wilderness path

a significant inner journey

"Would you consider that a ‘victim’

is the perpetrator of his, or HER,

own perpetrations?"

Desert Spirit

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM
From: desert spirit
To: Shauna Prewitt
www.shaunaprewitt.com - A Rapist's Child

     So if I understand you correctly, you were forced into an act in which you did not wish to participate, that resulted in the birth of a child, an act in which you DID wish to participate, and now you are saying that you wish to condemn the individual who is responsible for the act in which you did not wish to participate, that gave you an opportunity to have this beautiful child which is an act in which you DID wish to participate? This sounds very contradictory.

     Perhaps in life there are no victims, but only volunteers if it drives an individual to look inward as to why they would manifest such a lesson into their life? In my humble estimation, contradiction is a terrible thing to teach to a child. And ‘a rapist’s child’ is a terrible label to place onto a child.


     Thanks for your email. I do not believe there is anything contradictory about choosing to give birth to and raise my daughter while, in so choosing, also not wanting to tether myself to my rapist. What is your proposed alternative if it is not the termination of the parental rights of men who conceive through rape? Abort my daughter/place her for adoption so that I would not be forced to co-parent with my rapist? Or, are you suggesting that, if I choose to raise my daughter, I be forced to co-parent with my rapist? If your view is either of those, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

     The foundation of our legal system is that there are certain people who ought not to be afforded parental rights over their biological children. We terminate parental rights where parents abuse their children, neglect them, abandon them, etc. We also terminate parental rights when parents harm others, including their other children or the other parent. The termination of parental rights of men who father through rape is a strand of this reasoning: men who father through rape should not have access to those children because of the continuing terrorization it poses against the mother, as well as the potential harm to the child.

     Also, I agree that the term “rapist’s child” is derogatory and unacceptable. It is why I argue so passionately in the article I wrote for the Georgetown Law Journal that we as a society need to stop using that label or others like it. My use of the term in the title of my paper was ironic, which is why it is in quotation marks.



     The parents of a young boy were grief stricken when the boy was robbed and stabbed in both eyes. The boy was permanently blinded. The grief stricken parents went to and pleaded with Sai Baba for a reason for this perceived senseless act upon their young child.

     Sai Baba explained to the parents that in a PAST LIFE, the boy was a cruel man who imposed harsh suffering upon this other person, and that in THIS life this was the karmic consequences of the boy's past life.

     Sai Baba explained to the parents that the boy's blindness in this lifetime was permanent, but sight COULD BE restored IF the boy took to spending his life looking within himself to clear himself of his own impurities.

     Karmic Laws exceed man’s intellectual understanding, and exceed what any 'laws' man thinks he can impose on another person.

     In Reality, there are no victims but only the balancing of Karmic Books. It is written in the Akashic Records, and therefore remains as part of the Eternal Record.

     You will perhaps find this offensive, and feel a strong urge and need to defend your ‘rights’ as a ‘victim’. Yet the fact that you even drew the act of ‘rape’ into your life would require a deeper look on your part. For it is also suggested that we always receive that for which we asked TO receive, even if we do not REMEMBER asking.

     When a person attempts to limit what another can or cannot do, based on man’s ‘laws’ and their justifications to defend their ‘rights’, that person is placing limits on herself or himself.

     I do not condone any act of violence, including those the ‘victim’ imposes on the ‘perpetrator’. This only makes the victim equal TO the perpetrator, and indeed a difficult truth to swallow.

     Would you consider that a ‘victim’ is the perpetrator of his, or HER, own perpetrations?

     Only in seeing this, realizing this and making internal changes within oneself to end it can the ‘victim’ truly be free.

     Please pardon my intrusion, if you feel that is what it is. Please do not reply. Justifications and defenses will only bring an illusion of peace. Sit with this, and allow it to wash over you. They are only words. Words cannot harm.

     Misperceptions make unexplainable events seem disorderly. However, if it is true that nothing in Life happens by accident, then it is not by accident you have had the experiences you have called forth into your life, as have I, which include this brief email exchange.

     Peace to your daughter, to you and to the father of your child.