American Thinker published an article by Elise Cooper. Her title, The Rape Exception, got attention. The message was that Republicans should leave the exceptions in laws. It is this thinking that has brought us abortion on demand.
I will take this apart paragraph by paragraph. Elise’s first assertion, in paragraph 1, is that rape conception is extremely rare. Rape is grossly underreported. Even so, the reported number of rape conception is significant. About 32,000 pregnancies per year are a result of rape.
Elise interviewed experts who have dealt with victims. That needs to be qualified. Were they first responders, investigators, or long-term healthcare workers? Dealing with rape is a process, not an event. Rape is a traumatic, core violation.
A first responder cannot have the same knowledge as a person who engages her over time. Trauma skews everything. Perspective, emotions, logic, attitude, perception of time, decision-making, and concentration are negatively affected.
In paragraph 2, Elise tells us that many Republicans are in agreement with the majority of Americans that exceptions should be made. The majority of the Early American South were said to approve of slavery. Does that make it right? Just because others believe something, doesn’t make it right.
It is objectively wrong to kill another human being. You would say it is wrong to kill you, right now. Why?
In paragraph 3, Elise talked to an unnamed psychologist. The title of psychologist is supposed to convey authority, but there are three completely disjointed sentences there. What does the death penalty and Second Amendment have to do with taking an innocent life in the womb on moral grounds? Guns are the great equalizer. Loss of life can occur? Victims of rape are not afforded the same parameters? Wait what?
Is our psychologist suggesting the child deserves the death penalty for the crime of his or her father? Even those who rape do not deserve the death penalty, according to the Supreme Court. Only the most violent criminals are sentenced to death, but not without due process and among a jury of their peers. Is our psychologist suggesting the mother should be above the law? Should she be allowed to decide execution on her own?
What exactly is the psychologist saying here anyway?
Paragraph 4 emphasizes the trauma of rape, but concludes by suggesting that forcing children to carry their children to term is bad. The point is that she is already pregnant. She is already a mom. She knows there is a baby. It’s her baby. The police officer is quoted to say, “Would you force her to have the child of a horrible person?”
I know children of horrible people. I don’t think we should kill them because their parents are horrible.
She has been traumatized by rape. If you have seen what happens during abortion, you would agree that is another trauma. When she regains her ability to cope and she begins to heal from the rape, then the abortion, she will again be traumatized. She needs support and help to get through after rape. She does not need to be further victimized.
The police officer insists that choice is the key. What is the choice? Let’s be perfectly clear. The choice referred to is chopping up a baby and pulling that child from his mother’s womb. This leaves a mother of a dead baby. She is no less the victim of rape, but has compounded the impact to include the death of her child.
Elise tells us the officer has a good point. Then tells us that a UN report says that ISIS is torturing, raping and killing. Among those injured, was a nine year old, pregnant by rape. Why force her to relive nine months of torture? But, did she know immediately? One doesn’t usually know their pregnant for four to six weeks or more. So, it’s not nine months. That is disingenuous at best and a lie designed to cause confused compassion at worst.
She can be managed through her pregnancy with loving care and medical intervention that protects both patients, mom and baby. Caring for both, instead of intentionally killing.
Paragraph 6 is the only one that makes sense to me. I was conceived by violent rape, sexually abused as a child, sold into sex trafficking, and I conceived a child as a result. I have experienced this. If you have not, you cannot fully understand. That is why Elise should have interviewed people from this demographic.
Paragraph 7 takes us back to ‘her choice’. We must always define “choice”. This prosecutor deals with victims during their trauma. That is a temporary situation. Pregnancy is also always temporary. We must never make permanent decisions based on temporary situations.
In paragraph 8,9, 10 and 11 we are told the choice to kill the child is based on paternity. There are hundreds of thousands of men in prison. Should their children be killed? They are a reminder to their moms. Is the two-year-old child of a rapist on the table? They are more expensive. They need more resources. They aren’t as easily adopted as a newborn. Should she kill her?
If it is the mom’s choice, without anyone else intervening, why couldn’t she kill her teenage son, if his father rapes her or someone else for that matter?
In paragraph 12, we are reminded that laws preventing rapists from getting custody need to spread across the country. A woman, who carried to term and raised her baby, was notified that he now wanted access to the child. This is a horrifying scenario on many levels. Even if he an adult-only rapist, mom would be terrified every moment her little one is with him. If not, the child would be subjected to incestuous sexual abuse.
Sexual abuse is a core violation. It has a lifelong impact.
Ms. Cooper concludes her article stating that all interviewed said that the exception should be based on a woman’s choice. She should have interviewed us at Savethe1.
She says that women who become pregnant by rape should decide if they want to continue or prevent it.
Sorry, Elise, if she’s pregnant, she has a baby. The choice was already taken away from her. Her choice now, is to be the mother of a live baby or a dead one.
