Non women-hating reasons for incest/rape exception to abortion rules?

[The_Hamster_King]

If you truly believe that human life begins at conception then making an exception for rape or incest makes no sense. Killing a person is killing a person, regardless of the circumstances of that person’s conception. By the same token, a woman who has an abortion should be punished with the same severity as anyone who hires someone else to commit murder – a long prison sentence or perhaps the death penalty.

Of course, most “pro life” advocates don’t take their assertion that life begins at conception to its logical conclusion. Because of that, I strongly suspect that most of them don’t *really *believe that human life begins at conception. Instead it’s just a useful talking point so they can avoid discussing their real reason for opposing abortion … shaming the slutty sluts who couldn’t keep their legs closed.

[Trinopus]

@Paranoid_Randroid

. . . A view I’ve considered, but haven’t seen, is the possibility abortion might be wrong but less wrong than murdering a fully-developed child. Moral judgments in other areas admit of degrees . . . But a fetus hasn’t had a chance to grow, to form bonds, to build an existence much worth mourning. So maybe murdering a fetus is just not as big a deal as murdering me. . . .

This makes a fair amount of sense. And it is a way of thinking about it that ought to have been brought up, widely, before now. I think this may be the first time I’ve heard this idea formulated.

(I read…and post in…abortion threads, in hopes of hearing someone say something new once in a while. Thank you!)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ibn_Warraq

Certainly there are some pro-lifers who want women who get abortions prosecuted for murder, but I think they’re a distinct minority amongst the pro-lifers. Most I think would go after the doctors.

Back when abortion was illegal I think it was almost always the doctors who were prosecuted, not the women.

This is an interesting point–if you’d prosecute the doctor for murder, but not the pregnant woman, how on earth does that make any sense, absent an overarching patriarchal attitude that excludes female agency and female doctors both?

[Terr]

@Paranoid_Randroid

…so a fetus could be a person just as you or I. But a fetus hasn’t had a chance to grow, to form bonds, to build an existence much worth mourning. So maybe murdering a fetus is just not as big a deal as murdering me.

The same applies to a one-day-old baby. Is murdering a one-day-old baby not as big a deal as murdering you?

[lance_strongarm]

It has nothing to do with hating women.

It’s simply a statement that rape or incest are so hard on women that they shouldn’t have to carry a child to term who is a product of that crime. It’s pro-woman, not anti-woman. Or at least it is intended to be.

Of course, it’s also a complete crock of shit, because if abortion is otherwise outlawed based on the idea that it is “murder” then a rape/incest exception is saying that children produced by rape or incest are not worthy of protection from murder.

This exception is an attempt to make an abortion ban more palatable. It’s a load of crap. Either abortion is murder, or its a right. No middle ground. Don’t let abortion opponents off the hook - insist that they live up to their own principles without politically convenient exceptions, or else they are hypocrites.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is an interesting point–if you’d prosecute the doctor for murder, but not the pregnant woman, how on earth does that make any sense, absent an overarching patriarchal attitude that excludes female agency and female doctors both?

I actually don’t think the doctors were prosecuted for murder but for practicing an illegal medical procedure or something like that.

In fact, Virginia’s current law banning “partial birth abortion” explicitly prohibits prosecuting women for it.

http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM

§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

The term “partial birth infanticide” shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

D. For purposes of this section, “substantially expelled or extracted from its mother” means, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the infant’s entire head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the infant’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.

E. This section shall not prohibit the use by a physician of any procedure that, in reasonable medical judgment, is necessary to prevent the death of the mother, so long as the physician takes every medically reasonable step, consistent with such procedure, to preserve the life and health of the infant. A procedure shall not be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother if completing the delivery of the living infant would prevent the death of the mother.

F. The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.

(bolding mine)

Someone more familiar with the history of abortion in American would know better.

[lance_strongarm]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is an interesting point–if you’d prosecute the doctor for murder, but not the pregnant woman, how on earth does that make any sense, absent an overarching patriarchal attitude that excludes female agency and female doctors both?

And that’s another way they get away with not facing their own principles.

If abortion is murder, pregnant women who abort are murderers and should be subject to prosecution just as much as the doctor who is an accessory.

And hey, if only doctors are subject to prosecution, aborting your own pregnancy without assistance would still be legal.

[lance_strongarm]

@RitterSport

I’ll try again. It’s hard for me to explain, because I really don’t agree with the pro-life position at all – I’m trying to put forth their position in a way that is sympathetic towards their world view.

If the pro-life position is hateful towards women, then abortion restrictions could be seen as punishment for them engaging in those acts, married or not. They must carry to term, even if it will endanger their health, financial well-being, whatever. However, since you can’t hold a woman responsible for a rape, you don’t need to be punished for that.

