If you are so curious why don’t you ask incest survivors why theirs is a special case. Then report back what you’ve found after honest truth seeking instead of musing smugly about it.

Zeb, are you suggesting he ask a person conceived through incest, “Would you rather be dead than alive?”

Matthew; liked the article.  It brought up some interesting points. In your fourth-to-the-last paragraph, however, please correct second sentence to read “Families”, not “Family’s”.  Sorry- pet peeve. :)

I think that Zeb is referring to a woman who was involved in an incestuous relationship against her will.  (Zeb, please correct me if I am wrong.)  But if that is the case, then as Matthew pointed out, that would be covered under the “rape” exception anyway, without needing a separate “incest” exception.

Matthew, this is an interesting point about the incest exception.  And I too was very disappointed by Paul Ryan’s embrace of exceptions.

I didn’t feel that Paul Ryan “embraced” the exceptions but was resigned to it.  Maybe those were my own emotions peeking through.  Great article that does bring up a very good point.

Matthew and Paul,

  I too wasn’t thrilled with Ryan’s use of the R&I exception language. However, I understand he is not at the top of the ticket and he was talking about the Romney administration’s position. Ryan has a history of not supporting any exception. At the debate he was clearly stating his prospective boss’ position. It would have been better if he explained how he believes all life is sacred regardless of what crimes the child’s father may have committed, but I understand the bottom of the ticket doesn’t dictate to the top and he knows any window of difference between him and Romney would be exploited by the media. Funny how media doesn’t play gotcha with difference between Biden and Obama on this issue isn’t it? Almost as if the media realizes with a wink and a nod that Biden is just giving lip service to the “personally opposed, but will vote for evil” crowd.

TX Flamethrower - thanks for the catch! Original version was using it as singular possessive, but missed that when I edited it later. Thanks!

Incest/rape are red herrings.
No circumstance of conception, no matter how disturbing,makes the child conceived less human or less deserving of rights.Incest is used by pro-abortionists as an issue to stir up public emotion & direct attention away from the child’s humanity.

I see where Zeb is coming from.  There’s a fair amount of sexual abuse in my husband’s extended family, which initially shocked me but which I have sadly come to believe is a fairly common occurrence in large families where older siblings are left to watch the younger siblings on a frequent basis.  The dynamic between two people may easily categorize a relationship as abusive and incestuous yet will not fit the definition of rape if both parties are above whatever the age of consent is. 
.
I do think this column is ill considered and probably painful to many sexual abuse/incest survivors.

Matthew, perhaps it would have been helpful to begin with definitions of rape and incest, and your assumption (from what I gathered) that consentual incest is by definition not rape?  Plus a discussion on legal distinction, age categories, etc.
I think (could be wrong) that posters like Zeb might by assuming that incest includes, for example, a father molesting and impregnating his own daughter; thus Zeb’s comment.

StephC - if a father molests and impregnates his own daughter, that’s clearly rape.

Eileen - I’m just asking the question why a baby that is a product of incest should be killed? If you can help me understand it, I’d appreciate it.

Matthew-  many of us who attended CCD classes in the 70’s and 80’s were taught that the Church DID allow or excuse abortions for the three situations listed above.  So to find out differently now is very confusing for us.  Has this always been the Church’s teachings on these points and we were just instructed improperly?  Or have these points been re-defined as the pro-life movement has gained ground over the last few years?

Dude, really? Incest is almost always certainly rape. Only sick people have sex with their siblings or their parents. Are you sure you are a Christian?

I’m not seeing what would be “smug” about this article.The subject matter is seldom discussed with a resulting child in mind.The child is conveniently forgotten & is who suffers under the “exception” clause. The child is the focus of the article-I believe, not the parents.

“And let’s also be clear, if you support abortion under any exception at all, you’re not really pro-life. You’re just a pickier pro-abortionist.”

I agree with this claim. The intentional taking of innocent life is always wrong, but I do believe that sometimes it is better to take a more moderate stance, at least for the time being, in order to help convince others of your views. Though I tell people that I support banning all abortions except in those circumstances, I truly hold that all abortions, including the exceptions, should be banned. However, if we state that we want to ban all abortions right off the bat, dialogue that will bring us closer to ending abortion will be more difficult since it makes us seem as extremists. If Romney/Ryan were to state that they want to get rid of all abortions, they would never be elected, but by including these exceptions that account for only around 1% of abortions, they have a chance of being elected and changing the direction of abortion policy in this country, possibly even choosing supreme court nominees who would reverse roe v wade in the future.

Eileen, are you saying that large families perpetuate incest and sexual molestation?  I would like to see some evidence to back that up.
I don’t understand how this article is ill considered.  Rape, incest and sexual abuse are horrible sins against human dignity, but abortion does not take away from that pain. It only adds to it.

Matt, I wonder if the two (rape and incest) weren’t originally separated because of older social views. Not so long ago rape was very hard to prove, especially date rape. You make some great observations. The power of language is strong and we get used to those oft repeated sound bites without giving them enough thought.

Another way to think about it is this way.  Supposin’ you open your front door and find on the doorstep an infant baby in basket.  It really doesn’t matter how that baby got there.  Perhaps someone forgot the baby on accident.  Perhaps someone left it there intentionally.  Perhaps some dingos inadvertently left it behind.  Perhaps some little green men left it.  How it got there doesn’t matter.  We have a moral obligation in that instance.  The fact that the conception occured through rape or incest doesn’t make the being in utero any less human (if it did, it would mean the resultant baby would be less than human).

AMH, The Church has always been consistent on abortion in it’s history.  What you have a case is incorrect teaching.  Unfortunately, your CCD teachers weren’t graced with the gift of infallibility, so they are going to make mistakes in their lives.  Their teaching on abortion is one of them.  I’ve heard of some “religious instructors” saying stuff like closing your prayer with the sign of the cross “closes your prayer and send it to God”, so if you don’t make a sign of the cross, you’re prayer won’t get delivered.  Of course, we dont believe this now, do we…..one must also say “AMEN!”, which is in essence, the postage stamp on our prayer (just kidding!)

@Kathleen - look up at the response to me to see Matthew’s smugness. 
.
@Matthew - perhaps I should’ve clarified.    An unborn child is no less human if he comes from an instance of rape or incest or if his mother’s life is endangered.  But incest is an emotional topic just like rape, only sometimes it isn’t rape.    I am familiar with the details of incest in at least 5 cases within inlaws’ families - only one of those cases would have met the legal definition of rape.   

