What About Rape?

This past election brought the question “What about abortion in the case of rape” to the forefront of the public debate on abortion. Those on the abortion rights side have long used rape as an excuse for legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason.

In fact, the very decision of Roe vs. Wade was based on a “rape” claim that Norma McCorvey (the “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade) has since admitted was a lie. The sad truth is that many who consider themselves pro-life have compromised and allowed for this exception; with some saying that because it is rare it is better to save most, even if some are sacrificed. However, as we approach the 40th anniversary of this infamous court decision, and over 50 million babies killed, I suggest that this compromise has not worked. It is time we learned to articulate the truth that if life begins at conception, and abortion is the taking of innocent life, then killing a child for the crimes of his or her father is never justified.

If you did not have the opportunity to see the video I made along with other brave women from Indiana who were conceived in rape, please take the time to watch and share with friends:



Pam Stenzel


Pam Stenzel, M.A. is the Director of Enlighten Communications and the author of Nobody Told Me and Who's In Your Social Network? For more information please visit pamstenzel.com.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • JMC

    Since rape and abortion are primarily women’s issues, I can understand why the focus was on women in this video. But what about the little boys who were conceived in rape? I think finding that out was just as traumatic for them as it was for the girls. It would have been nice to hear what one of them had to say on the matter.
    That said, I think my favorite testimony was the second one. However she was actually conceived, her existence was ultimately God’s idea, and, as such, not a “mistake.” I think that sums up the whole pro-life stand in a nutshell.

  • choiceone

    You are mistaken about the Roe v Wade case. Norma McCorvey was simply asked by the lawyers who wanted to challenge Texas abortion law if she would be willing to have her situation used for their challenge and voluntarily agreed. She knew that it was going to be a class action suit against the entire law, not just the “no exception for rape” part, yet for no reason anyone understood, she claimed that she had been raped. The lawyers were very disappointed that McCorvey had lied to them, since they never lied to her. However, the case did not depend on whether or not “Roe” had been raped, and the issue of rape never came up in the argument. So Roe v Wade was not based on a lie and not decided based on one. It’s worth noting that the lawyers who never lied won the case and never regretted it, while McCorvey, a liar, later became an anti-choice person.

  • DYoung

    Sorry now you are mistaken:

    She (Norma McCorvey) says that her attorney Sarah
    Weddington, rather than correcting her misconceptions, deliberately
    confused the issue: “For their part, my lawyers lied to me about
    the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me, ‘It’s just a piece
    of tissue. You just missed your period.'”

    And now you are mistaken calling her an “anti-choice person”. She just chooses differently now, but it is still her choice.

  • Awesome, Pam! Thank you for the blessings of your life.

  • choiceone

    McCorvey had already indicated to her attorney that she did want to have an abortion. Weddington, like many pro-choice people, did believe that, early in pregnancy, an embryo is only a piece of tissue. Where is the lie? You are assuming that pro-choice people think like you. They don’t.

  • choiceone

    And I am not mistaken in calling her an “anti-choice person.” Any person who wants to make laws to deprive women of the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy is, by definition, against a woman having that choice in law, and “anti-choice person” is the short form of indicating that. The only reason you can say, “She just chooses differently now, but it is still her choice,” is because brave, hardworking, dedicated people have been defending the right of women to have that choice. Anyone who is not against a woman having that choice in law is, by definition, “pro-choice,” even if his or her personal choice would be “pro-life.” That is why there is overlap in these designations.

  • DYoung

    Those are McCorvey’s words not mine. The lie is in the statement you made that her lawyers never lied to her. She says that she was lied to.

    Now as for the word choice. Most of the women who choose to have an abortion are not making that choice because they were raped. Most of women making that choice are doing it because they choose to have sex during their fertal phase and became pregnant. I guess you saying that women have no choice when it comes to having sex in the first place, therefore, after they become pregnent, this is when they get a chance to choose what happens to their body. But I am guessing that you will say that a women should be able to choose what happens to her body ALL the time. What you are giving women is the option to not live with their initial choice. All I am doing be being pro-life his holding women accoutable for their first choice.

    What about men in all of this? If a women chooses to have the baby, the man who got her pregnant has no choice but to support that child. Where is his choice? He has to live with that first choice, why shouldn’t she? To be completely fair and 100% pro-choice, men should be able to choose if they want to support any of the children they father. Correct?

  • choiceone

    I guess that we disagree because you believe McCorvey, who admitted that she lied about being raped, and do not believe Weddington, who never said that she herself lied and never used the issue of rape in taking Roe v Wade to the courts. I’d believe Weddington as a credible witness over admitted liar McCorvey any day of the week. McCorvey had lived a very irresponsible life, and Weddington, by contrast, had lived a personally responsible one. So we just disagree on which of the witnesses producing contradictory testimony is the credible one.

    Now, I don’t really care whether the majority of women who choose abortion were raped or not, as the issue of law has nothing to do with statistics. If one makes a law that victimizes one innocent born person, that law is evil, and it is well-known that anti-abortion laws victimized many victims impregnated by rape.

    I frankly do not believe that a woman who willingly has sex should be punished with unwanted pregnancy for it because:

    1) not all women who willingly have sex are punished with unwanted pregnancy;

    2) some women who are raped and therefore do not willingly have sex are punished with unwanted pregnancy;

    3) no men who willingly have sex are ever punished with unwanted pregnancy.

    We are supposed to be equal before God, but the above facts reveal that either this is a great big lie or it is truth we can prove only when abortion is an available option for women.

    When men have sex, they give away their sperm. When women have sex, they do not give away their ova. Because the ova stay inside their own bodies, women should have the right to decide what do to with those ova, whether or not they are fertilized.

    I do not think men should in fact be forced to support the children that come from their acts of sex, as long as they are willing to give up all legal rights to know or have anything to do with those children. I always have thought this. But I do not believe that financial support is in any way a punishment equal to the violation of one’s body.

    The woman will be judged by her fruit, but the man will not be judged by it, because babies come from women’s bodies and do not come from men’s. Women’s bodies will be violated by the chromosomes of the men whose sperm fertilize their ova if they give birth – they will be violated for the whole life of the woman. No one should ever be judged by fruit they do not want to bring forth.

    To force a woman to give birth to a child she definitely does not want to give birth to is equivalent to using physical torture to force a woman to say words she does not want to, which will make her liable to judgment for those words. This has nothing to do with men, who have been victimizing women for millenia because they have been brainwashing them, seducing them, cheating them, and generally ruining their lives.

    This lack of equality whenever heterosexual relations occur is the reason I have not had sex or even dated for well over thirty years. As far as I’m concerned, until our society ceases to make abortion an issue, sane women should just refuse to get married, refuse to have sex, and refuse to produce children, and to heck with anything the tyrants say.