I don't care that it's arguably blasphemous (something about which reasonable Christians could disagree). I do care that the image is disturbingly erotic.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can appreciate the way that the shock value of the image would get a viewer's attention. On the other hand, as noted already by dykelawyer, I don't like the eroticized image itself.

Besides, why is it that so often campaigns like this revel in showing the pathos and pain of the victims, instead of showing the perpetrators as the vile human beings that they are?

It's a clever message, but you really shouldn't be using God's image to get a point across. I think we've established in the past that no matter how good the cause, if the way you get your message out is horrid, you shouldn't do it. (see: PETA. though I don't think their cause is good...)

I didn't see it as erotic at all... I think it slams home the message that rape is violence. It itself is a form of crucifixion for women that punishes them for their existence and leaves them to suffer mentally and physically for someone else's messed up head.

It made me very uncomfortable when I first saw it, as well it should. Sadly, most men won't get it.

I don't think it's eroticized.

I think she has the female equivalent of Christ's body -he's always depicted as thin, with some bones sticking out.

If it were meant to be erotic, they could have done a good deal more.

European adverts, in general, have a great deal more nudity than do U.S. adverts.

Oh, and I'm not a religious person so maybe that discounts my message, but that part of it doesn't bother me either.

Christianity has always been a terribly male-dominated religion, where traditionally women were like property to be bought and sold.

Plus Jesus was not the only one to be nailed to a cross -for a period of time it was a common form of punishment.

And women are absolutely paying for men's sins in instances like rape.

So, I think it makes perfect sense.

As a Christian minister, I don't think this ad is blasphemous - in fact, it's pretty theologically appropriate, at least in terms of liberation/feminist theology.

Neither do I think it's eroticized but I could see how perpetrators would only see the woman's naked body.

I do wonder about using a Christian martyr as the symbol, though. Aren't there a lot of people who aren't Christian who wouldn't get the impact of this statement, or who would be offended by the Christo-centrism?

(And, the Romans crucified lots of people- the cross is the equivalent of an electric chair. But I know most ppl associate the crucifix with Jesus.)

I didn't see the religious imagery or the violence of it.

Instead, I saw an attractive woman laying in bed naked, as though she's waiting for a guy. And then the text reads "only 4% of women report rape."

The takeaway from the ad is therefore, "Go ahead and rape. This woman is waiting for you, and she almost definitely won't report you."

Aeirn, Italy is 90% Christian (and 87% Catholic) so the Christian images probably resonate strongly.

Gayle, you must remember that nudity is a lot more prevalent on European tv than it is here, as someone above mentioned.

I think perhaps the textual message could support the image more clearly and forcefully, but I think it's very beautiful and poignant. No one here seems to get the significance of an image like this coming out in Italy. I think you need to put it in context here.

I am bothered by the victim-centric aspect of it. Once again it is putting the onus on women to take responsibility for changing a rape culture - this time by saying they should report it more. One of the reasons more women don't report rapes is because they are not taken seriously when they do, or they are blamed. It is the responsibility of other people to change that culture so that more women feel comfortable reporting. And ultimately it is the responsibility of men to stop raping. And yet this ad is all about the victim.

Good point, Gayle Laakman. As others have said, I'm also uncomfortable with the seemingly eroticized nature of it.

I am also (I am a Christian) uncomfortable with it from a religious perspective--but NOT because I find it offensive. For theologically orthodox Christians, the point of Christ's suffering and death on the cross is that in sacrificing himself in this way, he not only took on the punishment all humans deserve for their sins, but also absolved those who accept him of all guilt/desert of punishment for sinning. This is in no way comparable to rape because: a) women don't choose to be raped, as Christ chose to suffer on the cross, and b) the suffering women endure as a result of rape in no way absolves or purifies men committing rape of their sins in doing so. Comparing women to Christ in this situation somehow suggests that rape is ok, that somehow women have chosen to be raped and that because it's women's role to suffer for men's sins, it's ok for men not to be punished for them. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. Women's suffering in rape is all the MORE reason that men deserve to be punished for it.

I don't like that the copy basically reads that it's all the victims fault for not reporting sexual assault. As if it's only now a mainstream problem needing to be fixed once the right people realized the victims don't report it. As for the toplessness, I've been laboring under the impression that they're only really illegal here in America, while Europe seems to have gotten over the "pink menace."

