Abortion ONLY in cases of rape or incest?

quixotic

So abortion is wrong - wrong in cases of rape or incest, because you:

And it’s wrong in case of danger to mother because:

.
But okay if the kid’s birth defects are severe enough to warrant it?

So you think it’s wrong to allow an abortion if only the mother’s life/health/well-being will be compromised, but it’s okay if you know for sure that the fetus’ future quality of life will be terribly compromised. And was this just a kid who results from incest (I believe that’s the source of the birth defects exception we were discussing) or does this apply to any fetus with severe birth defects?
The gospel according to quixotic: The life, health, future of the fetus is ALWAYS more important than that of the mother. Unless of course the kid has birth defects.

Hoo-boy.
Bricker, thanks for your well thought-out answers.

Oh, and clarification on response to Scylla - I think that women who choose to have abortions should have them as quickly as possible. While I don’t support legal consequences for those who wait, I’m relatively comfortable with the government’s 1st trimester rules.

** Ok, more on that in a moment. I agree whole heartedly with this, however: quote]I don’t think there’s anyone around who argues that abortion is a Good thing. People argue that having the choice to abort is good, true, but I don’t see anyone saying, “Friday, I’m gonna go out, have unprotected sex so that I can have an abortion a few weeks later! Woo!”
[/quote]

it’s here that you get into serious difficulty:

When you get into the scope of ‘quality of life’ then I think you pretty much have to contend with the concept that the begining stages of development, while they may have the potential to develope a ‘quality of life’, certainly at the first division of cells, there’s no brain stem, no brain, no sensient being, and therefore, by the slippery slope that you speak of here, no problem with causing it’s death.

The relative rarity of any of these cases are not the point (if it were, there certainly wouldn’t be a whole lotta debate about the so-called partial birth ones - if you’re interested, there was a wonderful thread about that within the past 4 months).
Regarding the posters who want a ban post 1st trimester - you of course, should understand that not everyone knows about the pregnancy that quickly. In addition to the response of “oh god I can’t be pregnant, I’ll ignore it”, some women have nearly no symptoms of pregnancy during those first few months. So, those women wouldn’t have an option others would have, due solely to things outside their control (those who had no symptoms, and if you want to say, ok, for them, how would you establish they’d had no symptoms?)

In addition, when you’re dealing with folks whose access to health care, disposable income etc. may be comprimised, they may not be able to afford to get a test quickly, get a doctor’s appointment quickly and/or certainly not have the disposable income to pay for the procedure all within 3 months. (there was a case in MI a few years ago where a young girl, like 10 - 12 years old was impregnated by her brother, no one in the family knew until she was showing at around 6 months, and by the time they were attempting to have the procedure. The state stepped in, delayed things, by the time she did have an abortion, she had to be taken out of state to do it.

IMHO, it’s an intensely personal issue, with more qualifications, ramifications, special circumstances etc. than could possibly be legislated completely. Certainly no one speaking their opinions here have more at stake and more right to make the decision than the people directly involved, so I’d really rather leave it up the them.

wring, thanks for bringing up the myriad of issues that go along with the first trimester rules and making me realize where I really stand. I hadn’t thought of it quite that way when I responded to Scylla - I think it was my attempt to do the same weenie thing the “it’s absolutely wrong except in cases of rape, incest, or life of mother” people do with a “It’s perfectly okay, just get it over with quickly”.

That’s pretty much my HO too.

Just to clarify the state of the law on this, the mother can currently sue the rapist or molester for child support if she elects to keep the child.

[off-topic] In fact, she may be able to sue for child support even if she was the molester. In at least one case, a babysitter who was guilty of statutory rape successfully sued the boy she had molested for child support after he reached adulthood. [/off-topic]

And I don’t think quixotic’s scenario is implausible, although I also think it would be far from universal.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and actually try to respond to the OP. Surely, laws to enforce the proposed abortion exception stance would be hard to enforce.

The laws would most likely penalize those who perform the abortions. Therefore, the doctor would be the first arbiter, and I guess the personal beliefs of the doctor would influence the outcome heavily. Only if a doctor were prosecuted for performing an unauthorized abortion would it get to the courts.

As for the health/life exception, there are already laws in place disallowing abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother’s health or life is in danger (See, e.g., N.C.Gen.Stat. Section 14-45.1(b)). I have no idea how these laws are enforced, or even if there is a need for enforcement, but there is at least some precedent for this type of regulation.

While I realize 3 months might not be a convenient time frame for everybody to decide whether they want to have an abortion or not, let’s back up a step, and realize that we are talking about ending a human life. The argument can no longer be made that this is just a couple of cells or a little bit of tissue.

Along with rights come responsibilities.

Whether by accident, coincidence, stupidity, or long odds, a woman has become pregnant against her will. I think that she has the right to rectify the situation and control her own body. She is removing tissue and cells, a potential human being. I think it’s wrong, but I recognize that there is a grey area there.

After the 1st trimester there is no longer a grey area. By any objective measure you are killing a human being. That human being’s right to life takes precedent over another’s convenience. Obviously there may be extreme cases: a woman raped and held captive for longer than 3 months, somebody who didn’t figure out that they were pregnant until month 4, or didn’t get proper counseling. While those are all regrettable, none of them justifies murder.

The first trimester line is not especially arbitrary. At 3 months you are looking at a fully formed human being.

What “objective” measure are you using there?

Of course it’s arbitrary, unless you’re arguing that there’s some quantifiable difference between a fetus at 2 months, 29 days and and that same fetus 24 hours later. Can you tell the difference?

Well the who cares about the last six months of gestation then? Let’s just kick the little bugger out of the womb and send the kid home with an adoptive parent. :rolleyes:

Okay, so far I’ve established that you normally think that abortion is immoral, but not in certain rape cases. I’ve also established that a 8 month fetus is not one of those exceptions. After a few more months of this, I may be able to determine your entire position :rolleyes:.
Are there cases in which you think that a rape victim should be allowed to get an abortion, but a non-rape victim in the same situation should not be allowed to get an abortion? If so, what is the reason for disallowing the non-rape victim, and why does it not apply to the rape victim? If not, then why claim that you are making an exception for rape?

Also, what do mean when you say that you would not “favor” a law that would allow abortions at 8 months? Do you mean that you would take steps to prevent it, such as voting against it? If so, how do you reconcile that with your statement “I do not seek to have my personal opinion made law”?

**
Well, I admit the “beautiful thing” scenario is, as one poster noted, quixotic, but not outside the realm of possibility. That’s not the meat of my argument against rape-related abortion anyways; the meat is the second part–I don’t think that you should punish the child for the sins of the father.

WOAH!!! I should have been more explicit here, I guess. The no brainer I was referring to is: it’s a no-brainer that killing the mother to save the baby is WRONG.

No, it’s not OK. I’m undecided, as I thought I made clear in my response to wring.

Well, I hope I cleared up my position on danger to the mother, so this straw man can be incinerated like it deserves to be.

**
Neither–it applies to an unlikely situation within a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation? We can tell anything about an embryo with 100% certainty. The unlikely situation? A child is born so severely handicapped that its meaningful interaction and its potential to enjoy life is impossible. I don’t think that this situation compromises the integrity of my position in any way. An analagous situation: I believe that taking a life is wrong. If I find myself in a situation where I take a life in defending myself, would you accuse me of having compromised my anti-death position?

**
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes: And I don’t think I presented it as gospel, I specifically used qualifiers and said often things like, “This is my view” or “I’m not sure.” Unfortunately, I’ve not seen the same from you…

Moving on to wring

**
I’ve added the italics to emphasize the difference between my hypothetical situation and your more mundane situation. In my situation, there is no potential to develop a “quality of life.” In the more mundane situation you present, that potential certainly exists. Potential doesn’t matter, you say? I’ll borrow a hypothetical that Bob Cos used once. Suppose that your grandmother is in a coma and is offically brain dead. Suppose the doctor, using some revolutionary new technique, tells you that she will recover use of her brain in 6 months. Right now, she is technically dead, but she has the potential for life. Do you pull the plug on her life support?

**
Not sure which cases you’re referring to here. If it’s my hypothetical situation, please note that it’s not rare, it’s impossible.

Quix

** Me? I dunno what I would do. One thing I would not do is to presume to tell others what they must or should do under those circumstances. Hence, the source of our disagreement.

then you go on to quote me again

nope. Not impossible at all as far as I can see. Tests can be done on the embryo that show a whole host of medical conditions, including certain forms of birth defects (spina bifida is one I believe, as well as Down’s), and the one that I can never spell (encepha… enchepha…) anyhow, the one where the brain is undeveloped and will die pretty much directly after birth. Now. You’re certain that the grandma brain dead etc. w/o chance of recovery is ‘good to go’. And, I’d suspect that the embryo w/o sufficient brain to continue it’s own life support outside of the womb, but where and who gets to decide the rest? See, that’s where your scene falls down. To some people, Down’s syndrom would in and of itself be sufficient, while others would hotly disagree. Spina bifida? Cerebral Palsy? combination of 2 out of 3? Etc. etc.

