# Justify the rape/incest exception for the abortion issue.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 16, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085 "2004-12-16T03:50:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/21 "2004-12-16T07:24:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Because the “mother” didn’t consent and the sex was both forced and undesirable. Therefore she should be excused from responsibility for what was a situation over which she had no control. Most reasonable people instinctively understand that.
But this isn’t an issue of responsbility: or even of the mother. It’s an issue of the rights of the fetus. If the fetus’ rights aren’t important enough that they can trump the mother’s desire to kill it (for whatever reason), then elective abortion doesn’t seem very wrong anyway.
If I by some unhappy chance am handed against my will a situation in which I can either kill another person or suffer great physical trauma to myself, I cannot rightly beg off the dilemna by claiming that the person’s life is “not my responsibility, since I didn’t choose” the situation, but rather had it thrust upon me.
In your scenario, “excused” means “given a free pass to murder, if she so chooses.” Many raped women do NOT choose to abort: from the perspective of the fetus, this means it’s fate hangs with the luck of the draw of the mom’s whim.
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/22 "2004-12-16T07:28:27Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> No one in the history of the world has ever used abortion for “birth control,” btw.
Is that right? Never? I suppose that an abortion because a condom wasn’t used is not considered birth control? I suppose that a woman who forgot to take her pill and became pregnant is not using abortion in lieu of her failed usage of birth control?
Sell that stuff to someone else, because I am not buying. Abortion in those cases is a direct substitution for failure to take the proper precautions and can therefore be considered a form of birth control.
> [@](#):
>
> What difference does responsibility make to the innocence of the “child?”
It doesn’t. Not one bit. That’s why I refer to it as an exception, meaning “not the norm”, or more appropriately “not the norm that I wish it were” since I’m making my statements based upon my own opinion rather than reality.
---
### Author:  [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/23 "2004-12-16T07:33:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> No one in the history of the world has ever used abortion for “birth control,” btw.
Oh, how I wish that was true. It’s certainly not common, but there are such women I’m sad to report. Occasional early term abortions are actually a lot safer than ongoing hormonal birth control, for one thing (I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone using late term abortions as birth control).
You don’t have to believe me, but I don’t think you’ll want to be staking your case for abortion on this particular convention.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/24 "2004-12-16T07:38:50Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> Is that right?
Yes.
> [@](#):
>
> Never?
Never.
> [@](#):
>
> I suppose that an abortion because a condom wasn’t used is not considered birth control?
Nope.
> [@](#):
>
> I suppose that a woman who forgot to take her pill and became pregnant is not using abortion in lieu of her failed usage of birth control?
No, she’s taking responsibility for a mistake.
It’s a lunatic fantasy of the pro-life movement that any woman in the world would actually _prefer_ an abortion as a means of “birth control.” It has no relationship to reality.
> [@](#):
>
> Sell that stuff to someone else, because I am not buying. Abortion in those cases is a direct substitution for failure to take the proper precautions and can therefore be considered a form of birth control.
No, abortion in those cases is a sad but responsible decision that some women have to make for an accident or a mistake.
> [@](#):
>
> It doesn’t. Not one bit. That’s why I refer to it as an exception, meaning “not the norm”, or more appropriately “not the norm that I wish it were” since I’m making my statements based upon my own opinion rather than reality.
Your exception makes no sense. If the fetus is being “murdered” if it’s not a rape then it’s still being murdered if it _is_ a rape. What’s the difference? It’s either murder or it isn’t and the circumstances of conception are not variables which can affect whether or not it’s murder. You either have to admit that it’s murder in both cases or neither or you’re not being logically and morally consistent.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/25 "2004-12-16T12:27:06Z")
> [@MaceMan](#):
>
> A 12 year old girl is raped. Should she be forced to be a mother at her young age?
>
> A 25 year old woman is brutally attacked and raped at gunpoint. Should she have to endure the emotional trauma for 9 full months, knowing that the offspring of her attacker is growing inside her?
