Laying some quick ground rules for this topic. It is about the merits of abortion in the case of rape. It is not about abortion in general. There's a dozen other threads that CFC recommends at the bottom of this page for you to pursue that debate.
I am making the following presumptions for this topic:
1. A foetus is a human life.
2. It is generally wrong to take life.
3. There are some instances where life can justifiably be taken.
Weather or not such presumptions are true for you is irrelevant. I am presuming them on behalf of a hypothetical person who holds the following (or similar) stance: "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother." In my experience, that, or variations (foetal defects that would presumably lead to the death of the foetus anyway), is the most common stance I've run across, including among the "pro-life" crowd, for whom telling a rape victim she must carry her child is too much to stomach.
For polling along these lines, please see pollingreport's summary here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Only one running poll defines the terms "usually illegal" or "legal in some circumstances" with the "rape, incest or life of the mother" definition I'm using. Other polls used those as examples for categories such as "illegal with a few exceptions" but didn't define those exceptions.
So here's the question: if a foetus is a human life, why should the circumstances of its conception impact the value of its life, or its right to life? Why does a rape victim's desire to avoid further trauma trump the right of the life that would be the cause of that trauma?
I am making the following presumptions for this topic:
1. A foetus is a human life.
2. It is generally wrong to take life.
3. There are some instances where life can justifiably be taken.
Weather or not such presumptions are true for you is irrelevant. I am presuming them on behalf of a hypothetical person who holds the following (or similar) stance: "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother." In my experience, that, or variations (foetal defects that would presumably lead to the death of the foetus anyway), is the most common stance I've run across, including among the "pro-life" crowd, for whom telling a rape victim she must carry her child is too much to stomach.
For polling along these lines, please see pollingreport's summary here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Only one running poll defines the terms "usually illegal" or "legal in some circumstances" with the "rape, incest or life of the mother" definition I'm using. Other polls used those as examples for categories such as "illegal with a few exceptions" but didn't define those exceptions.
So here's the question: if a foetus is a human life, why should the circumstances of its conception impact the value of its life, or its right to life? Why does a rape victim's desire to avoid further trauma trump the right of the life that would be the cause of that trauma?