So, frankly, I think I’ll stick with my original position, of "Certainly no one speaking their opinions here have more at stake and more right to make the decision than the people directly involved, so I’d really rather leave it up the them. "

The Ryan:

Since you seem to require your own special explanation each time a new point is discussed and seem incapable of adding 2 + 2:

Just For You

  1. I personally don’t like abortions.

  2. I am nonetheless pro-choice, fully supporting a women’s right to have an abortion for whatever reason she sees fit, no matter how little I like it.

  3. I support this up to the end of the first trimester. I believe that at the end of the first trimester a fetus is a human being, and should no longer be subject to termination at whim. If the mother has not yet chosen to abort by this point she should no longer have that option.

  4. After the first trimester, I would only support abortions that were deemed medically necessary by a qualified physician.

  5. I would not support a special exception for rape or incest victims after the first trimester, other than as deemd by a qualified physician as medically necessary.
    I asked you a question in the Bush thread, that you have not seen fit to reply to. I would appreciate your doing so.

I will never support any law that forces a woman to go through childbirth. I may have moral qualms over a lot of abortions, but I realize that there is nothing we can do to stop them that would not cause problems for others, so I leave that decision to those directly affected.

Why is it my fault you are unable to give a direct answer to a question?

You fully support a women’s right to have an abortion, but you would not support a law allowing her to have one after one trimester? I think you and I have different interpretations of the word “fully”.

I remember one time I got an offer for a credit card with “no annual fee for the first six months!” You claim that you “fully support” a woman’s right to choose, unless she makes that choice after your deadline. Your position, or rather, your manner of expressing it, reminds of that ad. “I support a woman’s right to have an abortion any time during her pregnancy. This support only extends to women in their first trimester of pregnancy”. Riiiight. If you fully support a woman’s right to an abortion within the first trimester, why don’t you say “I fully support a woman’s right to an abortion within the first trimester”, instead of saying
“I fully support a woman’s right to an abortion.”

“My support for a woman’s right to an abortion applies only during the first trimester”.

If you’re going to make an exception to a statement, you should include it during that statement, not tack it on in a later statement, and not even acknowledge that you’re making an exception. See, you’ve been contradicting yourself this entire thread, and my conclusion was that you simply hadn’t made up your mind. Apparently I was supposed to magically know that you meant for the phrase “this may be modified by further restrictions” to appear at the end of every one of your statements.

Even in case of rape? Your statement seems to apply to cases of rape, but seeing as how you seem to consider it your perogerative to add in exceptions any time you want, I’m confused as to whether there’s an “except in cases of rape” clause that I’m supposed to psychicly know is meant to be at the end of that sentence.

So when would you support a special exception for rape? You’ve implied that you support the right to abort during the first trimester for any reason, which means that rape wouldn’t be a “special” exemption. You now say that you wouldn’t support an exemption for rape after the first trimester. So when exactly does this exemption apply?

Yes, you did. A full twelve hours ago. How dare I keep you waiting for such a long time! :rolleyes:.

So you assume that if someone says they are pro-choice that means that they think a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time up until actual delivery? A full term viable infant may be killed arbitrarily?

Are you assuming that all pro choice people are in favor of late term partial birth abortions? It’s a choice, isn’t it?

Reasonable people assume that there are implied limits. You apparently do not. Ergo…

And, are you really confused on my stance concerning rape and abortion? I’ve been painfully clear, and contrary to your statement, I’ve also been consistent. I no longer feel obligated to illustrate the obvious to you.

Sorry, The Ryan, I have to say that I don’t really understand where it is that you’re finding inconsistencies in Scylla’s posts. His opinions don’t seem that difficult to understand, as far as I can tell. And, FWIW, it’s probably the most logical and open-minded opinion on the matter I’ve heard.

I am vehemently pro-choice (during the first trimester). When I discovered I was pregnant, there was no question in my mind about whether or not I wanted to/was able to give birth. I chose to bear and raise my son. Another person, for whatever reason, is entitled to have the same right to choose, whatever their choice may be.

