Black and White, with Shades of Gray...

Abortion. Perhaps the most controversial and provocative word presently in the English language. The current discourse would have you think it’s a black and white issue: you’re either for it or against it. Left or right, right or wrong.

Unfortunately this is exactly the type of dialogue that has led to the ideological stalemate in which we currently find ourselves. Until now it was easy for someone who considers themselves to be a shade of gray in this debate to ignore the static and focus on more pressing issues. It is no longer static, however, since House Republicans introduced a bill this week in order to limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions for rape victims that essentially re-defines rape. According to these refreshingly sensitive experts we call Congressmen “rape is only rape if it involves force.”

Now wait a minute. Rape is characterized by lack of consent, meaning one person says “no” to another person’s sexual advances; or is not in a mental state that enables them to give consent; or is not of the consenting age. Therefore, ALL rape involves force, regardless of whether or not broken bones and/or bruises are present in the aftermath.

While the intent of the bill, as stated, is to further limit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions to exclude cases of rape without “force,” its implications are potentially far greater. Rape is already one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute, but what if a federal law is enacted that, in effect, creates two very hazy definitions of rape? (Congressmen Chris Smith-R-N.J., who introduced the bill, and his other 172 mostly Republican co-sponsors have offered no clear definition of “forcible rape”) How exactly is a judge supposed to punish a perpetrator of this heinous crime when there exists a federal law that further complicates precisely what it is that constitutes rape? If a rape victim can’t use federal funds to pay for an abortion if the rape wasn’t ‘forcible,’ then is that rape less traumatizing, and thus warrants less jail time for the offender? Is this really the way we want to treat victims of an extremely painful, harrowing crime-telling them their rape wasn’t ‘forcible?’

And let’s not forget-these women are victims. Having thankfully not been a victim of rape myself, I cannot even begin to imagine what they are going through. As a result, I would never try and tell an impregnated rape victim what she should do with her precarious situation. It’s easy for me to say that I could never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong-I’ve never been faced with such horrible circumstances. I doubt it’s as easy for a rape victim to say the same thing. So like I said, I would never try to tell them what is best for their healing, nor would I support a law that limits their ability to decide for themselves.

A rape victim’s decision is between her and her god, not me, and sure as hell not Congress.

Besides, doesn’t Christianity teach that only God can judge His people? I’m not condoning abortion here, all I’m saying is that in these situations people should think really carefully before they judge a really sensitive issue.

But that’s just what I think.




*This entry was written on 2/2/11 and the next morning the "forcible rape" language was removed from the bill. I decided to still post it, however, because I think the overall issues I raise in this post are still relevant (and are likely to be for awhile).