Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:09 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781

Why do pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest?


Just to be clear, I do NOT think abortions should be denied to rape victims or women who've had incestuous relationships. Actually, as much as I dislike abortion, I don't think it should be denied to anyone.

The ongoing Roe v. Wade thread reminded me of questions I've had for a long time. Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you? If the reasoning is that a woman who's been raped has been traumatized, and pregnancy and birth would be too emotionally damaging to her, why not make exceptions for women who haven't been raped but for whom pregnancy would be seriously emotionally damaging?

As for incest, is the exclusion due to fears of fetal defects? If so, then why the OK for that but not for severe fetal defects NOT from inbreeding?

I assume there are answers. I just can't figure out what they are.
  #2  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:14 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Political reasons.

Saying that abortion shouldn't be allowed for rape or incest would be ballot-box suicide.

It's the same reason why most pro-choicers don't allow extreme late-term abortions such as aborting a fetus when it is 9 months old and literally one day away from its due date. Technically, it's still in the woman's uterus, and the "woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body," but most pro-choicers wouldn't make that abortion legal because of the political repercussions.

The abortion debate is absolutely full of self-contradictions from both sides, perhaps more so than any other political issue. It's like why pro-lifers don't wage a widespread violent war against abortion clinics (well, the vast majority don't,) because they don't truly *feel* on a visceral level that an unborn fetus is the same as a born toddler or young child.

Last edited by Velocity; 06-29-2018 at 02:17 PM.
  #3  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:18 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you?
Many do not make exception for it. If your reasoning to be opposed to abortion is the zygote is a human from the moment of conception and killing it is akin to murdering an innocent then there can be no exception that makes abortion ok.

But that is a harsh thing to impose on a young woman who was impregnated when her father raped her.

The realpolitik of it is forcing that young girl to bear a child forced on her by incest is a bridge too far for many. So, in the interest of getting at least some kind of abortion ban passed, they make exceptions for rape/incest/mother's life.

Once they get those in place they can maybe revisit banning it for all reasons later.
  #4  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:23 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Because abortion is a difficult topic?

It's actually only about 60% of pro-lifers who do support rape and incest exceptions. The other half oppose them. Political expediency as velocity said is one of the reasons. The pro-life movement actually doesn't come down on politicians who put in the rape exceptions because they obviously know that the sight of a crying 15 year old rape victim who can't get an abortion is not a good thing to see on the nightly news. There's also the reality that our morality does allow exceptions to a great many things and very few of us maintain a very strict ethical code that harbors no exceptions. It's a different visceral reaction to a rape victim and a woman who is on abortion number 12 because she never gets around to birth control. I think that most people can understand that.

Again as velocity mentioned, 80 percent of pro-choicers don't support third trimester abortions even though that's also a possibly logically untenable position. The difference is that you can see a 24 week old baby and it looks a heck of a lot like a person and the 'my body, my choice' stance seems like just a little less of a priority.
  #5  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:25 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So, in the interest of getting at least some kind of abortion ban passed, they make exceptions for rape/incest/mother's life.
As an aside, 'mother's life' exceptions are materially different than rape and incest exceptions. If your interest is in preserving life, then the mother's life is equally as valuable as the child's and it's not necessarily logically incompatible to say that choosing the mother's life over the child's is a hard choice, but not an immoral one.
  #6  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:30 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 12,619
Because crazy always beats reason.

It's the NRA's "Never give an inch, no matter what, because slippery slope!" strategy. They give even a millimeter of ground, even for popular, sensible, and minimal restrictions, and then they have to admit their position is not as righteous and noble as they want you to think.
  #7  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:33 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Because crazy always beats reason.

It's the NRA's "Never give an inch, no matter what, because slippery slope!" strategy. They give even a millimeter of ground, even for popular, sensible, and minimal restrictions, and then they have to admit their position is not as righteous and noble as they want you to think.
Huh?

The OP is asking why pro-lifers do make exceptions for rape and incest.


Your 'crazy beats reason' and 'don't budge an inch' comment would make sense if pro-lifers weren't making exceptions for rape and incest.
  #8  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:37 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 12,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Huh?

The OP is asking why pro-lifers do make exceptions for rape and incest.


Your 'crazy beats reason' and 'don't budge an inch' comment would make sense if pro-lifers weren't making exceptions for rape and incest.
You're right. I misread the OP.
  #9  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:46 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,985
One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse, and therefore did not give implied consent to the possible pregnancy.

