Abortion ONLY in cases of rape or incest?

Great Debates
1

I hear this one thrown around a great deal: “I oppose abortion, but of course I support it in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.” I think it was Scylla who first invoked this position in the Bush/Abortion thread.

This seems like an easy thing to say, but if the laws were changed to reflect that statement, what would it mean in practice?

  1. Would only women who clearly proved rape or incest in a court of law would have access to abortions?

So if the trial takes too long (no late-term abortions, remember?) or the prosecution messes up or one juror decides she can’t convict, no abortion? Woman has to have the child? Who supports it? Does she sue her rapist for paternity and child support? Maybe the court could perform a Christian wedding ceremony, so baby can grow up legitimate?

I mean, golly gee, otherwise, just anyone could go to her local abortion clinic and say “I was raped, honest!” and order herself up a brand new abortion! You’d have no way of knowing if they were actually raped or just vile sex-having Jezebels taking advantage of the system!

  1. In cases of “danger to the life of the mother”, who decides? Does the decision reside with the doctor? Does it get presented before a judge - do we set up “abortion courts” who hear the cases? Who is responsible if the tribunal chooses wrong, and the woman dies?

Couldn’t I just pay off my doctor? Or would we have special impartial state doctors examine me?

I’m mystified by the Republican Party, who claim that they want smaller and less intrusive government. If the above anti-abortion vision becomes a legal reality, could government BE any more intrusive?

Let me know what you think.

2

**

When one has this curious position on abortion I feel that they in fact lack the courage of their convictions. If one accepts that a fetus is the exact same a child it should make no difference rather it was conceived out wedlock, marriage, rape, or even incest. You can’t have it both ways.

Marc

I’m pro-abortion.

3

And if I may add to the OP, how the hell do pro-lifers fit a rape/incest exception into their moral system anyway? If abortion is murder, how is it any less murder when the fetus was conceived in disfavored circumstances?

4

Oops, simulpost, MGibson.

But as for magdalene’s questions, I think the answer could be any or all of the ones you suggest. If Dubya gets a couple of pro-life appointments to the Supreme Court, the issue gets thrown back to the states to decide on an individual basis. I’m unaware of how the states dealt with the rape-incest-health thing before Roe v. Wade, but I suspect their approaches today would range from the ultra-restrictive (maybe even no exceptions at all) to very liberal. Just depends on who’s in the legislature and where local opinion stands.

5

Well, if this were the case, you’d see a helluva sharp increase in the number of reported rapes and molestations. And there would be a lot of women coming up with strange and awful symptoms to prove that her life was in danger. People who seek abortions tend to feel pretty desperate about their situation, so I would expect them to go to any lengths to get one if such restriction were placed on them.

I don’t think laws should only apply to certain people who were victimized. I mean, what if your SO’s vasectomy was botched? Or your birth control pills didn’t work for some reason, even if you took them correctly. Heck, what if you thought all your eggs were dried up and then BAM! I think if abortion is going to be legal (and I think it should) it should be legal across the board with only time as a limitation. (I think 192 months is enough time to decide if you want to have a kid or not :slight_smile: Doh! I’m just kidding!)

6

Gee, Mags you caused me a lot of trouble with this. It wasn’t me.

What I said was that I thought abortion was morally wrong except in instances of rape or medical necessity. I also said that I realize that I have no right to to inflict my personal morality upon another, and force her to carry a baby she doesn’t want. Therefore, I support the right of a women to choose. I am pro choice.

7

You sure can’t, although I don’t the reason is (always) lacking the courage of their convictions.I think it’s more often an incapacity to see abortion in other than black or white terms-either it’s murder or there’s never anything morally wrong with it. There is a middle -sometimes its wrong and sometimes its not,depends on the circumstances. Might be the moral equivalent of murder (in some circumstances},might not be a moral issue at all (in other circumstances).Some people can’t accept that kind of ambiguity, so they say it’s murder, but allow exceptions.

8

You seem to be saying that you do not hold the position attributed to you. For you to disagree with the statement, you must either not oppose abortion in general, ior you must not support it in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. Which one(s) applies? Also, what is morally wrong about abortion that does not to rape victims?

9

I am pro-choice and I have always thought that the whole “abortion is wrong except in cases of incest or rape” attitude was puzzling. The fetus has no conrol over the circumstances of its conception, and it has always seemed to me that this attitude seeks to punish the woman for having consensual sex.

10

Magdalene, I’m going to be as blunt as possible–what’s the point of this thread? Is it simply a way for you to say that Dubya/Republicans/etc are stupid, believing something that is an apparent contradiction? Is it simply a way to say that pro-lifers are stupid, believing something that is an apparent contradiction? If it’s the former, fine, just come out and say, “Hey, Dubya, you’re stupid because you believe abortion is ok in the case of rape.” If it’s the latter, you’re really not harming the pro-life stance if it’s well thought out.

I, for one, realize this contradiction you’ve noted. Why punish a fetus because its dad forced itself upon its mother? Abortion for rape is in effect saying, “The mother didn’t choose the sex, so she couldn’t have chosen the baby, so it should be legal for her to get rid of it.” Following that logic, if a condom breaks and pregnancy results, then “The mother didn’t choose the baby, so it should be legal for her to get rid of it.” To me, abortion for rape is similar to abortion for an “ordinary” unwanted pregnancy. You either forbid both, or you allow both. (With the caveat below).

Abortion for incest… this one is a little trickier to me. It seems to me that the reason abortion is considered legit in incest cases for GW is that the baby may be born with all those bad things that come about from double recessive phenotypes. You know, all those things we learned about in Seventh Grade biology. But no one knows that “incestuous baby = physically fucked baby” for sure. Killing it because it may be screwed up, that seems a little shady to me. If there were some way to test a 4 week old embryo and say, “We’re 100% certain this baby will be born with severe, crippling retardation,” I dunno, abortion seems advisable there. But you can’t do that with incest.

Abortion for danger to the mother… that’s a no brainer to me. Can’t go around trading one life for another.

So, Magdalene, if your intent is to make fun of Republicans or Pro-Lifers in general, just come out and say it. If you’re honestly wondering about the specifics of who decides what, well, that’s different, and I apologize for being acerbic.

Quix

*Rape Caveat=I’ve heard the argument that it’s wrong to force a woman to walk around for 9 months with a reminder of such a terrible event. I’ve tossed this around with my head, haven’t completely reached a conclusion. It seems to me that she’s not going to “forget” about the rape, so how is the pregnancy a reminder? Also, I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that she could come to view her child as the one beautiful thing to come out of such a tragedy. I dunno, more thought is needed, but my gut feeling is that you shouldn’t punish the child for the sins of the father.

11

The Ryan:

I see no conflict as I do not seek to have my personal opinion made law.

From my own personal morality standpoint, medical necessity is a good reason to have an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy can kill (as an example.) I see the mother’s right to life to have precedent over some multiplying cells.

In a rape case, the trauma of carrying an attacker’s child may also make an abortion a necessary choice.

Very early on in the pregnancy, we are talking about a bunch of cells, and I have little problem with any abortion.

At some mystical point which I don’t pretend to discern, those cells become a human being.

I don’t believe that ending that is a good thing.

I also don’t think breast enlargement is a good thing. It’s my personal opinion, but you’ll never hear me suggest that a woman can’t decide to have a breast job if she wants one.

Can I not support a woman’s right to choose without liking the choice?

12

That movie brings up a good point.

If abortions were illegal, they would still go on, except under less sanitary conditions.

Pro-choicer

13

First, apologies to Scylla - this was not an attempt for me to poop on you, sneakily. The position happens to be that of the newly inaugurated President of the United States, and you were the person who happened to say almost exactly that in the other thread. You were the meaning in my life, and the inspiration.

quixotic, I’m not looking for liberal ditto-heads here. Nor am I Bush bashing. I know the tone of my OP was a bit sarcastic, but I sought to point out the logical and practical inconsistencies of the position while not hiding where I myself stand. You came back with a well-written and consistent post.

Now, I’ll put the question again:

If you genuinely oppose abortions, except in the above cases, and you have the power to make the rules, how does it all work? How do you think it should work?

Does anyone REALLY hold this opinion, or is it just a duck blind for being a) absolutely against abortions or b) pro-choice, but really unhappy about it.

Carry on.

14

This is one aspect of the abortion debate that is pretty weird, I think - the camp who think it should only be legal in case of rape or incest. I think they tend to be the ones who see abortion as bad more because it is a way around responsibility for sex instead of the ‘killing babies’ argument - that’s the only way I can see it…we don’t allow killing of babies who are the product of rape or incest today, if an unborn child is just as human, why should it be OK?

A big problem with this would be enforcement. There would just be a lot of women claiming that incest or a rape happened. Are they going to come up with some way to pay for a full investigation every time someone gets an abortion, or deny the abortion if the rape victim didn’t report it immediately? They would have to make incest illegal, too. If I had a sister who needed an abortion and she was 18, I would claim fatherhood to help her out if that was the only way. No reason why the family should ever know, and if they did they would believe the truth when it was explained.

