In an interview on Thursday with Politico, prominent Republican lawyer and longtime general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee James Bopp said the 10-year old Ohio girl who obtained an abortion in Indiana should have given birth to the child and under his model anti-abortion legislation would have been compelled to do so:
She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child.
This is not Mr. Bopp's decision to make. This child's child would likely serve as a reminder of what happened to her for the rest of her life. Like most pro-lifers, Mr. Bopp doesn't give a damn about the life of this 10-year old girl as he further demonstrates:
Unless her life was at danger, there is no exception for rape. The bill does propose exceptions for rape and incest, in my model, because that is a pro-life position, but it’s not our ideal position. We don’t think, as heartwrenching (sic) as those circumstances are, we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby because of the sins of the father.
The father? He's no father and they are not a couple, married or otherwise. They are a man and a child. This is a man who forcibly ejaculated his sperm into a 10-year old girl and impregnated her. This goes well beyond sin. The "father" committed the most heinous crime outside of homicide namely the rape of a child. Does Bopp think this "father" is going to raise this child? Does Bopp think this rapist should get visitation rights too?
This 10-year old girl did not have a say when it came to the advances of this 27-year old man. Now we have a 76-year lawyer who doesn't think this girl should have any say in the matter either and that the state should compel her to give birth to her rapist's baby. The "model" anti-abortion legislation drafted by Bopp is every bit as cruel this 10-year old girl and other underage girls in her situation as the men who raped them.
No comments:
Post a Comment