Online Articles
What about Abortion in Cases of Rape or Incest?
We continue to be troubled by the fact that many who view themselves as "pro-life" advocates are willing to make exceptions, justifying abortions in cases of "rape and incest." Their position simply is not logical. Consider the following points.
If the fetus within a woman's womb is a human being, to take his or her life is murder. If the fetus is not a human person, why should anyone oppose abortion under any circumstance? The manner of conception is irrelevant. Is a child a child, regardless of "by whom" the conception was initiated? Of course it is.
Let us think about the matter from this vantage point. Suppose a woman is raped and, as a consequence, becomes pregnant (though such occurrences are extremely rare). Let us also assume, for the sake of the argument, that for some reason she carries the baby full term and gives birth. Let us take it a step further and suppose that she nurtures the baby for a couple of years. Finally, she visits a psychiatrist and confides that though she has tried to love this child, the memories of her rape have made her a mental wreck; she can no longer bear to be in the youngster's presence. Here is the key question: May she now, with impunity, kill her offspring? Universally, the cry will be, "No!" But why not? If rape is a justification for destroying the child before birth, why not after birth as well?
Does logic confuse some of our leaders? If abortion is a moral act, there should be no restrictions. If abortion is an immoral act, concessions may not be made to accommodate "circumstances."
The conception of children, by either rape or incest, is a tragedy. But one does not correct a wrong with a wrong. Somehow, though, in the abortion controversy, two wrongs are supposed to constitute a right! This ideology is utter nonsense.
