The Sexist

Resolved: Abandoning Your Rape-Victim Wife Is A Dick Move

On Friday, advice columnist Carolyn Hax took on a strangely well-worn query for today's relationship advice columnists. Here's the situation (thanks to Heartless Doll for the tip): A woman is raped. She becomes pregnant. She decides to carry the pregnancy to term. Her husband decides he wants a divorce.

Question for the columnist: Is this guy a dick, or what?

If that very unfortunate scenario sounds familiar, it's because last November, Daily Telegraph advice-giver Lesley Garner answered a question from a woman in an eerily similar situation. Garner failed.

Garner's advice-seeker had been raped, become pregnant, and had the baby. Her husband split, leaving her to raise the child as a single mother. Her question: Should she attempt to rekindle a relationship with the man who had dumped her as a result of her sexual assault?

You may recall how Garner responded: She informed the woman that her rape "wasn’t exactly a rape but a situation between you and your boss that got out of hand." Garner also insisted that a husband jetting after his wife is impregnated through rape is "a no-brainer . . . No man could contemplate this. He would have found your decision inexplicable."

In my critique of Garner's advice (in short, do not advise rape victims that they are not rape victims, and also, please refrain from informing women that their reproductive choices are thoroughly "inexplicable" to other humans), I noted that I was not an advice columnist, but that I suspected the husband in question to be a "dickwad." Now that we've got a legit advice-giver in the form of Carolyn Hax to weigh in on the subject, we may finally learn the answer: Are you a dick for abandoning your wife after she is impregnated from her rape?

But first, the big wind-up:

Oakland, Calif.: Hello Carolyn. A friend's wife became pregnant as a result of a sexual assault. She has decided to not have an abortion, and doesn't know yet whether she wants to give the child up for an adoption. Would the husband be a [glass bowl] for refusing to raise this child, and divorcing if necessary? Thanks.

Essentially, the reader is asking Hax this: "Oh, hello Carolyn, my friend's wife was raped. LONG STORY SHORT, now my friend has been seriously inconvenienced by this, so can you please let him know he's not a dick for peacing? Thanks."

Hax delivers a reasoned response that manages to give credit to the difficulty of the husband's situation while still conveying the fact that, yes, he is a gigantic jackass:

Wow. I think the only happy outcome is one the husband and wife conjure together. Technically, this isn't something the wife can force on the husband and expect him to agree to joyfully.

That said, technically, this pregnancy wasn't something to be forced on the wife, and yet it was. So, in a rare case where bean-counting is the way to go, the husband needs to let go of any notion of an ideal outcome here, in direct proportion to the wife's distance from her notion of an ideal outcome. This is the only fair and decent course.

Finally, there's the child to be considered, who is obviously innocent, and deserves to enter the world with just as clean a slate as any other child's.

I'm not saying this wouldn't be a Herculean challenge for the husband, because it would–but embracing the innocent child strikes me as immeasurably better for the soul than leaving one's rape-victim wife to be a single mom.

I trust Hax on this one. Here's why: Observe how Hax refrains from suggesting that (a) perhaps this rape victim was not in fact raped, nor that (b) rape victims who carry their pregnancies to term deserve to be alone for the choices they have made. Incredible. It is thus resolved: abandoning your rape-victim wife is a dick move.

UPDATE: It's worse than I thought. The rape victim's husband's friend weighs in to further contextualize the situation:

Oakland again: Thanks Carolyn. Obviously this whole situation is devastating for them. I don't know if this make a difference, but the couple is white, and the assailant was Afircan-American, and the husband isn't exactly progressive when it comes to race relations.

Comments

  1. #1

    “Oh, hello Carolyn, my friend’s wife was raped. LONG STORY SHORT, now my friend has been seriously inconvenienced by this, so can you please let him know he’s not a dick for peacing? Thanks.”

    Here's what I'm taking away from the above bit of insightful analysis: A woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term is beyond reproach, but a man who doesn't want to raise a baby who isn't his own and that was conceived in the worst imaginable circumstances is simply inconvenienced?

    How about this, since reductionism is the order of the day: The woman chose to keep the baby, the man chose to leave.

  2. #2

    There is not enough information given to come to the conclusion that the husband pulled a "dick move".

    I'm sure the husband was having a tough time coming to terms with the fact his wife was raped, became pregnant, considered abortion, decided against an abortion and is now deciding whether to give the baby up for adoption or possibly keeping the baby.

    Asking a man to raise a child conceived thru the rape of his wife is asking him to go "above and beyond", as far as I'm concerned. If the wife wanted to go thru with giving birth and putting the baby up for adoption, I could see myself (as a husband) agreeing to that. The baby didn't want to come into the world thru those circumstances, and the wife deciding to have the baby is pretty noble in my estimation.

    There is so much more to the story we need to know (i.e. the couple's relationship prior to the rape, their financial situation, religious and ethnic considerations, etc.) that to come up with an advice columnist solution is ridiculous.

  3. #3

    So to people who disagree what exactly IS the correct choice? A woman who has now been forced against her will to get pregnant should now be forced against her will to terminate the pregnancy? (By the coercion of "if you don't terminate I will leave you.")

    This is such a classic example of how men treat women as property. First the rapist believed that he had a right to fuck her, and now the husband thinks he should be able to control her actions. And if he can't control her actions he is out of there, I mean, who wants a woman who makes choices for her own reasons.

    Frankly as hard as it will be for this woman to go through a traumatic rape only to find out that her husband is a gigantic dickhead, she is clearly better off without another man in her life who thinks he should have the final say about what does and does not go on with her sexual organs.

  4. #4

    I dont understand why these women weren't offered RU-238 avoiding the problem altogether?

  5. #5

    Reductionism aside, I think this advice was surprisingly nuanced. Husband and wife should make the decision TOGETHER whether or not to keep the baby, but the husband should apply some THOUGHT and LOGIC to his viewpoint and try to approach the situation bearing the same burdens as the wife. The wife did not want to become pregnant under these circumstances, possibly at all, but she has made a decision that meshes with her conscience and beliefs. The husband should approach the "joint decision" part of this with a slightly more open mind and decision-making process informed by understanding his wife's feelings.

    To flip the situation, let's say the husband was anti-choice and anti-adoption - you know, a "babies are a gift from god" type - but the woman wanted to have an abortion. Should he also be able to force his will on her 100% then? Even if she agreed to carry the baby but not raise it? Or would an informed and rational decision-making process where both sides' views and opinions are aired, understood, and considered be preferable?

  6. #6

    If it were two women in a relationship, and the rest of the circumstances were the same, what would we say about the woman who left? That she was a controlling bitch? Doubtful. We'd probably say that the relationship had changed to an extent that she no longer felt apart of it.

    Furthermore, couples establish ultimatums each and every day: Cheat, and I'm leaving; quit using drugs, or I'm leaving; find a new job, stop stealing from my purse, clean up after yourself, talk to me, etc., etc. or I'm going to do X, Y, or Z. So let's not pretend that ultimatums are one-sided.

    Better question: Why are we judging this couple? Rape is traumatic; pregnancy from rape is traumatic. Maybe the husband didn't make the most romantic decision, or the most selfless decision, but we have no evidence that he made a wrong or evil decision. He just left. Men do it all the time for myriad reasons, and--surprise--so do women.

  7. #7

    Um, Jim, it's RU-486, and that is only given to induce an abortion after a pregnancy is confirmed. A much more effective plan would be to offer Plan B, or emergency contraception, which prevents implantation and the resulting pregnancy. However, we don't know the circumstances. It's possible that she was taken to a medical center that didn't offer emergency contraception, or couldn't locate a pharmacy that would dispense the drugs, or didn't seek immediate medical attention for any number of reasons that are pointed out in the many articles on rape on this blog, or the emergency contraception was taken but failed (it happens, rarely, but it happens). We don't know enough to come to any conclusions regarding that scenario, and besides, it's Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point...the wife's pregnant, she's having the baby, and now they need to decide how to deal with the baby that's coming.

  8. #8

    Mike,
    I disagree with your lesbian hypothetical. I would say she was a controlling bitch.

    Re: ultimatums In a healthy relationship ultimatums are not necessary. People can communicate about their needs and both partners try to negotiate to make it work and make their partner happy. Ultimatums only come into play when one side is being inflexible and not caring about the needs of their partner. (And it can be either side issuing the ultimatum.) Essentially if both partners are invested in making their partner happy ultimatums are never necessary.

  9. #9

    That update was a spit-take. "Oh, he's also sort of racist. Does that help?"

    No. No, it doesn't.

  10. #10

    I see nothing wrong with the husband exercising control over his body, and who he wants to spend it with. By the same standard that you're shaming him, shouldn't you also be shaming women who have abortions?

  11. #11

    So much for "for better or for worse." She is better off without this selfish, racist asshole.

  12. #12

    John,

    I don't think anyone is claiming he doesn't have the RIGHT to leave...of course he does. The question is, is that a decision that we should respect? If this man were in my circle of friends, would I still interact with him socially after he did this?

    I've got to say, my answer would be no. But, friendships are different for different people and he is free to associate with those who share his values.

    The key difference with abortion is that in abortion there is no entity that is a conscious, suffering victim. Here, the man is abandoning a woman who had a horrible ordeal and made a heart-wrenching decision. He is causing her a lot of emotional pain and insecurity, and leaving her alone in a very vulnerable and difficult position, so I think shaming him is fair. He is hurting another human being. The woman who has an abortion is stopping a potential--not actual--life, and that potential life has no demonstrable capacity to suffer.

  13. #13

    LeftSidePositive, you are, yet again, the voice of sanity from amongst the din of MRA crap. You are a better person than I.

  14. #14

    If the man can't deal with the situation and stay happily married, then no, he's not an "asshole" for leaving. He's being realistic, and the fact that the wife is an innocent victim (who made a valid choice in keeping the baby) isn't very relevant. People often leave their spouses for things that aren't the spouse's "fault." If the husband stays, he'd have to help raise this child, which he knows isn't his and has a violent criminal for a father, with the same love & attention he'd give is own child. (Ignoring it & letting his wife raise it isn't really an option.) That's a lot to ask of anyone. As an earlier commenter noted, it'd be very romantic and selfless of him to take on this task out of love for his wife, but living up to the highest possible standards of selflessness isn't necessary to avoid being an asshole. It's reprehesible that this particular man is a racist, but that doesn't alter the fact that he's not obligated to stay in the marriage.

    Oh, and all this rhetoric about "abandoning" one's wife is a little overheated. This is 2010, not 1810; even wives without husbands can generally make a living without becoming streetwalkers or throwing themselves upon the mercy of the parish. He's leaving her, not abandoning her.

  15. #15

    I like the advice of Benjamin Franklin who said "Never give advice. Wise people don't need it and fools won't heed it." But who is being advised in this situation? The man didn't ask for advice. His wife didn't ask for advice. It is a third party sticking their nose into a situation that is none of their concern.

    Ann Landers would have said MYOB. Too bad people don't give advice like that any more.

  16. #16

    Emily H.,

    I think the point about "abandoning" is more emotional then economic (not that raising a child alone is any picnic, though).

  17. #17

    A very contentious issue...this is one of those things that people can claim they would go about a certain way, until it happens to them. Some people aren't prepared to make such a huge adjustment to how they perceived their life to be. That being said, I can't imagine someone who isn't "progressive" when it comes to race-relations would be able to move on from what happened to his wife even if she chose to end her pregnancy.

  18. #18

    None of us are claiming that what the husband did isn't understandable on a human level. The point of the article was that it's "a dick move." And it is. Does that mean we're denying his "right" to do it? Of course not. It doesn't make him evil, or irredeemable...he's just a person. A person who did a really crappy thing to another person. A human, understandable crappy thing, but a crappy thing nonetheless.

  19. #19

    There is a whole host of factors to consider here but why isn't the decision to have an abortion the couple's choice rather than just the woman's? I understand it's her body but don't some married people (together as a couple) plan pregnancies and isn't this as equivalent of choice as an abortion?

  20. #20

    I wonder if staying together...with all of the coming resentment would end up being GOOD for the woman.

    Racism aside, what kind of pregnancy experience would that be? Assuming she wants to keep the baby... Would they look forward to ultrasounds (would he even go)? Is he going to rub and kiss her belly (like typical dads to be do)? Is she going to want to look at herself in the mirror? Will he want to look at her? When he stops, will she want to be with him? Does he beam with pride when folks tell them "congrats!" The baby will look nothing like him. Not that this woman would ever be able to forget what happened, she could grow to bond with someone with whom she has a genetic relationship. Sure, it's not the baby's fault...but he/she would be a walking reminder of what happened. Even if he did not file for divorce...would be be emotionally, mentally present?

