Skip to comments.Prolife Except in the Case of Rape?
Posted on 08/23/2012 8:53:35 PM PDT by Dead Dog
"What about a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest?" This is one of three hard cases often cited as "exceptions" that make abortion an appropriate alternative. (The other two are when the life of the mother is threatened or the child has a serious handicap or deformity.)
1. Pregnancy due to rape is extremely rare, and with proper treatment can be prevented. Studies conducted by Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute indicate that two consenting and fertile adults have only a 3 percent chance of pregnancy from an act of intercourse. They also indicate there are factors involved in a rape which further reduce these chances for rape victims . The Guttmacher Institute says 14,000  abortions per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to just over 1 percent of all abortions . Other studies show that pregnancies due to rape are much rarer than is generally thought, perhaps as few as one in a thousand cases . Furthermore, since conception doesn't occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in the great majority of rape cases by medical treatment that removes the semen before an ovum can be fertilized .
So where does the misconception come from that many pregnancies are due to rape? Fearful young women will sometimes attribute their pregnancies to rape, since doing so gains sympathy and avoids condemnation. The young woman called "Roe" in the famous Roe v. Wade case-who elicited sympathy in the court and media because she claimed to be a rape victim-years later admitted she had lied and had not been raped at all .
Prochoice advocates often divert attention from the vast majority of abortions by focusing on rape because of its inherent (and well-deserved) sympathy factor. Their frequent references to rape during discussions of the abortion issue leaves the false impression that pregnancy due to rape is common. The intent is to get people to structure laws in light of rare cases rather than common ones.
2. Rape is never the fault of the child; the guilty party, not an innocent party, should be punished. In those rare cases when a pregnancy is the result of rape, we must be careful who gets the blame. What is hard about this hard case is not whether an innocent child deserves to die for what his father did. What is hard is that an innocent woman has to take on childbearing and possibly mothering-if she decides to keep the child rather than choose adoption-for which she was not willing or ready. This is a very hard situation, calling for family, friends, and church to do all they can to support her. But the fact remains that none of this is the fault of the child.
Why should Person A be killed because Person B raped Person A's mother? If your father committed a crime, should you go to jail for it? If you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?
Biblical law put it this way: "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father" (Ezekiel 18:20). And, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16). Civilized people do not put children to death for what their fathers have done. Yet aborting a child conceived by rape is doing that exact thing. He is as innocent of the crime as his mother. Neither she nor he deserves to die.
Rape is so horrible that we easily transfer our horror to the wrong object. We must not impose the ugliness of rape or incest upon either the innocent woman or the innocent child. The woman is not "spoiled goods"-she is not goods at all but a precious human being with value and dignity that not even the vilest act can take from her. Likewise, the child is not a cancer to be removed but a living human being. By all means, let's punish the rapist. (I favor stricter punishment of the rapist than do the prochoice advocates I know.) But let's not punish the wrong person by inflicting upon the innocent child our rage against the rapist.
3. The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. One woman says, "When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy, it is called rape." 
There is a close parallel between the violent attack on an innocent woman that happens in a rape, and the violent attack on an innocent child that happens in an abortion. Both are done in response to a subjective and misguided sense of need, and both are done at the expense of an innocent person. The woman may not hate her child the way the rapist may hate his victim, but this is no consolation to the child. Regardless of the motives or disposition of his mother, he is just as brutally killed.
The violence of abortion is no solution to the violence of rape. The killing of the innocent by abortion is no solution to the hurting of the innocent by rape.
4. Abortion does not bring healing to a rape victim. Imposing capital punishment on the innocent child of a sex offender does nothing bad to the rapist and nothing good for the woman. Creating a second victim doesn't undo the damage to the first.
In February 2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes addressed 120 middle school students in Detroit. A thirteen-year-old girl asked if he would make an exception for rape in his position on abortion. He spoke of the pain of rape, then said, "But I don't believe it is right to take that pain and actually make it worse. And to the burden of that rape down through the years, if that abortion takes place, do you know what I'm adding if I let you have an abortion? I'm adding the burden of that abortion. And at some point, the truth of God that is written on your heart comes back to you. And you're wounded by that truth." 