I think Eileen’s take is valuable. Personally I am not coming from any particular position - no one I know has revealed to me that they survived incest. And in the interests of the child and the sanctity of life I believe whole-heartedly that abortion should never be chosen. But I do think it is very uncharitable and dishonest to claim to be curious about something so deeply personal and traumatic, but not take the natural step of asking the people you are curious about. You’re silencing them with mere rhetorical questions proudly boasting of ignorance of their rationale as if that ignorance supports your position. Maybe you don’t “get it” because you didn’t ever have sex with your relative conceive a child? While it is not my place to speak for incest survivors, I’ll indulge one bit of speculation and suggest a non-rape version of incest that might be considered - a set of 10 year old fraternal twins plays around in a bad way and a little girl gets pregnant form her brother. Again I don’t believe it would be acceptable to abort that pregnancy. All I’m saying is if anyone does not understand why someone would want to abort that pregnancy and WANTS to, you need to ask them or find where they’ve been asked by others.  And I’m not saying I know what you’d find out - I’m just saying you need to ask. Let the victims survivors have a voice, instead of taking their silence at your rhetorical question broadcast to you choir as proof of your correctness.That would be the charitable and honest way to approach this question. Too often on all sides of the abortion debates abortion, rape, incest, poverty, abuse, all these deep personal experiences are turned into mere ‘issues’ and used to score points. The people who experience them are silenced and forgotten.

Eileen ,
I read your comment & the responses afterwards. I agree that rape & incest are painful topics to anyone involved but the focus of the article was on the conception of a child & that child’s rights.
I agree that this is an emotional topic but so is abortion to women who have had one performed on them.It’s a terrible thing,true, but it’s healthier to discuss-especially in a Christian setting- than to hide.God forgives & heals.

I agree that it is not sinful to vote for the lesser evil, at least as long as his evil does not pass certain milestones and as long as it is done with the intention of limiting the evil.

On the other hand, I think I may just have to get T-shirts made making this point:
People who think the way to bring about positive political change is to vote for the lesser evil must think the way to house-train two dogs is to give the treat to the one that pees closest to the door.

I am no less of a person than anyone else because my parents were closely related. And my parents love me no less.

Slavery was not abolished by overturning Dredd Scott or repealing Three Fifths. Neither will abortion be abolished without the courageous and bold action of a Chief Executive.

I don’t get it. If Obama (or any Democrat President or President-hopeful) wrote an Emancipation Proclamation for the banning of abortion, he would be unstoppable in the polls. Unstoppable. Surely the most cynical and clever campaignist in recent history sees this. Barack Hussein Obama must just really personally love abortion.

Sorry, Matthew, I disagree. I believe the “life of the mother” exception is necessary and the Church agrees. Here’s why: While direct abortion, the intentional ending of an unborn human life through abortion, is always intrinsically wrong, the Church allows for medical intervention that would result in the death of the unborn child as an “indirect, unintended consequence” in a situation where the baby has little to no chance of surviving anyway, and the mother is all but guaranteed to die, such as an ectopic pregnancy. There are countries were all abortion is outlawed, without exception, and women have died because they haven’t received the necessary medical treatment because of the possibility that it would kill their unborn child. So, a clearly, defined “life of the mother” exception is necessary, as long it is clearly aligned with authentic Church authority on the subject.

I think you should say something about the “rape” exception. If abortion were illegal except for rape, then the definition of rape would surely be redefined and challenged.  With this exception, if a woman wanted an abortion, couldn’t she just say it was rape?

Eileen - I still don’t understand the smug charge. But I appreciate your comments.

I’m not saying that incest is good or that there aren’t terrible instances of abuse around it. So I think you’re being a bit unfair based upon what I wrote. You can say that other forms of abuse can occur within an incestual relationship that could result in a child (and somehow it’s not rape). That may be, but it doesn’t contradict my point. You still haven’t made the case of why “incest” itself is the determining factor. You’ve just said that maybe we should allow abortions (or at least we could understand the desire to have an abortion) when a baby is conceived as a result of abuse. Fine. But how does incest make it different? Why not just say in cases of “rape, abuse or life of the mother.” What makes incest itself different?

Zeb same goes to you with your example where “a set of 10 year old fraternal twins plays around in a bad way and a little girl gets pregnant from her brother.” It further makes my point.

In this case, you;re saying maybe if 10 yr olds get pregnant from each other we could understand an exception for an abortion. But why would that be different for two unrelated ten yr olds vs incest? Why does their being related (incest) mean we should now have the option to abort the baby?

The fact that it is incest doesn’t really change anything. And that’s my point.

What you all are really saying is that baby’s that are conceived where abuse is involved, or where the kids are two young, etc. it’s understandable to want to abort. But the incest part plays no role in the determination really for your reasoning there. At least nobody yet in any comment has made the case for why incest itself makes the difference.

Using the word incest is both too narrow and too broad if you’re talking exception-reasoning here. It includes incestual relationships (not that they are good, mind you) where no rape/abuse/immaturity is explicitly involved, and it excludes the millions of other instances where incest is not involved and abuse/immaturity/etc (all the rationale given here so far) are involved.

@Kathleen - I would have to disagree that the focus of the article was the child’s rights.  It seems to me the article was focused on how the incest exception doesn’t deserve to be spoken in the same breath as rape and life of the mother.  I’ll agree that neither rape nor incest belong in with life of the mother, but I’ll disagree that its inappropriately named next to rape.  I am aware of the details of 5 incest cases.  Only one of them can fairly be called rape.
.
@Jill - I do not have a study to show you.  And anecdotal evidence will likely be insufficient.  However, among the risk factors for sexual abuse are less attentive parents and children who are often left in the care of an older sibling (these can also be good things but they are frequent occurrences in large families).  I myself know that I am not as attentive a parent as my neighbor who only has her perfectly planned two and I often leave one or two of my little ones in the care of their older siblings.    I also grew up in a large family with those same characteristics.  Mercifully, we were incest free.  Please God, my own children will be as well.    I’m not saying incest is an inevitability in a large family, just that I suspect it’s fairly common among some of the readers here, many of whom probably grew up in large families.

