There has been quite a bit of haze surrounding the Akin comment and the establishment GOP response. It is our job to clear the haze. I think what has been lost in the whole fiasco is the intellectual dishonesty, or maybe more charitably, we could say cognitive dissonance, of pro-life politicians who think abortion ought to be allowed in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother.
Before getting into it, let’s just get the “You think rape is good??!!” idiocy out of the way. Let’s not even go there. That’s just stupid.
Let us be clear. The pro-life position states that human life begins at conception. It is therefore to be afforded the human right to life. What is unclear is this: how is it that a human being conceived by rape or incest has forfeited his or her right to life and may be murdered? For this is the pro-life position; abortion is murder, because it takes the life of an innocent. Or does the fact that the child is conceived in one these most unfortunate and appalling circumstances make him or her guilty of a capital crime which demands capital punishment?
In cases where the life of the mother is at stake, there is a lot of haze… more than we can clear in one article. It is extremely touchy and we shall not go into this area at the moment. However, we do promise a forthcoming article on this problem. There are cases in which a child’s life is lost in the womb because of a medical procedure and yet the procedure is not an abortion. The future article will explain in detail how one can maintain a consistently pro-life position while allowing for such instances.
The cases of rape and incest are very clear. It should not be surprising that someone who is pro-life does not make exceptions for rape and incest. If the blob isn’t a blob but a human being, it has the right to life and being the product of rape or incest doesn’t change that. The most compassionate and loving thing to do, if you can’t keep the child, is to give her up for adoption and at least give her a chance at life.