What Can You Say About a "Conceived In Rape" Tour?
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
June 2, 2011 - 5:04pm (Print)
It used to be that the anti-choice activists that advocating forcing women to carry their rapists children were the exception to the rule. But as the anti-abortion faction gets more power in the country, it's now turning into the rule, not the exception.
To push their agenda that fertilized eggs need to be given the exact same rights as a born, grown human, Personhood Mississippi is starting a campaign sure to catch headlines, if nothing else.
A "Conceived in Rape" tour.
Via God Discussion:
Personhood amendments are constitutional amendments that declare that human life begins at conception, no matter what the circumstances. This human life — no matter what stage of development, including a zygote — has constitutional rights. Terminating the development of a fertilized human egg is akin to murder under personhood amendments. Generally, under personhood amendments, the circumstances of the pregnant women are irrelevant because the fertilized egg has a constitutional right to life.
Under personhood amendments, a woman will not be able to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape.
Proposed personhood amendments failed in Colorado two times. Mississippi will be voting on its own personhood amendment this year. In an effort to promote its cause, Personhood Mississippi has started a "Conceived in Rape" tour featuring Rebecca Kiessling, who says she was conceived by rape and was slated for abortion. Kiessling states on her website,
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, "I think your mother should have been able to abort you."? It's like saying, "If I had my way, you'd be dead right now." And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life "except in cases of rape" because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don't put a face to this issue — for them abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.
In reply, some have said to me, "So does that mean you're pro-rape?" Though ludicrous, I'll address it because I understand that they aren't thinking things through. There is a huge moral difference because I did exist, and my life would have been ended because I would have been killed by a brutal abortion. You can only be killed and your life can only be devalued once you exist. Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.
But if her life can only be devalued once she exists, and she only exists because her life was protected from abortion, wouldn't that mean that if it was ended through abortion, she never would have existed? Isn't she essentially arguing against herself?
This is why personhood laws confuse so many, I guess.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
What sort of person would make her living off claiming victim status so that rape victims will be treated like cattle and forced to carry every pregnancy to term. I cannot imagine a better argument against allowing anyone on the religious right to adopt children.
She can deny it all she likes but her beliefs devalue women immeasurably, try to force us all to comply with some of the worst aspects of a fanatical, minority religious view and encourage rape and rapists. She devalues other women so much that she fails to realise how deeply insulting her beliefs are .
Since her mother is only a worthy person for continuing a pregnancy resulting from rape. In this person's eyes, a woman who survives a rape but chooses to abort a resultant pregnancy is 'wrong' or 'bad'... let's say her mother had one child, then aborted a second pregnancy because it was created in a rape. She would consider her own mother a wretched person for doing this! Her own mom is only worthwhile because she had a baby in these circumstances.
I can't imagine how I would feel if my own daughter took it upon herself not only to broadcast my rape, but to make it abundantly clear that she would think me a terrible person for ending a pregnancy that was concived by rape.
I can't imagine how I would feel if my own daughter took it upon herself not only to broadcast my rape, but to make it abundantly clear that she would think me a terrible person for ending a pregnancy that was concived by rape.
I would feel like a utter failure as a parent if I had raised such a daughter. It's really a vile way to make money
Very much agreed, Colleen.. Really, above-described, narcissistic enama-nozzle is a living advertisement for the notion that ALL rape pregnancies should be aborted without exception. Fortunately, I personally know some really great people whose conceptions were the product of rape. Sadly, all of them suffer low self esteem due to the knowlege of their conceptual origins. Personally, if I were to decide to continue a pregnancy that resulted from rape (in some alternate universe where I gave a fuck about insensate clusters of barely differentiated human tissue and desperately wanted to create and parent a child), I would absolutely NOT tell the child how he or she was conceived. I would tell the child that he or she was the result of a beautiful and memorable night of passion with a fantastic guy I met on vacation in which the condom broke and my contraception failed me.
I have an ex-boyfriend who was adopted (and absolutely, unequivocally, pro-choice, because I would never knowingly fuck or have a relationship with a forced-birther aka narcissistic, misogynistic piece-of-shit). He had fabulous, loving parents, but still always felt as if he were less than, because he didn't look like anyone in his family and because he could not get over the fact that his biological mother had "thrown him away." He was born in 1967, during the time in which young women were not given a choice in the matter, but his fear of having been conceived via rape was so overwhelming that he could not bring himself to even begin the process of seeking her out...I felt like "OMG, how could you NOT want to know who your mother was! What if she's been desperately longing to find out how you are all this time?" But then I imagined how horrified I would be to discover that I was the product of rape, especially during a time when women were not given a choice in the matter, and I realized that I would probably be paralyzed by the same fear. But I can't help thinking that it's more likely that she wanted him and was coerced to give him up to "a more deserving couple" and was devastated by the loss of him all her life.
I'm sure the rapist was really "hurt" that people didn't recognize his extra special entitlement to have whatever he wanted at the expense of others as well.
Personally, I don't think we need any more spawn from the self-centered and selfish, since apparently thinking the world should revolve around you is an inherited characteristic.
This is why I, personally, would never gestate the seed of a rapist and why I think that other women also should abort rape pregnancies. But, unlike the empathetically-challenged forced-birthers who insist upon infesting this blog, I would never deign to pressure/coerce/use force of law to induce a woman to abort a rape pregnancy.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of her letter is to comment that “abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it,” which is not true. At least one can just as easily argue that this statement of hers is based solely on her personal concept of the situation, and not the actual reality or truth of any situation were an abortion might take place. Abortion is not “just a concept.” That makes no sense, because technically a “concept” is just that—“a concept,” which is a thought, a possibility, a theory, a law of nature, an abstract, a rule, a notion, or a fact that can be proven—“ a concept is an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances,” a “concept” is not necessarily an actuality, it is not necessarily a tangible moment. To say that “abortion is just a concept,” is to say that it is an abstract thought, which can become a rule that could be proven, but in reality—it is only a theory. Abortion is actually a tangible subject that actually happens—it can be a person’s reality. Then to call it “a quick cliché” is also an odd way to phrase the subject because that would mean that abortion is nothing more than just “a trite or obvious remark,” which I suppose she is meaning in the way that she has addressed the fact that she was not terminated—she was not aborted and did not become “a trite or obvious remark”?? Sorry to pick about this, but language is language and clarity is key when using language to make a certain point—or why use it? However, what I find most distressing is the pro-life movement going back to the same well over and over, which is that women who seek abortions “sweep it under the rug and forget about it” because that is really, really obnoxious and really not true. First, if you are raped you do not forget, unless you suffer from PTS—then if you find that your rapists impregnated you after he also might have left you near death from the attack you never “sweep it under the rug,” never! Think about those implications: a woman brutalized, perhaps beaten, or drugged, perhaps with broken bones, cuts, black eyes, etc. The worst one can imagine—and left pregnant by the attacker. Next comes shame, blame, loss-of-self, and hatred—a deep hatred, perhaps for so many things that she no longer can grasp on to what to hate the most. I know. I was raped. I fought, boy did I fight, but it still happened-only I was “lucky” and not left to deal with being pregnant by my attacker. If I had been, would I have really been ready to welcome my bundle of joy into my life? Frankly, I do not think I would have thought of that baby as a symbol of joy no matter how innocent other people would try to convince me that it was—if there had been a baby. And they would have tried to convice me of it, if they were not supportive of me (the person attacked), or had any true empathy towards me, and I think I might have run away from them—even hated them for making me feel that my life was now to be given to the child that was given to me by my rapist. In that case—if I, or any other woman that such a terrible thing happens to, sees that baby to term—is able to tolerate doing so, then adoption would have been the only answer for me. Moving on—“sweeping under the rug,” never! All that can be said is: Birth Control Pills for every woman of child bearing years—without a doubt! If men must rape, then women (all of the ones that could become pregnant, need to be on the pill) let us still give all women the power to control when and under what circumstance she may conceive.
Goddammit, I swore I was gonna be good...but if this little self-entitled former blastocyst thinks this world is ever so much better because she is in it...then I fucking expect her to work towards rape education and prevention, mandatory maternity care, adequate nutrition for Mom and blastocyst, resources and education that permits the Mom and former blastocyst to survive and prosper in a hostile world...etc...
...Not marvelous, wonderful, amazing me is here...please applaud.
I think that Rebecca Kiessling is probably a better individual than any of the above posters who make light of her and her story, and will probably influence more people to the pro-life side than will any of the above individuals to the pro-choice side.
I think that Rebecca Kiessling is probably a better individual than any of the above posters who make light of her and her story, and will probably influence more people to the pro-life side than will any of the above individuals to the pro-choice side.
As opposed to actual rape victims...
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
When my IUD failed, I used abortion as backup and then had my tubes tied. (Which worked. & now I'm in menopause I don't have to worry.) He was willing to have a Vas (simpler operation), but I (pragmatially) said a tubal protected me from getting pregnant from rape. I don't know if the laws had been different if we would have had my tubes tied earlier, or if I would have done an abortion-foreign-"vacation" or back alleyed or dealt with the pregnancy. I don't know if my marriage would have survived. I'm glad I didn't have to find out. I wouldn't want other couples having to go through that. I'm wouldn't tell a pregnant-from-rape woman who asked my advice -- I wouldn't know about it otherwise, I don't intrude on strangers -- that she should or shouldn't abort. I'd listen to what she has to say, and encourage her talk it out and make her own decision.
