The beginning of the end

[sigma7]

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.

...Although the law -- intended as a constitutional challenge to Roe v. Wade -- is set to take effect July 1, Rounds said in the statement that he expects legal action will prevent that. He added that a settlement of the issue could take years and might ultimately be decided by the nation's highest court.

Yep, if you're raped in South Dakota and get pregnant, they want you raising the rapist's child.

It's not that I'm particularly pro-life or pro-choice. It's just that anything that mathematically decreases the odds of another Paris Hilton or Bill Romanowski being born is a good thing to me.

Comments

[robing.livejournal.com]

Without getting into a discussion of pro-life vs. pro-choice, I'm not sure there's any particular evidence that children of rapists grow up to be rapists or are in any way bad people as adults. I know that there's a cycle of violence in which abused children grow up to be abusers, but I'm not sure that that holds true for rapists as well, particularly if the rapist in question has no contact with the child. Is there evidence of this?

[motteditor.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's the point, though. Why should a woman who's been raped be forced to bear a child that arrives from that violation to term if she doesn't wish to? It's just compounding the initial trauma.

[robing.livejournal.com]

Well, I was responding specifically to what Sigma said about "anything that decreases the odds of another Paris Hilton" etc.

I guess my only response to your question is a question: Why should a child be aborted just because his dad (or even mom, I guess) was a rapist? The child isn't guilty of a crime. From a certain perspective, the child would be a victim as well.

What if the situation involved a woman who raped a man in order to get pregnant? (This is probably highly unlikely, but I'm going to go with it.) Would the man be allowed to demand the woman have an abortion because the offspring's existence was traumatic to him?

[sigma7.livejournal.com]

No, nothing against the children who're the product of rapes -- but more the fact that a woman would conceivably be legally required to bring this child to term, a child she may not want any part of, and hell, it's not out of the question (as someone mentioned in another thread somewhere) that the rapist could sue for custody.

I just think that's a lot to ask of any woman.

It's a moral minefield, no doubt. I still stick to my stance on the "fewer people = better" argument.

[adele87.livejournal.com]

What if the situation involved a woman who raped a man in order to get pregnant? (This is probably highly unlikely, but I'm going to go with it.)

I actually know a man who was raped by a woman because she wanted to get pregnant.

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

The child is doomed to a traumatic existence too, if the birth parents are in any way involved.

The mother will resent the child's existence [even if she somehow still loves the child because the child is hers] due to the fact that the child is a walking reminder.

And I don't even want to think what kind of messed up upbringing it'd be for a child growing up with the rapist father who sued his victim for custody and got it.

[motteditor.livejournal.com]

As Sig said, it's nothing against the child, but I definitely believe the living mother's rights and feelings supercede the mass of cells'.

The latter situation's certainly a tricky one. A man shouldn't be allowed to demand a woman have an abortion, but at the same time ... it's no fairer to him to have a child running around than it is to force a woman to bear one. I can't say what I would think in that situation.