Abortions due to rape or incest are quite rare so the question doesn't come up very much, even though
Quote:
Eight states currently pay for abortions for poor women who have been the victims of rape or incest. They are Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Regards,
Shodan
  #10  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:51 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Because they’re not really pro-life, they’re pro-controlling women’s bodies.

No one has any control over how they’re conceived, so if you truly believe that life begins at conception and thus any deliberate action to terminate it constitutes murder, you shouldn't make exceptions for any case that doesn’t involve sparing the mother’s life which is undoubtedly jeopardized by continuing the pregnancy. Pro-lifers who make these kind of exceptions are exposing that it’s really about punishing women for having sex. If it’s just about political expediency, they should make that same charitable exception for women seeking to abort fetuses who are diagnosed with severe birth defects, and they don’t.

I’m also curious as to which percentage of these “pro-lifers” support social aid for indigent mothers, are pro-gun control and rebuke Trump for his anti-family policies. My guess is they exist in very small numbers compared to those who are very vocal about denying women access to abortion, so I’m not convinced that their arguments are rooted in anything other than hypocrisy and misogyny.
  #11  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:53 PM
Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Political reasons.

Saying that abortion shouldn't be allowed for rape or incest would be ballot-box suicide.

It's the same reason why most pro-choicers don't allow extreme late-term abortions such as aborting a fetus when it is 9 months old and literally one day away from its due date. Technically, it's still in the woman's uterus, and the "woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body," but most pro-choicers wouldn't make that abortion legal because of the political repercussions.

The abortion debate is absolutely full of self-contradictions from both sides, perhaps more so than any other political issue. It's like why pro-lifers don't wage a widespread violent war against abortion clinics (well, the vast majority don't,) because they don't truly *feel* on a visceral level that an unborn fetus is the same as a born toddler or young child.
I agree the positions of many who call themselves pro-life exclude rape and incest and few would condone let alone commit violence to stop abortions; and somewhat likewise many if not most Americans who call themselves pro-choice would accept *some* limits on abortion which would not apply to all other medical procedures.

In case of late term abortions I believe they'd argue that's different because of a practical *medical* difference, viability of the fetus/baby outside the woman's body so it's no longer 100% her choice. Whereas the rape/incest exclusion is hard to describe as other than a political difference. But some abortion restrictions that nominally 'pro choice' people would accept are also just political differences.

Self contradictory? I think that's somewhat subjective. If you assume the only moral logic about abortion is either 'medical procedure, everyone but patient and doctor, butt out', or 'whether a child is to be put to death' then yes, any compromise is a contradiction. But I think many people's opinion of abortion is based on the sense that it's neither simply a medical procedure nor an execution. The mother has a particular role and connection that is not matched in any (reasonable) analogy one can construct, but a separate life is also involved. Thinking along those lines is heavily discouraged by activists of both sides but it's not itself self contradictory. Rather it simply posits seriously competing interests of mother and child rather than assuming one interest or the other must be 100% paramount or else 'it's a contradiction'. And it would yield compromises that are not self contradictory if the logic in the first place rejects the absolute superiority of mother or child's interest over the other in all cases.

And whether or not that's how a lot of people consciously think of the issue, poll results on various aspects of the question tend to read as if it actually is. Hence, much stronger support for abortion bans excluding rape and incest, and general support for more restriction on abortion the further along the pregnancy. People on either side who don't want to abandon the absolute 'routine medical procedure v. murder' duality would always say 'who would decide between those competing rights!?!?', but how is it decided now? By election results. Results in an imperfect system you can separately discuss changing, results with an element of luck as to timing, but in any case cumulative election results are why the USSC makeup seems headed toward possibly sending the abortion issue back to the states. Then if so, votes will determine the balance in each state. If state X makes abortion illegal except for rape and incest, and a pro-choice (or pro-life, or just simplistic thinking neutral) person says 'but that's a contradiction!', so what?

Last edited by Corry El; 06-29-2018 at 02:57 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:54 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warm blood View Post
Because they’re not really pro-life, they’re pro-controlling women’s bodies.

