Let me start this OP by making a request. I would like not ask pro-choice folks to refrain from posting. I certainly can’t stop you from posting, and I acknowledge that this is your forum too. But I would appreciate it if you left this thread for pro-life people.
The 4 possible (debateable) exceptions general considered for abortion are as follows (add any you think are appropriate)
-
Rape
-
Incest (I’ve always thought of this one as a subset of rape)
-
Life of the mother
-
Life of the baby
So, my request is that you take each in turn and talk about whether you think abortion should be allowed in these tragic instances.
I’ll start:
- Rape & incest (I’m bundling them together).
I just can’t see a valid exception here. If so, are we claiming the worth of a baby is dependant on the circumstances under which she was conceived? Should born children be allowed to be shot because their father is a rapist?
It also seems that it means we judge raped women as ‘innocent’ and thereby shouldn’t be ‘punnished’ by bearing a baby, whereas women who conceive through consensual sex are thereful ‘guilty’ and continuing the pregnancy is a ‘punnishment.’
- Life of the mother and baby
I can see this as a much more worthy reason to abort. But lots of tricky questions are raised.
If the mother is 25% likely to die, can she abort? What if she is 10% or 75% likely to die? Who decides? What if she won’t die, but her health will be severely compromised?
What if the baby will live, but probably only for a few years? If it will born and live a long time, but will be a mental vegetable? Again, who decides?
The only way this could work would be to have a committee (a few doctors, a few civilians, and a medical ethicist maybe) who hears these cases and makes recommendations.
The details are always so hard! This is why I’m such a wishy-washy pro-lifer. There are so many tough questions to answer about the details of implementation.
A case in which the baby has no chance of surviving past birth. Or will certainly die within a short time after birth.
Assuming we’re arguing in a political arena, I agree with Walloon…case #1 being a hypothetical “maybe”.
I recognize (as does Walloon) that the problem with exception #1 is that it suggests that the baby is (1) being punished, (2) raises the “if you really believed it was a human being, how could you allow it to be killed” argument. Both points are legitimate points. The issue is when the political arena (assuming we’re talking about the U.S.) intersects with civil rights.
IF (and this is a HUGE if), there was proposed legislation that would outlaw abortions except for issues 1,2 & 3…AND if a reasoned look at the political landscape led me to believe that legislation that outlawed abortion including rape cases had no (or virtually no) chance of passage…then what do I do?
Rape cases (according to AGI research…not perfect, but the best there is on the topic now) account for about 1% of abortions. The same research suggests about 6% abortions falling into the fetal problems/maternal problems category.
So. Do I support theoretical legislation that would outlaw 93% or so of abortions…or do I insist on legislation that outlaws 94% (or so) of abortions? I would have a hard time in this hypothetical legislative example of dismissing the former legislation automatically.
Yes I certainly also recognize the problems with the rape exception model… (huge increase in reported rape indicated abortions?..does the guvmint check the “validity” (for lack of a better term) of the reported rapes?.. and several other problems). For these reasons, I could be persuaded to consider legislation with the rape exception only in theory…unless and until those issues could be dealt with.
Bottom line though. If legislation with the rape exception actually did lower the numbers of abortions by a huge/significant amount…it would be hard to dismiss the idea out of hand, especially considering the likely political alternative.
Morally, I see no exception for rape or incest. “Life of the mother” is a possible exception, in that I believe the mother’s life is no less valuable than her child’s, so it’s possible that a circumstance could exist where the best chance for the best possible outcome would involve an abortion. I also believe this is an exceedingly rare situation, if it exists at all.
I also agree with everything Dave said.
So, Bob and Dave, let me see if I understand exactly what you mean.
Are you saying that even though you morally don’t think rape and incest should be exception to the hypothetical no-abortion law, you would be willing to accept it for political expediency?
On the other hand, what do you think morally about the life of mother/baby exception? How would it work out practicallly?
**Yes. Just to clarify, if I believed that the likeliest chance of an abortion ban had to include a rape exception, and a ban without this exception was unlikely, I’d take the likely law. One thing at a time.
I’ve already responded to the “life of the mother” question, unless I’m misunderstanding it. I don’t agree with an exception that permits us to kill anyone because we don’t think his life will be long enough or “quality” enough. No exception for the last one, IMO.
Ok, so if I understand, everyone who has responded thinks the rape/incest exception is not morally defensible, but important to put in any law for simple political reasons.
The exceptions for mother/baby’s health seem more agreed on, though Bob would not like an exception even for the baby’s life.
Interesting results.
I am pro-choice for two main reasons.
One: I don’t have a uterus.
Two: becuase of this, I will never become pregnant.
Morally, yes, I am against abortion, but it is not about the procedure, it is about the Right to the procedure.
I will never, ever conceptualize what pregnancy would be like–and simply becuase another woman can does not mean that she has the Right to deny another woman her Right. No law can do away with abortions–or take into account the number of factors that call for one. The only way to reduce this procedure is to* increase *sexual education in schools, homes, and churches. People must acknowledge that kids DO HAVE SEX. The issue is best left for individual families to make.
Welcome to the board, Pro-Choice Charlie. You’re responding to a thread from mid-2003 here. We’ve had many more recent discussion, and it’s better if you respond to one of those or start a new one if you’d like to discuss this.