About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Babies should not die for the crimes of their father

By Scott Tibbs, August 10, 2012

Rachel Maddow has been on a tear lately about how Republicans are "punishing rape victims" and "targeting rape victims" with anti-abortion legislation that does not allow for abortion in the case of rape. While anti-abortion organizations like the American Life League and the National Right to Life Committee have consistently opposed abortion in the case of rape, Maddow is correct that Republican politicians have been very reluctant to not allow for that exception... until the 2010 mid term elections.

Here is the issue. If you believe that abortion is the willful, intentional killing of a human being, why would you allow for exceptions in the case of rape? Would you allow a rape survivor to kill her three year old child because she has decided she does not want to be reminded of the rape any longer? If you truly believe that the unborn child is a person with the same rights as a three year old, why not offer the same protection to that unborn child that you provide to the three year old? Why should the child get the death penalty for the crimes of his father?

Of course, you would not make that exception. If the unborn child is a person who deserves protection of the law, then the crimes of his father should not matter.

ALL and NRLC's position is consistent with the belief that the unborn child is a human being and should not be killed. Those who allow exceptions for rape either do not understand the pro-life position (unlikely) or are simply making a craven political calculation because they do not want to be seen as "extreme" and lose votes because of it.

Maddow almost never actually addresses the arguments as to why there should not be an exception for rape. Instead, she whines about how rape victims are being "punished" or "targeted" by these laws. One of two things is going on here. Either Maddow legitimately does not understand the pro-life position or she is simply ignoring it and is therefore not presenting the issue honestly. Maddow is not ignorant or unintelligent, so it is almost certainly the latter.