Thursday, August 23, 2012

Thoughts on rape and abortion

A certain Republican politician has got himself into hot water over his inadvised use of the phrase "legitimate rape". The media hype is preventing people from reflecting on the truth.

If conception occurs in a given rape situation, there is a child. This child is innocent. It should not be deprived of its life because of the crime of its father.

Some say that abortion should be permitted in the case of rape. But how is the occurrence of rape verified? Justice would require a juridical investigation and trial. Such a process would take time. A pregnancy typically comes to term in nine months. A proper process would hardly be concluded in such a time. So the child would be killed before rape is verified. What if, in fact, it was not a case of true rape?

I do not in any way wish to sound unsympathetic to those who are true victims of rape. They are truly victims of a most horrible crime.

But if the legitimacy of abortion were to be allowed in the case of rape, might some women plead rape in order to procure the abortion of their child?

To me, it makes no legal sense to permit abortion in the case or rape. Of course, it makes no moral sense either. But if I did hold that abortion would be morally acceptable in the case of rape, I would want to insist on a proper process to verify rape before inflicting the death sentence upon the innocent child, but how could such a process be completed before the birth of the child?

Sin, unfortunately, always opens up Pandora's box of dilemmas. We have always to start from where we are. The evil of whatever has occurred in the past (in this case, rape) cannot be undone, but we can always seek to ensure that the just path is followed from here on (i.e. the bringing to justice of the rapist without the killing of an innocent child).


  1. Agreed Father, rape is not a justification for abortion. And I also agree that the process must be done to show that rape did occur.

  2. This guy's remarks were contemptible. Nevertheless, they did set me thinking. The pro-abortion lobby in the lead up to 1967 invented figures for illegal abortions and their drastic consequences. Homosexualist activists have carried on this liberal tradition of plucking figures from thin air.

    But I have never seen any research published on the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape. How common or uncommon is pregnancy as a result of rape where there is reason to believe that the crime has in fact been committed, whether it can be proved in court or not?

    I would have thought that this would have been something that would have been looked at long ago, but I can't find any evidence that it has.

  3. I think , just from the situation and his words, that this politician was making three good points badly.
    Number inflation, which is very hard to believe is not deliberate at some point in the chain before one hears it, especially of hard cases, have been part of the murder racket's PR stock in trade since the sixties in England, prior to immoral law being passed, out they trotted in Spain in the eighties, etc; stateside, with "Roe versus wade" I dont know when exactly.
    To a great extent, to argue numbers is to go onto THEIR turf.Murder is murder, period.
    One can and should empathazise with the feelings of repulsion of a raped woman, but two wrongs do not make a right nor put things right.
    This politician got that one right.
    Murder is murder, period.
    If one must rebut THEIR numbers there are three commonsense reasons for doubting the figures the culture of death trots out and MSM followers repeat.
    It must sound like cruel mockery to any victim of rape, moreso than the victim of any crime, to find onself doubted and disbelieved.Another injustice on top of the first! But as you say above father if rapes go unchecked, and at the best of times justice is slow,how can we ever know that in a particular case or numbers of cases rape is not just something somebody is saying? (Let alone, viceversa, the rapecoverups the american abortion mills participate in, killing the innocent and avoiding justice getting the perp. ABortion would still be wrong if they weren't doing this AS A ROUTINE, but the hypocricy is vomitive)
    Secondly what he didn't say, the most obvious, and a commonplace for any married couple, at any given moment only approximately say one woman of reproductive age in good health in fifteen is even potentially able to concieve at THAT moment, and even then, not that they necessarily WILL. (Obviously, what Stateside abortion mills collaborate in covering up, the increased frequency of rape-generated pregancies in situations of underage abuse by a member of the household, or kidnappings, are precisely the situations where the victim has MOST to lose by the perp NOT BEING stopped..)
    THirdly what as far as I know he got the wrong way round: not so much that many a raped woman's system goes into shock and has a mechanism for REJECTING conception as such which he was saying, rather for a great many women all the time, many at some moment, conception is just not all that easy to achieve! Many need to be utterly relaxed , unstressed, etc, and PERSISTENT to concieve.With the man they love and live with and WANT to have children with!The official statistic of couples with fecundity problems where I write is one childbearing-age couple in every four.ON the one hand that is not one Woman in every four, certainly, equally, factor in persistance and frquency...and you have what doctors have always known empirically: only so many women under ideal circumstances,are particulary fecund for very long.
    Little can be imagined as LESS condusive to a woman's lack of stress , bodily health, etc than rape.
    But yes, A woman who has undergone the most violent, shattering, soul-destroying onetime violent rape CAN concieve, there are plenty of cases, war time including nuns(hughie, I beleive someone HAS researched some wartime cases, I don't know how well, ) being well reported.
    Most don't.
    If a prolife politician deserves to go under for this slipup, There is an nearly-entire house of commons, uk, and congress, usa, who deserve , for evil actions and furtherance of evil to go first.And faster.

  4. Exactly, Father.

    Interesting how many opponents of capital punishment see no incongruity between opposing the death penalty for a duly convicted criminal, and supporting it for the innocent baby who has not been convicted of anything, and who, through no fault of his own, is conceived in rape.


Please avoid being 'anonymous' if at all possible.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...