Well, ISTM it isn’t *fundamentally *religious, it just uses religion as a shield (as is so often the case). It’s really about power.
Always wondered that myself. The cases that come to most people’s mind when ‘incest’ is mentioned as the reason for a pregnancy are statutory, if not statutory and forcible, rape of a minor where it’s redundant.
Whereas if two grown adults siblings, say, decided they wanted to reject social convention and have children, I’m also not sure how that’s categorically different than unrelated people with a similar genetic risk for serious birth defects. Close relatives have elevated risk in that regard, but so do some particular people who are not closely related.
I guess one explanation for R&I always being grouped together is the assumption that even in the extension of the case of rape or a minor, sex with a young adult relative, the man is generally in a power position and morally tend to be like rape, even if not legally rape. And the recognition that incestuous pregnancy in anything close to a power-equal relationship is exceedingly rare.
There’s a whole meta-topic on abortion of why the two sides have staked out certain language and keep going back to certain (sometimes quite rare) situations as keys to their arguments. I think the basic reason is usually that they both want to win for what they both think are pro-human rights reasons, and the conflicting terminology they struggle to establish as standard, and the unusual cases they make central to the discussion, are a way they think they can win. I don’t think it requires viewing pro-choice as reveling in the death of babies, nor accusing pro-life of being ‘all about power’ rather than caring about human life. I think most people who feel strongly on either side in their own minds are focused on defending human rights. They just can’t both advance the conflicting aspects of human rights they each find most important.
Has it occurred to no one that exceptions for incest may actually *incentivize *incest?
Jamie: Hey sister, let’s fuck!
Cersei: But what if I get pregnant? Our state just banned abortion!
Jamie: But there’s an exception for rape and incest!
Cersei: Really? Awesome! Let’s get naked!
“Rape” was the crime in Canada (and I assume in most US states). It carried a much stiffer penalty (life?) than indecent assault. The law changed with the women’s movement somewhere around 1970; many rape trials degenerated into “can you prove penetration happened?” a critical part of the definition of rape. Quite often rapists failed to reach ejaculation, and the lack of semen was touted by the defense as proof nothing had happened. The offenses were hanged to varying degrees of sexual assault. It was no longer necessary to prove penetration. So different jurisdictions have different laws that categorize assorted degrees of behaviour where genitals or breasts are involved, but actual penetrative rape as a crime is usually not one.
Similarly, the case I recall that established rape of a spouse was a crime, was where the couple had separated, he broke in to her place and assaulted her. Not hard to prove consent was lacking. From there, it’s just a matter of degree.
Statutory rape, whatever it is called nowadays, generally applies to children under 16 or under 18, except in marriage. Some states have an exception if the age difference is less than 2 years. (There’s a website somewhere that lists the age by state).
While most “rape” laws presume that a person in authority has undue influence and so the partner cannot consent - parent, teacher, captain of a vessel underway (it’s an old law), etc… There are situations in family dynamics, such as a much older sibling, where there may be undue influence to consent even if the person is not the parent. Plus, there’s the requirement to report rape which may result in a different type of pressure, not to report a family member to the police.
But I suspect the incest exception is simply because of the “yuck factor” that our society seriously disapproves of incest. But of course, this brings up the question of what sort of trouble the other family member would get into if the pregnant girl claims incest? Would the legal consequences still be onerous? Or is this a “get out of pregnancy free” card, just claim it’s the brother’s, not the boyfriend’s?
I am not a pro-lifer, but exceptions to abortion laws are logically inconsistent.
The only rational reason for abortion laws is that the fetus is a human being. If the pregnancy is the result of rape or of incest, the fetus is still a human being. Making a woman carry a rapist’s baby to term is abhorrent, but not as abhorrent as the killing of a human being.
If a fetus is a human being, it is no less human if it is the result of rape or incest. IMO, a pro-lifer advocating exceptions to abortion laws is betraying their own argument.
Well you have the issue of consent to use one’s body. Sex can be said as consent, rape and (some forms of ) incest doesn’t allow that permission. Yes it’s a cruel world with free will and all.
I find it vaguely appalling that you view an instance of consensual sex as handing over your body for use by another. I find it more appalling that that appears to mean handing over your body for the the nine months following the event too.
And I definitely find it appalling that you seem to think that incest that didn’t involve consent is a separate category from rape. I mean, that’s just counterdefinitional.
I was playing devil’s advocate
So noted :rolleyes:. We are not Neanderthals, we know that PiV sex has a non-zero probability to lead to child (within certain conditions like age). Free will decision made with a non-zero risk known and accepted, means we are on the hook, no escaping that.
Read the thread about rape vs incest. You can have have a situation of non-rape but non consensual incest (brother and sister before understanding what they are doing).
But there are ways of escaping that. One that you may have heard of is called “abortion”, and there are others as well.
You may be trying to remove that as an option, but you can’t use the presumed absence of it as a reason why it should be gone.
