Wenz portrays it as an inconsistency that Americans so often oppose abortion but are willing to make exception for conceptions resulting from rape or incest. Is it inconsistent? (Should rape and incest be linked like that?) Why is it important to McGinn that his first substantive chapter be devoted to discussing the ethics of the treatment of animals? In particular, how does his account there relate to his discussion of abortion, which immediately follows it?

McGinn begins his story talking about animals because it develops the idea of choice. We can choose to eat animals or we can not. We can choose them reproducing or we can not. Why do we feel it is okay to prohibit an animal from doing what it was designed to do? I think this is a crucial part of evaluating the situation of abortion. Is it right to kill an unborn child? Well, we must first investigate the causes of pregnancy. Was it a decision that the mother made? Or was this forced upon her? McGinn stated “There is only one way for a human female to become pregnant, namely by the fertilisation of her egg by the sperm of a human male, but there are a great many circumstances in which this can happen.” (Colin McGinn: Moral
Literacy “Abortion” page 1). Once we evaluate the circumstances, we then develop different views on what should be done next. The issue begins when there is two sides to a story.
Those that are Pro­Life say don't but those that are Pro­Choice say do what you feel is best.
Some would say if its rape then she should have the choice to abort her embryo. Then that is discriminatory against those that don't want to be pregnant. He stated in his story “The pro­life group wants you to think, instead, 'No, it is wrong to take an innocent human life; people shouldn't be allowed to erase life at will — that is murder.' Thus the issue becomes: do you believe in choice or in life?” (Colin McGinn: Moral Literacy “Abortion” page 2). All