>
> I think pro-lifers make exceptions for rape because it was not the woman’s choice to engage in intercourse, and they have compassion for the emotional trauma the pregnancey would cause.
>
> In the case of non-coerced incest, I cannot think of a good reason why a pro-lifer would make an exception. The risk of birth defects and genetic disease is not usually listed among their allowed exceptions.
Yes, and of course the anti-choice position that says rape and incest should not be exceptions leads them to having to actually COERCE rape and incest victims into having children. THAT’S gotta be a feel-good situation for everyone involved.
---
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/26 "2004-12-16T12:51:26Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> It’s really pretty simple. Abortion should be maintained as a method of saving the mother’s life in cases of extreme risk to her, or it should be used in cases of rape/incest. Anything else as far as I am concerned is due to irresponsibility on behalf of both parties to the child and at that point, in my opinion, it becomes murder. If you’re too stupid to take precautions ahead of time that’s your problem, in other words. Abortion should not be used to cover for stupidity.
And what if you are one of those very few people that take the pill religiously and still end up pregnant? What if the condom breaks (I’ve had more than my share of broken condoms…)?
I’m splitting hairs, but I’m splitting hairs for a reason. You are esentially deciding that you know what is going on in someone’s head better than they do, and trying to leglislate punishment (and having an unwanted kid is punishment- even if you adopt, preganancy is no fun) based on if they made a decision you think they should or should not of.
Don’t you see why this is turning away from a discussion about murder and a discussion of your personal disapproval of women having “irresponsible” sex? And can’t you see just a little bit that the sex isn’t “irresponsible” if they’ve found a way to deal with the consequences- the same consequenes that can come out about from being raped- with abortion?
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/27 "2004-12-16T13:09:46Z")
I’m not sure whether the OP is concerned with the legal realm or the moral realm. In the moral realm, I think the OP is correct. It would be immoral to abort the unborn child, regardless of how it got there. I also think that in the continuum of morality, it is worse to abort a child because of its gender than it is to abort a child conceived in rape. But I still think both are immoral.
However, if we’re talking legality, I think **roger thornhill** has a very vaild point. The weighing of the rights of a fetus versus the rights of the mother can logically and validly include the responsibility of the mother.
> [@the raindog](#):
>
> _Anything_ is possible.
>
> However I find your explanation untenable. To arbitrarily create a new definition of life, that exists somewhere between non-life and “a human life with full rights” is intellectual and moral contortionism at it’s very worst.
Well, it seems to me that a fetus is in an extremely unique situation, one in which the definition of it’s rights is certainly not “arbitrary” nor "moral contortionism.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> It is inconsistent to fault abortion rights groups for discounting the sanctity of life and then define situations in which it is acceptable to abort a fetus. That smacks of “my reason for abortion has more societal justification than yours.”
See my above point about legality v. morality. And the justification of any action is certainly an appropriate thing to consider in determining whether that action should be made illegal.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> If it is a life, than it is a human being. As such he/she has all of the rights that I have.
Not all the rights you have. Assuming you are above 21, you have more “rights” than a 20 year old, same with a 16 year old and a 12 year old. Simply stating, once again, that rights are an all or nothing proposition is incorrect.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> Rape is a tradegy and should be punished in the harshest manner. But murder is a tradegy as well. And if it is a child, than murdering it in the name of saving the rape victim any more suffering simply creates another tradegy.
Agreed, from a moral standpoint.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> If it is a child, than society has two extremely distasteful options. Abort the baby, therefore committing state sanctioned murder, or require the mother to carry to term. (with the mental anguish that would entail)
>
> Both choices suck. But both **bnorton** and **WhyNot** have pointed out that the only consistent position to take is to defend **all** life, even if conceived through rape.