I think the image taps into the long and vital tradition of sensual/erotic depictions of crucifixion, which goes back at least to the medieval mystics (incl. some of the earliest known women writers in English). This is only natural, since the crux (as it where) of Christianity is the glorification of Christ's suffering and sacrifice. To oversimplify, there has long been a sort of sadomasochistic streak in Christian imagery.

So it is neither surprising nor inherently offensive that crucifixion and eroticism should mix. Personally, if the image were taken on its own, this secular, kinky feminist would think it pretty hot. But that these themes should be used together to represent rape is another and more disturbing thing.

Not a catholic, or any other sort of theist for that matter; so the co-opting of Jesus isn't something I'm probably going to get pissed off about. And nudity isn't something that bugs me either (unless it's my own, if you saw it you would agree) so I don't think this ad is objectionable from my perspective; OTOH I really don't think a rapist is going to be stopped by this.

As someone who has semi-defended PETAs' use of the female form (not their goals, mind you) and been lambasted for it I fail to see how this isn't objectification in the same vein.

I'm also shocked to learn that the only people who are upset by this are "male politicians". It's amazing that there are no women at all whom are bothered by this kind of imagery.

I really like this!!! I don't think it's sexual by any means, in fact I think it is right to the point. The crucifixion of Jesus has many meanings for me(even though I am not a Christian), and has a very powerful story. That story being that the brutality of human kind is unimaginable. I think that is what they were trying to convey here in this picture. They were trying to say this 'act' is brutal and 'senseless'. I also think it is powerful in the sense that she is being represented in a god-like fashion, you know as if to say she should be respected and treated better and thought of as something higher than a sex toy. Even more that is is a child of God and should be treated with fairness and kindness not violence.

But I do agree it is very focused on the victim here, but before it can be focused on the perpetrator it must be first addressed as something hideous and wrong. I think they were on the right track here and that they sent a very powerful message.

Look at this really, hot, available girl, spread out on the pillows. If you rape her, you only have a 4% chance of even being reported.

No. I don't care about the religious symbolism at all, but this is a victim-blaming campaign that really works as an invitation to rape.

I think this is a very interesting ad. I really like the jesus comparisson because it brings some hipocricy to light. You never hear about religious groups (at least via media sources)working to end violence against women, but you sure hear an anti-gay rhetoric.

Taenia, I see where your concern is comign from but I don't think an ad like this is going to encourage rapists. It's pretty well known that there are not consequences for rapists. Rapists will find that out after their first assault. Only 5-7% of men rape, and 1 in 4 women will be assaulted in thier lifetime. Rapists already know thier game, the general public does not.

A lot of the problem here is what I'm betting is the large gap between a highly Catholic culture that is used to nudity without the implication of sexuality as opposed to an American feminist culture that is highly suspicious of any use of a sexualized female form in advertising, and is used to viewing nudity almost entirely with a sexual connotation.

All of that aside, I don't see what the low reporting rate has to do with anything, or really what the add is supposed to suggest at all. I typically don't think that common public media is going to be effective in the least at preventing rape. Is some man who is about to rape a woman supposed to think to himself "Oh wait, I remember from that poster that this will make the woman a victim. I'm glad that reminded me because I figured rape was fine."?

I guess it just seems to me like resources are better spent thoroughly educating young men to respect women in general. You can't prevent rape with the same tactics you use to sell soap.

I did a short blog piece on images of women crucified a long time ago (back when I was trying to blog ... apparently, I'm too lazy for that kind of dedication!):
http://cw-justiceforwomen.blogspot.com/2007/03/women-crucified.html

I'm not surprised that the image is causing controversy - especially in a place that holds so much of Catholicism's history and hierarchy. I think images of women on the cross are very apt (theologically, even) when talking about issues of violence against women, both systemic and interpersonal ... and I find conservative religious responses to such images even more telling, particularly about their view of women and understanding of the divine.

I agree with what some others said -- she looks sensual rather than victimized, and while I guess they bared her breasts to look more like a crucifix, I think they could have achieved the image without going there. So that bothers me. If it's getting attention, that's good, but I've known enough douchebags in my life to know that a lot of guys flatly disbelieve the one-in-four statistic. So I don't know if this helps.