One feminist group says, "Some women have reported suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma has faded."  It is hard to imagine a worse therapy for a woman who has been raped than to add the guilt and turmoil of having her child killed. Even if we convince ourselves and her that it isn't a real child or even her child, some day she will realize it was. Those who advised abortion will not be there then to help carry her pain and guilt.
I have a dear friend who was raped and became pregnant as a result. Because of her circumstances it wasn't best for her to raise the child, but she gave birth, and the baby was adopted into a wonderful Christian family. She periodically has contact with them and her child.
It has not been an easy road, and I would say nothing to minimize her pain. The hardest part is not being able to raise her child, not hearing the footsteps in her home. Yet there is a bittersweet joy-the joy of knowing God brought this beautiful little girl into the world through her, and brought an immense happiness to this family.
When I look at my friend, I find great comfort in knowing how she has brought joy to our Father in heaven, who has been pleased by her decisions and has brought character and beauty and life out of her suffering. Hers is not the suffering that comes with regret over having done the wrong thing to an innocent child. It is a suffering accompanied by the hand of God who comforts and sustains her, and brings present waves of joy and contentment that are a foretaste of the fullness of joy in the heaven to come. But even now, the wonder she knows when she sees this delightful child overshadows the suffering she has gone through.
5. A child is a child regardless of the circumstances of his conception. On a television program about abortion, I heard a man argue, "Anything of this nature has no rights because it's the product of rape." But how is the nature of this preborn child different from that of any other preborn child? Are some children more worthy of living because their fathers were better people? And why is it that prochoice advocates are always saying the unborn child is really the mother's, not the father's, until she is raped-then suddenly the child is viewed as the father's, not the mother's?
A child conceived by rape is as precious as a child conceived by love, because a child is a child. The point is not how he was conceived but that he was conceived. He is not a despicable "product of rape" but a unique and wonderful creation of God.
Women often think that a child conceived by such a vile act will be a constant reminder of their pain. On the contrary, the innocence of the child often has a healing effect. But in any case, the woman is free to give up the child for adoption, which may be the best alternative. Aborting the child is an attempt to deny what happened, and denial is never good therapy. One woman told me, "A baby is the only beautiful thing that can come out of a rape." Having and holding an innocent child can do much more good for a victimized woman than the knowledge that an innocent child died in an attempt to deny or reduce her trauma.
6. What about already-born people who are "products of rape"? What if you found that your spouse or adopted child was fathered by a rapist? Would it change your view of their worth? Would you love them any less? If not, why should we view the innocent unborn child any differently?
After I shared similar thoughts in a lecture, a dear woman in her mid-twenties came up to me in tears. I'll never forget what she said: "Thank you. I've never heard anyone say that a child conceived by rape deserved to live. My mother was raped when she was twelve years old. She gave birth to me and gave me up for adoption to a wonderful family. I'll probably never meet her, but every day I thank God for her and her parents. If they hadn't let me live, I wouldn't be here to have my own husband and children, and my own life. I'm just so thankful to be alive."
Singer Ethel Waters was conceived after her twelve-year-old mother was raped. Waters touched millions through her life and music. Many other people, perhaps some of our dearest friends whose stories we'll never know, are what some disdainfully call "the product of rape."
All that is true of children conceived in rape is true of those conceived in incest. Incest is a horrible crime. Offenders should be punished, and young girls should be carefully protected from further abuse. Decisive personal and legal intervention should be taken to remove a girl from the presence of a relative who has sexually abused her. The abuser-not the girl or her child-is the problem. Intervention, protection, and ongoing personal help for the girl-not the death of an innocent child-is the solution. Despite popular beliefs, fetal deformity is rare in such cases. Even if the child has handicaps, however, he still deserves to live.
FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE HARD CASES
No adverse circumstance for one human being changes the nature and worth of another human being. The hard cases are also sometimes called the exceptional cases. But the fundamental question remains, "Is there any exception to the fact that a preborn child is a human being?" The scriptural evidence, scientific and common-sense evidence conclusively demonstrate that the answer to this question is no. What is exceptional is the difficult situation of the mother, not the nature of the child.
