One Rape Two Victims

Dear (name deleted):

I appreciate your kind note. It helps to explain why women who experience unexpected pregnancy due to rape are less likely to abort than those who experience unexpected pregnancy due to consensual sex. In the aftermath of the rape, your encounter with evil caused you to think very deeply about the prospect of inflicting pain and violence upon another. You could not even imagine consenting to violence against another human being. Not after what happened to you. You dealt courageously and head-on with a very important question: “Isn’t it better to suffer evil than to inflict evil?”

In a sense, the question is an easy one. The assumption of those supporting the “rape exception” (to criminalizing abortion) is plainly silly: that aborting the product of rape will put an end to the suffering of the rape victim.

After only a month, your suffering was barely beginning. I have known women who have been raped and not experienced a single nightmare for many months. But when those nightmares began, they went on for years and years. Counseling helps such women. But it will not bury the memory entirely. Terminating the life of a product of rape can no more cause a woman to forget a rape than terminating the life of a product of casual sex can cause a woman to forget a one-night stand. It is just plain common sense - the kind that often eludes us when we discuss abortion.

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?

Recommended

Georgia Conducted a Hand Count Audit of Its Election Results. Guess What it Found? Guy Benson

Advertisement

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.