Thanks for your perspectives, everybody. The real-life pro-lifers I know tend to be the Crafter_Man type, though they differ somewhat on auxilliary matters like birth control. It’s good to see some different takes on the matter.
I think there are many shades of opinion on both sides. On the anti-abortion side, I think there are many people who would accept abortions for what they consider to be good cause, but are against what they consider to be abortions performed “just for convenience”. Many on the pro-choice side are also uneasy about these abortions. The real controversy, IMO, is not about the small number of abortions that are performed to save the life or health of the woman, in cases of severe fetal abnormality, and in cases of rape or insest.
The real controversy is about the larger number of abortions; the ones performed for less acceptable reasons.
What I think we have to realize is that allowing legal abortion only in cases where the women or girl has a really good reason is completely unworkable. Who is to decide what is or is not a good enough reason? How are we to determine if the woman or girl is telling the truth about her reasons? And what happens when woman and girls are turned down for legal abortions? Does anyone think that most of them will not get illegal ones?
I find myself echoing Palandine’s thoughts…what she describes is often called a Consistent Ethic of Life or Seamless Garment. And she is right, that being pro life is not JUST about being against something…but affirmatively stepping forward to actively help those in crisis.
A tougher call for me, is whether I would agree to a hypothetical political compromise that would ban all abortions except the traditional “hard cases”.
Do I believe that the products of those “hard cases” are equally deserving of dignity and a right to life…yes I do.
On the other hand, if opposition to “hard case” abortions prevented (hypothetical) legislation that WOULD (at least, for sake of this argument) significantly eliminate the vast numbers of abortions…it would be hard to hold out for the total ban.
Perhaps the liklihood of such a “compromise” legislation being passed is so small as to not spend vast quantities of time worrying about the distinction…however I’ve seen many pro choice folks ask (as MysterEcks did) about how somebody who is “pro life” could compromise on the “hard cases”
Most pro-lifers in my experience are willing to accept exceptions for the rape/incest/life of the mother cases.
I think the pro-lifers who won’t accept even an exception for the life of the mother are fairly unusual and basically extremists, much like pro-choicers who won’t accept a ban even on third trimester elective abortion.
I think the logic of many of the rape/incest exception pro-lifers can be summarized as: “When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to accept responsibility for any lives that may be brought into being by the act. Since a rape victim has not agreed to sex, she has not agreed to the responsibility of protecting the life that may result from sex.”
I think this is a reasonable viewpoint.
There are probably some people who view pregnancy as punishment for sex, but certainly not all of us do. Personally, I think it is rather cruel to think that pregnancy should be an unpleasant/“punishing” process; I believe in doing whatever is reasonably possible to ease the burden on those women who become pregnant in difficult situations. For that matter, I know a few polyamorous bisexual pro-lifers who are clearly not interested in judging others’ sex lives. 
Obviously, I support an exception for cases where the woman is in physical danger from the pregnancy. The mother and child’s lives are both important and should be respected, ideally, but if only one can be saved, then the most pro-life view IMO is to preserve whatever life can be salvaged.
In the situation of rape, I don’t believe that abortion is right, but I can understand why people do believe that it is “necessary” (using the aforementioned rationale), and hence I would be willing to accept (indeed, I would pretty much expect) an exception in pro-life legislation.
However, I believe there is a need for more understanding and support for rape victims who DON’T WANT to abort.
If I were raped, I can honestly say I would not abort. I have encountered too many people who have been hurt by abortion to believe it is a good way to cope with the trauma of rape. At least by giving birth, I would have the hope of raising the child to be a much better person than his/her “father” was and perhaps bring something good from a terrible situation.
Yet there are still many people who seem to think that a rape victim is almost obligated to abort. I can recall meeting a woman who kept her baby conceived from rape who was subjected to bigotry (such as being called “sick”) from people who apparently regard anyone who has the misfortune of having a creep for a father as being some kind of “devil child” (as if any of us can control what kind of people our parents were/are?).