I have a friend of a friend who I think would puzzle you. She's a grandmother half-raising the children of one of her children because her ex-Daughter-in-Law mostly can't be bothered with taking care of her kids. Anyway, she loves her grandkids, does a lot for them, ... and simultaneiously wishes her son & his former wife had never met. Wishing things had gone differently isn't wanting to erase the people who now exist (and are loved). What kind of BS lecture would you have for her?
So let me get this straight. Because I support rape victims having a choice in what happens to their bodies as opposed to having no say in the matter and being essentially forced to give birth, I must hate Rebecca and wish her dead?? It's so obvious to me now....*snort*
Someone forgot to tell Ms. Kiessling that no matter what she thinks, it really isn't all about her.
of the PRO-RAPIST moniker.
Not that I needed any help in seeing that you are a pig who thinks women's civil, human and Constitutional rights should be illegal, and that men should have the absolute right and authority to perpetuate their gene pool upon any and all females, by force and violence.
I think you've crossed the line into getting your ID banned (well, this particular sock of the week, anyway) for hate speech against women. Reported.
Did you know that most rape victims don't abort their pregnancies if they happen to become pregnant?
Would that be because they chose not to have an abortion?
Still, that's actually not so important. The issue is certain people claiming that Rebecca shouldn't exist, and then even have the gall to try to attack her for speaking out against abortions in rape which, if performed, would have led to her not being here.
No, actually, the issue is certain people claiming that Rebecca should exist, and then even have the gall to try to attack pro-choicers for speaking out against anti-choice policies which, if enacted, would not prevent her not being here.
I remember making a similar point ages ago in regards to children born into poverty, for example.
I guess people don't even have the choice of abstaining in your world.
Some individuals really are deserving of the pro-abortion moniker.
Yes, that would be people who force women into having abortions. They're anti-choice, just like you---they just feel differently about what the woman should not have a choice about.
"Did you know that most rape victims don't abort their pregnancies if they happen to become pregnant?"
~ Most likely because they do not have the power, information, or resources, and it just pleases you and your, I-love-rape pro-forced-birth ilk. ~
~ You are a man who has been banned four or five times. You cannot get pregnant, you do not have to worry about getting pregnant from a rape, and then being forced to stay pregnant to give the pro-lifer Christian taliban their sadomasochistic misogynistic pleasure. ~
~ After being raped the rape victim wants everything from the rapist as far away from her as possible. She wants the right to say NO as soon as possible.
She could not say NO the first time, and the christian republicans want the right to keep her from being able to say NO again. She wanted to be able to say NO, a penis will not be in me, and use and abuse my vagina against my will. She wants the right to say NO a fetus cannot be in me, and use and abuse my vagina against my will. That is two times in a row she is not allowed to say NO in regards to her own life, body, and vagina. ~
~ Raped pregnant women and raped pregnant little girls have physical and emotional feelings; an embryo or fetus does not. And christian republican conservative pro-lifers are so vicious, so heartless about rape they want to torture a raped woman or raped little girl emotionally and physically for that that has no physical and emotional feelings.
NO! Pro-lifers do not give a damn about rape, not one tiny damn. Rape is nothing to them, nothing. Like rapist pro-lifers are just aspiring vagina dictators. ~
~ Pro-lifers want to force raped pregnant women, and raped pregnant little girls to breed with their rapist. Forcing a girl or women to stay pregnant from rape makes the rape a billion times worse.
I am already scared of being raped, if the pro-rape pro-lifers get their way girls and women will not only have to worry and be terrified about being raped by a penis, but also by forced birth after that. ~
~ The Christian republican conservative pro-lifers say to raped pregnant women and raped pregnant little girls, here have another jumbo rape with nine months to anticipate it courtesy of Christianity. Well I got the message loud and clear and that is the reason I am now an atheist. ~
~ Arectaris-born-panhandler you keep coming back and back just to hurt women. You are an extreme misogynistic creep and the pro-rape movement is full of " CHRISTIAN MEN" just like you. ~
Unsurprisingly, I see the troll accusations are back in full swing today. I have yet to see any pro-lifer post here who is not accused as such, regardless of the contents of their post. As I've said before, you are free to believe whatever you wish, not that this will make any difference either way.
More to the point of Rebecca, to reiterate what I said prior, her and her story will probably do more to win people over to the pro-life side than those attacking her and her story will win over to the pro-choice side. It's easy to say what a woman should do or should be allowed to do when you don't have to put a face to that "choice". It's a lot harder to do so when you have to associate that "choice" with a face. That is probably why some pro-choicers get so upset at the idea of someone, even a woman, having the gall to point out that they would be one of those aborted if abortions even in instances of rape were legal. If someone was conceived in rape yet their mother was disallowed from having an abortion, would you tell them that they shouldn't exist? It appears as if the "argument" being levied against Rebecca is that she has no right to speak out against abortions in the case of rape even after considering the circumstance surrounding her existence and that she should have been aborted if that's what her mother wanted to do. Is that not a callous position to take? How many of you would say this to her face? Do the opinions of those most affected by an action not count in the world of pro-choicers? Would it matter if the majority of women who were raped said that abortions shouldn't be permissible even in rape? Exactly whose opinion matters and whose does not?
It's often said how much compassion pro-lifers/conservatives lack, but I find the true lack of compassion to be coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.
I would say that the opinion that matters most is the opinion of the woman who was actually raped. Could you honestly look a rape victim in the face and tell her that she should have no say in the matter? That some political activist or state legislator knows what's best for her and should be able to control her body against her will ?
If someone is raped and chooses to give birth, that is their decision. But the most important thing is that the choice is theirs.
And what about that "choice", which isn't just a "choice", but an actual individual? You cannot, in any good faith, simply discredit their existence. That is the point being made here and why Rebecca is perfectly justified in speaking out. Again I pose you or any of your fellow pro-choicers with the following hypothetical. If it was learned that Rebecca's mother wanted to abort her but could not for whatever reason, would you tell Rebecca that she shouldn't be alive and should have been aborted at her mother's discretion? I don't think you would say such a thing. Surely, no one here would say such a thing. I would hope not, at least, though I wouldn't be completely surprised if there was one.
I don't think you would say such a thing. Surely, no one here would say such a thing.
To someone who is trying to coerce or force (via laws) pregnant-from-rape women, all long with all pregnant women, 2nd class citizens & public property, etc. I would say this to her face, with the same level of passionate emotion that she is using, to defend coercing/making her mother.
She invites such pushback by what she is doing.
Anyone else, who is not interfering with other peoples privates lives, I would say no such thing. I would, for instance, not tell the kids whose grandmother wishes their parents hadn't met, that their grandmother thinks that, any more than the grandmother would.
If it was learned that Rebecca's mother wanted to abort her but could not for whatever reason, would you tell Rebecca that she shouldn't be alive and should have been aborted at her mother's discretion?
Rebecca's mother did want to abort her. Apparently she tried twice the back-alley way, according to Rebecca's story (can I get the name of those 'abortionists' to verify her story? ;-) ). Maybe her being born was meant to be, but we'd never tell someone to their face that they shouldn't be alive. If they weren't, they wouldn't know the difference, now would they? And I'd hardly call it 'whim' to choose to end a pregnancy that was the result of rape (or any for that matter).
Now answer Jennifer's question:
Could you honestly look a rape victim in the face and tell her that she should have no say in the matter? That some political activist or state legislator knows what's best for her and should be able to control her body against her will ?
Well if you think about it, we're all here as the result of choices that could've gone one way or the other. If my parents had not chosen to make love on that particular night in 1972 I would not be here either. And quite frankly, my answer is yes. I think that a four foot ten, ninety pound girl who was brutally assaulted at knife point on the sidewalk should've had a choice. I think all women who are assaulted deserve a choice. Rebecca's mother was a human being who was badly hurt. She matters too. She was not just an incubator for the child of a rapist. And if that sounds callous to Ms. Kiessling, I'm sorry. But again, it's not just about her.
And what about that "choice", which isn't just a "choice", but an actual individual? You cannot, in any good faith, simply discredit their existence.
No one here is discrediting anyone's existence. Unless you equate saying that a woman should have the right to an abortion with discrediting her offspring's existence, in which case, there's a whole bunch of faux-existence-discrediting going on!
That is the point being made here and why Rebecca is perfectly justified in speaking out.
No, the reason why she is perfectly justified in speaking out is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It ensures the right of anyone (even you!) to open their pie-hole and belch out whatever anti-choice claptrap they want. It also ensures our right to show her argument for the sham that it is.
If it was learned that Rebecca's mother wanted to abort her but could not for whatever reason, would you tell Rebecca that she shouldn't be alive and should have been aborted at her mother's discretion? I don't think you would say such a thing. Surely, no one here would say such a thing. I would hope not, at least, though I wouldn't be completely surprised if there was one.
Sorry, the pro-aborts are down the hall. No one here but us pro-choicers (plus an anti-choice interloper or two).
Of course, if it was learned that Rebecca's mother wanted to abort her but could not for whatever reason, would you tell Rebecca's mother that she shouldn't have had the right to an abortion at her own discretion? I think you would say such a thing. Surely, lots of people in your camp would say such a thing. I would hope not, at least, though (these days) I would be completely surprised if there were many who didn't.
The choice has NOTHING to do with the fetus and EVERYTHING to do with the (now, take a deep breath and say it with me) pregnancy.