No one has any control over how they’re conceived, so if you truly believe that life begins at conception and thus any deliberate action to terminate it constitutes murder, you shouldn't make exceptions for any case that doesn’t involve sparing the mother’s life which is undoubtedly jeopardized by continuing the pregnancy. Pro-lifers who make these kind of exceptions are exposing that it’s really about punishing women for having sex.
Perhaps, but by that logic, any pro-choicer who says that late-term abortions should not be permitted is also controlling women's bodies as well and restricting her choice/options. If a woman's body is hers to decide what to do with, then why can't she abort a 9-month old fetus just like a 2-month old one? In both cases, they're in her uterus, and her uterus is hers.
  #13  
Old 06-29-2018, 02:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
As an aside, 'mother's life' exceptions are materially different than rape and incest exceptions. If your interest is in preserving life, then the mother's life is equally as valuable as the child's and it's not necessarily logically incompatible to say that choosing the mother's life over the child's is a hard choice, but not an immoral one.
I believe those opposed to abortion view mother's life exceptions as a loophole. E.g. The doctor signs off that the mother is depressed and a suicide risk if she is forced to bear the child so therefore the mother's life is at risk and the abortion happens.
  #14  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:03 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Also, how would such an exception be respected in a scenario where abortion is otherwise totally banned? The woman would have to prove that she did not consent to the sex that lead to the conception of the fetus, so how would that go? Would a police report suffice? Or would the accused have to be charged, and would the case have to make it all the way to trial and result in a conviction for the victim to be believed? Considering how long augmenting a case to trial status takes, an abortion past a certain point would be out of the question. And that’s not even ignoring all the cases where it’s unrealistic to expect the victim to go the police about it (what about spousal rape, for instance?) Believing the victims only out of good faith obviously means women who want to abort fetuses that were the result of consensual sex will lie to get the abortions.

So yeah, not only is it a glaring contradiction to the notion of being pro-life, it’s something that’s even feasible enough to put into practice.

Last edited by Warm blood; 06-29-2018 at 03:04 PM.
  #15  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:06 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Perhaps, but by that logic, any pro-choicer who says that late-term abortions should not be permitted is also controlling women's bodies as well and restricting her choice/options. If a woman's body is hers to decide what to do with, then why can't she abort a 9-month old fetus just like a 2-month old one? In both cases, they're in her uterus, and her uterus is hers.
If you believe that a 9 month old fetus (aka a fully formed baby) is at the same stage of development as a two month old fetus that isn’t remotely viable outside the womb, then yeah.

Last edited by Warm blood; 06-29-2018 at 03:06 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:09 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warm blood View Post
If you believe that a 9 month old fetus (aka a fully formed baby) is at the same stage of development as a two month old fetus that isn’t remotely viable outside the womb, then yeah.
But why should viability make a difference? The argument for pro-choice is "A woman should decide what to do with her body." A 9-month old is occupying her uterus just like a 2-month old is, so why shouldn't she be allowed to abort in both cases?
  #17  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:11 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Perhaps, but by that logic, any pro-choicer who says that late-term abortions should not be permitted is also controlling women's bodies as well and restricting her choice/options. If a woman's body is hers to decide what to do with, then why can't she abort a 9-month old fetus just like a 2-month old one? In both cases, they're in her uterus, and her uterus is hers.
Because, while she can do what she wants with her body, the fetus is not a part of her body. She has only the right of eviction. This is the basis of the right to abortion. It's just that, before viability, there's no practical difference in kicking the fetus or embryo out and killing it.

We'd have to be fools to saying their exceptions were wrong without having a firm moral foundation for our own exceptions, wouldn't you think?

There's a good reason to reject "both sides" arguments. They rarely work.

Last edited by BigT; 06-29-2018 at 03:12 PM.
  #18  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:15 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Because, while she can do what she wants with her body, the fetus is not a part of her body. She has only the right of eviction. This is the basis of the right to abortion. It's just that, before viability, there's no practical difference in kicking the fetus or embryo out and killing it.

We'd have to be fools to saying their exceptions were wrong without having a firm moral foundation for our own exceptions, wouldn't you think?

There's a good reason to reject "both sides" arguments. They rarely work.
That's not actually true. AFAIK, there is never a time when a woman is given the choice of whether to just pre-term deliver a 24 week old. She can abort, but no healthcare provider in their right mind would allow a 'right of eviction.' Similarly, the fetuses in abortions are not simply removed and left to fend for themselves (and if they were, I would bet there would be a few more pro-life people as they watched little human-like things quivering their last in a steel tray), they are killed in utero. My guess is that the pro-life people would love if 'a right to eviction' is all that it were because it would lead to some wonderful propaganda clips for them.

