Saturday, June 1, 2013

Killing the rapists daughter

It is really bizarre that the same people who believe that it’s ok to kill an unborn child because she’s a girl even after that unborn child has a good chance of living outside the womb and even after the unborn child can feel pain declare that opposing killing the rapists daughter is extremist.

Those who advocate the killing of the unborn for convenience often attempt to deflect attention from the 1,300,000+ abortions of convenience each year to the < 1% of abortions that may involve rape.  I say may not because I doubt that women who are raped sometimes get pregnant but because a woman who wishes to justify her execution of her daughter has reason to self report a rape when polled even though she never actually reported a crime.

It's clear that trying to defend the general practice of abortion by debating cases where the woman is raped is a dishonest tactic because abortion advocates reject any restriction on abortion, such as preventing the abortion of an unborn child that could survive if delivered normally or outlawing sex selection abortions, and certainly do not support abortion only in the "hard" cases--rape and threat to the life of the mother.

There are several key points that are essential in discussing if it's a good thing to kill a rapist’s daughter:
  • A woman is never ever to blame for a rape.  Any man who refuses to stop when told to is totally to blame. No matter how much a woman led a guy on if she says stop or no he has no excuse to continue.  A woman should never feel any guilt when she is raped; it is not her fault.
  • A woman who becomes pregnant due to rape deserves our total support and sympathy.
  • A rape occurs when a woman says or indicates no and the guy continues. A rape does not occur when a woman says yes, other than when she is being physically threatened with violence, but later changes her mind. That latter case, advocated by some "feminists", is an insult to women who are really raped. Just as no means no we can't hold a man guilty of rape when a woman says yes unless she does so under duress.
When thinking about abortion and rape the first question to ask is should rape be punishable with the death penalty?  Currently the law, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans, do not support execution for a first time rapist.  Given that those who support abortion tend to oppose the death penalty it is also probably true that most abortion advocates wouldn't advocate the death penalty for a first time rapist.

Let's take that a step further.  Would it be ok if a woman hunted down her rapist and killed him?  It's very unlikely that anyone would support that.

The question of justice then becomes if it is wrong to kill the monster who raped a woman why is it ok to kill his daughter?  Our disdain for rapists is based on their heinous actions but a rapist’s daughter has done nothing wrong.

The answer of course is that the rapist’s daughter has done nothing to deserve death or even punishment; who doesn't feel sorry for the children of criminals because of how those children suffer when their parent is incarcerated?

In fact it’s never true that the law allows someone to kill an innocent third party who is making their life miserable. For example if a woman causes an accident while driving, a true accident where the woman did nothing wrong, she is not allowed to kill the other driver who is suing her even though the suffering due to that lawsuit can be both more severe and longer lasting than a pregnancy. 

The abortion advocates will then say that while the rapist’s daughter is innocent the mother should not be forced to carry her own daughter to birth.  On the surface this seems compelling in that who would wish to exacerbate the horrible situation a raped women is in?

However examining the situation in light of both the Golden Rule and the mother’s self-interest we will see that the knee jerk reaction we all share is in fact not what's best for the mother.

Looking at the Golden Rule, which says treat others as you'd like to be treated, it is clear that few woman would be supportive of their own mothers decision to abort them.  Therefore a woman who is pregnant via rape really can't say that killing her daughter is consistent with the Golden Rule.

Additionally when observed from the mother’s perspective it must be odd to think that the rapist’s daughter should receive a much harsher penalty than the rapist. That incongruity may contribute to emotional and psychological problems a woman who aborts her daughter may suffer from.

The disparate punishment of the rapist’s daughter versus the punishment of the rapist is not the only paradox related to this issue. Those who support abortion tend to be politically liberal individuals who also support many laws that make it harder to convict criminals, including rapists. For example if a police search turns up proof of the rapists crime that clear evidence can be thrown out if a group of lawyers decide, after months of deliberation, that the police acted improperly.  It seems odd that the same people who advocate killing the rapist’s daughter strongly support laws that help rapists escape any punishment at all.

One clear aspect of modern western law is that it is never justified to intentionally kill an innocent human being. That rule is so strong that we define the crime of manslaughter where killing a person without intending to do so can result in significant penalties.

Given that killing the rapist’s daughter can’t be justified from a moral perspective can it be justified because of the harsh impact of the unborn child on her mother?

The first thing to note is that only 50% of women who become pregnant from rape try to kill their daughters. That indicates that killing is not viewed as the ideal solution by a lot of women.