If someone was conceived in rape yet their mother was disallowed from having an abortion, would you tell them that they shouldn't exist? It appears as if the argument, as I use the term lightly, being levied against Rebecca is that she has no right to speak out against abortions in the case of rape even after considering the circumstance surrounding her existence and that she should have been aborted if that's what her mother wanted to do
NO. That is not the argument being levied. You know that's not what any one here is saying, and Rebecca knows that's not what anyone is saying. You're doing the same thing she is; being purposly obtuse to instigate an argument. I guess the entire pro-choice position needs to be explained to you.
If a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, the most healthy thing for her to be able to do, is have control over what happens next. As another poster pointed out futher down the thread, this isn't about ensuring that pregnant rape survivors always abort no matter what. It's about making sure they have that option available to them if that's what they choose. Just like that's our position on ALL pregnancies. I don't understand this leap in logic. If I say that I want abortion available to all women who desire one, does that mean that I wish for no more babies to be born ever? Does that mean that I wish all of you were never born? No that's ridiculous. So why when we say that we want rape survivors to be able to access abortion, does that translate to: we don't any babies to be born out of rape ever, because we don't think those babies deserve to be here. That's not what anyone here is saying and you know it.
Abortion can be a healing thing. It can be an empowering thing. It can mean a fresh start for a woman. And continuing a pregnancy and giving birth can be all those things too. The key is, letting the woman decide for herself what she needs to do. Because she's the only one who has to live her life. Maybe an abortion would further traumatize her. Maybe giving birth would. I know you can't comprehend this, but there a far far worse things in this life then terminating a pregnancy.
I think it is sad, and disgusting that this Rebecca person is exploiting her mother's tragedy. Maybe she didn't deserve to be born if oppressing women is what she's doing with the life that was given to her. She's helping no one.
her and her story will probably do more to win people over to the pro-life side than those attacking her and her story will win over to the pro-choice side
I saw firsthand how her "story" - which is designed to shame pregnant rape victims - managed to upset and anger students and professors on my campus. I spoke with many people who attended her event with an open-mind, and walked out of it in disgust.
If someone was conceived in rape yet their mother was disallowed from having an abortion, would you tell them that they shouldn't exist?
This is your absurd excuse for logic. This is Kiessling's emotional bait pretending to be a legitimate argument or point of discussion. She assumes that wanting CHOICE (as in, more than 1 option or outcome) for pregnant rape victims is the same thing as saying "all people here today who were conceived in rape shouldn't exist/should've been aborted" or "Rebecca Kiessling doesn't deserve to be here."
What you fail to realize is that even without abortion, there was never any guarantee that Kiessling's mother's pregnancy would have ended with a live birth. She is not here with us today simply because her mother was "disallowed" from having an abortion, as you so glibly put it. There are a number of reasons that she is here today, and not just because abortion wasn't legal. It is perhaps far more likely that she is with us today because of good genes (preventing a spontaneous abortion) and because her mother also chose not to pursue the route of inducing an illegal abortion (which truly desperate women will do in the case of no-exception laws.)
And once again, not everything is about Rebecca. If I learned that I was conceived in rape and my mother for whatever reason had to keep the pregnancy, I would feel sad knowing that she did not have a choice. I do not think that my existence now is more important than every rape victim's pain and suffering. And certainly, the existence of an embryo then is not in any way more important than a raped woman's pain and suffering. I would not have the gall to insult my mother by capitalizing on her tragedy and essentially telling everyone, "She didn't have a choice. And she got over it, like every rape victim should just get over it, because now that *I* am here, choice doesn't matter."
Do you see how this is insulting, even sickening to tell women that their suffering doesn't matter? That all that matters is that their pregnancy MIGHT result in another Rebecca Kiessling? If a woman is raped, she did not have choice in whether or not she will have sex ... but then if she becomes pregnant as a result and wants an abortion, then people like YOU want to rape her again, by taking away her choice of whether or not she will endure pregnancy/childbirth. Can you see how I - and people like ack - would see this as being violated again? Can you even address the rape victim in the equation at all or does MY SUFFERING not matter as long as my pregnancy has the potential to result in a live birth?
By the way, It doesn't matter if a majority of rape victims think that abortion should not be permissible (AS YOU CLAIM) -- a majority group - simply by virtue of the fact that they are the majority - does not have the power to take RIGHTS away from a minority.
This is your absurd excuse for logic. This is Kiessling's emotional bait pretending to be a legitimate argument or point of discussion. She assumes that wanting CHOICE (as in, more than 1 option or outcome) for pregnant rape victims is the same thing as saying "all people here today who were conceived in rape shouldn't exist/should've been aborted" or "Rebecca Kiessling doesn't deserve to be here."
If you want to talk of absurd, then it's only fair to point out that this is absurd. If a woman is pregnant and she says she that she would like to have an abortion, you and every pro-choicer on this blog will argue that she should be allowed to have an abortion. If that woman is disallowed from having an abortion even though she wants one, you and every pro-choicer on this blog will cry bloody murder. If a woman wants to have an abortion yet she is disallowed from having one, and it results in a Rebecca Kiessling, then you are saying that Rebecca Kiessling should not have existed because her mother was denied the right to kill her while she was still in the womb. You can try to argue differently, as I know you will, but the fact is that is what it boils down to.
What you fail to realize is that even without abortion, there was never any guarantee that Kiessling's mother's pregnancy would have ended with a live birth. She is not here with us today simply because her mother was "disallowed" from having an abortion, as you so glibly put it. There are a number of reasons that she is here today, and not just because abortion wasn't legal. It is perhaps far more likely that she is with us today because of good genes (preventing a spontaneous abortion) and because her mother also chose not to pursue the route of inducing an illegal abortion (which truly desperate women will do in the case of no-exception laws.)
She's here because she was not aborted. If she had been aborted, there would be greater than a 99% chance she wouldn't be here today. As much of an inconvenient truth as that is, it's no more complicated than that.
And once again, not everything is about Rebecca. If I learned that I was conceived in rape and my mother for whatever reason had to keep the pregnancy, I would feel sad knowing that she did not have a choice. I do not think that my existence now is more important than every rape victim's pain and suffering. And certainly, the existence of an embryo then is not in any way more important than a raped woman's pain and suffering. I would not have the gall to insult my mother by capitalizing on her tragedy and essentially telling everyone, "She didn't have a choice. And she got over it, like every rape victim should just get over it, because now that *I* am here, choice doesn't matter."
Rights are moral claims we make of others. In that regard, yes it is all about Rebecca. Her life is hers, and she has the right to speak out against a practice in which her life would have been taken away from her by another. Your claim that somehow Rebecca is "insulting" her mother by capitalizing on her tragedy is not only an insult to Rebecca, but it's an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people conceived in rape every year who seek to outlaw abortion in cases of rape and even those women raped who still campaign to make abortions illegal in the case of rape. Do you find the existence of such individuals to be an "insult" or "insulting"? Do they have no rights to their own lives?
Do you see how this is insulting, even sickening to tell women that their suffering doesn't matter? That all that matters is that their pregnancy MIGHT result in another Rebecca Kiessling? If a woman is raped, she did not have choice in whether or not she will have sex ... but then if she becomes pregnant as a result and wants an abortion, then people like YOU want to rape her again, by taking away her choice of whether or not she will endure pregnancy/childbirth. Can you see how I - and people like ack - would see this as being violated again? Can you even address the rape victim in the equation at all or does MY SUFFERING not matter as long as my pregnancy has the potential to result in a live birth?
Which women is it sickening and insulting to? I know you don't speak for all women, much less all women who are raped, so you need to explain. I remember there being a blog by a woman who was raped who would take offense to your characterization that "making abortion illegal even the case of rape would seek to rape her again". I will see if I can find it, because it's worth reading, and illustrates just how callous pro-choicers can sometimes be.
To answer your question, I can empathize with someone who is raped. An abortion in the case of rape, however, does not make the rape go away.
By the way, It doesn't matter if a majority of rape victims think that abortion should not be permissible (AS YOU CLAIM) -- a majority group - simply by virtue of the fact that they are the majority - does not have the power to take RIGHTS away from a minority.
Yet you have no qualms about taking away the unborn's right to its own life?
Just explain to me why you don't think that a rape victim should be able to decide for herself whether or not she continues a pregnancy which was forced upon her in the first place? Is she suddenly transformed from a free human being into an unwilling baby carrier? Why shouldn't the decision be hers and hers alone? Could you really look a woman in the eye and tell her that she has no choice?
Because even though rape is a terrible thing, abortion would require forcing a decision on someone else (the unborn). And if it's wrong to force a decision upon the woman, it should be equally as wrong to do the same to the unborn child.
Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is obscenely sick and disgusting, evil, and immoral. Rape is a beyond horrible experience and then forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and then give birth on top of that is just sick and immoral.
Because even though rape is a terrible thing, abortion would require forcing a decision on someone else (the unborn). And if it's wrong to force a decision upon the woman, it should be equally as wrong to do the same to the unborn child.
The "unborn child," a.k.a. fetus, has no right to be inside the woman's body, just like your pint-sized penis has no right to be inside a woman's body. If either a fetus or your mini-penis are inside a woman, they are there by her own consent. If she withdraws consent, then it's a biohazard bin for the fetus, and the slammer for you, where the communal showers will earn you the nickname "Lil' Prick."
He might have a little more empathy for rape victims after his time in the slammer too.
You're pro-rape? You're pro-raping women and girls to create 'new life' that women are not allowed to prevent via emergency contraception or abortion? You need serious fucking professional help. The last time I heard a speech like that was on a locked ward in a forensic psychiatric hospital.