Not to be nitpicky, but the text actually doesn't specify "sexual" violence, it just says "violence."

I know it's totally superficial, but my first thoughts were, "Well, wouldn't god or Jesus object to rape? So why would they mind their teachings/image/death being evoked for that purpose?"

As for the nature of the woman in the picture, I actually have a problem with the fact that I don't think enough violence is suggested. I mean, she looks peaceful and sleepy with her legs lying over one another. If you didn't associate it with the violence of Jesus' death, then it would look like a peaceful aftermath to rape.

Also, I think maybe I take issue with her being so pretty, which seems to suggest that we're supposed to appreciate her form rather than be horrified at the act of rape that's being suggested.

Also - I can't tell - is she supposed to be dead in the picture? I mean, Jesus is dead on the cross, so does that suggest that she's dead? If so, that would take the issue to another place.

Perhaps this ad campaign is not directed at rapists - I think it's fair to say that an advertisement will probably never stop a rapist from raping. However, if you can impact the average person and provoke them enough that they might question their own attitudes and beliefs, you can begin to alter the rape culture little bit by little bit. The more people become aware of what many women live with every day, often silently, the more they will be willing to support change in laws, customs, and attitudes.

I don't like it. I agree with those that said they didn't need to go there.

I'm wondering, how does anyone view this as possibly erotic? Are you assuming any and every man who sees this will get a switch turned on in their head saying "mmmm boy, raping that woman sure would be fun." Ask an Italian what they think about the nudity before assuming they are like all the horrible American men who will see this and instantly turn into raping monsters.

I don't see a woman waiting to be raped. Rape is about power and not sex, right?

Not to mention, she's in the position of a crucifix. I'm not religious, but I know a lot about how the crucifix has been used by many cultures for thousands of years to kill people. It's a method that uses pain, suffering, degradation, and humiliation. Anyone who sees a person in a crucifix position and gets the message they were a victim of any violence should be able to connect the two, not just ignore the fact that the person was crucified.

And while it could do better with rapist-blaming, it does mention 'man's sins', and women should report their sexual assaults more. I think if every woman reported her rape, people would start to realize just how often it happened. Of course, steps should be taken first to ensure women can comfortably do this, trust me, I do understand how it feels and why women don't want to report being sexually assaulted.

i think the ad is slightly erotic. What I am most concerned about are some possible theological implications. Though I like the idea of a female depicted Christ (such as the sculptures Christa and Christine on the Cross) I think it is the depiction of her, as Christ, asking about who pays.

For the average Christian the crucifixion of Jesus is the payment to our sins. So has she paid for his sins (and thus justified it).

I don't want to go on forever in the comment section. If you want to know more about what I am arguing I posted about it.

I think there is more at stake than the erotic nature of the ad.

"Who pays for man's sins?" has such a deep meaning in a feminist context, and so many implications about how women suffer in society in general. Whoever thought to use it was very smart.

This is a sharp, complex ad that stays with you. If you walk by this and want to know more about what the ad has to say, then it is successful.

"while I guess they bared her breasts to look more like a crucifix, I think they could have achieved the image without going there."

I really don't think this is a "going there" issue in Italian culture. What's more, I think if they had managed to achieve the image without "going there", I think a lot of people on the street would be wondering why they hadn't. Truthfully, I think it would have detracted a lot from the ad. I'm glad the breasts are bared.

I think a lot of complaints about the image are hard to argue for. She's thin and naked because the majority of images of Christ on the cross are thin and naked. Her legs are laying peacefully over one another as, were she actually being crucified, the feet would be nailed together. What's more, I think our society is so saturated with images of blatant violence that this method (no bruises, a clean bed, a peaceful face etc) may not be more accurate, but is chilling and effective in a different way. It's the metaphor that counts here, ie, the crucifixion. Certainly, it grabbed my attention. Mind you, I don't know if the level of violence in advertising/movies/tv shows is the same in Italian society, but I think the method of subtlety can be an effective method anywhere.

It's true she's on a clean white bed instead of lying somewhere in an alley or basement where rape happens in movies, tv shows, and the cultural imagination, but I think it's sort of a chilling reminder that women are in danger not entirely from people they've never met, but also from people that they know, in settings they are familiar with. Whether or not she's lying on a bed, in an alley, or on top of Mount Everest, rape is rape.

