There Are NO Exceptions

The Hippocratic Oath, before it was "edited" said, "I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion." Now, doctors do the killing of the unborn. 

From Mundabor's Blog

Today I’d like to say three words about these famous “exceptions” that should, in the view of some people, justify abortion even even if one is “pro-life”. This is rubbish. Let us see why.

Incest

The idea that if a baby is born of incest he should not be born has always been considered utterly bonkers. At no time has the Church ever said that this is allowed. The reason is very simple: the innocent child is not at fault for the behaviour of his parents. An innocent life is an innocent life, and must be protected irrespective of how this life was born.

It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense. There should be no discussion whatever on this. It’s a discussion that starts from a faulty logical position, actually from no logic at all. It is an emotional approach to a simple, actually elementary issue.

Rape

Rape is, again, an emotional issue. The same considerations made above apply here right off the bat.

However, in the case of rape another issue must be considered: it’s very easy to cry “rape”, and such an “exception” would make such claims extremely frequent.

“I was raped by a guy I met at the bar, and who got me drunk, and whose identity I don’t know, and whom I could not identify, on the evening of the 26th September” would suffice. Hey, she says it’s rape. Off with the baby’s life. You can immediately realise that every demand to have this rape made objectively verifiable or in any way investigated would be met with the inordinate screaming of the feminist troops. Heck, in the US people are allowed to cry “rape” decades after the alleged fact. Go figure. We would see an epidemic of rape claims, and the press would even pretend to believe them. Oh, that “toxic masculinity” rearing its ugly head again!

Life of the mother

This is the most insidious of them all and believe you me, it would make every restriction useless (see below). Let us explain first that, if the baby dies because a surgical intervention is necessary to save the life of the mother, this is no abortion at all. It is a surgical operation with a double effect. As the operation is, in itself, good and legitimate, and was not carried out in order to kill the baby, there is no abortion. The operation was successful. The patient will survive. Sadly, her child did not.

This is an extremely obvious, as clear as the sun, application of the traditional Catholic doctrine of the “double effect”. This case does, therefore, not need to enter the discussion.

However, the one of the “life of the mother” is an extremely broad field. “The mother is now distressed and clearly suicidal. You are k-k-k-killing her!!!”. This would be abused very hard from day one. How do I know? This was how abortion was introduced in Italy as an allegedly very rare measure to be adopted only in extreme cases.

Screw that.

There’s a bridge down the road, ma’am. Your body, your choice.

——-

We can, therefore, see that there is no way an abortion can be seen as legitimate. If it’s an abortion, it must be made illegal. There is no middle way, and there is no logical way to say to a baby, “I am sorry, little one, but you will now have to die, because both your mother and the legislator do not like the way your innocent life was conceived”.

You would think this is straightforward thinking, easy to grasp.

Sadly, neither DJT nor RFK seem to.