|
Rape, Incest and
Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths
David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
"How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of
incest?" complains an indignant supporter of abortion. "And how can you call
yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a
rapist's child?"
Every pro-lifer has heard these same challenges in one form
or another. They are the emotionally charged questions designed to prove either 1) that
pro-lifers are insensitive "fetus lovers," 2) or ethically inconsistent,
allowing abortion for some circumstances but not others.
Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering
these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely
misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with
sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way
help them to recover from the assault. Thus, the pro-lifer is left in the uncomfortable
position of arguing that the sanctity of life is more important than the needs of the
sexual assault victim with whom everyone should rightly sympathize.
But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at
odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving
life, not by perpetuating violence.
The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about
abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault
victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including
sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based
on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who
become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant
rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against
abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the
presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.
Several reasons are given for not aborting. First,
approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also
feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant
rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against
their bodies and their children.
Second, some believe that their child's life may have some
intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into
their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for
some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.
Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their
sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been
victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child
through abortion is repulsive.
Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may
sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By
giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when
conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of
courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was
selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing.
If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion?
This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume
that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on
with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic
view of abortion.
Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to
make a woman "un-pregnant." Instead, it is a real life event which is always
very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with
ramifications on a woman's life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances
of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause
further injury to her already bruised psyche?
In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting
that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of
medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to
understand.
Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual
organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table,
she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she
will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you
wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life
hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a
woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.
This experiential association between abortion and sexual
assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior
history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an
assault.3 This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault
are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.
Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common
for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment
of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are
identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and
accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the
psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them.
This was the experience of Jackie Bakker, who reports:
"I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the
memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I
would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that
after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened."
Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are
uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom
they see as being "guilty for letting it happen." Wiping out the pregnancy is a
way of hiding the problem. It is a "quick and easy" way to avoid dealing with
the woman's true emotional, social and financial needs.
According to Kathleen DeZeeuw, "I, having lived through
rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and
insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I
feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though
we've not been asked to tell our side."
The case against abortion of incest pregnancies is even
stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion.4
Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the
pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will
expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing
a child with whom she can establish a true loving relationship, one far different than the
exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.
But while the incest victim may treasure her pregnancy
because it offers her hope of release, and the hope of finding a nurturing love, her
pregnancy is a threat to the exploiter. It is also a threat to the pathological secrecy
which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge that the abuse
is occurring. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced into an unwanted
abortion by both the abuser and other family members.
For example, Edith Young, a 12-year-old victim of incest
impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:
"Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and
have felt a sense of loss... The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has
not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their
problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'... My daughter, how I miss her so.
I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."
Abortion providers who ignore this evidence, and neglect to
interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest, are actually
contributing to the young girl's victimization. They are not only robbing the victim of
her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim
back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.
Finally, we must recognize that the children conceived
through sexual assault also have a voice which deserves to be heard. Julie Makimaa,
conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is
acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the
suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud
of her mother's courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie
proclaims: "It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become."
That's a slogan we can all live with.
References
1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of
Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of
America, 1979) 55-69.
2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York:
Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago:
Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.
3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social
Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).
4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and
Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts,
Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.
Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 2(1)
Winter 1994. Copyright 1994 Elliot Institute
|
