Anti-abortion question

Some who believe that abortion kills a human being think that it should be allowed in the case of rape or incest.
Why is this? It would seem to me that killing a child because the father committed a horrible crime against the mother or because the parents share genes is still wrong.

Well, it may still be wrong, but it is apparently the lesser of two evils. Fortuneately, I lack personal experience with such things as rape, though I can tell you without any doubt that it is incredibly tramatic. Now, in my humble opinion, it would take a very forgiving person to accept the fact that every time you look at your son or daughter you will be reminded of that terrible time. There’re other reasons, I’m sure, but I hope that’ll do for now.
Now, let’s follow the stereotype and assume that anyone who is anti abortion is also a rather strongly beleiving christian. In that case, he or she would be obliged to choose between abortion and leaving testimony to the act of incest- a sick thing in my mind, no christain that I am. I’m sure that could’ve been said better, but you get the idea…

(not to anyone in particular)

The people who say that they are vehemently opposed to abortion except in cases of rape or incest are complete hypocrites.

That is saying that you believe that all life is sacred and should be preserved unless it originated by means you find distasteful. You cannot simultaneously argue that killing “babies” is a hellworthy sin and that it is acceptable to kill certain babies because of a bad experience the mother had.

Either say abortion is evil, sinful and wrong or admit you are pro-choice.

I’m with you on this one. The examples given above must be hellish but rather than have an abortion then you could always put the child up for adoption. I think the problem is that everyone jumps on a bandwagon and then fights for their cause tooth and nail but doesn’t really think about it first in order to support their belief. The other problem is that people claim to be highly religious for instance, but it only applies when it is right for them. VERY HIPOCRITICAL!!!

I think that even staunch pro-lifers can see that forcing a woman to give birth to rapist’s or molester’s baby would be both traumatic and cruel.
Just a thought.

Of course it would be traumatic and cruel to the mother of the child to ‘force’ her. That’s not the issue really. The issue is how come it’s alright in certain circumstances???

If the argument against abortion is the human life involved then you are undermining your entire argument by saying it’s alright in certain cases.
To me it’s alright or it’s not and one of those choices has to be made in order to argue for either one.

But that’s just the thing. No one is forcing her to have the baby. They are giving her (gasp) a choice.

Also, are these fence-sitting folks planning on verifying the claims of these “poor” women they are “allowing” to have abortions?

Are they planning on calling the local law enforcement officials to make sure that the woman has reported the rape? Are they requiring a physical exam to ensure that she really was raped? For that matter, can she have an abortion if it was a “date rape”? You know, she had too much to drink at the frat party and unknowingly took on the entire Greek council–or was this “type” of woman just “asking for it” and therefore not worthy of a special dispensation?

In the case of incest, do they just take her word for it or do they DNA test the fetus and try and match it to the family member before allowing the abortion to proceed?

If not, why? What is to stop these “immoral” women from just lying about how they got pregnant in order to secure safe abortions once they are semi-illegal? Do you have any doubts at all that women who are desperate enough to endure painful, filthy, backstreet, unregulated abortions would shy away from bruising and beating themselves so it looks like they have been raped just so they won’t run the risk of dying from septic poisoning?

Guys! I think we are winning this one!!!
Maybe we need someone with an opposing view in order to make this a debate rather than everyone agreeing!!!
Or am I just being a little confrontational!?!?!

Actually, most anti-abortionists would not prefer to allow such an exception. I recall a TIME Magazine interview with Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in the late 1980s, in which he was asked about this, and he responded, “Just because someone’s been raped, that makes it permissible to murder an innocent baby?” Or something to that effect.

However, when actually proposing legislation regarding abortion, the anti-abortionists feel the need to maintain such an exclusion in order to not leave themselves open to attacks of “not being compassionate to people in unfortunate circumstances by no fault of their own.” Though it violates the principle they believe in, they hope to save 93% of (what they see as) the lives currently being destroyed rather than go for all-or-nothing and come away with nothing because they’re seen as too hard-hearted.


As I recall, this was their plan. Not any of the rest of it, though.