Last edited by senoy; 06-29-2018 at 03:18 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Perhaps, but by that logic, any pro-choicer who says that late-term abortions should not be permitted is also controlling women's bodies as well and restricting her choice/options. If a woman's body is hers to decide what to do with, then why can't she abort a 9-month old fetus just like a 2-month old one? In both cases, they're in her uterus, and her uterus is hers.
If it's her body and she can do what she wants with it, can she inject heroin into it? Refuse to wear a seat belt around it on a public highway? Prostitute it? It would seem like the last three should not only be legal but constitutionally protected under the "It's my body, I'll do what I want with it" argument.
  #20  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:21 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse, and therefore did not give implied consent to the possible pregnancy.

Abortions due to rape or incest are quite rare so the question doesn't come up very much, even though

Regards,
Shodan
This is the correct answer. A woman who engages in vaginal intercourse assumes the risk of pregnancy. Indeed, that's the very reason animals do that sort of thing on a biological level.
  #21  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:22 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If it's her body and she can do what she wants with it, can she inject heroin into it? Refuse to wear a seat belt around it on a public highway? Prostitute it? It would seem like the last three should not only be legal but constitutionally protected under the "It's my body, I'll do what I want with it" argument.
That's why a lot of people have a problem with the court's stance on abortion. The government obviously can regulate medical procedures, or prostitution or any other thing having to do with your body and your privacy. Why did this one get cherry-picked as sacrosanct?
  #22  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If it's her body and she can do what she wants with it, can she inject heroin into it? Refuse to wear a seat belt around it on a public highway? Prostitute it? It would seem like the last three should not only be legal but constitutionally protected under the "It's my body, I'll do what I want with it" argument.
Yes, she should be able to inject heroin into it, and prostitute it. The seatbelt thing is a little different.
  #23  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is the correct answer. A woman who engages in vaginal intercourse assumes the risk of pregnancy. Indeed, that's the very reason animals do that sort of thing on a biological level.
So the fetus isn't a living thing that needs protection from murder if the mother didn't consent to the intercourse? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
  #24  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:29 PM
Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warm blood View Post
Because they’re not really pro-life, they’re pro-controlling women’s bodies....
Pro-choice people don't really believe in a woman's right to choose, they're just racists who are so committed to their white separatism that they'll sacrifice a few white babies for the sake of killing proportionally more brown folk

https://www.guttmacher.org/infograph...-and-ethnicity

I believe the abortion of this, and your, strawbabiy to be wrong.

Last edited by Delicious; 06-29-2018 at 03:29 PM.
  #25  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:32 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But why should viability make a difference? The argument for pro-choice is "A woman should decide what to do with her body." A 9-month old is occupying her uterus just like a 2-month old is, so why shouldn't she be allowed to abort in both cases?

Because being pro-choice doesn’t mean you throw common sense and ethics out of window. Fetuses at the pre-viability stage aren’t persons in any sense of the word. They’re really just parasites feeding off of the host's body, and the pro-life argument is that it’s murder to terminate a pregnancy at any stage no matter how early because it has the capacity to become a person if it’s not one already.

The argument of the pro-choice crowd has never been “it’s okay to kill a perfectly healthy and viable baby because it inconveniences you”. The argument is that it makes no logical sense to give what is essentially a cluster of cells more rights over the fully formed, legal person whose body is housing and devoting resources to that cluster of cells that has no personhood of any kind. IMO, it’s akin to calling chemotherapy murder.

A 9 month old fetus isn’t just a fetus, it’s a baby. It’s a person. Condoning the abortion of 9 month old fetuses for non-medical reasons would practically be no different than tolerating infanticide.

Last edited by Warm blood; 06-29-2018 at 03:34 PM. Reason: Quote button is so fucking inconsistent
  #26  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:32 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse
If the incest was not rape, then yes, she did.
  #27  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicious View Post
Pro-choice people don't really believe in a woman's right to choose, they're just racists who are so committed to their white separatism that they'll sacrifice a few white babies for the sake of killing proportionally more brown folk

https://www.guttmacher.org/infograph...-and-ethnicity

I believe the abortion of this, and your, strawbabiy to be wrong.


