Hello friends, and welcome. It’s a question that arises with alarming frequency in discussions surrounding abortion: “What about rape?” It’s a visceral, heart-wrenching scenario, and one that demands a thoughtful and compassionate response, grounded in a consistent understanding of the value of human life. Today, we’re going to delve into this difficult issue, drawing upon our shared understanding of the pro-life position and equipping you to respond with both empathy and unwavering conviction.

When the topic of rape surfaces in a conversation about abortion, it’s crucial to remember the very first principle: show empathy. When someone recounts the horrific ordeal of a woman being sexually assaulted, launching immediately into statistics about the low percentage of pregnancies resulting from such crimes is not only insensitive but also counterproductive. Instead, acknowledge the terrible injustice that has occurred. Agree that the woman has suffered profoundly and express your hope that her assailant is brought to justice to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, emphasize the role of pro-life Christians in coming alongside such women to offer support and assistance. This initial step of empathy establishes common ground and demonstrates your shared humanity before addressing the complexities of the abortion issue.

Following this initial display of empathy, it’s vital to discern the intent behind the question. Are you speaking with an inquirer or a crusader?. An inquirer, like Ellie in the correspondence I shared, is someone who genuinely grapples with the moral implications of abortion in these tragic circumstances. They often understand the foundational principles of the pro-life view but struggle with the emotional weight of such hard cases. They are not trying to trick or derail the conversation; they seek clarity and a biblically sound approach.

On the other hand, a crusader often brings up rape not out of genuine concern but as a red herring, aiming to portray pro-lifers as uncaring extremists who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy resulting from a brutal assault. Their goal is to create a wedge issue and undermine the pro-life stance.

The approach to these two types of individuals should differ significantly. When engaging with an inquirer, continue to express empathy and acknowledge the psychological complexity of the situation. Agree that the child might serve as a painful reminder of the assault for the mother. Then, gently pivot to the fundamental question: How should a civil society treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?. This question helps to distinguish between the understandable psychological distress and the objective moral status of the unborn child.

It’s crucial to emphasize that psychological complexity does not equate to objective moral complexity. Feeling sympathy for a young woman facing the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy, even one resulting from rape, does not negate the question of the moral permissibility of intentionally ending the life of the unborn child. Many people conflate these two issues, believing that their emotional response dictates the moral correctness of abortion in such cases.

To further illustrate this point, consider this: If a mother has a two-year-old child who reminds her of a past sexual assault, would anyone argue that she has the right to intentionally kill that child to alleviate her pain?. The resounding answer, from anyone with a functioning moral compass, would be no. The reason for this clear moral boundary is that we recognize the inherent value and right to life of that two-year-old human being.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: What is the unborn? Are the unborn human beings?. If the unborn are not considered human, then the reasons for seeking an abortion, whether due to rape or simply personal preference, become irrelevant from a moral standpoint. However, if the unborn are indeed human beings, then the same moral considerations that protect the life of a toddler or any other human being must apply. We must then ask: Is it ever morally justifiable to intentionally kill an innocent human being simply because they remind us of something painful?. The consistent pro-life answer, grounded in the inherent value of every human life, is no. Therefore, the central issue is not the horrific circumstances of the child’s conception but the fundamental status of the conceived child as a human being deserving of life.

When dealing with a crusader who brings up rape as a means to attack the pro-life position, a different tactic is necessary. Recognize that their argument often functions as a red herring, diverting attention from their underlying belief that abortion should be legal for any reason. In such instances, call their bluff. State that, for the sake of argument, you will grant their premise that abortion is justifiable in cases of rape. Then, ask them directly: “Will you now join me in opposing all other abortions that have nothing to do with rape?”. In my experience, and I say this with certainty, 100% of the time, the answer will be no. They will invariably revert to the argument that women have a fundamental right to abortion for any reason. This exposes their true position and reveals that their concern about rape is often a disingenuous tactic to undermine the pro-life argument. By calling their bluff, you force them to be honest about their actual beliefs rather than hiding behind the emotional weight of the rape scenario.

