Tracked: March 2, 2006 5:54 PM

I never understood the "rape and incest" exclusion. Why create two victims? In either case, the child can be given up for adoption after birth should the emotional trauma be too much for the mother to bear. But how can emotional trauma ever be justification for the permanent ending of an innocent life?

Posted by: CB on February 27, 2006 5:15 PM

Particularly in a state like mine, where there is no parental notification law, the incest exemption is particularly reprehensible.

An abortion incest exception is actually a pedophile protection exemption. Abortion in that case kills one victim and aids and abets the sexual predator with his crime, helping him cover it up, thereby encouraging him to keep raping the child.

If we're going to have a rape exception, why not a fetal health exception? Why not a mother's mental health exception? Why not a "quality of life" exception? If we're going to start drawing lines as to when it is and isn't ok to kill an innocent child, what makes one line more "pro-life" than another?

I'd agree with the points in regards to the logic of the incest exception. Here's my thought on it, though:

1) In a Roe v. Wade World, its truly a moot point.

The second point is that Rape and Incest account to 1% of abortions, while that's a tragic situation, Rape and Incest people are with us more than 90+% of the time. They understand the generl importance of preserving human life. They've got a blindspot caused by emotional feelings that we should work to disabuse them of.

At the same time, the fully pro-life position is still in a minority, but comes to Majority with the Rape and Incest folks. I see no reason to marginalize ourselves, by refusing to support people who agree with us on 99% of issues.

Posted by: Adam Graham on February 27, 2006 9:50 PM

At the risk of being too rationalizing, the government's role is to determine whether to criminally punish the obtaining and performing of an abortion. I can see that a state may legitimately choose to simply not punish in the case of rape or incest (assuming charges are brought, to ensure that rape/incest is not thrown about lightly and to prosecute the perpetrator), without degrading the value of life. In such a case, the state is not acting as though abortion is a "right" (and, by implication, a good thing), as it does today.

Myself, I am not a supporter of rape or incest exceptions. As others have said, the unborn child is still innocent life that must be protected.

However, I can see an argument for the exception. Here goes:
The autonomy-minded person says that she has a right to control her own body.
We say sure, but you don't have a right to kill someone else in order to control your own body.
She responds with the point that she doesn't really want to kill the unborn child, just to evict him/her from her body. Biologically, the unborn child is still a parasite. There aren't any other circumstances in which society requires someone else to literally sacrifice her blood, body, and (potentially) health for another human being
We say that the unborn child didn't choose to be there, unlike other parasites. She chose to have sex, a child was created, and now she cannot kill that child simply to avoid responsibility.
She says, AHA! What if I didn't choose to have sex?

See the problem? I still believe that the incomparable value of life makes it worthwhile to deny the rape victim the full control over her body for a few more months. Yes, it's a hard attitude, but sometimes life requires hard choices. Don't blame me; blame the scum-sucking rapist. However, I can see the reasoning behind granting the exception.

Posted by: Naaman on February 28, 2006 6:54 AM

No. We should never punish the innocent baby for
the crime of her father!

We have it exactly backward as our March for Life speaker,
Brian Rohrbough, so noted this year.

The guilty rapist should receive the death penalty, not the
innocent pre-born baby.

Rape & incest: no excuse for murder.

Abortion is ALWAYS a sin,
because somebody ALWAYS dies.