![\"from](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2016\/01\/11368402995_7c09aabcbb_h.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nHere\u2019s what Chris Christie had to say at the latest GOP debate, as quoted by Time<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that if a woman has been raped, that is a birth and a pregnancy that she should be able to terminate. If she is the victim of incest, this is not a woman\u2019s choice. This is a woman being violated. And the fact is that we have always has believed, as has Ronald Reagan, that we have self-defense for women who have been raped and impregnated because of it, or the subject of incest and been impregnated for it,\u201d he said. \u201cThat woman should not have to deliver that child if they believe that violation is now an act of self-defense by terminating that pregnancy.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s what bothers me about this:<\/p>\n Should abortions be permitted in the case that a woman\u2019s life is endangered? \u00a0Yes. \u00a0Well, except that I\u2019m not an expert on the topic, and, from what I understand, the issue is\u00a0whether, even in these (rare) circumstances, an abortion \u2014 that is, the intentional killing of the child \u2014 is necessary, as opposed to other lifesaving actions which may, as a consequence, result in the child\u2019s death, through the principle of double-effect. \u00a0And the other issue is what to do when a woman depends on a medication (or chemotherapy drugs, for instance) which are feared to cause birth defects if administered while pregnant. \u00a0So it\u2019s actually not so simple.<\/p>\n Should abortions be permitted when a woman\u2019s health is endangered? \u00a0This is where the disputes begin. \u00a0Certainly, any pro-life supporter worth her salt knows that the Supreme Court has defined \u201chealth\u201d to mean not just physical health but any circumstance in which her \u201cemotional health\u201d would be impacted, or the \u201chealth\u201d of the family potentially burdened by an extra child. \u00a0Various laws try to define health more narrowly \u2014 a permanent, severe impact to physical health, for instance \u2014 but I\u2019m not going to play expert here on what conditions might qualify here.<\/p>\n And then we get to the third in the triad of abortion exceptions: \u00a0rape and incest. \u00a0Intuitively, it makes sense to say that, in ordinary circumstances, a woman who becomes pregnant, intentionally engaged in an act that, as a potential consequence, can result in pregnancy, but a woman who is raped didn\u2019t make this choice.<\/p>\n But what troubles me is that this line of reasoning veers awfully close to the abortion rights accusation that pro-lifers \u201cjust want to punish women for having sex.\u201d \u00a0Sure, it\u2019s not exactly the same claim, but it\u2019s too close for comfort: \u00a0\u201ca woman who was raped is innocent [of having sex] so it\u2019s morally acceptable for her to get an abortion\u201d says, in its implication, \u201ca woman who got pregnant due to consensual sex is guilty.\u201d \u00a0Yes, it\u2019s not meant to say this, but, in hearing Christie\u2019s statement, it jumped out at me for the first time.<\/p>\n Maybe we don\u2019t really mean this. \u00a0Christie\u2019s statement is certainly jumbled. \u00a0Maybe we really just are thinking of the fact that for young girls who become pregnant due to the paring of early puberty and abuse, pregnancy poses particular health risks. \u00a0And for women who are raped, the assumption (though this is disputed) is that nine months of pregnancy will be emotionally traumatic, so it\u2019s essentially a form of \u201chealth exception.\u201d<\/p>\n (On the other hand, some women who were pressured into abortion following a rape-resultant pregnancy describe this as a \u201csecond rape.\u201d \u00a0Whether there have been any long-term studies of raped women who got abortions or didn\u2019t, I don\u2019t know.)<\/p>\n But at the same time, if we\u2019re honest, there are also still some pretty old-fashioned attitudes at work here. \u00a0\u201cA woman shouldn\u2019t have to bear her rapist\u2019s baby,\u201d for instance \u2014 as if the baby is something out of a Stephen King novel, the demonic spawn of an evil act. \u00a0Or that the rape is so shameful that, just as Middle Eastern families feel they need to honor-kill their raped daughters, the unborn child must likewise be killed to preserve the woman\u2019s honor, especially in situations in which the woman is unmarried\/not in a relationship, so that a pregnancy would raise questions about the father and the woman\u2019s behavior.<\/p>\n The ABC show \u201cJane the Virgin\u201d (which, admittedly, I\u2019ve never watched) raises an interesting hypothetical: \u00a0so far as I understand the premise of the show, Jane, a virgin, who has resolved to wait until her upcoming wedding, is, through a chain of events requiring more than\u00a0the usual suspension-of-disbelief , accidentally impregnated during the course of what was supposed to be a routine GYN appointment. \u00a0She wasn\u2019t raped. \u00a0It was essentially the equivalent of the mythical impregnation due to sperm at the swimming pool. Taking the pro-life point of view as a given, does she have a \u201cmoral right\u201d to get an abortion?<\/p>\n Having said all this, though, the question remains: \u00a0what should Christie, or the other candidates, have said?<\/p>\n I believe that human life begins at conception, and that no one has the right to intentionally take another\u2019s life, except for narrow circumstances of self-defense or in the context of military defense. \u00a0At the same time, we are a democracy, and I fully understand that the consensus of the American people is neither to ban all abortions, nor to allow for abortion at any time up to childbirth, as the Supreme Court permitted and my opponent supports, but somewhere in-between. \u00a0Certainly the American people reject the government funding of abortion that my opponent supports. \u00a0As president, I will work to implement the reasonable restrictions on abortion that the majority of Americans support. \u00a0I will also ensure the future Supreme Court appointees are not the pro-abortion ideologues my opponent will appoint!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Eh, it\u2019s too wordy, isn\u2019t it? \u00a0And there\u2019s no good sound byte or pithy twitter-able 144-character quote here.<\/p>\n But you see what I mean? \u00a0Pro-lifers take the \u201crape and incest\u201d exception be as plain as day, and abortion rights supporters attempt to cudgel pro-lifers who don\u2019t subscribe to this exception as the worst of the worst. \u00a0But it\u2019s not that simple.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s talk. \u00a0(And by the way, comments that simply take the abortion rights viewpoint that all abortions are always morally right really don\u2019t further the discussion.)<\/p>\n Image from\u00a0from https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/92334668@N07\/11368402995 by flickr user tec_estromberg<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 just to be unconventional.<\/p>\n Stay in touch! Like Jane the Actuary on Facebook:<\/em><\/p>\n