I would like to discuss an aspect of the abortion debate I find to be kind of strange.
First, I think it's appropriate to state my position on abortion, just for the record. I'm not particularly fond of the practice, but at the same time, I'm not up in arms about overturning Roe v. Wade. I tend to prefer strategies meant to cut off a problem at its source. Specifically, in this case, methods which would help prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Anyway, I find it kind of curious that even the majority of Pro-Lifers are accepting of abortion under certain circumstances. Now, I understand why most people would be ok with it when the life of the mother is at risk, but the logic behind supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest seems a little faulty.
Pro-Lifers are willing to allow abortions of rape babies to slip under the table. After all, it seems unfair to the victim to force her to carry around the child of her rapist. However, I am curious as to how the crime of the father invalidates the life of the baby? This is obviously a form of inherited guilt, in which a child becomes responsible for something it is completely innocent of. I'd really like to know how "circumstantial" Pro-Lifers reconcile with this fact?
The tolerance for aborting incest babies is something I don't understand either. Now, I know there is a near universal taboo against incest, and I assume this repulsion probably influences the "circumstancial" Pro-Lifer's position (perhaps on a more subconscious level than something they're cognatively aware of). I know incest babies are more likely to have birth defects. Nevertheless, why would these issues invalidate the child's right to life?
Are these just examples of people compartmentalizing their beliefs, or is there something I'm simply not aware of?