You are disgusting. Please stay in your mother's basement with your Warcraft, your anime pillow girl and your fleshlight, and never interact with real people. I beg you.
Every time I hear/see the word/concept 'unborn' I end up thinking the 'undead' ..... a woman is a PERSON, a living, breathing (on her own!) individual, with ideas, thoughts, emotions, RIGHTS.
The 'unborn' are just that --UN-BORN..... NOT full PERSONS WITH LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, or for that matter, 'moral' rights, OVER that of a BORN woman, or raped 13-year old girl, or incested 9-year old girl, or grown,thinking,USED or sick, or unable-to-feed-any-more children WOMAN.
Unless you are so perverse as to believe that an unborn embryo or foetus is more valuable, more important, or more imbued with 'PERSONHOOD' than a woman, you cannot be so self-indulgent a male as to believe that any sane woman would agree with you. Maybe you're a Catholic priest, or a cynical so-called Christian, or a member of the Taliban or some other type of insecure authoritarian male who just cannot tolerate women as full human beings/persons entitled to the same rights to their own bodies as are men ...but at least so far, in this constitutional society, lipservice is still given to women as citizens. Perhaps you ought to stop trying to control women by telling them what to do or not do , and do a little more serious self-analysis...
'the unexamined life is not worth living' Socrates via Plato.
Every time I hear/see the word/concept 'unborn' I end up thinking the 'undead'
If zygotes are "the unborn" you do have to wonder why everybody over 60 isn't called the "undead". Or perhaps that the point of abolishing Social Security and Medicare -- to push people over that edge.
To arcturis erectis magnus penis: on saying it is equally wrong to deny life to an embryo....... Only if you believe a zygote has the same rights as a real (i.e., BORN) woman!
Males who need to control women are sadly in need of psychiatric help.
I think that a fetus can have all the same rights as a woman, yet abortion would STILL be a legal/moral choice. Having the same rights does not mean that one has the same value as the other, after all. Rights aren't based on value, for example....
Only if you believe a zygote is equal to a born (real!) woman or girl. Males who need to control women are in grave need of psychiatric help.
I posted part of my story, and he never replied. In the abstract, it's very easy to say that pregnancies resulting from a male raping a female should be carried to term. In reality, it's much, much harder, because our brains are wired for sympathy.
Because I'll tell you what, if I was a pregnant rape victim, nothing would annoy me more than some self-righteous idiot telling me that they'll make my decisions for me and it's all for my own good--I'll thank them later. I realize that many conservative people tend to place women at the level of children, but I gave up the need to be 'parented' a long time ago. I'll make my own decisions about my own body.
Since you want to go there, it's not necessarily for your own good, but for the good of the child who would otherwise be killed.
A choice that's up to me--and not up to you, unless you'd like to carry the baby yourself. You see how this works?
But how does that work? Are you saying it's not okay to force a decision upon you, but okay for you to force a decision on someone else? Why is only one acceptable instead of neither (or both) being acceptable?
Are you saying it's not okay to force a decision upon an organ recipient, but okay for you to force a decision on a potential organ donor? No, of course you aren't. So, this really isn't about whether a decision is forced on someone else. You're just using it to hide your TRUE agenda. Besides, every time you claim that a decision to terminate is 'forced' on a fetus you also make the claim A. that a decision to continue is 'forced' on a fetus and/or B. that it is better to force a decision on someone who can actually give, deny or revoke consent and experience mental trauma under such a circumstance. That you can't see how repulsive this is, is ALL too familiar, unfortunately.
~ HE is going to get more disgusting and more hateful until they ban HIM, HE always does.
I told HIM that if some one had forced my mother to give birth to me I would consider that rape, HE knew I had been sexually abused, HE then laughed and mocked me and said (HE wished someone had forced my mother to give birth to me).
HE made a pro-kicking a woman in the stomach for getting an abortion post.
He is nothing more then a misogynistic female torturing extreme creep. HE has lots of post that talk about allowing women this, and HE might allow women that. HE talks like someone who has little girls chained in a dungeon under HIS house. HE is creepy and dangerous. ~
I've been ignoring your posts, though this one is too fantastical to ignore. If there ever was a troll, you would be it. Your post is an outright lie. I have never said any of those things to you. In fact, I have only responded to you two or three times. Anyone who doesn't believe me can see my posting history.
HE talks like someone who has little girls chained in a dungeon under HIS house.
How on Earth can she get away with typing things like this out? How quick would posters be over me if I were to suggest that pro-choicers had a shrine to Satan under their houses where they offered up fetuses? The very fact that she can type out stuff like this leads me to believe that you can get away with just about anything so long as you're pro-choice. Whatever, though. I'll going back to ignoring her posts. I just had to respond to this one, though.
~ Because you have posted as bornin1984 and panhandler, to name a few of your banned names. If I was at a James Dobson website I would be a troll. Just as James Dobsons people are trolls here. You are the one who keeps calling him self a troll, get that a lot do you? ~
I've posted here under different names? No, I haven't. I would think I know what names I have posted under and whether or not I've come to this site before. I have asked this question before, but what pro-lifer here isn't accused of being a troll or has some accussation levied against them? When I first started posting I was called a troll and accused of being some other poster. I remember a few other pro-lifers posting and they were accused of the same thing. I'm sure that if a pro-lifer were to show up now (s)he would receive the same treatment. Is that the way it works around here? If so then I can see why, even for a pro-choice website, so few pro-lifers post here. Every thread I go into it seems to be the same ten or so people making the same accusations and throwing out the same insults to the few pro-lifers who do bother to post. But that's just how it is around here, I guess.
Concerning you, I will now go back to ignoring your posts for as long as you're content claim that all pro-lifers are rapists, masochists or whatever other caricature of pro-choice arguments you want to use.
OBviously you didn't read what FBIR said, or you would have realized that she was SAYING that she considers any ProLifer who comes on here to BE a troll, JUST LIKE she would consider herSELF to be a troll if she posted on the Ben Dobson website. Really. Logic. You haz NONE.
If you don't want people to make comparisons then stop making your own. STOP. Making comparisons between ONE PERSON'S situation and everyone else's. Really. Hypocrisy. You haz LOTS.
Each and every ProLifer we've encountered on this site has only had to say a few words and we immediately recognize another form of insulting misogyny. Really. Clues. You haz LOST.
Typical of ProLifers to ignore the truth of an individual's claim. After all, it must be really uncomfortable for you to be confronted with it. Forced sex is unconsented usage of a sexual reproductive organ. Forced gestation is unconsented usage of a sexual reproductive organ. What are the differences? That's right, the only answers lead us to the conclusion that the differences only serve to make the latter a more EGREGIOUS form of rape. And every time you dismiss FBIR's claims, you dismiss her experiences. Yet you want US to heed every last single one of a ProLifers claims, heed every last single one of THEIR experiences, that I'm beginning to suspect that what another poster says is true. Only as long as the person makes the decision YOU want them to make, should their claims be heeded. Really. Comprehension. You haz LACKED.
....And if you don't want to be compared to those who have a remarkably similar writing style to yours, then I suggest you CHANGE IT. Otherwise, you have NO room to make ANY kind of complaint. Really. It's THAT simple.
Because, If you had BOTHERED to read any of FBIR's posts/comments, you wouldn't even need to ask that question. After all, she took the time to 'type these things out'. Because it would be very illogical for ProChoicers to have a shrine to Satan under their house. That's more ProLife's style. Because it is VERY unlikely that you have encountered any sort of Satanic cult that would have encouraged women to make their own choices.
This makes me think of Jaycee Dugard being tortured for 18 years and being raped and forced to give birth. She was 14 when she gave birth. How f*cked up is that?
~ It is the worst thing that can happen to a girl. And pro-lifers love it.
~ I have read pro-lifers going on about how marvelous it was that a woman was locked up by her father and raped for over twenty years, she had six or seven of his children, this happened in south America. I read a post by a pro-life catholic woman who went on about how glorious it is that a five year old in Peru gave birth.
There are people out there, I grew up with some of them who get turned on by rape of under age girls, and pregnancy and birth. Half of the women in my family got married and gave birth at fifteen, this really, really pleased my grandfather, almost every female in our family has been raped and his three favorite movies had rape on them. ~
There is no child being killed. A pregnancy is being terminated.
I hear this line a lot, but it's not true. Child, or more specifically unborn child, is a rather common phrase within our society that is used both by pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. The same is true for baby.
I hear this line a lot, but it's not true. Child, or more specifically unborn child, is a rather common phrase within our society that is used both by pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. The same is true for baby.
Sure, and lots of people call their abdomen their "stomach." Thankfully, when we debate reproductive rights, we like to use specific, medically-accurate terminology, because our argument is strong enough not to rely on emotional reactions from the misuse of loaded, ambiguous terms!
Now, read the rest of that phrase (because I'm sure your eyes stopped at the word 'child'). ...Being killed. A pregnancy is being terminated. Please do look up the definitions for the underlined words, just prior. And tell me how either can refer to anything other than denying sustenance.
And tell me how either can refer to anything other than denying sustenance.
What do you mean by the phrase "denying sustenance"? Are you saying we all have a moral obligation to let vampires feed on us because it's not their 'fault' they need our blood to live?
