A good point on the "hard cases"

Doug Wilson makes an important point:

So here is the problem. When a child is conceived in a rape, there are three parties involved in the consequences — the rapist father, the victim mother, and the victim child. This standard political response blurs over this reality completely, but this blurred reality sums up all the issues in the entire abortion debate.

If pro-lifers are correct, the unborn child is a person created in the image of God. As a consequence, it is a monstrous iniquity to execute him for the crime of his father. We are saying, in effect, that the guilty party will not be executed, but that one of the victims will be. What kind of thoughtful compassion is that?

Source: Blog and Mablog.

I have addressed this issue here and here and here and here and here and here.

5 thoughts on “A good point on the "hard cases"

  1. Nothing but a slightly more “compassionate” spin on the idiotic argument of some Republican spokesmen and preachers that pregnancy via rape is a “beautiful gift from god.” Sometimes, in a truly sour mood, I can't help wishing they would be so blessed while they are telling women to be thrilled by sexual assault. Meanwhile, I see Ann Coulter is earning her latest speaking fees by saying women should be disfranchised. What self-respecting woman could support the Stupid Party in its death throes?


  2. Seems strange that Coulter would argue that she herself should be disenfranchised. But regardless, she's a professional attention-seeker.

    She often makes arguments for the purpose of getting attention, not making a genuine point.

    Sometimes, I don't think she actually believes what she is saying, but is saying it to stir controversy, and therefore spur book sales and speaking dates.


  3. As to the rape exception, an unborn baby is either a human being or he/she is not. If not, there is no reason for any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. If we are dealing with a human being, he/she should not be executed for the crimes of his/her father. Execute the rapist instead.


  4. And sentence the female victim to a life of caring for her rapist's child–while, of course, denying her financial assistance, as Jeb Bush insists that single mothers should be “publicly shamed”? Some “red” states are now in the process of granting rapist's parental rights in the name of “family.” Your party could get no lower unless it starts tunneling toward Earth's core.


  5. First, do you have a reliable source that “red states” are granting rapists parental rights? As in legislation, not court cases.

    I have no problem with the baby becoming a ward of the state. A rape victim should not be forced to raise the child, but the child doesn't deserve the death penalty for the crimes of his/her father.

    So let me ask you a question: If the baby is one year old, should the mother be allowed to stab him/her to death because she doesn't want to raise her rapist's child?

    If your answer is “no” then we agree that children should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers. We disagree on where life should be protected.


Comments are closed.