Blank Title 

Blank Title

It was mentioned in a newspaper article I read this morning that President Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. This is not a rare position on abortion, at least not among politicians, yet it is one that I have never understood. If the moral objection to abortion is that the fetus is human and is entitled to life because of that, it makes no sense to make an exception if that human life was conceived through incest or rape. That fetus, that child, if you will, is no less human, with no fewer rights, god-given or conceived by man, because of the circumstances of his or her conception. To deny life to a fetus because his father was a rapist or because he is the spawn of an incestuous union is the extreme example of visiting the sins of the father upon the child. In the case of conception by rape, it is morally no better, it is worse, in fact, than ostrasizing the victim of the rape. It has always struck me that people who hold to this position haven't thought through the meaning of it. They are weaseling out of facing the consequences. To hold this position is to stand on shaky ground indeed. If you will allow abortion under these circumstances, it is a short logical path to allowing it in cases where the fetus is defective. I suspect that people who hold this position do so because they haven't really reached a rational or moral decision on the issue, but take this one because it seems to be a moderate one and they believe they have to have made up their minds. But to take this position is to really take a position in favor of abortion.