Um, no.... I said the words killed and pregnancy aren't referring to anything other than denying sustenance, which would logically mean that there is no killing involved in abortion. And, since I am ProChoice, it would be rather odd if I was saying that we should let vampires feed on us because it's not their fault they need it to live. It would obviously mean that I am saying that we can deny sustenance to anyone at anytime if that sustenance is provided by our bodies....
~ I really hate that people here let pro-rape pigs like this come on here and say such very hateful, hurtful things to raped women and raped little girls. A fetus or embryo is NOT a child! You are a pro-rape liar!! "WOMEN" here have told you, a "MAN" that it is not ok to force women and girls to breed. You are not a woman or a little girl. ~
That's what makes pro-life men so obnoxious. They can stand there and spout platitudes about what they think all women should do and they can claim to 'empathize', but since they can never and will never be in that situation they'll never really know what it's like.
So you try to discredit me on the basis of being a male? What if I were a female? Would my argument hold more weight then?
So you try to discredit me on the basis of being a male? What if I were a female? Would my argument hold more weight then?
Yes. Because the odds would be greater (although by no means guaranteed) that you have the slightest clue of how female anatomy, and pregnancy in particular, work.
So you try to discredit me on the basis of being a male?
Hardly. You discredit yourself by being an obnoxious dick and a troll.
No, we we are trying to discredit you because you are a NUTCASE!
But, then again, you do a pretty good job discrediting yourself without any help from us... XD
"......but for the good of the child who would otherwise be killed"
A fetus is NOT A CHILD. A fetus is not equal to a woman. A fetus is not a person and doesn’t have the same rights as a person because it’s NOT a person. If I was raped and became pregnant I would have an abortion -- There is NO DOUBT in my mind. I take precedence over any possible fetus in my uterus.
Technically, a fetus is a child. A child en utero, to be exact. As I said once prior, within our society "unborn child" has meaning and is used by individuals regardless of their view of abortion. There is therefore little point in trying to argue whether or not a fetus is a child.
We could go back and forth and argue this all day. I'm not going to do that. It's nice outside and I'm going outside to garden soon. So in the mean time here is a quick cut at paste to enlighten you.
A fetus is not a child. Traditionally it has been understood that a human being becomes such at birth when it is independent of the mother and breathing on its own and is then considered a child or a baby. Prior to birth it is a fetus, not a child. Consider that a fertilized egg is not a chicken, and we could extend that analogy to note that tadpoles are not frogs, larvae are not grasshoppers, and pine cones are not pine trees. http://blogs.alternet.org/christianhumanist/tag/fetus/
I think you would benefit from the "AMA Report on Criminal Abortion
The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection.
If to want of knowledge on a medical point, the slaughter of countless children now steadily perpetrated in our midst, is to be attributed, it is our duty, as physicians, and as good and true men, both publicly and privately, and by every means in our power, to enlighten this ignorance.
In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child
Resolved, That while physicians have long been united in condemning the act of producing abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime, publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life.
That's not dogma. It's 19th century medical science attesting to the existence of a child in the womb. Even today, the majority of people recognize that a child exists prior to being born. Even U.S. law does. I do not see the point in you trying to argue this. Surely your argument doesn't rest on whether or not a fetus is a child? Or do you argue it is not to make abortion more palatable?
Your quoting something from 1857 to make your point? Really? You would benefit from minding your own business. Abortion and birth control have existed for thousands of years (http://www.4000yearsforchoice.com/). These are not new concepts. Seeing how most if not all of the proposed legislation for "personhood for eggs" hasn't happened I think your point is moot.
So you quote some Christian humanist who bases his or her arguments on the Bible to determine whether or not a fetus is a child, but when I quote the from the AMA, who pushed to make abortion illegal in the 19th century based on advances in medical knowledge, acknowledging that the fetus was a child then that's somehow not okay? That doesn't make much sense when you think about it. My point was perfectly valid. You cannot say that the fetus has never been considered to be a child. History will show that to be false.
No, I won't mind my business, as the deliberate destruction of a child, whether it is inside of the womb or outside of it, is not something which should be ignored. So abortion has happened for thousands of years? So what? So too have rape and murder. Probably even longer. No one would argue that they should be ignored because they've happened for thousands of years, though. Why should abortion be ignored because it has happened for thousands of years.
And what does the AMA of today have to say? I'd be interested to hear.
No, I won't mind my business.
Hmmm. Tell us...how do you go about minding the reproductive business of others? Just wondering.
Why should abortion be ignored because it has happened for thousands of years.
Wrong question. We know that abortion has always and will always be a fact of life. The question you should be answering is how you plan to go about your quest to eradicate abortion.
but when I quote the from the AMA, who pushed to make abortion illegal in the 19th century based on advances in medical knowledge, acknowledging that the fetus was a child
And yet the AMA did not push to make abortion illegal in the 19th century, but rather to make illegal abortions performed BY MIDWIVES who were in competition with them. Obstetrical instruments from those days were designed to crush an infants skull to extract it. I don't think anybody has ever said that a fetus a few weeks from being born isn't "a child", instead what they have said is that a fertilized egg is not "a child", and a six week embryo is not "a child" and a 12 week fetus is not "a child". And of course whether or not the zygote, embryo or fetus is "a child" is totally irrelevant, because not even "a child" is entitled to live as a parasite on the body of another person who doesn't want it there.
Would you be happier if every women went to a "menstrual regulation clinic" once a month and had her uterine lining suctioned away as part of her routine? That would be perfectly legal, because no pregnancy test would be done beforehand. Any one or two-week old placentas that might be removed would be gone entirely as an accidental byproduct of not wanting to deal with the muss and fuss of a period. No woman would be making a 'choice' to abort because none of them would ever know they were pregnant in the first place. Would that alleviate all your moral concerns?
child child child.....simply repeating that over and over again will not make it so.
An embryo is not a child; a foetus is not a child; a tadpole is not a frog; an egg is not a chick; a man is not a woman.
That's not dogma. It's 19th century medical science
So is bloodletting with leeches. What's next, are you going to break out your vibrator to cure the epidemic of "pro-abortion hysteria" on this site?
Opps - Mods please delete - duplicate
I would have found a way to do it. I know without a doubt that the legality of the procedure wouldn't have mattered. I would have found a way, even if put me in danger. Pregnancy and childbirth were not possible. Hell, leaving my apartment wasn't possible for three days after the rape.
You may not have seen my post further down thread, but there is absolutely no way I could have handled a pregnancy. Some survivors can. I'm not one of them. And what you are saying here is that what I wanted, what I knew about myself and my situation at that time isn't important. That an embryo or fetus is more important than my future, than my mental health. What I hear is, "You are less important than a fetus."
The assault lasted five or ten minutes. They were the worst minutes of my life. The pregnancy would have lasted nine months. The birth would have lasted 8-48 hours. You honestly think that forcing survivors to undergo that is acceptable?
If a woman wants to have an abortion yet she is disallowed from having one, and it results in a Rebecca Kiessling, then you are saying that Rebecca Kiessling should not have existed because her mother was denied the right to kill her while she was still in the womb.
No, we are saying that Rebecca Kiessling is making a vacuous, emotionally-driven anti-choice argument with no merit whatsoever. Pay attention, mmkay?
She's here because she was not aborted. If she had been aborted, there would be greater than a 99% chance she wouldn't be here today. As much of an inconvenient truth as that is, it's no more complicated than that.
There are more than a million things that could have prevented Rebecca Kiessling from being here today. How many of them do you want to legally prohibit?
Do you find the existence of such individuals to be an "insult" or "insulting"? Do they have no rights to their own lives?
Of course they have a right to their own lives. They don't, however, have a right to live off the body of another human being, no more than you or I have that supposed "right."
Which women is it sickening and insulting to? I know you don't speak for all women, much less all women who are raped, so you need to explain. I remember there being a blog by a woman who was raped who would take offense to your characterization that "making abortion illegal even the case of rape would seek to rape her again". I will see if I can find it, because it's worth reading, and illustrates just how callous pro-choicers can sometimes be.
Waaaah, the pro-choicers are so callous because they want to let pregnant rape victims have a choice about what to do with their pregnancy! They're not loving and caring like us "pro-lifers," who just want to respectfully deny them the choice to have an abortion!
To answer your question, I can empathize with someone who is raped. An abortion in the case of rape, however, does not make the rape go away.
It doesn't make childhood traumas or polluted air go away, either, because that's not the purpose of having an abortion. Oh, and that feeling you think of as "empathy" is actually "ruthless misogyny." Anti-choicers tend to get them mixed up.
Yet you have no qualms about taking away the unborn's right to its own life?
The "unborn's right to its own life" is irrelevant. It doesn't have the right to room and board inside the woman's uterus.
She's here because she was not aborted. If she had been aborted, there would be greater than a 99% chance she wouldn't be here today. As much of an inconvenient truth as that is, it's no more complicated than that.
Still not getting it, I see. Even without abortion, if her mother spontaneously aborted due to "bad coding," Rebecca would not be here today at all. That embryo was not 100% guaranteed to become Rebecca Kiessling even with abortion out of the picture. Saying that her mother had the right to abort the pregnancy that had the potential to become Rebecca is not the same thing - either philosophically or morally - as saying Rebecca "should not" be here now. Pro-choicers are not concerned with telling people what they should or should not do, by the way. If her mother wanted an abortion, and DID have an abortion, it would not have caused any suffering. But telling every rape victim who wants an abortion that they are not allowed to have an abortion because their pregnancy MIGHT result in a person, will cause a great deal of suffering.
In that regard, yes it is all about Rebecca.
