I certainly understand how this crime would be expected to cause an enormity of grief to the victim, and warrants deep support of them. However, i am informed that less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest, while the majority are convenience, and while you used rape as an argument against abortion, it seems that you are proabortion even for the majority of them.
Incorrect. And I presented my argument badly if that's the impression you have received in reading my remarks.
I am pro-choice. Meaning, a woman's personal sovereignty over her womb is her private right to decide to carry to term or not and is therefore none of my business.
Also, I don't think we can actually know the number of conceptions that occur due to rape because we can't first prove all rapes are reported. And then also we can't know if there was conception at the time of the rape in order to arrive at a valid number of rape conceptions. That makes it harder then to calculate how many abortions occurred because of the rape.
Moreover, as wrong as rape is, if someone ripped open the door of your car and threw in infant in it, or if you invited someone in your car who snuck in a baby, then you would not have the right to throw the infant, no matter how smelly and unwanted, out the window over a bridge.
Yes, it is your car, but you simply do not have the right to kill innocent life by expelling it from what is yours, be it car or body.
Not really a valid comparison there.
If someone ripped open the door of my car and threw an infant in it, they'd demonstrate they're not fit to have a child in their custody in the first place. And I'd be quite happy to protect that child from such a person by locking that door and speeding away with the child and to safety.
But that's not a rape scenario is it?
The baby is already born, dressed, crying, "smelly and unwanted" . And a car is not a uterus.
Whereas, if a man breaks into a woman's hotel room, beats her to near unconsciousness, rips her panties off and has his way and after the fact she's late and finds she's pregnant two weeks after the rape, she's fully entitled to decide whether or not she wishes to bring a 'rape baby' into the world.
Because every day of those nine months she's reminded as her body changes of that violent unconscionable man that ripped the
door of her car open and tossed his sperm inside. Her DNA mingled with his. And when that child is born they'll look somewhat like that rapist. A growing nine month repeated reminder of the rape that made that pregnancy possible is what that
car owner would suffer.
I don't believe I am entitled to command that rape survivor to stay pregnant with her rapists sperm result and against her will. That would be a second violation of her body. First she's raped. And then she's told, too bad, you have to keep the fruit of that rape alive inside you. Just like with the violence of the rape that rape victim would again be shown in that command to remain pregnant that she has no choice but to be a victim of her rapist again and for nine months.
I believe that rape survivor has a choice as to whether she wishes to give her rapists offspring life. Because should he be caught he would have the legal right to claim parental rights over her child if she carried to term. Imagine that one.
She's raped, she survives, she conceives, she chooses to keep the baby, her rapist is prosecuted, goes to prison, and when he get's out sues for parental rights and partial custody of his son or daughter. So that the rape survivor then would have to see him when he comes to visit and pick up the product of his violation of her. And this would last for 18 years and more.