It’s generally the concensus to call that rape. But suppose we don’t - if two childhood friends get pregnant before understanding what they are doing, should they be required to carry to term?
Oh. Wait a minute. kanicbird, you’re saying that some people are claiming that consent to PIV sex automatically includes consent to pregnancy, as no matter even if there’s two barrier methods in use plus a year-old tested vasectomy there’s still a faint chance of it occuring?
I disagree with that – consent to sex doesn’t even automatically include consent to additional sex acts that same night/day, or to all possible sex acts in addition to/other than the one(s) consented to, let alone to surrendering one’s body for nine months. But it would make a certain sort of sense of the rape exception, if it were phrased that way, which it generally isn’t. Still doesn’t make sense of the incest one, though, unless we’re supposed to assume that a female partner to incest is always underage. Sure, there can be a situation where she is; such situations may even be more common as far as incest is concerned; but incest can also occur between adults and even between adult women and underage boys. (The latter’s also rape, of course; but it’s not the woman who’s not consenting, so if the rape exception is based on assumed consent, it shouldn’t work on those grounds.)
Occasionally you’ll come across an anti-choicer who admits that, but says it’s politically necessary to allow some exceptions in order to save the majority of the “babies”. They recognize the reality that Alabama-style extremism works against what they see as their cause, while avoiding antagonizing the pro-choicers gives them a better chance at some success. They do get credit for recognizing the existence of some amount of moral ambiguity in their strategy, if not in their stated goal.
Devil’s advocate playing: This is based on the premise (and sub thread) that it is decided that abortion is the taking of a human life, with human rights. Life starts at conception is the rule, as well as the ‘soul’ is inside the fetus (or zygote or embryo).
Then the abortion argument would have to do with right to one’s body, the woman and fetus both have the right to their own body. The fetus requires the mother for their period of time till they are born, and how is consent given. Having sex is one starting place where it could be said that implied content, as this act is what created this life, consenting to this act would be consenting to what this act created, which is human with rights.
I’ve heard a pastor once claim that the curse of Jesus being hung on the tree was based on the removal of a basic human right to be connected to the earth, be a part of the world. Hanging someone from a cross would remove that basic human right, and give them no home, suspended between heaven and earth. Now I have no idea if that was the intent of the curse but it visually demonstrates the human right of the fetus to it’s home environment once ‘alive and human’ and a human right that should only be taken for cause against the fetus, which is a hard case to make as it’s not doing anything wrong.
Now on the other side, and actually the side I support, the fetus has human rights at the will of the mother, or till birth, but that’s not the side I’m playing on here.
Yes, because there was no consent, nor is it possible to consent, based on age and based on based on no understanding. Also some states do allow underaged hookups, so called Romeo and Juliet laws where it is not considered a rape or a crime. However that does not imply a incesteal relationship, just a underaged, no consent given.
A woman who consents to having sex is consenting to having sex. Nothing else. Is a man consenting to having sex consenting to 21 years of child support?
Stupidest line I’ve heard on the subject: A woman’s rights to her body end when she conceives.
No, 18.
Okay, 18. And a woman who gets pregnant by rape is consenting to being tied to her rapist for the rest of their child’s life. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Although I disagree with the premise, I can follow the logic when it comes to rape:
[ol]
[li]An adult woman knows sexual intercourse can create a pregnancy, creating a new human life at the moment of conception[/li][li]If she consents to intercourse, she’s consenting to carry that new human life to term[/li][li]If she’s raped, she didn’t grant this consent, so she is relieved of the obligation of carrying the fetus to term[/li][li]Because somehow her consent is necessary for the fetus to actually be a human life (OK, so I can’t quite follow the logic)[/li][/ol]
But how does that apply to incest, if it’s consensual intercourse between two adults? Does the ick factor of incest somehow nullify the personhood of the fetus?
The second is not really an answer at all. While incest can increase the likelihood of recessive genetic traits being expressed in the offspring and these traits can manifest themselves as defects, it is still the exception and not the rule that a child born of incest will have defects, either physical or mental.
I believe it is the ick factor. Incest is strictly taboo in our society and puts shame upon the participants. Even if the act is between two consenting adults, a resulting pregnancy is viewed as repugnant by many, even those who are otherwise strongly against abortion.
I think if you look at child support laws than the answer is yes - - a man consenting to have sex is consenting to 21 (more likely 18) years of child support if paternity is proven. That said, I could not agree with you more concerning the stupidity of the notion that a woman’s rights end with conception. Trouble is, stupidity notwithstanding, that is the very issue the Supreme Court will decide upon if the Alabama law gets there.
By gosh you are right! This here is America. We don’t want any of that European Socialism. No sir! We believe in pullin’ yourself up by your own boot straps and if you don’t have any boots, well that’s just hard cheese. You go out and you earn yourself a pair. As far as rapists are concerned, well I’m sure some of them are real nice people when you get to know them.