I also don't think this ad is victim blaming. I think the statement refers to how shameful an experience it is to report a rape for some women, which is more of a condemnation of society's attitudes than anything else.

Posters above me have left complex points on the theology behind this, and I agree that's problematic. I think that for the casual viewer in the street, this is a particularly good ad - associating rape with the central traumatic and horrifying event in Christianity emphasizes the importance of stopping it. True it's not entirely theologically sound, but I'd be interested to know exactly how many people are thinking about it that way.

And as has been said above, no, this poster will not stop rapists from raping. But I really don't think anyone expected it to. If rape could be stopped by the right kind of poster, I'm sure we'd have figured it out by now.

I think it's a knee jerk reaction from many people in this discussion to immediately see the objectification of women and decry the possibility of any nudity whatsoever. I am very glad to see that many here are not falling of for it. This ad is very powerful and sends a very clear message. I think we read too much into it and forget the audience for which this message was sent, your typical person on the street who may or may not identify themselves 'feminist.' For that alone, I think it's effective.

It must be remembered that Italy is a VERY catholic country (even if actual belief and practice is declining). Culturally, Catholicism pervades. There is a crucifix in every school classroom - in public school. I think under the circumstances, the crucifixion imagery would hit home with pretty much everybody.

I think the ad is beautiful in a painful way. I think the juxtaposition of the crucifixion and discussion of violence on women's bodies makes it difficult to see this image as one or the other. It joins them. If a man decides to see the woman erotically, it will be difficult to divorce that from the Christ image. Well done, Italy.

Now I don't speak Italian, but the translation is clearly not complete. The text over the image reads:
Who pays for the sins of man?

And the text under it indeed says that only 4% of women report their 'carneficio' (which according to dictionary.com online translation means executioner: a further play on the crucifixion theme or a mistranslation?) Then there is a second sense, which I cannot completely figure out. It reads:
Le altre pagano anche per lui.
The others also pay for ?
him/her/it. plural?

This makes the message complexer: who is paying for who's sins? Are the rapists that are caught also paying for the rapists that arent, or are the women that do not report also paying for him, the rapist, or her: the woman who did not report? or are the ones who didn't report silently paying for the crime (instead of the rapist who should be paying).

Maybe it is just so ambiguous to me because I don't speak Italian...

I think I love this ad.

I must say, I'm slightly shocked and very pleased that a pair of breasts made it into an ad without being turned into pornographic objects--I guess that's one difference between Europe and the US. But boobies aside, the ad is lovely on an aesthetic level, and there's something about an exposed rape victim being compared to Christ that I find refreshing.

It's slightly blasphemous, but so what? I know Italy is quite Catholic, but it's incredibly backward to ban something on account of religious beliefs (cough, cough).

However, did anyone catch this gem from the link?

"Reached for comment, Pope Benedict XVI said that he plans on suing Telefono Donna, citing that the Roman Catholic Church owns the copyright on the crucifixion symbol."

Because the Pope has nothing better to do than to get pissy about a naked woman stretching her arms out.

On the whole, I like it. I like that it inserts the female into the male-centric language of Christianity. It's a powerful image and will make people think.

Her thinness, and her pose are in every way like how Christ is portrayed, and for me it absolutely recalls that and so avoids being gratuitously sexual or erotic.

There was some talk near the beginning of this thread about her being apparently uninjured. I appreciate that. While rape is violent, I think there's a danger in constantly involving heavy violence in depictions of rape, in that a woman has to be beaten up before people will take her claim seriously.

I did have a negative reaction to the perpetuation of women-are-victims thing. It was a very immediate gut reaction. I think that ultimately such portrayals just reinforces the idea that it's women's role in life to be victims.

When I read that male politicians were up in arms, I thought the controversy was going to be over women being portrayed as victims/martyrs/pure/innocent etc. and men being cast as sinners. I've been reading about situations where judges who stand up for women are decried as evil, anti-democratic, man-haters who are eeeeevul! so those types of arguments are on my mind.

As an aside... the Catholic Church has the symbol of the crucifix copyrighted?!?!?!? If there's anything that should be in the public domain, I would think it would be religious symbols.

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion because most of the points I would make have already been made.