I tend to agree with the viewpoint of the authors at Feminists for Life, who have written several articles about rape pregnancies. A woman’s child is her child, regardless of who the “father” is, and to treat the source of the sperm as setting the course for the entire pregnancy and child’s life is to give power to the rapist that I don’t think he deserves.
Unfortunately, the same sometimes holds true about women who know that there is going to be something wrong with their babies. On of the daycare providers I worked with for NH Reads told me last spring that one of her mothers knew that her third baby was going to have Downs Syndrome. Several people were outraged that she intended to have the baby, and told the mother this to her face. I can’t imagine what sort of psychological problems would allow one to tell a parent that…The baby, Becky, is close to a year old, and is doing very well, hitting milstones close to what a non-downs baby would; her doctor thinks she’ll probably be high functioning. Funny that the people who urged her mother to get an abortion probably identify as pro-choice…that sort of thing almost gives pro-choice as bad a name as doctor-killing does pro-life.
I hope you will all forgive me for sticking my two pro-choice cents in…
Hazel, this is a point I have argued many times myself. Were I to find myself unexpectedly pregnant (unlikely, but stranger things have happened) and wanting an abortion in a country where abortion was legal only in cases of rape, incest, or serious threat to the mother’s life (unlikely, but stranger things have happened), then you’d better believe I’d lie about my situation. I wouldn’t accuse an innocent man of raping me, but I would be willing to invent a story about how I was attacked by a strange man wearing a mask or something like that. Any demand of proof that could be placed upon me would also eliminate many women who genuinely were raped.
I think the only person who can decide if a woman has a really good reason for having an abortion is the woman herself. She should be allowed to make the decision, and to act as she sees fit. This is the system we have now. Some people may not be happy with it, but I don’t see how anything else short of a complete ban on all abortions is feasible.
MysterEcks:
That would make this a debate, not our opinions.
But I think it boils down to informed consent: Debbie and Johnny, two cute teenagers who have had sex education and are aware of the repercussions of unprotected sex decide to have it anyway, and then wail and gnash their teeth when Debbie gets in a family way. Well, DUH! Consensual unprotected sex (Action) leads to preagnancy (Consequence)? Who ever heard of such nonsense?
In this instance, terminating the life of an inconvenient unborn child to escape the consequences of one’s own informed consensual act is immoral, IMHO.
But to use iampunha’s example, the raped girl never consented to have sex; it was forced upon her unwillingly. Even if she weren’t diabetic, and could carry the child successfully to term, I wouldn’t force her to. I would hope that she would, and give the child up for adoption, but wouldn’t demand it of her, and would oppose anyone or any laws which said she must.
So in the second example, the mother is forced to not only endure the the non-consensual act of forced sex, and the immediate and long-term emotional and physical consequences of that act, but the long-term (9 month-to-a-lifetime) consequence and reminder of that act.
But for all of my pro-life personal beliefs, I am fairly pro-choice politically. I’m less comfortable with restrictions upon free citizens than I am with abortions upon demand. Call me a damned secular humanist, but hey, that’s what I am so I won’t be offended.
As the law now stands, it doesn’t matter how a child is conceived. The father always has paternal rights. If a child is conceived as a result of rape, he can demand a DNA test, visitation (even if the mother has to bring the child to prison and face her rapist) and even custody. After all, he is the father.
The only right the mother has is to have an abortion. Otherwise, the rapist has a right to be in her life forever.
Of course, some anti-abortionists have stated flat out that nobody gets pregnant from rape, and women who claim they did are lying.
MysterEcks:
And why not? If the fetus has limited rights, and the only thing that can override those is an infringement on the mother’s (or some existing person’s) rights, does it not make sense that the voluntariness of sex on the part of the infringee constitutes an implicit waiver of those rights?
Chaim Mattis Keller
My opinion as a pro-lifer? Palandine said it for me, and better than I could have.
No exceptions, and support for the mom.
