On the "rape case scenario": Abortion as convenience to avoid shame and responsibility
When asked if there are any exceptions to our rule, too many of us "pro-lifers" -- that is, anti-baby-murder activists -- grant the "rape case" exception without hesitation and without thought.
This is one of my pet peeves.
I do not acknowledge that that situation is justification for murdering a human being. Is he somehow worth less, simply because he was conceived in tragic circumstances? Is her life worth nothing, because her mother thinks* she might have to bear the shame?
Yes, rape is horrible, and pregnancy from rape is the very definition of an unplanned pregnancy.
But the ending of a human life (and yes, the baby is a human, whether it is still in the womb or not) is a serious matter.
It is precisely at this point, this black and white, no-shades-of-gray point, that the principle of Life should shine most clearly. It is precisely here, if anywhere, that we should make our stand.
And yet this is the point we most easily surrender! This is quite frustrating.
A pro-lifer who says abortion is OK because of rape contradicts herself. On the one hand, she asserts that murder is wrong, that the decision to end a human life should not be based on the convenience or lack of readiness of the caretaker of that life. Yet on the other, she allows it for exactly those reasons.
Yet what is the rationale behind the allowance of the rape case exception? She might respond (along with her baby-murdering opponents, with whom she agrees in this scenario), "Why, compassion, of course!"
"She shouldn't be forced to bear the shame of having been raped, because the child will be constant reminder of her tragedy. The child will have a stigma as well. The child will never know it's father." Etc. Etc.
You're saying that rather than have her bear the shame of being victimized (something she could do nothing about), you'd rather she add the shame of being a murderess? That rather than overturning her sorrow by bringing a precious little life into the world, she should add to it by giving herself nightmares and depression, if not by cutting off her emotions entirely?
You're saying that having your life cut off -- and involuntarily at that -- is better than living with stigma (assuming there even will be such a stigma, and not universal empathy)? You're saying that having your life involuntarily ended is better than not knowing your father? That somehow all of these things -- tragic though they may be -- are enough to justify ending the child's life?
What a bleak and hopeless (and selfish!) world-view! And it's poppy-cock. There are plenty of other, non-murderous alternatives to abortion, even in the case of rape. For example, putting the child up for adoption.
-----
*most of the time incorrectly, but the point stands even if the mother's fears are accurate
This is one of my pet peeves.
I do not acknowledge that that situation is justification for murdering a human being. Is he somehow worth less, simply because he was conceived in tragic circumstances? Is her life worth nothing, because her mother thinks* she might have to bear the shame?
Yes, rape is horrible, and pregnancy from rape is the very definition of an unplanned pregnancy.
But the ending of a human life (and yes, the baby is a human, whether it is still in the womb or not) is a serious matter.
It is precisely at this point, this black and white, no-shades-of-gray point, that the principle of Life should shine most clearly. It is precisely here, if anywhere, that we should make our stand.
And yet this is the point we most easily surrender! This is quite frustrating.
A pro-lifer who says abortion is OK because of rape contradicts herself. On the one hand, she asserts that murder is wrong, that the decision to end a human life should not be based on the convenience or lack of readiness of the caretaker of that life. Yet on the other, she allows it for exactly those reasons.
Yet what is the rationale behind the allowance of the rape case exception? She might respond (along with her baby-murdering opponents, with whom she agrees in this scenario), "Why, compassion, of course!"
"She shouldn't be forced to bear the shame of having been raped, because the child will be constant reminder of her tragedy. The child will have a stigma as well. The child will never know it's father." Etc. Etc.
You're saying that rather than have her bear the shame of being victimized (something she could do nothing about), you'd rather she add the shame of being a murderess? That rather than overturning her sorrow by bringing a precious little life into the world, she should add to it by giving herself nightmares and depression, if not by cutting off her emotions entirely?
You're saying that having your life cut off -- and involuntarily at that -- is better than living with stigma (assuming there even will be such a stigma, and not universal empathy)? You're saying that having your life involuntarily ended is better than not knowing your father? That somehow all of these things -- tragic though they may be -- are enough to justify ending the child's life?
What a bleak and hopeless (and selfish!) world-view! And it's poppy-cock. There are plenty of other, non-murderous alternatives to abortion, even in the case of rape. For example, putting the child up for adoption.
-----
*most of the time incorrectly, but the point stands even if the mother's fears are accurate
Comments
Post a Comment
Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...