Matthew - I never said abortions should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.  I’m sorry that my writing conveyed that.    I was responding to your words “The rape part I get. I think it’s wrong and illogical, but I at least understand the emotional appeal there… But incest? This seems like something that has been thoughtlessly grandfathered in to the exception trio without really thinking about what we’re saying…First, if incest occurs as a result of rape, then the abortion exception we’re talking about is really about the rape part (already covered above). But if the incest is just incest (and not rape), why is it that we should allow the parents to abort their baby?”
.
Incest can be horrific but it is not necessarily rape.  When it occurs between two siblings, I would argue it’s rarely rape.  But something has gone horribly wrong in that family and there may be two victims.  And to dismiss it being named along side rape on the grounds of family embarassment does a disservice to those victims.

DoubtingThomas - I mean here only to speak of direct abortion. The circumstances you are describing where the principle of double effect is properly applied, technically an abortion (in the sense we are using it in this discussion) does not take place. So I believe the Church would disagree with you, there need be no exception for the life of the mother when we are speaking of a true (direct) abortion.

The kind of exception you are referring to does not require an abortion to take place. More good reading on that topic here.

ly,

You unknowingly hit on one of my pet peeves. People have been lied to so much that they believe the misinformation about the 3/5th clause. The 3/5th clause did not perpetuate slavery, it actually helped lead to the end of slavery. The the Constitutional Congress met northern delegates for the most part did not want slaves counted at all in determining congressional representation since the slave states were obviously not going to allow them to vote. The south wanted to fully count every person even though they didn’t treat them as human. The 3/5ths compromise lead to greater number of congressmen and Electoral College votes for free states which in turn enabled a quicker end to slavery. Without the 3/5th clause the south would have been much stronger and likely we would have never had a President Lincoln. Would slavery still exist today? Probably not, but I have no idea how much longer it would have taken to end that evil.

One argument would only be appropriate, and I use the word “appropriate” in very loose terms; however, one argument in cases of incest, might follow the same argument, that impregnated teens not yet legal adults, but under parental authority, must be parents informed of a visit, of their teenager, seeking a medically procured abortion:  effectively leaving the decision in the hands of the parent(s), rather than their dependant, and I use the word “dependant” in the taxable sense of the word.  Not to insult the reader, but to state the matter plainly:  parents do choose abortions for their dependants, and for reasons, that differ greatly away from incest, and I do use the word “incest” as if it is a reason for abortion; although, my consistent stance has been Pro-Life.  I do agree:  the Romney / Ryan ticket on abortion, it is an annoying one; although, it is the lesser of two evils, and would restore some states, to where they stood on the matter, prior to 1973, Roe v. Wade.  Often we argue to the favor of parents, being informed about their dependants thereabouts, concerning the procurement of an abortion, and it may be we often do so to the exclusion, that realistically children have been killed after parents have been informed about the matter.  It is not a reason for an abortion, but incest is little cause for an abortion:  it is the fertility, that bears more than rapists, incestuous fathers, and sexually promiscuous boyfriends, and gigoloes, and prostitutes, that becomes the cause for abortion.  The baby herself / himself is killed, because he / she is a baby.  The baby is the reason for an abortion.  There may be more than a gruesome fantasy involved, that the incestuous relationship can continue without the baby and therefore, a parent procures the abortion for their child.  Is the word “arrogant” to soft of a word?  Business, sex-drive, and ... .

Eileen - you still seem like you didn’t read my comment.

You still keep describing an abusive or horrible relationship. Yes, in a horrible or abusive relationship I can understand the emotional turmoil that would lead somebody to consider aborting. But that’s not the same as incest.

You have still not given one reason why incest itself inherently makes the difference. For as wrong as I think incest is, there have been instances of it where neither abuse or rape or horrible situations are involved. That’s what I’m saying. Just because incest occurred you assume all those other horrible things. In those instances you continue to allude to, it is not incest that is directly the source of the suffering, it is the abuse or horrible situation or the “something that has gone terribly wrong in that family”.

Lots of things “can be horrific but are not necessarily rape” - even marriage. That doesn’t mean it’s therefore justified as being something that is CATEGORICALLY an exception for something like abortion. (And i know you are not saying you believe that, but that’s the argument).

I am disappointed in Romney- Ryan’s embrace of exceptions. I remember suggesting to a Congresswoman that if exceptions were to be the rule that the child’s body should be used for DNA to prosecute the rapist-  after all if   abortion was being performed BECAUSE of rape &  rape IS a crime the child is EVIDENCE which is being discarded. She was shocked &  said she never thought of it that way.

I also agree- incest without consent IS rape. I have known several families of consensual incestuous relationships- no abnormalities in children from these relationships. Legally they could not marry due to family relationships-legally incest in states they lived in.
Life of the mother- unless is tubal pregnancy which is NOT considered abortion- usually does NOT require death of child. Termination of the pregnancy CAN take place   with both   mother &  child   LIVING. Usually requires closer monitoring but should be goal rather than goal to destroy &  dismember or poison child.

I have always wondered this exact same thing.

Matt you are really asking the wrong people the wrong questions. If you don’t have a sense of the difference between two unrelated 10 year old engaging in sex and a brother and sister doing so, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference, it just means it’s so outside your experience and imagination that you need to find out from people who know.

Here is where you are being smug: “thoughtlessly grandfathered in” You presume without asking that the people who feel that way, whose lives have been severely impacted, have been thoughtless about it? Smug. “I’d love to hear somebody defend this.” You’d love to? I assume that since you haven’t referenced any first person testimony or ethicist’s attempts to defend the position you mean this ironically, smugly implying that it’s indefensible.  “The only two possible reasons I can see for the incest exception are…” “irrlevant”, is how you should have ended that sentence. Because your lack of perspective is not evidence of anything. But implying “I can’t think of a valid reason, so therefore no one probably has one,” is a very poor, disengenuous, and smug way to argue. “Families embarrass us whether they are incestual or not. It’s a fact of life.” Equivocating the regular embarrassment all families provide with that of incestual childbearing, and tagging that dismissal with the smart alec “it’s fact of life” = smug.  “I don’t really think that anyone who claims to want exceptions for incest really means it for those reasons.” Based on?... Thinking about it in your own head for a while you feel able to psychoanalyze and dismiss everyone who feels and thinks differently, without talking to them? Smug. I’ll say it again. I don’t have the arguments you would “love to hear” because I don’t share the belief and I don’t have the experience of the exception-for-incest people. If you are genuinely curious, seek answers by asking the people who know them. If you are just feigning curiosity so as to count your ignorance as evidence of your superiority then I think you are being terribly uncharitable and dishonest.