As long as you allow abortion for rape and incest, you pretty much have to allow it for other reasons, unless you want to defend a belief that the children of rape or incest have less right to live than others.

15

Bingo. Punising women for having consensual sex. Or hoping they’ll be frightened into chastity if abortions are forbidden. I think those are the motivations for at least some in the anti-abortion camp.

I, too, wonder how govt will enforce a law that permits abortion only in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. How do they determine if a rape or incest really occured? Who decides if the mother’s life is really in danger? And if abortion is allowed to save the health of the mother, or in cases of fetal abnormality, who decides if the danger to the mother, or abnormality of the fetus is severe enough?

It’s a sure thing that many women who are denied legal abortions will get illegal ones. Will the criminal justice system really go to work trying to catch, try, and jail doctors who perform illegal abortions? How about the women? Will they also be arrested, tried, and jailed?

16

Woman’s choice. Plain and simple.
…either that or we just put all women under governmental control from their day of birth. You know… so we can keep an eye on their ovaries at all times.

17

But magdalene never said you did. She simply asked what the consequences would be if your view were enforced.

So is homicide justified if it done to prevent trauma?

And I hope that if someone starts a thread on what the implications would be for making breast enlargement illegal, you would not take that as saying that you want them to be illegal.

18

Is anyone aware of any group that has tried to effectuate the “rape or incest” exception? In my mind, it is not legit or workable, for many of the reasons set forth above.

Anyone have stats on the percentage of abortions reportedly following rape or incest? I would suspect a relatively low percentage.

I believe advocating the “rape or incest,” exception is essentially dishonest from a policy point of view, and is adopted instead as a public relations ploy to suggest that one’s position is not excessively authoritarian. Many people might say an absolute prohibition against abortion in all cases is extreme. It is very easy for pro-choicers to say, “What about …?” So, pro-lifers short circuit that anticipated criticism, and make themselves appear reasonable and charitable, by giving lip service to what they know will be a minimal exception in reality. They know that what they are conceding will be largely unworkable, and they will accomplish the essence of their goal.

19

Dinsdale and others I have to agree. If anything I more admire the pro-lifers who at least have the conviction that the sanctity of life is just that, no exceptions. Way too often this issue is tied up not in the debate over whether or not life begins at conception but in the circumstances of conception. Too often I hear people who oppose abortion voice their opposition not to the abortion itself but to a woman’s use of abortion as birth control. In this instance we are not saving the life of child we’re simply punishing sexual behavior. I’m thinking what difference does it make if a child is concieved by rape or a drunken night out on the town. Neither one of them is a good start for any child to have.

I also wonder why the life of the mother comes into play. Child bearing has always been messy and dangerous. Regardless of the health of the mother at conception there is always a possibility of complications during pregnancy, at birth and afterwards. The truth is, carrying and giving birth to a baby can possibly be dangerous for any woman. Yes, it’s true that modern technology has lessened the risk but has not completely eliminated it.

I have to agree the standard exceptions just do not fly. Shit or get off the pot, either you do or you don’t believe that abortion is wrong.

(Oh and BTW we can debate the death penalty issue another time…the “kill 'em now or kill 'em later” stance is what I call it. You know, either the government has the right to allow a life to be taken or it doesn’t.)

Needs2know

20

Here’s the survey which lists Americans (all, w/o checking ‘pro life’ or not) views on abortions.

I believe that folks who are pro choice tend to use the phrase ‘pro-life’ to mean anyone who is against abortions ever. Isn’t the same thing.

Frankly, despite the ‘pro-lifers’ tendancy to call other folks ‘pro abortion’, most people would collectively agree with the statement ‘it is better to avoid an unwanted pregnancy altogether than to have an abortion’. So, it seems that most people are not in favor of using abortion as a primary birth control measure (55% don’t want it legal in the case of an ‘unwanted pregnancy’), but an overwhelming majority favor it in the case of rape/incest (83%), and nearly all in favor of it in the case of saving mother’s life or health (90% and 85% respectively).

I would agree that the rape/incest exclusion is inconsistant with the stated goals of the “pro-life” movement, and since 83% of Americans believe that it should be legal in those cases, can we either extrapolate from that : A. Most Americans are not pro-life (only about 17%) or that B. Most who consider themselves ‘pro-life’ are inconsistent on this issue (if there’s more than 17% of Americans that consider themselves pro-life, then they would fall into the class of folks who consider themselves pro life but are inconsistent about it)?

I am confused more, however, about the stance of ***quiotix 78 *

** which seems to state that aborting an embryo that we’re 100% certain will be born with severe, crippling retardation" is ok.

Killing a severly crippled retarded person would be ok? That also seems inconsistent. I invite your justification.