However, I do find it amusing that so many posters keep claiming that this can't be a sexualized image because THEY don't find it sexy, or that it's not sexualized because Italians wouldn't think breasts are taboo--as if all sexualization is about taboos. This misses the point completely. YOU don't have to find an image sexually appealing for it to be sexualized. And just because Italians have different cultural taboos around sex and nudity doesn't mean they are somehow more enlightened as individuals, especially about the rights of women and men's behavior towards women. Ask any woman who's spent much time in Italy without a male escort about how many times they were cat-called or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable by men on the streets of any Italian city. Just because breasts may not be taboo to them doesn't mean a whole lot to an individual woman.

Hi!
I'm italian and I can offer some more informations:
the politicians are up in arms because "it offends the christian religion" *rolls eyes*

And everyone is right: we are so used to naked women in adds that this one is not sexual at all, and is much much tamer than the objectified women we are bombarded with. It's not even "rape inducing" because everyone who sees it thinks "Christ" and understands the message.

Anyway, the fact that naked women are always used in adds is not because our society views sex in different ways...it's because the media (and even the government) are a bunch of chauvinist pigs. -_-
More info on the objectification of women in adds here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d479772-2f56-11dc-b9b7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Our current minister for Equal Opportunities is an ex PORN CALENDAR ACTRESS (no, I'm not making it up, sadly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Carfagna )

I appreciate the ad, I think there is some very powerful imagery and symbolism here that other commentors before me have gone into and I will not repeat.

But, while many have already voiced their negative reactions to the victimization of the woman, and others have discussed the disturbing eroticism (at least by US standards), I really want to stress the link between these two forces at work in the image...The fact that rape is not actually about sex as much as it is about the assertion of power makes the weakness and frailty of this woman the source of the eroticism in this photo.

Of course, her frailty is in the image of Christ and therein lies the power of the message...so perhaps what my feminist eye sees as the problematic eroticization of her helplessness is a sacrificial side-effect of a more powerful statement that will exert influence on a broader population of people who view the ad.

I certainly don't think people were implying that Italians are more enlightened. The extent to which this image is sexual is subjective. I think people are arguing that Italians will look at this in a less sexual way than your average American.

I don't speak for anyone by myself, but I've been in Italy for about 3 years and from my short time here I think that most of the comments are right on the mark regarding the symbolism and the message.

The question is, "What is the objective of the poster/image?" Is the goal to create an open conversation about rape? Or is the goal to provoke behavior changes in society? Which do you see happening from this poster? For instance, who would change their behavior based on this image? Who will now start talking about rape in a new light based on seeing this poster?

I really don't understand the people calling it erotic. It's a naked woman lying on a bed, her breasts aren't highlighted, she's not pouting at the camera. There's nothing erotic about it unless the female naked body is inherently erotic, which I for one find a bit insulting.

I really like it. It's a pretty powerful image.

I think this is a very powerful ad that really puts the spot light on sexual violence; openly pointing out that rape is overwhelmingly about the violence of men perpetrated upon women. I think it gets an observers attention, will inspire thinking and will get people questioning why in cultures around the globe are so many women sexually victimized by men and feel they can’t, or shouldn’t, report it. I think the anti-sexual violence group who created this poster was ingenious to employ the crucifixion as a visual testimony to the cold truth of rape…women are suffering for men’s sins. I think it is fantastic!

Two colleagues and I wrote a column responding to our newspaper editor's victim-blaming after a college student was assaulted - twice - at an outdoor party. "She shouldn't have been drinking, shouldn't have been walking alone," he essentially said.

I agree that more focus should be placed on the rapists, and on how we are going to stop men from thinking it's somehow acceptable (changing how society views women, essentially), and place less focus on the victims and their behavior - either pre- or post-rape.

Link to the column is here:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/05/09/other_opinion_columnists/doc4824680a0db89291085023.txt

I think it's wonderfully appropriate and actually quite clever. In a place that is mostly Catholic, the image of the Christian crucifix is practically burned into their retinas. So the shock value is there, as well as the cleverness of the statement "Who is paying for man's sins?" Love it! I get the feeling those men are pretty pious and therefore getting all up in arms about it by calling it blasphemous. Obviously, they have no appreciation of the playfulness of symbols and language.

see my post on this campaign from a theological perspective:

http://earthandstarrs.blogspot.com/2008/11/telefono-donna.html

Wow. I had no idea that there were people in this world who think the Italians don't sexualize women.