Once again, the acquiescence for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are, in my opinion, legal arguments. A pro-life person does not have to like the exceptions, or think that they are immoral, but they can believe that there should be a legal exception.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> Perhaps the pro-lifers have made this exception so as to not marginilize themselves. Paradoxically, I think it hurts their positions. By ackowledging that they too are willing to put convenience (even if for the noble objective of reducing trauma) ahead of the life of a child, life continues to be devalued.
And that is a consistent problem in the legal realm rather than the moral realm. It is also a concern in the determination of the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/28 "2004-12-16T13:13:08Z")
A sperm and an egg are two separate cells which constitute a potential human being.
Two daughter nuclei after [meiosis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis) are two separate cells which constitute a potential human being.
There is no reason other than simple dogmatic assertion to consider one pair of cells different to the other in any significant way.
---
### Author:  [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/29 "2004-12-16T14:14:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> There are a lot of bold statements made in this thread about what “most” or “many” pro-lifers believe. Does anyone have any actual data on how many self-described pro-lifers, people who firmly believe life begins at conception, agree that abortion is OK in the case of rape and/or incest? Without that data, I’m going to call bullshit on the premise.
This is what I found when researching a similar question for another thread.
While this is by no means a bias-free cite, it is on an [anti-abortion site](http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm) , a site which one could assume was trying to portray anti-abortionists in a postive light. According to their own numbers, “16% [of people] say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and **55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother**.”
But I think the premise doesn’t rest on the numbers of people who hold this view. Even if only a tiny percentage of anti-abortionists supported abortion for rape and incest, the question is still valid: “If your anti-abortion stand is based on the idea that life begins at conception, then how is the child of rape or incest any less a human being as the child conceived any other way. By your own definition, it’s an innocent human life you’re taking by aborting it just as you would with any other abortion,” and is this stance logically and philisophically inconsistent?
As for whether or not anti-abortionists state their views in protecting the lives of innocent unborn babies - well, I’ve never heard any other reason. What else have you heard?
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
> >
> > No one in the history of the world has ever used abortion for “birth control,” btw.
>
> Is that right? Never? I suppose that an abortion because a condom wasn’t used is not considered birth control? I suppose that a woman who forgot to take her pill and became pregnant is not using abortion in lieu of her failed usage of birth control?
>
> Sell that stuff to someone else, because I am not buying. Abortion in those cases is a direct substitution for failure to take the proper precautions and can therefore be considered a form of birth control.
Jeez, **Airman Doors** , don’t lower yourself that much in my esteem all in one day, OK? Really, it just crashed through the subflooring and I’m so disappointed, because you’re really, really cool.
I know we’re all sick of hearing the Conception of WhyKid story, but he was conceived when I was using a sponge with spermacide, a condom and an extra tube of spermicide - the very first time I had sex. And the condom was intact afterward - didn’t break. How in the frelling world was I being irresponsible? How, for the love of all that’s holy, did I fail to take the proper precautions? Now, I chose not to abort for my own reasons, but I would not for a second have judged any girl in my position for doing so.
---
### Author:  [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/30 "2004-12-16T14:18:08Z")
> [@even sven](#):
>
> And what if you are one of those very few people that take the pill religiously and still end up pregnant? What if the condom breaks (I’ve had more than my share of broken condoms…)?
I second this question… Airman please…
---
### Author:  [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/31 "2004-12-16T14:24:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> When anti-abortion people make this exception ther basically just admitting that it’s got nothing to to with saving “babies” and everything to do with punishing women for having sex.
Or they are allowing their compassion and sympathy for the mother/rape victim to override their sincere feelings about the wrongness of abortion.
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/32 "2004-12-16T14:45:42Z")
Look, I don’t want to interrupt this semantic debate between Airman and DtC but an abortion by it’s very nature is technically “birth control”.
I’m pro abortion (yes…I am actually IN FAVOR OF abortions and think that they should be legal in certain cases up until the 63rd trimester) but it seems to me that reasonible pro-lifers make the exceptions mentioned because they realize that the world is not black and white.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/33 "2004-12-16T14:50:55Z")
**Airman Doors** :
Do you believe that life, or more specifically “personhood”, begins at conception? Do you believe that a fetus is a child, with a “right to life”? I’m assuming you don’t, but I think people would understand your position better if you clarified that.
You seem to simply not want to allow women to avail themselves of an easy way out if they become pregnant. But, on what moral basis do you propose that societ must protect a fetus in one instance (consentual sex) but not in another (rape). Again, can you explain this from the point of view of what \*\*rights \*\*a fetus has?
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/34 "2004-12-16T14:58:14Z")
> [@WhyNot](#):
>
> Jeez, **Airman Doors** , don’t lower yourself that much in my esteem all in one day, OK? Really, it just crashed through the subflooring and I’m so disappointed, because you’re really, really cool.
>
> I know we’re all sick of hearing the Conception of WhyKid story, but he was conceived when I was using a sponge with spermacide, a condom and an extra tube of spermicide - the very first time I had sex. And the condom was intact afterward - didn’t break. How in the frelling world was I being irresponsible? How, for the love of all that’s holy, did I fail to take the proper precautions? Now, I chose not to abort for my own reasons, but I would not for a second have judged any girl in my position for doing so.
I’m not judging anyone in particular, nor is it my right to judge. I’m speaking my mind, and these are my opinions. Overall, I think that what we have now, as disgusting as it is to me (abortion at will), is actually the way to go. Even given the opportunity to change things from what they are now to what I advocate I wouldn’t do it. That doesn’t mean that I can’t be an advocate for personal responsibility.
In your case, **WhyNot** , if you ask me you did the right thing. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the conception of my son, but basically it involved me being totally irresponsible (gee, like you didn’t see that coming). Aaron was a very fortunate accident, and above and beyond the fact that Robin and I already had plans for the future, and I knew it would be a tough go, I would have been appalled if Robin had chosen to have an abortion, because that would have been the murder of my son. She doesn’t see it that way because we have very different opinions on the topic, but to me the logic is inescapable. My son is here now, but had she had an abortion he would not be.
So yeah, I’m living the words that I write.
One last thing. You people who say that I am “punishing” the mother are something else. I don’t consider my child to be a punishment, as unexpected and as burdensome as he is what with me in the service and the tight budget we live on. How can you ever call your child a “punishment”? That is incomprehensible to me.
---
### Author:  [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/35 "2004-12-16T14:59:33Z")
**Hamlet said:**
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not sure whether the OP is concerned with the legal realm or the moral realm. In the moral realm, I think the OP is correct. It would be immoral to abort the unborn child, regardless of how it got there. I also think that in the continuum of morality, it is worse to abort a child because of its gender than it is to abort a child conceived in rape. But I still think both are immoral.
>
> However, if we’re talking legality, I think **roger thornhill** has a very vaild point. The weighing of the rights of a fetus versus the rights of the mother can logically and validly include the responsibility of the mother.
Highlights mine
IMHO I don’t think he does. I’m not sure what you mean by “legality.” The law (in the US) is that abortion is available to anyone. If you’re postuslting that it is possible to constuct a legal entity that exists between life and non-life, I don’t think you can pull it off without some bizarre logic. Either it’s a human life or it’s not. If it is, it should have all of the rights that I have. (specifically in this context, the basic human right to live) If not, it is the legal equivalent of my appendix then it should not have rights independent of me. (Or in this case, a woman who serves as it’s host)
In the US we’ve had some experience with creating a new “category” of life and granting them rights that were roughly 2/3 of the rest of us. It was legally, intellectually and morally untenable. It ended badly.
> [@](#):
>
> Well, it seems to me that a fetus is in an extremely unique situation, one in which the definition of it’s rights is certainly not “arbitrary” nor "moral contortionism.
> See my above point about legality v. morality. And the justification of any action is certainly an appropriate thing to consider in determining whether that action should be made illegal.
