Here’s 3 Reasons The ‘Rape & Incest’ Reason For Abortion Is BOGUS

Written by Wes Walker on May 16, 2019

When the baby-corpse corps can’t defend their policies with logic, they retreat to their fallback position: “Rape and Incest.” But Matt Walsh just torched that ‘fallback position’.

There are three key flaws in that line of argument which Walsh laid out in his recent column (available in full Here).

1. Rape-related abortions are exceedingly rare.

He cites the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute’s own study about the key reasons for abortion, and 85% of the answers were lifestyle/convenience. Less than one percent cited rape. Scratch that… it’s less than HALF of one percent.

Trending: Trump Slams Fox News Again – Do You Agree With His Critique?

The abortion activists prominent use of the argument ‘rape and incest’ to bolster their position is (depending on how cynically you view them) somewhere between a gross distortion of facts and a deliberate attempt to marshall emotions and victimhood as cover for otherwise indefensible policy positions.

2. Abortion can let rapists get away with their crime.

What more conclusive evidence would there be to prove responsibility for the crime of rape than a paternity test? Abortion isn’t just the ending of a life, a secondary effect of abortion is the destruction of key evidence.

This is particularly true of Incestuous abuse, where abused girls have continued to be molested by relatives long after the fact because all evidence of the crime was swept under the rug.

And there are documented cases where Planned Parenthood was no help, worse still, they often failed to protect the girls who came to them from their attackers.

Drawing from conclusions of points one and two, that most abortion has absolutely nothing to do with rape, and many of those that do provide greater aid and comfort to the attacker than they do to the victim, he moves forward with the case why there should be no rape exemption:

3. THE ONLY REASON TO BE PRO-LIFE:

Simply put, the unborn baby is either a person or he/she is not. If he is, every right you and I enjoy should also apply to him. If he is not, none of the other arguments really matter.

He makes a very good point. Let’s build on it a little.

To put it in terms that even a Social Justice Warrior could to wrap their head around, let’s quote Dr. Seuss:

Yup. It really is that simple.

If they still can’t understand it, try reframing the issue this way:

An Ivy League Professor of Bioethics (Peter Singer) has argued that there’s no difference between killing a newborn and aborting a fetus. And before you ask: NO, he is NOT pro-life.

To the dismay of popular abortion advocates, Singer rejects birth as a relevant dividing line between person and nonperson, agreeing with pro-life advocates that there is no ontologically significant difference between the fetus and a newborn. True, there are differences of size, location, dependency, and development, but these are morally irrelevant. “The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”4

Instead of upgrading the fetus to the status of a person, however, Peter Singer downgrades the newborn to the status of nonperson because newborns, like fetuses, are incapable “of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”5 They are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live.6 Since, in Singer’s criteria, personhood hinges on these factors, killing a newborn (or fetus) is not the same as killing a person. In fact, some acts of infanticide are less problematic than killing a happy cat. If, for example, parents kill one disabled infant to make way for another baby that will be happier than the first, the total amount of happiness increases for all interested parties.7 Singer’s logic can be summed up this way: Until a baby is capable of self-awareness, there is no controlling reason not to kill it to serve the preferences of the parents.
Source: CRI [Note: This article, though partisan, points to several original citations]

Say what you like about Singer, at least he is HONEST about the implications of his ideology.

Thought Experiment:
Suppose you woke up tomorrow to learn that the courts had ruled infanticide was legal for any reason or none at all until, say, the child’s second birthday, how would you react?

Could you just come to terms with the ‘new reality’ that hitting junior with a brick or drowning him in a bathtub is suddenly legal? Could you simply shrug and shake your head if — like many ancient cultures — we started leaving infants in the woods for the wild animals to discover?

Would you accept that as ‘the law of the land’ or would you fight like hell to overturn the ruling? If you’d fight like hell, congrats: You now understand the Pro-life position.

We don’t hate the mother.
We just think that the role of HER choices come BEFORE and UNTIL that moment of conception. This isn’t a struggle FOR or AGAINST a woman’s right, as Planned Parenthood would have you believe. Remember, they have a dog in this fight. (Not to mention a crap-ton of profit.) Don’t expect their depictions of ‘the enemy’ to be accurate or fair.

Instead, this is a perfectly reasonable moral conflict over how to resolve the tension between a mother’s right to personal autonomy, and her baby’s right NOT to have its life unceremoniously snuffed out.

The pro-life camp sees this as a modern analogy of the tension between…

[and yes, this is a provocative example, but a useful one]

…the property rights of a slaveholder who (in good faith) purchased a slave which was (at the time) a lawful purchase…

vs.

… the right to autonomy and dignity of the slave himself.

Unless and until the abortion issue is seen through a similar lens of two competing rights in tension, we will not — indeed, CANNOT — ever have an honest dialogue about what truly divides us.

Get Doug Giles’ new book:

Rules For Radical Christians is not a survival devotional designed to help the young Christian adult limp through life. Rather, it is a road-tested, dominion blueprint that will equip the young adult with leadership skills and sufficient motivation to rise to a place of influence in an overtly non-Christian culture. Rules For Radical Christians gives the reader the keys to become strategically equipped to move into an anti-theistic environment and effectively influence it for the glory of God.

Get yours today!

You can choose either the classic Paperback to trigger your college professors and quasi-communist classmates, or the Kindle edition to always have it on hand.

By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

Become a Clash Insider!

Sign up for our free email newslettaer, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

We’ve moved to a new social media platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.

Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.

Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?

Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.

Stay Rowdy!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.