You can use a similar approach when confronted with the accusation that pro-lifers only care about the unborn and not about other forms of human suffering. Respond by saying, “Okay, if I and other pro-lifers dedicate ourselves to addressing poverty, assisting refugees, ensuring equal pay, and all the other issues you’ve raised, will you then become pro-life and agree to protect the unborn?”. Again, the answer will almost certainly be no, revealing that these objections are often used to avoid the central question of when it is morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

Another effective way to address the rape objection is to ask a simple but profound question: “In the case of a pregnancy that results from rape, how many humans are involved? Two or three?”. Surprisingly, many people will answer “three”. Once they acknowledge the three individuals – the rapist, the mother, and the child – you can then ask how each should be treated. Should we execute the rapist? Most people say no, often due to a general opposition to the death penalty or the belief that rape is not a capital offense. Should we execute the mother? This idea is rightly met with horror, as it would be punishing the innocent victim. Then, ask: “What about the third person involved here, the child? Should we kill the child for the sin of his father?”. This line of questioning often leads individuals to confront the uncomfortable truth that intentionally killing an innocent human being is never justifiable, regardless of the circumstances of their conception. It brings the conversation back to the fundamental status of the unborn child.

Now, let’s turn our attention to another frequently raised “hard case”: the life of the mother. Pro-lifers must acknowledge that there are indeed situations where a pregnancy directly threatens the mother’s life. It’s crucial to emphasize the word “life,” not “health”. The definition of “health” has become so broad as to potentially encompass psychological, emotional, economic, and social well-being, which could be used to justify virtually any abortion. We are specifically addressing those rare instances where the mother’s physical life is genuinely at risk.

Consider the example of an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo implants outside the uterus, often in the fallopian tube. As the embryo grows, it poses a direct and potentially fatal threat to the mother due to the risk of the tube rupturing and causing severe hemorrhage. In such tragic cases, a pro-life physician’s primary ethical obligation is to save the life he can. If no action is taken, both the mother and the child will likely die. The medical intervention in such cases, such as removing the ectopic pregnancy, is not an intentional killing of the unborn child. Rather, it is a necessary medical procedure to save the mother’s life, and while the death of the embryo is a foreseen but unintended consequence of this life-saving action, it is morally distinct from intentionally inducing an abortion.

Let’s return to our pro-life syllogism: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the physician’s intent is not to kill the unborn child but to save the mother’s life. The morally sufficient reason for the intervention is to prevent the death of both individuals. Furthermore, in removing the embryo from a non-viable environment like the fallopian tube, where it would inevitably die, one could argue that the act does not worsen the embryo’s situation. The lack of a current ability to transplant the embryo to a viable environment does not negate the moral permissibility of saving the mother’s life. Therefore, medical procedures to treat ectopic pregnancies are not abortions in the traditional sense.

It is also important to address the false and harmful claims that pro-life laws in various states prevent women from receiving life-saving care for conditions like ectopic pregnancies. This is simply untrue. There is no state law that mandates allowing a woman to die rather than providing necessary medical treatment for ectopic pregnancies. Such misinformation is often propagated to create fear and misrepresent the pro-life position.

In conclusion, while the scenarios of rape and life of the mother present immense human tragedy and complex emotions, they do not negate the fundamental principle that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Our response to these hard cases must begin with empathy and a genuine acknowledgment of the suffering involved. However, we must then guide the conversation to the core issue: the moral status of the unborn child. By understanding the distinction between inquirers and crusaders, calling the bluffs of those who seek to derail the conversation, and patiently explaining the ethical considerations in cases of medical necessity, we can effectively communicate the consistent pro-life ethic that values every human life, without exception. Remember, friends, we are here to defend the pro-life view persuasively and with compassion