I have been pouring through some television clips from the 2008 presidential campaigns (a sad year in American history) and was rather fascinated by this figure of Cindy McCain, or rather her relationship to the abortion issue. As far as I can tell, she was attempting to be as supportive of her husband as possible but really did not agree with the fundamentals of his position on abortion. Embedded is one clip in which she seems to espouse her husband's pro-life position, but then affirms that she is not opposed to abortion in the case of rape or incest.
Whatever Mrs. McCain's views are on abortion, this seems like a good opportunity to point out the inconsistency of the position: that is, allowing for abortion in the case of rape or incest, but otherwise being against it. There is a conflict of ideology here.
The foundation of the pro-life position is that unborn infants (technically, embryos or fetuses) are human beings, deserving of whatever basic human rights can reasonably be afforded them, including protection from undeserved harm. The corollary of this belief is that aborting such a being is murder.
Consequently, to allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest is to effectively say that that murdering the unborn is acceptable if the circumstances of the abortion are coerced or sufficiently traumatic. But how does two wrongs make a right, in this case? What does the abortion accomplish that exempts us from the responsibility for the killing?
Obviously, the rape or incest has already taken place. No abortion can erase the trauma of that experience. So then, perhaps the abortion is meant to erase that reminder of the trauma, by destroying the child that resulted from it. But if we weigh the child's right to life against the mother's desire to escape her emotions and memories, certainly the life of the child is of more paramount importance, is it not?
Or perhaps the abortion is meant to relieve the mother of the burden of pregnancy, and the difficulties of caring for the infant. Doubtlessly, the new responsibilities are an imposition, forced unfairly on the mother, who may have been unprepared or unwilling to have any children or family. But the criminal here is the rapist, not the child. Some case might be made for the execution of the rapist, but not the execution of the child.
And there are alternatives to abortion. The mother, despite the terrible circumstances of the conception, might come to see the child as a precious gift from God. After all, a beautiful gem is still a gem, even if you find it in the dirt. Or, if that seems too incredible a thought, there is the realistic option that the child might be placed into the hands of a loving relative or adoptive family.
So why try to balance on such a precarious distinction? It seems better to be consistent, and either say that all the unborn - including those conceived from rape and incest - are human beings and deserving of our protection; or affirm with the pro-choice advocates that the unborn is simply a part of the mother's body, which she can do with as she wills.
Whatever Mrs. McCain's views are on abortion, this seems like a good opportunity to point out the inconsistency of the position: that is, allowing for abortion in the case of rape or incest, but otherwise being against it. There is a conflict of ideology here.
The foundation of the pro-life position is that unborn infants (technically, embryos or fetuses) are human beings, deserving of whatever basic human rights can reasonably be afforded them, including protection from undeserved harm. The corollary of this belief is that aborting such a being is murder.
Consequently, to allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest is to effectively say that that murdering the unborn is acceptable if the circumstances of the abortion are coerced or sufficiently traumatic. But how does two wrongs make a right, in this case? What does the abortion accomplish that exempts us from the responsibility for the killing?
Obviously, the rape or incest has already taken place. No abortion can erase the trauma of that experience. So then, perhaps the abortion is meant to erase that reminder of the trauma, by destroying the child that resulted from it. But if we weigh the child's right to life against the mother's desire to escape her emotions and memories, certainly the life of the child is of more paramount importance, is it not?
Or perhaps the abortion is meant to relieve the mother of the burden of pregnancy, and the difficulties of caring for the infant. Doubtlessly, the new responsibilities are an imposition, forced unfairly on the mother, who may have been unprepared or unwilling to have any children or family. But the criminal here is the rapist, not the child. Some case might be made for the execution of the rapist, but not the execution of the child.
And there are alternatives to abortion. The mother, despite the terrible circumstances of the conception, might come to see the child as a precious gift from God. After all, a beautiful gem is still a gem, even if you find it in the dirt. Or, if that seems too incredible a thought, there is the realistic option that the child might be placed into the hands of a loving relative or adoptive family.
So why try to balance on such a precarious distinction? It seems better to be consistent, and either say that all the unborn - including those conceived from rape and incest - are human beings and deserving of our protection; or affirm with the pro-choice advocates that the unborn is simply a part of the mother's body, which she can do with as she wills.
Leave a comment