In my previous post I discussed my general view on abortion and how it is far more considerate of individual autonomy than the pro-abortion stance is. And how this makes the pro-life view far more considerate of women than does the view that is supportive of abortion. But, at the end of that post, I recognized there are some special circumstances that challenge a pro-life view. Specifically, cases of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life complicate the situation. In this post, I wish to give these challenges the consideration and response they deserve.First, there is a need to acknowledge that rape and incest are completely different circumstances from situations where the mother's life is at risk. As such, I will discuss them separately starting with cases of rape and incest.
Let's start by framing this problem. Recent statistics indicate there are roughly 85,000 cases of rape and incest reported in the United State. At the same time, there are well over 850,000 abortions performed each year. Consenting adults having sex when they don't desire children eclipse the number of rapes in the United States nearly 10 to 1. Additionally, research indicates that only 1% of all abortions are due to pregnancies caused by rape or incest. So, 99% of abortions are the result of a conscious decision to have sex.
The important thing to keep in mind is that when we are (rightly) concerned about those victims of rape or incest that become pregnant, we are opening the door to 1000% more killings of children that resulted from conscious, willing decisions to engage in life-creating sex, and half of those made no effort to prevent pregnancy. That has to count for something. Allowing 100 human beings to be killed, so that one victim doesn't have to go through pregnancy and childbirth should raise some questions in the mind of any rational human being.
With that as context, what about those victims that became pregnant? I feel terrible for them, enraged, incensed, furious that any man would force himself upon a woman, a girl, a child, a young family member. That is barbaric, it is inhumane, but even that does not adequately describe the anger I feel about their action or the empathy I have for the victim who was treated as a mere object and not respected as a human being. Without being naive, it seems inevitable that if our society really changed its attitude towards sex and raised men to be Men and to love and respect our women and to take responsibility for our actions, making intelligent decisions instead of submitting to our animal instincts, that change in attitude would reduce the number of sex crimes. Our society is so enamored with our right to enjoy selfish pleasure and our respect for life so weak (as evidenced by 850,000+ abortions per year, and support for ongoing wars causing countless more death and suffering) that it seems inevitable that some segment of the population would become unable to distinguish between right and wrong when it comes to claiming the sexual pleasure they are entitled to enjoy. But, undoubtedly, there will still be victims.
A logical, rational mind that sees the value inherent in every single human life, and is so concerned about the quality of life for a victim that had their humanity robbed by a rapist, has to value the life that was created, even the one created by force. Will it change the course of life for the victim? Surely. Will it be a negative change? That is impossible to say, claiming to know that would be dishonest. You can read stories about victims of rape that found unexpected joy and love in raising the resulting child. You can read similar stories about the joy they found in seeing an infertile couple adopt and raise the child. And, I'm sure, there are stories of women that were forced by family or parents or circumstance to birth the child and maybe even raise it unwillingly and the misery it caused them. But the point is this: having a child that is the product of violence does not have an absolute result. So, we shouldn't approach the problem with some false idea that it is always a bad outcome for the mother. And that is far too position that pro-abortion activists try to paint.
But, we also have to acknowledge that life is not always fair. We are always subject to suffer through no fault of our own. Consider the victim of a drunk driver. Consider one that is made a paraplegic for life as the result of another's disregard for others, getting behind the wheel and driving while intoxicated. There may be suffering as great or greater than the suffering of a mother forced to carry a child to term. If the drunk driver's victim is a child that is killed, the suffering of the family, the child's lost opportunity to live are tragic and terrible too. The drunk driver is guilty of something, they did wrong. But, we recognize it would ordinarily be wrong to execute that criminal. We give a suitable punishment. And the punishment is likely greater in the case where a life was ended, and it wouldn't matter if the child killed in the accident was a healthy student-scholar seemingly on track for a variety of scholarships or if the child were a Down's syndrome child, destined to inspire us to see the beauty in the uniqueness of humanity and show us the joy we are missing. Life is life. Except when it is an innocent life in the womb?
Did you catch that? We won't execute a criminal that has taken a life, but we will take the life of an innocent child.
The criminal is the rapist. And the denial of life, a certain absolute punishment, is visited on the baby. The mother may or may not be adversely impacted, but she will live and have the opportunity to direct her life through the challenge. But the baby will not just be given any chance to choose their path or overcome adversity. No, the baby will be denied the opportunity to live.
