Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Rape: "The abortion I did not have"

Moving story from a rape victim who decided not to punish the baby for his father's crime. Note: it's a rape. It's brutal reading.

The editor
describes the writer, and her motivations, thus:
Pam Siegfried, a regular reader of this blog, lives in AK and describes herself as a pro-life, pro-gay pagan/atheist and feminist who loves sci-fi/fantasy. NARAL and other “women’s rights” groups have targeted Gov. Sarah Palin for her steadfast beliefs on abortion, and Pam agreed to share her story because the MSM invariably interviews women who have had abortions after rape, but not women like her. They don’t exist to the MSM, which makes it easy for anti-abortion absolutists to be portrayed as weird extremists. They are not. They are mothers and grandmothers, just like Pam.

21 comments:

Gene Thomas said...

I frequently see reference to MSM in your posts. What is it, please?

DJP said...

MainStream Media.

Or, less kindly, Lamestream Media. The Axis of Error.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Yes, but you did conveniently leave out the part about the child not being the daughter of the rapist. The story might have been different if the anonymous writer were a single girl struggling to make it on a minimum wage income of about $1.25 an hour in 1973.

Other than that is a very moving story for which "Pam" is to be applauded. No, I do not sipport abortion rights.

Where do you find all these poster children around election season? And why do you leave them in the streets to fend for themselves when there is no election pending?

DJP said...

I don't think the English of the essay is really that challenging, is it? She wasn't going to have the child butchered, regardless.

So your "argument" is that, unless I personally adopt every un-aborted child, I shouldn't speak against butchering them? Interesting logic.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

No. My argument is that your lead in to the story is false. The child did not belong to the rapist. You distorted the true picture to construct your argument. Thus everything that follows is on shaky ground. It is discouraging that you are so critical of the news media for distorting their stories and then you do the same thing.

Speak against killing babies all you want. I encourage speaking out. Better yet, get out and volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center like my wife and I do. If you can't volunteer then give financial support. Also support local government programs that will make it affordable for women in these situations to have the kid. Don't just advocate against abortion and then leave the moms helpless and unable to feed the child after it is born.

DJP said...

You're still wrong. She wasn't going to punish the baby regardless.

Two questions:

1. Are you Rob Mellen, using another alias?

2. Do you have any experience as a circus knife-thrower?

RT said...

The "lead in" is manifestly not false. The decision to refrain from killing the baby was made before the mother knew whether or not the child was fathered by the rapist. Thus she clearly decided that, come what may, she was not going to punish the baby for the man's crime. I should think that were perfectly obvious but perhaps taking the time to explain it will be of some help to you.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Who is that?

My biography is a matter of public record. I served my country with distinction for more than 30 years. I am insulted by your question.

I maintain that this statement is false:

"...a rape victim who decided not to punish the baby for his father's crime."

The baby's (a girl) father committed no crime. The summary is therefore false and misleading. There are many other ways to say what you want to say without deception.

~Mark said...

Dan,

here's a similar story I've had linked on my blog since I first read it. What a powerful call to life!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2005/002/2.22.html

Stan McCullars said...

Lieutenant Pratt,
Consider that the lady wrote: I decided I would rather chance carrying (the rapist's) child than killing a baby my husband I wanted so much to have.

Perhaps you see deception there. I don't.

On a different note, thank you for your service to our country.

DJP said...

Mark, moving story, thanks.

Lieutenant Pratt — if your profile, just created this month, is true, I also thank you for your service. I mean no insult to your accomplishments, if your profile is true.

I trust you understand, this is the internet: anyone can say he's anything. Your profile could say you were the Emir of Mars, with a thousand children on a thousand planets.

It is passing strange, though. For months, we've had one person at a time drop by. They're all pretty much the same. They wring their hands; logic isn't really compelling to them; they tell us we're mean and not-Christian (because we're not swayed by their emoting); they flee the mean Christians to the welcoming arms of Obama. Because infanticide is compassionate.

One was banned. He expressed glee at the banning - then almost immediately fabricated another profile, and snuck back in, until he was "outed."

Or maybe they're all the same person. We can't tell.

But perhaps you can understand our collective eyebrows raising.

As to your reaffirmation of your initial misimpression, I can't but think:

A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still

CR said...

Lt Pratt: No. My argument is that your lead in to the story is false. The child did not belong to the rapist.

But the mother wasn't sure of who the father was at the time. Even though she thought it was a good chance that her husband was the father, the clinic told her that there was a possibility that the rapist was the father.

She decided not to punish the baby on the chance that the rapist could be the father. Is that more palatable for you?

Lieutenant Pratt said...

I am not very familiar with blogs yet. My wife bought me this laptop for my birthday and my son just came from Texas and set up some router thing this month. I found your site as a link from another site on christianity. The posts interested me because I am a christian leaning towards a vote for Obama. I assure you it is not a race thing for me. I never voted for Jesse Jackson and I have voted against black candidates many times. I have been called an uncle tom on many occasions.

I am intrigued by your assumption that I am not who I am while promoting an article written by an author who refuses to provide her real name and background. For all any of us know she could be a total fraud.

