Must Comment... No! Must Stay Out of it!

[Johnny Angel]

The issues of rape and incest add a particular tragedy to a woman's life that is only compounded by having it result in a child. Some people will allow these as exceptions to the universal ban on abortions -- people who will not even allow it if it is required to save the mother's life. This is where the pro-life mask tends to slip. These exceptions don't dispell what is supposed to be the central issue -- the life of the child. Instead, they reveal the real priority -- the woman can have an abortion so long as she can prove she's not a slut. Bill Napoli has made the error of being quite explicit about this:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Here's the clip:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/31.html#a8517

Hey, they're not being unreasonable. All you have to do to have your abortion is to show up to court and prove before the whole world that you're not a filthy whore. It will help if your defensive wounds are gushing, and your broken halo is still gamely flickering over your formerly virgin face.

[Kimstu]

I believe this argument has already attained recognized-idiom status as the "Sodomized Virgin Exception" (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/6/132113/2039).

[Giles]

Why must it be a virgin? Why about a happily married woman, already the mother of three, who doesn't want any more children, and certainly not the child of the man who brutally raped her? Is she any less deserving of an abortion than the innocent virgin? Indeed, is she any less innocent?

[Excalibre]

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I'm inclined to conclude as Johnny Angel does - I think there's at very least a major undercurrent of control over women's bodies inherent in the pro-life movement, which is why they take scientifically unjustifiable stances like opposition to the morning after pill (and in general seem to be opposed to contraception at all.)

On the other hand, most pro-lifers I've known personally and discussed the issue with really do seem to think that abortion is killing a child. Which is not a view I agree with, but it doesn't strike me as irrational either; obviously, if abortion is murder, then it's murder no matter the circumstance of the conception. But that doesn't mean that it's politically rational to fight against exceptions for rape and incest.

Imagine a hypothetical pro-lifer, whose only concern is with the life of the "unborn child". While "children" conceived in rape are obviously no less deserving of life, it's simply political truth that restrictions on a raped woman's right to abortion are far less acceptable to the general public. Which means that it makes sense from a political standpoint to fight - at least right now - to stop the majority of abortions, and continue the fight over the much smaller number of abortions performed on rape survivors later on.

It's simply rational politics. It might not be a logically tenable position, but it is a politically tenable one. Very few people are quite as absolutist in their politics as Johnny Angel apparently expects; I would be inclined to say that those that are are rather irrational. For the purposes of the fight, then, permitting exceptions for rape and incest makes pretty good sense.

[askeptic]

Gee thanks Excalibre, I never would have figured out that pro lifers were lying disengenuous bastards employing methods of political expediency, without you explaining it. :rolleyes:

Your profound grasp of the obvious is simply astounding.

[Malodorous]

Why must it be a virgin? Why about a happily married woman, already the mother of three, who doesn't want any more children, and certainly not the child of the man who brutally raped her? Is she any less deserving of an abortion than the innocent virgin? Indeed, is she any less innocent?

Don't know. Was she sodomized?

Gee thanks Excalibre, I never would have figured out that pro lifers were lying disengenuous bastards employing methods of political expediency, without you explaining it.

Somewhere between 45 to 55% of the US public is prolife. Are they all disingenous bastards? Does even one of them, somewhere, actually belive what they say?

[Captain Amazing]

I think the guy seems to be saying, in his example, that, in this case, the rape or incest exception is because he does think abortions should be allowed for the health or life of the mother, and this hypothetical girl getting raped is so traumatic " that carrying that child could very well threaten her life"...in other words, the psychological trauma might be so severe that carrying the child to term might lead her to commit suicide or something.

[Excalibre]

Gee thanks Excalibre, I never would have figured out that pro lifers were lying disengenuous bastards employing methods of political expediency, without you explaining it. :rolleyes:

Your profound grasp of the obvious is simply astounding.
I'm glad we have you here on the boards, askeptic. Sometimes I slip into the tendency to assume that people who share my politics are smarter than the other side. Then I just need to see a post by you and one from Bricker to realize that, while my side is of course right, we certainly have no monopoly on brains.