No, it's not, because not every pregnancy conceived in rape is guaranteed to result in a live birth, or another Rebecca Kiessling. Whether or not a rape victim chooses abortion - a stranger - does not effect her. At all. It is none of her damn business. The only pregnancy or potential abortion that could have effected her was her own mother's. And that's over and done with. Re-victimizing rape victims is not how you emotionally reconcile the fact that your mother wanted an abortion at one point in time.
in which her life would have been taken away from her by another.
If her mother had an abortion, there would not have been any "taking of a life." All she would have been doing is preventing her from existing.
If her mother DID have an abortion, does that mean she would have been a "murderer"? Simple question.
Do you find the existence of such individuals to be an "insult" or "insulting"?
No, I find their desire to re-victimize rape victims and oppress women to be fucking insulting. And yes, it is insulting to essentially capitalize on your mother's personal tragedy and tell other rape victims "too bad. you just have to get over it. like my mom did, because all that matters is that she had ME!"
Do they have no rights to their own lives?
Having a right to their own lives is one thing - that doesn't mean they can oppress rape victims choosing abortion, just because they themselves were conceived in rape. Another rape victim's abortion does not effect them. The existence of an embryo conceived in rape is not more important than a raped woman's suffering and pain. But apparently you do not think women have a right to their own lives or bodies.
Which women is it sickening and insulting to?
It is sickening and insulting to all women who've been raped and chose abortion. Consider the posters on this site. What about ack, FBIR, beenthere72, or myself? Do we not matter because we don't do/say what you want? Do YOU think you speak for all women, as a man? Do YOU think that one rape victim who chose to KEEP a pregnancy speaks for all rape victims and women everywhere? Just as you understand that I do not speak for all women, you should be able to understand that one woman who was raped and decides to keep her pregnancy does not speak for all women, and sure as HELL does not speak for me. Only by offering all options to all women regardless of circumstances are we able to speak for all women. Your desire to take away choice from all women throws some women to the curb, while leaving a "select" group unaffected.
I remember there being a blog by a woman who was raped who would take offense to your characterization that "making abortion illegal even the case of rape would seek to rape her again".
She can take offense to how I personally feel about my own circumstances? My own body? She's allowed to feel how she wants about her own experience as a rape survivor and her own pregnancy and obviously that's not how she would describe HER CHOICE. But as for myself, that's how I PERSONALLY would feel, like it was a second rape. And I know many other women would feel this way if they had the choice of abortion taken away from them when they desperately needed it. So screw you very much, but it's not a "characterization" for me, it's fucking reality.
I can empathize with someone who is raped. An abortion in the case of rape, however, does not make the rape go away.
Abortion CAN be an empowering decision for some. Your false sympathy comes across as morally repugnant to me and to rape victims who have had (or would've had) an abortion. Right now, it's apparent to me that you don't give a tiny shit about rape and how it can devastate people. You expect every woman to act the same way and do what you want them to do. You don't care that your no-exception philosophy is blatantly pro-rape at its core. The rapist takes away choice once, the "pro-lifer" takes it away a second time.
Be honest, can you sympathize with rape victims who choose abortion? Serious question. Or just the women who do what you want them to do?
Yet you have no qualms about taking away the unborn's right to its own life?
An embryo does not have a right to life. It does not feel pain, suffering, emotion. No person has the right to use my body sexually against my will, and no "person" has the right to use my body for sustenance against my will.
Unsurprisingly, I see the troll accusations are back in full swing today. I have yet to see any pro-lifer post here who is not accused as such, regardless of the contents of their post
An internet troll is someone who posts things in a discussion just to get an emotional response from people. This certainly applies to anyone who comes to a website just to tell its members how wrong and terrible they are. If you want to go debate abortion, do it on a debate site. If you want to talk about how wrong abortion is, go to a pro-life site. Nobody here really cares. You're not really trying to change minds or discuss anything. You're trying to start debates and derail discussions.
I'm sorry for what your mother went through, what you and your siblings went through. But I am glad that you are righteously angered against the perps, rather than the victims. Your clarity and raw passion are a gift to those of us who care about women as people, as moral agents. Thank you.
Really? Where did you get that stat? Honestly, I don't see anyone here saying Rebecca should not exist. I see them saying they are horrified that she is broadcasting her mothers rape, as well as being very rape-apologist. If a woman is raped, and CHOOSES to continue the pregnancy, good for her. If she chooses to abort, or place the child up for adoption, good for her. The point of the Prochoice movement is allowing women autonomy over their bodies. ESPECIALLY in cases of rape induced pregnancy, when a woman has had her very soul mangled, having the POWER (which is taken away during an assault) to decide what happens next is an intergral part of the healing process. No body here is suggesting that ALL pregnancies due to rape should be aborted. We are saying it is a PERSONAL decision, that should be supported. Rebecca is profiting off of her mothers rape. That is sick, and IMO demented. The point is if you don't think abortions are 'right' don't have one. Most of the things you've said on here are just plain uninformed and unintellegent. And you know what else? I am pro abortion. I am for safe, easily accessable, affordable abortions for those women who want them because I VALUE their life, as well as their decisions. I trust that generally speaking women are quite capable of making these types of decisons, and by virtue of being women, are the only ones qualified to do so. Instead of spouting your ill-formed thoughts (ideas imply intellegence) go be a mentor for at risk teens, or go read to a preschooler. Hell, if you feel so strongly, go ADOPT AN UNWANTED CHILD!!!
She mentions abortion as a concept versus reality, which is a very valid point. We talk about that a lot as pro-choicers; we can't erase the experiences of women and girls in favor of the fetus. However, she seems to miss the part about rape being a concept to most people rather than a reality.
For most people (especially men, except those who are in corrections), rape is a terrible crime, and they wish it would stop. For a lot of us, however, rape is a reality. We know survivors. We work with them, and for them. We're survivors ourselves. And advocacy 101 after a sexual assault means that the victim gets to decide what happens next. (For an adult, the rules are different for minors.)
Arectaris, I was raped in college. I'm not alone; 1/4 of college women experience an attempted or completed rape before graduation. I didn't get pregnant, thank goodness, but if I had, I know exactly what I would have done. I would have had an abortion. No questions, no pondering, no wondering if I could handle it. I couldn't. If a safe, legal abortion hadn't been available, I would have found a way to induce one. The only thing worse than those minutes of assault would have been nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth. That doesn't make me a bad person. No one should be lecturing women and girls in similar situations about what the "right" choice is. We need to make that choice for ourselves. And NO ONE should be lobbying politicians to eliminate that choice for people when they have NO IDEA WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH, or whether we have the ability to cope with a pregnancy conceived in rape.
Survivors need choices. Rape is a situation in which the victim DOESN'T get a choice, so the process of healing consists of making options available and letting her choose for herself. Whether that's reporting, getting an exam, prosecuting, or anything else. Eliminating that choice for women and girls who have been assaulted would be incredibly detrimental.
I think that Rebecca Kiessling is probably a better individual than any of the above posters who make light of her and her story,
Except no one here is making light of her, or her story. We're objecting to her argument that because she was conceived in rape, anti-abortion laws should not have exceptions for rape and incest, for which she is making an emotional appeal using herself and her story.
and will probably influence more people to the pro-life side than will any of the above individuals to the pro-choice side.
Yes, I think it's safe to say she has a bigger marketing budget than anyone here.
Exceptions for rape and incest ARE a giant hole in the logic of the anti-choice movement. Either every fetus has a right to life, or they don't. In my experience, the line from people who believe in the exception is, "She's suffered already," or worse, "She's suffered enough." Both statements imply that women and girls deserve to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth (you know, the process where females push a 7 pound fetus through a 10 centimeter hole while cursing everyone and screaming bloody murder) for daring to have sex. It reveals a lot about their position, but without granting those types of exceptions, they really strike me as consistent but truly heartless.
Rebecca Kiessling came to my school to talk and I saw many people walk out of the event in disgust, about halfway through. They came outside to talk to us (the small group of protesters), telling us that they went in with an open mind about the issue, and walked away from the event feeling viscerally angry/sad.
From a victim's rights perspective, her no-exception philosophy IS pro-rape, because it takes away the woman's choice again. First, the victim has no choice in whether or not she will have sex, and second, if Kiessling had her way, the victim would have no choice in pregnancy/childbirth, and would be raped again. Reaffirming autonomy and giving control back to the victim is the first part of the healing process. But Kiessling would like to take that away. Again.
It's sad that these people don't realize - that even without abortion - there is no guarantee that every pregnancy (conceived-in-rape or otherwise) will result in a live birth. Kiessling's mother did not have access to legal abortion, but it is just as likely that she could have naturally miscarried.
Plain and simple, she is making a living by capitalizing on the tragedy of rape. It is only within a rape-apologist culture that this kind of "no exception ever" philosophy would be able to fluorish. To pregnant rape victims considering termination, this sends the message that they don't matter. Their actual pain does not matter. Once again, their voice does not matter. All that matters is that the embryo inside of them might be a potential person.
Since a lot of people are rape-apologists and are gung-ho about questioning the veracity of women and girls who are raped, and anti-choicers are also not above calling Mikki Kendall a liar and demanding she die along with her fetus, I don't see why we shouldn't make Kiessling "prove" her words beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do we even know if her story is true? How do we know it's not just a sick PR stunt for the "personhood" movement? If this woman-hating woman wants to make herself a martyr (even though it was someone else's sacrifice), why isn't she held to the same standards of doublethink, accusations of false accusations and hatred as we are?