It is not like women only have so many babies to make and an aborted one means one less in the world.

Any given woman will be willing to have X-number of babies in her life. Just because she aborts when she is 16 does not mean she will not have children when she is 26.

If she was forced to have her baby at 16 then she may well skip having one at 26.

The minority community is not losing population because of abortion.
  #28  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:51 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The minority community is not losing population because of abortion.
Cite? That pretty much ignores everything we know about the demographics of abortion. Black women are 5 times more likely than white women to have an abortion and Latinas are twice as likely. Black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion across every income demographic except the extremely impoverished. Even controlling for education and geography, black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion. 60% of abortions are to women that already have a child and are in their 20s. It's not scared little 16 year old who made a mistake having abortions (teens only make up 12% of abortions, there are twice as many women over 30 having abortions than women under 20.) It's women typically in difficult economic circumstances who can't afford another child.

It's always hard to know what someone would do after their abortion, but it's very, very likely that the minority population in the US would be significantly higher if abortions had been magically done away with over the last 40 years. It's also likely that these new children would be disproportionately poor.
  #29  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:58 PM
Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post


It is not like women only have so many babies to make and an aborted one means one less in the world.

Any given woman will be willing to have X-number of babies in her life. Just because she aborts when she is 16 does not mean she will not have children when she is 26.

If she was forced to have her baby at 16 then she may well skip having one at 26.

The minority community is not losing population because of abortion.
I was being facetious, I thought declaring that I was aborting a strawbaby made that clear.

I just get sick of people instantly jumping to the worst possible motivation rather than the far simpler one of: these people actually believe abortion is morally wrong.

Also, does anyone have stats on a correlation between being pro-life and anti-aid to mothers amongst the general population or is that pulled from an orifice too?
  #30  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:04 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Cite? That pretty much ignores everything we know about the demographics of abortion. Black women are 5 times more likely than white women to have an abortion and Latinas are twice as likely. Black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion across every income demographic except the extremely impoverished. Even controlling for education and geography, black women are more likely than white women to have an abortion. 60% of abortions are to women that already have a child and are in their 20s. It's not scared little 16 year old who made a mistake having abortions (teens only make up 12% of abortions, there are twice as many women over 30 having abortions than women under 20.) It's women typically in difficult economic circumstances who can't afford another child.

It's always hard to know what someone would do after their abortion, but it's very, very likely that the minority population in the US would be significantly higher if abortions had been magically done away with over the last 40 years. It's also likely that these new children would be disproportionately poor.
Indeed, the "Roe Hypothesis" theorizes that abortion has been a big indirect boon to pro-lifers because pro-choicers are in a certain sense aborting their own future pro-choice voters.

That's another reason Republicans would lose big if they truly banned abortion in the land. Abortion has prevented a lot of Democratic voters from being born and the Republicans would be losing elections in landslides if it weren't for that.
  #31  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:41 PM
Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 14,004
Because they recognize that abortion always represents a weighing of the mother's autonomy interest and the fetus/unborn child's life interest. They value the fetal life interest very high, such that it ordinarily outweighs the mother's autonomy interest. When the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, however, the infringement on the mother's autonomy is that much greater, enough to override the interests of the fetus.
  #32  
Old 06-29-2018, 05:23 PM
Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
Because they recognize that abortion always represents a weighing of the mother's autonomy interest and the fetus/unborn child's life interest. They value the fetal life interest very high, such that it ordinarily outweighs the mother's autonomy interest. When the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, however, the infringement on the mother's autonomy is that much greater, enough to override the interests of the fetus.
That's a more succinct version of what I said, thanks.

The only reason some people see a rape or incest exception to an abortion ban as a 'contradiction' is that *they* insist the only way to look at the issue is as if either a) it's exactly the same as an already born child and the mother would have no right to end that child's life so why this one? or b) it's a 'lump of cells', like a bunion on one's foot, so who else's business would it be for the person to have it removed?

But those are not the only two ways to think of it.
  #33  
Old 06-29-2018, 05:29 PM
Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Because, while she can do what she wants with her body, the fetus is not a part of her body. She has only the right of eviction. This is the basis of the right to abortion. It's just that, before viability, there's no practical difference in kicking the fetus or embryo out and killing it.

We'd have to be fools to saying their exceptions were wrong without having a firm moral foundation for our own exceptions, wouldn't you think?

