N.T. Wright Says Abortion Ok in Cases of Rape and Incest? ‘The best thing to do is as soon as possible to terminate this pregnancy.

New Testament scholar NT Wright has shared further thoughts on the murder of children in the womb, offering that while he’s no scientist and it’s tough for him to talk about the issue on account of him being a man and not a woman, that he believes there are exceptions for rape and incest, as well as the mental health of the mother who can’t bear having a child with a fetal deformity.

Wright previously revealed that he thinks a substantial element of the pro-life movement is just “people nervous about sex” who get manipulated by “powerful men telling women what they could and couldn’t do” and that the people trying to stop abortion are unknowingly serving the god of war.

.. There are many, many cases where it is about the mother’s health versus the health of the child or whatever. And particularly that, as you cited, in cases of rape or in cases of incest, there may be a very, very strong argument for saying this ought never to have happened. And with sorrow, because we do not want to do this in principle, but with sorrow and a bit of shame, the best thing to do is as soon as possible to terminate this pregnancy.

Now, I’ve seen the debates, I’ve read books about the debates as to at what point it’s okay or at what point it becomes not okay. And I know that in my own country, people have pushed for the legislation to be allowed to say right up to the moment before the woman is ready to give birth, that if they decide for whatever reason on an abortion, then that’s okay. And that I find not only wrong but repulsive.

He continues that the pagans used to leave recently born babies out on the rocks to die, which “in principle this is not something which we should welcome, it is not something which we should collude with.” But when it comes to aborting babies still in the womb:

At the same time, there may be certain exceptions of which severe deformity might be one, of which certainly incest and rape would be others, and in those cases I would say ‘the sooner the better’ because at a certain point -and I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line- then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.

So the whole debate about the woman’s rights, it’s very difficult, it’s very hard for a man to talk about this. And indeed one of the problems has been, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, when women, particularly say a girl who’s been raped or who’s had incest committed on her, then discovering that unmarried men from the Catholic hierarchy are telling her what she can and can’t do.

As people now say, the optics of that are pretty bad. That’s part of the same system of male bullying, which we have to avoid like the plague.

However, having said that, I do think that that sense of respect for God’s creation in all its rich variety is the primary starting point, even if we then have to say with sorrow and a certain sense of this is the least worst option in this situation that there may be some cases of exceptions.

That’s about as far as I can get at the moment. And as I say, I’m very much aware of just how sensitive this topic is politically, sociologically, as well as ethically.

Who is this guy? A very famous and influential Anglican bishop and biblical scholar. Just because he's generally considered brilliant in his given vocation, doesn't mean he's smart or wise on everything else.

The main point people who have opinions like this can't see is that it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At that point everything that is necessary for it to develop into a human being is present, including its own unique DNA. Allowed to complete its natural development, it will not turn into a kidney or lung or an undifferentiated mass of cells, but a human being.

The real point is whether the destruction of human life from IVF is any different than the murder of a born person. Since science now unequivocally tells us that at conception it is a human being, that should be the starting point for any consideration of this question, not the aftermath.

As I said in another thread on this topic, when we speak of human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children, teenagers, adults, middle-aged, and old age, these are all simply descriptions of the various stages of human development. Some occur on one side of the birth canal, others on the other side. Some may be imperfect or unwanted by their parents or by society. Some may have been conceived under less that ideal circumstances. But all are living human beings. All have an equal human dignity. None should unjustly be deprived of life.

So where do we draw the line at the taking of an innocent human life? What difference does the circumstances of their conception, the location or stage of human development make? If we lower ourselves to countenance taking the life one category of people for our own convenience and satisfaction, who is next?

Before it can become a legal issue, the moral issue has to be addressed. Before there were written laws against pre-meditated murder, there was a general consensus that it was wrong and this was the basis of the law against murder.

Even though it seems clear to me and others that based on the scientific evidence it is rational to conclude that human life begins at conception, it is an unfortunate fact there is doubt or disbelief about this in a large segment of the population. Is it a human life, or isn't it? If it isn't, you can do whatever you want with it. If it is, it should be treated like all other human life. If one simply does not know, it should be given the benefit of the doubt of being human until proved otherwise. It would be akin to seeing a human shaped bag in the middle of the road. If there's a chance there's a human being in there, do you stop or go around it, or just run over it because you don't know? If you are going to err, it's always wise to err on the side of life.

NT Wright is a British theologian who has had a tremendous amount of influence in Protestant seminaries over the last 25 years.

He is part of the “New Perspective on Paul” school of thinking—and though I am not a scholar, I understand that the “New Perspective” basically believes Paul did not really believe in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. Instead, salvation according to Paul came by being part of a covenant community and following the covenant.

Needless to say, it has caused a lot of debate. I happen to think NT Wright is wrong. A relationship with Christ is personal and then we are called to join the corporate body of Christ known as the Church.

This was the proverbial nose of the camel in the tent scenario. The Roe vs. Wade case started based on a false claim of rape. But, if we're talking about an innocent human life, it shouldn't matter HOW that life began, it is still precious and made in the image of God. And it is GOD who opens and closes the womb. While pregnancy from rape or incest is rare, it is the same child of worth regardless of how he/she was conceived. Abortion has resulted in LESS respect for human life and we are all paying the price.

There are VERY few cases when a mother's life is at stake and the pregnancy must be ended because both will die and the developing baby killed in the process. The goal, whenever possible, should be to save the life of both patients (the mother AND her child). Millions wait on adoption lists who will take the "unwanted" child and raise it in a loving home. No religious leader should condone abortion for ANY reason!

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.