Compassion for the mother is extremely important, but is never served through destroying an innocent child. One person must not be killed under the guise of compassion for another. An alternative must be sought that is compassionate to both mother and child. Furthermore, true compassion to the mother considers her psychological well-being, which is not served by abortion. Instead of encouraging her to kill her child, we should do something that requires much more compassion and sacrifice. We should offer tangible support and sacrificial help.
In cases of rape and incest, family and friends need to offer compassionate support and help find counseling that can assist in personal healing. Society needs to protect the innocent by stiffer sentences and enforced restraining orders on sex offenders. Exposing the woman to further abuse is absolutely unjustifiable. So is making an unborn child the scapegoat for a crime he or she did not commit.
This article is adapted from ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments(Multnomah Publishers, updated and revised 2000) by Randy Alcorn.
1 Jean Staker Garton, Who Broke the Baby? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1979), 76.
2 "Who Has Abortions?" The Alan Guttmacher Institute; www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.
3 "Abortion: Facts at a Glance," Planned Parenthood Federation of America, n.d., 1.
4 Willke, Abortion Questions, 146-50.
5 John F. Hillabrand, "Dealing with a Rape Case," Heartbeat, March 1975, 250.
6 Sue Reily, "Life Uneasy for Woman at Center of Abortion Ruling," The Oregonian, 9 May 1989, A2.
7 Garton, Who Broke the Baby? 77.
8 "Alan Keyes Continues His Campaign, Hammers on Abortion," The Prolife Infonet http://www.prolifeinfo.org/, 27 February 2000.
9 Feminists for Life Debate Handbook, 14.
2004 Eternal Perspective Ministries. All rights reserved.
Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, www.epm.org
IMO, to turn your back on truth is the same as turning your back on Christ.
Science is never "settled".
"Under certain circumstances, I think it is a good idea to murder the children of men who have violated the law ..."
Nope. Sorry. I just can't go there. I can't make those statements. I leave such pronouncements to the Liberals and worshipers of Moloch.
IMO, to turn your back on truth is the same as turning your back on Christ.Amen!
Thank you for posting this.
Let us never forget who gives us life. It is not our earthly fathers, be they wonderful parents, wife beaters, drunken scoundrels or rapists.
It is God, our Heavenly Father, who gives us life.
We are endowed by our Creator with life.
Life is the Gift that God gives each of us. To kill an innocent life, no matter how it is conceived is a grievous sin.
It is not a “choice” it is a child.
His comment about the relative likelihood of a raped woman conceiving was completely irrelevant to the question of an abortion option in the case of rape. COMPLETELY irrelevant. As in it was a non sequitur.
It is inconceivable to me why he brought it up or why people keep defending it, two days after he himself renounced it and begged to be forgiven for saying it.
The problem is moral bravado can lose elections. And after losing the election they have big fat ZERO power to change anything. Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller,
Doug Hoffman, Ken Buck & JD Hayworth all lost elections and
result is they can’t change any laws to protect life.
OTOH smart candidates can get elected and help change laws.
Serious issues can not be changed overnight. The voting public must be brought along to accomplish real changes.
It’s easy when you know they’re plan, divide and conquer. These people want us to hand the Missouri Senate seat over to the Democrats, look around and you’ll find them on threads wanting us to hand the Massachusetts Senate seat over to the Democrats, look around and you’ll find them on threads wanting us to leave the White house in the hands of the Democrats. It goes on and on. They always come at us from the right, cite our own faith against us. I’m making a list.
I don’t understand your point. Am I on your list? As a bad guy?
You’re right. Whether the prospect of conception is reduced or not, it is a proper civil function of government to protect innocent life. By what means, however, in a country that is pledged to pluralism?
“I dont understand your point. Am I on your list? As a bad guy?”
Since you don’t have your tin hat on at the right angle, I suspect you are.
That said, babies are innocent. Period. Sometimes those innocent babies grow up to leave a strong impact on society.
