I just saw a blurb on the new that Bush doesn’t like the SD proposal on banning abortion because it doesn’t make some acception, and on of them being incest. I also often here the phrase “unless rape, incest, etc.”. I understand incestuous rape, which is covered under rape. I also understand if the child obviously has major birth defects, which even non- consanguineous offspring can have. I don’t understand that incest should be a blanket acception
From what I understand, the chances of acquiring the defective genes from both parents go from 5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the degree of relativity. While that is a high chance, it is not a determined outcome. Why would so called pro-lifers be willing to abort so many perfectly healthy unborn? Is the use of the term incest just a synonym for “health of the child”? I can understand such an acception, especially if it covers even non-incestuous offspring. I just don’t understand using the term “incest” if it is a synonym of not.
I would think that pro-lifers and anyone else for that matter, would not want to bring a child of that kind into the world. the moral dillema of giving birth to and raising your own sister/brother would be difficult to overcome. Also, a child of incest would more than likely be a child not brought about by the mothers consent. In this way you should see the similarity between incest and rape. It’s not the matter of an unhealthy child, more of a child that should never have been concieved in the first place.
It wouldn’t have anything to do with defective genes. I don’t believe that typical anti-choice agendas make exceptions for cases where the child would have to live, however long or briefly, with even the most serious birth defect.
The assumption is probably that a majority of cases of pregnancy through incest would technically be rape or at least coercion.
Without such exceptions, the hard-core pro-lifers would see a lot of their support from relative moderates evaporate. It’s a political compromise, not a moral one.
That is simmilar to the pro-choice stance on any abortion. It doesn’t address the pro-life’s exception of incest. ISTM that aborting an innocent fetus would less morally acceptable than incest, especially in the pro-life POV…
I think Bryan Ekers is right. As I see it, pro-lifers give away their cause when they allow exceptions for things like rape or incest. If their objection to abortion is that the fetus has a right to live, that right shouldn’t be contingent on the circumstances under which it is conceived. (If it is, that opens the door for all sorts of other exceptions.) And if that’s not their objection to abortion, then they haven’t got a leg to stand on—there’s no other compelling reason to legally forbid abortion.
It’s not a matter of reasoning. Forcing a woman to carry the child of her rapist and/or relative just upsets some people, possibly more that their sense of upset over the loss of the fetus. The hardcore group that will always be more upset about the fetus than the mother is a minority.
Right. As mentioned in another thread, it’s something that they can afford to concede to get some progress.
That aside, I would understand the reasoning behind an exception for cases of incest being demanded by moderates and considered an acceptable compromise by many pro-lifers, as based on how in the mainstream American culture (as opposed to the “culture” of the alt.sex.* newsgroups and sundry porn websites, or the Jerry Springer show), it’s understood society has as much or more of a Compelling Interest in preventing incest as it does rape and in helping the victims get their lives back together. Incest is considered by many to be something as heinous, both per se and in the effect upon the victim, as what is conventionally called “rape”; since not every act of incest meets the legal definitions of ‘rape’ in all states, an injustice against one class of victim must be prevented.
As the laws are drafted, the rape/incest exceptions still make it a voluntary alternative, in the case of competent adults who are not wards of the court. Someone seeking an abortion on grounds of incest would in effect be setting in motion some sort of intervention.
Because, IMHO, the anti abortion movement is more about misogyny that “the unborn”. Limited anti-abortion allows the antiabortion forces to persecute some women, which they prefer to being unable to persecute any women.
There is a subset of the anti-abortion movement that opposes all abortion, even when the preganancy results from rape and/or incest, on the grounds that the circumstances of conception don’t diminish the value of the resulting being.
I think that the majority of people who oppose abortion but would allow it in cases of rape or incest believe that unwanted pregnancy is, on some level, a punishment for the woman’s misbehavior. Perhaps the woman didn’t use contraception (“she’s irresponsible”). Perhaps she had sex impulsively (“she’s a slut”). Perhaps she’s married but just doesn’t want to be pregnant *right now * (“she’s not accepting her womanly role”).
Bring up the example of a victim of rape or incest, however, and those judgements don’t hold up. She didn’t have the option of using contraception, or of saying “No.” Inevitably, when I’ve asked people (or read their responses to questions) about this, the response is on the order of, “She shouldn’t have to suffer more than she already has.” This response suggests - to me at least - that it would be OK for her to suffer the unwanted pregnancy if she hadn’t already had a bad experience (i.e., the rape or the experience of incest).
The health of the resulting child doesn’t enter into it. People who oppose terminating a pregnancy because the fetus is malformed or certain to die after birth will still (grudgingly) accept abortion in the case of rape or incest.
This includes the millions of pro-life women, too? :dubious:
I don’t think many people hold lgically consistent moral values about anything, this included. So rather than castigating those people, lets try and understand what the reasons are (and I assume there are several).
To start off, an important part of this debate should be: What percent of those who are pro-life because “life begins at conception” also agree to an exception in the case of rape and/or incest? There seems to be an assumption that the precentage is high, but I honestly don’t know. Anyone got some actual data?
Most of you are equating incest to rape. Not all incest would be rape. FWIU, all pregnancies from incest would be candidate for abortion, including consensual incestuous offspring. A child conceived by brother and sister is no different from one conceived by a one night stand, or husband and wife. Many people think that homosexuality is horrendous. It would make as much sense to me to allow people in homosexual relationships to have abortions because of the situation. If rape or certain genetic defects is not involved it still makes no sense. Taboo seems like a lame excuse, if it is one.
The only other argument I see is that it is an arbitrary exception to appease moderates. Rape and health exceptions have some reasoning. Rape means no choice was involved. Health is obvious. I still don’t see why incest, by itself, would be a valid reason if non-consanguineous was illegal.
Men often persecute men, women often persecute women, especially if they think the persecution will fall on other men/women. Besides, how many women of child bearing years are there in the anti-abortion movement, compared to older women ( who don’t need to worry ), and men ( who also don’t need to worry ) ?
Don’t have statistics on hand for the broader pro-life movement, but when I attended the University of Pittsburgh, the campus pro-life group was mostly women, and women dominated the leadership positions.
None of the arguments for making those exceptions seem to be based on the same principle as the general rule for banning the procedure. It is not the fetus’s fault for how he was conceived, but he exists anyway. Is he less entitled to life because of conditions he can’t control and won’t even be able to understand for many years? That’s what the exception arguments inescapably profess.
More to the point, they implicitly acknowledge that there are circumstances under which a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, the fetus’s rights notwithstanding. That’s only one small step away from saying that she should have the right to consider all the circumstances herself and act accordingly - and that is the pro-rights position. With just a little less bluster and a little more contemplation all around, we’d be down to only the no-abortions-and-no-exceptions contingent.