How Should Pro-Life Candidates Respond: Assault Cases

In the United States, the debate surrounding abortion is contentious and ongoing.  The public is pretty evenly divided.  However, most of the print and broadcast media is staffed by people who defend the abortion industry and see it as normal.  As a result, Pro-Life candidates are often asked detailed ethical questions about their stance on abortion.  The most common of which is how Pro-Life legislation interacts with the case of rape.  

Unfortunately, many Pro-Life candidates cannot be bothered to prepare for these inevitable questions and end up making fools of themselves when answering these questions on air.  In 2012, Candidate Todd Akin of Missouri infamously responded by theorizing about female biology.  Candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana decided to mutter something about the will of God.  Both saw their political careers go down in flames.

So what should Pro-Life candidates say?

Here is a response which I think Pro-Life candidates should practice in front of a mirror:

 (It can be recited at a conversational pace in 2 minutes 45 seconds)


====================================================

Debate Moderator:

"Candidate ACTS Apologist, you have been quoted saying you believe abortion is always wrong - even in pregnancies resulting from rape.  How would you explain this controversial view to voters?"

Candidate ACTS Apologist:

"I want to break this into two questions.  First, why would a person be ethically opposed to abortion even in the case of rape?  Second, how do we treat this legislatively? 

Regarding the first question - one has to ask why someone would be pro-life to begin with.  A person is pro-life because of the conviction - based in logic, biology, and common sense - that the beating heart of a child in the womb is the heart of a real human being.  A human being with dignity, rights, and a future.    

Now, in the case of sexual assault we are dealing with a highly traumatic circumstance.  Justice needs to be served upon the perpetrator of the crime.  And we need to do everything we can to help women heal.   

Now we are faced with a question:   Does the horror of these circumstances permit us to set aside what we know about the humanity of the child?  And can we resolve this situation - which was brought about by unjust violence - with another act of violence? 

I don't think completing the cycle of violence is a true answer.  The perpetrator should be sent to jail.  But the pre-born child - who is a victim in her own right - should not get the death penalty.  A just society does not punish children for the crimes of their parents.  We should seek to be a society which solves problems through compassion, not violence.

Now for the practical answer, the legislative answer.  The philosopher Thomas Aquinas wrote that it is possible for a law to be completely just - yet still be harmful to implement because society will only meet it with scorn. 

That's where we find ourselves with pro-life legislation in hard cases.  Most people are generally against abortion, but believe there should be an exception for rape.  I understand that.  I've held that position too. 

So what do Pro-Life legislators like me do?  Well, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good.  Only an ideologue would see legislation which saves 90% of babies and reject it for not saving the 10%.  We need to be pragmatic and willing to work with common ground.  That is why I would sign legislation which contains an exception for these tragic cases.   

But I would do so in hope that in the future - perhaps a future I'll not even see - our civilization will be ready to see the humanity in every beating heart... even when it is most difficult."