Everything Counts in Large Amounts.
A 3% chance means millions of pregnancies when applied to hundreds of millions of sexual encounters.
A 3% chance per act would also mean almost every sexually active woman would be pregnant by the end of a year.
Stupidity can be very divisive.
An excellent article.
I would point out that there are many ways to reduce the number of abortions without passing any laws. Even when abortion on demand is legal, we can offer support and counseling to pregnant women. Every issue has its “awareness” ribbons. How about one for pro-life? How about funding a charity like Planned Parenthood, except instead of providing abortions, this charity would provide counseling and adoption services and whatever other support a pregnant woman would need.
Those on the left are always clever and get support outside of the law. We should do the same. I’m not talking about violence. I’m talking about changing public opinion. If we can’t fight this battle in the voting booth or the legal system (and possibly we shouldn’t), we should fight it in the court of public opinion.
Even if abortion were illegal, there would still be illegal abortions performed or women would travel to countries where it’s legal. So there is still a need to change hearts and minds.
No federal funds to pay for abortions of any type but the states have rights to pass laws allowing it. This is how it should be.
Murder is murder.
Moral cowardous is what gave us 2006 and 2008. It is the reason we are fighting for survival now.
Bitch about amature hour conservatives all you want, but if the RNC actually displayed imprimis, the amatures would never have been needed.
How’s this working for yah?
Moral cowardous is what gave us 2006 and 2008. It is the reason we are fighting for survival now.
Bitch about amature hour conservatives all you want, but if the RNC actually displayed imprimis, the amatures would never have been needed.
How’s this working for yah?
Bitch about armature hour conservatives all you want, but if the RNC actually displayed imprimis, the armatures would never have been needed.
How's this working for yah?
My point in this only to point out that Akin’s comments were not unsupported.
We can't cut and run on every conservative (and Akin is solid conservative) that gives the left a opportunity to lie.
The last national politician to advance conservatism was Newt, and the GOP dumped him for Denny Hasert. Then they rolled on Tom Delay. It's a patern.
If that were true then we could “decriminalize” murder, theft, drunk driving, etc. and put everything on the honor system. Laws are an important way of enforcing morality in a society. Especially in a society that seems to be becoming less religious, it’s even more important to get the laws right, because that’s the only disincentive to destructive behavior that some people will have.
“Especially in a society that seems to be becoming less religious..”
We’re on the same page. There is no freedom without Christ.
while I know I am going to catch hell for this here..
If we could limit abortion to just rape and incest it would be a huge step in the right direction.
However, I would not stop there.
Many pro lifers (I am one as well) want a all or nothing fix to “legal” abortion.
I suggest we use the democrat play book and just take every small limit on abortion we can until we get to our ultimate goal. 100% outlaw of it.
No, the unborn should have the same contitutional right to life as those who have been born. States should not have the right to allow the murder of anyone.
Personally? No complains. I am doing just fine!
No, not at all, you nailed it but I was just trying to answer your question as to why they would defend this guy even though it means we would lose the seat to a pro abort. Maybe I need a personal editor as well as spell check to write a coherent thought!
I heard a prolifer once say that the ultimate victory would be to have an abortion clinic on every corner and they’d be empty.
BTW, love your tagline. LOL.
I know the baby was not at fault and why should he pay for a rapist crime, but I know the victim could have real trouble carrying the baby to term and she has gone through enough. If "Life of the mother" is claimed, a panel of 3 doctors from separate offices should concur. If it's found they colluded for money or activism, then they lose their license.
With 50 million casualties so far, I would gladly settle for a few thousand until we can get the full law passed. To allow no abortions at all will never pass muster, IMO. Better to save some than none.
I think there is a huge difference between abortion and the other crimes you mention. That difference is that if you took a poll and asked people “Should X be legal or illegal?” with abortion you would get a major split. With the other crimes, I doubt you’d get too many people saying they should be legal.
In that sense, abortion is like drug use. Smoking pot is illegal, yet a huge percentage of adults have tried it. Why? Because they don’t think it’s a big deal.
Speeding is illegal (though not criminal). Do you know any drivers who *always* obey the speed limit?