    Marriages break up for a lot less.

  21. #21

    Am I the only person that doesnt understand the choice to keep the baby? I cant even fathom the fact that she asked or expected him to raise the kid. I sense an anti-abortion sentiment on this thread.

  22. #22

    @Heatmiser: If she doesn't want an abortion I don't think there's anything to discuss.

  23. #23

    She is within her right to keep the baby. He is within his rights and is not a dick for leaving her.

    Non-story here folks. keep moving.

  24. #24

    I don't have time or energy to fully hash this out here, but this story also brings to bear cultural ideas about men's ownership of women's bodies and the children they bear.

    Since the child is not "his", he is totally in the right for being FREAKED OUT! He has no moral obligation to stay since the child was not formed from his own DNA! His wife, whom he presumably loves and supports, is trying to make the best out of an awful situation. Is the biggest mental roadblock for him

    a. that the baby will be of mixed race (the horror! miscegenation!)
    b. that the baby was not conceived using his sperm (adoptions? sperm banks? would these cause similar issues?)
    c. that the baby was the result of immeasurable violence and pain inflicted upon his beloved wife, and therefore should have been aborted?

    If the answer was C, then I find it hard to believe he is a supportive, loving husband anyway, and must agree he is a "dickwad."

    Because if IT IS INDEED the fact that the baby was the result of a rape (and not really because it is half black and he's a racist douche, and not really because it is not his since he is not a possessive self-centered asshole) that freaks him out, then he should probably try to put himself in his wife's position (does this not freak her out too?), get his ass in couples counseling, and learn how to love a child that came painfully, unexpectedly into his life.

  25. #25

    Heatmiser:

    I don't think you're the only one who doesn't understand her choice. I couldn't say that I personally truly understand her choice, seeing as I have never been pregnant, and I have certainly never been pregnant by my rapist. I have no idea what I would do in that horrible situation, and I have no idea why this woman made the decision she did.

    The reasoning behind her decision not to have an abortion is unimportant to me, however. This woman has made a personal medical decision concerning her body, and I trust her to make the best decision for herself. Maybe this woman is anti-abortion, and she is morally opposed to terminating a pregnancy under any circumstance. Maybe abortion isn't against her moral code, but she expects that aborting a pregnancy would be a traumatic experience for her personally, and she has already experienced enough trauma.

    Who knows! Supporting a woman's choice about what to do with her pregnancy isn't "anti-abortion" simply because this woman happened to choose to carry the pregnancy to term. The pro-choice position is about supporting choice, not encouraging women to have abortions they don't want.

  26. #26

    Or he's simply not ready to be a father and never had such an intention. Also I don't think that his potential desire to want a kid from his own sperm has a lot to do with his desire to own his wife's body, although you do bring up the wholly reasonable worry that men spend much of their time plotting different ways to own women. It has much more to do with the cultural and perhaps biological desire to have a kid from our own sperm and the difficulties of being the father of a child whose biological father is a rapist.
    At the end of the day, I think a commitment and serious as marriage morally obligates him to stick with her as long as he can.

  27. #27

    @Emily on 26

  28. #28

    @Heatmiser,

    To echo Amanda, no we're not at all anti-abortion. I really do have a hard time even understanding this woman's decision to continue her pregnancy. In all honesty, if this were to happen to me I would be getting an abortion so fast it would make your head swim (assuming of course that emergency contraception had failed).

    I can't help thinking that this woman's choice is going to give her a lot of misery, no matter what goes on with her husband. But, the critical thing is...it is HER CHOICE. It is just as wrong to pressure someone to get an abortion if they don't want one, as it is to pressure someone not to get an abortion if they want one.

  29. #29

    @LSP "it is HER CHOICE."

    This all depends on the circumstance. Suppose a man and a woman decide that they want a child after careful deliberation. The women then decides she doesn't want to have the child. It is morally permissible for the men to pressure her to have the child, although it may not always be prudent. The objection to my line of thought is that it is her body and therefore her choice.
    This objection fails when we consider an analogy. My friend and I decide to have a bonsai plant. We can only store the plant in my room for reasons of sunlight. My friend then decides to throw away the plant. It is of course defensible for me to try and persuade him to keep the plant. After all the decision to take care of the plant was a joint one and he is now reneging on the deal. Just because the plant is in his home which he owns doesn't mean that I have no say in the matter. Of course I have no ultimate say in the matter. He can throw away the plant and get away with it, but It's morally permissible for me to try and dissuaded him.

  30. #30

    What a stupid article.

    In the precursor the OP is ignoring the fact that it's not clear that the woman was raped. Indeed short of having the guy charged and convicted, she wasn't raped. Legally. So the first advice counselor is completely correct. It was a situation that got out of hand and the woman got pregnant as a result. Her husband is hardly a dick for abandoning both her and her bastard child, in fact I can't even see a situation in which I would stay with this woman, myself. She made a complete mess of her marriage and he rightfully packed up his shit and left. Very smart move.

    Now in the second case we have to assume (not having all the facts and wanting to play along with the main question as posed) that the woman actually *was* raped and decided to have the child. Yet again the immediate question of "was it actually rape even if she says it was?" rears its ugly head. And yet again the same rules apply. If it actually was rape, why didn't she report it? Why wasn't she given a rape-kit which would have most-likely included a morning-after pill, terminating any possible pregnancy resulting from the rape?

    This just stinks to high heaven already but the same logic applies just as if she had had a consensual relationship with the rapist. She's choosing to have his baby, for Chrissakes! How much more clear can you get? Now she can make an argument that she's not going to punish the child for the sins of the father. Is she saying, "as soon as the child is born, I'm going to give it up for adoption...heck I'm already making plans to do that as we speak"?

    Yes or no?

    If she's not even willing to make that commitment *now* to the remaining sanctity of the marriage, what would she do in the future? A woman like this simply can't be trusted, God knows what sort of psychological trauma she will have to deal with as a result of being raped, and perpetuating the whole incident over a 9-month gestation is just unreal.

    Ok maybe she's lost it and the husband should stay with her and help her through it.

    But if he doesn't he's not being a "dick". He's just admitting that he can't and doesn't want to handle it. If anything he's doing her a favor by letting her carry her baby to term and raise it in peace without him to remind her of what happened to her.

    One other thing that you have to consider is that if she does carry the baby to term, and he stays there "to support her", the state will come to him looking for child-support, and you really do have to wonder about the sanity of any man who would work to support the child of a rapist and a woman who would carry such a child to term. Instead of terminating it. I give the guy 5 points here for leaving and leave 5 points on the table for him to demonstrate later that he actually *is* a dick. He'll have plenty of opportunity to make that clear later. This hardly is the point in time to say that conclusively.

  31. #31

    ...the bottom line is that even if she did get raped she should have taken steps to ensure that she did not get pregnant as a result. She obviously either did not do that by choice or those steps were woefully inadequate. You don't get pregnant and carry the baby by accident, she had nothing but time and clear incentive to terminate the pregnancy...if she was at all inclined to terminate A pregnancy.

    So she isn't. Fine. Let her have the baby of a rapist (and possibly later choose to keep the child and raise it) all by herself, when she could not only terminate the pregnancy resulting from the rape (and possibly stick her husband for child-support afterwards for both her and her rape-baby), she could actually have a child with her husband in the meantime. She's made her choice. No man in his right mind would have a problem letting her do that all on her own. Kudos, chap: you kept your shit straight.

    I'd be surprised if he stayed with her and stuck through this but I'd have no problem with it if he left her. She's a grown woman, free to make her own choice. I can't expect her husband to stay with her if he makes a choice to have a child with a man other than her husband. It's that simple.

  32. #32

    It really gets dicey when you consider what exactly would meet the definition of "pressure." Pleading? Pleading is fine. Couples therapy? Totally fine. Open discussions about mutual needs and goals? Very healthy. Harassment? Not fine. Threatening to sabotage her relationships with others? Big problem. Trying to restrict her access to medical care? Totally unacceptable. Threats of violence? Criminal.

    He might decide he wants to leave the relationship, which he is of course entitled to do. Really, two people who have such diametrically opposed values may very well be incompatible. Whether or not he's a dick would depend on the circumstances. If they had agreed to have a child and then she decides later that she doesn't want the responsibility, he's justified in leaving. If she is having medical problems and decides she can't continue the pregnancy, he'd be a TOTAL dick for leaving.

    The final say is that: She has the absolute uninfringeable right to terminate the pregnancy or keep it, and he has the absolute uninfringeable right to leave (he would still be responsible for child support payments to any existing children between them). What opinions we have about each party's character are just that, our opinions. Peer pressure to set social norms is a very important part of society, but different peer groups and different cultures will have different values and requirements for "good behavior."

  33. #33

    "It is thus resolved: abandoning your rape-victim wife is a dick move."

    It *would* be "resolved" if that was all there was to it. Vastly oversimplifying the situation in an attempt to prove your opinion will get you nowhere.

    Whether she feels that she was raped or not, choosing to have the alleged rapists' baby is a clear, independent and unfaithful choice that she is making, obviously without the agreement much less the support of her husband, and as such he no longer has any responsibility towards her. In fact he would be wise to get out as fast as he could. I can't blame him.

    No more than I would expect a woman to stay with her husband after he goes out and has a love-child with another woman. Is she supposed to provide "love and support" for his bastard child, as well?

    Ah but hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to women.

  34. #34

    "(he would still be responsible for child support payments to any existing children between them)"

    LOL he'll be lucky if he isn't held responsible for supporting the child even if he leaves before it's born. The longer that he stays knowing that she's pregnant, the more likely he will be held financially responsible.

  35. #35

    I love Carolyn Hax. Straight up, I wait for Fridays every week so I can indulge in her live chat over lunch.

    I do NOT love the slew of jackasses on this thread defending the husband. Yeah, nobody wants to raise somebody else's kid. Nobody wants to get rape-pregnant either, okay, so the relevant question here is, are you going to stand by this woman you promised to love for better or for worse, or are you going to say "sucks a lot about your violent sexual assault but screw you, you're handling this on your own"?

    Free citizens may opt for either choice. But those that go with Door Number Two are, without a shadow of a doubt, absolute scum.

    Bonus points for commenter Adrian, for suggesting that the man, who wasn't raped and isn't pregnant, gets to override the way the ACTUAL VICTIM HERE feels she can best heal from her traumatic victimization. How bout you, son---single? I'm just guessing.

  36. #36

    ...that is if she decides to keep it...if she gives it up for adoption that's a completely-different story.

    But she should have thought this all the way through, and in any case that's 8months or so when she's not having her husbands' baby.

    Not to mention that she might actually die or become sterile as a result of attempting to give birth to this child.

  37. #37

    Banyan, I should also add that I have no problem whatsoever with a husband advising/encouraging his wife to end a pregnancy that resulted from rape, as long as he is respectful about her needs & experiences. He is perfectly entitled to express the opinion that it would be better for their relationship if she didn't continue the pregnancy (and, frankly, I'd probably agree with him). So:

    "Honey, I'm so sorry for what you've been through. This was not your fault and you don't need to suffer for this anymore. I'm really worried that continuing this pregnancy will inflict more pain and suffering on you, and will make it harder for you to move past this experience. To be honest, I have some real problems with bringing a person into the world under these circumstances, and I'm afraid our relationship will suffer because of the constant reminder of what happened to you."

    Good man! But, if she really has problems with the idea of ending a pregnancy, I hope he'd respect that...

    On the other hand:

    "You shouldn't be having another man's baby! I don't have to deal with this! Why do I have to take care of something that I don't want because of you? It's not even mine! You have to get rid of it or I'm leaving."

    Total dick.

  38. #38

    "are you going to stand by this woman you promised to love for better or for worse,"

    When women stop divorcing men for having affairs with other women, when women stop divorcing men *period* and taking them to the cleaners in divorce-settlements, you can make that argument that he should stay with her for choosing to carry a rape-baby to term.

  39. #39

    utter hypocrisy to expect one man to stand by his wedding vows when women will leave and/or cheat on their husbands at the drop of a hat.

    the guy is lucky that this happened sooner than later. It's only going to cost him so much money and he will have little if any regrets or negative recrimination.

    Godspeed, dude.

  40. #40

    a)
    and if he really cared for her and put their marriage above all else, he would stay with her anyway.

    b)
    ...given her choice to add fuel to the fire, that's the only rational thing to do here. She's clearly putting the child above the marriage.