If what you got out of what I said was "pro-lifers are disingenuous bastards", then you're incredibly dense. And perhaps you need a remedial reading course. Because I said nothing of the sort - and if you had the sense that God gave pomegranate, you'd realize that pursuing a politically tenable course of action that may fall short of your eventual goals is the only way to accomplish anything useful. I think a lot of people on the left share your political absolutism - that is to say, the form of stupidity you're manifesting is not unique to you. There are plenty of elements on the left who view any sort of compromise - like, say, voting for a candidate who shares almost all of their politics instead of absolutely all of them - as some sort of immoral act (though as usual I think my inherently sweet disposition leads me to characterize the thought process afflicting askeptic and others like him in far too generous terms.)

That is part of the reason they're winning. Because they're willing to work for ninety percent for the time being, and save the rest for later. That's how the right manage to win elections, even when most of their views aren't particularly popular amongst the public as a whole - they stick together, while total fucknuggets on our side end up doing stupid-ass things like voting for Ralph Nader.

Congratulations, askeptic. You made some very interesting points. And I'm sure one day they'll manage to cure whatever congenital disorder you're suffering from. Meanwhile, maybe you should lead the politics to those of us who can successfully tie our shoes, eh?

[Miller]

Gee thanks Excalibre, I never would have figured out that pro lifers were lying disengenuous bastards employing methods of political expediency, without you explaining it. :rolleyes:

Your profound grasp of the obvious is simply astounding.

What are you, retarded?

[askeptic]

... maybe you should lead the politics to those of us who can successfully tie our shoes, eh?


I say this only because you are such a punk about other peoples typos and spelling mistakes:

Well you may be able to tie your shoes (I doubt it) but where do you want me to "lead" the politics?. You're a wordy fucker aren't you?

And no Mal, I was not suggesting that all pro lifers are disengenuous, just the ones who are willing to allow a rape exception so they can pass a law now, even though their real intent is to do away with all exceptions eventually.

I think the moral position is either its murder or its not. I respect those people who believe all abortion is wrong. I respect the ones who honestly believe a rape exception is appropriate. The ones I cannot abide are the ones who are wiling to compromise their beliefs for political expediency. They are arguing from a supposed position of moral authority, they should not try to hide their ultimate goal.

[askeptic]

What are you, retarded?

Yes. Whats your excuse?

[Miller]

Yes. Whats your excuse?

And on top of that, you appear to be eight years old.

[Excalibre]

What are you, retarded?
Man, you're way more succinct than I am.


I say this only because you are such a punk about other peoples typos and spelling mistakes:
Cite? Besides, what kind of macho retard are you? I'm a "punk"?


Well you may be able to tie your shoes (I doubt it) but where do you want me to "lead" the politics?. You're a wordy fucker aren't you?
Oh, how sad. That reading comprehension thing again. You're right! I made a typo! Dear, dear. If only you were smart enough to figure out what I meant. You might be able to find a class at a local community center to help you with this problem.

And yes, I can tie my shoes. Sort of a pathetic comeback, don't you think? Basically boils down to "no u". I know cleverness is a bit too much to expect from you, but surely even you can do better than that.


And no Mal, I was not suggesting that all pro lifers are disengenuous, just the ones who are willing to allow a rape exception so they can pass a law now, even though their real intent is to do away with all exceptions eventually.
And as I've argued (an argument that you have not successfully refuted), that's not "disingenuous", that's democracy. It's how things work in a political system.


I think the moral position is either its murder or its not. I respect those people who believe all abortion is wrong. I respect the ones who honestly believe a rape exception is appropriate. The ones I cannot abide are the ones who are wiling to compromise their beliefs for political expediency. They are arguing from a supposed position of moral authority, they should not try to hide their ultimate goal.
Why? If you're working to end abortion, is it more morally acceptable to allow it to continue while you fight over the last ten percent of your goal? Just let the babies die in the meantime?

Seriously, can you offer up any explanation of how that's a reasonable or morally right way to participate in the political arena?

Jesus Christ. Is there someone we can talk to about not having the short bus drop him off at the library? Because letting this little guy loose on the internet isn't good for anybody.