Looking around, the number of people that seek adoptions outside of the United States due to the lack of infants available for adoption in the U.S. it's hard to imagine that even at the current rate of 8,500 abortions as a result of rape, that willing parents could not be found to take these children if the victimized mother does not want to raise the child. And if we get men in this culture to start to respect women as human beings and not merely sex toys to rub up against, we will surely be looking for fewer than 8,500 homes per year.
It may seem harsh. But, losing a child to a drunk driver, or drowning is also painful and unfair. Having a spouse abandon you or a parent abandon you is unfair and painful. Being used for another's sexual gratification with no intent to make good on promises of love, is cruel and selfish. Life can be unfair. But, so much of the unfairness starts with people not truly respecting and loving one another. Rape and incest is rooted in a lack of basic human respect. I think, as human beings, we're better of focusing on and fixing the problem and not just treating the symptoms in ways that further contribute to the root problem... And which is more unfair, altering the course of another's life or denying them the right to live in the first place? And let's not deny a real truth, the parent that loses a child, is certainly and permanently harmed, the mother that has to carry a child to term, her harm may be of limited duration and it has the potential to be the greatest joy in her life.
Cases of health risk to the mother are similar but different. The problem is complicated by our current mindset where sex and the creation of life are not fully and truly considered before one chooses to have sex. A couple that has willfully chosen to have sex and is ready for the possibility of life is going to see a different choice to be made than the couple or single mother that wasn't really ready for children but ended up conceiving. So, as before, we need to reset our mind when it comes to making the choice to have sex.
Setting that aside. There is a very important distinction to be made which many do not recognize, but the Catholic Church does teach. There are life saving procedures that have a secondary effect of aborting a child and there are procedures where the only intent is to take the life of the child. The latter is an abortion, the former is an unfortunate consequence of protecting a life that is threatened. Now, I'm quite certain and well aware, the Church celebrates and reveres mothers that choose to give their life that the child might live. It is a truly selfless and giving person that will give their life that another may have theirs. But, at the same time, if a mother undergoes chemotherapy to save her life, secondarily resulting in the death of a child in-utero, the Church does not condemn that. The mother is faced with a very difficult decision and they would hopefully make the best choice in a difficult situation. But so long as their choice is not a direct choice to abort, only a direct choice to save their life via a means that targets treating her condition, but secondarily does harm the child, that is morally acceptable choice. We are simply called to give every life equal status and to not choose to harm a life, but to always act to protect life.
As an example, a case commonly brought up is the ectopic pregnancy. Here there is a threat to the life of the mother and the treatment results in the death of the child. The Church is not firmly opposed to any of the standard treatments for this condition, though many moral theologians and Catholic ethicists will suggest that one of the three standard methods is more obviously free of moral ambiguity than the others. Two methods, one chemical and one surgical, target the child as a problem to be removed. The third approach sees the tube as being a "flawed" organ, that has caused a threat to the mother and is likely to pose an increasing threat to the mother if not dealt with directly. Removing the tube treats the mother, with the unfortunate side effect of ending the child's life. But, the treatment does not specifically intend to end a life, just to save one and prevent future threats to the woman's life.
Some choices in life are like that. Where it is impossible to reach an end result that does not include loss of life. We must enter those choices with a recognition that no life is more valuable than any other, life is life, and inherently of equal value and dignity. Our choice and action should be focused on attempting to preserve life, to save life, to respect life and specifically avoid any action which directly and intentionally takes life. Are some of those choices life altering in an adverse way? Unfortunately the answer is yes. But, few living would say they would prefer death to a temporary decrease in their quality of life. Few would see never having lived as preferable to living a less than perfect life. Few die saying their life went as planned and they did not face undesirable, unjust adversity, but fewer die wishing they had never lived.
Remember, those that supported slavery were free. Those that oppose life were born. Oppression works that way. And, more than twice in the last century we saw the greatest tragedies in human existence. Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot all rationalized their evil killing sprees with arguments that favored improved quality of life over a population that they decided had a lesser claim on the right to life. This is a nation founded on the premise that all are entitled to the Right to Life. Yet, we've already taken 53 million innocent lives. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot de-humanized and took fewer lives combined...
