EDITORIAL

(11/3/2006)

Abortion and Rape Exceptions: Does it Make Sense?

Is a rape exception for abortion consistent with a pro-life position?

By Bob Ellis

Editor

The number one objection to Referred Law 6 (HB 1215), South Dakota's abortion ban, is that it doesn't have an exception for rape. Given that most of us can only imagine the horror of being raped, this is an aspect of the abortion debate worth examining.

First of all, let me clarify that when most people speak of a "rape exception" with regard to abortion restrictions, they mean "something recognized as a justification to have an abortion." Some say that Referred Law 6 has an exception for rape and incest (Section 3) which allows the victim to take emergency contraception for several days after the incident. Others call Section 3 a "provision" rather than an exception. While I definitely agree that Referred Law 6 intentionally makes provision for the rape/incest victim, it does not meet the definition I just listed for an "exception" because the only instance in which Referred Law 6 permits an intentional abortion is to save the life of the mother. One might legitimately define Section 3 as an exception using a different frame of reference, but I don't believe it meets the more common definition of a "rape exception."

Having (hopefully) clarified what an "exception" is or is not, I would like to now examine the merits of a "rape exception" and whether the inclusion of one or lack of inclusion merits a vote for or against Referred Law 6.

Most experts say that the percentage of rapes that result in a pregnancy is about 1%. This low number is due to a variety of factors including the time of the woman's fertility cycle, sterility of the perpetrator, etc.

A study entitled "Psychological Aspects of Abortion" found that 76% of women who became pregnant through rape carried their children to term.

How often are abortions done for rape? According to the 2004 South Dakota Department of Health Vital Statistics Report, 1.8% or 23 of South Dakota's 814 abortions were done because of rape/incest. According to most experts across the United States, about 1% of abortions are done for rape or incest nationally.

So what these statistics tell us is that it's pretty rare that a woman becomes pregnant through rape, and rarer still that the woman chooses to abort her child. Without ignoring the very real trauma of rape victims, this still means that the main objection to Referred Law 6 is based on a rare exception, rather than the vast majority of cases.

If we believe that the unborn child is not a human life, and thus deserving of dignity and the "inalienable right" to life, then an exception for rape holds no inconsistency with a pro-life position. If, however, we believe that the unborn child is indeed a human life, and thus deserving of the constitutional protection of life, then does the child's origin change or affect that constitutional and legal right to life?

Well, any time a child is conceived, regardless of the circumstances of that conception, a sperm from the male and an egg from the female are involved. The sperm and egg come together and in concert they form a new human life. DNA from the male and DNA from the female combine to form completely unique DNA sequence that makes up a new individual human being that is unlike any other in the world.

If the mother elects to abort her baby, she is not just extracting a "clump of cells," a "piece of tissue," or some organ of hers that is malignant or unneeded. The aborted child is not a part of her body, it is only drawing sustenance from her in the womb, much as the child will continue to do--if breast fed--for some time once it's out of her womb. If the unborn child were actually a part of the woman's body, then it would have the same DNA sequence that exists in the rest of her body. If you examined a piece of tissue from a woman's stomach, skin or hair, you could genetically tie that to the rest of her body; if you examined the DNA of her unborn child, you could determine that the child was genetically related to her, but it would have a unique set of DNA--unlike DNA from her stomach or hair. Let me say it again for clarity: the aborted child has a unique DNA sequence, unlike the DNA sequence found in the mother's hair, skin, lungs, or hair. To abort the unborn child, she is ending the life of a unique human being.

If the mother elects to abort her baby, yes, she is killing the child of the rapist. But she is also killing her own child. You see, the child in her womb has half her DNA, is implanted in her uterus, and if born, would likely resemble her. Getting rid of the child of the rapist might seem like an act of revenge, or an act of cleansing, to the woman suffering the terrible trauma of rape. But as women like Geri Riggs of Sturgis tell us, often times too late the woman realizes she has not only killed the child of the rapist, but has killed her own child...her own son or her own daughter. This leaves the woman with a lifetime of regret that she can never completely move on from...contrary to the picture painted by pro-abortion advocates who want people to believe that an abortion after a rape is the "quick fix" to help her start healing. Instead of the start of healing, some women have called it a second, "medical rape." As Geri has said, "Abortion is NOT the answer."

If we can accept that the unborn child is in fact a human life, with unique DNA from the moment of conception and a beating heart by about 22 days, and acknowledging that the child is genetically half of the woman--and just as much her child as if the child had been conceived in wedded bliss--and not simply one of her body parts she can discard at will, then does it make sense to punish the unborn child for crime committed by its father?

The rapist deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and aborting the child or otherwise failing to report the rape in a timely matter diminishes the odds of getting justice for the woman. Rather than discouraging the woman from reporting the rape as soon as possible, as the South Dakota Healthy Families gang and their allies have done, should we not do everything possible to encourage her to seek immediate medical attention and report this crime to the police? Rather than encourage her to kill her own child, should we not encourage her to protect her unborn son or daughter--and fellow victim--from further violence? If keeping the child would be too much for her after it's born, should we not encourage her to place the child for adoption with Bethany Christian Services or one of the many other adoption options available?

Megan Barnett of Aberdeen was raped a couple of years ago, yet chose life for her child.

“Yeah, it’s somebody else’s baby,” she responded when I interviewed her a few months ago. “But it’s my baby, too.”

Does her daughter Maria ever make her think of her rapist? “I’ve never had that problem at all. I just think of her as my baby. I don’t think of her as having anything to do with him.”

Megan and many other women say giving life to their child brings healing to them and brings something good from a bad event.

If you look at the ultrasound of a child conceived in rape and the ultrasound of a child conceived in a consensual sex act, you will see no difference whatsoever.

If you examine the DNA of a child conceived in rape and the DNA of a child conceived in a consensual sex act, you will find no genetic markers that tell you whether their conception was forced or consensual.

If you look at a 5-year-old child conceived of rape and a 5-year-old child conceived in a consensual sex act, you will be unable to identify the one conceived in rape.

A child conceived through rape has unique DNA from conception, a beating heart at 22 days, and is genetically part of the mother.

So I ask you: if an unborn child is a human life, does an abortion exception for rape make sense? Does the child conceived during a rape deserve life less than any other child?