# Non women-hating reasons for incest/rape exception to abortion rules? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983 "2012-08-29T00:32:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/41 "2012-08-30T14:36:48Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I think one can define a ratuonale for a rape exception which does not denigrate women. … Your analysis is clear and well-thought out, but does not represent the position of pro-lifers. I agree that when you have sex, you accept the consequences, which may include having a child, but it also may include having to procure an abortion. The pro-life position is that the child has personhood, so the rape exception becomes harder to defend, in my view. The lawyer parallel doesn’t work for me, because a lawyer positively and actively accepts the role of fiduciary. Whereas, for example, a couple using birth control that fails doesn’t accept that role, but has it thrust upon them. The parallel would be that the lawyer accidentally accepts the role of fiduciary for an as-yet non-existent heir when he signed an unrelated contract, but his pen slipped (or he didn’t see some carbon paper) and he accidentally signed the fiduciary agreement at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/42 "2012-08-30T15:18:34Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > The lawyer parallel doesn’t work for me, because a lawyer positively and actively accepts the role of fiduciary. Whereas, for example, a couple using birth control that fails doesn’t accept that role, but has it thrust upon them. Huh? A couple that has sex, even with birth control, must accept the responsibility for that decision, like any other. Just because they had a chance of escaping it doesn’t change that. It’s just like, say, going 50 mph in a 25 zone. Most of the time you won’t hit and kill an old lady, and you didn’t intend to, but you are still responsible for it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/43 "2012-08-30T15:48:51Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t think that’s fair to the pro-lifers. I don’t think they want to punish anyone for sex. It is eminently fair. They do want to punish people for having sex outside marriage. [Cite.](http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/reprod/littmanabortion?b_start:int=1&-C=) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/44 "2012-08-30T15:57:55Z")
If you believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is sacred, then the only logical reason for allowing an abortion would be the exception of endangering the life (not the health) of the mother. Of course, you are an idiot if you think a tiny blob of cells you need a microscope to see is the same as a human being, or a newt-like creature is, but hey, that’s religion for ya! ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/45 "2012-08-30T16:14:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It is eminently fair. They do want to punish people for having sex outside marriage. > > [Cite.](http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/reprod/littmanabortion?b_start:int=1&-C=) This link doesn’t establish that ANYONE holds the punishment view. It offers no evidence of that. And even if it did, the views of one organization or person does not represent the views of all pro-lifers. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/46 "2012-08-30T16:21:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This link doesn’t establish that ANYONE holds the punishment view. It offers no evidence of that. > > And even if it did, the views of one organization or person does not represent the views of all pro-lifers. You missed the argument, then. I liked the cite because it linked a variety of issues favored by anti-choice folks within a single moral viewpoints, such as “cutting funding for family-planning clinics, decreasing access to contraception, withholding information about contraception and condoms, promoting unproven “abstinence-until-marriage” programs while opposing the programs that are effective in reducing teen pregnancy, and criminalizing abortion.” They all fall within the “punishment” purview, and are in fact totally irrational and at odds with one another when viewed in any other way. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/47 "2012-08-30T16:29:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Huh? > > A couple that has sex, even with birth control, must accept the responsibility for that decision, like any other. Just because they had a chance of escaping it doesn’t change that. It’s just like, say, going 50 mph in a 25 zone. Most of the time you won’t hit and kill an old lady, and you didn’t intend to, but you are still responsible for it. No, it’s like saying that you’re driving 25 in a 25, and an old lady jumps out in front of you, you slam on the brakes and they fail. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/48 "2012-08-30T16:51:43Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > No, it’s like saying that you’re driving 25 in a 25, and an old lady jumps out in front of you, you slam on the brakes and they fail. No, it’s not like that. If you have sex, you know that a pregnancy is possible. If you have unprotected sex, you know it’s likely. I hope you figure this out before you have sex. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/49 "2012-08-30T16:54:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You missed the argument, then. I liked the cite because it linked a variety of issues favored by anti-choice folks within a single moral viewpoints, such as “cutting funding for family-planning clinics, decreasing access to contraception, withholding information about contraception and condoms, promoting unproven “abstinence-until-marriage” programs while opposing the programs that are effective in reducing teen pregnancy, and criminalizing abortion.” They all fall within the “punishment” purview, and are in fact totally irrational and at odds with one another when viewed in any other way. But the link didn’t actually offer any evidence that any of those viewpoints are actually held by anti-choice folks! Perhaps digging through the footnotes would find it. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/50 "2012-08-30T17:08:50Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > The lawyer parallel doesn’t work for me, because a lawyer positively and actively accepts the role of fiduciary. Whereas, for example, a couple **using birth control** that fails doesn’t accept that role, but has it thrust upon them. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No, it’s not like that. > > If you have sex, you know that a pregnancy is possible. > > If you have unprotected sex, you know it’s likely. Uh, I mentioned birth control right in the part that you quoted. When you drive, running over an old lady is possible. > [@](#): > > I hope you figure this out before you have sex. I think this was uncalled for. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/51 "2012-08-30T17:14:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No it’s not. I’m afraid it is. You can analyze the philosophy at length, but the pro-life position remains determinedly indifferent to the real-world consequences of that position. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/52 "2012-08-30T17:25:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m afraid it is. You can analyze the philosophy at length, but the pro-life position remains determinedly indifferent to the real-world consequences of that position. And a pro-lifer would say the same thing about you. He would say that the death of an innocent unborn child is a real-world consequence of your abstract ideas about the rights of women. He would say that no consequence is worth taking a life. So you’re back to square one, again. You’re not going to get anywhere in a real debate if you set up straw men and talk at your opponent instead of to him. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/53 "2012-08-30T18:09:12Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Of course it’s possible to recognize a life interest without believing that it’s absolute. Soldiers are unquestionably living beings, yet there are circumstances where we send them into situations that will almost certainly sacrifice their lives, in order to vindicate some other societal goal. Conservatives in particular recognize (at least in rhetoric) that Joe Blow’s “life interest” does not obligate John Doe to involuntarily provide for Joe Blow’s sustenance. The analogy to abortion is clear if one is intellectually honest, which is admittedly a problem for the current crop of political leadership. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/54 "2012-08-30T18:13:48Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Under ordinary circumstances, a typical pro-lifer will value the fetus’ life interest above the woman’s autonomy infringement. But in cases of rape and incest, the infringement upon the woman’s autonomy is significantly greater, to the point where, for those who those who recognize the exceptions, it exceeds the fetus’s life interest.\* But if abortion is indistinguishable from killing a child (who has been born), as many pro-lifers assert, hat falls apart, because we don’t accept the idea that it is okay to kill a child just because he/she was a product of rape. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/55 "2012-08-30T18:18:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > A couple that has sex, even with birth control, must accept the responsibility for that decision, like any other. Just because they had a chance of escaping it doesn’t change that. It’s just like, say, going 50 mph in a 25 zone. Most of the time you won’t hit and kill an old lady, and you didn’t intend to, but you are still responsible for it. Analogy fail. Going 50 in a 25 zone is reckless behavior, and thus not comparable to sex with precautions. A more correct analogy would be to suggest that a reasonably prudent driver (corrsponding to a woman having sex with precautions) who gets into an accident anyway (corr: getting pregnant anyway) should be required to heal naturally (corr: unwanted pregnancy) rather than use medical assistance (corr: abortion), because she could have avoided the problem by staying home (corr: abstinence). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/56 "2012-08-30T18:22:20Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Analogy fail. Going 50 in a 25 zone is reckless behavior, and thus not comparable to sex with precautions. But if you drive 25 in a 25, you can still be negligible for killing someone. Even having sex with precautions isn’t 100% effective. Are you saying that anyone who has sex with precautions, but gets pregnant anyway, is completely exonerated from responsibility for the pregnancy or resulting child? Really? > [@](#): > > A more correct analogy would be to suggest that a reasonably prudent driver (corrsponding to a woman having sex with precautions) who gets into an accident anyway (corr: getting pregnant anyway) should be required to heal naturally (corr: unwanted pregnancy) rather than use medical assistance (corr: abortion), because he could have avoided the problem by staying home (corr: abstinence). Is that your position? It’s not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/57 "2012-08-30T18:40:42Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Is that your position? It’s not mine. Er, the entire point is that your position implies absurdities. Obviously, I don’t agree with such a position. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/58 "2012-08-30T19:06:06Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I wasn’t justifying their position, only explaining it. This thread is not about the abortion debate. Yes, I know. I was disagreeing with your explanation. I don’t believe anti-abortion advocates think a fetus should have the “same protections” as a person, which is how you put it. In fact, it is very clear they don’t. Maybe it isn’t an important distinction to make, but “same protections” kind of makes it sound more reasonable (well, not to me, but you get the point) than “special unique rules for fetus rights that have little in common with the rights of people”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/59 "2012-08-30T19:22:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And a pro-lifer would say the same thing about you. He would say that the death of an innocent unborn child is a real-world consequence of your abstract ideas about the rights of women. He would say that no consequence is worth taking a life. And then I can counter with real-world stats from countries where abortion is permitted and from those where it is not, as well as challenge his “no consequences” stance by citing _actual_ consequences, to demonstrate the pro-lifer’s lack of forethought. I’m not out to convince _him_ of anything, though, just demonstrate the failings in his position. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/60 "2012-08-30T19:22:46Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Er, the entire point is that your position implies absurdities. Obviously, I don’t agree with such a position. Nor do I. So that’s not quite the right analogy either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983.md?page=4)