Monday, 29 November 2010
Here’s an article that my wife wrote for BirthActivist.com: CLICK THIS!
My wife worked very hard on that article. I think it excels because it not only gets people to think, but it gets (many) people to think in a different way. It’s very scholarly; she pulled in information from various sources and brought up data from various authorities in the field. She also anticipated and responded to a few objections or concerns people might have. Also, it appears someone very intelligent must have checked it for spelling and grammar, ’cause man, it’s awesome.
Anyway, if you haven’t read it yet, go there now. It’s more engaging than anything I’m gonna write here.
One of the commenters there said: “I guess what you missing in this article is the importance of intent, and I think that might be one of the most important aspect of the debate!”
That’s a fair concern, but I think it misses the point.
I think the intent is more similar than we might like to think: in both cases, the rapist is seeking to control and dominate the victim.
Regardless, Jennifer is here speaking about the effect on the victim. Let’s compare this to another crime: Burglary.
First, a thief steals my wedding ring. He maliciously waited until I left home, and broke into my house just to steal something of value to pay for his drug habit.
So then I get a replacement wedding ring.
But then I am robbed again. This time, my wedding ring is stolen, again. But this time, the thief needed the valuable in order to sell it for cash to feed his starving children.
In a court of law, a judge and jury may (and should) judge these cases differently. However, the effect on the victim (me) is identical. In both cases, I lost something of value that needed to be replaced. In both cases, I am right to term it “theft” and voice my desire to have recompense.