So I guess you have to go after the author to stop the abuse of his mother? Get real. Yes, a woman will have to bear a child for nine months that she didn't choose. Guess what: it happens all the time, even with married people. Moral people for whom murder is not an option just deal with it as they always have. Immoral people kill because they can get away with it.
Whether or not she has the abortion won't change the fact that she was raped.
For that matter, a lot of people will die today and most of them won't want to. Morality is not circumstantial. It isn't based on what you had planned or wanted. It isn't dependent on nothing bad ever happening to you.
The eugenics angle to this turns my stomach. The same hypocritical prigs bringing it up will be the first in line to denounce less politically-correct forms of eugenics, though.
>>>
The child even though it's inocent, does not have a right to live in her body for the next 9 months. Sad for the child, but that't the correct answer.<<<The Moral Question of Abortion First, the child is not an intruder. He is precisely where he should be, in the place appropriate to the first phase of his life. That an argument comparing a woman's own child to a burglar or other intruder is even put forward is significant for what it reveals about the mentality of its proponents. That a woman looks upon her own child as a burglar or an intruder is already an evil, even if she then refrains from killing her. Imagine the mother of a born child looking upon her as an intruder in her house, being in the way, restricting her freedom. We would perceive this as a terrible selfishness. It is the same thing when the child is smaller, and in "her house" in another, more intimate sense, her own body.
What is forgotten in this mentality is the great gift and privilege of being a mother, the gift of being allowed to nurture a new human person. Also forgotten is the deep responsibility we have to each other, as members of the human community. This applies not only to helping a neighbor in need, and other obligations we have to born persons; it also involves our obligation to our own children. The woman who now looks upon her child, in her own womb, as an intruder, was once herself such a child in the womb. She would not have wanted to be looked upon as an intruder by her mother. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The woman has the right to be on this earth, in a place appropriate for her. In exactly the same way, the child in her womb has the right to be on this earth, in a place appropriate for her, for her protection, nourishment and development. So, contrary to Thomson, the child does have a right to be in the womb, as Thomson herself had this right when she was in the preborn stage of her existence. Thus the analogy to a burglar, or stumbling intruder, breaks down; and with it any argument that tries to justify expelling the child from the womb as if she were an intruder.10
Second, even if the child were an intruder, that would justify only her removal from the woman, not killing her. As already noted, I cannot throw an intruder out if this means killing him by throwing him off a cliff. And that is of course what abortion is: killing the child. Abortion is wrong because it is so much more than a mere removal. It means cutting the child to pieces, burning her skin, etc. Who would do such a thing to a born person who was an intruder?
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims
Homicide Based on the Killing of an Unborn Child -- In this essay, Alan Wasserstrom surveys the history of laws which prosecute feticide--the destruction of a human fetus--as homicide.