Then you refuse to address my criticism and question my identity and truthfulness. It is the same pattern I pointed out regarding general powell's endorsement. Nobody has yet addressed his (valid) criticisms of the republican party. They have attacked him as a lying racist instead. Is this what conservativism has become?

CR- your summary would be more to the actual point but I would drop the inflammatory language

DJP said...

Lt Pratt, we keep having this same problem.

1. Nobody assumed anything. I asked, remember? Then I explained my reasons for wondering.

2. Actually, everything you have said has been answered several times. Powell gave no reasons that hold water. None. They've all been shredded. So... maybe you could recap your original point, the responses you've received, and what you find missing?

3. You're right about the article I site. It could be phony. The argument about killing children of horrid fathers stands, regardless. ~Mark linked to a similar article.

The case isn't the same with you. You are a guest on my blog. I'm the host. I am the only one responsible for not letting these conversations get hijacked by trolls — which has been attempted several times. You're new; I hope you'll take my word for it.

I hope this gets us moving forward. I feel like you keep pitching, I (and others) keep smacking the ball, and you keep saying, "How come no one swings at my throws?"

chrish said...

Dan Dan Dan... Did you use, "site," when you meant, "cite" (last comment)

That's two in almost as many days... :)

DJP said...

Um, er... no! I meant site — to know, "To link to the site"! It's a denominative verb.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

I think I see the point. You think you are addressing my complaint when you really ain't. Then you wonder why I don't get it.

DJP said...

Okay, now, this is troll-like behavior.

I want to believe your profile, because I'd love to dialogue with someone of your background on these issues. But, as I observed, "everything you have said has been answered several times." And then I offered, "maybe you could recap your original point, the responses you've received, and what you find missing?" Now there's a basis and blueprint for dialogue.

To ask a question or lodge a charge, receive an answer, then repeat the original and deny that you've had any response — well, that isn't dialogue. It's trolling.

So again I ask: what did you say, what answers did you already receive, how have you not been responded to?

Stan McCullars said...

Lieutenant Pratt,
Nobody has yet addressed (Powell's) (valid) criticisms of the republican party.

I'll address them.

The Republican Party is not the conservative party it should be.

That said, the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate support the murder of babies. That is not acceptable.

If the Republican Party starts promoting taxpayer dollars to systematically murder the elderly there could be a discussion among Christians as to which party to support. As it stands, no rational person could honestly believe it morally acceptable to support the Democrat's and their candidate.

Anne Marie said...

I support Lt Pratt's comments. I made the choice not to have an abortion despite being strongly persuaded to do so. For my family's safety, I do no pursue child support. I do not receive any public assistance. I take complete responsibility for this child.
Yes, this child has been an enormous blessing and I thank God everyday. The thing that has not been a blessing are the people that say they're Christian and anti-abortion, park their butts in church, and use my child as a reason to point their fingers at my sin. No one else was there, knows what happened, or whether I had a choice in conceiving this child or not but they assume that he's evidence of my sin. And many people believe that because they fought for our right to choose, we should choose what they think is the obvious choice.
So, my complaint is with both right to lifers and right to choosers (sp?). Both sides take my child's being as evidence of my stupidity and a reason to treat me anyway they choose.
The right to choose people should better recognize that if a woman has a child, she's made her choice and not fault her for the choice she's made.
The right to life people should better close their lips and quit wagging their tongues. A little compassion people rather than "what a mess she's gotten herself into".
Lt Pratt is entirely correct, if you want to work so hard to stop abortion, work hard to make it an easier choice not to do. You don't have to give your time/money. You can give more compassion to the women you know made the choice not to get an abortion. You can pray more fervently for those who didn't and are struggling alone.
From what I've read, Lt Pratt is the only one who has supported my choice after the 10-12-whatever week cut off date that I could have had an abortion. And I thank him for restoring my faith that someone who hasn't been in my situation is out there trying to help women who are.

DJP said...

I'm glad you didn't have your baby killed.

But what syllable of Pratt's comment do you think you agree with? Every bit of it was proven wrong or irrelevant, or both.

First, you're dead-wrong about the cut off date. If you're an American, you could have had that child killed up to and including the moment of birth.

Second, you completely ignore the article. That's not really encouraged at this site.

Third, what is your moral framework? Nobody can agree with anything in the Bible unless he, what - volunteers in some social-action program? I can't agree with God that people shouldn't commit murder unless I, what, devote my entire week to anger-management and conflict resolution seminars? I can't agree that people shouldn't steal unless I'm a volunteer career counselor? I can't agree that people shouldn't commit adultery unless I offer free marriage counseling 24/7? What's the threshold for agreeing with God?

This whole line is just a dodge meant to shut Christians up. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fourth, compassion. Who's arguing against compassion? Who's arguing against outreaches? What does that have to do with saying that nobody should have anyone else murdered because that person is imperfect, inconvenient, or has a bad parent?

Fifth, people need to take ownership of their own choices and grow up. Someone can express concern about my weight without having to volunteer to be my personal trainer and cook and shopper for free, forever.

So. Back to what the post is about.

Here's an atheist that had enough memory of a moral sense to know that, had her baby been fathered by a rapist, that didn't mean the baby deserved execution.

She's an atheist with much better moral sense than professed Christian Barack Obama.