However, another view is that, when you consent to sex, you invite the violinist in, and can’t really justify killing him. However, when you’re raped, you don’t invite him in. Same result, less hateful-seeming. That is, you’re not responsible for his life, and may free yourself from that connection. When you consent, you are responsible, even if you used condoms, BC, etc. – the act may bring responsibility if conception takes place.

Douthat discusses it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-democrats-abortion-moment.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I don’t think that’s fair to the pro-lifers. I don’t think they want to punish anyone for sex. They simply believe that a fetus is as much a human life as a person, and should have the same protections. They think banning abortion is the same thing as the ban on murdering children who have been born.

The rape/incest exception is complete hypocrisy. I am not anti-abortion, but I do have respect for the pro-lifers who refuse to compromise that way.

[lance_strongarm]

@RitterSport

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

More like this:

1. Abortion is bad, even in cases of rape.
2. But we can’t get enough votes for an abortion ban because it will force rape victims to have babies, and lots of people don’t like that idea.
3. Ergo, abortion is OK for raped women.

[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.

[Carmady]

@lance_strongarm

They simply believe that a fetus is as much a human life as a person, and should have the same protections.

That doesn’t work because there is no parallel situation.

People don’t live inside other peoples’ bodies. There are no “same protections” for that.

If anything, the closest parallels (none of which are good) indicate that IF people could move into your body, you would be allowed to kick them out even if it meant their death. Parents are not forced to donate organs to their kids even a second after they are born… at that point they can let them die if they want with full support from everyone.

You can knock someone out and cut out and destroy their kidneys, and you will not be required to donate one of your own kidneys to save them.

Again… not good parallels, but our laws do seem closer to implying that the “same protections” would allow abortion than not.

[PBear42]

@John_Mace

Oh, and I’m not getting the reason why the OP thinks there are woman hating reasons for the exemptions. What does hating women have to do with allowing them to abort a fetus that was the result of rape? Am I read the OP correctly? Because it seems like the woman-hating reasons would be for the other types of abortions, assuming that is actually the reason.

As the OP still hasn’t checked in, I will mention that I agree with RitterSport, though I’ll phrase it a little differently. Basically, ISTM, the OP title is inaccurate. Rather, the argument, as shown by the OP text (“What are the non women-hating, that is to say reasons that aren’t about giving a ‘just result’ to the woman, reasons for having a different view on abortion in cases of rape or incest?”), is pretty much exactly what you suggest.

Whether this is a sound argument, i.e., a valid objection to the pro-life (anti-abortion) position I will leave to you and others. I’m strongly pro-choice, even pro-abortion, but on other grounds.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@lance_strongarm

The rape/incest exception is complete hypocrisy. I am not anti-abortion, but I do have respect for the pro-lifers who refuse to compromise that way.

I dunno, whether you’re consistent or inconsistent to a short-sighted harmful dogma, it remains a short-sighted harmful dogma.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@lance_strongarm

I don’t think that’s fair to the pro-lifers. I don’t think they want to punish anyone for sex. They simply believe that a fetus is as much a human life as a person, and should have the same protections. They think banning abortion is the same thing as the ban on murdering children who have been born.

The rape/incest exception is complete hypocrisy. I am not anti-abortion, but I do have respect for the pro-lifers who refuse to compromise that way.

While some pro-lifers are only concerned about the fetus, a fair number will proclaim that women should have to “face the consequences” or “pay the price” for having sex…which means that they see having a baby as a punishment.

[Polerius]

Possible non woman-hating reasoning:

[ol]
[li]Abortion is “termination of potential human”[/li][li]“inflicting the trauma of forcing birth of rape offspring” < “termination of potential human” < “inflicting the trauma of forcing birth of non-rape offspring”[/li][/ol]
where “<” above means “is morally worse than”

I assume at least some people agree that the trauma from being forced to give birth to a baby resulting from rape is worse than being forced to give birth to a baby that did not result from rape. If that’s the case, then inflicting the former trauma is morally worse than inflicting the latter trauma. In which case, there is a gap between those two actions, and the morality of some other actions may fit in that gap. One such possible action is “termination of potential human”.

It’s not something many or most would agree with, but it can be a rational argument.

[Polycarp]

I think one can define a ratuonale for a rape exception which does not denigrate women. But I find it strangely difficult to explain or construct a workable analogy for. So I ask that I be given the “benefit of the doubt” in outlining my reasoning, with no assumptions regarding my underlying motivations.

First, to help construct a parallel, let us examine the role of the male. Under present law, if he begets a child, he assumes a duty of care toward that child, to provide for its support until its 18th birthday, (The “until” date may vary for a variety of reasons, from his paternal rights and duties being terminated by adoption to until the child graduates from college; age 18 is a useful default “until” date.) Legally it makes no difference whether he is a happily married man rejoicing that their previous infertility is ended or a whether he would prefer the fetus be aborted; if he does choose to takehe34 risk of begetting a child, he has a duty of care toward it. He may take steps to reduce th risk of entering into potential fatherhood, by refraining from penile-vaginal intercourse, various means of contraception, etc., but when the rubber meets the road, if he begat that child he did assume that duty of care. (Personally I feel he also owes the child a duty of fatherhood, in the sense of nurturing male parenting, but the courts do not see fit to place that obligation on him.)

Likewise a woman choosing to enter into sexual intercourse assumes a duty of care towards any potential offspring that my result. As with the man her emotional state towards the conceptus is irrelevant. And note that (1) this does not presuppose personhood, just as a lawyer’s fiduciary duty toward a not-yet-born beneficiary of a trust or the paqternal duty of the man who begat the conceptus is not dependent on its present personhood – either it is a person (the Religious Right view) or it is a rapidly differentiating mass of tissue that will ceteris paribus become a person at birth (an embryological perspective)’ and (2) she is not strictly obliged to carry that fetus to term. In an ideal world of Bujold uterine replicators or safe and easy embryo/placental transplants, she would have options not presently available. Andf she has the same options available to the man to eliminate or reduce the risk of pregnancy/ I see no shame or condemnation in a pregnancy, only a duty of care towards a potential human life that must be dealt with.

Note that I have asserted a duty of care towards something that both man and woman assumed the risk of causing, with options available to them to eliminate or reduce that risk. In rape, whether forcible, coercive, or statutory, that element of mature choice is absent. In addition, the younger victims of statutory rape may not be able to carry a child to term, either at all or without grave risk to their ability to conceive and bear children later in life.

A “choice” forced on one or made under duress is no choice in reality. And we do not oblige children and adolescents to be self-supporting adults. You need not undertake a duty you did not freely choose to undertake, understanding the potential risks involved.

[lance_strongarm]

@Carmady

That doesn’t work because there is no parallel situation.

People don’t live inside other peoples’ bodies. There are no “same protections” for that.

I wasn’t justifying their position, only explaining it. This thread is not about the abortion debate.

[lance_strongarm]

@Polycarp

A “choice” forced on one or made under duress is no choice in reality. And we do not oblige children and adolescents to be self-supporting adults. You need not undertake a duty you did not freely choose to undertake, understanding the potential risks involved.

But aren’t all aborted pregnancies not chosen? The fact that they are accidental vs. forced doesn’t change that. They are unwanted.

But never mind - your analysis completely misses the point of the anti-abortion position, which is simple: 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.

This, of course, makes a rape exception a hypocritical, politically-expedient load of crap, which it is.

[lance_strongarm]

@Lynn_Bodoni

While some pro-lifers are only concerned about the fetus, a fair number will proclaim that women should have to “face the consequences” or “pay the price” for having sex…which means that they see having a baby as a punishment.

Some may also say that, but that is not their motivation for opposing abortion. I am pro-choice and I would say the same thing! Everyone must face the consequences of their choices. I just wouldn’t limit those consequences to giving birth.

When a pro-lifers says that, they’re saying that killing a baby (their perspective) is not an acceptable way to handle a mistake, that’s all. It doesn’t mean they want to punish anyone for sex. Most pro-lifers are happy to see adoption as an alternative, which is not very punitive but avoids destroying the fetus.

[lance_strongarm]

@Bryan_Ekers

I dunno, whether you’re consistent or inconsistent to a short-sighted harmful dogma, it remains a short-sighted harmful dogma.

No it’s not.

If you believe that a fetus is just like a child, then what else should you do than want to ban abortion?

It all comes down to when you think a zygote/embryo/fetus (ZEF) becomes something that is worthy of protection, like a born human is. That’s it. There’s really nothing else to it. If you believe it is from conception or at some time before birth, nothing else matters. There is no possible justification, save perhaps to save another life like the mother’s, to “kill” the unborn child. If you don’t believe that, abortion is the sole right of the pregnant woman to have at will, for any reason.

There’s not much room for exceptions on either side.

I’ll point out that even Roe v. Wade allowed the government to ban abortion in later trimesters, allowing for it to decide that there is a time before birth when a ZEF is worthy of protection. Not many pro-choice people have a problem with that. Most probably don’t have a problem with banning late-term abortion or “partial birth” abortion.

(Again, a reminder that I’m not anti-abortion, I’m just framing the debate).