Rape and Abortion

Maybe we'll be all right
It's a sacrifice
--Madonna

The central issue in the Judge's article here is whether rape is a valid justification for abortion. The Judge argues that it is not.

I certainly agree that the ruling of Roe v Wade was wrong. Similar to the Dred Scott case which ruled that the rights of blacks were not protected by the Constitutional, Roe v Wade declared that the rights of fetuses in the womb are not worthy of Constitutional protection either.

As such, millions of people have been slaughtered via abortion.

The Judge argues that even when conception results from the heinous crime of rape, the rights of the fetus merit equal protection under the law. I understand his point. The baby committed no crime. Why should it be killed because of someone else's crime?

However, pregnancy is not a risk-free endeavor. Among those risks is the possibility of death from childbirth. When a man and woman voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse, the woman chooses to assume those risks should she become pregnant. Except for extreme cases, such as when an unforeseen complication threatens the life of the mother (requiring the terrible choice of saving one life at the expense of the other), the fetus's rights should be protected.

But in the case of rape, the woman does not freely make that choice. Instead, the risks associated with pregnancy have been forced on her. A woman placed in this situation has the right to choose whether to assume those risks or to abort them. The fetus's rights cannot supercede the mother's when the fetus is conceived involuntarily.

As such, I believe that the Judge is wrong in this case.