Don’t get me wrong – which of course you will – but I am not a pro-Lifer. But if I were a pro-Lifer – which, remember, I’m not – I’d think I’d still be a stickler for logical consistency. So what I want to know is, Why do some, indeed most, pro-Lifers make an exception for rape and incest? If the foetus has a right to life, a right that, save for the life of the mother, trumps the woman’s right to control her own body, why does the product of rape lose that right? Because it would inordinately traumatise the woman to carry it to term? Inordinately in the sense that carrying any unwanted foetus to term is not?

And what’s with this exception for incest? If the incest was rape then it’s already covered. But if the incest was consensual then is the problem just the higher likelihood of Downs? But Downs is detectable in utero. As are most other common genetic defects. But if the pro-Lifer won’t countenance abortion for other defects, why Downs? And why only for Downs brought about by incest? And why for incest in the much more common case when no genetic defect is detected? So what’s left is, as we saw with rape, that it would be inordinately traumatising for the women to carry the product of incest to term. Inordinately in the sense carrying any unwanted foetus to term is not?

So if I were pro-Life – which, remember, I’m not – I’d side with those pro-Lifers who make no exceptions, save for the life of the mother. So as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s a good thing I’m not just not pro-Life. I’d actually prefer a world consisting of nothing but inanimate objects.

Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask, Social and Political Philosophy

Tags: abortion, incest, pro-Life, rape