Abortion within the United States, part 4

Abortion: Should there Be Exceptions?


From: http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2012/10/13/abortion_and_the_conscience_of_a_nation/page/full/

“Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation
Steve Deace 10/13/2012

Imagine for a moment that your home is invaded by thugs who will do harm to your family, or perhaps even kill them. But then one of them takes a look at your three children and offers you a sinister Faustian bargain: pick one to die and the others will be allowed to live.

Would you helplessly choose one of your own children to die so that the other two may live? Would you trust a person whose moral conscience is so far gone to even offer such a deal to live up to his end of it?”

“ … [W]hat kind of father would consent to the killing of even one of his children in such circumstances? Would the father who consented to such a heinous exchange be celebrated as a hero for saving two of his children, or considered a heel for not risking his own life to save the lives of his own children first?”

Some, who claim to be pro-life and who affirm that life begins at conception, have, nevertheless, proclaimed that certain exceptions may be legitimate in relation to any law or laws restricting abortions. The three exceptions usually offered are for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk. Generally, some only except when the life of the mother is at risk. Others include all three. Two fundamental questions are generated from these positions. First, should there be any exceptions? Second, if so, what are the exceptions and why should these specific circumstances be excluded?

In too many instances, “ … we have accepted the contradiction known as ‘pro-life with exceptions.’ If someone is pro-life, how can there be exceptions? Imagine if you told your spouse before marriage you were ‘pro-fidelity with exceptions.’ The only exception you’re asking for is a three-hour window on Thursday nights to get your adultery on. After all, there are 8,760 hours in a year and you’re only asking for less than 2% of them. Not to mention, your fiancé could choose to marry someone else, and they might be even worse and cheat on them even more if not all the time. Why not choose the lesser of two evils here? No fiancé in her right mind would accept such a deal….”

And that is the Biblical answer to whether or not exceptions should be allowed. The Bible does not say “You shall not commit adultery except for ….” The Bible does not say “You shall not murder except for ….” If abortion is murder, and it is. No exceptions are permitted. In a rape, the innocent unborn child is not responsible for the actions of his/her father. In incest, the innocent unborn child is not responsible for the actions of his/her father. In both circumstances, the unborn child is innocent. The innocent must not be murdered for the sins of another. Murder is murder regardless of the circumstances surrounding the murder.

But what about to save the life of the mother? “Surely, to save the life of the mother is an exception that must allow for abortion. Even the Texas law that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional allowed the exception in order to save the life of the mother.”

However, this argument is fallacious for at least two reasons. First, just because the law allowed for this exception does not mean it was a right and/or just provision of the law. As stated before, the Bible—Old and New Testament—does not allow for any exceptions for “You shall not murder.” Exodus 20: 13 (New International Version)

Second, in actuality, this is a straw man argument. Experienced doctors in this area of medicine have written and testified that in their many years of practice they have never come across an instance where it was necessary to kill the unborn child in order to save the mother. Furthermore, no ethical doctor would deliberately kill one person in order to save another. “Would you helplessly choose one of your own children to die so that the other two may live?” The goal in all cases should be/must be to save the life of both. That does not mean that any doctor will be successful in reaching that goal in every instance. Doctors are not 100% successful in saving lives.

However, to include the exception of “to save the life of the mother” is to reverse the legal principle. If a law is to be in error, it should be in error in favor of life not in favor of death. If the exception exists, an unethical doctor would simply claim that the unborn child was killed to save the life of the mother. It creates a loophole that unscrupulous individuals would attempt to take advantage of.

If there is no exception of “to save the life of the mother,” it is easier to bring such immoral doctors to justice. However, even then, the prosecutor would have to prove that the death of the unborn child was indeed murder. An unborn child dying does not automatically mean it was murder. If the law allows for the exception, it is far less likely that an unethical doctor would be prosecuted.

“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers (My use of red—my addition) and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” I Timothy 1: 8-11 (New American Standard Bible)