The one non-negotiable component in the abortion debate is the moment at which life begins. The conservative reasons that life commences at conception while opposers differ in their arguments. Some postulate that life begins the moment of "primitive notochord formation," others the "moment of implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall," and still more claim it depends on the size. When one denies that life begins at conception the moral acceptance of abortion becomes that much easier. However, anyone who believes life begins at conception cannot logically find it acceptable to abort that life without committing murder.

With that said, my greatest complaint is directed at the pro-life advocates who agree with the aforementioned presupposition but then find it acceptable to abort a human life if a woman becomes impregnated as the result of a rape or an unwanted incestuous encounter. These examples are extreme and rare but do occur. Bioethicist Andrew Varga offers a brief summary for the abortion argument from rape and incest:

"…It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman's mental health is greater than the value of the fetus…"

I would submit to you that the overarching factor in a case like this is not the mental anguish of the woman involved but in allowing an innocent life to continue living. This is not so much a case of correcting mental anguish as it is preserving a life that is sacred. The old adage, two wrongs don’t make a right should be in view here. If life is sacrosanct, as the pro-lifer tells us it is, then it stands to reason that life is precious no matter how it was conceived. If we argue for the sacredness of life then we must be consistent in affirming that life is valuable no matter what nefarious practice was used as a means to bring forth that child.

Those who call themselves pro-life except in the case of rape and incest are no different than those who advocate the systematic killing of the unborn in the name of a "woman’s choice." If it is acceptable to kill a baby in the event of abortion or incest then on what moral ground can anyone oppose the woman who chooses to abort her baby lest it hinder her working career? The simple answer is that he cannot.

I would challenge the pro-lifer to be intellectually honest in his assessment and reconsider his position on the abortion issue for rape and incest. If life is sacred then we must be consistent and not let pressure from liberal peers dissuade us from affirming what we know to be right.