Now that the presidential campaign has started in earnest it is time to get down to the specifics. As is the case with most elections the group of voters who are undecided from the time of the conventions until election day will decide the outcome. One of the most contentious issue of the two parties is abortion. Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is pro-life as well as her running mate John McCain. What has become contentious is the fact that Palin is pro-life in all instances including rape and incest. Cindy McCain the day after the Republican convention has weighed in with her opinion that although she is pro-life, she disagrees with Palin in instances of rape or incest.
There is a problem of consistency here. A pregnancy as a result of rape and incest is still a pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates would argue that an unwanted pregnancy causes a measure of undue hardship and perhaps psychological pain. The pro-life argument is the pregnancy is the act of carrying a human life and to abort is ending that life, no hardship is worth taking a life. Perhaps this is Cindy McCain's position, certainly she considers abortion the termination of life however if she qualifies her position to say that it is okay to end a life in the case of rape and incest the question becomes at what point?
Is there a distinction between life in the womb and outside of it? To Cindy McCain there is. Put it this way, if a child were born and it was the result of rape or incest, does that child have a right to live? What is it about a fetus conceived due to rape and incest and one that is not? If she would agree, and we are sure she does, that taking a life of a child already born has a right to live no matter the circumstance, then why is it suddenly okay if the life were taken inside the womb in the case of rape and incest. The qualifier is incongruent with her overall pro-life position. Her position is thus that any pain, no matter the circumstance
is not a reason to take a life, unless the pain is as great as rape and incest. So therefore it is not so much as taking a life to Cindy McCain, she disagrees with pro-choice position on the measure of pain and hardship a woman should bear. In this instance she doesn't have a right to determine what is real hardship and what is not.
If there's no difference between life in or out of the womb to pro-lifers unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, then it ought to be alright to terminate a life already born for the same reason, there is no other way around it. Pro-lifers with this position have a lot of explaining to do.
3 comments:
Well, you've certainly raised one of the most thought provoking aspects of the pro-life / pro-choice debates that I can think of. But if we step back just a bit and ask ourselves about our deepest feelings on life, we find people form a spectrum: on one side are those who care for nothing but a moment's fun, and at the other end we have people who care deeply about and work hard for those in the world around them.
I would suggest that it is the more frivolous among us who favor abortion in certain circumstances, while those who appreciate its uniqueness and ability to do good would tend to stand pro-life.
I believe that life starts at the moment of conception. When it comes to the legal context we try to set up to reflect our beliefs, we notice that life and liberty are inalienable under our constitution. That means, for example, that you cannot decide to become a slave and sell or give away your freedom. Nor can anyone else curtail your life or freedom, except to the extent required for a peaceful and orderly society. In this, I believe that the framers of the constitution held life to be sacred also. Our social structures have advanced to the point where a child unwanted by her parents can find a life in a loving home.
Let us get government out of the business of taking lives, whether through abortion or execution.Lock murderers up for life, but let's give the benefit of the doubt to our next unborn Einstein.
For me I think each situation needs to be judged on merit and not a one-size fits all. The US considers it a crime in most if not all states for all "children" under the age of 16 to have sex, but according to ProLifers it's perfectly OK for a 12 year old to have to give birth to her father's baby. He'll be charged with rape of course, but what about the child whose body isn't developed enough to have that baby? Where are her rights? I don't like the idea of abortion but I think there are some instances where abortion should be acceptable.
Only God has the right to terminate one's life. Abortion in any form, except to save the life of the mother (and that is, with the consent of the husband too) when giving birth would surely cause her untimely death, is evil and sinful. Even pregnancy caused by rape or incest must never lead to abortion. The child in the womb has as much right to live as the mother bearing her. Thanks for the interesting post. God bless.
Post a Comment