Unintended Consequences

To the Editor,

I have a slight disagreement with Angela Wittman (whom I rarely differ with), in her letter about abortion.

I do agree that exceptions for rape and incest are tantamount to killing babies for the sins of their parents, and that's wickedly perverse. Exceptions for the "health" of the mother basically allow for abortion on demand, since ANY pregnancy can have "health" risks. None of those exceptions have any validity.

However, the 'exception' for the "life" of the mother is not really an exception. If the mother is in mortal danger, of course a doctor should do what is necessary to save her life. An exception does not need to be written into law for that, and such is inherently redundant, but not inherently wrong. The principle of unintended consequences is in effect. The mother has as much of a right to life as the baby. The doctor does not intentionally kill the baby, but the pregnancy may be aborted unintentionally in the attempt to save the life of the mother.

If I were to write a law, I would not include an exception for the life of the mother because any stated exception opens the door for other exceptions, but I believe we can support a law like the South Dakota law, which provides for saving the life of the mother, without violating our 100% pro-life principle.


Teno Groppi
Website: www.robertsrules.blogspot.com