Rape Babies deserve to die?

First of all, I should point out by saying that I am not opposed to abortion in any form.

I was reading the political agenda for Mike Huckabee, and noted his views on abortion:

*Mike Huckabee is an outspoken opponent of abortion in all forms, and has said that it will certainly be a good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. Huckabee supported proposed legislation in South Dakota to outlaw all abortions except when saving the life of a mother, **with no exceptions for rape or incest.*He has also said that being pro-life means improving life after birth, and that public funding for abortion organizations needs to be eliminated.

I find it amazing that he even tacks on the rape and incest thing, because it means that there are enough people out there who want to make abortion illegal, but with exceptions. Why would exceptions be made for these cases though? I’ve found that most people opposed to abortion do so for religious reasons, as part of the “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not interfere with God’s work overpopulating the planet with more humans.” So why would enough people be okay with rape babies having their lives terminated? It isn’t the baby’s fault that its mother-to-be was raped!

Religion aside, why would an accidential conception by a woman who has no interest or desire to have children though consensual sex be illegal to be aborted, but through non-consensual sex be allowed? This type of thinking sounds more like punishing couples who don’t have safe sex (or whose contraceptives fail) by forcing them to give birth, while giving a free pass to a rape victim.

While I don’t agree at all with Huckabee’s views, I do agree with him that it should be an all or nothing decision, otherwise these abortion bans are being handed out for the wrong reasons.

I agree that it should be totally allowed. Possibly the thinking behind the exception for rape is not to punish the woman twice - once by the rapist, and the second time by society, by forcing her to carry the child of her assailant. A woman practicing non-safe sex might be seen as bearing some responsibility. But then you’d have to think about what to do if they were using birth control, but it failed.

In some countries, under some religions, the rape victim is considered to be at fault. Perhaps something like that is going on here for those opposed to letting the victim control her body?

Politics. Given a chance, the anti-abortionists would outlaw all abortions ( except when they want one, of course ), rape or not, and probably execute the rape victim for fornication like in the old days. That’s politically impossible at the moment, so they go for the stepping stone of outlawing abortion with exceptions.

I’m relatively anti-abortion &, not just for political pragmatic reasons, but for the moral reason that one cannot mandate heroism, I would have to allow the rape/incest exception. Prompt proper medical attention to rape victims SHOULD make the issue moot but we all know that such medical attention doesn’t/can’t always happen.

Huckabee is actually my first choice for President, and he’d never get such radical pro-life legislation through anyway, so I don’t worry about that part of his platform.

I agree with you. If you accept the premise that abortion is wrong then you shouldn’t make exceptions for rape or incest. I think the reason some people make these exceptions is because they feel the woman didn’t choose to become pregnant in a rape or incest situation. This is true - but she didn’t choose to be the victim of a sex crime either.

If abortion is immoral why would you allow a rape/incest exception? It is either killing a human or it is not. What the hell does the manner of conception matter? FTR as a man I believe all women have a right to make decisions about their bodies. No exceptions.

A nitpick, but an important one!

Nobody condones ‘aborting’ babies so when talking about *a fetus *, let’s refer to it as such…

I can think of three reasons a person who is genuinely anti-abortion from “thou shalt not kill” motives might allow an exception in the case of rape (and all three have already been more-or-less mentioned by other posters):

(1) They think that a law restricting abortion is more likely to be passed if it has a rape exception, and that way they’d be saving a lot of lives even if they can’t save all of them. (From their perspective, every abortion prevented is a life saved.)

(2) In the way they weigh conflicting rights, the right of the unborn child to live normally weighs heavier than the woman’s right to “control her own body,” but in the case of rape, the added burden on the woman of having to carry the product of that rape tips the rights scales in her favor.

(3) Under normal circumstances, the right of the unborn child to live weighs heavier than the woman’s right to not be pregnant because the woman has waived that right by choosing to engage in an act that could result in her becoming pregnant. But in the case of rape, she did not so choose.

(2) and (3) require that the fetus’s “right to life” be subordinate to some other right, which might require that the fetus be thought of as having some right to life but less than that of a born person.
It’s worth noting that another argument against a rape exception is that it invites the danger of false accusations of rape so that the women could have access to an abortion.

Funny how this nitpick only crops up in abortion debates. When a woman actually wants the baby, she’ll never use this word, and neither will a man.

Nobody holds a fetus shower, or holds their hand to the abdomen waiting for the fetus to kick.

So pick those nits - it will not change the fact that someone is being killed. Now it may be proper to debate the level of consideration we ought to give that being, when the rights of another may be in conflict with it. But glossing over that fact does not help the debate at all, IMHO.

Here is the opinion of the extreme anti-abortionist Randy Alcorn. NOTE: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS MAN WHATSOEVER!.

Alcorn is such an extremist that, when a women’s health clinic won a $8M settlement against him, he stopped making money on the books so he wouldn’t have to pay it.

That distinction, to me, is like making a distinction between the populace and convicted felons with regards to basic rights, such as voting. In other words, I agree about it being a nitpick.

This is about the lamest argument I’ve ever heard. Just because people call a fetus a “baby” doesn’t mean it is one. It’s a convention of language used in anticipation of a baby but, in point of fact, it’s not a baby until its born and no one is being “killed.”


And rightly so, considering a fetus has no use for tiny socks and teddy-bears while still in the womb.


Well, doctors do. My point being that while it’s natural for an expecting mother to refer informally and affectionately to her fetus as her baby, it’s still a fetus.

‘Baby’ is an emotionally-charged, innacurate term that has no place in a serious debate.

Because hidden under pretty words about life and God and morals is an underlying assumption that a pregnant woman who doesn’t want to give birth is a dirty whore who made her bed and should lie in it.

A raped woman didn’t make her own bed, therefore she should be allowed to get up.

So yes, in the end, a child is a literal and just punishment for having sex. Isn’t that just the world we want to live in?

The only anti-abortionist I have any respect for, ironically enough, is one who is anti-abortion also in the cases of rape and incest. At least it’s morally consistent.

It seems as though what you’re saying here is that pro-abortion (well, not pro-abortion, but you get what I mean) people actually really do think of fetuses as beings with lives/souls/personhood/whatever hinges on your acceptance of abortion. But that they lie about it and pretend that someone isn’t being killed when they want to have one.

Fine in some cases, sure, but I would wager not in most. I can speak only for myself but my referring to a fetus as a baby doesn’t mean I secretly really think abortions are bad; I very much hope i’m misreading this.

Well, heaven knows I wouldn’t want to lose your respect.

Still, I find it troubling that this is the best we have to offer a rape victim - another unpleasant violation of her personal space.

If the choice is between that and carrying the kid to term - that is some awful choice, isn’t it? And one, I note, that in no way erases the original violence, whichever way it goes.

We shouldn’t gloss over that either.

Let’s just say there’s a lot of suspension of disbelief going on, just to make it all seem okay.

Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much about that.

I agree. And so it should remain her choice.

Even leaving aside the question of whether it is a good idea or not, I always worry about the implementation of rules such as this.

For any given pregnancy there is a very short window of time when abortion is a possibility.

For any given rape, there is usually plenty of uncertainty and years of legal and emotional and institutional wrangling before it can be determined that a rape took place, and even then, the truth of the result is often far from certain.

Given both of these facts, how will it be possible to reliably and conclusively demonstrate that a rape caused any given pregnancy, in sufficient time to be able to get an abortion in the brief window of possibility?

No, let’s not say that. I may have been accused of being a liar. I’d very much appreciate you setting out exactly what you mean; attempting to hide like this from revealing an unpopular view while still hinting at it anyway seems pretty cowardly to me.