A Voice for the Unborn Conceived in Rape

By Patrick T. Brennan

On October 23, guest speaker Juda Myers pre­sented a stirring presentation on the issue of abortion in cases of rape and incest at a meet­ing of Harvard Right to Life. An adopted child, Mrs. Myers learned she had been conceived in rape just a couple years ago when she obtained a court order to find out the identity of her biological mother.

To meet one’s mother for the first time as an adult is a powerful experience for anyone, but finding out she had been conceived in an act of such horrific violence was nearly traumatizing for Mrs. Myers. Though her mother had wanted to raise her, her mother’s parents had at first pushed her to have an abortion before com­promising by allowing her to put the child up for adoption.

Mrs. Myers had always opposed abor­tion, though she maintained some sympathy for mothers who chose to abort their children and was ambivalent about whether to support abortion rights for victims of rape and incest. However, as she aptly pointed out, “once it was about me, it totally changed.”

Pro-life advocates frequently claim to be the voice of the innocent unborn who cannot speak for themselves, but this advocacy may be most critical in cases of rape and incest: because abortion is considered the obvious choice in these circumstances, there are comparatively few people like Mrs. Myers who can speak with authority on the issue, and many of them, like Mrs. Myers until recently, are unaware of the circumstances of their conception.

Mrs. Myers touched on the central issue of the abortion debate, the undeniable reality that at the moment of conception, a human life has been created. She quoted French geneticist Jerome Lejeune, who noted that he saw “no difference between the early person you were at conception and the late person you are now.”

No pro-choice advocates can offer a convincing response to the position of life from conception. It is horrific that an abortionist can end one human life 23 weeks after conception one morning at work, and assist in the delivery of a 23-week-old baby in the afternoon.

As Mrs. Myers pointed out, in the mind of a pro-choice advocate, “convenience dictates the acknowl­edgment of a baby in the womb.” If a mother feels ready to have a child, she will readily admit that the baby kicking inside her is a human life. But if thoughts of her career or personal convenience step in the way, she considers the fetus “part of her body.” The sole consistent justification for abortion on demand is a perverse sense of materfamilias, that a woman exercises ultimate control over her body, even when the life of another human, incapable of expressing his desires, depends on it. The liberal and feminist movements have condemned themselves to absurdity with the claim that a woman’s freedom and choice supersedes the sanctity of innocent human life.

The only morally consistent position in the debate over abortion is that a fetus at any stage in its develop­ment is a human life. That said, the ethical rules about whether an abortion can be carried out to save the life of a mother remain more complicated. Juggling the equal importance of two lives and the odds of survival for each is a question of staggering moral and scientific consequence.

When laws and medical regulations regarding exceptions for the life of the mother are formed, they, like other regulations regarding abortion, must be predicated primarily upon an acknowledgement that a fetus is a human life. Therefore, without sounding too Sandelian, it would make sense that if a fetus has only a ten percent chance of surviving birth, while the mother’s life could be saved by an abortion, then perhaps an abortion should be allowed.

But as with the issues of rape and incest, pro-life advocates should not allow such pre­varications to cloud their intent to ensure that the unborn are promised the same right to life as their mothers. The life of the mother is of course irrelevant in cases of rape and incest per se. Con­cern for the mother’s right to life and the possible exceptions entailed should not be allowed to lend credence to the chimerical “right to choice” cited by liberals.

In order to make the passage of compre­hensive abortion bans more palatable, it would be logical to make exceptions for women who become pregnant through no fault of their own, i.e., by rape or incest.

But in light of the value of lives conceived in this way, ensuring that rape and incest victims receive proper counseling and support in putting their children up for adoption if necessary is a far better alternative to proffering abortion as es­sentially the only choice. The only legal choices should be those that avoid the death of an inno­cent child, but it is the role of the government, churches, and private organizations to ensure that women are fully prepared to make them. Mrs. Myers owes her life to the brave decision of her mother to carry her to term and put her up for adoption through a Catholic Charities hospital.

The discussion of the absolute necessity of preserving human life nicely reinforces Mrs. Myers’s personal story and position that abortion is morally abhorrent in all circumstances. Many pro-life politicians have found it expedient to concede the right to abortion in cases of rape and incest, but this is logically and morally inconsistent: no fetus is any less human for having been conceived in an act of violence. The story of Mrs. Myers and her mother, who pleads, “please, in God’s name, keep them, don’t abort,” pro­vides powerful testament to that truth.