Posted on 04/28/2014 5:27:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: The following column is based on a real life conversation, which occurred last May. It originally appeared on www.ClashDaily.com in July.
Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you?
Me: Sure. What is your name? (Gives name).
Teen: I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion just a few minutes ago. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception. Can you honestly tell me that you could look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that she could not have an abortion and that she must take the rapist’s baby to term?
Me: (pulls out phone). Yes. Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her.
Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims.
Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you?
Teen: Sure.
Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape? Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura.
Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position.
Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development.
Teen: I see what you are doing. This is the SLED thing, isn’t it?
Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency. These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?
Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point.
Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted.
Teen: Ok.
Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her?
Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy.
Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion?
Teen: No, of course not.
Me: Ok, then who benefits?
Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously.
Me: But is it really obvious?
Teen: I think it is.
Me: You know if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss-up as to whether she will have the abortion. But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower.
Teen: How much lower?
Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being. So she usually decides to suffer evil rather than inflict it.
Teen: I’ll have to think about that one.
Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question.
Teen: Okay.
Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress. But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning?
Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough.
Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you point me to some evidence?
Teen: No, I was just speculating.
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.
Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue.
Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem.
Teen: What do you mean?
Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you?
Teen: Yes, I do.
Me: Are you sleeping with her?
Teen: What? I’m not answering that question.
Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her.
Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion?
Me: Well, everything.
Teen: Please explain.
Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex. Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble. The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking.
Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.
Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances. That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation. You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear. You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now.
Teen: Thanks.
Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues. Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself.
Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend?
Me: Well, that should be easy. Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent. Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too. Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child. In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions.
THANK YOU for this post.
The problem with the rape question is that they give you drugs in the ER to prevent pregnancy after a rape. I used to work in the ER.
well said, i will relate this conversation to my youth group.
excellently stated.
t
There’s another way of handling this argument with a someone you know is a vehement abortion supporter using the “rape” situation as a cover argument.
Rhetorically “allow” for it, and every other case they bring up, leaving them arguing for killing a newborn baby for convenience, then ask them if that’s where they want to draw the line for their own personal morality to be judged.
Years ago that supreme moralist Mike Wallace (SO glad he finally croaked!) on Sixty Minutes featured a rape victim who was white, the rapist who was black, and her son the product of rape who looked like Barack Obama.
She had given the baby up for adoption and he was raised in a black home because political correctness forbade his being raised by whites, and she saw him for the first time ever as an 18 year old street punk when he showed up at her door, said “Hi Mom” followed by “I need some money”.
Obviously the entire segment was designed to show the unintended consequences of carrying a rape baby to term. Pretty disgusting but then Mike Wallace was a disgusting human being, JMHO.
Mike Wallace was a creature. Ever see the movie “The Insider?” He comes across as a bone fide lowlife, but I am sure the truth is much worse.
Truly outstanding.
A keeper.
Thank you for posting.
The question has also been posed “We don’t kill the one who commits the rape; why would we kill the person who is the product of a rape?”
The logic in this discussion would send liberals into fits of rage and torrents of epithets designed to divert and stop discussion.
Nowhere than this issue is it truer said that “To anger a conservative, lie to him; to anger a liberal, tell him (or her) the truth.”
One of the best pro-life articles I’ve read. Mike Adams hits a home run.
Suprise ending that the student was a guy. I believe that more men support a right to abortion than women, so how can it be a ‘women’s’ issue?
I’ve always wondered why that point isn’t made more often. When a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage three things can happen none of them good. One, she has an abortion, a procedure that no one walks away from unscathed. Two, she gives the baby up for adoption and spends her life wondering what happened to her child. Three, she becomes an unwed mother with all the problems that entails.
When an unwed woman gets pregnant the man can literally just walk away leaving her with the above options. For way too many men door number one is the winner if he can talk or coerce her into it.
On the other hand the doctor’s last comment about telling her he will not allow her to abort the baby sounds good, but honestly is unrealistic. The man ultimately has no say in that decision. If the woman decides that is the path she chooses the man is powerless to stop her. I am speaking from experience.
Guilt. The avoidance of it to be exact.
Good advice in general.
The most ardent proponents of abortion and the "anything goes" morality of much of today's culture, are the men who pursue sex without consequence, relationships, or commitment.
Just as the most vocal proponents of "civil rights" and "social justice" are often the very politicians who exploit the votes and meager resources of those less fortunate than themselves to gain and maintain power, prestige, and wealth.
There are three acid tests to separate the all too rare leaders from the legions of con artists:
1. A true leader gives far more than he gets.
2. In the words f the philosopher Martin Buber, a true leader has an "I - Thou" relationship with others rather than an "I -it" relationship, treating others as objects.
3. A true leader commits his own time , talent, life, fortune, and sacred honor, instead of consuming other people's money, time, liberty, and reputations for his own personal gain.
WOW! Excellent. Many thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.