Zeb - sarcasm, pithiness and opinion (and even being wrong) are different than smugness. Shoot, smugness involves an excessive pride in one’s self…which is hardly compatible with the title of this post which includes the words “I’m always confused” (which I am about this). But even still, I apologize if I came off smug. That wasn’t the point. I just wanted to start a conversation, which you were contributing to nicely before you started with the name calling.

The question in the article is not to people who have experienced incest at all. It’s to people who hold that incest should be an exception to their pro-life-ness. And I still have not heard any argument as to what is inherent to incest (again, abuse/horrible situation/rape/etc. are not inherence to incest, although they often correlate) that makes it worthy of being along side rape and life of the mother as (bad, unsound) exceptions for abortion?

If you have an answer, I’m open. I’m not being smug.

But the point is that the ONLY thing truly inherent to incest is that the parents are somewhat closely related. So the question, then, is simply what about having somewhat closely related parents justifies (or could even ATTEMPT to justify) making an exception to otherwise being pro-life? it’s very simple.

Margaret,

  Whether we like it or not, this election is primarily about the economy and Obama’s inept handling of foreign affairs. If Romney/Ryan made the over turning of Roe v. Wade a key issue that they stressed at every campaign stop they would clearly send the message that they are not focusing on the primary issues of the campaign. I have no doubts of Ryan’s commitment to pro-life cause without exception. I won’t say I am 100% certain of Romney’s commitment. However, any doubts I may have about Romney are trumped by my absolute certainty that Obama is 100% pro-infanticide. Obama has seriously damaged our chances of over turning R v. W with his two Supreme Court appointments. If Obama is in office another four years and gets to replace Scalia or Thomas it sets back the fight decades.

Beyond worrying about the court, we have to change peoples hearts on the issue. Once a great majority of people realize murdering little children is wrong the exceptions will quickly be forgotten.

The want that exception so that incestuous men can cover up their crimes and keep abusing. It is a much bigger problem than people realize, and is connected with marketing of their children also.

I disagree, that a baby conceived both through rape, and incest, justify an abortus of rape, and incest; however, since what seems to be sought is at least some reason, that incest should be placed with rape, as exceptions against a Pro-Life belief, then what is similar between rape, and incest, in many states, must be the criminality of the two.  The criminals in both cases, remain hard to identify; although, the identity of one perpetrating incest, necessarily is certainly identifiable—excluding masks—when cases of sexual child abuse, exist.  Rapists generally are identifiable as well; although, they typically are friends, dates, or listed on rosters of university sports teams.  Although an abortion procured for a victim, of rape, emotionally differentiated against the emotive aspect of a baby conceived, through incest, the persistent similarity might be the admissions some women might initially be compelled to face:  when the begging questions are faced—who is the father—the criminality is avoided.

Matthew: Good article. I thought it well written, and I understood that you were asking why incest qua incest is itself justification for abortion. After removing the cases of incest that are really cases of rape, it seems to me that all we have left is the taboo of incest: itself, from an objective point of view, a poor reason for abortion, particularly because the couple, despite their familial proximity, have entered into the union voluntarily.

For what it’s worth, I think that Zeb and Eileen make some good points, that incest may include situations that are abusive and problematic in ways that non-incestuous relationships most likely are not, even if the incestuous relationship does not rise to the level of rape.

(But of course, I still do not believe in any abortion exceptions.  All pre-born children have a right not to be killed in the womb, regardless of how they originated.)

Largebill,
.
If I recall correctly, Paul Ryan mentioned the abortion exceptions twice in the VP debate, even though he was never asked about exceptions.  To me, that came across as more than just towing the line and supporting Romney’s position, because I don’t see a reason why he needed to mention the exceptions at all.  That’s how I saw it anyway.
.
And hypothetically, what if the Republican presidential candidate were pro-choice, and he nominated Paul Ryan as his running mate, and Paul Ryan stated that “our administration would not oppose abortion”?  Should pro-lifers excuse his statement by saying that he has to support the position of the candidate at the top of the ticket?

I think the reason some people insist on an incest-specific exception is at least in part to thwart parental notification laws as people would rightly have sympathy for a teen girl who presents for abortion saying (whether true or false) that she was subjected to incest. Also it’s easy to see that some folks would support a rape exception but insist on it including cooperation with prosecution against the rapist, but fewer would require cooperation in an incest prosecution. The combination ends up allowing the theoretically narrow exceptions to swallow up a general ban on abortion.

Oops, I should have written “toeing the line.”

Finally, someone called out Paul Ryan on his abortion comments about exceptions instead of giving him a free pass!

Your point about incest is well taken. Thanks for spelling it out for us!

I know of people who were born of incest and of rape. In the case of incest, it was a horrible situation. A father raped his daughter, impregnating her, and then not long after words the father and his wife mutually committed suicide by pulling a trigger at each other simultaneously. I share this with you because my understanding is that incest most often happens within families that are emotionally and psychologically damaged. The incest becomes one more expression of the pain felt within the family. I believe that with more outreach, love, and education we can help reduce families that struggle like that, which in turn will also help lessen the number of children who are born due to incest.

In the case of rape, I feel horrible for my friend who had it happen to her. But she kept the child and loves her very deeply. She’s an amazing mother to this poor child who will probably never know she was the fruit of sin - the product of rape. After witnessing her, I know it’s possible for any woman who was raped to find the strength and courage to preserver through the emotional pain and deliver the baby. The Holy Spirit chose to breathe life into the baby despite the sinful circumstances that made the life possible. Who are we to say the child doesn’t deserve life simply because of the circumstances?

I have to agree that there is no reasonable cause for abortion - ever. In the case of a mother’s life being in danger, well, we have to consider that it’s only very recently that we’ve gained the technology to save the mother by aborting the child. We need to consider the moral consequences of such medical power and knowledge.