There's a good reason to reject "both sides" arguments. They rarely work.
Can she do what she likes with her internal organs? If a woman asked a doctor to remove her kidney to sell or just because she doesn't like that kidney would that be legal?

Obviously laws exist governing what you do with your body.

Is the fetus her property? There's plenty of laws & regulations regarding disposal of property too.

If it isn't her property, part of her body or it's own person, what is it?

Last edited by Delicious; 06-29-2018 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Autocorrect
  #34  
Old 06-29-2018, 05:54 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yes, she should be able to inject heroin into it, and prostitute it. The seatbelt thing is a little different.
The question is not should it be legal, but does the Constitution require it to be legal. I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers believed a right of a woman to prostitute herself.
  #35  
Old 06-29-2018, 06:57 PM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Just to be clear, I do NOT think abortions should be denied to rape victims or women who've had incestuous relationships. Actually, as much as I dislike abortion, I don't think it should be denied to anyone.

The ongoing Roe v. Wade thread reminded me of questions I've had for a long time. Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you? If the reasoning is that a woman who's been raped has been traumatized, and pregnancy and birth would be too emotionally damaging to her, why not make exceptions for women who haven't been raped but for whom pregnancy would be seriously emotionally damaging?

As for incest, is the exclusion due to fears of fetal defects? If so, then why the OK for that but not for severe fetal defects NOT from inbreeding?

I assume there are answers. I just can't figure out what they are.
The most common reason is simply and solely because (A) the life of the mother, (B) rape, (C) incest, are very, very often lumped together, even though they have nothing in common.

It is quite rare that any poll or policy-maker talks about (A) without also including (B) and (C).

I believe that a genuine threat to the life of the mother is a potentially-valid reason for an abortion--one that the family should decide for itself on a case-by-case basis.

If, in addition to that, abortion is allowed for cases of rape and incest -- I'm not happy about that, but I would take that situation in a heartbeat over the current situation.
  #36  
Old 06-29-2018, 07:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Cite?
I am honestly not sure there could be a cite for this. You'd need an alternate universe to see how things can work differently. We can postulate till the cows come home different circumstances where a woman has fewer babies, the same number of babies or more babies with or without abortion.

I have seen abortion referred to as a black genocide. I cannot see it remotely being a "genocide".

Are there fewer children because abortion exists? Maybe but whichever way it goes I think it a small enough difference to not make a difference.
  #37  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:04 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am honestly not sure there could be a cite for this. You'd need an alternate universe to see how things can work differently. We can postulate till the cows come home different circumstances where a woman has fewer babies, the same number of babies or more babies with or without abortion.

I have seen abortion referred to as a black genocide. I cannot see it remotely being a "genocide".

Are there fewer children because abortion exists? Maybe but whichever way it goes I think it a small enough difference to not make a difference.
There are 37 million black Americans. There have been roughly 19 million black abortions since 1973. In 2016 as an example, there were roughly 550 thousand black births and 300 thousand black abortions. I'm not sure that these are small differences. They're pretty large differences if you ask me. When over 1/3 of potential black babies are terminated, you can't pretend that's insignificant or beneath notice.
  #38  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:19 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
There are 37 million black Americans. There have been roughly 19 million black abortions since 1973. In 2016 as an example, there were roughly 550 thousand black births and 300 thousand black abortions. I'm not sure that these are small differences. They're pretty large differences if you ask me. When over 1/3 of potential black babies are terminated, you can't pretend that's insignificant or beneath notice.
I think the point is that this may be attributed to a certain demographic not properly using birth control, yet still only wanting a certain number of children.

If a woman only wants two children, it doesn't matter if she has two pregnancies and no abortions, or twenty pregnancies and eighteen abortions. The absolute number of abortions don't necessarily correlate with a decreased population.
  #39  
Old 06-29-2018, 10:28 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
a certain demographic
Black people or poor people?
  #40  
Old 06-29-2018, 11:07 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If a woman only wants two children, it doesn't matter if she has two pregnancies and no abortions, or twenty pregnancies and eighteen abortions. The absolute number of abortions don't necessarily correlate with a decreased population.
Exactly.
  #41  
Old 06-30-2018, 12:04 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse, and therefore did not give implied consent to the possible pregnancy.