    Of coure he could stay with her anyway.
    But he would hardly be a dick at all if he said "good luck!" and left to go his own way.

    Of course he would be a dick if he said something like "fuck you you stupid bitch" packed up his shit and left her without a 2nd word. But not just for leaving the marriage. Really that would be the wise thing to do here.

  41. #41

    ...ultimately if you believe in the sanctity of the human life to such a degree that you would carry the child of a man who forced himself on you, then you would have to argue that any woman in a similar situation should do the same thing, no matter how repugnant the act of rape.

    But the main thing is that clearly she did not take sufficient steps here to avoid the pregnancy. This speaks to a fundamental moral issue with birth-control. Either she didn't *try* to prevent the pregnancy or terminate it in its early stages with a morning-after pill (a standard component of rape kits) or she just didn't follow-through if those preventative measures didn't work. She is therefore making a conscious choice to sustain the newborn inside her even though it came through force from outside her marriage.

    Which raises two questions.

    One, was it actually rape? Yet again I have to ask that.

    Two, just how important is her marriage to her?

    You just simply cannot do something like this which undermines the marriage and THEN expect your husband to hold up the rest of it. If she wants to have the child, the onus is on her to go the extra mile, indeed the extra 800 miles, to ensure that her marriage is working even if she has that child.

    At the very least she has to promise him, swear to him, that she will give the child up for adoption after its born. Obviously for one she hasn't made that case. Second there's no guarantee that even if she said that TODAY that she wouldn't change her mind about it tomorrow.

    And all along the question remains, was she actually raped in the first place. Did she *really* not want to have sex with that guy.

    She's having his child by choice.

    That really puts that question right out there on the table.

  42. #42

    And that question will be there every fucking day of their lives.

  43. #43

    O.K., agreed, by and large, I mean if he had some outbursts and said some unkind things due to the stress, I wouldn't demonize him, but yes the first dialogue is preferable. What would be really nice is if he tried to stick with her as long as possible and just bit his tongue until the pregnancy was over. That's what I would hopefully do.

    But let's take a different scenario. She isn't raped. They decide they want to have a child, and then she decides to have an abortion. Well in this case she is the dick and he is justified in cussing her out and bailing. In addition, she has betrayed him and violated him deeply.

  44. #44

    "At the end of the day, I think a commitment and serious as marriage morally obligates him to stick with her as long as he can."

    funny I just got through commenting on that.

    Marriage is a commitment but it isn't a commitment that comes before all else. Husbands in the military abandon their wives and children and go off to fight war on a daily basis, so duty to country comes before marriage. Women regularly cheat on and leave their husbands, so clearly there are other concerns that married women have that come before their marriage. This woman is placing the child before her marriage, maybe even thinks that she can have the two together.

    I think that she is confused about what her marriage really means. And the fact is that she is finding out right at this moment.

    They each will have their own opinions but the fact is that marriage sits on a scale. Some days it's worth more and some days it's worth less. And the wife and husbands both weigh that marriage on a daily basis, and make decisions either to keep it going or to abandon it. And those decisions feed back on each other.

    It's simply not an either-or question. No way that it is. But without a doubt she is holding that marriage in her hand, and squeezing it, and it's her husbands' decision to either stay with it or leave as a result. And he's the only one who can decide whether it is worth it to stay or not worth it to stay.

    And I for one, based on what I know, think that he would be wise to leave. Now. the sooner the better. Or admit that he's going to accept parental responsibility for that child. I'm sorry, no one in their right mind enters a marriage thinking that they will accept responsibility for a child conceived through rape after the marriage (unless maybe the husband rapes the wife).

    Certainly no man will do that.

    And for the *wife* that choice is squarely in her court.

  45. #45

    @Banyan--that's exactly what I said above:

    "Whether or not he’s a dick would depend on the circumstances. If they had agreed to have a child and then she decides later that she doesn’t want the responsibility, he’s justified in leaving. If she is having medical problems and decides she can’t continue the pregnancy, he’d be a TOTAL dick for leaving."

    You may have missed it because jf1 inserted a lot of rambling in between...

  46. #46

    not only that but she is doing a disservice to all other women in even sending a message out to men that if they rape a woman and the woman gets pregnant (ignoring how that actually happens once she gets away from him) that women should still carry the child to term.

    It's like (and I swear I'm starting to hate analogies) a bank saying "ok you robbed us and we're going to see you prosecuted for it, but you still get to keep the money because you did get it out of the bank to and over to your hiding-place". It would be Open Season on women if this even hinted to be a publicly-acceptable position. One of the main reasons that guys don't rape women is that even if they did rape them and somehow got them pregnant as a result, the women still wouldn't have their children. You take that out of the equation and you'll have nuts out there chasing down women just to knock them up, with the arguable defense that if they have the child afterwards that they really must have wanted to have sex with them in the first place.

  47. #47

    "You may have missed it because jf1 inserted a lot of rambling in between…"

    yeah

    like you don't care w hat I say...sure...

    not like this doesn't combine STD-transmission, unwanted pregnancy, violation of your person and marriage all in one topic, no...

  48. #48

    I mean how can you express your desire to have sex with a man any more than by having his child by choice?

    Do you *really* think it's possible to separate those two questions?

  49. #49

    ...I mean, this really really degenerates at high speed because you can always raise questions about why she would or wouldn't, should or should not want to have sex with the father of her child. None of which are really good questions for a husband to think about, especially if he expects his wife to NOT have sex with any man who would rape her, much less to have his child, much less to have sex with any man other than her husband.

    This is just all kinds of "bad".

    But oh no, now he's going to stick it out simply because they are *married*? LOL!

    If he wasn't married to her and all of this happened, would anyone expect him *to* marry her? Oh but he'd be a dick to abandon his girlfriend if she got pregnant by a black rapist and chose to have the child anyway? I don't think so!

  50. #50

    (This latest one is just too damaging to rape victims to ignore):

    "I mean how can you express your desire to have sex with a man any more than by having his child by choice?

    Do you *really* think it’s possible to separate those two questions?"

    It is EXTREMELY possible to separate those two questions.

    Some women have moral or religious beliefs that life begins at zygote formation, and for them they feel an obligation to sustain that life. Even if the situation was forced on them, their beliefs require them to devote their body to sustaining that life.

    I don't agree with them AT ALL...they are free to live their own life according to their own values, but I would not tolerate anyone who believes that trying to force that belief on how I live my life. Similarly, I will not try to force my beliefs onto them.

    But, just because someone feels called or duty-bound to keep a pregnancy, DOES NOT mean they desired the sex.

  51. #51

    ...if my wife came home with a baby that she had taken from some woman at the park, skinned it and fried it in the oven and tried to serve it for dinner, would I be a dick to abandon her?

  52. #52

    "But, just because someone feels called or duty-bound to keep a pregnancy, DOES NOT mean they desired the sex."

    Of course it does, otherwise they have no sexual restraint or ethics. They would reproduce with anyone even if they forced themselves on her.

    You are inherently attempting to separate the sexual act from reproduction. But that's what sex is all about. Unless, of course, you would have sex with someone when you have no desire at all to have a child with them...

    and I see that we are about to go around on that question again :)

  53. #53

    ...even if true when a woman agrees to marry a man, she loses the freedom to make this choice. A married woman no longer is free to decide whether or not to have children by other men even if she is forcibly impregnated against her will. She's sworn to reproduce only with her husband.

  54. #54

    ...otherwise we would have married people running around up and down the street having "reproductive events" and having babies with people outside of their marriage!

  55. #55

    Sex is about so much more than creating children. Similarly, creating children is about so much more than having sex.

    It's really easy to separate the sexual act from reproduction, and indeed people should, in order to respect the responsibilities involved with child-rearing and endeavor to have children for the right reasons.

    And yes, of course I have sex when I have no desire to have a child. The vast majority of humankind does, too..

  56. #56

    ...a couple where one partner is sterile which still wants to have a child by at least the fertile partner, would have no choice. They would have to seek DNA from outside the marriage.

    But to say, "ok honey you go do that "getting pregnant" thing with Joey down the street, I'll still be here and I'll still love you when you get back from having another mans' kid...just promise me that you won't enjoy it when he "impregnantes" you"? Come on, you seriously think that this is "marriage"? I think the issue here is that the husband is far from this point, yes? And as well she supposedly didn't consciously choose to get pregnant by this guy, so it's a double-negative. Neither of them supposedly want her to have this man's baby. OBVIOUSLY her doing so -by choice no less- destroys the sanctity of their marriage.

  57. #57

    #53...jf1, would you like to cite some CURRENT legal precedent for this claim of yours?

  58. #58

    "It’s really easy to separate the sexual act from reproduction, and indeed people should, in order to respect the responsibilities involved with child-rearing and endeavor to have children for the right reasons.

    And yes, of course I have sex when I have no desire to have a child. The vast majority of humankind does, too.."

    Don't be a twit. You say that but obviously you wouldn't be fucking the guy unless you had SOME desire to have a child with him unless you were a ribald slut. You have to be a complete dunce (or as you prefer to say, psychotic) to think that there is no connection between sex and the desire to reproduce with someone.

  59. #59

    No, you have to be a delusional idiot to think that the vast majority of humanity doesn't have & desire sex with people with whom they have no interest in having a child.

  60. #60

    #57 Yeah: what the hell do you think "being married" means?!?

    Jesus fucking christ woman? You think that because you use a condom today because you don't want to get pregnant TODAY that that means that you have no desire to reproduce with the man that you're fucking, none at all? And you really don't get it when I say that condoms not only promote unsafe sex they discourage healthy relationships? You're a fucking poster-child for it if you are to believed at all. And I doubt that you have NO DESIRE AT ALL to have children with your boyfriend yet you keep saying "yes" to him when he sticks his penis inside you.

  61. #61

    "No, you have to be a delusional idiot to think that the vast majority of humanity doesn’t have & desire sex with people with whom they have no interest in having a child."

    do people get married to people that they desire to have sex with but not have children with, hopeless one?

  62. #62

    ...and do they then go out and have children with other people, all while remaining "happily married" to these same people that they supposedly want to fuck but not have children with?

  63. #63

    I swear to God that you have exposed yourself as an utter idiot, severely lacking in morals and logic. Again.

  64. #64

    So what of those couples who choose not to have children? No sex for us, of course, because we don't want babies...or are we also sluts for expressing natural, physical love to our partner, even if it's in the context of a monogamous and legally committed relationship? And what about the couple with a sterile partner. If they go in knowing that they CAN'T produce children with that person, are they also a "ribald" slut? After all, their desire for children, if they have it at all, is fruitless, and we have the mental capacity to make that connection.

  65. #65

    #61. Yes--quite frequently, in fact.

  66. #66

    Yes, and your logic of "she's keeping the baby therefore she actually wants to have sex with the rapist and is retroactively consenting and that undermines her marriage" is soooo very sound.

    Also, there are some people in this thread (not all, of course, but some) who are really saying horrible things about this baby. Let's not forget that the baby is completely innocent and has nothing to do with any of this. Had she chosen to abort the fetus, that would be her choice of course, but that ISN'T the choice she made. When that baby is born, it will be an innocent human being and people who talk about it like it has less value as a human being because of the violent circumstances surrounding its conception...just...no.

  67. #67

    "So what of those couples who choose not to have children?"

    Then by definition you are not out running around having children outside your marriage.

  68. #68

    #66

    I wouldn't say that she's retroactively consenting to rape. I don't know where you got that from. I wouldn't even say that she's retroactively consenting to having sex with her supposed "rapist". I don't know where you got that from either.

    If you want to twist my posts further and argue to your version of what I actually said, feel free to do that.

    I have also spoken on the issue of couples who cannot have children together, so just go read what I said about that (in #56).

    And I doubt that anyone here is blaming the child for the situation, though one still should consider the medical implications to both the child and the mother. All of the normal screening should be done, even more carefully than ever. Because obviously if the guy actually raped the woman, then he's clearly not stable mentally. You would really have to ask why this woman wants to bring this child forth into the world. It could be the worst decision that she ever makes. She has no idea of this mans' medical history, none whatsoever. Starting off on a bad foot on top of that.

  69. #69

    ...ultimately it just is clear that this womans' uterus is a loose-cannon, ready to fire-off any explosive material that's placed in it, regardless of source.

    Yeah her husband should really "love and cherish" her in return.

  70. #70

    "After all, their desire for children, if they have it at all, is fruitless, and we have the mental capacity to make that connection."