A woman who aborts her baby is going against one of the must fundamental aspects of her very nature as a woman; and not surprisingly there are adverse consequences. While modern feminism wishes to deny the nature of women it’s a simple fact that either God or 4,000,000,000 years of evolution have designed women to be dedicated to having and protecting their children.  Anyone who has helped a friend who has had a miscarriage or been gleefully told that “the baby is kicking” by a pregnant woman knows that from the instant the woman knows she’s pregnant she is emotionally attached to her unborn daughter.  That’s why a significant fraction of women who have abortion suffer long term emotional or psychological problems.  It’s really not surprising. Feminists must think women are really stupid if feminists believe that when a women looks at her new born daughter she does not think of the daughter she previously aborted. 

After a rape a women can and should realize that she has done nothing wrong; that she is completely innocent.  Yet if a woman kills her daughter she can no longer say that.  Just as the rapist used violence to “improve” his life a woman who kills her daughter because her daughters father is a monster is using violence to “improve” her own life.  

It’s important to remember that killing an unborn child does not make the mother a non-mother.  Rather abortion makes a woman the mother of a dead child. And women are not stupid; that’s why only the most extreme abortion advocates don’t say what a tough choice it is for a woman to decide to kill her unborn daughter.

Modern man condemns the ancient rule of an eye for an eye as primitive and barbaric; as it is. But in the case of killing the rapist’s daughter it is a taking a life to avoid 9 months of suffering; suffering that millions of women gladly endure each year. While being pregnant by rape is no walk in the park it is neither life threatening nor cruel since that unborn child is the mothers child no matter how evil the father is.

While it’s clear that killing the rapists daughter is both disproportionate and wrong that doesn’t mean that the raped woman should be viewed as anything other than heroic in not taking the easy, in a short term sense, way out.

While an abortion may alleviate short term suffering in the long run the mother of the rapist’s daughter will have to confront the fact that she killed her own daughter simply because that daughters father was a monster.

Caring people, and women tend to be very caring indeed, tend to feel bad when they hurt others to further their own happiness.  Few good people are comfortable with lying or stealing to improve their own situations.  Yet when a raped woman kills her daughter she’s doing just that; killing her daughter in order to improve her own life.

The fact that the raped women is in such a difficult situation and often feels alone and abandoned helps us understand that even if she decides to kill her daughter it does not mean she’s some sort of cold blooded monster.  Even though killing someone is worse than rape we all understand that a women who chooses to kill her unborn daughter is not a monster like the man who raped her is.  People who would never rape anyone can easily empathize with a woman who just wants to make it all go away.

But if we truly love the raped woman we need to acknowledge that advocating that she kill her daughter is not what’s best for her.  Instead our job should be to help the woman realize that she is a victim, that neither she nor her daughter have done anything wrong, and that her pregnancy is not a sign of shame but rather a sign of her heroic love for her daughter; a swollen belly in that case is a badge of courage not a scarlet letter.

In fact by saying that the rapists daughter can be killed abortion advocates are indirectly declaring that the woman has done something wrong; that the her daughter is somehow a bad thing that needs to be destroyed. What mother would not feel guilty if told her daughter is so bad that the world would be better off without her?  What abused mother hates her daughter because her husband is a monster? Additionally saying that killing the rapists daughter in order to pretend as though the rape didn’t happen is a good thing to do implies that a raped woman has something to be ashamed of; that’s hardly the message we should be sending to a woman who has been raped.

In the end then people who truly love a raped woman should steer her away from killing the rapists daughter both because by killing her daughter the raped woman becomes guilty of an act of selfishness when before she had been guilty of nothing and because in the long run killing her daughter will often be worse for the mother than giving her daughter the same chance the raped woman’s mother gave her, a chance at life.

In light of this reasoning the real discussion should not be about whether the few cases of pregnancy due to rape justify the 1,300,000+ abortions due to convenience that occur each year but rather about how we can support women who have been raped.  How we can show them that their daughters are not evil just because their fathers are, how we can help those women through their pregnancies, and how we can help ensure a loving home for the innocent daughter of a rapist; either by helping the biological mother or by finding a good adoptive home for the innocent child.

Defending the life of the rapist’s daughter is not extremism since defending the right to life of any innocent person is never wrong.

Declaring that an innocent unborn girl can be killed just because her father is a monster however is the epitome of extremism because killing to improve one’s quality of life is the ultimate in selfishness.  Supporting abortion in cases of rape can be far worse than a woman who has been raped deciding to have an abortion because that woman is in such a difficult place we can understand that she is not motivated by any thought out selfishness whereas the calculated advocacy of killing for convenience can only be motivated by either extreme ignorance or a cold and calculating immorality.

No comments: