# 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:** 4
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/61 "2012-08-30T19:25:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. Right. And now, thanks to me forcing you to, you’re beginning to confront his real argument instead of a straw man. (And of course he’d simply repeat that none of your real-world stats justify the killing of children. And you’d offer more stats. And you’d both get nowhere, because you simply disagree on one fundamental point – whether a pregnancy contains a being worthy of legal protection similar to a person, or not – and that’s all that really matters in this debate. But whatever.) ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/62 "2012-08-30T19:27:16Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > 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. And I don’t think you could possibly be more wrong about that. Are you even listening to anything they have to say? Or just listening to what pro-choicers say about what they think? > [@](#): > > 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”. I’m not sure how anyone could think that fetuses should have even more rights than people. That sounds like the complain that gays want “special rights” rather than simply equal rights. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/63 "2012-08-30T19:53:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And I don’t think you could possibly be more wrong about that. > > Are you even listening to anything they have to say? Yes, and it is extremely clear nobody believes a fetus should have the “same protection” as a person. A person has no right to camp inside your body, no right to sustenance from your body. Even if you were to go crazy and chop out a person’s kidneys, thus having full responsibility for their predicament, you would still not be required to donate one of your own. On the other hand, the death of a person would be heavily investigated. Nobody advocates for miscarriages to spawn murder investigations. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/64 "2012-08-30T19:56:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not sure how anyone could think that fetuses should have even more rights than people. That sounds like the complain that gays want “special rights” rather than simply equal rights. Well, nobody hs the right to use your body without your permission. But anti-abortion people want to give the fetus that very right. According to EVERY anti-abortion protestor I’ve talked with: Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. Getting pregnant outside of marriage is wrong. Giving birth outside of marriage is right. And they say two wrongs don’t make a right. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/65 "2012-08-30T20:04:43Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > Yes, and it is extremely clear nobody believes a fetus should have the “same protection” as a person. You need to stop posting and start reading, because that’s exactly what most pro-lifers believe. > [@](#): > > A person has no right to camp inside your body, no right to sustenance from your body. Even if you were to go crazy and chop out a person’s kidneys, thus having full responsibility for their predicament, you would still not be required to donate one of your own. Go tell them. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, the death of a person would be heavily investigated. Nobody advocates for miscarriages to spawn murder investigations. Well, actually, some do. > **[Care2 is the world's largest social network for good, a community of over 40...](https://www.care2.com/)** > > Largest online community empowering people to lead a healthy and green lifestyle while taking action on important causes such as human rights, animal welfare and global warming. But this isn’t about miscarriage, it’s about deliberate abortion. It’s about abortion=murder. That’s the basic formulation of most of the pro-life movement. How did you miss that? ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/66 "2012-08-30T20:05:53Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Well, nobody hs the right to use your body without your permission. But anti-abortion people want to give the fetus that very right. Yeah. > [@](#): > > According to EVERY anti-abortion protestor I’ve talked with: > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > Getting pregnant outside of marriage is wrong. > Giving birth outside of marriage is right. > > And they say two wrongs don’t make a right. So what? That doesn’t change their beliefs about the status of the fetus. One can be pro-choice and believe all those things too. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/67 "2012-08-30T20:09:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Right. > > And now, thanks to me forcing you to, you’re beginning to confront his real argument instead of a straw man. You are? I am? The argument you’re presenting on behalf of the hypothetical pro-lifer is very unrealistic and touchy-feely and appeals to emotion and whatnot. Idealistic, even. Why I have to treat it with some kind of deference is unclear to me. > [@](#): > > (And of course he’d simply repeat that none of your real-world stats justify the killing of children. And you’d offer more stats. And you’d both get nowhere, because you simply disagree on one fundamental point – whether a pregnancy contains a being worthy of legal protection similar to a person, or not – and that’s all that really matters in this debate. But whatever.) Well, where I “get” is a liberal democracy where abortion is legal. Mission accomplished, though I need to keep up the eternal vigilance to prevent idealistic reactionaries from fumbling it away. And the legal status of the fetus is certainly _not_ all that really matters (well, maybe that’s so for the pro-lifer, which is why his position is not a realistic one), but, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/68 "2012-08-30T20:17:10Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But aren’t all aborted pregnancies not chosen? The fact that they are accidental vs. forced doesn’t change that. They are unwanted. > … Depends. The pregnancy may be very much wanted in the sense that the pregnant woman very much wants to have that particular child. And still that same pregnancy may become unwanted for various medical reasons. It is a horrid decision. A single friend went through IVF and managed to conceive. She was elated. Further along the doctor advised her to abort due to complications which would likely result in the death of both my friend and her baby. Cruel decision to have to make. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/69 "2012-08-30T20:20:35Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You need to stop posting and start reading, because that’s exactly what most pro-lifers believe. No, it really isn’t. Many do consider abortion murder, yes. But they do not want to give a fetus the “same protection” as a person. They want to give it the right not to be aborted, a right that makes no sense for a person, and which conflicts with the closest parallel situations for a person. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Go tell them. Most wouldn’t care, because (wait for it)… Never, at any point, did they believe a fetus should have the same rights as a person. It was never their goal to give a fetus the rights of a person, so arguments along those lines are meaningless to them. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But this isn’t about miscarriage, it’s about deliberate abortion. It’s about abortion=murder. Exactly. And how do you know if it was a natural miscarriage or an abortion=murder? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/70 "2012-08-30T20:33:47Z")
How do we know the woman don’t do something that caused the miscarriage? Had a glass of wine, took an asprin, had some caffeine or even “thought bad thoughts”? ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/71 "2012-08-30T20:50:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yeah. > > So what? > > That doesn’t change their beliefs about the status of the fetus. > > One can be pro-choice and believe all those things too. The point, I think, is that given all the OTHER things that anti-abortion folks generally believe, it’s reasonable to assume that their position DOES stem from woman-hating, even though you could THEORETICALLY derive a strong anti-abortion position from an abortion=murder stance. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/72 "2012-08-30T21:39:36Z")
Wow, the OP really poisoned the well right out of the gate. It’s easy to dismiss things as woman-hating when you define that to mean “anything the woman doesn’t like,” which is basically “anything not pro-choice.” > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s perfectly plausible to think that forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child is also a really bad thing to do, and to think that forcing a woman to carry a child resulting from consenting sex isn’t a really bad thing to do (note that I don’t hold the last view, so don’t attack me for it). In that case, you might declare that the evil of forcing a rape victim to carry the child is greater than the evil of aborting a fetus. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! That’s it, you got it. I’m not sure what the other 60 posts in this thread were for, but we could’ve stopped right here. > [@RitterSport](#): > > I’m not the OP, but my interpretation is that, if you have an exception for rape, then the other restrictions must be women-hating. So: > > 1. Abortion is murder > 2. Rape is bad > 3. Abortion for rape is still murder > > Why have a rape exception? Well, maybe: > > 1. Women who get pregnant deserve it for their shameful acts, so abortion should be banned > 2. Raped women didn’t do those shameful acts of their own free will > 3. Ergo, abortion is OK for raped women > > So, that reasoning is hateful towards women, perhaps. Why should the acts be called ‘shameful’? There’s no shame in carrying your baby to term. There is shame in killing it because you don’t want it anymore. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Killing a person is killing a person, regardless of the circumstances of that person’s conception. Says you. Says me, sometimes murder is OK, like on the battlefield or in death row. Or when no one consented to helping the victim live. > [@even\_sven](#): > > There is some element of concepts of “responsibility” in this, and the word gets tossed around a lot. Women should “take responsibility” for children produced from consensual sex, but in a rape they do not have to 'take responsibility." > > Of course, if you think about it, that’s basically slut-shaming and women-hating. The only thing shameful here is having an abortion when you already consented to birthing the kid, i.e. consented to sex. Consent to sex= consent to parenthood. That goes for both sexes. Of course, when you think about it, pro-choicers are basically fetus-hating. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > a fetus is the same as a child and killing it is just as wrong as killing a child. How that fetus was conceived is irrelevant to that. Again, says you. Says me, a fetus and a child are different. Killing a child is always wrong. Killing a fetus is sometimes wrong, depending on whether the child was conceived consentually. > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Well, nobody hs the right to use your body without your permission. But anti-abortion people want to give the fetus that very right. What are you talking about?! The _mother_ gave the fetus that right when she had sex! She can’t just revoke it because she feels like it. > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > According to EVERY anti-abortion protestor I’ve talked with: > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > Getting pregnant outside of marriage is wrong. > Giving birth outside of marriage is right. > > And they say two wrongs don’t make a right. And what have these abortion protestors said about the rape and incest exclusions? Pro-lifers like myself, who believe in those exceptions, do not think those first two things, nor are they meaningful to the viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/73 "2012-08-30T22:36:33Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Says me, sometimes murder is OK, like on the battlefield or in death row. Or when no one consented to helping the victim live. What a weird little moral knot you’ve tied yourself into. So it’s okay to kill a person if no one has consented to _take responsibility_ for that person? :eek: Hmmm … here’s an orphaned child. There’s no one left who consented to helping him, therefore it’s okay for us to kill him! The reasoning of the “pro-life” position, taken to it’s logical conclusion, turns people in monsters. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/74 "2012-08-31T00:50:39Z")
