Andrew Solomon in the New Yorker:
There is a veritable war of statistics about rape and pregnancy, and the confusion is exacerbated by the competing agendas of the pro-choice and anti-abortion movements.
[…] I have been researching a book, “Far from the Tree,” that deals in part with women raising children conceived in rape, and have therefore met the living reproof to Akin’s remark.
[…] Rape is, above all other things, non-volitional for the victim, and the first thing to provide a victim is control. Raped women require unfettered choice in this arena: to abort or to carry to term, and, if they do carry to term, to keep the children so conceived or to give them up for adoption. These women, like the parents of disabled children, are choosing the child over the challenging identity attached to that child. The key word in that sentence is “choosing.”
[…] In working on my book, I went to Rwanda in 2004 to interview women who had borne children of rape conceived during the genocide. At the end of my interviews, I asked interviewees whether they had any questions for me, in hopes that the reversal would help them to feel less disenfranchised in the microcosmic world of our interview. The questions tended to be the same: How long are you spending in the country? How many people are you interviewing? When will your research be published? Who will read these stories? Why are you interested in me? At the end of my final interview, I asked the woman I was interviewing whether she had any questions. She paused shyly for a moment. “Well,” she said, a little hesitantly. “You work in this field of psychology.” I nodded. She took a deep breath. “Can you tell me how to love my daughter more?” she asked. “I want to love her so much, and I try my best, but when I look at her I see what happened to me and it interferes.” A tear rolled down her cheek, but her tone turned almost fierce, challenging. “Can you tell me how to love my daughter more?” she repeated.
Perhaps Todd Akin has an answer for her.
Mr. Akins would undoubtedly have an answer for a rape victim that his preferred laws forced to bear her rapist’s child – he’d tell her that the child was “God’s gift” and should be cherished as such.
Remember, Mr. Akins doesn’t recognize anyone else’s feelings.
Todd Akins would approve because unwanted children cripple families for at least two generations, maybe three, maybe more. How perfect is that for the Akins of the world. Pre-crippled, pre-disheartened, pre-self-hating children, and tormented, guilt-ridden mothers. Absolutely perfect for the Todds of the world.
Have you noticed how the phrase “unwanted child” used to be commonplace, but has mercifully become a terms we stopped hearing for a while? As awful as it is for the child, I think it is even worse for the mother.
Todd and his friends just want to go back to breaking the spirit of women the old fashioned way. For bonus points, they also destroy the relationship between generations of women.
And we do all know, don’t we, how real female power, if we ever got it (instead of our current parody that only helps women who already have privilege), would be such a force it would sweep away our current sick system with the force of a tsunami.
I don’t think there’s any crime the men in power would hesitate to commit to prevent that.