Abortions due to rape or incest are quite rare so the question doesn't come up very much, even though

Regards,
Shodan
I need a little more explanation here. If I understand your argument correctly, every act of consensual intercourse by a woman implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy; therefore, since the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is not to have intercourse, especially for women whose religion forbids birth control or sterilization, a woman who absolutely does not want to or should not become pregnant should refuse to have intercourse. This includes married women. In fact, if she's on teratogenic medication, she's really compelled not to have intercourse because those medications may cause embryonic or fetal death.

Am I close?

What about women who've had consensual incestuous sex? I'm assuming no exception for them, right?
  #42  
Old 06-30-2018, 06:07 AM
DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,995
There are three sides to this argument, not two.

1. Pro-life

2. Pro-choice

3. The truth

The truth is that abortion is a "grey area" every time and in every case. The truth is that sometimes abortion is the right thing to do and sometimes it's not. The truth is that the reasons for abortion and the reasons against abortion are often both very strong, and the decision is difficult either way. If the correct answer is easy or clear to you in any particular question of abortion, then you have not really thought about it yet. If you think abortion is wrong, you don't know what you're talking about. If you think abortion is always a valid choice for those who make it, you don't know what you're talking about either.

This makes abortion a political disaster, because every campaign slogan on both sides is bullshit, and because the truth - that every case is grey and every decision is unclear and all principles must be applied relative to each other and none can apply absolutely - is boring and confusing and nobody will vote for it.
  #43  
Old 06-30-2018, 06:49 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
It isn't necessarily about the fetus, but misogyny. If the sex was rape or incest, then it wasn't really the woman's fault and she shouldn't be punished for it.
  #44  
Old 06-30-2018, 07:33 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think the point is that this may be attributed to a certain demographic not properly using birth control, yet still only wanting a certain number of children.

If a woman only wants two children, it doesn't matter if she has two pregnancies and no abortions, or twenty pregnancies and eighteen abortions. The absolute number of abortions don't necessarily correlate with a decreased population.
Yes, but we're not talking about wants, but rather demographic realities. About 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned and about 60% of those produce a child. So 3/8 of all children are unplanned. If you remove those unplanned children disproportionately from the population, you end up with a demographic shift and pretending that abortion hasn't resulted in a major demographic drain on the black population is ludicrous. I'm not one that buys the genocide explanation, but I am saying that without abortion, black people would have much more power at the polls and would definitely still be the largest minority group by far.
  #45  
Old 06-30-2018, 08:21 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,457
I'm definitely for the rape and incest exception. And, since fully formed adults are morally and ethically, and maybe someday legally, the same as two-week embryos, I think the rape and incest exception should carry on throughout that human's life.

Ergo, I think it should be fine to kill off anyone conceived through rape or incest at any time in their lives. We should probably gather them up and create some kind of Big Hunt reality show.

"His mother didn't consent to sex, so his life is forfeit. We have 20 more like him and five heavily armed big game hunters. Next time on...The Hunt!"

One thing I don't understand is, why incest? Aren't those cases that folks think should remain legal really rape? It's really father/daughter, uncle/niece, stepfather/stepdaughter, etc., that we're talking about here, right? Those are rapes. No one is thinking adult brother/adult sister or first cousins (depending on the state). Is incest just a polite way of avoiding saying that this fine gentleman raped his daughter?

(Note, it's possible for those genders to be reversed, just seems much less likely)

For example, would stepfather/stepdaughter qualify for the incest exemption for murder or the rape exemption for murder?
  #46  
Old 06-30-2018, 08:47 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Yes, but we're not talking about wants, but rather demographic realities. About 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned and about 60% of those produce a child. So 3/8 of all children are unplanned. If you remove those unplanned children disproportionately from the population, you end up with a demographic shift and pretending that abortion hasn't resulted in a major demographic drain on the black population is ludicrous. I'm not one that buys the genocide explanation, but I am saying that without abortion, black people would have much more power at the polls and would definitely still be the largest minority group by far.
It's interesting and I see both your point and Whack-a-Mole's point. I think at the end of the day, a group of people who have a large number of abortions is not doing so generally because of responsible family planning.

And in a world where abortion in not an option, they aren't going to stop having sex or suddenly become responsible family planners once the predetermined number of kids are reached. I tend to side with you on this; further, those numbers you cited are simply appalling.
  #47  
Old 06-30-2018, 10:07 AM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Just to be clear, I do NOT think abortions should be denied to rape victims or women who've had incestuous relationships. Actually, as much as I dislike abortion, I don't think it should be denied to anyone.

