is when a man uses the woman by forcing her to have sex against her will. The second is when another man uses the rape victim again in order to justify abortion. Both men are really the same. They are willing to use violence in order to get sex. That is why there really are no pro-choice men. There are only pro-choice males.