I’m curious: Does anyone have any statistics that provide the percentage of pregnancies due to incest and/or rape?
Less than 1%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute – which, FTR, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. It is therefore a pro-choice organization. The actual incidence may be even lower than what their statistics reveal.
This is the REPORTED rate of pregancy by rape. How many go unreported? The woman doesn’t report the rape, then finds out she is pregnant and has an abortion. I don’t think places that do abortions ask for the circumstances of the conception.
BTW, the website you refer to is very anti-abortion.
Actually, they do ask. That’s exactly how the Alan Guttmacher Institute was able to gather those statistics.
Of course, one could assume that the actual statistics are higher – but without any evidence to substantiate that claim, that would be pure conjecture. (If you have evidence to the contrary, please do produce it.)
Moreover, the women were specifically asked WHY they were obtaining an abortion. In other words, regardless of whether they were pregnant due to rape, less than 1% of them cited rape as the reason for their abortion. Also, one could just as easily argue that the actual incidence of abortion due to rape is lower. After all, it’s more convenient for a woman to cry “Rape!” than to admit that she’s been fooling around, or cheating on a spouse.
True, but the statistics themselves come from a pro-choice organization. Surely you’re not suggesting that these statistics are invalid, simply because they were quoted by a pro-life organization?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JThunder *
**
In retrospect, I should amend that to say that they can ask – and that for the purposes of the Alan Guttmacher study, they did ask. (Actually, they asked for the patient’s reason for having the abortion, which isn’t exactly the same thing. For example, a rape victim could conceivably want to keep the baby, if not for economic hardship. Of course, it’s the motive which is of greater importance to the abortion debate, rather than the specific circumstances of the conception.)
Ok, and what percentage of concentual intercourse results in pregnancy?
Do the figures showing 1% of rapes result in pregnancy include only those women who weren’t on contraceptives at the time of the rape, or do they include women who use the pill? What percentage of rapes result in pregnancy where neither the victim or the attacker are taking any precautions against pregnancy?
What percentage of single-encounter intercourse between concenting adults results in pregnancy?
I imagine the people who argue that you can’t get pregnant from rape would conclude that a woman must have secretly enjoyed it if she does fall pregnant, and therefore it wasn’t rape.
Those statistics were beyond the scope of the Alan Guttmacher study.
Also, I must confess to some error here. Due to the context of this discussion, I thought that Crafter_Man was asking about the percentage of pregnancies aborted that were due to rape. Looking back, I see that his post only asked about the percentage of pregnancies due to rape. Depending on the intent of that question, it may or may not have been referring to aborted pregnancies.
That’s a very serious accusation on your part, for which I have encountered absolutely no evidence. Can you substantiate it, or is it purely conjecture?
Besides, I don’t know any pro-lifers who say you can’t get pregnant due to rape. Quite the contrary; they are fond of asking the following question:
There is reason to believe that the trauma of rape makes pregnancy less likely. Nevertheless, pro-lifers clearly acknowledge that you can become pregnant as a result of rape!
I’m still waiting for someone to substantiate the accusation that pro-lifer believe a rape victim “must have secretly enjoyed it if she does fall pregnant.”
Come on, now! If this accusation has any merit, then surely someone can substantiate that claim.
I think the argument that “You can’t get pregnant from rape” does all the substantiating you need.
If you “can’t get pregnant from rape”, then all the people who claim they did are obviously a)lying or b)weren’t really forced into intercourse against their will.
Oh, and I never claimed that all pro-lifers think this way. I responded to a poster who brought up the point that some people think this way. I didn’t say that all pro-lifers think that rape can’t cause pregnancy, and indeed I didn’t say that only pro-lifers think that rape can’t cause pregnancy.
Annie-Xmas said:
I had never heard that particular school of thought before, and was responding to it when I said
I said that because I can’t see any other way they could justify their position. Rape can and does cause pregnancies, and to say it can’t means you have to consider the women who claim it did to be liars. Therefore, I said that I imagine this is how they dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.