[askeptic]

And on top of that, you appear to be eight years old.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Miller]

I know you are, but what am I?
Yeah, that was pretty much your first response to me. Let's add "limited vocabulary" to your list of personal shortcomings. Hang on, I'm going to need another note pad. This one's full up.

[crowmanyclouds]

...permitting exceptions for rape and incest makes pretty good sense.'Cept (unless they amended it recently) the law says,
...The bill they passed last month, HB 1215, bans all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest, including cases that threaten the health of the mother; the only exception is if the mother’s survival itself is at risk, and even in those instances the doctor must “make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child.”... (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html)Here's the very long thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360466) that basically never discusses the South Dakota law.

CMC fnord!

[Der Trihs]

Why must it be a virgin? Why about a happily married woman, already the mother of three, who doesn't want any more children, and certainly not the child of the man who brutally raped her? Is she any less deserving of an abortion than the innocent virgin? Indeed, is she any less innocent?Oh, she's a slut too - especially if she's happily married with children. That implies she might actually like sex with her husband. Why, she might even take most of her clothes off for sex, or < gasp > have the lights on !

Somewhere between 45 to 55% of the US public is prolife. Are they all disingenous bastards? Does even one of them, somewhere, actually belive what they say?A few, probably. I believe the great majority are woman-hating scum.

[Menocchio]

What I want to know is how the rape exceptions would be handed out.

I mean, it seems to me that in many criminal rape prosecutions, the question isn't so much "whodunnit" as "was this act consensual"? What's the standard of evidence required to allow an abortion? Does this necessitate filing a criminal complaint (and possibly the trauma of a trial)? Could there be repurcussions for the woman if the state can't prove the rape?

What's to stop a woman from gaming the system and just saying some guys jumped her? What's to stop her from falsely accusing her boyfriend?

Setting aside the morality of the thing, the rape exception seems untenable from a practical standpoint.

[blinkingblinking]

My father always says that the result would be a baby, not a monster.
Even if the woman was raped, and there was a pregnancy, it would just be a baby.

I studied applied ethics at university and I have still not found an answer to the abortion problem.

[Der Trihs]

I studied applied ethics at university and I have still not found an answer to the abortion problem."It's her body, let her do what she wants with it."

Problem solved.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

My father always says that the result would be a baby, not a monster.
Even if the woman was raped, and there was a pregnancy, it would just be a baby.

I studied applied ethics at university and I have still not found an answer to the abortion problem.
What's the problem?

[blinkingblinking]

"It's her body, let her do what she wants with it."

Problem solved.

You have solved the problem. How wise you must be ! Why didn't someone think of this decades ago ?!
The debate is finally over. I wonder what people were arguing about.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

This is where the pro-life mask tends to slip. These exceptions don't dispell what is supposed to be the central issue -- the life of the child. Instead, they reveal the real priority -- the woman can have an abortion so long as she can prove she's not a slut. While I couldn't agree more that some pro-life advocates are disingenuous bastards, I suspect that most people who are pro-life are both genuine in their sentiments, and, unbenownst to them are being hypocritical.

It all boils down to something I read (IIRC, in Skeptical Inquirer) about how people don't really believe what they think they believe. If you ask someone if a fertilized egg is a full-fledged person with all the rights of any born human being, they may say yes. And yet if you ask them if there should be an exception to abortion bans for rape, they may also say yes, never recognizing the huge paradox in their own brains. And I do bet that on some level, many of them have sympathy for virgins and contempt for "sluts," and this influences their stance.

Sadly, I don't think many people examine their own thoughts and philosophies, and therefore blithely carry around a lot of mutually exclusive beliefs.

[kanicbird]

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

'
To me the mother has to grant permission to the fetus for the use of the womb, it is her choice to make (Assuming a free society). Normally this is granted by engaging in activities which could result in a offspring (consensual sex - even w/ birth control unless that birth control is 100% effective, artificial insemination, ect.) In the case of rape that permission was not (necesserally) granted, not to say that she can't choose to give permission afterwards, and if she wants her offspring out of her body then, if medically possible and within her means that is her choice to make. Her offspring is basically SOL.

