Posted on 12/11/2009 2:42:22 PM PST by rhema
I have recently been following - sometimes against my better judgment, and frequently against my better emotional fitness - the #prolife hashtag on Twitter. In addition to the expected news stories and retweets, there are a small but vocal cadre of poor-choice Twittererers who also make liberal use of the tag. Not that they have much to say: mostly factoids, misrepresentations of the pro-life position, and vapid bumper-sticker aphorisms that don't really mean anything: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" (When you thnk killing people is a valid moral option, should I trust you with the choice?)
Inevitably, at least daily, someone will bring up what pro-life writers like Scott Klusendorf call the "hard cases." On Twitter, this tweet is typical of what I see:
[W]hat about the 12 yr old girls who have been raped by their fathers & could die during pregnancy.
This one is so extreme, it manages to hit all the talking points: very young pregnancy, rape, incest, and danger to life. Surely, in such an instance, we can tolerate just one abortion, right?
But hold on. First of all, any one of those "hard cases" is very rare. And I'd hazard a guess that all four at once is so exceedingly rare, it's well nigh impossible.
And that's the main problem with "hard case" casuistry: at best, you can make a case for abortion in those hard cases, but you can't justify extending the argument to any and every abortion being morally permissible. If I were to admit that abortion is justified for the 12-year-old incest-rape-victim ectopic-pregnancy girl, how does that justify the hundreds of thousands of abortions that are carried out every year on adult women whose pregnancy is healthy, normal, and the result of a consensual sexual encounter where the condom happened to break?
The question to ask in these cases (unfortunately too complex to express in 140 characters) goes something like this:
If I concede that abortion is morally justifiable in this hard case (be it rape, incest, or whatever), will you join me to oppose abortions carried out for no such pressing reason?
If the pro-abortion-choice person says yes, as Klusendorf says, you may have gained an ally in working to end abortion on demand. On the other hand, if she says no, then she isn't really concerned with the hypothetical 12-year-old rape victim. The "hard case" exception is a red herring.
The unstated assumption in this argument is that "if difficult circumstance X [as well as Y, Z, and W in this particular epic tweet] obtains, then abortion is justified." But it's not necessarily so.
I'm a hard-justice kind of person. Not only do I support the death penalty, I feel it's also justified in a number of serious offenses beyond homicide - rape being one of those. String the rapist up by his testicles with concertina wire, and let him bleed to death. But it doesn't follow that a pregnancy caused by rape justifies an abortion. Regardless of his origin, someone conceived by rape is still a human being. A woman raped has certainly been victimized, but that cannot justify her victimizing another human being in turn, because of the sins of his father. It seems to me also that the same argument applies to the case of incest.
In a very small number of pregnancies, there is a very real danger to the physical health of the mother. And in this case, I believe that a therapeutic abortion may be justified if it would save her life. Although it is an unpleasant alternative, it might be an act of self-defense. Better that one person lives, than two die.
The use of a 12-year-old in this argument is ambiguous. Is it dangerous to the health of a girl of that young age? In that case, it's just a variation on the "health of the mother" argument. If it's simply a matter of a 12-year-old girl being too young to be a mother, on the other hand, then it's no different from any appeal to poverty or bad circumstances. Being 12 years old does not change the humanity of your unborn offspring, and therefore its moral status is no different than the offspring of an adult woman with a healthy pregnancy: you can't just "choose" to kill human beings merely because you don't want them.
It is wrong to kill blameless human beings without appropriate justification. That is axiomatic. And I don't find anything in the above to be appropriate justification. There is no "12-year-old pregnant rape and incest victim" exception to the axiom, no matter how many times the pro-poor-choice tweeters trot it out.1 The purpose of these "hard cases" is not to make a coherent argument for abortion rights; rather, it's intended to short-circuit your reason and go for your emotions. (After all, who would be so heartless as to "punish" a 12-year-old girl with twin Lovecraftian horrors of pregnancy and childbirth?) Don't be snowed, and don't be afraid to call it the emotionalistic nonsense that it is.
Postscript: If you'd like to follow me on Twitter, my nick is "RansomOttawa." If I recognize you as a personal friend or someone I know (or am interested in) from online, I'll probably return the favour. I do tend to be a bit high-volume when it comes to trading blows with the #prochoice clowns, so be warned.
Footnote 1 My opponent in this instance, however, didn't find this so axiomatic: as he later said, "there are no absolutes in this world"; and, a few minutes later, "I think there absolutely should be a victim exception." Wrap your head around that dizzying intellect for a minute. Then, he called me an idiot for pointing out the obvious.
What if I was the product of a incestuous rape and my mother was 12 when the horrible act occurred? I guess I deserve to die then. Some seriously flawed logic there.
Well done!
12 year olds today who are sexually active are usually able to complete a pregnancy with little or no complications. They are far more physically mature than the 12 year old of fifty years ago...better nutrition, better prenatal care, etc.
I suppose the proabortion folks are going to have to start talking about pregnant ten year olds to make their arguments stick.
Excellent!!!!
One that reasons “kill before birth” must be like unto the woman that chose to cut the child in half. (As the women stood before King Solomon)
People who use Twitter are “TWITS”. That’s all I wanted to say.
I don't expect Twitter, with its intrinsic limitations, to be a haven for serious debate, but it surprised me how much misinformation you can pack into 140 characters. Unfortunately, you can't write much of a response within the same constraints, so hopefully I'll have a few more similar blog posts up in the near future.
Ever hear of adoption?
Author McClare has it right. The whole abortion movement is founded on and perpetuated by out-and-out lies. Thank God for an Internet through which those lies can be exposed. The mainstream media (that never deign to use the term pro-life ) sure ain't doing much exposing.
I can answer that: I don't.
Anyone who contends that killing a baby by abortion is OK has proven themselves unfit to raise a child, so the child should be raised by someone else.
“Anyone who contends that killing a baby by abortion is OK has proven themselves unfit to raise a child, so the child should be raised by someone else.”
The terrifying part is that there are millions of unrepentant women in this country who have had an abortion, thought nothing of it, and then went on to give birth to children they decided are “wanted”.
I don’t think there is any evil more absolute than this. Many parents view their children as little miracles from God but not these women. How do these women view their surviving children? Are they mere property heirs, a continuation of the family name, baby doll entertainment, a social accessory, heirs to the leftist agenda? How can they look their children in the eyes and say “I love you” when it is such a horrific lie?
I met one demoness who said “I had an abortion two years ago before my daughter was born. I have no regrets. It pleases me to know that my daughter will get to live in a country where she has the right to make the same choice.”
She killed her other child and is now happy that her chosen child can have the right to kill her grandchild for any reason or no reason at all. No grief, no compassion, no love.
Can it get any worse than this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.