OK…The fetus is indeed in a unique situation. So is a person in a coma. So is a debilitated senior citizen. A severely retarded/impaired person is as well. The deaf/dumb/blind are unique. If it is a human—if legally it is determined to be a person—it’s situation is relevent to the extent that a mother has the obligation to provide/protect for the child in her care/womb. If it is a person, there is no legal cause to terminate it’s life _because it is is living in a womb_ any more than it would be legal to kill it in a hospital bed.
> [@](#):
>
> Not all the rights you have. Assuming you are above 21, you have more “rights” than a 20 year old, same with a 16 year old and a 12 year old. Simply stating, once again, that rights are an all or nothing proposition is incorrect.
> Agreed, from a moral standpoint.
I disagree. To compare the so called “rights” to drink, drive, vote etc to the right to be alive is not pertinent in my view. Most of those “rights” are simply priveleges that the state extends on a conditional basis. Even those considered “rights” (i.e. voting) the state has determined can be suspended for poor behavior.
The better analogy is the death penalty. The state has determined that you can even lose your “right” to be alive. And, if that fetus is determined to be a human life that’s exactly what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the state sanctioned taking of a human life. Only the only crime the fetus has committed is that it is unwanted for some reason.
> [@](#):
>
> Once again, the acquiescence for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are, in my opinion, legal arguments. A pro-life person does not have to like the exceptions, or think that they are immoral, but they can believe that there should be a legal exception.
I have absolutely no problem with this statement. _none._ But call it what it is: State sanctioned killing. No matter how noble the reason, it is state sanctioned killing. The OP focused his/her attention on the dichotomy, and apparent contradiction, between opposing abortion and allowing it for rape/incest. I appreciate the intellectual clarity in **WhyNot** ’s post, even though he/she is [apparently] pro choice.
If we ever got to the pont that abortion was illegal because it was the taking of a human life,—that society recognized it as a human life— but allowed it for rape/incest, we’re saying that it is OK to kill a child in the noble effort of minmizing the trauma of a rape victim.
But it is legally and intellectually indefensable that a woman’s need to not suffer is greater than the life of another human being. We shouldn’t be in the business of killing a child because it’s continued existence is a source of pain/trauma for it’s mother.
> [@](#):
>
> And that is a consistent problem in the legal realm rather than the moral realm. It is also a concern in the determination of the rights of the child versus the rights of the mother.
It is a consistent problem for both. And the debate will not end any time soon.
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/36 "2004-12-16T15:03:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> **Airman Doors** :
>
> Do you believe that life, or more specifically “personhood”, begins at conception? Do you believe that a fetus is a child, with a “right to life”? I’m assuming you don’t, but I think people would understand your position better if you clarified that.
Yes.
> [@](#):
>
> You seem to simply not want to allow women to avail themselves of an easy way out if they become pregnant. But, on what moral basis do you propose that societ must protect a fetus in one instance (consentual sex) but not in another (rape). Again, can you explain this from the point of view of what \*\*rights \*\*a fetus has?
For the purposes of this discussion, a fetus has the same rights to life as everyone else, with the exception of rape/incest and health of the mother. And as i said before, that’s why it is an exception to the rule. It’s a question of personal responsibility, simply put. Sex=children, and I think people forget that all too easily.
But again, this whole thing for me is more or less an exercise in rhetoric, because as I said above, even if I had the chance to make it the way I want to I would do nothing, because ultimately it’s not my place to judge.
---
### Author:  [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/37 "2004-12-16T15:20:10Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
> [@](#):
>
> > [@John Mace](#):
> >
> > Airman Doors:
> >
> > Do you believe that life, or more specifically “personhood”, begins at conception? Do you believe that a fetus is a child, with a “right to life”? I’m assuming you don’t, but I think people would understand your position better if you clarified that.
>
> Yes.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > You seem to simply not want to allow women to avail themselves of an easy way out if they become pregnant. But, on what moral basis do you propose that societ must protect a fetus in one instance (consentual sex) but not in another (rape). Again, can you explain this from the point of view of what rights a fetus has?