    Of course, people want to have children who can't. Do they want to have sex when they can't have children? Obviously. Does that mean that they want to have sex with someone who cannot have their children but would never want to have children with them if they could? No.

    Does it mean that they have sex with someone they cannot have children with while they want to have children with someone they can't have sex with? Sure, if they are married to an infertile partner and they really want to be unfaithful and have sex with (and probably want to have children with) someone else who is fertile.

    The main thing is why are you fucking someone that you have no desire at all to have children with...especially if you are not married to them? Yet again we reduce the issue to this basic question.

    And this is nothing less than a question of ethics and morals, wrapped around a core of common sense, logic and human decency.

    The very same thing that this woman is dealing with when she talks about carrying a rape-child to term while she is married to another man. The same issues. Except we have a light held up to one situation that shines through and illuminates another situation, and reflects back to show the backside of the original question.

  71. #71

    And in my opinion this question has been reduced, thusly. A woman of good moral character does not have another mans' child while she is married to someone else. Her decision does not show that she has respect for the life of the rape-child over her marriage. It shows that she simply doesn't respect her marriage. The question of what esteem she holds the child in is answered by the fact that she wants to carry it to term, and that alone.

    The issues are separate and distinct. But her marriage cannot survive her conscious decision to have children with men other than her husband, especially without his consent. It's done.

  72. #72

    ...she may feel that she is making a higher judgment. She is inherently failing the test of her marriage in even entertaining that choice.

    It would be no different with a husband who allows his wife to die during childbirth. He is making a conscious decision to put the birth of the child before his marriage and indeed the life of his wife.

  73. #73

    ...it's not a question of whether her husband would leave her if she had the child. It's a simple question of her respecting the conditions of marriage.

  74. #74

    Yep, no one said that having his child is like saying that you want to have sex with him. Oh wait....

    "I mean how can you express your desire to have sex with a man any more than by having his child by choice? "

    Yeah, that was you.

    Oh, and no one said anything demeaning about the child either. It's not like anyone repeatedly called it a "rape-baby."

    Oh wait, that was you too...

    AND it's not like anyone repeatedly emphasized the fact that it's "the child of a rapist" as if that has any effect on the validity of the woman's choice. Please.

    Plus, it won't really be the rapist's child. Fatherhood is a lot more than sperm.

  75. #75

    "The question of what esteem she holds the child in is answered by the fact that she wants to carry it to term, and that alone."

    This, right here, is the problem. You're saying that the fact that she wants to carry the child to term reflects the esteem she holds for it...and that's somehow a bad thing? Again, I'll reiterate, I'm not saying that aborting the fetus would have been a less valid choice, of course it's up to her. But don't conflate the rapist with the baby. They have nothing to do with each other but DNA. Esteeming the child is not the same thing as esteeming the rapist.

    "But her marriage cannot survive her conscious decision to have children with men other than her husband"

    She isn't having children "with" a man other than her husband. First of all, rape is not sex. She did not consent. She did not have sex with him, he perpetrated an act of violence against her. There's a difference. And second of all, the person you have a baby "with" is the person who's there at the sonograms and the baby showers, the person who shows interest in being with the child. The act of conception has little (if anything) to do with that part.

  76. #76

    "Yep, no one said that having his child is like saying that you want to have sex with him. Oh wait…."

    You're confusing the issue of wanting to have his child *before* she was supposedly raped and could possibly get pregnant as a result, with wanting to have his child *after* she was supposedly raped but definitely after she was impregnated. The 2nd case is clear, there is no doubt about her desire to have his child. She's having his child by choice. The first raises the question of whether it was rape at all. In the first case there is a question of whether she wants to have sex with him and of whether she wants to have his child. It's not rape if she wants to have sex with him and definitely not if she wants to have his child (leaving only the question of whether desire for sex=a desire to reproduce, which I say that it must on some level, otherwise the sex is psychotic, sheer pleasure entirely disconnected from a desire to reproduce). If neither is the case then she's allowing the fact that she got pregnant to override her marriage vows.

    All of these cases point to one thing: an absence of faith to and concern for her marriage. Because she can't have her marriage and have the baby too, unless her husband forgives her for having the child of another man while she is married to him. Which is clearly not the case.

    Now, rationally, he *could* forgive her for having the child of another man while she's married to him. But the question is would that be a rational decision? It's no different from a wife who is unfaithful by choice who then confesses to her husband. Would it be rational, even logical, to forgive an unfaithful wife? Not if she would happily go out and cheat on you again.

    She has a simple choice. She either has the baby or keeps her marriage. She can't have it both ways.

  77. #77

    By the way, jf1, you still haven't provided any current legal precedent that states that a woman gives up her choice about her procreation because she is married.

    You see, there is in fact a world that exists outside of your fevered brain...it's called the real world. It has its problems, but overall it's a pretty nice place. In the real world, the obligations of parties in a marriage are defined by actual laws, not just what some random person thinks marriage should mean.

    So...can you actually provide any legal justification for your claim? It must still be in practice and enforced in this country to be relevant, I might add.

  78. #78

    "Plus, it won’t really be the rapist’s child. Fatherhood is a lot more than sperm."

    Obviously that eliminates any need for us to continue this discussion.

  79. #79

    "But don’t conflate the rapist with the baby. They have nothing to do with each other but DNA. Esteeming the child is not the same thing as esteeming the rapist.

    ...again...

    "She isn’t having children “with” a man other than her husband."

    ...we..

    "First of all, rape is not sex."

    ...have...

    "And second of all, the person you have a baby “with” is the person who’s there at the sonograms and the baby showers, the person who shows interest in being with the child. The act of conception has little (if anything) to do with that part."

    ...nothing to talk about here.

  80. #80

    "By the way, jf1, you still haven’t provided any current legal precedent that states that a woman gives up her choice about her procreation because she is married."

    You're trying to generalize my statement. Show some basic respect for what I actually said, at least.

  81. #81

    jf1 says: "otherwise the sex is psychotic, sheer pleasure"

    Why is that a bad thing? ;-)

  82. #82

    Thank goodness you finally agree.

  83. #83

    ...you women can go fuck anyone you want, and you can say anything that you like about either your desire to have sex with them or your desire to reproduce with them. Don't expect us to buy your bullshit simply because you say one thing or another.

    Your actions speak for you.

  84. #84

    Wait...you said twice that we have nothing to talk about here...and then I see that you've continued talking? Interesting.

  85. #85

    How did I in any way generalize your statement? This is what you said:

    "even if true when a woman agrees to marry a man, she loses the freedom to make this choice. A married woman no longer is free to decide whether or not to have children by other men even if she is forcibly impregnated against her will. She’s sworn to reproduce only with her husband."

    If a woman is no longer free to decide, there must be a law enforcing this, otherwise she is by definition free. Show me that law, or your argument is invalid.

  86. #86

    ...what, am I supposed to stop talking because I have said that you and I have nothing to talk about?

    So you think that unless I have something to say to YOU then I have no right to speak at all?

  87. #87

    "If a woman is no longer free to decide, there must be a law enforcing this, otherwise she is by definition free. Show me that law, or your argument is invalid."

    Really, the levels to which you will take your Denial Field are quite funny :)

    Do you really think this or is the field-radiation speaking for you? LOL

  88. #88

    "even if true when a woman agrees to marry a man, she loses the freedom to make this choice. A married woman no longer is free to decide whether or not to have children by other men even if she is forcibly impregnated against her will. She’s sworn to reproduce only with her husband.”"

    Wow, I wonder why.

    Possibly because she's married to her husband? No...

  89. #89

    seriously if you have a problem understanding what it means to be married?

    Then we really don't have anything to talk about here.

  90. #90

    Your exact words were: "Obviously that eliminates any need for us to continue this discussion."

    So, since you have conceded the argument and agreed that the child has nothing to do with the rapist, I think we can all go to bed.

  91. #91

    Wake up, jf1, there are a million different things that it may or may not mean to be married. It varies depending on time period, region of the world, religion, personal beliefs of the people involved, etc.

    The only people who need to agree on "what it means to be married" are any given two people entering into a marriage with one another. You don't get to define it for them.

  92. #92

    ...a man and a woman are married. I mean you have to be really nuts to not see this.

    If she chooses to go out and get pregnant by another man, she is cheating on her husband and thus she is violating the marriage agreement, spoiling the oath and the reality of marriage. How could this not be clear to you.

    If a 2nd man then rapes her and she chooses to have his child, what's the difference? It wasn't her idea to get pregnant by the 2nd man? Possibly. Assume that's true. But if she chooses to continue the pregnancy then she is in the exact same position that she would be if she simply went out and got pregnant by her own volition. There's no difference. HOW she got pregnant is immaterial as long as the husband is not the father.

  93. #93

    jf1--it's really not all that effective when a crackpot like you calls someone delusional.

    If you really want to show everyone how rational and logical you are (!), actually answer the question:

    How can someone in this country not be free to do something unless there is a law preventing them from doing it?

  94. #94

    ...jesus fucking christ, you're married to some guy and he goes out and has kids with another woman, what are you going to say?

  95. #95

    "How can someone in this country not be free to do something unless there is a law preventing them from doing it?"

    Prove that there is not a law that would prevent this married woman from having a child by another man. Go ahead. Scour the Internet until you an conclusively demonstrate that there is no such law.

  96. #96

    ...when you give up on that, you can go ask a lawyer who specializes in family law, and then if you doubt what he says, you can ask a judge who normally sits in family court.

    And you can ask that judge what he thinks about this case.

    And then just realize that that's exactly what the husband will have to do when he pursues a divorce. He will have to present grounds for divorce to the judge. And "what? She's pregnant by a man she claims raped her, and refuses to terminate the pregnancy? Oh, no problem. Give me 5 minutes and I'll return with my decision".

    And what do you think that decision will be?

  97. #97

    No, she is not AT ALL in the same position as if she got pregnant of her own volition. If she were acting of her own volition, she would be taking intentional action against her commitment to her husband. That didn't happen. However, if she (for whatever reason) feels a sense of moral obligation to her pregnancy, that is not an intentional action against her marriage. She had a situation forced on her and she is acting the way she feels she has to.

  98. #98

    "No, she is not AT ALL in the same position as if she got pregnant of her own volition."

    Physically she is in the exact-same position.

    Mentally she may not be, but again, she could be. Depends on if the guy actually raped her, as she claims.

    Either way she is pregnant by some guy not her husband, and wants to continue the pregnancy. Physically she is in the same position, either way. You are making a legal distinction. I'm making a physical comparison. Even on a legal basis your opinion is shaky until she at least charges the guy with rape. If she won't even do that then her claim that it was nonconsensual sex go right out the window.

  99. #99

    ...even if she *DOES* charge him her decision to have the child is logically and sociologically inconsistent with a claim of rape (which goes a long way with a judge).

    Generally-speaking, most women do not choose to carry rape-babies to term. Assuming that most women are rational, this would indicate that this woman is not rational, and thus not likely to be making the best decisions either for herself or for the unborn child, certainly not the best interests of the marriage (in fact that's clear).

    A court could easily rationalize taking over guardianship of the unborn child AND granting a divorce to the father.

  100. #100

    In a related note, this thread makes it pretty clear why even some of the staunchest anti-abortion activists make an exception in the case of rape. Ant it ain't for the woman's well-being.

  101. #101

    "However, if she (for whatever reason) feels a sense of moral obligation to her pregnancy, that is not an intentional action against her marriage."

    Yes it is.

    "She had a situation forced on her"

    as long as she has the legal option to terminate the pregnancy then the situation is not "forced on her", legally. And I doubt that there's a single state in the union which would not allow her to terminate a rape-pregnancy by abortion.

    " and she is acting the way she feels she has to"

    No no no :)

    she is rationalizing her choice of actions.

    There's a huge difference. A difference that, every day, trips people up in court.

    You are doing the exact same thing.

  102. #102

    ...you choose not to exercise your legal rights, either through ignorance or through willful neglect? That's your fault.

    You choose not to obey the law, either knowingly or unknowingly? That again is your fault.

    You make decisions and you are subject to the consequences. You can never say "I had no choice" unless the choices that you have were simply not tenable. Legally. That will kick your ass in court every time.

  103. #103

    Oh, dear naive little Amanda Hess...whatever made you imagine it WOULD be for the woman's well-being? You're surely not suggesting women should be well, are you?

    ;-)

  104. #104

    It's like you haven't even noticed that there are a lot of people in this country who oppose abortion. (I don't know how it'd be possible to miss that, but oh well.) We don't know anything about her personal beliefs. If she believes that by aborting the child she's condemning herself to hell as a murderer, are you really still going to judge her marriage based on that decision? We actually know very little about her circumstances. You can't just talk about getting an abortion like it's automatically easy. For some people it is. For others it's really not. What if she doesn't have the money for an abortion? Has that occurred to you? We just don't know. You can't automatically claim that the fact that she's carrying the child to term somehow reflects on how she sees her marriage. It's just not that simple.

  105. #105

    @JF1 you completely nailed it on the head with your response +1

    Why didn't this female get the morning after shot after she was raped? Everyday you see the kid (either husband or wife) you would be reminded of the rape.

  106. #106

    ...the first choice that you *always* have is to consult a lawyer :)

    And given a good lawyer, you will be given the required legal information that you need to make an informed legal decision. You will ALWAYS have options. And one of those options is ALWAYS to obey the law.

    Only in the case where it is a life or death decision and you have no choice but to either break the law or someone dies, can you claim "I had no choice" in a courtroom. An 88 year old woman who is down to her last dollar cannot claim that "she had no choice" other than to rob a bank. It simply doesn't work that way. A woman whose children are being held hostage by crazed gunmen back at her room unless she robs a bank and gives them the money? She might have an argument that she had to rob a bank if she had no possible way of communicating the situation to the police without causing the gunmen to become suspicious and kill her kids. She would be cleared of any charges if she didn't take the chance of communicating with the police, and robbed the bank. IF as soon as she got her kids back she let the police know what happened.

    She wants to go on claiming that her kids would be in jeopardy again if she called the police, then she would be open to conspiracy charges unless she gave the police a chance to deal with the threat. Legally one cannot choose to violate the law and justify it by fear of possible negative consequences if the law is not violated. At some point you have to come clean, or face the legal consequences.

  107. #107

    The morning after pill isn't always effective. She might have taken it; we don't know. It fails 1 in 8 times.

  108. #108

    @The Prospect:

    What if she is morally opposed to the morning-after pill?

    What if she went to a Catholic hospital for her medical care and they refused to give it to her (or didn't even TELL her that it's an option)?

    What if her pharmacy didn't have it in stock at all, or for several days?

    Also, sometimes the morning-after pill fails, especially the more time passes since it was used...

  109. #109

    ...this woman has every day the legal option to terminate this pregnancy. Every day she chooses not to do that she violates the sanctity of her marriage. This is an open and shut case.

  110. #110

    If the woman is "pro-life", & the man is anti-raising another's child (as the majority of men would naturally be - or a 2nd woman if this were a lesbian marriage for that matter!), then the only logical fair "non-dick move" resolution is to agree to ADOPTION, to take place immediately after the baby's birth.

    If the woman wants to keep the baby, ignoring the man's need to not be financially responsible for his non-kid, then SHE IS THE DICK HERE, NOT HIM.

  111. #111

    "whatever made you imagine it WOULD be for the woman’s well-being? "

    Anyway last comment. You're assuming that abortion laws that allow for an abortion at any time during the pregnancy in the case of rape or for the health and well-being of the mother are not for the womans' well-being.

    You're forgetting what I said earlier. You're not the only one who decides what is and what is not in the best interests of women. In court that decision is in the hands of a judge. Judges tend to support the legislature when they write laws. Your opinion on the issue is just an opinion.

    Until you get a robe and sit down behind a bench and start to hear cases like this in court. And as a "professional health-care practicioner", I doubt that that's ever going to happen.

  112. #112

    re: The example of the woman robbing the bank with her kids being held hostage.

    I have no idea how US laws work, so I won't make assumptions. I just want to throw in that in Europe the woman actually would be cleared of all charges even if she never contacted the police. Threats on your wellbeing or the wellbeing of those near to you pose you in a situation where you're not going to get prosecuted.

  113. #113

    "The morning after pill isn’t always effective. She might have taken it; we don’t know. It fails 1 in 8 times."

    Yah.

    So you take it again. And again. Until it works.

    Because the alternative is an abortion.
    Or carrying the kid.

  114. #114

    Giving a child up for adoption is by far one of the most difficult decisions a person could have to face. You can't talk about adoption like it's a quick-and-easy, simple solution any more than you can talk about abortion that way.

  115. #115

    @ The Prospect.

    "Everyday you see the kid (either husband or wife) you would be reminded of the rape."

    How do you know that's true? Maybe they see a kid they love.

  116. #116

    BTW, some at least small fraction of the army of "pro-life" USians, as well as the commenters here claiming the "man in this story is a dick", should "live their values" and adopt USian orphan kids. No, douche USians would rather adopt a foreign Russian or S Korean kid than a fellow USian. To recycle the lame rightwingnut phrase, "why do douche pro-life USians hate Americans" (orphan USian kids)"

  117. #117

    @No Mames Buey,

    A woman is a dick for having a complex emotional reaction to what has happened to her & strong personal opinions about her pregnancy? Wow.

    Is it really NOT being a dick for a man to put his financial interests over the love and support of his wife, who, let's remember, is a RAPE VICTIM.

  118. #118

    “'The morning after pill isn’t always effective. She might have taken it; we don’t know. It fails 1 in 8 times.'

    Yah.

    So you take it again. And again. Until it works."

    Sorry, that's really not how it works. Unless you want to risk serious (and likely) complications. Plan B is not something you want to overdose on--one dose is enough to fuck up your body.

  119. #119

    “’The morning after pill isn’t always effective. She might have taken it; we don’t know. It fails 1 in 8 times.’

    Yah.

    So you take it again. And again. Until it works.”

    Sorry, that’s really not how it works. Unless you want to risk serious (and likely) complications. Plan B is not something you want to overdose on–one dose is enough to fuck up your body.

    And: How do you know it hasn't worked? You can't determine a pregnancy until a few weeks in. And then it's already too late to take Plan B again.

  120. #120

    ...very well Dorothy conceding that you may know a lot more about the MA pill than I do, if she makes it to her first month and figures out that she's pregnant and doesn't want to have the child, what are her choices?

    Same as any other pregnant woman, I would guess.

    Of course, her choice is to actually have the child, which is the basis of this thread.

  121. #121

    sorry, Melissa, whatever you call yourself today

  122. #122

    @117 Left Side Positive.

    How is the woman not a dick for ignoring the man's need (financial, emotional, time-investment) to NOT raise another man's child.

    Again, assume this was a lesbian marriage, & the 2nd non-raped woman is the "man" here. Would you be so quick to call the 2nd woman a dick here? Doubt it!

    Adoption seems to be only resolution to respect the woman's pro-life view, & the man's anti-being a stepfather view. If a person fairly has respect for both the woman's & man's intractable reasonable views here, this seems to be the only fair resolution. As opposed to partisan-always-support-the-woman & reject fairness to both parties, & logic, type commenters are doing here.

  123. #123

    Sorry, Melissa, I forgot to add the question marks where I quoted you.

  124. #124

    "s it really NOT being a dick for a man to put his financial interests over the love and support of his wife, who, let’s remember, is a RAPE VICTIM."

    again, and clearly "as necessary" you duck, dodge, weave and duck around the point.

    You can always modify what someone says and critique your modified version instead of what they actually said. You can waste a lot of time doing this, if you want to.

    He is not a dick to pull out of a marriage to a woman who wants to have a child by another man, when she is pregnant by that man, regardless of how she got pregnant, as long as he doesn't want her to have the child. That's his right as her husband. Furthermore the longer that he stays with this woman the more likely that it will be decided in court that he is financially responsible for the child (in fact he'll be lucky to be able to avoid that at all).

    He didn't rape the woman. He didn't help her to get raped. She may not have asked for this to happen to her. But it's still her choice how to handle it from here (obviously). It's also his choice how to deal with her choice when her choice effectively destroys their marriage and places him in financial jeopardy.

  125. #125

    ...now let's talk about "self-centeredness".

    You seriously expect him to pay good money to support her and this child instead of supporting his own family with a woman who would actually have his own kids and not som other mans'?

    Simply because he was married to her when she got raped?

    Simply because she wants to have the child of her rapist, and refuses to abort it (and presumably refuses to give it up for adoption)?

    Who exactly is being "self-centered" here?

  126. #126

    @Buey

    By USian you mean American?

  127. #127

    "Again, assume this was a lesbian marriage, & the 2nd non-raped woman is the “man” here. Would you be so quick to call the 2nd woman a dick here?"

    Yes, absolutely.

    "as long as he doesn’t want her to have the child. That’s his right as her husband."

    For like the 3rd time, we're not saying it isn't his "right." We're saying it's a crappy thing to do to another person, even if it's legally legit and understandable.

  128. #128

    You don't have a logical or legal leg to stand on here. Your whole position is coming out of empathy for another woman who is a rape-victim.

    You may wish that your husband would do this for you if you chose to do what this woman is doing. How many men would choose for their wives to do what this woman is doing?

    Probably 0.0000000000125%, if you ask me.

    No instead of terminating the pregnancy resulting from her rape and having a child with her *husband*, he should support her for keeping the rape-child and NOT having a child with him? Are you serious?

  129. #129

    yeah, USian a citizen from our country, the United Stated of America.

    I prefer USian because all West Hemisphere nations are Americans, from Canada to Haiti to Argentina.

    You don't see Germans arrogantly proclaim themselves as the sole "Europeans", for example.

  130. #130

    "You don’t have a logical or legal leg to stand on here."

    ^^ I don't think you *ever* have a legal leg to stand on in calling *anyone* a dick.

  131. #131

    ... forgot to add: And you don't really need to have that.

  132. #132

    "We’re saying it’s a crappy thing to do to another person, even if it’s legally legit and understandable."

    You may be saying that, people who agree with you may be saying that, but I would say that at worst it's an unfortunate situation but she's pushing him out of the game.

    I can't even agree to someone *agreeing* to support this, as the husband. All it would take is him "snapping" one night, losing it and wasting the whole family. Especially when she won't even have sex with him because she's still dealing with the rape itself.

  133. #133

    No Mames Buey,

    Yes, a lesbian woman who refused to support her partner/wife in that situation would be every bit as much a dick (or bitch, if you want to keep your epithets gendered). How would it be any different? Have you heard anyone try to claim that?

    Do you not see how carrying a baby inside you for nine months and then never seeing it again might be very traumatic and difficult for her? What if she feels responsible for the child's welfare?

    That's an incredibly difficult decision for anyone to make. What if she feels consumed with guilt that she didn't take proper care of this child, as she felt she was "supposed" to.

    She is coping with a very difficult & traumatic experience. Yes, it would be very hard for the man to raise this stepchild and he has the right to leave. But, a better man would stay and support his wife "for better or for worse," and would try to understand why her values and her attempt to recover are leading her to make this decision.

  134. #134

    ...here's a more general question since you seem to love generalizations.

    What percentage of marriages survive a rape even when the woman doesn't get pregnant?
    Even when the question of her actually getting raped isn't an issue?

    will this work?

    http://www.tellingofrape.com
    tellingfiles
    excerpts.html

    From Chapter Twelve -- Do I Look Angry?

    "Eighty percent of marriages don't survive a rape," Dorothy warned us.

    so t his guy is facing a 20% success rate even if she wasn't pregnant with the rapists' child.

    I wonder what the odds are if she is, and refuses to have an abortion. What are the odds that they will make it through the next month much less the next 8 months? Even if she promises to give it up for abortion?

    And gee: what is their sex life going to be like after that?

  135. #135

    Another equivalent hypothetical for LSP & Melissa type commenters...

    1 Suppose a rapist woman posseses a means to rape a man & does so. Perhaps she is gold medalist in Olympic Judo & threatens to kill the dude if he doesn't lay pipe without a condom, immediately. Perhaps she has a combo of pill which she slips in the man victim's drink, that renders one's mind unconcious while the body still functional, a "wet dream like state". The means don't matter, the point is a rapist woman rapes the man.
    2 The rapist woman becomes pregnant & eventually delivers the baby.
    3 For whatever reason, the rapist woman is "not available" to parent the baby, she's a "deadbeat mommy".
    4 The victim man, who is married, insists to his wife that he MUST raise this baby.
    5 The wife divorces her victimized husband, due to reasonable value of not wanting to be a stepmother & all the emotional, financial, or time resources that entails for 18+ years

    Melissa et al: By doing #5, did the wife just do a DICK MOVE?!

  136. #136

    "Do you not see how carrying a baby inside you for nine months and then never seeing it again might be very traumatic and difficult for her?"

    I would say that it would be slightly less traumatic than carrying the baby of the guy who raped you.

    Just a guess though.

  137. #137

    No Mames Buey:

    Yes.

  138. #138

    "Do you not see how a unilateral decision by one's wife, which completely disrespects his values to not be a stepfather of a child resulting from rape, that would involve 18+ years of emotional, time, financial resources, which might & probably would limit these resources that could be spent on a possible future biological child inside the marriage, that even if the relationship didn't work out via the wife choosing to divorcing him as happens in the majority of these rape cases per jf1's cited study, anti-man biased Family Court Law has a strong chance of mandating him to pay 18+ yrs of child support for this non-biological stepkid(!!), DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS 18+ YRS MIGHT BE VERY TRAUMATIC & DIFFICULT FOR HIM"

  139. #139

    jf1, on #136...that's not for you to decide. Thinking that you know what's best for another person or that you're a better judge of what would be traumatic for them than they are? It's patronizing, immature, and rarely accurate.

  140. #140

    The difficulty of raising the child for the man must be weighed against the hardship of not raising the child for the woman. (I'm discussing what they should do if she decides do deliver the child and potentially raise the child.) Whichever option is more difficult must be decided against. I'm inclined to think that the difficulty of raising a child of rape would outweigh the difficulty of the woman putting the child up for adoption. After all giving a child up for adoption isn't at all bad for the child and I think she would recover from such an act. So she should probably give up the child for adoption.

  141. #141

    No Mames Buey,

    Yes, she made a dick move. It's very simple.

    I can totally understand a man (any human being, really) seeing their child in need and wanting to do what they can. Even if they didn't want to have that child, even if the child brings up painful memories, the child is still its own innocent person who may be experiencing some very real suffering and I can absolutely respect someone who cares for its welfare.

    Don't you???

  142. #142

    #138: That's not what we're saying. But just in case you missed the first few times I said it...

    We aren't saying that what he did was illegal. We aren't saying that it isn't understandable. We aren't saying that it isn't a natural human response. ALL we are saying is that it was a "dick move," that is to say, it was a mean, bad thing to do to another person. That's all.

  143. #143

    gee, how suddenly this is all played out.

    We hear a lot of women saying that the guy is a dick for not supporting his wife after she's been raped.

    as if that's all there is to it.

    suddenly when the rest of the facts are added, it's that "he's a dick for not supporting her *anyway*".

    but it would take superhuman patience and tolerance for a man to respect a woman who consciously chooses to have the baby of the guy who raped her.

    And I don't see a damm woman here talking about this from that perspective.

    Not only is this not a good idea, it could hardly actually work in practice. Marriages barely survive rape in and of itself, much less a rape where the woman gets pregnant and wants to have the child. "will have" the child. However you choose to phrase it.

    She would be wise to leave her husband and have the child on her own anyway. And then you expect him to want to not only lose his wife and any chance of having a family with her, but also to pay for the whole "expedition"?

    Just think and be honest. What are the odds that you are only saying this out of sympathy for her? Maybe even a little fear that this might happen to you?

  144. #144

    @Banyan: Actually, I recently read some excellent reports of women who gave their childs up for adoption. Apparently it's a much more traumatic act than an abortion. I'll have to look if I can find it again, but it said there that only 8% of the women who did that ever had a second child.

  145. #145

    "ALL we are saying is that it was a “dick move,” that is to say, it was a mean, bad thing to do to another person. That’s al"

    I don't think that at all. Not one bit.

    Not in the fucking slightest.

    She can have the child if she wants. Don't expect me to stand there and watch the process and wait for it to end much less pay for it all. And I would never subject another man to that either.

  146. #146

    "but it would take superhuman patience and tolerance for a man to respect a woman who consciously chooses to have the baby of the guy who raped her."

    This is simply not true. There are people in the world who can understand the fact that even when a violent act like rape is perpetrated, neither the victim nor the child resulting from it are at fault, or have any reason to be penalized. There are even men in the world who are willing to support rape victims by trusting those victims to know what's best for their own lives and their own bodies and RESPECTING those decisions.

    It's not superhuman. Plenty of humans do it.

  147. #147

    @Banyan,

    Who on earth are you to decide that for her???

    Do you know anyone who's put a baby up for adoption? That can be very painful for a lot of people.

  148. #148

    "“but it would take superhuman patience and tolerance for a man to respect a woman who consciously chooses to have the baby of the guy who raped her.”

    This is simply not true. "

    I thought that I already told you that we have nothing to talk about? You didn't understand this?

    Let me state it another way. Clearly you and I have little if any "values" in common. Ergo, it's pointless for us to have a discussion about values, ethics, Logic REASON any of that. So stop trying.

  149. #149

    "What are the odds that you are only saying this out of sympathy for her?"

    And having the capacity for sympathy is a bad thing all of a sudden? Do you not feel sympathy for the man? Can't we all agree that a violent crime has been committed and feel true sympathy for all those affected by it?

  150. #150

    "There are people in the world who can understand the fact that even when a violent act like rape is perpetrated, neither the victim nor the child resulting from it are at fault, or have any reason to be penalized. There are even men in the world who are willing to support rape victims by trusting those victims to know what’s best for their own lives and their own bodies and RESPECTING those decisions.

    It’s not superhuman. Plenty of humans do it."

    Sure. So she can and should divorce her current husband (who is apparently out of his head) and go off and find one of those men and marry them. You happy now?

    Call him a dick if you want. But obviously their marriage is over.

  151. #151

    @Dorothy
    Women who give their child up for adoption may not be a class of people who are very likely to want another kid. So I'm reluctant to think that this evidences their trauma. Adoption may be more traumatic than abortion but is it more difficult than raising a child of rape? Who knows?

  152. #152

    My statement that a man's decision to stay even after his wife has been raped and become pregnant because of that rape is anything but a "superhuman" feat has nothing to do with my opinions or values. It is simply a statement of the cold, hard FACT that there are plenty of men in the world who would find it well within the range of their natural human empathy, love for their wife, and for the child that will become their own--the innocent, who deserves a good life regardless of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

  153. #153

    "There are even men in the world who are willing to support rape victims by trusting those victims to know what’s best for their own lives and their own bodies and RESPECTING those decisions."

    ...yea and clearly none of those men are "educated health-care practicioners" ;)

    who always know better than their patients ;) especially after they are "traumatized"

    LOL

  154. #154

    here, you ignorant boob:

    superhuman definition

    super·hu·man (so̵̅o̅′pər hyo̵̅o̅′mən)

    adjective

    1. having powers or a nature above that of man; divine; supernatural
    2. greater than that of a normal human being

  155. #155

    "It is simply a statement of the cold, hard FACT that there are plenty of men in the world who would find it well within the range of their natural human empathy, love for their wife, and for the child that will become their own–the innocent, who deserves a good life regardless of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception."

    Talk is cheap, boob.

    Her current husband is already talking divorce. What's your plan?

  156. #156

    @jf1: I wasn't disputing the fact that their marriage is over. This was clearly a done deal before a letter was ever written. We are merely evaluating the morality of his decision.

    @Banyan:
    "Adoption may be more traumatic than abortion but is it more difficult than raising a child of rape? Who knows?"

    The woman in question does. You don't.

  157. #157

    ...call him a "dick" to your hearts' content.

    What's your plan after that?

  158. #158

    "Her current husband is already talking divorce. What’s your plan?"

    To say that what he did was shitty.

  159. #159

    "@Banyan:
    “Adoption may be more traumatic than abortion but is it more difficult than raising a child of rape? Who knows?”

    The woman in question does. You don’t.'

    wow, even if he has "3rd-party data"? LOL

  160. #160

    If you're fine with us calling him a dick to our hearts' content, then why are you still here arguing?

  161. #161

    "“Her current husband is already talking divorce. What’s your plan?”

    To say that what he did was shitty."

    Sounds like an effective plan.
    You really think that will work?

  162. #162

    @Banyan: I don't want to jugde and I don't want to compare those experiences. I just wanted to say that "then give it up for adoption" is a thing one says very easily, but doing it is a different matter entirely.

    As for women giving up her babies for adoption not wanting to have children: Then that would also have to be true for womean who have an abortion. It isn't, though.

    If you're interested, here's the story of a birthmother told by herself:
    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/breaking-silence-on-living-pro-lifers.html

  163. #163

    I'm not arguing with you. You obviously aren't sensitive to that fact.

    probably because you're an insensitive dick LOL

  164. #164

    #159: Yes, I can say with confidence that someone who has never met the woman in questions and only knows what has been written about her in a brief advice column...probably isn't the authority on what will be most traumatic for her.

  165. #165

    "I just wanted to say that “then give it up for adoption” is a thing one says very easily, but doing it is a different matter entirely."

    Tell us all about it, "Pot"! LOL

  166. #166

    I can't believe the blog writers reiterate the old "women's unilateral decisions should always be accepted" nonsense. Any woman who decides to keep a child born of rape should realize that other people may not accept that child! Why is it okay for women to impose their personal beliefs on men but not the reverse? And why would a woman who commit herself to a man who doesn't share her position on childbirth and abortion then demand that he obeys her unilateral decision regarding giving birth?

    This is the kind of extreme rhetoric what fuels the fire of sexism. Shame on The Sexist for... being sexist.

  167. #167

    #161: Not too well until you crawl back into your hole. After that it'll work great.

  168. #168

    @LSP
    I'm not deciding anything for her, rather I'm giving advice based upon a calculation of the pros and cons for both parties. I'm not suggesting that adoption isn't traumatic, rather, taking care of a child of rape is likely to be more challenging. But I admit I can't say with certitude that this is true.

  169. #169

    "Yes, I can say with confidence that someone who has never met the woman in questions and only knows what has been written about her in a brief advice column…probably isn’t the authority on what will be most traumatic for her."

    ...what, even if he has "3rd-party" data?

    You sure that you have enough "3rd-party data" to prove this? Or are you just blowing more smoke out of your ass?

    I'm su re that you don't realize that you just undermined your whole position. You say that this man can't authoritatively say what would or would not be the most traumatic thing for her to do because he's never actually met the woman, but you're happy to call her husband a dick based solely on what you've read in this thread.

    but then as I said before, you and "logic" don't know each other very well LOL

  170. #170

    @Banyan--"Who knows?"

    EXACTLY. Who knows? So why would you say you know what the best thing for her to do is??

    There are a lot of perspectives on this. Here, you can see how wide the range is:

    http://www.cafemom.com/answers/113571/Do_you_regret_giving_your_child_up_for_adoption?cat_id=&next=11#r_foot

    For some women, the pain of giving up a child to adoption is very, very real.

  171. #171

    ": Not too well until you crawl back into your hole. After that it’ll work great."

    ...are we talking about the same hole that your opinions are coming out of? :)

    Yeah I can see how your life would improve then LOL

  172. #172

    @Francois Tremblay: "Why is it okay for women to impose their personal beliefs on men but not the reverse?"

    Please read the article and read the comments. That's not what we're saying here.

    @Banyan: The last sentence of your post #168 is 100% true. Good job. The preceding sentences, however, aren't. You don't know what the pros and cons are for both parties because you don't know these people. And suggesting that taking care of a child of rape is likely to be more challenging than giving a child up for adoption is the same thing...you don't know that. You can't even make a prediction as to which is more likely. Only the people involved can. Not all people are the same.

  173. #173

    #166 Excellent comment, 100% true.

  174. #174

    "@LSP
    I’m not deciding anything for her, rather I’m giving advice based upon a calculation of the pros and cons for both parties."

    don't worry...as long as you are a man, and they disagree with you, anything that you say or do will be "wrong".

    Come back and pretend to be a woman and post the same things over again and they'll happily support you LOL

  175. #175

    #169 Ah, but you're conflating two very different things.

    Can an outside observer accurately predict (and does he/she have the right to try to predict) what will be most traumatic for another person? Absolutely not.

    Can an outside observer see someone doing something mean to another person, and remark "gee, that sure was a mean thing to do?" Yes. He/she most certainly can.

    We have not made a single judgment on what will or will not be traumatic for the man in question. In fact, we have acknowledged that his feelings of being traumatized are, in fact, entirely human and totally understandable on a human level. That in no way prevents us from saying "gee, that sure was a mean thing to do."

    'Cause, well...gee. That WAS a mean thing to do.

  176. #176

    @Dorothy
    Can't conclude from a) adoption is traumatic and b)the women who do it rarely have children, that c) a caused b.

  177. #177

    ...the problem with these women is that a man can say 5 things and 4 of them they will distort and argue with and even then say that overall he has no idea what he is are talking about and then when he asks them to explain their disagreement they will come up with 20 reasons why he's wrong. Then when he asks them to explain their own position they will make 10 of those same mistakes in trying to explain.

    The only consistent thing about their position is to claim that they are right and men are wrong, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. And they will do whatever they think is effective to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even if in the process they completely undermine their own position and prove everyone else right.

    That's the whole reason this thread is heading north of #200 posts.

  178. #178

    On #174, jf1, I invite you to test that theory. It's easy enough. Really. Try it.

  179. #179

    How do you know that I haven't been doing that all along?

    You disagree with me on almost every point. Who else here do you agree with?

  180. #180

    OT, but I'm interested to see Melissa/LSP response.

    1 Suppose there is a man & woman that outside of their different gender, have the same demographic characteristics, age, nonsmoker status, no DUI history, zip code of residence.
    2 currently, a woman is charged more for health insurance, due to actuarial statistics indicating women cost more. This is called "gender rating", & women's rights groups are lobbying to eliminate this as "discrimination" such that a woman & man would pay the same rate.
    3 currently, a man is charged more for car insurance, & life insurance, again due to actuarial stats.

    QUESTION
    4 should gender rating be eliminated for health insurance?
    5 should gender rating be eliminated for car insurance & life insurance?

  181. #181

    Why would I ever waste my time and energy arguing with everything you say simply because I'm a woman and you're so obviously a man?

    That would be plain stupid. You really think that women are stupid and biased enough to do that?

  182. #182

    @Banyan: Did you read the link I posted?

  183. #183

    Well, jf1, if you have been doing that all along, then by all means seize your moment of triumph. Point us to the posts you've made under a female-sounding name that we've agreed with.

  184. #184

    "EXACTLY. Who knows? So why would you say you know what the best thing for her to do is??"

    First, let's be clear. I'm not advising this woman. I'm predicting which option would be more difficult. I admit I'm fallible. But are you saying that if we the couple, after careful consideration cannot decide which option is less bad, then they should choose the woman's default option?

  185. #185

    jf1, on #181 you're really not impersonating me very well. Even a cursory glance at the differences in writing style gives that away. Try harder.

  186. #186

    "First, let’s be clear. I’m not advising this woman. I’m predicting which option would be more difficult."

    ...dude, don't waste your time, really.

    No matter what you say, if she doesn't like it she's going to spin it.

  187. #187

    Actually Banyan, we're not disputing whether or not you're specifically trying to advise her. We're just saying that you cannot predict which option would be more difficult, because you are not her. What's right for her, what's right for your coworker, what's right for your sister...they may all be different. Because people are different. You can't tell another person what is right for them, or even "predict" which will be "easier" for them. Only they can decide that.

  188. #188

    ...either you're being logical and factually-accurate or you're not...either you're right or you're wrong.

    Either way she will pretend to be an expert on any topic that you speak on, when she doesn't like what you say. And she will shoot first and think later.

    Don't feed the mama-bears.

  189. #189

    "We’re just saying that you cannot predict which option would be more difficult, because you are not her. What’s right for her, what’s right for your coworker, what’s right for your sister…they may all be different. Because people are different. You can’t tell another person what is right for them, or even “predict” which will be “easier” for them. Only they can decide that."

    See, I told you.

    I said that in the other thread about condom-use. You're claiming that you didn't notice? You going to try to say that you came up with this all on your own? :)

    Naah...not possible. You simply read one of my posts and saved it for later. Now you're trying to use my own words against another guy LOL

  190. #190

    There is one thing that really bothers me about this entire discussion: Everyone here is talking about "the child" or "the pregnancy" or "the woman's decision."

    THIS IS HER CHILD! 1/2 of the child's DNA came from the woman, the mother. This is not some parasite that latched on to her uterus in the wake of the rape. The rapist's sperm fertilized *her* egg. The baby that will be born is not just any baby, it is *her* baby.

    I totally understand that the husband will see it as not *his* baby, but that doesn't make the mother's bond with HER CHILD any less valid.

  191. #191

    I think that you're about to get your ears pinned-back though by someone here with "3rd-party data" :)

    It's going to come down to whether you believe that statistics apply to the individual or not. And even then you're still generalizing that in no situations are the answers obvious.

    I mean really, given 5 ways to be wrong you will make full use of each. I declare this battle over by default. There's no sense in arguing with logical cripples.

  192. #192

    I didn't read the whole thread on condom use. I didn't know you said that. But if you honestly believe it, then there's hope for you yet. :)

    And now I'm feeling quite warm and fuzzy. There might actually be an empathetic bone in your body. And on that note, it's late and I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

  193. #193

    "I totally understand that the husband will see it as not *his* baby, but that doesn’t make the mother’s bond with HER CHILD any less valid."

    ...I guess that all depends on what you think of the context of the conception, darlin' :)

    Some women would have a problem "bonding" with the child of the man who raped them? Some not, I guess.

    I think that you'd have to go through this all yourself, come out the other side and tell us how it works for you LOL

    Seriously if you were in this womans' position, you might completely disagree with your husbands' idea for what you should do at this point, but then again 8 months from now you might be happy that he put his foot down. The bottom line is that she's just been raped. Who in their right mind would expect her to handle it well and make great decisions at this point?

    Certainly not the same people who say that trauma victims would be better off to follow the advice of trained health-care professionals LOL

    fair enough. Enough humor at the expense of certain people here. I think that enough has been said, further discussion of this would be sheer mental masturbation.

  194. #194

    ..and I have to admit, a lot of guilt has been lifted off my shoulders. Some I wasn't even aware was there.

  195. #195

    Well, if the difficulty of adopting a child for Ma and the difficulty of raising a child for Pa are too close to call, the only fair thing to do is to flip a coin.

  196. #196

    Just read this entire thread... certain people got dull... and I realized that this is a long running argument over whether or not something deserved the moral qualification of being a "Dick move"

    Ignoring that moral qualifications are subjective to the person making them...

    Yeah, probably if the guy left his wife after that it would be. But I can safely assume that put in the same situation I may react in the same way. I'd like to think I'm that good a guy to deal with it and love the kid, but honestly I don't know. I'd worry about that more than anything else. If after the rush of being good went away, I was left holding the bag with someone I didn't really care for.

    Human beings pull "Dick Moves" on each other all the time. If they didn't this world would be a happy place without any disagreements. Also kinda dull. And advice columnists wouldn't have jobs and I wouldn't have had something to rad for my last hour at work.

    Thanks for the afternoon reading.

  197. #197

    So with all of the millions of brainless bimbos who got abortions because they are too stupid to use condoms. And abortion typically being justified with "WHAT IF THE WOMAN WAS RAPED AND GOT PREGNANT?". Now it actually happens for like the first time ever and this woman wants to keep it. Talk about ironic.

    Unless this woman is legally forced to have an abortion I say let's just finally scrap abortion altogether and go back to shaking our heads and shunning unmarried pregnant women until they close their fucking legs.

    Also the husband is not a dick for anything he does. Only the rapist is a dick. Not the wife, not the husband. He is no better or worse for whatever decision he makes.

    The other great irony here is feminists mad at the husband. When feminism and liberalism are what have created the environment in the US where thousands of white women can be raped by black men every year. And no one can say or do anything about it.

  198. #198

    no, that's still not fair, because they have to agree.

    Honestly.

    Otherwise one is just lying just to keep from arguing. And that always fails in the long run, unless of course the one that gives in at the start is proven wrong in the long run.

    That's the point here. It's a shame that this woman was raped but choosing to have this child is not good for her marriage, especially when it goes against her husbands' will. No matter what they are disagreeing and this is driving them apart. If you're in a marriage with someone and you're making decisions all on your own and ignoring the wishes of the other party? It's only a marriage on paper. And paper is very very very theen. You can't build a house on a sheet of paper held between your hands. You can't tape it up to the wall and say, "look, this is going to work because we're married".

    You have to actually find common ground with your partner. Ignoring his opinion even if you think that you are morally obligated to do something is just not a healthy thing for any married woman not to mention one who has just been raped, is now pregnant and is starting the long road to a birth along with the trauma of the rape itself. Not to mention when the child is the rapists and the husband is undoubtedly sitting there watching her get big with another mans' child while she can't have his. She is sacrificing everything between them for this one child, taking a stick of dynamite to their marriage, and the husband will have to admit this and walk away before he gets injured permanently in the blast. Ethically, morally or even just psychologically.

    And the best that she can hope for is that the same doesn't happen to her. It's psychological suicide.

  199. #199

    "The other great irony here is feminists mad at the husband. When feminism and liberalism are what have created the environment in the US where thousands of white women can be raped by black men every year. And no one can say or do anything about it."

    ...that's false on several levels, not to mention all that is done to prevent that from happening.

    Aside from the argument that even more women would be raped if we didn't have our current system of laws and ethics, there is also the issue of false accusations and just outright false claims. Similarly there are white men that rape white women too. Rape isn't a black man/white woman issue, it isn't even an issue only between men and women or between adults. It's an issue for all socioeconomic classes and all age-groups. And there is simply no simple, general answer or resolution to it.

    As long as some men get horny and can't satisfy themselves legally (not to mention if they get off on the assault itself), people are going to get raped. As long as some women actually enjoy the thrill of violent sex, some women are going to get "raped" when they really wanted it. As long as some women enjoy the thrill of "illicit" sex, they are going to have it and then cover their asses by blaming someone else for it.

    Men are falsely accused of rape on a regular basis. Just like some men get away with rape on a regular basis. And some victims just simply disappear, just as some never come forward to make a claim.

    In the end, no matter what? Life will go on.

  200. #200

    ...the main problem that I have with the Sexist is that so many of the women here are so eager to say that so much of what men do is "a sexual assault" and/or that "men who do X are assholes". They seem to be really big at making mountains out of molehills as long as those who suffer as a result are men. Virtually no restraint whatsoever.

    and of course on one hand you will have women who will lecture all of us on The Way that Life Is, and on the other you will have women who lecture us to never assume anything for any woman (but it's ok to assume things for men). They merely choose whatever way floats their boat at a given moment.

  201. #201

    Melissa,

    Sorry...but that is NOT what he said on the condom thread. Not at all. He's trying to equate "you can't tell what's best for someone" regarding their emotional health and subjective response to their situation (the choice of the pregnant woman) to saying that you can't tell what is medically the safest thing for someone to do with regard to sexually transmitted diseases (for which clear probabilities and objective outcomes may be considered).

    I hate to shatter your trust that jf(c)1 might ever be reasonable.

  202. #202

    @Nemonixon:

    That's a very fair and honest statement and I thank you for it.

  203. #203

    No Mames Buey,

    Why do you keep coming up with these scenarios and think you've played a "gotcha"?? You've never even shown how or why we would disagree with these statements.

    The answer is: yes. They should all be eliminated.

    A woman currently has to pay more for health insurance because of reproductive care. She was born with that need, and men benefit from having healthy babies born to them too (or BEING born as healthy babies!!). It's not like we can continue the human race WITHOUT women giving birth and thus needing that care, so of course it should be included in the base rate.

    A man gets charged more for car insurance because statistically men get into more accidents. Well, that's not fair--you shouldn't have to pay for the driving habits of others just because you have the same genitalia as they do.

    A man has to pay more for life insurance because statistically he's more likely to die sooner so he has to pay more upfront for the insurance company to turn a profit. Well, that's not fair--it's not like he's choosing to die sooner! In fact I'm sure he'd rather not!

    Now, making things more expensive because of habits or history--if you smoke, if you fail to adhere to your medications, if you have DUIs, etc. is fair because those are modifiable behaviors, not something you were born with.

    So, really, can you stop with this "ooh I can show you're prejudiced" nonsense unless we actually say something that you object to?

  204. #204

    Refuting the stupidity of jfc1:

    "Who in their right mind would expect her to handle it well and make great decisions at this point?"

    That's an incredibly patronizing thing to say. Who are you to think you can know someone's emotional state better than they do??

    Certainly not the same people who say that trauma victims would be better off to follow the advice of trained health-care professionals LOL

    Show me, please, where I have ever said this. In fact, I said quite clearly that I would make the opposite decision that she did, yet I still respect her choice.

    That is NOT the same thing as saying someone should listen to their physician when there is a medical reason why what they're doing is dangerous. It is my obligation to provide the medical advice that would be in the best interests of my patient, and to offer evidence-based information on what the best course of treatment would be. However, if a patient has different goals or values I need to make a treatment plan that would accommodate that and respect the patient's autonomy. I am duty-bound to make sure that my patient has accurate information to make an informed decision, so I am ethically obligated to correct any factual errors in my patient's reasoning.