It's no surprise that people would be a little uppity about this, but this spoke volumes for me, in a non-negative way. It's informative, even if provacative.

Four percent? That's quite sad. Hopefully this poster can really bring awareness, and not political nonsense.

It's not like they're showing the woman's body fully naked either.

When I saw the picture I immediately thought of the cruxification and then the words sealed it for me. I definitely don't see it as sexual and it worked for me.

Um, I get what they were going for, but I don't think it works very well (comparing rape to the crucifiction of Christ). However, I don't believe the image is erotic. More creepy than anything.

I love it. I love the complexity of the ideas and the strong imagery.

I don't see this image as erotic, but it is undeniably attractive. I am very drawn to the figure, attracted to her if you will, but not necessarily in a carnal way. So I think that just serves to make the imagery even stronger. I think it is beautiful (in the tradition of the images it is playing off of) without being explicitly sexual. It's also sad, tragic.

"Who pays for man's sins?" It's SO powerful... I love it.

The part that actually really disturbed me about the ad wasn't talked about in this write up. Via UPI the point of the campaign wasn't to raise awareness about men's violence against women, but to compel women

"Bartocchetti said. ''We chose a strong image to get more rape victims to speak out.''

The poster includes the message: ''Only (4 percent) of women who suffer sexual violence report their assailants. The other women pay for them too.''"

That is some hard core victim blaming for a campaign supposedly on the behalf of victims.

yup - 1st thing i thought of was why don't they use an average looking woman instead of some beautiful thin young model that guys would probably pay to rape. it's as disturbing to me as the donate your organs ad where the ad feature (yet again) a beautiful young model in a sexy pose with the tag line to the effect of:' it's probably the only way you will ever get inside her '- CREEPED ME OUT.

Got to tell you guys though - i have an installation piece up here in Vancouver WA called pussy (go to Jesus General or www.northbankartistsgallery.com for a description) - i taped the windows black with just the title in the window and you wouldn't believe how many groups of men come in (a demographic that is kind of rare for the gallery) hoping (i know) to see some pussy porn only to be met with a crucified lifecast of a woman and images projected on the walls of all the hate speech/hate terminology that men use to talk about women and the after effects of that hate.

Some just walk in gasp and walk out again - but i have been able to open some dialog about how it is up to men to make that kind of language and all that it entails NOT OK and to call each other on it.

Those in the Portland OR area, Vancouver WA etc come on by!

(end of shameless self-promotion)

Wow. I find it frankly weird that anyone doesn't recognize this as intentionally erotic.

The model is skinny, conventionally attractive, in a clean, pretty bed, under flattering lighting. This could be an ad for bubble bath or condoms.

I think it needs to be pointed out that this ad is not about prevention, it's an ad about reporting rape. It's trying to take the blame away from women. By making the model "conventionally attractive", it makes the ad more accessible to the general populace (i.e. people who are more likely to idealise such things) and hence less controversial to look at in that respect: that makes it more wide-reaching in a society which values those things, which in turn means that more women will be likely to read it and respond to it. That's the idea: to get women to report violence. It's not a prevention campaign, so although the "no means no" messages are important, they're not a relevant way of communicating the message of the campaign.

I think it's a wonderful ad in terms of really getting to the heart of the matter: it draws away focus from the women being 'to blame' and instead tells her that it's a man's sin, not her fault. In Catholic Italy that's a strong message to send. Sure, there are criticisms which could be made about the model they chose, but skinny white women get beaten up too, so it does represent one body-type of women which is affected by sexual violence as much as the rest: what I'm saying is that just because she's skinny and white, that doesn't mean she's a bad representative of the cause. It sucks that they use that to get their message across, but given that Jesus is often represented as skinny (duh) and white, it's not all that far off for what the message is.

I think it's fantastic, basically.

There is some serious hypocrisy on the dealing with rape and the connection to abortion, particularly underage girls. If you want rape to be reported by young girls, you better require them to notify their parents about getting an abortion. I can't imagine how isolated and lonely a young girl would feel in such a circumstance and to say she doesn't need to inform her parents about getting an abortion, especially is she was raped seems to deny the core of feminism. And to tell me that I have no rights when it comes to my daughter's life altering decision is absurd.