A Rapist’s Baby is Still an Innocent Baby

Abortion is bad because it kills a baby. A rapist’s baby is still an innocent baby. The baby is just as much the rape victim’s baby. Nature and nurture are both involved in development. No, genetics is not determinative of behavior. Every child has innate human dignity.

“Rapist’s baby” is a cruel label

When a woman is pregnant, we don’t say he’s the engineer’s baby or the janitor’s baby. Neither if the father is a criminal, do we label the baby as the petty thief’s baby.  Besides, he or she is the woman’s baby, so wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say the rape victim’s baby?

Pregnant by sexual assault further complicates the healing process for women, but we can help by changing the paradigm in this conversation. Let’s stop stigmatizing the mom and baby.

The label implies the mother is propagating some evil, because she is carrying a baby. A baby is an innocent human being, who has not even had an opportunity for any wrongdoing whatsoever.

The baby is stigmatized by being associated with his or her criminal father. Let’s just not.

We choose…

Human beings have free will. Some people choose well and have happy lives. Some people choose poorly and have destructive lives. Most of us make both good and bad choices.

A woman who has been raped did not make a bad choice, but the man who raped her did. He is the perpetrator. He is responsible for the core violation of sexual assault. If a woman conceives as a result of the rape, she did not choose to become pregnant. If she is pregnant, she did not choose to have a baby, but the baby is already there. Pregnancy, means there is another human being involved, a second victim from the rape.

We would never, in any other circumstance, sentence an innocent baby to death, because their father is a criminal.

Rape is a horrible injustice. The perpetrator should be punished. Even the perpetrator doesn’t receive a death sentence, because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment!

As a survivor of many sexual assaults during my teens while being prostituted, I know the core violation and the consequences of rape. It is life changing. No amount of therapy of any kind will erase that and abortion, even if you call it therapeutic abortion, will never un-rape a woman.

Except in case of rape…

So, why do laws have a clause the says, except in case of rape? I don’t have a reasonable answer.

It is wholly unreasonable to say it is compassionate -that is a total lie. I used to think it was a confused compassion. You know, we feel compassion toward the woman and think that abortion will solve her problem, but her problem was the rape and the pregnancy is a consequence of the rape, which was the actual problem.

Don’t think me uncaring, my first child was born as a result of juvenile sex trafficking. My pregnancy was difficult. The delivery was difficult. Parenting was difficult. But we do not kill other people because life is difficult in any other circumstance.

“In case of rape” is a ploy of the abortion industry that many people have bought into, hook, line and sinker. The first laws allowing for abortion were enacted by this very false premise.

It became the open door, because it is completely illogical to say that abortion is bad because it kills a human baby, but it’s ok to kill a human baby if his or her father was a rapist! So, abortion expanded and is still expanding, not contracting, as some would have you believe.

Headlines and horse sh*t…

There is a lot of debate and some action toward more pro-life laws, but one  headline reads, “Iowa governor signs a bill banning abortions on babies with beating hearts” except…

Except in cases of sexual assault, including rape, incest, trafficking, and in cases of fetal anomaly -supposedly, incompatible with life. Except, those babies are alive!

So, we think they’re going to die, so we should kill them? How is that logical or reasonable? It’s not. It’s demonic. We are all going to die and the devil would like nothing better than to eliminate the entire human race, but he can’t. So, he’ll do what he can and kill the babies.

The abortion industry loves exceptions. This will keep them in business. They may lose out on killing some babies, but they do not have to shut their doors.

Rapists love abortion and this kind of exception in a law banning abortion will keep them in business too. Their victims will suffer and have abortions, they will go free to rape again.

Women are expected to abort after rape…

That is the message the law sends to society. To men, women, and children… to rapists, victims, abortion vendors, people in the legal profession, healthcare, virtually everyone will believe that she should abort, because that is the law.

The law is a teacher. It cannot make anyone do anything, but it has consequences, because it sends a message.

It is illegal to kill two year-olds. We know it does happen, but society agrees that it’s not ok. So, people intervene, they counsel, they get help, they find ways to support the people who might be at risk and it does create an environment that is supportive of parents of young children. Community programs sprout up, state and federal money is applied, NGO’s step up, because as a society we agree and the law is clear.

You and I can shift the thinking by changing our vocabulary. Let’s build a community that supports, offers counseling and encouragement, and put systems in place to engage victims pregnant by sexual assault and help them heal with dignity and grace.

What about logic?

Now in Iowa, that law says that it is illegal to kill children as soon as a heartbeat can be detected, except in case of  XYZ. So, in case of XYZ it is ok to kill children. Does that sound ok to you?

The Iowa law has an exception in case of incest if reported within 140 days? What the heck? That’s 20 weeks, folks. So, if that victim’s perpetrator is a family member, the baby is more of a target for the abortion vendors.

Where is the logic in that? A more dangerous procedure for the mother, who is likely young, and a horrendous brutal death for the baby, because the father is a criminal doesn’t make any sense to me.

The child is five months old. He or she can hear and respond to sounds and light. They move and respond to external stimuli as any other baby does. Children have been born just s few weeks older and have grown up to have healthy normal lives. This is insane.

This is why I say it is demonic. It defies any logical thought at all.

 

 

 

 

No Comments

Post a Comment