South Dakota will now Punish the Victim
The current movement to take away one of our rights is going to cause a lot of problems. Who the hell thinks they are superior to me when it comes to making decisions about my own body. This is mine. To tell me that if I am raped and I become pregnant as a result of that rape, I must carry that man’s baby to term. That is not an option for me and I suspect the majority of women feel the same way. I refuse. I don’t care how many laws I have to break, I will not give birth to the child of a rapist just because some lunatic thinks it’s god’s will. In this case I would have to say to hell with your god. If there is such an entity he or she wouldn’t recognize this law and neither will I. Why force a woman to give birth to a child when all she may ever know about that child’s father is that he was a criminal and a rapist.
If a child is raped by her father and she becomes pregnant she must carry that baby to term. She must give birth to her father’s child. Who the hell could support such a law? Only lunatic, fragile, insecure women and loathsome angry men. They’ll cloak their lunacy, insecurity, fragility, loathsomeness and anger in the name of religion. That’s the way it’s always done.
Both of the concerns above have one thing in common. Both are punishing the victim of a crime by forcing them to give birth to a child they did not wish to have. That’s exactly what these laws do. They tell a woman if she is raped by a stranger or a member of her family she must suffer two events. First the crime of rape that is committed against her and then she is given a sentence of 18 years to life of raising and being responsible for a person who is related to a criminal.
And what of this child who is a result of a crime being committed against its mother? Yes, the mother may put the child up for adoption at birth. Who will adopt this child? There aren’t enough adoptive parents for the children who are available today, who will take these future children conceived and born of crime? Don’t expect to hear anything about religion in that answer.
If a child is raped by her father and she becomes pregnant she must carry that baby to term. She must give birth to her father’s child. Who the hell could support such a law? Only lunatic, fragile, insecure women and loathsome angry men. They’ll cloak their lunacy, insecurity, fragility, loathsomeness and anger in the name of religion. That’s the way it’s always done.
Both of the concerns above have one thing in common. Both are punishing the victim of a crime by forcing them to give birth to a child they did not wish to have. That’s exactly what these laws do. They tell a woman if she is raped by a stranger or a member of her family she must suffer two events. First the crime of rape that is committed against her and then she is given a sentence of 18 years to life of raising and being responsible for a person who is related to a criminal.
And what of this child who is a result of a crime being committed against its mother? Yes, the mother may put the child up for adoption at birth. Who will adopt this child? There aren’t enough adoptive parents for the children who are available today, who will take these future children conceived and born of crime? Don’t expect to hear anything about religion in that answer.
posted by pissed off patricia at 3:16 PM
24 Comments:
Remember the child can only be put up for adoption with the rapist fathers consent. If the child is white they will be adopted rather quickly, if not, the odds are not the best. There is still stigma attached to adoption in many minority communities.
Plus if the mother keeps the baby when it's born, it will be a constant reminder to her of the most horrible event of her life. That would be very difficult to deal with.
Yeah, I didn't go into the consent part because that's when my head began to explode in a big way.
What if the rapist is never caught? How can he give consent if no one knows who or where he is?
Good morning PoP:
My birthday is April 9th. Wow, at least two aries on board. I'll be 66, going on 46, next month.
No, I'm not an English professor, although my students sometimes thought that when they would get their writing assignments back. My academic training was in the fields of political science (BA, MA) and community college administration (Ed.D).
Re: your topic this morning, I forget who said it on CL when they said, the religious right care more about the fetus than they do about the baby (paraphrasing). These SD and MS laws seem to care very little about the mother as well. And, what group of women will suffer the most: poor women as the rich will always have access to abortion. Shame on the lawmakers.
Steve
I know what you mean about the exploding part. I dont think the baby would be a reminder to the mother of the rape. The human mind is incredibly resiliant, and the power of having children in your life is awesome.
PoP, There was an out. If the girl was a devout Christian saving her virginity for marriage, she could get an abortion on the basis of fear of suicide on her part due to the shame and loss. I wonder how many "born again" virgins will turn up in South Dakota.
Eprof2 ... a match made in heaven. I just turned 62 going on 36. :-)
glad we aren't going this way here.
Morning, PoP. It's not that I don't think what's going on in South Dakota isn't an abomination; it clearly is. However, my guess is that abortions due to rape and incest comprise a very, very small percentage of all abortions performed. If we focus too much on the lack of exception for rape and incest, I think we divert attention from the central issue, which is: women simply must have the right to control their own bodies vis-a-vis reproductive decisions, whether their reasons be good, bad or indifferent. Would it be horrible to have to bear a child resulting from an act of violence? Absolutely, but no less so than bearing a child that is unwanted for economic or situational reasons.
Damn those bastards to hell and back for what they have done.
Hope all is well with you. Glad to hear Murphy is on the mend.
Why force a woman to give birth to a child when all she may ever know about that child’s father is that he was a criminal and a rapist.
Because it's women who have to do this, not men, while men are largely the ones creating such laws?
I can just imagine what the rules would be like if men were the childbearers.....
- oddjob
Another martini, first Patricia.
Yup. Its sad and these are all very constructive comments on it. I'm afraid I am exhausted after arguing these matters on my own blogs, but rest assured we are on the same page.
Nice looking banner!!!!!
PoP, Molly Ivins has a great article on things in SD this morning. Molly Ivins on South Dakota I really liked the lawmaker who said that he wanted to go to the good ol' days in the wild west when shot gun marriages took care of the abortion issue. Unbelievable!
Jamie, I grew up in SF and moved to Yakima for my first teaching assignment in 1970 at YVC and stayed for 16 years. Zoftig you were not!
Oh yes! I take the South Dakota ban as a direct assault on women everywhere. The legislative body who passed this cruel bill are the oppressors of women's basic rights. Next, we will have it that women can't have any money of their own and then women can't vote and then women must stay hidden and not be educated.
lunatic, fragile, insecure women and loathsome angry men ... says it all ... gotta remove the latter from power ... by the way ... if you don't go back rory's post on this one you'll miss the link to doug who is there and commenting nicely on the fuckwits
a north dakotan, not a north dickotan
PoP, the only thing I can say about this development is that given enough time these fundamentalists will scare the beejebus out enough people that the public will finally smack them down. They are not invincible.
I really like your new header image, let me guess, did Mr. Aikane Leo have anything to do with it? He has really gotten good at HTML, just curious.
RSB, I recently discovered that you nominated my blog for a Koufax award. Thank you, that was very nice of you. I will not need to worry about preparing an acceptance speech... but it is an honor to just be nominated...
Mr Left of Center who made and installed this lovely new header. I love it!
Left of Center, I'm not so sure that it would not take a saint to overlook the most terrible happening of her life and embrace the fruit of that horrible assault. It's hard enough to take care of a child that you want and long for, but to be the mother of a child of rape, ... I'm not sure I could do it, I would say any woman who could IS a saint.(and I've brought up three, and had a friend's daughter stay with me for a year, so I'm speaking on a day-to-day-grind level here)
Unfortunately, my mind is on the morbid and morose today - Just wondering, any one taking bets on how long it takes before some family sues SD for wrongful death of a 15 year old daughter who dies giving herself a coathanger abortion becuase she can't get a legal one.
I know, the thought is sickening, but those who remember what life was like before Roe V. Wade should remember why Roe was a Jane Doe.
Yeah...these are the men that (when/if) it happens to their little darling daughter...they'd claw their way to an abortion clinic for them. The others in the population simply don't matter because they aren't friends or family. They are such hypocrites...yet never look into their own hearts for doing what is right.
PoP - Preach it Sistah! You're in top form. Love the header too.
Sheila, You have my sympathy. I had a "date rape" situation that fortunately did not result in a pregnancy. If it had, my decision would have been the same as yours. I deplore any abortion, but it has to be the woman's decision. No man can possibly understand what it means to be pregnant. In most cases, whether the he involved is there or not, you are making a 20 year commitment. In addition no woman is ever closer to death than when she is delivering a child. Almost all the time these days, all goes well, but she and her doctor have to be the deciding factors.
POP...Glad to see you jumped on this issue. I've been so pissed off since this happened that I almost can't talk about it. My daughter had her first child this year -- baby Maria is 4 months old. But she was born a month early, emergency c-section because my daughter went toxic and damn near died. My daughter still has health problems as a direct result of the pregnancy. Her tube-tying is scheduled for next month. The thing is, if she were to get pregnant before she could get the tubes tied, and abortion was illegal, she might very well die or at the least, her health would suffer terribly. BUT, because no one would know for sure until it was too late, she'd have to continue the pregnancy. This whole issue is an outright attack against the importamnce of women as anything other than baby factories.
BUT, because no one would know for sure until it was too late, she'd have to continue the pregnancy.
I remember reading, while lurking on another blog some years ago, about a man whose mother went through that scenario back in the days when it was illegal in that state (New York?) for the woman to have an abortion unless her life was in danger. Her doctor knew full well this particular pregnancy was a no-go, but the abortion couldn't be performed until she was actually in danger. So she was hospitalized and then they waited until she was actually in danger of dying.
That's just nuts.
- oddjob
I belief Alito didn't make an absolute majority either. I believe it's still 5 (us) 4 (them).
I believe they're crossing their fingers that by the time this arrives at SCOTUS one of the liberal judges will have retired or died (Stevens is 85, although from what I understand he still runs regularly and has never discussed retiring). (I remember when Stevens was regarded as a moderate.... Sad.)
- oddjob
Sheila & Jamie, I'm so sorry you both had to go through that.
Post a Comment
<< Home