Daily Archives: November 4, 2009

Abortion in the Case of Rape

There are a thousand reasons why I love my job.

Reason # 856:

I had my students write on a journal question today: what is something you believe in so strongly that you’d continue to believe in it even if it was unpopular?

Some students struggled to think of something.  They asked me for an example.  I gave them one from my life: “I’m pro-life.  I have excellent reason to think that the unborn is a human being from conception, and human beings have rights.  Therefore, even if all my friends became avidly pro-choice, I’d still be pro-life.”

One student immediately objected: “what about a child conceived by rape?”

Situations like this are an open invitation to get them to think and reason.  I love it.

My answer: “you know, I agree that that is a horrible situation.  I can’t even imagine the pain the woman in that situation would be going through.  But, you know, why punish the child just because his father is a rapist?”

Some would consider that too much, but I reason: if the unborn are human beings (we have excellent reason scientifically and philosophically to think they are), then they have rights.  Why wouldn’t we allow a mother to kill his three year old because she reminded her of a traumatic event?  Answer: because she is a human being.  Same in the case of abortion.

He balked, and continued to object.  “Every time the woman would look at the kid, it would remind her of the rape.  Would you want her to go through that?”

I assured him that his question was an emotionally powerful one (you always want to give props where you can to those that disagree with you); I can’t even begin to conceive of the pain, but I reiterated that the woman shouldn’t victimize the child because she herself was victimized.  I also noted that having the abortion wouldn’t solve the emotional problem; it would only compound it with some hefty guilt.

He hung onto his beliefs tenaciously, which wasn’t surprising; people tend to dig in when their friends are watching.
Eventually, I called his bluff: “I disagree with your reasoning, but let me concede the point just for the sake of discussion.  So abortion in the case of rape is permissable.  Will you then join with pro-lifers in fighting for the rights of the unborn who stand to be aborted for elective reasons?”

His answer: NO.

This was very revealing.  The “rape” question was a red herring.  Many pro-choicers I’ve met go to that case immediately, not because it’s a really sticky question for them, but because they are using it as a way to justify abortion for any reason whatsoever.

That’s a hard leap of faith for them to make, though.

Ironic

Last week Greg Koukl participated in a debate on “Do Moral Truths Exist?” and he did a talk at Mount Royal on “Is it Intolerant to Say Jesus is the Only Way?”  With the latter, there were some sheisty efforts to silence the discussion, so there was a small turnout.  With the former, however, there was no such silencing, so the room was packed.

 

His comment about the talk at Mount Royal:

 

It was a sanctioned event sponsored by an authorized campus group and held at a university lecture hall. However, posters for the event were removed and subsequently forbidden to be posted for the event, so there was virtually no publicity and, consequently, a small turnout.

 

The university’s rationale was two-fold. First, the title was considered “divisive and negative.” However, since the title was taken from the accusation leveled by students themselves against Christians, one wonders if the University was equally offended by the students who made such “divisive and negative” comments. The second reason had to do with the wording underneath the title: “Is choosing a religion merely a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla? Or is it about something much more serious?” They objected because they said the statement had “racial overtones.”

 

Here’s the kicker: It was the campus “human rights” watchdog commission that silenced the publicity.

 

Folks who engage in these sorts of tactics are soooo blind to the irony.