Actually, I'd prefer it if Kiessling was exposed as a liar, because then she would only be another dishonest right-winger - she would not be actually capitalizing on someone else's pain and suffering to make money and self-aggrandise.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I wouldn't put it past the money behind the pro-life movement to pluck an intelligent, pretty face from the crowd and say 'hey this is your story, you'll make a bundle'. I honestly think the same of Lila Rose, as well. She is, after all, an aspiring actress.
The entire premise is incorrect, that it is insulting to say that someone's mother should have/have had the choise to abort. Of course I think her mother, my mother, my sister, so on and so forth should have the choice to abort. No, my conception wasn't the result of a rape, but I am still very, very glad my mother had a choice about her pregnancy. (I would honestly feel worse if my mother was saying "you know, the only reason I kept you was because legal abortion wasn't available" instead of the actual circumstance of "sure, I could have chosen abortion, I am not opposed to it and would have been supported in that decision, but I wanted to have you.") Of course if I had been aborted it would not matter, because I wouldn't exist and her life would have go on. She could have aborted because it was not the right time in her life to have another pregnancy, because of economics, because of physical limitations, because of any reason including "because I don't want to be pregnant" and I don't find that even slightly insulting.
Saying "I think your mother deserved the choice of abortion or carrying her pregnancy to term" really IS entirely different from "I think YOU, personally, should have been aborted."
Except to anti-choice advocates, the idea that all abortions are murder except when your conception was rape/incest, that is insulting. That somehow you would have been less of a murder victim based upon your conception. So yes, the people that she is out to convince are not pro-choicers, but rather people who already feel abortion is murder but are really uncomfortable when it isn't calling "irresponsible sluts" murderers but victims of crimes themselves. These people maybe already lean towards feeling it is unfair to force someone through a pregnancy and are hoping that couching it in 'taking responsibility for your actions' language makes it okay, and realize that doesn't work for victims of rape. However, Kiessling is hard at work to make this section of the populace entirely comfortable with forcing victims to carry their pregnancies because otherwise it hurts her feelings, and how can you look her in the face and insult her like that?
<Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.
Oh for crying out loud! This girl needs to realize she is here because her mother made a....wait for it...CHOICE. I cannot comprehend how anyone, male, female or any combo of the two could EVER justify taking a womans right to choose from her in any case. In cases of rape and incest, to advocate this type of mysoginistic control is flat out heartless. I also agree with those who have questioned the veracity of her story. We all know the antichoicers function almost soley on fear and misinformation. How can she even look at her mother after reducing her to nothing but a vessel? I think it's very self serving.
Abortion was illegal at the time. She acknowledged that she wouldn't be here if abortion was legal.
You know, it amazes me how you just discount the feelings of Rebecca's birthmother and by extension all women who are assaulted and impregnated against their will. Don't their opinions and choices matter? Doesn't their pain matter? If they decide that they can't endure a pregnancy that they didn't choose in the first place are they suddenly heartless child-killers in your book?
So Rebecca is essentially saying her mother WANTED an abortion, and could not get one? Or would her mother have chosen to continue even if abortion was available? That makes a HUGE diffrence in her story. Either way, she's throwing her Mom under the bus, and capitalizing on her rape. I feel so bad for her mother!
The thing that strikes you when you hear Rebecca Kiessling is her complete lack of sympathy for her mother's situation. In fact, she expresses annoyance when people talk about how difficult things must have been for her Mom and what she had to go through Apparently in Rebecca's mind her mom only existed to give birth to her.
The global ingratitude is pretty obvious, isn't it? They not only don't "honor" their mothers, they are filled with a huge sense of entitlement and the belief that their mothers OWED them that nine months. If their mothers didn't want to be pregnant/deliver/be maimed/die from complications, then they should have avoided being raped. Since, you know, rape is TOTALLY avoidable if you just dress modestly/avoid those kind of boys/have faith/aren't provocative.
And this is just a thought, but what if someone said to Rebecca "I wish your mother had never been raped like that." Would she actually take that as a personal insult?
After all, that comment wouldn't recognize that her mother's temporary, minor, so called 'suffering' was just all PART OF GOD'S PLAN to create Rebecca, someone whose *extra special* existence was a necessary part of the universe continuing. Rebecca's mere existence, after all, is far more important than that of her mother, or anyone else for that matter. Because, you know, SHE EXISTS!
The thing Rebecca and her apologists may be missing is that most people do not wish Rebecca was dead NOW. What most people are expressing instead is that they are totally and completely indifferent to whether Rebecca was born, and don't see anything all that terrific about her now that would lead them to agree she's irreplaceable. There's already lots of ungrateful brats who disrespect their parents -- we aren't exactly dealing with a shortage.
Was it illegal in her State? Because abortion WAS legal in some states pre-Roe.
And, yes, Arectaris misses one of the finer points. Compelling someone to make a sacrifice that no one else can incur or is legally/morally expected to do, IS Pro-Rape.
If my mother had not been given the choice to terminate a pregnancy before her pregnancy with me I would never have been born.
(not that it would matter for either her or me as I had little difficulty with these issues before I exsisted, and somehow think she was in the same boat visa vie that)
Posing this question to them results in either crickets chirping or inane accusations or a change of subject. Arectaris/Bei/Bornin1984 is no exception. It's sad, really.
Not only do I not sit on this site all day clicking F5 as some apparently do, I simply don't feel the need to entertain what I can only guess is mass paranoia. I would think the mods can check IP addresses. That alone should be enough to prove I'm not whoever or whatever accusation you would like to make.
However, as I am here now and have already taken the time to respond to the above, I will answer the question. If you were to killed today, then you would not be here to speak out about it tomorrow. If you were to be killed tomorrow, then you would not be here to speak out about it the day afterwards. If you killed yesterday, then you would not be here to speak out about it today. Individuals who are dead do not care one way or the other. What you are apparently arguing is that an individual has no right to speak out about a practice which ends their life, as if their life was ended then they couldn't speak out against the practice. Such a position is inherently illogical. Applied to yourself, are you saying that you have no right to speak out against murder as if you were murdered then you would not exist to care that you are murdered?
Oh certainly, she has a right to speak. And we have the right to speak back and say that we completely disagree with her. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from disagreement.
Applied to yourself, are you saying that you have no right to speak out against murder as if you were murdered then you would not exist to care that you are murdered?
Horse...cart...in that order.
By your logic, anyone who refuses to donate blood in the event my life depended on it...is guilty of murder.
What you are apparently arguing is that an individual has no right to speak out about a practice which ends their life,
Logic fail. People who are dead don't speak.
What we are arguing instead is that an individual whose life has NOT been ended doesn't get to drape themselves at secondhand in a supposed 'tragedy' that happened to somebody else entirely and then carry on like a tragedy queen because somebody hurts their widdle feelings by making a statement of reasonable empathy and compassion like 'woman/girls who are the victims of sexual crimes deserve special consideration and the right to make their own choices'. I'm sure her feelings are just crushed if someone makes a statement like 'she's recovering from the rape and just really thankful she didn't get pregnant.' After all, that means the victim wishes she didn't exist and is rejecting her personally!
The extension of her argument is that her father's crime was justified because it resulted in teh wonderfulness that is Rebbeca. The extension of her argument is that we shouldn't jail any rapists because it might be "part of God's plan" for that rapist to be out preying on women and free to create a Rebecca. The extension of her argument is that any way at all of knocking women is okay because it may result in a Rebecca. Barf.
Also her argument of "My mother didn't abort me because the law gave her no choice, so I want that choice to be taken away from everyone," is kind of stomach churning. The whole world must revolve around Rebecca, apparently. Listening to this woman you notice immediately how very self-centered she really is.
Logic fail. People who are dead don't speak.
Yes. I do believe that was the point being made.
The extension of her argument is that her father's crime was justified because it resulted in teh wonderfulness that is Rebbeca. The extension of her argument is that we shouldn't jail any rapists because it might be "part of God's plan" for that rapist to be out preying on women and free to create a Rebecca. The extension of her argument is that any way at all of knocking women is okay because it may result in a Rebecca. Barf.
This is ridiculous and you know it's ridiculous. Could you show me where Rebecca has said that rape is acceptable or that rapists shouldn't be punished? If you would have read her site, instead of doing what seems to be the norm around here and taking what people write out of context to suit your own personal agenda, you would find she says nor insinuates any of what you claim, though she does say the exact opposite. So as you said, barf at the above. I'm beginning to think that this site contains the worst, most fringe, aspects of the pro-choice movement.
Out of context is you accusing all other posters that they wish Rebecca was aborted when none of them said that.
To be fair, he was quoting her view, since she apparently hears "women pregnant from rape need the ability to choose abortion" and translates it into "I hate Rebecca and she should have been aborted". A viewpoint which both he and Rebecca reached by totally disappearing both the existence and humanity of her mother beyond 'meat puppet Rebecca could use to have her pregnancy in and then throw away'.
I think that most of Rebecca's argument falls into the category of "existential crisis." We all feel pretty weird if we think about what the world would be like if we were never born. We like to think that our contributions have changed things for the better. I certainly hope they have, among all of us. Her biological mother didn't have a choice; a lot of unplanned pregnancies that weren't conceived in rape also resulted in birth. Our moms chose to have us, or had to based on various circumstances. I like to think I'm pretty kickass, but I also respect my mom enough to know that SHE knew what was best for her and her family at that time. And regardless of how kickass I think I am, my mom should have had a choice. She knew what she could handle, and waht the effect would be on my already existing siblings.
