This is a question that has been brought up recently in the presidential campaign as Sarah Palin has said that it is not okay for the, woman to have an abortion. I read the comic “Get Your War On” by David Rees in Rolling Stones magazine yesterday that said this:
“I wonder why McCain didn’t just pick Rachael Ray as his running mate? She’s even feistier?”
“Does Rachael Ray oppose abortion even in cases of rape, like Palin does? Remember, Palin’s on the ticket to please fundamentalist Christians. (And rapists.)”
“I wonder if Palin is in favor of pressuring rape victims to marry their rapists? It must break her heart to see unwed mothers.”
Other than the mere emotional arguments in this comic (hey, it’s a comic, but humor often betrays underlying presuppositions), it is telling that those who think such a view as Palin’s is archaic have not thought about the implications of their view of justice. Doug Wilson has written a good post on this issue. Here’s the gist of such a view of justice:
So here is the answer to the “rape and incest” objection. When a woman conceives as the result of a rape, there are three parties involved. There is the rapist, there is the woman, and there is the child. Two of these parties are innocent, and one of them is guilty. What kind of sense does it make to execute one of the innocent parties for the crime of his father?
[Read whole article]
This is not an easy issue to talk about. For we are not just speaking about some mere impregnation, we are talking about a violation of what it means to be human and made in the image of God. May we pray earnestly for all three people involved in this travesty. And may we remember that in no law court would it be permissible to punish an innocent person for the guilt of another. And may we remember that he who knew no sin became sin for us so that we might be made the righteousness of God.