As to the Romney-Ryan position:  The Republican platform contains no exceptions.  Gov. Romney has said that legislation on abortion is NOT his first priority (for legislation). 
However, the last three presidents have taken action on funds given to abortion organizations dealing with non-US residents:  Clinton reversed the “Mexico City policy” shortly after his inauguration.  George W. Bush reinstated the “Mexico City policy”, thus cutting off US govt funds from overseas aborting organizations.  And Pres. Obama reversed the “Mexico City policy” within days of his inauguration. These decisions can be made by Executive Order, and do not require a President to cobble together a majority in the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
In our quest for righteousness, and the practical need to improve the situation, we must not sacrifice the possible on the altar of the idea./
TeaPot562

Matt - the reason incest is spelled out is for legal reasons.  With rape, an obvious crime has occurred.  The authorities have been involved.    If, and it’s a big if, abortion were ever to become illegal except in some circumstances, there would need to be a barometer of what is a heinous enough situation that killing the child would be allowed.    I suppose incest is illegal (at least in some states) and two twelve year olds could be tried for incest?  I don’t know.  But in any case a level of screwed up heinousness has been reached, which some folks feel is a permissible enough reason to kill the unborn child.
.
What I don’t get is why you can “get” the rape exception and not get the incest exception.  I really do think you need to ask around because it won’t be long before you find an incest survivor willing to talk to you.  I say with all sincerity, I went the first 30 years of my life without realizing I knew any.  But once your eyes are opened to it, you can’t turn back the horror.

“For as wrong as I think incest is, there have been instances of it where neither abuse or rape or horrible situations are involved.”  That statement I have to call BS on.  Maybe two adults, but even then I suspect there was something not right in their upbringing.  But a situation of incest where there is no rape has something screwed up in that family.  Maybe it was neglect by the parents, or one sibling endured some horrible tragedy.    I will repeat my statement.  I am aware of the details of 5 cases of incest in my extended family.  Only one of those cases could be categorized as a (statutory) rape.    The others were likely the result of I don’t know what exactly.  My speculation is very authoritarian parents of large families where girls had a subservient role to the boys.    Now as adults there are suicide attempts, and lots of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicine.

Paul H,

Your hypothetical idea of a candidate who is pro abortion and a VP candidate who claims to be pro life but who also supports the top of the tickets position on infanticide actually describes the current DEM ticket. The VP’s position on abortion is irrelevant if the top of the ticket is a pro-abortion radical who clearly and unequivocally supports evil. VP’s views on abortion (and most other issues) only really matter if the president dies in office.

As to Ryan, I said I didn’t like him mentioning the R&I exceptions, but I think some moron political consultant insisted on it claiming otherwise they risk losing votes of women who may be personally opposed but when they hear scare tactics like “Make you carry the rapist’s baby . . . ” get all worked up. I doubt there are many women who oppose evil but say it’s okay to kill some kids if their father was a bad guy, but heck what do I know?

Is there any state where rape or incest is a capital punishment crime?

To anyone who’s confused about the rape/incest issue, consider: do you want to assist the criminal to remove all traces of his crime, so that he man can continue his behavior again and again? Or can we allow a live birth, take a DNA sample, then jail the perpetrator once and for all? A live birth is God’s way of turning an evil act into a lovely human being. Nine months pregnancy is not a jail sentance for a woman, and abortion won’t help her forget the rape…in fact, it prevents healing. Just ask Rebecca Kiessling.

@Hat lady - the way I read this column, its point is that the rape exception is understandable, not right, but understandable, while incest doesn’t make sense except for eugenic or public shame reasons.  While I don’t agree with any exceptions under which abortion should be allowed, I also can understand the emotional appeal of putting incest alongside rape.
.
Apparently, the author feels incest can exist in a vacuum where it’s not in any way the result of disordered events.    I’ll have to disagree with that.  I believe (and I think most people agree on a visceral level) when incest occurs something has necessarily gone horribly wrong that has resulted in a sexual act.  Let me repeat that - something has gone horribly wrong that resulted in a sexual act -  the exact reason rape is an “understandable” exception.

Maybe if this argument was framed by the usage of “undead fetuses”, more sympathy would be generated by their plight?

Eileen - you said:

“Apparently, the author feels incest can exist in a vacuum where it’s not in any way the result of disordered events.”

I didn’t really say that. And really, you’re further making my point. If the incest is the RESULT of disordered events, why is the exception given based upon the incest and not the disordered events?

Why is it not an exception for “rape, disordered events and life of the mother”?

Perhaps the answer is simply one of legal “obviousness”. But, while that may be fairly practical, I still don’t think it’s thoughtful enough.

And even still, again, incest would be too broad - as not all incestual relationships necessarily are caused by “disordered events.” And especially not by ones on par with rape (justifying - for some people - cause for abortion).

It’s easy to look through times in our history (and even clearly condoned in the Bible) when incest was extremely common and “disordered events” were not involved. So it’s inaccurate to assume that all incest is a result of something on par with rape and it certainly doesn’t seem consistent to me to include in in a line of supposed exceptions for abortion when there are many worse things closer to rape that do not necessarily involve incest at all.

Even if you are confused by the incest exception, (I am too) I guess I’m confused by the overall message here. What did Catholics really expect from Paul Ryan? He is a politician, foremost, and one who is resigned to align with what his ticket believes in the case of rape or incest. By criticizing this stance, are you inferring that pro-life Catholics should not vote a certain way? It’s politics! We all know what the Pope and bishops teach us about the lesser of two evils.

For starters, it is inspiring to read so many well-reasoned and helpful comments in response to this article.

For my “two cents worth,” I remember some years ago, working with a wonderful group of people helping women recover from rape—including those rare few who became pregnant thereby.  Of course, none of them wanted to have a child by the rapist, but, in reality, most of them did not view the child AS AN EXTENSION OF THE RAPIST.  They seemed to want to go out of their way to avoid being just as abusive as the men who abused them.  They viewed abortion as another act of violence in which they did not want to participate. Some of the women reached this conclusion immediately—others years after an abortion and in the wake of regreat for having chosen it.

One woman put it this way:  “When I was raped, a stranger violently took from me something I can never get back.  I did not want this.  I did not make this happen.  But if I get an abortion, then I am MAKING a stranger take something from me I can never get back.  I PAY him to do it.  I can learn to live with the former.  There would be no escape from the latter.”  I have heard and read of similar responses from other women in the same circumstances.  While not universal, the sentiment is not that uncommon.

I never would have thought of it that way.  It surprised me.  What she said has been food for thought for me ever since.  It is clear, whether the pregnancy comes to term or is violated, the results are lifelong: there is no such thing as choosing between a life with or a life without fallout in the wake of a rape.  An abortion is not some sort of an “eraser.”  Pitching it to women as though it were is like calling slavery a free breadfruit program.

I have learned a lot from these women, and I hope what I have shared from them is helpful to some of you.

Thank you for your time.
God bless.

If life begins at conception - and it does - then the argument ends there. No exception will undermine that fact, no matter how emotionally-charged. No human being - regardless of parental mistakes, situations or his/her own disabilities - is unworthy of his/her life. Period. End of discussion.

Clare - just because somebody is clearly a better option politically doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t critique their positions. OF COURSE the Romney/Ryan ticket is orders of magnitude better when it comes to Life issues and voting for them would cause the least harm and do the most good for almost all of the most important issues for Catholics. But that’s not the subject of the post.

“If the incest is the RESULT of disordered events, why is the exception given based upon the incest and not the disordered events?    Why is it not an exception for “rape, disordered events and life of the mother”? ”  But rape is the result of disordered events just like incest.  The sexual act of a rape resulting in pregnancy is not disordered.    It’s the disordered events surrounding the rape, just like the disordered events surrounding incest that are heinous.  I’ll agree with you that any kind of exception would get compounded - e.g. “oh, she consented to that sexual contact that resulted in her pregnancy, but she was depressed and suffering from PTSD so we have to let the abortion slide in this case.” 
.
You claim to understand the rape exception.  What I don’t get is why you can’t also understand the incest exception.  I’ll grant you they’re both completely inadequate - denying the humanity of the baby is of course wrong.  But both rape and incest come from completely disordered sexualities.  It’s not about embarassment and it’s not (so far) about eugenics. 
.
And now, I’m bowing off this thread because I’m getting angry every time I hear you say that incest is not the result of disordered events.

Just a thought: it was common in ruling families ancient Egypt if I remember correctly.Weird to us but I guess not to them.

Eileen - the flaw in your logic there is that rape is inherently defined as a forced act of sex. So it’s not at all the same as incest itself. Rape is not about the disordered events surrounding it (although they may have led to it). The rape itself stands alone by it’s definition as something people use to justify an abortion (albeit still wrongly so). Incest, on the other hand, when standing alone simply means the two people are closely related. And the fact that they are closely related does not in itself compare at all to an act of rape and does not in itself make sense as to justify (for such people) an abortion (even if wrongly so).

In cases where carrying the baby will ensure the mother’s death (and perhaps the baby’s as well)..what then? These cases are rare, but they do happen for a multitude of different medical issues.

The CCCB on abortion is misleading on several issues. I can’t imagine the father’s of Vatican II would have written it this way.

First, # 2271 claims that “since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable . . .” This directly contradicts several well known teachers in our church.  St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, (the most famous doctor of the church) held that the early fetus had the moral status of a plant or vegetable.  As it matured it had the equivalent of the soul of an animal.  Only when it was formed could it receive a human soul and be a person.  Jesuit Tomas Sanchez (1550-1610). One of the traditional Catholic sources of truth held that the moral status of the early fetus was not “such a great loss.” It did not have per¬sonal status; it was human tissue, but it was not a person”.

The second and perhaps the most important item concerns the primacy of the prayerful informed conscience of the individual. We cannot always know the circumstances that led to the abortion.

Thirdly, the Catechism tries desperately to name all the circumstances under which an abortion is not permitted and considered a grave offense.  This would mean that the church thus becomes is a law unto itself. Reading the CCCB in this context absolutizes the issue when there are situations under which an abortion is morally and ethically permissible.  And we all know when the relative is absolutized we create idols.  Does God not get the play a role in this matter?

Some pro-life supporters have done the institution a great harm by ignoring the call by Jesus to interpret the law (CCCB) to the letter instead of the heart.
Does all this mean I am not pro-life - not by any stretch of the imagination!  Pro-Life to me means protecting and respecting all life from the ‘Alpha to the Omega’ . 

Michelle - the Church addresses those complex issues in a number of ways, but we always have to remember the moral difference between actively ending an innocent life on purpose (murder) and allowing natural events to take their course (while doing everything we morally can to help preserve life, of course). Sometimes that is a very hard, difficult thing to manage that nobody should ever have to do.

But there is more reading on some of these complexities here.

Matthew,  you said “I’m just asking the question why a baby that is a product of incest should be killed”

I ask you, why is rape any different?  Should an innocent child have to die for the sins of it’s father? It is still a human life no matter how conceived. There are no exceptions. Life or “health” of the mother is so vague most anything could pass as a reason to abort. Only life of the mother, defined by very strict circumstances, would qualify IMO.

Steveo - please read the article more closely. As well as many of the comments. I’ve gone into a number of points as to how rape is different, but also still never an excuse for abortion.

Warner is saying this:
“If two adults agree to have sex with one another, and happen to be siblings, and conceive a child, why does that child have to die for their lack of judgment?”
I get it, Mr. Warner, and I agree that it is a valid consideration.

I am late to this discussion - when you speak of incest, are you not speaking of cosanguinity?  Canon 1091 does not allow a couple who are in direct blood relation into the Sacrament of Matrimony.  It is against natural law.  But to your point Matthew - if this relationship of incest ( I am now speaking of closed societies, which today are less of a concern) does have a pregnancy occur, it is not reason for direct abortion.  The Church in her Wisdom, which goes back to Roman Law, foresees the issues with direct blood relation having children, and does not allow the couple into Holy Matrimony.

After reading the article and many of the comments I really believe as sex becomes more recreational rather than an expression of love between a mature married man and woman and contraception by any means is OK, there will be more and more incest, especially siblings and cousins.

Joe ,
I don’t think cousins count. Otherwise, virtually all of our families would be guilty at some point in time.