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, a fetus has the same rights to life as everyone else, with the exception of rape/incest and health of the mother.
OK, so if a terrorist (Oh! what a fun word these days - works just like “a communist” in the 50’s!) for some bizarre reason forced me to take custody of his 5 year old child, would I have the legal right to kill the child?
Because that’s essentially what the anti-choice-rape-caveat crowd is saying. You’re saying (and you’re correct, **the raindog** , I don’t share these beliefs, I am pro-choice) that there’s no moral or legal difference between a fetus and a 5 year old. That both entities are full human beings with a right to life. Except, in some logical twist, if the child is forced on me against my will. So if I adopt a 5 year old willingly, obviously I have the responsibility to care for it. If I am forced to adopt a 5 year old, I can kill it?
No logic.
And for me, where the logic falls down is the idea that a fetus and a 5 year old share the same status and rights. Elliminate that supposition, and we can create a logical argument. But that’s for another debate.
---
### Author:  [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/38 "2004-12-16T15:21:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#):
>
> … but it seems to me that reasonible pro-lifers make the exceptions mentioned because they realize that the world is not black and white.
It’s not a matter of being reasonable, but of wanting to I believe, teach people a ‘lesson’, to make them ‘pay’ for their behaviour. It’s hard to teach a lesson to a rape victim or an incest victim…I mean really how can you hurt them anymore, than they’ve already been hurt?
I don’t consider the those who believe that all life should be protected **no matter** what to be unreasonable. If your goal is to protect the unborn; then it shouldn’t matter what it’s origin is.
I expect them to consider the woman’s well-being to be secondary, to their cause… I may not like it and fight them at every turn; but I can respect their core beliefs.
Look at Airman’s post, it reeks with punitive actions and jugdement; with the usual “in my opinion” disclaimer.
Even with his disclaimer, he runs into a problem with people such as \*\* WhyNot\*\*, who was responsible, who did all that was physically possible to prevent pregency; except for two things, abstain or be sterlized.
Does she get a pass? What litmus test do I have to pass to prove that I was responsible enough, to have an abortion, without getting tagged with the **avoiding** responsibility label? If I get pregnant after having my tubes tied, am I excused? What about the condom breaking? What about having anal because I don’t want to get pregnant and the guy _accidentally_ slipped one stoke in my vagina, does that give me pass?
It’s seems to me we’re talking about two groups of Pro-lifers here. One that believes in protecting the unborn, no matter what the cost and one that believes the best way to punish a woman; to teach her to be ‘responsible’, is by forcing her to complete a pregnancy.
Which group do you thing is more reasonable?
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/39 "2004-12-16T15:38:54Z")
**Airman** , you’re still expressing a logically inconsistent position. You are calibrating the rights of the fetus according to your own personal judgement of the morality the woman. Your position can be summed up as follows:
If I, **Airman Doors, USAF** , shall determine that a woman was irresponsible in how she became pregnant then the fetus shall be a child with the full rights of a child, and terminating the pregnancy is murder. If I, **Airman Doors, USAF** , shall determine that the woman became pregnant through no fault of her own, by rape, by incest (and incest can be voluntary) or despite due dilligence in attempting to be responsible (and whether she used due dillegence shall be adjudicated by me, **Airman Doors, USAF** ) then the fetus is _not_ a person and may be killed accordingly.
Or are you saying that the fetus is a person either way but it’s only ok to kill it if the mother’s not a slut?
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085/40 "2004-12-16T15:42:32Z")
> [@MMI](#):
>
> Or they are allowing their compassion and sympathy for the mother/rape victim to override their sincere feelings about the wrongness of abortion.
Yes, and allowing it to override to such an extent that they are willing to coerce incest and rape victims to bear any children that result from said incest/rape. Such compassionate creatures.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justify-the-rape-incest-exception-for-the-abortion-issue/280085.md?page=3)