Inexcusable Excuses and Reasons for Abortion.

Q: Is it justifiable to abort a pregnancy that came by rape?

A: The method of conception is irrelevant. It is not a reason for or against abortion. Consider the following sentence and how ridiculous it sounds: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by consensual sex. Consider also this ridiculous sentence: My abortion is justified because the child was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. The reason those sentences are ridiculous is because it is obvious that the method of conception had absolutely no relation to whether or not the abortion was justified. Rape in and of itself is not a reason for abortion.


Q: But no child should be born because of rape. Aren't they better off not being born?

A: Only if you can say that family history and parentage determine the value or overall quality of a person's life. If that is the case then you can also justify killing a child, adult, or geriatric person that was conceived by rape. Your genealogy doesn't determine your worth. Your family history doesn't dictate your happiness.


Q: But isn't it better to have no legacy rather than have a bad legacy?

A: I don't think so, but adoption would erase the legacy that you are afraid of giving the child.


Q: But the continuation of the pregnancy could cause emotional harm to the victim who is already struggling to heal emotionally from the rape. Shouldn't her emotional healing be promoted by aborting the pregnancy?

A: That question has multiple questions nested in it that need answered individually.


The first question: Does continuation of a pregnancy cause emotional harm to a victim of rape?

The first answer: I don't know. I'm not a psychologist. I can't say whether or not a victim of rape will be caused emotional harm by continuing a pregnancy. If not, then the question doesn't make much sense. If continuation of a pregnancy does cause emotional harm to a rape victim, then the question is legitimate. I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it does cause emotional harm.


The second question: Is a rape victim's emotional healing promoted by aborting the pregnancy?

The second answer: I think that abortion has it's own negative effects on emotional health. I don't know that an abortion would promote healing for a rape victim. Ask a psychologist that question and you could probably get a medical answer to it. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to suppose for a moment that it is possible that an abortion could help some women recover faster emotionally from rape.


The third question: Should a rape victim's emotional healing be promoted?

The third answer: Yes, a rape victim's emotional healing should be promoted. Her family, friends, and religious associates should help her in any good way that she asks for (if she asks for it). Maybe therapy from a psychiatrist is in order.


The implied question: Is the rape victim's emotional health more important than the physical health and entire wellbeing of the unborn being?

The answer to the implied question: If so, I haven't heard anyone provide an explanation of why. I don't personally think that my emotional well being is more important than the life and entire wellbeing of someone else. If I were to believe that my personal emotional wellbeing is more important than someone else's life, then I would be completely justified in killing anyone that caused me emotional distress and I seriously doubt that murderers are very happy people.

The answer to the overall question: The victim's emotional health is not as important as the overall health of another human being, therefore; a rape victim should not abort a pregnancy even if it would promote their own emotional healing and recovery.


Q: Should babies conceived by incest or incestuous rape be aborted, after all they will likely be genetically disadvantaged?

A: Refer to the discussion about rape. I'll sum up the relevant conclusions...The means of conception is not justification for abortion; therefore, incestuous conception is irrelevant... Children are not better off dead than born with a questionable family history...The overall wellbeing of the unborn person is more important than the emotional health of the victim. If you believe that genetic heritage or makeup determines whether or not a person should be allowed to live, then I disagree with both you and Adolf Hitler regarding this matter. You shouldn't kill people because of genetic defects, whether they be born or unborn.


Q: Should underage girls get abortions? They are emotionally and physically immature. They aren't ready for pregnancy or parenthood.

A: If your underlying concern is about statutory rape, then refer to the section on rape. Most underage girls are emotionally immature and some are physically immature. If they are too immature physically, they will miscarry naturally. If they are too emotionally immature they will either mature quickly or be emotionally scarred. Their emotional wellbeing is not as important as the entire wellbeing of another person.


Q: There are physical risks associated with pregnancy. Why should a woman take on the risks of pregnancy, especially if she did not want the pregnancy?

A: The risk of a woman dying because of pregnancy or delivery complications is much less than 100%. The risk of an unborn person dying is nearly 100% if the pregnancy is aborted. So, the risk of someone dying is significantly greater if an abortion is performed whether or not the woman wanted the pregnancy.


Q: But she didn't want the risk or the pregnancy. Why should she bear the risk?

A: I don't know that the baby wanted the risk of death either and as far as I know the baby didn't cause the pregnancy. The answer to your question also answers the following question: The baby didn't want the risk or invite the pregnancy, so why should he/she bear the risk? The would-be mother has less risk of death and therefore should be the one who risks it.