That is a depressingly logical and intelligent response.


evilbeth has this one nailed. Abortion either IS murder, or IS NOT murder. Lets be perfectly clear and say that in no instance of law is murder of an innocent party sanctioned. People who support the idea of abortion in any special case, whether it be rape, incest, genetic deformity, or when the mother’s health is in jeopardy come in two stripes:

Stripe #1 consists of people who realize that they aren’t really sure whether abortion is murder, but are squeamish and conflicted enough to be pro-life most of the time. They don’t like the idea of abortion, and they don’t want to support something that could turn out to be the murder of an innocent child. On the other hand, they absolutely do not want to tell a teenage girl that she must carry the child of her abusive father to term. That is pain that they know is real and it outweighs their doubts.

Stripe #2 believes that abortion is murder, period. But, knowing which way the wind blows, and knowing that there are a lot of people out there in the Strip #1 category, they hope to pass legislation that outlaws as much abortion as it can. So they support bills and organizations that propose strongly curtailed abortion rights as a political necessity.

FWIW, I am close to Stripe#1. I can’t say that abortion is murder, but neither can I say that it is not. I don’t like the abortion issue precisely because I cannot point to the line between potential person and person. The current laws (I believe) state that elective abortion can be performed anytime before the fetus is viable outside the womb, and I can accept that as an expedient. I do not support banning abortion, nor would I vote for any pro-life candidate unless he or she represented my other viewpoints extremely well. However, I am honest enough to say that I still have doubts as to the ethics of abortion. My doubts, however, are not strong enough to make me want to strip others of the ability to come to their own conclusions.

I get into (say) an auto accident that is my fault. The car I hit has a pregnant woman in it and the accident causes her to lose the baby. Being responsible for the accident I can now be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter (for causing the termination of the pregnancy).

How is it the mother can choose to terminate her pregnancy and it is not murder in the eyes of the law but if another person causes the termination it is a form of murder under the law?

For the record I am pro-choice but I’ve had a hard time reconciling the laws in this instance…

I think this is where we pro choice guys can’t have it both ways. It’s her body and her decision.

While in practice I agree with how things stand I still can’t see how the law can say in one case that the fetus was murdered (hence identifying it as a living entity with rights) and in the other case say it’s not a living entity with rights.

It seems to me that to be fair the law shouldn’t prosecute the person responsible for the accident for manslaughter (or negligent homicide) if the baby meets the same definitions applied to women who want to terminate their preganacy.

Remember, what I’m talking about above is criminal law. Even if what I said were the case (no criminal penalty possible) the mother could still sue in civil court and almost certainly recover damages.

Sorry carnivorousplant but I thought pro-choice meant you could decide for yourself as a human being in control of your own body.
Whereas pro-lifers were against abortion because they think it is murder.

If I’m right then your last statement doesn’t make sense or I don’t understand your meaning.
Can you clarify it for me please.

Killing the baby that was conceived in rape or incest does not do anything to undue the damage. It’s like getting in a fight with your spouse, and shooting your kid.

But what about the woman having to have the baby? This is a tough issue. If she kills the baby, she has to live with that offense; if she has the baby, she has to go thru with the whole birth process and somehow validate the rape or incest. But she can give it up for adoption. I’d rather see that then killing an innocent victim.

It’s a terrible situation, either way. But don’t kill an innocent victim because of it.

I left out an “if” and “would” when posing the question. Sorry. I was trying to be neutral. I am pro choice.

Since there isn’t any concessus on viability, the manslaughter rap is what they do witht the car wreck scenario. You’ve done “something” or the child would have been born.

Because in most cases where the loss of an unborn child is counted as murder, the fetus must be at at least 28 weeks of gestation. Abortions are rarely performed that late in the pregnancy. There have been cases of bereaved women suing careless drivers in civil court for emotional distress, but in my recollection there have been no criminal charges brought against someone who (indirectly) caused a miscarriage in the first two trimesters.

I think that “murder” is the wrong charge to bring against Mr. Theoretical Driver. Under the law, the crime should not be seen as murder (at least not in a society where abortion is legal), but as taking away the woman’s choice. If she carried the pregnancy that long, she obviously had the intention to give birth. When that option is taken away from her due to someone else’s carelessness, then they should take responsibility for it.

Pashley, you make it sound like it’s going to be mandatory for rape victims to get abortions.