An Incoherent Defense

One of the most common position pro-life positions is opposition to all abortions, except in the case of rape and incest (tangent:  a good friend of mine doesn’t add “and incest,” as incest is technically rape).  The reasons for this exception are plenty, I’m sure, but my hunch is that is a nod to the victims of such a deplorable act, and heinous it is.  I can’t imagine a more vile crime a man can commit against a woman.  Lost in that discussion, though, is the fact that in those rare cases where rape results in a pregnancy, there are at least two victims:  the woman and the newly created child, both of which are deserving of our love and support, as well as justice.

This is where things get odd.  The pro-life position is that of the defense of life.  We hold that all life is sacred and deserves protection.  We also hold that life begins at fertilization.  Not at implantation, for there’s nothing morally significant about attaching to the uterine wall.  Nor at 24 weeks, as there’s nothing morally significant about getting bigger and looking “more human.”  No, we hold that life begins at fertilization because it is at that point that two distinct sets of DNA (rather, two incomplete halves of sets of DNA) form to create a distinct third; at which point a genetically distinct person is created with his or her own gender, eye color, hair color, blood type etc.  That person, even though he or she is small is a person and deserves the right to life.  When we make exceptions to our pro-life stance, though, to except cases in which a child is conceived through the violent act of rape, we tell the world, and that sweet, little child, that all children are valuable and have the right to life, unless they are conceived in a distasteful manner, in which case it’s alright to snuff them out, and that makes an incoherent defense for the sanctity of life.