Q: Who's life is more important, the woman or the baby?

A: This is an impertinent question, but I see no more value in the mother's life than the baby's. Many elderly people would argue that it is better for an older person to die than a younger person because the younger person still has their whole life before them. I think the same argument applies here.


Q: Having a baby is expensive and rearing a child is expensive. Why should a woman or family take on the additional financial burden if they can't afford it?

A: If it were your life on the line, you would find a way to afford it whether you had the money or not. Hospitals have to deliver your baby whether or not you can afford it. You can probably find a way to afford rearing the child. If not, adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby.


Q: Can abortion be an act of mercy for children who would otherwise be subject to abuse, poverty, or neglect?

A: The solution to abuse, poverty, and neglect does not involve killing those people who are most likely to be exposed to it. You don't treat common physical diseases by mass executions, and you don't treat common social diseases with mass executions of the unborn.


Q: Abortion is often used as a form of family planning. Is that okay?

A: No more so than killing a new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, or geriatric person. Shaving off recently conceived family additions is no different than shaving of family additions that were conceived at any other time.


Q: What about over-population? Should abortion be used for population control?

A: No. First of all, I'm not worried about over-population. I'm more concerned about under-production of goods. The solution to insufficiency is increased production. If killing people were a solution then the most reasonable group to kill off would by the people that are in their child-bearing years because it would both reduce current populations and prevent population growth. Killing unborn babies is not a solution for insufficiency of goods.


Q: I can't be pregnant because I will go crazy. Kids drive me crazy. I'm not ready for kids. I can't stand kids.

A: If you are killing babies to keep from going crazy then I'm afraid you may already be there. Grow up or put the baby up for adoption and grow up.


Q: I am in control of my own body. No one can tell me what to do with it. Why should I let a parasitic baby take control of it, or the government decide what I can or can't do with it?

A: If you were really in control of your body, then you wouldn't have initiated an unwanted pregnancy. That is true whether or not you were raped. Stop fooling yourself. You want the ability to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn child, but you don't think it fair that anyone control someone else's body. If it is unfair to control someone else's body, then it is unfair for you to dictate the fate of the body of your unborn baby. The baby came by invitation and not as a parasite. He/she is a living being and the government has a responsibility to protect him/her from murder, even from you.


Q: So, I messed up. Why should I be punished for it?

A: The only people that aren't completely responsible for their actions are the mentally incompetent. If you are able to formulate the question or come across this blog, then you probably do not fit into that category. Expecting you to be responsible for your actions is not punishment. It is an indirect acknowledgment of your competence.


Some people think that if someone messes up, someone must be punished for justice's sake. Should the baby be punished for your mistake? Did the baby mess up? Giving the death penalty to someone who did nothing wrong would not be just. That would be a step in the wrong direction. If your mistake was sinful in nature, then either you or Jesus will have to pay for it. If it wasn't sinful then it wasn't so much a mistake as it was a deviation from your plans. Now that you are deviated from your plans, you should take responsibility for your actions and make the best of it.


Q: When is it okay to abort a pregnancy?

A: If the baby is dead, 100% guaranteed to be dead by birth, or with such serious deformity that life would not be possible. Let me clarify. Some women can't properly deliver a baby, and if the baby dies in their uterus they need to have a doctor perform the abortion to remove the remains and the placenta. Some babies are 100% guaranteed to be dead before the possibility of birth such as in the case of most ectopic pregnancies. Allowing such pregnancies to go on does not benefit the baby and can place the mother in mortal danger. Some babies have such serious deformities that life is not possible, such as being without a brain or multiple organs. In these cases it is acceptable to have an abortion. It can reduce the risk to the mother without imposing on the baby at all.


Q: When is an unborn person alive?

A: It doesn't matter. After conception, the processes of mortal life are begun and should not be forcefully terminated.


Q: But when should an unborn person be entitled to government protection?

A: At conception.


Q: But wouldn't that mean that the morning-after pill could be outlawed?

A: If it could be reasonably expected to cause a fertilized egg, or a zygote, or an embryo to be prematurely expelled, then yes.


Q: Doesn't Roe v. Wade mean that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional?

A: It means that the supreme court judges who made that ruling said that it is unconstitutional. I don't see anything in the constitution that supports that claim. They were wrong. See Constitution. See Roe v. Wade.