I don’t see it as “two wrongs” though – that’s circular reasoning.

It’s not whether Elizabeth will continue to behave in an emotionally traumatized manner that might lead to further victimization.

How the Ef would I know if having that baby was the right thing to do? Only she could answer that question.

I will say that motherhood is probably not a wise choice for Elizabeth at this point – at least not while she engages in this approval-hungry and illogical manner without regard to the safety of her baby.

It is a celebration of life because Elizabeth chose to have the baby despite the evil that produced her. She decided, that for her, two wrongs do not make a right.

The wisdom, or lack thereof, of doing a news story about it does not diminish that point. Could the story have been handled better? Sure. Could you argue that the picture was pointless? Certainly.

Can you agree that Elizabeth made the right choice in having the baby?

Again, why such hostility?

If I were gang raped in the back of a moving van by three men and made pregnant, and if I gave birth to that baby and became a mother, and if my rapists were not apprehended by the time my baby was 22 months old, I would not – and I mean this truly – I would NOT be putting my PHOTOGRAPH and my MOTHER’S photograph along with my rape -birth story and GENERAL GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION in the INTERNATIONAL press.

For health and safety of my baby and myself, I would not do this.

What kind of family was this child-of-rape born into exactly? I am not saying Elizabeth or her mother Sarah are mentally ill, but SOMETHING sure ain’t right.

If you think this news item is a celebration of life Michael, I really don’t want to know how you go about celebrating other things.

Actually the story is about choice and motherhood. That does not mean it is not about rape. Do news articles have to be about one issue only?

Do you happen to know this girl? Why can’t this baby help to heal her wounds? Is there some aspect of humanity that makes this impossible?

You said,

“Will this baby mean that Elizabeth can still be a ‘good girl’ despite the great wrong done to her?”

I don’t understand this statement. Are you saying she was a “bad girl” before the baby? Are you saying that she can’t be a “good girl”?

The motives of the publisher have little to do with the reality of the situation. A girl is raped, becomes pregnant, and chooses to keep the baby. You seem to be reacting negatively to her choice. Are you saying she was wrong to keep the baby? Why are you assuming she is mentally ill for choosing to keep her baby and tell her story? Can’t this be something to celebrate?

Ok let’s get try to understand this – Elizabeth is claiming that because her baby was conceived via a rapist’s attack in the back of a van, the baby is loved more so than if it were conceived without criminal intent.

One does not need to work in the mental health profession to see that Elizabeth is not well.

Indeed – allowing herself to be sensationalized in the Daily Mail is a likely maladaptive method of coping with the trauma of violent kidnap and gang rape.

Dear people – this is NOT a story about choice and motherhood. This is about rape.

The crime committed against Elizabeth falls outside of any person’s normal life experiences.

Gee – wouldn’t it be nice if giving birth to a pretty baby could make the crime of having been raped less traumatic? Will this baby mean that Elizabeth can still be a “good girl” despite the great wrong done to her?

Let’s be rational folks. The angle of this story is profit-driven pulp!

Tabloid and feature editors know the most loyal customers are the ones who respond to stories of raped virgins giving birth with a smile and a clearer sense of rightness with the world.

I should also have added that though I live Steve (we know each other irl), he doesn’t speak for me on this issue. Sorry buddy :-)