Answer to this objection

The ‘12 year old was raped and will die if she has the baby’ argument is used by pro-Death people across the world. It is used to intimidate pro-Lifers and make them feel like they are sacrificing a more viable life for a baby that may not even survive. It was used on me, and I would like to know how to respond.


"The Mother’s Life

This excuse for allowing abortion sounds reasonable. If the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life, it would seem that lethal force — an abortion — would be a permissible form of self-defense. The child is not really “attacking” the mother, but his presence puts her at risk. It sounds like a good argument, but it simply isn’t true.

Hundreds of doctors have a signed a statement that puts the situation in perspective. The statement reads,

There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.”

A tubal (or ectopic) pregnancy, for Instance, can indeed be life-threatening. But the treatment, even if it is fatal to the child, is not a “procured abortion.” The doctor wants to save the baby, but knows that is perhaps unlikely. There are life-saving procedures that can be done that allow for the ectopic babies to be transplanted into their mothers’ womb. This is a fairly new concept but has existed for nearly a hundred years.

However if an intervention results in the baby’s death, this is an unintended consequence of the physician’s effort to save the mother. There are similar cases involving the treatment of cancer in which the baby’s death can be an unintended consequence. But again, these are medical treatments, not abortion.

It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions and as such are not immoral.

Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.”
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

“There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health.”
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission

There is only one purpose for abortion — ending the life of the child. The “life of the mother” situation for abortion is simply bogus."

With advances in medical science, “she will die if she has the baby” is just wishful thinking.on the part of the pro-abort industry and radical feminists, most of whom do not know enough obstetrics to fill a gnat’s ear.

Over half a century ago, in Peru, a girl aged 6 (!!!) was delivered of a male baby by Caesarean, conceived as the result of a sexual assault (the offender was never traced).

Moreover, those who use this argument are being disingenuous, because “12-year-old rape victims” form only a minuscule fraction of abortions actually being performed. The vast majority entail little or no risk to the mother’s physical or mental health (in fact, abortion has well-established mental health hazards which the APA has tried hard to bury), and are the result of social and cultural “values” that either compel a vulnerable woman to end her child’s life, or poison a mother’s mind and lead her to believe that motherhood is “beneath her” and that a child is an “inconvenience” rather than a gift. :frowning:

Good answer!! :thumbsup:

Thank you Deacon Jeff. That was by far the best answer I have read regarding this issue.

What has the baby done to merit the death penalty?

The objection was brought to me that carrying the child would be ‘too much’ for a twelve year old mentally, physically, and emotionally. Maybe not to death, but to being hurt and having you’re mind messed up for the rest of your life.

Thank you Deacon Jeff

I think the problem is people seeing pre-born babies as somehow less “people” than their mothers.

If you have the choice between something that will harm a 12-year-old mentally, physically, and emotionally (assuming that is a given, which it is not), and something that will kill a 1-year-old, does anyone have a problem figuring out which to choose?

There is really no difference. A person’s size and location does not make him or her less of a person.


Killing your own child in the womb is enough to mess up your mind for the rest of your life.

:thumbsup: Exactly!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit