Rape, Incest, and Abortion

Ticker

Monika Bauerlein,
CEO

Dear Reader,

The next few months are make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising, and we need more online readers to pitch in than have been of late. In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we take a level-headed look at the brutal economics of journalism, why investigative reporting like you get from us matters, and why we're optimistic we can grow our base of support in a big way—starting with hitting a huge $300,000 goal in just three weeks. Please learn more and donate if you can right now.

The next few months are make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising. We need to raise $300,000 quickly, and we need more online readers to pitch in than have been. Please learn more in "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," where we go into the brutal economics of journalism, and what makes Mother Jones unique and worth supporting if you can right now.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

I’ve never had much interest in arguing over the metaphysics of abortion. Either you believe that a fetus is a human life that deserves legal protection, or you don’t. It’s not the kind of thing amenable to reason or evidence.

But I confess that I’m curious about the whole rape/incest issue. Donald Trump, like many Republicans, has responded to Alabama’s absolute ban on abortion by saying he thinks it goes too far. He supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

But my understanding is that anti-abortion activism among Protestants is, today, based on the Catholic conception of the fetus as a full and complete human life from the moment of conception. If that’s true, how can you make exceptions for rape and incest? This has never made any sense.

I get that it’s politically useful, since even a lot of people who oppose abortion are queasy about forcing a victim of rape or incest to bear a child. But is there a more substantive defense of this position? What is it?