  205. #205

    @LSP

    Well, if the difficulty of adopting a child for Ma and the difficulty of raising a child for Pa are too close to call, the only fair thing to do is to flip a coin.

    Re-post sorry but agree?

  206. #206

    @Banyan:

    That's for the couple to decide for themselves...healthy people should have an open and honest discussion about what their needs and values are, and how they can come to a decision that works for both of them. Sadly, I don't see that happening with this couple.

    I think what we have instead is that the difficulty of adopting a child for Ma may be intolerable for her. The difficulty of raising a child for Pa might be intolerable for him. This would basically tear the marriage apart, and that's what it seems to be doing.

    I think what we're getting at is that the reason the guy is being a dick is that he doesn't seem to understand how hard it would be for this woman to give up her child. Like K said, even though she wished this horrific event never happened, she still apparently sees this baby as her child. That bond is very primal, and when it's there, it's VERY strong.

    I don't think the husband quite appreciates that he's complaining about being reminded his wife was raped, when she (no matter what) will have to live with the memory of that rape for the rest of her life. It seems that he is placing his aversion to the rape (& the resulting child) over his love for his wife (who, now more than ever, needs his love and support), and that makes him a dick.

    Like we said, it's certainly understandable that he has a BIG problem with this. We sympathize. Her decision will make things a lot harder for him. But, in the end she was the rape victim and she would feel robbed of her child...The right (though difficult) thing for him to do is support what she's been through, and at least he didn't have to endure what she did.

  207. #207

    Is it too much to hope that jf1 is posting under jfc1 now because the first one FINALLY got banned?

    How long would we have to wait before jfc1 gets the boot, too?

    A bit of cutting-and pasting has revealed that as of this moment jf(c)1 has spewed NINE THOUSAND and twenty-three words on this thread alone. A whopping total of forty-eight thousand and nineteen characters. That's 19 FULL PAGES, single-spaced at 11pt font.

    This is so much delusional nonsense that is virtually impossible to scroll past in order to keep an intelligent conversation going. Posters trying to have a sincere conversation have to re-post and remind people about their questions because they get lost in all the ranting!!

  208. #208

    @LSP
    "I think what we’re getting at is that the reason the guy is being a dick is that he doesn’t seem to understand how hard it would be for this woman to give up her child."

    The big problem is that we get the feeling that he doesn't even try to work through the problem. If he tried and then determined the suffering to be too great I would cut him some more slack.

  209. #209

    Having only read the first third of the responses:

    Yea, it would be better if the guys stayed. But leaving makes him... scum? If anything, the intensity of the debate here (and the fact the question arises again and again) should be indication enough that this is an extraordinarily difficult situation for the man involved. Were it easier, well maybe then the guy is scum. But it isn't easier, and there should be some measure of compassion for a man who decides he isn't up to the task. Hauling out the vitriol just isn't necessary here.

  210. #210

    @Banyan: I would too.

  211. #211

    @Hov:

    The vitriol here is not because people aren't acknowledging the difficulty of his situation; the vitriol is because a certain poster is saying things like, [paraphrasing] "If she wants his baby she clearly wanted sex with him," and "If she carries the baby she is being unfaithful to her husband," and "A woman in marriage has given up her right to decide what to do with a pregnancy," etc., etc., etc.

  212. #212

    "I think what we’re getting at is that the reason the guy is being a dick is that he doesn’t seem to understand how hard it would be for this woman to give up her child."

    prospective reason #321 that he's a dick fails because he didn't marry the woman thinking that she would have the child if she ever got impregnated during a rape. He probably thought that she would never have the child, in that case. Like most sane men...

    Who knows, guys, maybe this is something that you need to talk about before you marry them, hm? :)

    "dear..."

    "yes, sweetie? love of my life? My big hunk of man-meat?"

    "I was just wondering...what if we got married, and you got raped by a black guy and got pregnant? Would you carry the child to term or have an abortion?"

    " BAM! (sound of door closing)"

    maybe Paris Hilton can ask this question at the next Miss America contest :)

  213. #213

    ...I dunno, maybe you can start a poll, try to prove me wrong, statistically :)

    assuming of course that none of you women would lie about your answer..

  214. #214

    ...assuming that you were actually married, and let's just say, you had agreed that you would forsake all other men for your husband...you know, you supposedly wouldn't want to have children by any other man than him...

    but you get raped and impregnated by a black guy. What do you do. Abort or carry to term and give up for adoption or try to raise the child or...?

  215. #215

    "A bit of cutting-and pasting has revealed that as of this moment jf(c)1 has spewed NINE THOUSAND and twenty-three words on this thread alone."

    Me thinks that someone here is mildly obsessed with me ;)

    what a choice of words, too...nothing sexual in nature there, no way...

  216. #216

    damn...I knew that interlude of thoughtful discussion was just too good to be true!

  217. #217

    #203, LSP, I agree with your position on eliminating gender rating for all these insurances: health, car & life. Good on you LSP, for being objective altruistic True Feminist on this issue, interested in equal rights for both genders.

    Some "feminists" do not, that are lobbying to eliminate gender rating for health care insurance, but conveniently ignore it for car & life insurance where the status quo of gender rating causes anti-man discrimination. They have the "me first, screw everyone else" special interest mentality that is hurting our country, not much better than the heinous industry cartel Welfare Queens that compete by paying off Government pols & regulators to maintain their cartel status, Wall Street, Health Care Insurance, Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, etc. Apparently this is easier for them then being a true business in a competitive market, which thrives by actually gaining/maintaing customers by providing a good product/service at a good price.

  218. #218

    damn…I knew that interlude of thoughtful discussion was just too good to be true!"

    simple question...full of opportunity to think...

    and probably a good idea for you and the guy who you sleep with now, to think about it...

    maybe you should ask him how he would feel, what he would do, and that way you can decide whether he would be good "husband/father material" for you...

    really simple, if you two got married and you got raped by a black guy and got pregnant, would you carry the child to term and would he stand by you or leave you?

    Call us back when you have two definite answers. You won't even have to explain your choices.

  219. #219

    It's no fair calling the guy a dick for doing the same thing that your own boyfriend would do, you know?

    and there you are happily sucking his cock every night.

    Unless of course you really mean that as a term of affection LOL

  220. #220

    can we ban jf1 and jfc1 from ever commenting again?

  221. #221

    ...you can ban me, in fact if you ask, I will never post here again.

    You'll still have to deal with this question, and many others like it.

    So you want to answer or just power up your Global Delusion Field to try to banish all thoughts that might in any way cause a blemish to appear on your outlook on life?

    Get your delusions here, folks, only $5 each...3 for $10! Special deal on slightly-used ones returned by women who have married the perfect man!

  222. #222

    jfc1:
    tl;dr.

  223. #223

    "in fact if you ask, I will never post here again."

    Would you please never post here again?

  224. #224

    ...one other thing. I'm not so sure that the child of a rape is so "innocent".

    I mean, think about it. We grant innocence to the unborn, to children, sure.

    But do we do that to the child of a rape?

    No, we do that to normal babies, the product of a consensual (or at least, accidental) union.

    Not to one forced on the mother. The child is not truly "innocent" because it is the product of a violent act perpetrated on the mother. You can't just force a woman to have your child and then claim that the child is "safe", "beyond reproach", because it personally had nothing to do with it. No one would allow the rapist to make that decision, so why is the woman empowered to make it for him?

    I think that she can argue that she should be allowed to make her own decision with regard to her body, and this child, but even then no person has 100% "self-determination" about what they can and cannot do with their body. We all know that. We're all subject to the law. We are all subject to 3rd-party decisions about our bodies. Just as this woman was subjected to rape, her child is subject to US law and US law is decided by the courts, not by the mother. That whole argument is nothing but "feel-good" delusion.

    In this case there is the argument that having the child would simply be too traumatic for her, certainly for her to plan to give it up for adoption, and one could make a quite-reasonable argument that the courts should step in and order an abortion both for the sake of her marriage and for her own personal mental and physical health. I just don't see this baby as having a whole lot of moral ground to stand on, but to claim that it's above reproach because it didn't rape the woman is just silly. That child didn't just pop out of nowhere, and if the sperm had obeyed the law it would not even have entered this womans' body much less fertilized one of her eggs. There's no "sanctification" moment where the child is "free" of all the sins of the father. The child is a PRODUCT of the sins of the father. It would not exist at all without the sins of the father, *supposedly*.

    I don't see its termination as something that is ethically wrong...no more than any other unborn fetus. And people abort fetuses for much weaker reasons than are relevant to this one. And if you're going to start to claim that human life is sacred then that undermines all the executions and wars that we get into on a regular basis. That argument will never hold water.

    Aside from that she is either forcing the husband to go along with it or to give up on having a child with her, for the sake of this child, and possibly even give up his marriage. Why not ask the fucking rapist to move in the house? They can set up a bed for him in the basement. You say that's crazy but what do you think is going to happen if she has his child? You think that he won't argue for the right to see his own child, at least once in a while? You think the child won't want to know who their real father is, and to see them, maybe even get involved in their life?

    This is 99.999% bad with the only redeeming factor the fact that the unborn child did not actually rape that woman. But it sure as hell is benefiting from it!

  225. #225

    "Would you please never post here again?"

    Done.

    Knock yourselves out. Good luck.

  226. #226

    I strongly resent the implication that the man who leaves his wife because she got raped and decides to keep the baby is a dick. As a man, I could take the point of view that the woman is a cunt, or twat for wanting to keep the baby. Both points of view are subjective, and very muopic. My view is that it's her body, and she has the right to do with it as she sees fit. But she's also married, and when your married, you have to take into account the wishes and opinions of your spouse.

  227. #227

    No Mames Buey,

    Are you trying to claim that major feminist organizations are actively lobbying to preserve gender-rating in car and life insurance?

    Because if all you can say is they're "ignoring" it...well, did it ever occur to you that these organizations might have their hands full with reproductive choice being stripped from the health care bill, ongoing discrimination in the workplace, domestic violence, rape, groping, the inability of women in many parts of the country to get full access to contraception, rape & domestic violence victims being turned down for health insurance, abstinence-only education leading to increasing rates of teen pregnancies, women seeking to end a pregnancy being threatened by anti-choice zealots, said anti-choice zealots murdering those who provide women's health care, not to mention the disgraceful treatment of women in third-world countries?? That, maybe in light of these challenges, we couldn't quite squeeze in the time to worry about your CAR INSURANCE? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!

  228. #228

    As a lurker, I would like to come out and say this once and then leave. Jfc1 or whatever you call yourself, please shut up. Or at the very least limit you posts. I am tired of trying to read the other comments around yours. Your ridiculously long rants annoy me to no end. At this point, no one is interested in what you have to say beyond neutralizing your damaging statements. Your victim blaming is nauseating. You need help. That is all.

    Also, if I offended any regular posters here, or Amanda Hess, I am sorry. If it helps, it is about 6 am where I am and I haven't slept.

  229. #229

    I was suckered into reading through most of these posts out of a mix or interest and seer disbelief and must agree with Enterra.

    That being said, wow. What a lovely way to loose faith in humanity. Many of you sound like very decent people, but others I simply can not believe are real. I know they are though, unfortunately.

    My say in this matter is that any truly loving person would do what was necessary to care for the well being of a spouse/partner that was victimized. Not to do so is to be a dick. Yes it is hard to care for another person. Yes it would put strain on the spouse. If she had been beaten instead of raped and was now handicapped and he left her for that, he'd be just as much of a dick. Ignoring the baby (just for the sake of argument, no matter what happens I feel bad for any child not born into a loving home) this argument, to me, is far more about the rights of a victim then the responsibilities of a rape victim. No matter what the case victim blaming is wrong.

    As far as so many of the comments that brought up the issue of it not being the husband's kid, you are forgetting that rape or not the kid is her's. It is growing inside her, half her DNA. Personally I don't understand her choice to keep the child, but I can understand that having made that choice she would have a attachment to any child that was half her's. As any child she ever had would be.

    There is still such a long road to travel before equality is reached. Thoughts and language still reflect the past and differences in treatment between the sexes. I know a much earlier post brought up something like this, but I don't feel like scrolling up to find it.

    Anyway, that's all for me. The trolls can feel free to yell, I will not be responding. To all you other thoughtful commenters, your opinions (whether I agree or not) were a joy to read.

  230. #230

    There is one factor to consider.

    Most rape victims know their attackers. It was not revealed whether or not the victim knew her attacker before the rape.

    She should not be having another man's baby; that is a violation of the sacred marital vow.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...