Only if you choose to declare a fetus to be a person, along with all the same rights and responsibilities.
There are those who are for fetal personhood, but that is currently not the case, and I would argue that a clump of cells, even if contains human DNA, is not a person.
Some anti-abortionists do consider the fetus to be a person. To argue to them that “the government shouldn’t have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body” is obtusely to miss the point.
On the other hand, if you’re arguing that to someone who agrees that a fetus is just a clump of cells, you’re preaching to the choir.
And what about a middle ground? Couldn’t a fetus be less than “a person, along with all the same rights and responsibilities” and yet have some claim to our protection? I think that some laws against cruelty to animals are a good thing, even though I don’t consider dogs or cats to be persons equivalent to human beings.
(And getting back to the main topic of this thread: Though I don’t agree with them, I suspect that there may be room somewhere in this middle ground for people who wish to outlaw abortion except in the case of rape, without hypocrisy or logical inconsistency.)
Which is why I pointed out that there are those for fetal personhood in the post that you responded to.
No, I argue against the notion of fetal personhood, which is precisely the point. It would be someone who just makes the assertion that a clump of cells is a person and go on from there without recognizing that it is that very personhood that I am arguing against that would be obtusely missing the point.
Well, the choir, sure, and to reality.
There already is some level of middle ground. People are prosecuted for injuring someone else’s fetus right now. What you are calling for is middle ground between the rights of a woman to have bodily autonomy, and the removing the right of a woman to have bodily autonomy.
We have laws against cruelty to animals, but that is because we have chosen to be sympathetic towards them in some circumstances, not because they actually have any rights. Can you tell me of a law in the US against killing cows and eating them?
I agree that political expediency is neither hypocrisy nor logically inconsistent, but that is what it is, political expediency, not a principle. Though, when they try to argue that it is a principle, not just political expediency, is when they go into inconsistent logic and hypocrisy.
Let’s examine what these things have in common: rape and incest exceptions to abortion, opposition to access to contraceptives, insistence on proven failed abstinence only education, and opposition to STD prevention methods like vaccines (HPV vaccine for instance)
You would think the one area where pro-life and pro-choice people would come together would be reducing the number of abortions by easy access to contraceptives, sex education, etc. Someone not getting pregnant in the first place is the best possible outcome - no abortion need be considered. Both sides should agree on that, right? Slam dunk.
But that’s not the case. The conservative/religious types generally oppose access to contraception and sex education that will lead to lower abortion rates.
Why? Because they view sex outside of marriage to be morally wrong, and they view having an unwanted kid as a consequence of unwanted sex. To get an abortion, in their view, is to skip out on the rightful consequences of your sinful behavior, unacceptable.
So, knowing this, the exception to rape and incest begins to make sense. If you were raped, it’s not your fault, you didn’t commit dirty premartial sex, so you don’t deserve the consequences. So you’re allowed to have an abortion.
This is, paradoxically, one situation in which the people with the more extreme view (no abortion no matter what) is actually the more consistent moral position. If your position is that abortion is wrong because it’s murder, it’s wrong whether the fetus comes from rape or not.
So the people who advocate for abortion only in the case of rape or incest seem like the more moderate and reasonable position to the average person, and yet their position is often more evil - they’re clearly viewing abortion as an unfair way of getting out of punishment for your dirty premarital sex, rather than the more noble view that life is sacred.
If you think I’m being too harsh to judge their motives, then explain why many of those same people oppose sex education, contraception, and things like HPV vaccines (STDs are also supposed to be a consequence of promiscuity - they would likely oppose an AIDS vaccine and do oppose sex education that lowers STD rates). If they truly wanted to prevent abortions, those would be the best way to go about doing so, to prevent anyone from needing an abortion in the first place, and yet they fight very hard against such things.
Because to them, it’s about the sex, and the punishment for the sex. Care for the life of the fetus is secondary, if there at all.
Nope, I’m not. Abortion=murder is literally their reasoning behind their opposition to making abortion accessible. It’s not an interpretation of their stance, it IS their explicitly stated stance. Talk to your average pro-lifer railing for Roe v Wade to be overturned and tell me if they are open to nuance when it comes to abortion.
Considering that I and a few others in this thread who lean towards the pro-choice side of the debate shut down the argument that viability shouldn’t be a factor in permitting abortion, I’m afraid you’re the one guilty of strawmanning the opposing side.
I’m not ignoring your point, it’s just not a valid one, no disrespect intended.
Pro-lifers liken abortion to murder because they believe life begins at conception… so they are in effect comparing it to murdering a live human being. Have you actually studied their arguments? You’re affording them a level of nuance that they typically take great pains to not demonstrate.
Then would it not be a whole lot more logical for these people to just stop challenging the legality of abortion instead of seeking to ban it? There are people who are personally opposed to abortion, but still do not want it be criminalized because they know the alternative is back alley abortions that will result in the deaths of the many women who have them, and thus prefer the “lesser evil” of safe abortions being performed by a medical practitioner being made available. But obviously, this thread is not about these types of pro-lifers.
No offense, but I feel that you’re being deliberately obtuse at this point. It’s not “shallow” to point out that valuing certain “lives” over others based on how they were conceived completely defeats the arguments pro-lifers as a whole put forth to ban abortion. If you refuse to see how saying “abortion is murder because life at all stages is sacred… except for when they are the result of rape or incest” is inherently contradictory, then you’re actively avoiding reason.
People are entitled to be opposed to abortion for whatever reason, but when they claim that their stance is based on morality and they insist on that stance becoming the law of the land, they better logically consistent with their arguments otherwise contradictions that can’t be rationalised pretty much destroy the basis of their views.
applause
Best post in this thread so far. Hopefully these points will be addressed.
As I understand it, some pro-lifers oppose certain forms of birth control–the pill, the morning-after pill, and the IUD, for instance–because they believe they can act as abortifacients, that is, that they can allow a zygote to be created but unable to attach to the uterine wall. I also assume some of those who do make exceptions for rape or incest would allow the morning after pill. Maybe one of them will come along and clarify.
I’m opposed, of course, to people getting accused of crimes they did not commit. However, we know that the percentage of rape allegations that prove false is quite low. Very few of those few cases even get to court.
Since many pro-lifers are Christian (as I am), I’ll also point out that in the Bible, rape is considered an abominable sin. In Biblical accounts of rape, nobody doubts the women’s account. Its veracity is rightfully assumed.
What I’m suggesting is that you should be a great deal more concerned about the rapes that go unpunished–the great majority–than focusing on the very few that turn out to be false allegations.
And the situation is much more complex than you indicate. As someone who was sexually assaulted by a stranger at age 14, I can tell you that reporting an assault is traumatizing in itself. My assailant was never apprehended. Since there were no witnesses–this was in the deserted city park I walked through to get home from school–had police found him, he probably would not have been arrested and almost certainly wouldn’t have been convicted. He walked off scot-free; only I suffered long-term consequences.
Probably none of this matters to you because you believe a woman pregnant by rape should be forced to endure the physical and emotional suffering of pregnancy, birth, and beyond–paying, as it were, the penalty for the rapist’s sin because the life of the embryo/fetus/baby is sacred. But consider this: 33% of rape victims contemplate suicide. When you’re contemplating the sanctity of life, you might include that of the woman you’re so eager to blame and so reluctant to support.
As a pro-life voter, I do not oppose access to contraceptives or “STD prevention methods like vaccines (HPV vaccine for instance).” I refuse to be forced to pay for it. You want it, fine. You pay for it.
Part of the issue is responsibility. Take responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences instead of forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. Especially the taxpayers who believe your choice violates their deeply-held faith, and to participate in your actions is a sin.
And the argument that Pro-life believers don’t are about human life after birth is false. How many Christian families have fostered and adopted children? How many Christian ministries that care for children are there in this world? Who runs orphanages? What so you think crisis pregnancy centers do? Just yell at pregnant women who come in that abortion is a sin? Instead of repeating that canard, do your own research. Otherwise someone might call the ASPCA to report the beating of a dead horse.
That must be some of that new math I’ve heard about. 
I refuse to be forced to pay for dropping bombs on people across the world who never did anything to me. How’s that working out? Hmmm, sometimes, in a democracy, you do have to pay for things that you would rather not. Now, as far as paying for it, that’s not what the OP is about, it is about having access to it at all. You may have to pay some tiny fraction of the cost of birth control for a small number of people on medicaid, but how are you forced to pay for the birth control that is denied to employees of hobby lobby?
Now, you factor in the fact that the cost of the birth control is not that much, it is usually the doctor visit that is costly. So, are you saying that you would not pay for doctor’s visits either, or just not doctor visits where they discuss family planning.
You should also consider that a delivery costs more than a lifetime of birth control, so if you are against paying for other people, then you are for paying more for them.
Fewer than the number of children that need to be fostered or adopted.
Fewer than is needed for the children who need care in this world.
Lots of people. This is not even close to limited to christians.
Trick women into thinking that they are a place that will explain their options to them, while doing their best to prevent them from going to actual abortion providers until it is too late to get an abortion. Then their job is done.
No, they say it very nicely, complete with quotes from their bronze age book as citations.
Research is done, but someone might call the farmer about the strawman that you are beating up in his field.
I’ve heard the anti-abortion protestors yell at the clinic workers, women going into the clinic, men going into the clinic, and even children going into the clinic. They pass out pamphlets saying abortion causes breast cancer and can make men “experiment with homosexuality.” I’ve been told that gay parenting is child abuse, and all gaya and Jews are unfit parents who are going to hell. And once of their favorite mantras is “Trust God to take care of your baby.”
One of them assaulted my right hand, denied that I have a disabled left hand, and then spit on me!"
[quote=“nelliebly, post:1, topic:817013”]
Just to be clear, I do NOT think abortions should be denied to rape victims or women who’ve had incestuous relationships. Actually, as much as I dislike abortion, I don’t think it should be denied to anyone.
The ongoing Roe v. Wade thread reminded me of questions I’ve had for a long time. Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you? If the reasoning is that a woman who’s been raped has been traumatized, and pregnancy and birth would be too emotionally damaging to her, why not make exceptions for women who haven’t been raped but for whom pregnancy would be seriously emotionally damaging?
As for incest, is the exclusion due to fears of fetal defects? If so, then why the OK for that but not for severe fetal defects NOT from inbreeding?
Well, it’s a forced act they did not willingly give consent on. So in this case, let the woman decide.
On the topic of abortion, no one really likes the act, not even the ultra-feminist or extremely radical type of views from the left.
Essentially this is a human rights type of issue. You, me and everyone else all started out the same way. Most women regret doing it. It’s a hard decision to defend, morally speaking if being used as a matter of convenience.
Yes, if it is that absolute. There are forms of contraception, like sterilization, that approach 100% in their effectiveness. But you understand the argument - if you accept a fetus as a separate human life from conception, then one cannot kill that life simply out of a desire to avoid the consequences of intercourse. Because you consented.
Correct, if it is consensual. That wouldn’t be any different than any other form of consensual sex for the purpose we are discussing.
It sounds like we might be verging onto another exception, in order to save the life of the mother. If pregnancy is life-threatening, the pro-life position generally includes abortion under those circumstances as well. Consent is less of an issue.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I am explaining the logic as I understand it - I personally am pro-choice.
It’s that branch of mathematics that enables a football player to ‘give 110%’. 
[I realize I’m not breaking new ground here, but I’m going to start by answering the OP] : It’s political BS. Politicians say it so that they can act like they aren’t unreasonable, they are willing to compromise, reach across the aisle. They are resolute in their beliefs, but yet not unsympathetic to that child that got raped by her father.
It’s B.S. because, if you believe that a fetus is a person, it makes no sense to argue that a fetus/person that is the product of rape is less deserving of life than the product of consensual sex. (This is why I actually have more respect for politicians that don’t make these exceptions than pro-life politicians that do.)
Regarding Incest: Cases of incest that are actually also rape would be covered by the rape exception. So making an exception for (consensual) incest is saying that a girl that likes to get freaky with her brother gets a free pass.
This reminds me of the claim that it would not be worth Bill Gates’ time to stop and pick up a $1,000 bill that he dropped: The math might be accurate, but the logic is severely flawed.
If all black Americans has access to free and effective birth control, where do you think these numbers for 2016 would be? I suspect less than 500 thousand black births and ~0 black abortions. Obviously, I have no cite for this. Just logic.
I would prefer, if possible, that you didn’t make things up and then say you “got” anything. Babies are not a punishment for intercourse - biologically speaking, babies are the point of intercourse.
No, it doesn’t. I would have said “obviously doesn’t” but you appear to be equating STDs and (from the pro-life POV) a baby.
See above.
Regards,
Shodan
So you don’t see anything wrong with a rapist claiming paternal rights, or typing a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life?
ETA: What if the rape victim is a lesbian and decides to let the baby be adopted by her partner and raise it together? I know of one such case, and when the lesbian asked the “pro-life” crowd what she should be, was told "Oh, have the baby, but give it to a real family.
Yes, I see a great deal wrong with it. Rapists should not be given paternal rights. As to your second point, do you believe someone should be killed if they remind a woman that she was raped?
You seem to have a large number of convenient, but un-sourced anecdotes. Do you have harder data than this?
Regards,
Shodan