> [@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. > > So you’re back to square one, again. . . . Okay, so the two sides are completely equal. Nothing to favor one over the other. Except…one tries to regulate other people’s behaviors, and the other doesn’t. One intrudes on individual freedom, and the other allows people to choose for themselves. (Well, if he can be simplistic, why can’t I?) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/75 "2012-08-31T02:05:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Okay, so the two sides are completely equal. Nothing to favor one over the other. > > Except…one tries to regulate other people’s behaviors, and the other doesn’t. One intrudes on individual freedom, and the other allows people to choose for themselves. > > (Well, if he can be simplistic, why can’t I?) There is no “individual freedom” to murder someone. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/76 "2012-08-31T02:55:58Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > What a weird little moral knot you’ve tied yourself into. > > So it’s okay to kill a person if no one has consented to _take responsibility_ for that person? :eek: > > Hmmm … here’s an orphaned child. There’s no one left who consented to helping him, therefore it’s okay for us to kill him! > > The reasoning of the “pro-life” position, taken to it’s logical conclusion, turns people in monsters. First of all, it’s willful ignorance to keep saying “taken to its logical conclusion” when you’ve got the entire opposition saying “No, that’s not our logical conclusion. You’re misrepresenting our values.” You’re willfully ignoring us saying that. Second, an orphaned child is not the same as a fetus. First of all, one is aware of its own existence. That’s just one factor, but I’m sure you already knew that. But the more important factor is that a mother can essentially say to the fetus “I do not agree to support you,” and yet so can anyone in society say that to the orphan. No one in society is obligated to support that child, and if he dies, he dies. We don’t actually make that decision, but we could, and we used to. But now I’m sure you’re going “Chessic Sense, you’re a monster for suggesting that we refuse to support the life of this young orphan boy!” But think about a fetus, and think about that statement again. “Pro-choice”, taken to its logical conclusion, turns people into monsters that kill babies. Plain and simple. ---
**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 31, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/77 "2012-08-31T03:08:44Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > “Pro-choice”, taken to its logical conclusion, turns people into monsters that kill babies. Plain and simple. If that’s true, then a country with no abortion laws should be edging closer to legalized infanticide, no? Or if not, then what form does this “monsterhood” take? ---
**Author:** ![Rampant\_Coypu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rampant\_Coypu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rampant_Coypu)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/78 "2012-08-31T03:25:20Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I wouldn’t say that. If you believe in the sanctity of life then, probably, you believe in God. If God isn’t wholly benevolent, then he’s at least supposed to be good to you if you’ve been good, and bad to you if you’ve been bad. Finding ways to demonstrate that you’ve been bad, and thus leading to your getting raped, helps to maintain their image of God. It a defensive measure against cognitive dissonance. > > Even taking God out of it, people still want to view the world as sensical. Things happen for reasons. If I dress modestly, stay away from drugs and alcohol, etc., then I don’t have to worry about being raped. If I want to, I can choose a world where I am safe, because there’s nothing random about life. Thinking of the world in this way is very comforting. If I see someone who dresses modestly, doesn’t party, and yet still was raped, well darn it, they must have done _something_ to ask for it, because otherwise, oh shit, I’m at risk as well. Good points. Victim blaming is a way to feel you are not going to be a victim and gives a sense of control. But if you follow the rules that keep you from becoming a victim then the rapists have won. Why can’t a woman dress sexily? Why can’t a woman go to a dude’s place to see his etchings and expect that if any sexual stuff happens her consent will matter to the dude and they will have a hot and mostly safe time, and if it’s just not the right time and the right dude, dude will be chill? How hard can this be to understand? Every time you start analyzing how a rape might have or have not occurred by focusing on the victim, the rapists have won. ---
**Author:** ![Rampant\_Coypu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rampant\_Coypu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rampant_Coypu)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/79 "2012-08-31T03:55:49Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > How do we know the woman don’t do something that caused the miscarriage? Had a glass of wine, took an asprin, had some caffeine or even “thought bad thoughts”? Yep, that’s exactly where this is going. Thank you for reminding everyone. ---
**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 31, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983/80 "2012-08-31T13:07:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You are? I am? The argument you’re presenting on behalf of the hypothetical pro-lifer is very unrealistic and touchy-feely and appeals to emotion and whatnot. Idealistic, even. Why I have to treat it with some kind of deference is unclear to me. I’m simply saying it is an accurate representation of their views. I don’t care if how you treat it. I’m not pro-life. > [@](#): > > Well, where I “get” is a liberal democracy where abortion is legal. Mission accomplished, though I need to keep up the eternal vigilance to prevent idealistic reactionaries from fumbling it away. Yes, and your “eternal vigilance” will fail if you don’t get your argument right. And getting your argument right means knowing their argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-women-hating-reasons-for-incest-rape-exception-to-abortion-rules/632983.md?page=5)