Pro-26's Illogical (and Disturbing) Claims

Recently, I noticed a comment on the Yes on 26 Campaign's Facebook page. After a discussion about why Initiative 26 doesn't make any exceptions for victims of rape or incest, one commenter wrote this:


A child conceived by rape, was probly [sic] meant to happen because hundreds if not thousands of healthy married couples can't conceive a child. Also you have good evidence to prosecute the rapist.


This comment is terrifying to me. According to the commenter, rape is simply one way to provide the world with more children for adoption.... Seriously?!?! For one thing, there are plenty of children in the world waiting to be adopted, and plenty more who are alone or neglected, uncared for and impoverished. Does any suggest finding better homes for these children? No, of course not. 


Also, the comment above seems to suggest that rapes are fated to happen in order to create these children. Again, I must ask....Seriously? For one thing, he (the commenter was a male) is completely taking the blame off of the rapist. If it was his fate to rape and impregnate a woman, how can you blame him right? Wrong. A rape is a violent crime committed against another human being. It is not fate; it is not God's plan. It is simply one person taking away the rights and safety of another in order to achieve power, dominance, etc. It is not God's round-about way of putting another child on this planet.


It also bothers me that the commenter assumes that the existence of a child will inevitably lead to prosecuting a rapist. Even getting a rape accusation to be taken seriously, investigated, and to result in an arrest is an immensely difficult task that doesn't happen very often. Just because there's a child with half of the rapist's DNA doesn't mean it will lead to a conviction (or even an arrest). Perhaps the commenter has been watching too much Law and Order: SVU.


I think this comment also reveals how a large majority of our society still views rape. This commenter is not concerned at all with the rape victim. He doesn't mention her. He doesn't mention the pain this rape caused her, and the additional pain that a pregnancy would cause. This is what bothers me most about the "Why abort when you can just put up for adoption?" argument against abortion. Pregnancy is extremely difficult. Nine months is a long time. Pregnancy and child-bearing result in time off from work, unpaid leave, physical and emotional roller-coasters, and much more. Now add all that as the aftermath of a rape. Add all that onto the emotional and physical struggle to recover from being raped. Even if you know you're going to put this child up for adoption, that doesn't make the duration of pregnancy and the difficulty of childbirth any easier (in fact, I would imagine it might be harder; you know this is a child you don't want, and you are simply incubating). But, when people argue for adoption vs. abortion, they aren't even considering the toll this would take on the rape victim (or just the woman with an unwanted pregnancy).  Because, in many people's minds, even today, the rape victim is somehow to blame: she was too drunk, she was wearing something slutty, she has had sex with too many men, she should have known better than to be in that bar/frat house/dark street. And the fact that so many people still think this way, and use these inaccurate stereotypes of rape victims to make a case for extreme, far-reaching legislation, is what terrifies me the most.