Demagogues both on the left and right like to distract the attention with the sterile argument of abortion in case of rape or incest (in this case, incest implies forced sex). The reason is simple: they help each other use abortion as a talking point to rally troops, while doing nothing. This allows them to point fingers at each other and ignore the 10,000 ton elephant in the room: over 99% of abortions are done as a back up contraception (according to Guttmacher statistics, e.g: 1.2 MILLION per year in the US alone). Less then 1% are because of forced sex/rape. The argument of rape/incest is a distraction from the real problem. “Life of the mother” also is meaningless if it is not carefully defined, as any pregnancy carries a real, finite risk to the health of the mother. The time to think about pregnancy is before pulling the zipper (goes for men and women). There is no such thing as sex without strings attached, without any possibility of becoming pregnant, even with “effective” birth control. Its time for the Church to teach this fundamental message, and not waste time on these idiotic arguments about forced sex/rape etc..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA

The official Church position on abortion in the case of the mother’s life is really hypocritical IMO. If the pregnancy is almost certain to cause a fatal outcome for both the mother and child, because the mother will die before the child will be viable outside the womb, then what on earth can be the point to losing both if the mother can be saved? I doubt that Jesus is impressed by theological argument about direct effect and double effect.

The theological ‘excuse’ of unintended effect cited for cases of uterine tumors that unintentionally remove the fetus along with the diseased organ seems so hypocritical when contrasted with the first example I gave. Theologically, a woman who has a cancerous uterine tumor discovered during pregnancy is declared to be morally in good standing if she decides she won’t wait until her child is viable before removing the tumor, even though in most cases it can’t be proven that waiting will make her cancer go from non-lethal to lethal. But, in cases of acute severe pulmonary hypertension where a continued pregnancy is virtually certain to be lethal for the mother, she cannot abort the child and be declared in good moral standing simply because the baby isn’t wrapped in an organ to be cut out, thereby conferring that unintended effect escape clause.

Spare me the theological semantics that completely ignore reason and intent. The mother with pulmonary hypertension is no more intent on killing her baby than the mother with a cancerous tumor. They are both attempting to save their life. And frankly, in the case of the tumor I think the lack of immediate lethality to the mother makes it less morally defensible.

Oregon Catholic, “Life of the mother” argument is used as a football on both sides, again, because it distracts from the real issue: that more than 99% of abortions in the US are done as back up “birth control”.
According to the left, any pregnancy is a “threat to the mother’s life”. The mother may become “depressed” and consider ending her life, etc..(BTW, what is she the “mother” of, if not a child?). Endangerment of “life of the mother” should be defined as significant increased risk of death of the mother resulting by, or augmented by being pregnant. We are talking about 30-50% + risk of actually dying.
But on the right, instead on focusing on the >99% of causes of abortion, Church leaders focus on the extreme rare cases with nonsensical Fatwas.
Those are extremely rare cases, and each is unique, different one from the other. It is not up to men in fancy laced dresses to meddle in these tragic and sad cases unless asked by the parents. And to start with, the first thing to do would be to pray for wisdom to help resolve the situation to the best of both mother and child (or children, as parents may have other children).
The question is why Church leaders are avoiding the topic of >99% of causes of abortion. A reason is that it would mean the need to dissociate birth control from abortion, to treat each topic separately, as different levels of sins. For example, it would mean that one would have to examine the difference of 1) use of birth control with the intent of keeping the child if one would become pregnant versus 2) use of birth control with the intent of seeking an abortion if one would become pregnant (since no broth control is 100% effective, none). But the leadership does not want to engage in such critically important discussions. Clarification, I did not mean that rape/forced sex discussions are idiotic above, just the focusing of the debate of abortion only these topics.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA

Sorry, removed some typos: Oregon Catholic, “Life of the mother” argument is used as a football on both sides, again, because it distracts from the real issue: that more than 99% of abortions in the US are done as back up “birth control”.
According to the left, any pregnancy is a “threat to the mother’s life”. The mother may become “depressed” and consider ending her life, etc..(BTW, what is she the “mother” of, if not a child?). Endangerment of “life of the mother” should be defined as significant increased risk of death of the mother resulting by, or augmented by being pregnant. We are talking about 30-50% + risk of actually dying.
But on the right, instead on focusing on the >99% of causes of abortion, Church leaders focus on these extreme rare cases, and make nonsensical Fatwas. Those are extremely rare cases, and each is unique, different one from the other. It is not up to men in fancy laced dresses to meddle in these tragic and sad cases unless asked by the parents. And to start with, the first thing to do would be to pray for wisdom to help resolve the situation to the best of both mother and child (or children, as parents may have other children). The question is why Church leaders are avoiding the topic of >99% of causes of abortion? A reason is that it would mean the need to dissociate birth control from abortion, to treat each topic separately, as different levels of sins. For example, it would mean that one would have to examine the difference of 1) use of birth control with the intent of keeping the child if one would become pregnant versus 2) use of birth control with the intent of seeking an abortion if one would become pregnant (since no birth control is 100% effective, none). But the leadership does not want to engage in such critically important discussions. Clarification, I did not mean that rape/forced sex discussions are idiotic, just the focusing of the debate of abortion only on these topics.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA

Recently the anti-lifers stole some thunder about the subject “Dominican Republic abortion leukemia” (8/20/2012).

The issue is that when “the life of the mother” is at stake, a legitimate medical treatment that would possibly cause the spontaneous miscarriage of a child in utero, isn’t morally objectionable.

The high state of development of contemporary ob/gyn medicine is such that, once this distinction is factored in, “life of the mother” is almost never a consideration, as long as the mother’s medical condition is not used as a pretext for abortion.

Because we either don’t take the time to unpack this, or don’t even know about it ourselves, the other side has a blanket invitation to sow disinformation on the subject.

This is a confusing issue, a moral theological analogue to confusion around the term “Immaculate Conception”, (“Jesus’ conception by the Holy Spirit, right?” - WRONG, The Blessed Virgin Mary’s preservation from original sin from the first moment of her Conception).

We have an obligation to clear the up, or else omit writing about it.

This is satire, right?

Posted by AE on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 10:10 PM (EST):This is satire, right?”
*********
Would that were so.Some aspects of modern society are so grotesque that they can resemble a dark satire.

This is sick:
“I do think this column is ill considered and probably painful to many sexual abuse/incest survivors.”

What we’re talking about here is the old blooded murder of innocent children. 
And you justify murder, so the murderers wont fell “pain”.

Other than abotion, what other cold blooded murders are justified, so the poor murderers wont have emotional pain?

Rape, incest, sexual abuse—none of these will be made less painful by adding another immoral, painful action to them.  Abortion is wrong, even when it seems as if it is the path of least resistance.