The reasons for limiting options to the first trimester are simple; after the first 12 weeks, the procedure is riskier, and poses a even greater threat to the mother (and hence, also a risk to the doctor and his clinic/hospital). Also, to reiterate what Scylla said, the fetus is fully formed by the 12th week(note that “formed” and “developed” are two entirely different creatures). This makes it less “a group of cells” and more “a baby.” I realize that this is basically semantics, but there is a true difference in the emotions behind the two.

AFAIC, a partial-birth abortion is only justified if there is a serious medical difficulty (with either the mother or the child). An early-pregnancy abortion is, IMHO, not up for debate. It is the woman’s right to choose.

[Mostly-unrelated personal rant follows]
I tend to disbelieve anyone who claims she “doesn’t know” she’s pregnant till after the twelfth week. I realize that all pregnancies are different, but let’s be honest…if you’re SO out of touch with your body that, for three months, you can’t tell that there’s something new in it, you really ought not to be practicing unsafe sex (unless you’re ok with getting pregnant.)

Many women don’t instantly experience amenorrhea (absence of menses), which is the most common signal that one might be pregnant, however, one might notice if:
–she has morning sickness
–she has to pee a lot
–her breasts are swollen/tingly/tender
–her nipples/areolae begin to appear darker
–the glands around her nipples begin to elevate
–she notices blue and/or pink lines under the skin on her breasts (and possibly her abdomen)
–she begins having uncommon food cravings (such as a constant desire for fruits and veggies, particularly oranges or tomatoes, as the early pregnancy often desires vitamin C)
–and so on
–emotional and psychological symptoms, such as shorter temper, easy upset, absentmindedness, etc.

Perhaps the obvious sign of absent periods may not be present, but at least one of the others will be. Perhaps her period is there, but it’s less voluminous or shorter in duration than normal. In any case, if it takes three months for a woman to realize that there is something different about her body, then said woman really needs to defer to her physician to help her learn how to take care of it.
[/JMO…obviously not really relevant to OP, but had to get it out anyway. Sorry, Magdelene.]

ChrisCTP

:confused:
You really don’t see anything contradictory about these posts?

No, not all of them. Just the ones that say that they “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.” and “I am nonetheless pro-choice, fully supporting a women’s right to have an abortion for whatever reason she sees fit,”.

You just simply refuse to take responsibility for your inability to clearly state your position, don’t you? I see nothing reasonable about assuming that someone who claims to be pro choice will oppose 2nd trimester abortiions. You’re castigating me for not be able to read your mind, and I find that rather silly.

Do you really think I’d be telling you that you’re being unclear if you aren’t?

No you haven’t. You still haven’t answered my question about when you would consider rape to be an acceptable exception.

From my previous post at the top of the page, specially duplicated

yet again

one more time

Just for you
Because I care!

But wait, that’s still not all!
For the same low low price, you can have it in vibrant bold

**

Or sexy italics

Paraphrased?
“I would not support any exceptions for rape.”

I aim to please!

Would you like it in French?

“NON!”
German?

“Nein!”

CB lingo?

“That’s a negatory, good buddy”
Seussian Doggereal?

I would not grant excepions on a train. I would not grant them in a plane. I would not favor them here nor there. I would not grant them anywhere. Somehow in spite of all this tryin’ I’m sure you still don’t get the point The Ryan

ChrisCTP, not all women get those symptoms, and many of them can be explained by other means. Some women are able to tell their pregnant before they have missed a period, some can’t. Some women don’t have regular periods - my wife recently had to start taking synthetic progesterone to get hers back so we could have a kid.

There are a lot of situations where a woman might notice some possible symptoms of pregnancy, but not believe they are pregnant. The woman’s only lover may have had a vasectomy, but sometimes that doesn’t work completely. She may have been date-raped under the influence and not remember having sex. She could be one of those people who thinks that practicing safe sex is 100% reliable. She might think she is sterile herself, and be wrong. Since some women don’t show until well after halfway through the pregnancy, there is no way you can say that someone has to be deluding themselves to get past the first trimester without knowing they are pregnant.

Yes, yes. Very true. I should amend my rant (I’ll not call it a statement because it isn’t based on undeniable medical fact or anything) to begin with “Generally speaking…”

Still. Given the number of women I’ve known who’ve been pregnant at one point or another, and given what I know about what happens to one’s body and mind when one is pregnant, I’d find it really bloody difficult to believe someone who said that the notion didn’t even cross her mind.