Laws will stop some people, but not all. Laws are really not ultimately what prevent people from behaving badly. Conscience is. Morality is. Laws help to keep honest and moral people in line, but they don’t stop the sociopaths. People continue to do what they feel they have the right to do, whether it is smoking pot, having an abortion, or driving over the limit.
Do you drive over the speed limit? Will passing another law stop you from doing that? I’m not trying to insult you, and I don’t disagree with your position on the issue. I’m just trying to give an example which perhaps puts you into the mindset of someone else who does disagree with you so you can see what might be effective to change their mind.
I think you would agree with me that the issue is more important than politics. If that is the case, then what matters is reducing the number of abortions, not the way that they are reduced. If we really want to have fewer abortions then the end result should be what matters, not whether we achieved it by passing laws or by encouraging people to make better moral choices regardless of the law.
YES! This whole thing is so sickening. It is as though the left is a religion with child sacrifice as it’s form of worship. Mr. Akin has done NOTHING wrong, yet the GOP hierarchy is so afraid of the hedonistic press which owns nearly all the airways that they caved to that hedonism themselves. This kind of thing has consequences for our society far beyond any election. These are evil times, run by evil people. God will have the last word here and innocent people will suffer along with the guilty.
thank you for this article! I am saving it on my computer and printing it out and putting it in my bible, too. As a former Catholic, I still abide with that Church’s teaching on life, and I am definitely pro-life. However, it is still very hard to come to terms with a child (a girl of 9 let’s say) bearing a pregnancy after rape or incest. The psychological damage of all of that (the rape/incest, the pregnancy) is huge, and it must be so heartbreaking! But, on the other hand, the innocent babe’s life is so precious, too.
Thank the Lord we have the power of prayer. That is usually the only thing that gets one thru any life issue.
My friend, I fear you're neglecting one important fact: birth control.
What is an”acceptable” rate of murder for, say, five year old children? Zero? Why should it be any different for children of any age? If our basis for rejecting abortion is that it is the unjustified, unexcused taking of a human life (aka murder), why should we grant an exception for certain forms of infanticide? It destroys our premise, and in so doing prolongs the coming of the day of our victory, for if the culture does not come to think of abortion as the murder of an innocent child, we will never get the critical mass to overcome the inertia of resistance in our legal and political systems. I accept at face value your desire to end the killing. I don’t believe becoming comfortable with some reduced level of murder will get you where you want to go. Not to mention the children whose deaths you are ok with. Given a chance, I’m betting they’d rather not be executed for doing nothing wrong.
Thank you. I’ve been feeling kinda lonely the past few days.
Compromise is the first step of a defeated foe —or so we were taught by our US Army instructor.Another put it something like this compromise is a good umbrella but a poor roof.(My take is they believed it is useful if it is raining
and you’re afraid of getting wet. But a bad practice for the long run—nobody ever lives under an umbrella.)
The author is correct.
We MUST have perfection or nothing at all.
Anything less than perfection is unholy and must be opposed with every effort that can be mustered.
And the physical and psychological damage of an abortion at that age will most likely last far longer than the psychological damage of the rape.
It is our absolutism that has kept the argument going for 60 years. If we could save 99%, why not start there?
The 3% figure is without birth control. It was assumed away by the study not me.
The GOP is afraid of people who don’t like stupid comments from its candidates. The evaporation of Akins’ support shows that fear is reality-based.
The issue here is NOT what constitutes the truth of post-rape pregnancy abortion.
The issue is the Missouri Senate election. Abortion after rape commands strong majority support. It’s the job of the pro-life movement to change that FACT, if they are able, by argument, persuasion, homiletics, and any other available means.
However, since the pro-life movement has not yet accomplished this necessary precondition to political change (and, BTW, never will IMO), the question becomes, is the greater good served by returning Claire McCaskill to the US Senate, where she will filibuster any Federal court nominee not strongly committed to abortion, or by replacing idiot loser Akin?
Such a law not could NOT be passed and signed by The Disaster but it would entail such an intrusive state that few here would even support it.