Incest is another issue that either falls under the category of rape, which she still can choose, or could be a concentual relationship between siblings, which permission has been granted by their activities already.

[kanicbird]

Didn't have time to finish, that above is a idealization, but in reality would lead to too many false cases of rape, too many productive members of society serving time and the eventual colapse of society as we know it. Due to that we either have to ignore the rape or incest exception altogether, or allow the mother to revoke permission and kill he offspring.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Her permission can be rescinded at any point in her pregnancy. She is a human being with basic human rights. An embryo is not. The notion that a fetus is a "baby" is purely a religious belief and the government has no right to impose that belief on its citizens.

[Happy Clam]

Her permission can be rescinded at any point in her pregnancy. She is a human being with basic human rights. An embryo is not. The notion that a fetus is a "baby" is purely a religious belief and the government has no right to impose that belief on its citizens.
While I am pro-death (just as the other side is anti-choice), your statement strikes me as being obviously false, Diogenes- would you include a fetus at 8 months, 29 days in your definition of "not being a [human being]"? And if so, then do you also condone infanticide? There is clearly a point before birth at which the fetus becomes so developed that to speak of it as not being a "baby" is ridiculous. I think the problem here is seeing where to draw that line.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

While I am pro-death (just as the other side is anti-choice), your statement strikes me as being obviously false, Diogenes- would you include a fetus at 8 months, 29 days in your definition of "not being a [human being]"? And if so, then do you also condone infanticide? There is clearly a point before birth at which the fetus becomes so developed that to speak of it as not being a "baby" is ridiculous. I think the problem here is seeing where to draw that line.
i'll give the same answer I always give. The woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body at any point. Once the fetus can survive outside the womb, she has a right to induce labor or have the fetus surgically removed, but once it's out and can survive on its own she has no more authority over it. if the fetus can be removed without killing it, go ahead, I don't care.

It's not really a very pertinent question, though, since 90% of all abortions are performed in the 1st trimester and almost all the rest are performed in the 2nd. 3rd trimester abortions are a minute fraction of 1%, and they are virtually never performed unless there is a significant medical reason to do so (usually the fetus is already dead).

As to when it becomes a "person?" I say it's a person when it's outside the mother and it's alive. That might sound arbitrary but that's the way it goes. We have to draw arbitrary lines sometimes. When does a child become an adult?

[Clothahump]

My father always says that the result would be a baby, not a monster.
Even if the woman was raped, and there was a pregnancy, it would just be a baby.

I studied applied ethics at university and I have still not found an answer to the abortion problem.

Well, one does not need to study ethics to know the answer. The only person who has a say in whether a woman carries to term or aborts is the woman herself. Everybody else needs to STFU; it's none of their concern.

[kaylasdad99]

To me the mother has to grant permission to the fetus for the use of the womb, it is her choice to make (Assuming a free society). Normally this is granted by engaging in activities which could result in a offspring (consensual sex - even w/ birth control unless that birth control is 100% effective, artificial insemination, ect.).To me, that assumes too much, wrt what the woman is choosing to do. The only SURE things that a woman is consenting to when she engages in consensual sex, is for her partner to attempt to achieve climax, using her body, and for her partner to attempt to bring her to climax.

Individual women may vary in what they are intending to give consent for when they engage in consensual sex, but IMHO, the above are the only assumptions that may validly be made for the general population of women (Assuming free society).

Every woman (again, IMHO) has the right to make the choice to grant permission to a fetus that she knows exists within her body. Or to withhold it.

[Der Trihs]

You have solved the problem. How wise you must be ! Why didn't someone think of this decades ago ?!They did.

The debate is finally over. I wonder what people were arguing about.The argument is between those who want to punish women and children for "sin", or for not being a man, or just for the fun of it , and those who don't. This is about malice, not morality.

[MrDibble]

There's this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=373185) currently running in GD, if anyone wants to weigh in.

As anyone following that thread knows, I weigh heavily on the choice side, for any pregnancy.