Abortion is wrong and never justified. All these people talking about the pain this causes the victims etc etc need to toughen up. Wrong is wrong, sin is sin, and sin must always be condemned whether it causes pain to the victim or not. They aren’t the guilty one anyway. Should we stop condemning sin because it causes pain to another? Absolutely not! People are too sensitive today and don’t want to offend anyone. I don’t think Christ really cared if someone was offended when he threw over the money changers’ tables. This is why everyone is so effeminate today.

!THE Day after pill… HELLO?, WHY WAIT TO GET PREGNANT AND TO HAVE THE EXCUSE TO ABORT=KILL A POOR INNOCENT LITTLE PERSON IN THE WOMB THAT DOESNT EVEN HAVE THE FAULT OF EXISTING IN THE WOMB WHEN YOU COULD TAKE THE DAY AFTER PILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE CONTRACEPTION?? THATS IF IS A SOO CALLED RAPE/INCEST CASE? PLEASE!!..... PPL JUST SHUT YOUR LEGS AND USE PROTECTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT RAPE CASE!

And you omitted to mention what I consider is the main argument against an incest exception to abortion. Abortion actually makes incest more likely to continue indefinitely because it conceals the evidence from public view.

If you are against incest, you should be against the abortion of children conceived as a result of incest.

A further added factor is that in cases of abortion resulting from incest, it is even more common than usual that the father puts the mother under pressure to agree to the abortion in order to conceal his illegal and immoral activities.

@AMH, Sadly, you were taught wrong. The Church has always objected to abortion, for any reason. Even the 1st century Didache (or Teachings of the Apostles) specifically states “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”

It provided no exceptions whatsoever.

I was going to stay away from this, but I read this response to Eileen:  “Incest, on the other hand, when standing alone simply means the two people are closely related. And the fact that they are closely related does not in itself compare at all to an act of rape and does not in itself make sense as to justify (for such people) an abortion (even if wrongly so).
Appalling is the only word I have for you.  I understand the argument you’re making about rape/incest/abortion, but to classify incest in this way means you have no clear understanding of what a victim of incest goes through.  I would say 99.9% of the time, incest is forced upon the victim, not just some cute little daliance between people who are related.  Appalled and disappointed.

Lori - you’re making my point and agreeing with me. You are speaking about all the other stuff that a victim of incest may go through…that’s what I’m talking about. There can be all kinds of abuse/rape/etc. involved. But those things are bad in themselves…not directly because of any genetic relation. That’s the point. Not sure why you would agree with me and then be appalled at your agreement.

Let’s concentrate first on trying to stop the 99% of abortions that were not made necessary from rape or incest.  If we can win that battle, that would stop millions and MILLIONS of abortions.  That is a battle we CAN win with science, logic, and morality.

And even stranger is the public chorus of “EEEW! GROSS!” about two of Whitney Houston’s grown up step-children (who aren’t even biologically related to each other) wanting to marry each other.

You are writing these insane, slicing and dicing sophistic comments that sound like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” just days after a woman in Catholic Ireland died unecessarily, one might say brutally, in great suffering, having been refused an abortion that most certainly would have saved her life.  The 17-week old fetus died with her—it could not have survived without her.  Who benefited from the death of this woman?  What Christian values were satisfied as this beautiful young woman lost her life because of your religious beliefs?  She was neither Catholic nor Irish.  Where in this case is the compassion for life that you espouse?  I have always been thankful that when I was suffering from an ectopic pregnancy I was not in the hands of a Catholic hospital, where I might have died, leaving my then 3-year old daughter an orphan.  It makes me want to throw up when I read the distortion of facts (99% of abortions are NOT delayed birth control, you idiots!) and the insane sanctimony of comments like “sin must always be condemned whether it causes pain to the victim or not.” I thought Christ said something like , “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone . . . ”  When it comes to what you have to say about incest, most of the commenters here seem throughly without common sense, human experience, eyes to see, or any kind of human empathy.  How can you live with yourselves? 

Clairette Rose: It makes me want to throw up when I read the distortion of facts in every line of your comment, although in your defence you are probably an ignorant dupe of the fanatically anti-Catholic secular media. You clearly have no idea of the doctrines of Catholciism (which are iodentical to the doctrines of Jesus) and the facts oif the recent Irish case, and are yourself clearly lacking in common sense, human experience, perspicacity or empathy.

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine which requires doctors not to perform an operation to save a pregnant woman’s life, even in a situation where they know the operation will also inevitably cause the death of the child. 

Mothers with ectopic pregnancies and other complications of pregnancy are far safer in Catholic hospitals and with Catholic doctors and midwives than with non-Catholic ones, and in fact many non-Catholic mothers seek admission to a Catholic hospital for precisely that reason.

You are right, one should not have to make the distinction between rape that causes a pregnancy and incest which causes a pregnancy, as all incest that can cause pregnancy is rape. HOWEVER there are people that don’t understand this, particularly in certain countries. Take for example, the 9 year old incest victim who was repeatedly raped by her own father and became pregnant with twins. Multiple doctors all concluded that physically carrying two babies at her small size would kill her, without an abortion she would die. But wait, she lives in a country (I think it was Nicauragua, but not sure) where the law allows exception for RAPE, but NOT incest. Because she was a victim of incest, albeit incest that involved her own biological father raping her repeatedly, but not the type of stranger in a dark alley rape most people think of, she was denied the much needed abortion to save protect her from dying as the babies grew. Her mother had to take her into a different country for an unsafe clandestine abortion, and if I’m not mistaken the babies were already dead at that point just from her being so young and physically small. The girl lived after the abortion. And that is the reason for the “exception for rape and incest..” line,, because there are genuinely people out there who are so stupid and ignorant that they don’t realize sex without consent aka rape, and sex without consent between biologically related individuals Aka incest, are the same thing!

Bunny, you seem to be under the delusion that incest always involves one partner being forced into doing it by the other. This is nonsense. In many cases of incest there is mutual consent.

You also seem to be under the delusion that a mother can be killed just by the size of her babies. This is also nonsense. The size of the mother and the resources her body can provide to the baby act as a natural limit on the baby’s growth. A dwarf mother can and does give birth naturally and safely to a child fathered by a giant.

Abortion is never “needed” and it is certainly never “safe”!