Why are the usual exceptions for abortions listed as “rape and incest”? Why is non-rape incest considered an exception? Is it really that common that an adult family member gets another adult family member pregnant during consensual sex? And if they decide they don’t want the kid, it’s a special exception for them to have an abortion?
Or is incest considered rape in this phrase? If that’s the case, it really bugs me. It’s like me saying, “you can eat anything here but my fruit and my apples.” It’s very redundant.
All rape is not incest and not all incest is rape. There is a lot of overlap. It’s easier to say rape and incest, then rape and non rape incest, or incest and non incest rape.
OP seems to be assuming that incestuous relations are always non-consensual, between an adult and a minor. That’s not necessarily the case. There can be consensual relations between adults, and consensual relations between minors.
I believe OP is trying to ask why “incest” is included, in its entirety, as an exception (to pro-life arguments). Stating simply “incest” includes both non-consensual and consensual incest as a valid reason to abort. And thus, the question becomes: why is consensual incest considered a valid reason to abort when both parties consensually (though perhaps accidentally) created a foetus?
As to why it’s commonly thought that a child of incest is somehow abhorrent enough to fit in the same category as a child of rape … well, that’s something I disagree with.
It seems to me that there are two answers:
Incest (even when consensual) is ungodly/unholy/unnatural/disgusting/awful/heathenish.
Children of incest are genetic mutants who are going to be malformed.
I believe it’s because of the relatively high rate of birth defects that would be associated with consensual incest (a phrase that I never thought I would be called upon to type).
But even assuming that’s so: such laws usually don’t contain an exemption for known genetic problems that might produce a viable child. So why should that be a reason to give an exemption for possible genetic problems that might not even exist?
I believe it’s so a pregnant girl whose dad knocked her up doesn’t have to prove she was raped. Because when a parent has sex with their child, or even an older sibling with a younger one, it’s complicated.
I don’t believe the intent is to allow the abortion of the the child of a 35 year old women who is consensually sleeping with her brother. But there are few enough of those that it’s kind of irrelevant.
I believe that it’s because a traditional definition of rape involved violence and the threat of death. There are lots of other definitions of rape: current legal definitions are much wider. But if you start with older or simpler ideas of rape, then incest mostly doesn’t fall under the definition.
I can believe that. It doesn’t make any logical sense (because a dad getting his underage daughter pregnant would be considered rape based on age alone), but I guess it really doesn’t have to.
I’m aware that the conceptg of “statutory rape” is bandied about freely on the TV shows, but is it the case that every jurisdiction in the US classes sex with an underage partner as “rape”? Because at common law, obviously, it isn’t rape.
I have no idea. I assumed that unless you are legally married, someone who can legally consent having sex with someone who cannot (by age or mental disability) is considered a form of rape. I understand that child marriages still exist in the US, but I don’t think it is legal to marry YOUR child.
Edit to add: I’m also curious if it is legally possible to rape your spouse? I would hope so, of course. But I’m not sure it actually is.
Until the 1960s and 1970s, in the U.S., spouses were apparently generally exempt from laws regarding rape. Thankfully, this is no longer the case, and in all 50 states, there is some form of law prohibiting marital rape – however, in some states, there needs to be use of, or threat of the use of, force in order to meet the law’s hurdle for rape.
I don’t think so. At common law, the issue is not really that a 15-year old (say) “cannot consent” to sex. He or she can consent, and may indeed consent enthusiastically; but the consent, even if real, is not a defence to a charge based on sex with an underage person.
So sexual intercourse between a couple, one of whom is (or both of whom are) under age may be a crime, but it’s not the crime of rape unless (a) one of them did not consent to sex and the other knew this, or (b) the legislature has specified that it is to be rape, regardelss of consent.
This matters, because if I have consensual sex with my underage girlfriend, the punishment I face is likely to be a lot lower than if I rape my underage girlfriend. Indeed, if I am underage myself the sex might not be a crime at all, but it will be if I rape her.
In most, and possibly all, jurisdictions it is possible to rape your spouse.
So arguably, if you allow abortions due to incest (not just rape), you should allow them for any substantial genetic or anatomical defect.
Furthermore, let’s take the other side of things. We hold life so sacred that we want to ban abortions for defects that will usually result in a physically and mentally handicapped child.
Umm, are these states that are passing abortion laws the kind that have generous government programs so take care of handicapped children? You know, with extensive special ed, free and comprehensive lifelong healthcare, state funded group homes if the child lives to adulthood, and so on?
I kinda had the impression that these states have very shoddy and limited forms of these programs and in some cases the only ones available are prisons.
The Georgia law requires the victim reports the rape, which, of course, means many rape victims won’t be able to get abortions. But how does a woman prove she had incestuous sex in order to get an abortion? If her relative says, “Yep, I had sex with her,” is that sufficient?
There are prenatal DNA tests that can show this among many other things. Modern versions of the test can check the DNA of the embryo with just a sample of the mother’s blood.
Again, though, carving out an exception just for incest but not for general genetic defects is basically just a theocratic policy. A defect is a defect whether or not “sinful” sex was the cause of it.