Also, Rebecca wants to eliminate Planned Parenthood, an organization that actively works to prevent abortions for the entire population.
And again, advocacy 101 for sexual assault survivors is that the SURVIVOR gets to make decisions about what happens next. Refusing to do so is placing their mental and potentially physical health at risk.
We all feel pretty weird if we think about what the world would be like if we were never born.
Most of us, however, have a little humility, and don't make statements that sum up to "it doesn't matter what the circumstances of my conception were or how much pain and anquish other people suffered during the pregnancy, I don't owe anyone gratitude or thanks because I'm ENTITLED to be here!" Humility used to be an important part of the Christian faith but I guess that's old fashioned.
Yes. I do believe that was the point being made.
Then it was a point that you missed... entirely. Those who are dead, may be dead due to a NUMBER of different circumstances. Not just abortion. Just like their existence, NOW, is NOT being predicated on someone's opinion about whether or not they should have been aborted, it is not being predicated on the impractical reality that only one singular circumstance can negate it, in-utero.
This is ridiculous. Could you show me where ANY ProChoicer has said that denying an outright ban on abortion due to rape is equivalent to cajoling every woman to GET an abortion? /snerk (*Ehhem* Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming....) It's sad that things can only be taken out of context if YOU say them or REBECCA says them. This sense of entitlement all you ProLifers experience really must go.
This Rebecca Kiessling seems an example of my theory that it is virtually impossible to raise a decent human being that is conceived in rape. I do not believe that our civilization will survive this level of anti-abortion control of women's lives. Rebecca Kiessling would be an interesting study in abnormal psychology.
This Rebecca Kiessling seems an example of my theory that it is virtually impossible to raise a decent human being that is conceived in rape. I do not believe that our civilization will survive this level of anti-abortion control of women's lives. Rebecca Kiessling would be an interesting study in abnormal psychology.
Will there be a special contingent for those "Conceived In Incest?"
To expect any woman to bear a child conceived from rape is criminally insane.
...such a tour. Wait for it. They'll get around to it. Only a matter of time.
Any group that can– at the same time– say:
"We want to protect the unborn" AND "We don't want to provide healthcare for the mother carrying the kid,"
is quite insane.
... and that's where a lot of the talking points come from.
I've mentioned earlier about more babies = more profits. One of the things neoliberalism has been doing the last 30 years is privitization, and also "austerity". What the IMF and the World Bank mean by "austerity" is "less social spending" by governments. One of things that happened, I believe, is that Ireland, getting bailed out, pension funds of government workers were taken as partial payment of the debt? Anyway, Big Business organizations such as US Chamber of Commerce don't want tax money to go to the public good. Money is to go to business profits. If the safety net is too effective then workers won't work for starvation wages and won't work for dangerous jobs where safety precautions are nil.
I don't see this argument, so I ask, what about the alcoholic/addict? I'm a piece of work. I drink 12-pack of beer and hard liquor if I can get it, every day. I'm also a serious chain smoker, pack a day or better. I have no desire to quit and even if I thought I wanted to, the chances that I'd be able to stop cold turkey are slm and none. Since the rape, I've been seriously depressed and have been drinking even more than usual. I pass out/black out all the time, trying to stay comatose. I can't deal with it, and I don't even acknowledge the missed periods for the first few months, because I'm that out of it. Then I find out I'm pregnant at 12 weeks. Everyone knows the most critical time is the early time, so damage more than likely has already happened. And I know I should quit. I feel so friggin guilty about it, but I can't seem to stop. And if this pregnancy makes it, I'm walking away from the bastard as soon as it is expelled. I don't want to see it. I hate it.
You're gonna tell me I should continue with that pregnancy as far as it'll go? Sorry I'm not a saint. I am who I am. And I haven't taken any illegal drugs. I have committed no crimes.
You gonna set me up with some people at the adoption clinic? Are you gonna tell them I'm an alcoholic and there's a good chance the bastard will have FAS? Because I smoke so much, that there's a good chance it's lungs will be underdeveloped?
Tell you what, since there's no way for you to know I'm pregnant (that there's a baby in there) until there's actually something in me that's starting to be a baby (when it might survive without me) how is it you would ever know I was raped and/or was pregnant before I aborted? Because I would abort as soon as I knew. My medical care is none of your business. Because I walk into a medical care provider, you have no way of knowing what I'm doing. IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. (But if you must know, I'm having some corns looked at.)
~ In my experience most women and girls cannot say the words (I was raped) they immediately start pretending it did not happen as soon as they get their pants on. Of course right after the rape will be the hardest time to talk about it, they bath and keep to themselves. ~
I hear how much you're hurting; all survivors learn to cope how we can. You may feel guilty, but the only one responsible for what happened to you is the person who chose to do it. That wasn't you, it was the rapist. There are resources available if you ever want to talk about what happened. www.rainn.org runs an online hotline, so you can IM with an advocate, but they also run a phone hotline. Stay strong. And this is going to seem super silly, but I'd hug you if we were in the same room.
I am a survivor of rape. Considering the legacy of thirty years of PTSD, I am just able to take care of myself. I would not have been able to care for a child conceived in love, much less an alien seed taken root from my rapist.
Actually, looking back on the 14 year old girl I was at the rape, if I had been forced to bear that child, I would certainly have committed suicide.
In other words, OH DOUBLE HELL NO! For a rape victim, that's like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JehjqlzXwIQ
Your post demonstrates the undeniable fact that women and girls know what they're capable of. Neither the state nor society should tell survivors that they just have to do something for someone else's benefit.
This makes me fucking puke. Kiessling is taking a crap on other women and their personhood and dignity. She's basically telling them that they're worth less than a lump of undeveloped tissue. That their hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, are nothing compared to that glop.
Shut the fuck up, Kiessling. You're insulting me, my mother, my sisters, and the entire female gender.
Maybe I should start a "conceived in fornication tour"--after all many of us would not exist if our parents had not been fornicating, or living in sin! We could hold up signs that say --I would not exist if my mother was not a fornicating slut" or living in sin" or an adulturer, etc Conservatives should encourage fornicating behavior so as to create more babies. Seems like a good protest to hold at one of these sickening events of rape supporters.
Maybe I should start a "conceived in fornication tour"--after all many of us would not exist if our parents had not been fornicating, or living in sin!
I'm ProChoiceFerret, and I approve this message!
Conservatives should encourage fornicating behavior so as to create more babies.
Thankfully, the definition of "fornication" doesn't exclude the use of birth control!
Im fully for the right of a rape victim to abort, even very late term pregnancies, though this isnt without some misgivings since Im unaware of how 'human' late term foetuses might be in terms of mind, feelings, physical development and how much they might suffer during their termination.
But I understand Rebecca's point of view and those of the women that dont choose to abort foetuses that are the product of sexual assault. In fact, I think I might choose not to were I in that position, though admittedly I am of an age and financial background that would enable me to support the child to some extent. I would see it as the more moral choice.
Maybe some would see such a decision as Pollyanaism, but I think its more life-affirming, in the sense that it recognises that the foetus/child/adult is sinless and was never to blame, that we all can rise above our inherited traits and that the child can be as good a person as anyone, and that you can make the best of your circumstances to the extent that, if you are lucky and successful in raising that child, you might even end up at the point where you would rather have suffered what you did and had your son/daughter than been saved the hell of one and missed out on the bliss of the other. I think most children of rape have low self-esteem and adopted ones might fear finding their mother not so much because of what their father did/was, but because they are afraid that their mother might not be able to love them in light of it.
I dont agree with Rebecca's politics, but the fact that she has the confidence (what some here see as narcissim) to see her addition to the world as a good thing leads me to believe that her mother gave her the gift of knowing that she was loved despite her conception. For that I respect her and her choices, probably more than I would have if she had just had an abortion because she couldnt stand the thought of having the child. Not that anyone should be blamed for the latter reaction, or for being a victim, but I think Rebecca's mum was clearly strong enough (and perhaps lucky enough) to stop being one.
Im unaware of how 'human' late term foetuses might be in terms of mind, feelings, physical development and how much they might suffer during their termination.
Are you of aware of how human women with late-term pregnancies might be in terms of mind, feelings, physical development and how much they might suffer during labour and delivery? Are you also aware of how human late term foetuses might be in terms of mind, feelings, physical development and how much they might suffer during their birth? The suffering would only be multiplied during birth, after all, if it were possible that a fetus acquired all these traits during a late-term pregnancy. Besides, when most late-term abortions are performed the woman is anaesthetized, thus the fetus is, as well and/or they are aborted due to fetal anomalies such as anencephaly, which preCLUDES any feeling of pain.
There is no sin or blame incurred by a fetus that leads to an abortion. It is simply a woman's desire to no longer be reminded of her rape. When a woman has an abortion she is ALSO strong enough (and CLEARLY lucky enough) to stop being a victim.
I think most children of rape have low self-esteem and adopted ones might fear finding their mother not so much because of what their father did/was, but because they are afraid that their mother might not be able to love them in light of it.
I don't think circumstances a rape conception should ever, in any circumstances at all, be shared with the child, and I find it problematic that agencies share them with adoptive parents. Any adoptive parent who needs the information because they want to pass judgment on whether the birth mother has appropriate reasons for surrendering doesn't appreciate the gift she is giving them and doesn't deserve to have her baby.
