SHOULD WE ALLOW ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE?
By Dr. Bernard James Mauser, Ph.D.
Forty-one years ago today the Supreme Court of the United
States legalized abortion in America. In parallels reminiscent of the Dred Scott
decision, the Supreme Court’s position was that the unborn human’s
right to life was of less value than a woman’s freedom to choose whether to kill
her unborn child. Some may protest the way that I’ve written that last
sentence, but this is essentially the meaning communicated in allowing abortion
as the law of the land. Dred Scott was not seen as a citizen worthy of
protection under the law in the 1800s. Similarly, unborn infants are
not seen as citizens worthy of protection under the current law. The most
popular- and some would say most difficult circumstance to consider- is whether
a woman that has been raped is justified in having an abortion. Before an
analysis of whether the rape of a woman justifies abortion, we should set the
stage a bit.
Let’s recognize the obvious. First, this topic is an emotional
issue for those on both sides of the discussion. On the one side, people feel
as if pro-lifers are telling them what they can do with their bodies. On the
other, people argue that it is the body of the unborn baby that is of more concern
to them, and that abortion is not so much about what a woman does with her body
as it is with the body of the child inside her. Of course, the stakes are
extremely high with lives literally hanging in the balance when discussing this
issue.
Both sides also agree on some things and these must be
brought to the forefront. It is important to identify common ground in order to
begin the discussion. This also can serve as a foundation from which both sides
can work and refer back to in order to try to gain mutual understanding and
greater clarity as to what the proper position to take should be. Although many
things can be mentioned, let me focus on two.
First, both sides agree that we legislate morality. In other
words, we all try to get laws passed that reflect our position about what we
find to be morally good. Despite what some that lack the education say, both
the pro-abortionist (or pro-choicer[i])
and the pro-lifer are trying to get their moral views enshrined in law. This is
the purpose of law. If you think rape or murder is morally bad, you pass laws
against them. This is not to say that there are no bad laws, but even bad laws
are passed because they are supposed to be grounded in someone’s moral view as
to what is perceived to be morally right (however mistaken they are).
Second, both sides agree that human life begins at
conception. It makes no sense to say you were a sperm, and it makes no sense to
say you were an egg. However, when the two are put together an individual is
made containing all the genetic information that person possesses her entire
life. The person also has all the biological characteristics indicating life.
As the person’s growth, metabolism, and movement continue, you can observe
various changes of the baby in the mother’s womb. The person’s DNA, blood type,
and various other parts make them uniquely identifiable as a different entity
from the mother. This is why we don’t say that a woman has a penis when the
technician giving the ultrasound detects that the baby is a boy. Thus, there is
no question that there is a different individual that we are discussing as the
primary subject that is affected from abortion. The abortionist may try to
sterilize the term in advertising their service as ‘pregnancy termination’, but
make no mistake that the subject of ‘termination’ is being killed. Everyone
also recognizes that the woman that has to endure having the child killed in her
womb also suffers in many ways (having increased chances of cancer, depression,
etc.).
What about allowing abortion in cases of rape? I once had a
student challenge me with this question and here was how our discussion
proceeded:
Student: What if my sister was raped- would you force her to
have the baby?
Me: Let me ask you a question.
Student: Ok.
Me: Suppose your dad raped someone today. Would we be
justified in killing you?
Student: No.
Me: Why not?
Student: Because it was my dad that raped someone. I didn’t
do anything wrong.
Me: This is great. You’ve recognized that because you’ve
done nothing wrong you shouldn’t be punished for what your dad did. You should
also see that the unborn baby is also innocent in the fictional case regarding
your sister. Another thing you’ve ignored is that your sister already has the
baby. The only question left now is what to do with the baby already inside
her.
So, from my conversation with my student we can glean a
couple of things. First, we don’t think it is justice to punish a child for
something their parent did. Abortion punishes a child for something their
parent did. Therefore, abortion is unjust EVEN in the case of rape. Second, we
can all recognize that the unborn child that is the result of a rape is still
in her mother’s womb and can be protected. It is not a question as to whether
the woman ‘has’ the baby. From conception a woman has a baby until it leaves
the womb. The real question is whether we should protect the baby or not.
Before looking at this consider a slightly different question.
Should the law require the labor of someone’s body on behalf
of another person? In other words, is the law justified in demanding that we do
certain things for other people even if we don’t want to do them? I think that
if you understand how much of family law operates this way you’ll have the answer. Our
law both expects and requires some people in society to do this very thing.
Fathers that abandon their families are often required (against their will many
times) to pay child-support. The law requires that the fruit of one’s labor be
shared with offspring for the child’s well-being.
Consider another example that is relatively uncontroversial.
If a mother, father, or both neglected
their offspring, say a three year old boy, and that boy died due to neglect,
the state would find those responsible guilty of murder. How much more would it
be the case if the parent or parents actively killed that three year old boy by
chopping his body into little parts? In
these cases, there is an unspoken assumption that 1) children have a right to be
protected and also 2) children have a right to the bodies and labor of their parents. This would
certainly include the minimum things that the child requires- like providing
basic things to keep the child alive.
Armed with these principles, turn back to the example of a
child conceived due to rape. Inasmuch as the law requires parents to care for
children after they are born, and that we recognize in our laws that children
have a right to the body of their parents, the unborn also have that right. Thus,
even the innocent unborn child conceived as a result of a terrible act has a
right to her mother’s body. The mother may certainly pass the responsibility to
another person by offering the child up for adoption. But, inasmuch as we would
never allow the mother to kill that child if she decides she no longer wants the
child burdening her body, so too we should never allow an abortion if she makes
this decision while the child is in the womb.
The Planned Parenthood website encourages the mindset that “every
child a wanted child.” This mentality has an anchor in our society that we must
remove through straight facts and clear reasoning. Every human being from the
moment of conception is a valuable human being- regardless of whether they are
wanted or not.
[i] I
prefer to use the term pro-abortionist as opposed to pro-choicer as it seems
more accurate. One can ask the one insistent on calling themselves ‘pro-choice’
what choice they want to have. They may say to do whatever they want with their
own body. We all recognize that the law doesn’t allow us to do ANYTHING we want
with our body as we are often restricted when we want to use our body to harm
another. Thus, the pro-choicer would agree that raping someone with your body
is not something that should be done. However, what they do want the choice to
do is to have an abortion. Thus, the ‘pro-choice’ label is given to try to
soften the act that they are really behind- which is abortion. I will call it
what it is and if the term is deemed ugly it doesn’t begin to compare to the
various forms that are abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment