For people of all faiths: How do you defend abortion in cases of rape or incest?

[SteveVH]

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

[Jennarator]

I think in such cases it would be between the Lord and the victim. If it were me, I would consider abortion. AS far as the church goes, I believe they are somewhere on the same page of thought. I don't have a quote to go with that, however I have heard people talk about that.....or if tthe mother is in danger of death.

[Jennarator]

Eh....never mind, just saw the other thread....I need not say more. :) I think that question was answered for the LDS faith over there. :)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon StephenVH. I hope you are doing well! :)

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

Speaking of things I have no actual experience in, I say that in the cases of incest and rape, I could only justify an abortion after having received confirmation from the Spirit that this is what God desires. Without this assurance, then I cannot justify it.

Regards,

Finrock

[SteveVH]

Good afternoon StephenVH. I hope you are doing well! :)

Thank you. Hope you are doing well also.

Speaking of things I have no actual experience in, I say that in the cases of incest and rape, I could only justify an abortion after having received confirmation from the Spirit that this is what God desires. Without this assurance, then I cannot justify it.

Regards,

Finrock

Do you consider the possibility that one, under great duress after suffering through such an ordeal, might hear the voice they wish to hear, which might not be the voice of God?

[Anddenex]

Thank you. Hope you are doing well also.

Do you consider the possibility that one, under great duress after suffering through such an ordeal, might hear the voice they wish to hear, which might not be the voice of God?

Indeed, it is a possibility, as much so the possibility that even under great duress the individual still could hear the voice of God.

Both options are possible. We have evidence in scripture of many people under great duress, but while under great duress they still heard the voice of their God.

I don't believe you are implying this, however due to the question, it is implied also, that people under great duress because of suffering or affliction will only hear the voice they wish to hear. This is false.

[selek]

The most common reason people believe abortion is wrong is because it takes the life of a baby innocent of any crime save existing.

The child is not responsible for the actions which brought him or her into existence- but it is the child all the same who bears the full weight and burden of the "corrective" action.

An abortion- without exception- is the shedding of innocent blood. In most cases, it is also the ending of a human life.

The rationale for an exception in the case of rape or incest revolves primarily around the repugnancy of those crimes- and argues that carrying the child to term and/o raising that child further victimizes the mother (who is also, in the case of rape and incest) an innocent.

The question then becomes which innocent party shall we victimize?

I don't necessarily agree with the premises being argued, but there are many who do without guile and in good conscience.

The bottom line, to me at least, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has unequivocally and unwaveringly condemned abortion-as-birth-control, abortion-on-demand, and abortion-for convenience in the clearest and harshest terms.

In the case of rape, incest, or serious medical threat to the life and health of the mother, abortion may be necessary.

In such extreme circumstances, a blanket ruling will not suffice; and the family must decide for themselves- in close consultation with their Bishop and prayerful communion with the Lord- what the best course of action is.

[SteveVH]

Indeed, it is a possibility, as much so the possibility that even under great duress the individual still could hear the voice of God.

Both options are possible. We have evidence in scripture of many people under great duress, but while under great duress they still heard the voice of their God.

Absolutely!

I don't believe you are implying this, however due to the question, it is implied also, that people under great duress because of suffering or affliction will only hear the voice they wish to hear. This is false.

Well, I didn't say that they will only hear the voice they wish to hear. Yes, that idea would be false.

My position is this, concerning the discernment of voices. We have more than a few voices which influence us. We have the voice of our own desires; that which we wish to believe is true. We have the voice of our peers, urging us to believe this or that. We have the voice of secular society. We have the voice of satan who constantly roams the earth seeking whom he may devour. And we have the voice of God.

In the Catholic religion we have ways of discerning the voice to which we listen. Does it conflict with any objective truth? Does it conflict with any moral law? Does it conflict with the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles? There are more, but suffice it to say that if one believes they are hearing the voice of God, one must be very careful that it is, indeed, the voice of God and that one is not being misled by any of the other voices. Remember that satan can appear as an angel of light and is a master of deception. Our own desires to believe what we wish were true are very powerful as well.

To bring this into the question at hand, I know instinctively and through the word of God that killing an innocent, completely vulnerable human being, is intrinsically evil. So if I find myself in the position of making a decision concerning the killing of an unborm child that is a product of rape of incest, I must be accutely aware of my desire that the whole thing just go away. One way to make at least part of it go away is to get rid of the child. This can be a great temptation. But I do not believe that God would ever condone a death sentence for the innocent child because its mother was raped. It flies in the face of moral justice and so I would discern that the voice I am hearing is not of God, but of my own desires, possibly, or that of a society that tells us that this is a perfectly acceptable option, or the voice directly from satan.

Edited February 21, 2013 by StephenVH

[selek]

My position is this, concerning the discernment of voices. We have more than a few voices which influence us. We have the voice of our own desires; that which we wish to believe is true. We have the voice of our peers, urging us to believe this or that. We have the voice of secular society. We have the voice of satan who constantly roams the earth seeking whom he may devour. And we have the voice of God.

In the Catholic religion we have ways of discerning the voice to which we listen. Does it conflict with any objective truth? Does it conflict with any moral law? Does it conflict with the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles? There are more, but suffice it to say that if one believes they are hearing the voice of God, one must be very careful that it is, indeed, the voice of God and that one is not being misled by any of the other voices. Remember that satan can appear as an angel of light and is a master of deception. Our own desires to believe what we wish were true are very powerful as well.

Such thoughts- and guidelines-are not exclusive to Catholicism.

All these things are equally true to LDS understanding.

To bring this into the question at hand, I know instinctively and through the word of God that killing an innocent, completely vulnerable human being, is intrinsically evil. So if I find myself in the position of making a decision concerning the killing of an unborm child that is a product of rape of incest, I must be accutely aware of my desire that the whole thing just go away. One way to make at least part of it go away is to get rid of the child. This can be a great temptation.

Agreed, in all respects.

But I do not believe that God would ever condone a death sentence for the innocent child because its mother was raped. It flies in the face of moral justice and so I would discern that the voice I am hearing is not of God, but of my own desires, possibly, or that of a society that tells us that this is a perfectly acceptable option, or the voice directly from satan.

This is unfortunately, a matter of opinion, rather than of fact. While I generally agree with you, these statements are our personal interpretation of God's law.

In point of fact, there have been many instances in the OT where the innocent blood was spilled- where women and children were put to death simply because God was punishing their nation as a whole.

We like to pretend that Herod's murder of children was a unique and totally unjustifiable abberation- but the Israelites themselves conducted such wholesale bloodlettings several times in their history.

The only objective difference is that we believe God ordered them to commit such acts. Would we be as quick to condemn Herod if he had instead been acting at the behest of John the Baptist?

[Irishcolleen]

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

I don't believe it is justifiable. An abortion won't erase the rape. It will just end a life. I used to work for an agency that helped teen moms. At the time I was unsaved and pro-choice. I thought abortion was justifiable in those instances. Then I met two teen moms who conceived as a result of rape. These courageous young moms chose to give their babies life and raise them. They wanted to have some way that good could come out of evil. It was a way they could triumph instead of being victimized. After working with these young women there was no way I could defend my pro-choice stance anymore.

Additionally, many rape victims struggle with feelings of guilt (WRONGLY) an abortion would only compound these feelings. It would be better to give the women the counseling and support they needed to survive the rape and carry the pregnancy than to end the baby's life. Abortion just makes a victim/survivor an perpetrator.

[annewandering]

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

It is not up to us to defend or attack a woman who has become pregnant due to rape/incest. If they have done as the church says then we have no say, pro or con.

If I knew a woman who had an abortion under the circumstances then all I can say is love them. They have dealt with enough already.

Would I have an abortion under the circumstances? No but I can not condemn anyone for having one. Do you realize the life that child will live? If she keeps the baby, that baby will know he was conceived in violence and the 'father' in many states has parental rights. Most states in fact. If she adopts the baby out then the 'father' can object and possibly even get the baby. Especially if the rape was not reported and gone to trial with a guilty verdict.

I can understand anyone fearing that outcome, both for herself and the baby.

The church says it has to be done with careful consideration and prayer and this has to be the right answer.

[annewandering]

OP, didnt you just ask this same question in another thread that was closed after you received your answer?

[prisonchaplain]

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition?

Thanks

From my perspective, coming of age during the rise of the Moral Majority, cutting my political teeth on social conservatism--especially pro-life causes, seeing the diminishing influence of that same movement, and now finding another key cause seeming to go down (opposition to gay marriage), my answer to the OP is that a good many in the Pro-life cause do not believe abortion is morally justified in cases of rape or incest. They hold their noses and mouth support for the exception because doing so makes it possible to win public support for prohibiting most abortions. My guess is that as more and more restrictions are added it is hoped that society could eventually be further persuaded to prohibit these as well.

It may be a Devil's compromise. The slippery slope runs both ways. If abortion is killing the baby and we say we'll allow it in cases of rape and incest, then why not when the girl is 13? 14? 15? When the mother's health is seriously hindered (life not threatened though)? On it goes.

Morally, only when the mother's life is truly challenged would abortion be a possibility. Then it's life vs. life, and the one offering life at her own's peril should make that offer freely, not by force.

Politically, that stance cannot win overwhelming public support. To insist on it is to surrender. Perhaps the church should simply be a prophetic voice on the issue and abandon efforts at real politik (term for making compromises in the name of gaining realistic wins).

[prisonchaplain]

It is not up to us to defend or attack a woman who has become pregnant due to rape/incest. If they have done as the church says then we have no say, pro or con.

If I knew a woman who had an abortion under the circumstances then all I can say is love them. They have dealt with enough already.

Would I have an abortion under the circumstances? No but I can not condemn anyone for having one. Do you realize the life that child will live? If she keeps the baby, that baby will know he was conceived in violence and the 'father' in many states has parental rights. Most states in fact. If she adopts the baby out then the 'father' can object and possibly even get the baby. Especially if the rape was not reported and gone to trial with a guilty verdict.

I can understand anyone fearing that outcome, both for herself and the baby.

The church says it has to be done with careful consideration and prayer and this has to be the right answer.

I have three daughters, so I feel this response. If someone were to violate any of them I would certainly feel rage, and might well come to despise the fruit of such an act.

But morally? Can we really say that another death does any long-term redemptive good for the rape/incest victim? By all means, send that child away for adoption. Let the baby grow up in a loving home away from those victimized by sexual violence. But we must not condone killing the baby to provide temporary solace for the rape victim.

Once the deed is done, no doubt, our place is to offer love, acceptance, grace, mercy and support. However, when one comes seeking counsel, do we have the courage to say: Let the baby live. God can turn these ashes into beauty!

Edited February 22, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Anddenex]

It may be a Devil's compromise. The slippery slope runs both ways. If abortion is killing the baby and we say we'll allow it in cases of rape and incest, then why not when the girl is 13? 14? 15? When the mother's health is seriously hindered (life not threatened though)? On it goes.

The main difference between these other circumstances, at least with regards to rape, is that the woman consented to the sexual intercourse. Rape, however, the woman did not consent.

A 13, 14, 15 year old woman is fully capable a delivering a healthy child, by which she consented to the action which conceived the baby. Thus, she should have the morals to deliver the baby as well.

Rape and consenting teenagers, my personal opinion, is not a fair comparison.

As annewandering pointed out, the man who raped a woman has, actually according to a article I recently read, in 31 states the legal right for custody, and visitation rights, just as if the baby was conceived with consent.

If the rapist has parental rights, and the woman decided to give the baby up for adoption, then the rapist can appeal the adoption and take the child away.

Thus, the child may not have such a "loving home" to go to if the woman gives up her rights by adoption, and the rapist takes full custody of the child.

Morally? I believe the Church has it correctly in these cases -- we speak with our priesthood leaders, we speak with our Heavenly Father, if Heavenly Father gives his permission -- then all arguments are over.

[SteveVH]

OP, didnt you just ask this same question in another thread that was closed after you received your answer?

This is a different question. The first question concerned the official Mormon position on abortion. I received the answer but, due to the nature of the forum, was not able to ask the reason for the position. I respect the moderator's decision. So I started a new thread here so that we could actually discuss it rather than just read an official statement. As well, I did not want to limit the question to LDS only, but every denomination and religion.

[SteveVH]

It is not up to us to defend or attack a woman who has become pregnant due to rape/incest. If they have done as the church says then we have no say, pro or con.

Under no circumstances should a woman be attacked. When any abortion occurs I hear the words of Jesus: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". No, these women need love and healing. Many of them will suffer greatly from the effects of abortion, some phyically, all psychologically and spiritually to some degree. Never could I defend the decision, but to treat a young woman uncharitably is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. These women need education prior to their decision. They do not need to be beat up.

If I knew a woman who had an abortion under the circumstances then all I can say is love them. They have dealt with enough already.

I don't disagree with you.

Do you realize the life that child will live?

No I don't, and neither do you. My adopted sister is a product of rape. Her mother was fifteen and she was raped by her mother's "boyfriend". We adopted her when she was just two months old. My sister has had a wonderful life and grew up in a stable, loving family. She is a wife, a mother of two and has taught thousands of young people in High School, having a great influence on their lives. She is one of the happiest people I know and is eternally thankful that she was not aborted.

If she keeps the baby, that baby will know he was conceived in violence and the 'father' in many states has parental rights. Most states in fact. If she adopts the baby out then the 'father' can object and possibly even get the baby. Especially if the rape was not reported and gone to trial with a guilty verdict.

I can understand anyone fearing that outcome, both for herself and the baby.

The church says it has to be done with careful consideration and prayer and this has to be the right answer.

My only comment is that when something is as intrinsically evil as the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable among us, we need to really stop and think very seriously about this. Yes, the mother has suffered greatly, beyond imagination. It is natural for people to focus on the mother and natural for us to look for any option which we might feel would alleviate some of her pain. The problem is, all to often, the unborn child is forgotten and sacrificed out of misguided charity. It is the child who receives the death sentence for the crime of its father. How is this just? Should the child have any rights as a human being; especially a defenseless, innocent human being?

Edited February 24, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

From my perspective, coming of age during the rise of the Moral Majority, cutting my political teeth on social conservatism--especially pro-life causes, seeing the diminishing influence of that same movement, and now finding another key cause seeming to go down (opposition to gay marriage), my answer to the OP is that a good many in the Pro-life cause do not believe abortion is morally justified in cases of rape or incest. They hold their noses and mouth support for the exception because doing so makes it possible to win public support for prohibiting most abortions. My guess is that as more and more restrictions are added it is hoped that society could eventually be further persuaded to prohibit these as well.

You make a great point. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. :)

It may be a Devil's compromise. The slippery slope runs both ways. If abortion is killing the baby and we say we'll allow it in cases of rape and incest, then why not when the girl is 13? 14? 15? When the mother's health is seriously hindered (life not threatened though)? On it goes.

I spent my teenage years living in Holland. It was such a great place to live. The Dutch love Americans and treated us so well. They pride themselves on having a tolerant society which was great being a foreigner. They made abortion legal long before it was legal in the United States. After all, who were they to infringe on anyone's personal decision? It is now (and has been for some time) legal to basically put your child down, just like a sick pet, up to three years old if it is too much of a burden on the parents due to mental or physical incapacity. I am so disgusted with that situation that I have no words. It has tainted my fond memories of that country. It can happen here as well. The culture of death is alive and well in this country.

Morally, only when the mother's life is truly challenged would abortion be a possibility. Then it's life vs. life, and the one offering life at her own's peril should make that offer freely, not by force.

Yes, there is no doubt that it is easy to sit back and think about these issues from a distance. I cannot judge the decision of anyone in that situation. Even as a father, how does one choose between their wife and their child? Happily, this is not a situation that arises very often and I pray for God's intercession in these decisions.

[Vort]

Even as a father, how does one choose between their wife and their child?

If it's your choice to make, you always choose your wife.

[SteveVH]

I have three daughters, so I feel this response. If someone were to violate any of them I would certainly feel rage, and might well come to despise the fruit of such an act.

But morally? Can we really say that another death does any long-term redemptive good for the rape/incest victim? By all means, send that child away for adoption. Let the baby grow up in a loving home away from those victimized by sexual violence. But we must not condone killing the baby to provide temporary solace for the rape victim.

Once the deed is done, no doubt, our place is to offer love, acceptance, grace, mercy and support. However, when one comes seeking counsel, do we have the courage to say: Let the baby live. God can turn these ashes into beauty!

Exactly!

[Dravin]

I'm not sure if Stephen is aware of this, but there is difference in when LDS and Catholic theology unites the soul with the unborn child. To my knowledge Catholic theology places that at the moment of conception, so no matter how soon one might act to abort it will always be to separate the soul and body. LDS theology, to my understanding, does not define at what point the soul quickens the child's body.

The applications of this difference is of course debatable but I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the difference.

[SteveVH]

The main difference between these other circumstances, at least with regards to rape, is that the woman consented to the sexual intercourse. Rape, however, the woman did not consent.

A 13, 14, 15 year old woman is fully capable a delivering a healthy child, by which she consented to the action which conceived the baby. Thus, she should have the morals to deliver the baby as well.

Rape and consenting teenagers, my personal opinion, is not a fair comparison.

Yes, there is no doubt that these are different scenarios.

As annewandering pointed out, the man who raped a woman has, actually according to a article I recently read, in 31 states the legal right for custody, and visitation rights, just as if the baby was conceived with consent.

If the rapist has parental rights, and the woman decided to give the baby up for adoption, then the rapist can appeal the adoption and take the child away.

So, because we have an unjust law concerning the rapist's rights we should give the unborn child the death sentence?

Thus, the child may not have such a "loving home" to go to if the woman gives up her rights by adoption, and the rapist takes full custody of the child.

Then work to change the unjust laws concerning the rapist. I still don't see how this is justification for killing the unborn child. If you could speak to the child how would that conversation go? "Listen, sweety, there is a possiblity that you might not have a good life if I bring you into the world, so I am just going to go ahead and kill you now. How does that sound?" None of us can see into the future and none of us jump off of a cliff because of the possibility that something bad may happen to us. Pick the poorest, most miserable person you can think of. If you throw them into the middle of a lake, they will still swim to shore. Why?

Morally? I believe the Church has it correctly in these cases -- we speak with our priesthood leaders, we speak with our Heavenly Father, if Heavenly Father gives his permission -- then all arguments are over.

Receiving counsel is always a wise decision but that has nothing to do with whether or not the ulitimate decision is a moral one. And I would be most sceptical of someone who told me "God said it was okay, he gave me permission" because of the intrinsically evil nature of the act of killing an innocent. I believe God would call us to make sacrifices in our own lives for the sake of our child, not condemn it to death.

Edited February 22, 2013 by StephenVH

[Anddenex]

So, because we have an unjust law concerning the rapist's rights we should give the unborn child the death sentence?

I am only providing other scenarios in response to PCs post. As someone already pointed out, in the LDS theology we have not been given the exact moment he spirit enters the body of an embryo. If the spirit doesn't enter into the body, then no death sentence is given to any unborn child.

Then work to change the unjust laws concerning the rapist. I still don't see how this is justification for killing the unborn child. If you could speak to the child how would that conversation go? "Listen, sweety, there is a possiblity that you might not have a good life if I bring you into the world, so I am just going to go ahead an kill you now." None of us can see into the future and none of us jump off of a cliff because of the possibility that something bad may happen to us.

I would fully agree with changing the law, the law as it stands now is utterly disappointing -- rights of parentage to a rapist.

However, while those laws are in place, it appears you are asking others to live up to your expectations.

Yes, I think it is very easy to judge a woman who has been raped by saying, "Listen, sweety, there is a possibility that you might not have a good life...I am just going to go ahead and kill you now."

Yes, I highly doubt this is what is going through a woman's mind who has been raped. This, to me personally, is the language of a very self-righteous man.

Please note: I am more for woman to have the baby and place the baby up for adoption, or raise the child themselves, however you won't find me using such a simple language to describe what is going on in the heart and mind of a woman who has been raped, hoping and praying she isn't pregnant, only to find out she is.

Pick the poorest, most miserable person you can think of. If you throw them into the middle of a lake, they will still swim to shore. Why?

This is false. Throw my mother-in-law into the middle of the lake and she will drown. Overly simplistic.

Receiving counsel is always a wise decision but that has nothing to do with whether or not the ulitimate decision is a moral one. And I would be most sceptical of someone who told me "God said it was okay, he gave me permission" because of the intrinsically evil nature of the act of killing an innocent. I believe God would call us to make sacrifices in our own lives for the sake of our child, not condemn it to death.

God has everything to do with decisions which are moral or immoral. That is fine, you have your moral agency to choose to be skeptical, but your skepticism doesn't dictate the Lord did or did not confirm a decision.

I wonder then the cognitive dissonance you face when reading the Old Testament, when the God you profess to believe in commanded the Israelites to commit this "intrinsically evil nature of the act of killing an innocent."

I assume you are familiar with the genocide of the Egyptian's first born? Or was this not the killing of innocent children? The Lord killed innocent children, who had nothing to do with Pharoah's hard heart, yet they died as well. Yes, God easily has the ultimate decision as to when and when something is not moral.

I assume you are familiar with the record of the Lord commanding the Israelites to kill not only the man, but women and children, and the unborn child -- the innocent. How does your mind justify your statement, when we know in record the Lord has commanded what you would call"intrinsically evil" in nature?

I believe God will recognize the heart of the individual, he will take into account more than what you simply provide, and will give his command, and if through consultation with their priesthood leaders, much prayer and fasting, and they receive an answer -- I won't be the one judging them. I however, may choose something different, but I am not them, and I wasn't the one in the room when the answer came.

[jerome1232]

Yes, there is no doubt that these are different scenarios.

So, because we have an unjust law concerning the rapist's rights we should give the unborn child the death sentence?

Then work to change the unjust laws concerning the rapist. I still don't see how this is justification for killing the unborn child.

I couldn't agree more, you can't use unjust laws as justification for more unjust laws, although I do differ in that I believe there may at times be exceptions in the case of rape victims and thus the choice should be left up to them rather than compelling all rape victims to carry to term.

Emphasis to highlight that I don't think all or even most circumstances in question are exceptions, just that there may be exceptions.

[Vort]

I am only providing other scenarios in response to PCs post. As someone already pointed out, in the LDS theology we have not been given the exact moment he spirit enters the body of an embryo. If the spirit doesn't enter into the body, then no death sentence is given to any unborn child.

Remember that Catholic doctrine has no concept of an individual premortal life. Catholic theology teaches that not just physical life, but individual existence itself, begins at conception. This cannot but impact the overall perception of the evils of abortion.