It requires an assumption that I think is realistic…
To try and put it in straight cost-benefit terms…
The creation of an abortion ban with a rape exception creates an incentive to falsify reports of rape. It therefore makes it more likely that complaints of rape will be examined to see if they are falsely filed. In absence of an incentive to file, if the police are faced with a report of rape they don’t believe, they are less likely to take action against the filer.
Given the judicial system is imperfect, if a woman has been raped by people she cannot identify, under such a ban/exception going to file a report makes it more likely that she will be disbelieved and possibly prosecuted than the absence of such a ban/exception. The marginal rational person, then, seeing the benefits of reporting remain the same, and the costs of reporting increase (due to an increased risk of wrongful prosecution) will not file the report.
How many people the shift in costs and benefits affects we cannot know. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to see this as making it less likely rape victims will come forward.
Alternately it could cause people to report rapes that they otherwise wouldn’t have in order to have the abortion. It is also possible that an increase in the amount of rapes reported would lessen the stigma of being a rape victim and encourage more individuals to report the crime.
As someone who is pro-life and willing to make a rape exception, I’d accept a fairly low level of proof. People willing to file a false police report are probably willing to find a way to have an abortion anyway.
In Randy Alcorn’s book "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments " (the title is one of the very few places he calls us “pro-choice,” preferring "pro-abortion!), he states that the innocent child should not be put to death for the crimes of his father (Italics added, fetuses are always referred to as males).
Of course, he states that he favors stricter sanctions against rapists than the pro-abortion groups, implying that we want to kill the (male) baby, and have give the rapist minimal punishment.
Yes - the hypocrisy argument as mentioned. But this is about the practicality of a ban, not the motivation of it or the intellectual consistency of one.
Yes - it will have multiple effects on rape statistics. Not denying that. I just think if you are putting in a rape exception you are going to see an explosion in the number of reported rapes. And not necessarily in the good sense of those rapes currently unreported being reported.
Either that, or it has to be made difficult enough that it will deter reporting.
If I’m pro-life and have to weigh the savings of ~ 1 million babies a year vs the hypothetical that rape crime reporting will decreae some unknown amount… it’ll take me about 1 nanosecond to make that decision.
Certainly, and I really don’t know if it would be a net positive or not. I’m just saying there could be benefits from such an approach as well, even discounting the reduced abortions. The undeniable increase of men falsely accused of rape is of course a major concern.
John Mace - to an extent we are talking at cross purposes. I think you are right, and for the majority of pro-life people whether a rape exception works or not is of minor importance at best.
However, I’m specifically looking at how one would work. I don’t think it can. If it is made a wide enough exception so as not to have extremely negative effects, it won’t work in reducing abortions, because, as someone mentioned, people will just print a form off the internet and read it off at the police station to get there “Government permission to have a medical procedure” stamp in their new passbook. On the other hand, if it is strict enough such that it does not undermine the aim of reducing abortions, it is going to have extremely unpleasant consequences.
I think it is true many pro-lifers will live with those consequences without a second thought. But I’m interested in seeing how they would draw the exception.
Hopefully, you’d be smart enough to realize that banning abortion will not save 1 million babies a year. Nicaragua banned abortion in 2006, and the number of abortions performed is estimated to have dropped by about half.
If I’m pro-life, and can save 500,000 babies a year, that’s a good start!
Villa: Instead of speculating, why don’t you look at abortion rates in places that ban abortion except in case of rape? I think N. Ireland falls in that category.
There is a difference between reduce and eliminate. Just because it will be easy to game the system doesn’t mean everyone will. Some will be too scared, some will be too honest, and some will find other reasons to not try to get around the law. Abortions are never going to be eliminated, but if it law gets rid 10% of current abortion that is still 100,000 less abortions annually. Of course that would have to be weighed against all the damage such a law would create.
I think this is an assumption that both sides of this debate tend to make, and I don’t think it is true. The consequences are not unimportant, but may be worth the positives gained. Abortions are about prioritizing rights, not declaring one thing important and the other meaningless.
It’s why I said many and not all. Many pro-lifers are good people, who want only the best. They are just mistaken on this issue. Many others, on the other hand, view women as lesser human beings and don’t care what happens to a whore who got herself pregnant or raped, as long as the small collection of cells inside her is safe. Well, safe until born, after which this group of pro-lifers can go back to ignoring it.
I would expect the amount of people who fit cleanly into your category number two to be a tiny minority of those who are pro-life. Perhaps a vocal minority, but a minority all the same.
Because rape is a crime that is very often disbelieved, and where victims have a history of being treated badly by the entire system. With judges having described date rape situations as “friendly rape,” “felonious gallantry,” “assault with failure to please,” or “breach of contract” in real life situations, I don’t think the fear of authorities on the part of many rape victims is misplaced. In Denver, for example, cases where women reported voluntarily engaged in some sexual contact with men, but then decided not to have sex, and reported they had been raped, police routinely counted these allegations as “unfounded.”
We aren’t dealing with a clean slate here. There is a fear, quite justified, amongst many women that they will not be treated fairly by the legal system. So now, on top of the allegations women reporting rapes already face (she’s a slut, she’s just mad he never called back, she’s trying to screw him over, she asked for it) they would now have to face a new one - she’s just doing it for an abortion.
If you don’t think, given that environment, women with real, but borderline rape allegations (borderline because they committed a heinous act like kissed a man, accepted a drink from a man at 1.30 in the morning, hitched a ride home after the bar closed etc) will think twice about reporting if there is a chance that a mysoginistic judge may throw them in prison for filing a false report, then we have to agree to disagree.