Room at the Inn – Faulty logic of Abortion

Room at the Inn – Faulty logic of Abortion

From the Desk of Carol Soelberg

While this season of year typically celebrates the life of a new born in Bethlehem, we cannot ignore the ongoing threat to new life today in the form of abortion.  In this week’s alert, our Life Issues expert, Melissa Anderson, makes a comparison for us that certainly sheds new light on an old argument.

While the incredibly difficult circumstances that surround rape and incest merit our full attention and compassion, it must never be forgotten that abortion is not the answer and there is “room at the inn” for all children.

Rape, Incest and Faulty Logic

Melissa Anderson

Rape. Incest. Life of mother. It’s always surprising to me how often these three cases are used to support a system of elective abortion on demand. You’ve heard it all too often. “Oh yeah, what about rape?”  Yet these cases account for less than one percent of all abortions performed on an annual basis.  Faulty logic is always hard to spot unless you apply the same logic to a different issue, removed from the argument at hand.

Let’s look at Capital Punishment.

No one wants to take human life.  In the criminal justice system, capital punishment is reserved for only the most serious offenses.  Even in the most serious cases there is still heated controversy over whether the state should have the power to execute a human being. And yet the majority of Americans agree that the ability to execute and individual should be available in egregious circumstances.  When a child is raped and murdered, when a violent felony takes an innocent life, when a police officer is killed, these are all circumstances in which the majority of Americans would agree that capital punishment is an option.  It’s certainly not the only option by any means, but an option.

In order to hold execution open for only the most egregious of offences, we have created a system of balances, carefully weighing the severity of the crime, the risk to society and the cold heartlessness of the surrounding circumstances. Then, and only then, do we allow an execution.  We do not allow for the execution of an individual convicted of tax evasion in order to leave the punishment open for a serial killer.  We do not execute for a stolen bottle of orange juice, for jay walking, for speeding.  We employ capital punishment only in severe situations.  Only as option and only when placed in a situation where there are victims on every hand.

Now we’ll apply that to abortion.

Touting the need for an abortion alternative when rape, incest or danger to mother’s life are at issue, abortion proponents have long held that elective abortion on demand is the only option available.  Such is not the case.  Elective abortion on demand neither protects the life of a mother nor the interest of victims of rape or incest. We’re so focused on allowing abortion that we fail to see the problem with arguing for termination of a rape victim’s preborn infant instead of focusing our attention on eradicating rape and incest.

If capital punishment were permitted in the same way abortions are permitted, society would allow for the execution of a bad check writer simply to ensure that the process of execution was left open should the need to execute Jack the Ripper arise.  But such is not the case.  It’s not the case because as a society we understand that the option to take a life should be only exercised in the most pressing, damnable, heinous of situations.

The same argument which calls for abortion to be a legal alternative in the egregious cases of rape, incest and mother’s life also invariably calls for restricted access to only such cases, as is already done in the arena of capital punishment.  Lest we execute for stolen orange juice.

Capital Punishment is not, is never, permitted in all cases simply because it is a recognized option in less than one percent of cases.  The same should hold true for abortion.  Abortion should not be permitted in all cases, on demand, simply because there may be an issue of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life in less than one percent of cases which arise.

And yet we live in a culture, in a society, where convenience is the only commodity and lives are sacrificed to its purchase.

If you read these posts and agree with the arguments presented, help us fight. Help us ensure that a capital punishment affixed before birth is not the fate of our children.  Donate time. Donate a conversation with a neighbor.  Donate an instant in the workplace when instead of quietly walking away you stand for what you believe and calmly explain your position.

Raise the banner on behalf of all children.

Melissa Anderson is a lawyer in Sierra Vista. Arizona. She is the mother of seven crazily adorable children and an author of children’s books. In her spare time, Melissa volunteers extensively with Court Appointed Special Advocates educating the community on issues related to child abuse and neglect.
1Comment
  • Harvey Rosieur
    Posted at 17:38h, 22 December Reply

    I agree with the writer. It is not ‘all or nothing ‘. Justice is not blind and there are circumstances which must be treated as exceptional.However, the taking of an innocent unborn child’s life simply to ‘cover the shame’ or to ‘avoid inconvenience ‘ for the mother, is abhorrent. How can such a person ever really be a fit mother? The answer to that, of course, is that ‘they do not know what they do’. It is the ideology of Family Planning and other pro-abortion groups which is so strongly forced onto society and the lies told to pregnant women, which allow them to become ‘confused’ or deceived, into taking the ‘easy way out’.
    The decision to abort runs so counter to the natural maternal instincts, it is surely the worst conceivable kind of betrayal.I don’t mean to hurt anyone by saying that, because I realise that they do not understand what they are doing at that time., but what of later?

Post A Comment

10 − eight =