Some pro-lifers, like Mitt Romney, make exceptions in cases of rape. The fetus is a permanent reminder of that traumatic event and recognised by some as an extension of the rape action itself - that is, the fetus is part of the rapist's forced intrusion on her body.
Listening to the Peter Schiff show the other day he was speaking about abortion, and being a good libertarian, he is in favour of abortion up until the fetus is viable outside of the womb (an awful argument that I may pursue at some later stage). But here is where I agreed with him. He stated that it is hypocritical to be opposed to abortion but then hold out some special exemption in rape cases.
I couldn't agree more. What about a neonate that is produced as a result of rape? Do we have justified infanticide in these cases? Of course not. How can it be said that a fetus is a full fledged member of the human species with all of the accompanying rights that that entails, and yet deny it the right to life because it was conceived in rape? The pro-abort philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thompson in her famous 1971 piece, "A Defense of Abortion"
"Surely the question of whether you have a right to
life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of
whether or not you are a product of a rape."
No comments:
Post a Comment