The ongoing Roe v. Wade thread reminded me of questions I've had for a long time. Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you? If the reasoning is that a woman who's been raped has been traumatized, and pregnancy and birth would be too emotionally damaging to her, why not make exceptions for women who haven't been raped but for whom pregnancy would be seriously emotionally damaging?

As for incest, is the exclusion due to fears of fetal defects? If so, then why the OK for that but not for severe fetal defects NOT from inbreeding?

I assume there are answers. I just can't figure out what they are.
Not every pro-life person supports those exceptions. To abort a child created by rape or incest is to apply the death penalty to a second victim of a crime. Considering that the criminal receives no comparable punishment makes it that much more unjust.
If the woman doesn't want to raise the child, the child can be adopted by a family that does, and there is no "reminder" to "torment" the first victim.
  #48  
Old 06-30-2018, 10:46 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Not every pro-life person supports those exceptions. To abort a child created by rape or incest is to apply the death penalty to a second victim of a crime. Considering that the criminal receives no comparable punishment makes it that much more unjust.
If the woman doesn't want to raise the child, the child can be adopted by a family that does, and there is no "reminder" to "torment" the first victim.
Yes, I should have said "some" or "many" pro-lifers.

As I understand it, if the woman lives in Maryland, Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi, or New Mexico, the rapist has parental rights and may have to give consent to the adoption. In another 20 states, the rapist must be convicted to lose parental rights--which may seem fair until you remember that only a small percentage of rapes go to trial. So in 27 states, a rapist who is not convicted could potentially block the adoption. That would mean almost 19 years of "living with the reminder," assuming the rapist doesn't want custody.

I said 19 instead of 18 because the nine months of pregnancy still entail "living with the reminder" I use quotation marks because this is a very mild way of describing the experience.

Do you oppose abortion if the mother's life is at stake? If she's 12 and pregnant, for instance?
  #49  
Old 06-30-2018, 10:50 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 56,492
A pro-lifer once told me "the baby didn't do anything wrong." I asked him if he considered tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life was wrong. He had no answer.

There was a case where the Catholic Church excommunicated the woman and the doctor who allowed her nine year old daughter to abort the twins she was carrying. They did not excommunicate the stepfather who raped her and got her pregnant.

Many people who think abortion is wrong think a woman who was raped was "asking for it."
  #50  
Old 06-30-2018, 10:52 AM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
That's a more succinct version of what I said, thanks.

The only reason some people see a rape or incest exception to an abortion ban as a 'contradiction' is that *they* insist the only way to look at the issue is as if either a) it's exactly the same as an already born child and the mother would have no right to end that child's life so why this one? or b) it's a 'lump of cells', like a bunion on one's foot, so who else's business would it be for the person to have it removed?

But those are not the only two ways to think of it.
Who is “they”? Do try to keep in mind that this argument originates from the pro-life crowd so we’re only holding them by their own standards, not strawmanning their position on the matter. If you say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder, you shouldn’t be making exceptions based on how that life was conceived... otherwise you’re admitting to being pro-murder in some instances. Like another poster pointed out, based on pro-life logic it should be okay to kill living people who are the product of rape/incest since again, according to pro-life logic a fetus/embryo at any stage of development is no different from an already living child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I need a little more explanation here. If I understand your argument correctly, every act of consensual intercourse by a woman implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy; therefore, since the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is not to have intercourse, especially for women whose religion forbids birth control or sterilization, a woman who absolutely does not want to or should not become pregnant should refuse to have intercourse. This includes married women. In fact, if she's on teratogenic medication, she's really compelled not to have intercourse because those medications may cause embryonic or fetal death.

Am I close?

What about women who've had consensual incestuous sex? I'm assuming no exception for them, right?
I wonder about that too, but then I remember these type of people will say that it’s “God’s will” to end up with a bunch of kids you don’t want to have. A lot of pro-lifers oppose access to contraceptives, even the “I make exceptions for rape/incest” types. So if it’s not obvious that it’s really about controlling women’s bodies, I don’t know what is.

Also note that no one arguing on behalf of the pro-life crowd in this thread has responded to us highlighting the glaring contradiction of refusing to make that exception for fetuses with severe birth defects that aren’t the product of rape/incest. This isn’t nuance, this is blatant hypocrisy.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017