# Why should incest be an exception for pro-lifers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537 "2006-02-28T22:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/41 "2006-03-01T21:41:37Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > If gay marriage advocates feel that they have to accept a diluted “civil union” compromise in order to gain some of the rights that marriage gives spouses…isn’t that admission that they recognize that the majority of Americans don’t agree with their fundamental moral position that gay couples should have the same overriding rights as married heterosexual couples? Of course it is. But gay-rights advocates aren’t completely throwing overboard a subset of the people whose rights they’re supposed to be advocating. They’re not saying “Okay, we’ll put up with letting you deny all rights whatsoever to a few percent of homosexuals, as long as you let the majority of them get married.” I do find it somewhat shocking that anti-abortion advocates seem to be willing to abandon their stated principle of an absolute fetal right to life so completely for a particular class of fetuses, just in order to appeal to voters who manifestly don’t subscribe to that principle. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/42 "2006-03-01T21:43:53Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > 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). This hits it closer than any other argument, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/43 "2006-03-01T22:00:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I do find it somewhat shocking that anti-abortion advocates seem to be willing to abandon their stated principle of an absolute fetal right to life so completely for a particular class of fetuses, just in order to appeal to voters who manifestly don’t subscribe to that principle. Once again, many pro-lifers do not “abandon their stated principle”, they recognize political reality and try to work for the best solution possible. If that offends you, I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/44 "2006-03-01T22:10:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Once again, many pro-lifers do not “abandon their stated principle”, they recognize political reality and try to work for the best solution possible. They accept what they claim is murder for a group of particularly unwanted fetuses, even as they claim to be advocating for the absolute right to life of unwanted fetuses in general. I do think that counts as an abandonment of stated principle. No, I wouldn’t say it offends me, but as I noted, it does seem shocking to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![Charger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@Charger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charger)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/45 "2006-03-01T22:18:39Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Their _position_ is not that it is justifiable under some circumstances. Their _strategy_ is that it’s justifiable to pass a law that will prevent 90+% of abortions to save what they see as lives, rather than hold out for preventing 100% of abortions and not getting a law passed. Precisely. Sacrifice the few to save the multitudes. The lesser of two evils. While the issue would never be “good enough,” the goal is to minimize damage as soon as possible. This is a much better strategy than going for all-or-nothing and guaranteeing another year of baby-killing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/46 "2006-03-01T22:24:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > They accept what they claim is murder for a group of particularly unwanted fetuses, even as they claim to be advocating for the absolute right to life of unwanted fetuses in general. I do think that counts as an abandonment of stated principle. > > No, I wouldn’t say it offends me, but as I noted, it does seem shocking to some extent. I break into your home and hold you and your family hostage. I tell you I’ll shoot you all, unless you pick one person to be shot. Are you abandoning your principles to pick one person? It’s a horrid choice, to be sure. But if it saves the lives of everyone else, is it wrong to do it? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/47 "2006-03-01T22:31:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I break into your home and hold you and your family hostage. I tell you I’ll shoot you all, unless you pick one person to be shot. > > Are you abandoning your principles to pick one person? If my principles include opposing fingering a member of my family to be murdered in order to save the other members, then yes, of course I am. (Perhaps the most principled thing to do in such a case would be to volunteer myself for the one to be shot.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/48 "2006-03-01T22:32:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I may be wrong, but I think most people think that a fetus has a right to life, but it is weighing that right of potential life against the right of bodily integrity of the woman where it gets messy. Certainly there are some (many?) who believe until that fetus comes out of the woman’s body, it has absolutely no rights, but many more (I think) who believe that it has at least some rights, especially as it nears birth. That’s what made Roe interesting (and problematic) because it recognized that there are competeing rights to consider. Polls consistently show that most Americans want abortion to be legal in the 1st trimester. That is, abortion on demand. They may quibble about things like spousal notification, but those don’t impact on “right to life” of the fetus considerations. That’s where I’m coming from. I don’t see how you could say that a fetus has a right to life (in the 1st trimester) but that the woman can terminate that life at her whim. What kind of a “right” is that? > [@Kimstu](#): > > I do find it somewhat shocking that anti-abortion advocates seem to be willing to abandon their stated principle of an absolute fetal right to life so completely for a particular class of fetuses, just in order to appeal to voters who manifestly don’t subscribe to that principle. Who are these people that posters in this thread keep talking about? So far, no one has identified a single person who holds those views. Now, I don’t doubt that such people exist, but how many are there and how can something be shocking when you haven’t heard the reasons that any of these people give for their beliefs? I assume you are against the death penalty. Would you favor a bill that outlawed the death penalty except in cases of terrorism? (And only those cases that would already be covered by the current death penalty laws.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/49 "2006-03-01T22:41:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Who are these people that posters in this thread keep talking about? So far, no one has identified a single person who holds those views. Sorry, but I lost track: which “views” are those? Do you mean the view that, e.g., **Hamlet** and **cmkeller** and **Bricker** are ascribing to many anti-abortion advocates: namely, “we support the principle of an absolute fetal right to life, but we’re willing to waive it for certain fetuses in order to garner political support from people who don’t share our principle, to enact a ban on certain abortions”? If so, I don’t know who those people are either, but I assume from the comments of, e.g., **Hamlet** and **cmkeller** and **Bricker** that such people exist and that this is their position. > [@John Mace](#): > > I assume you are against the death penalty. Would you favor a bill that outlawed the death penalty except in cases of terrorism? It would depend on why I was against the death penalty. If I opposed it on the grounds that legal execution is murder in all cases, then no, I don’t think I would favor such a bill. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/50 "2006-03-01T22:46:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Polls consistently show that most Americans want abortion to be legal in the 1st trimester. That is, abortion on demand. They may quibble about things like spousal notification, but those don’t impact on “right to life” of the fetus considerations. That’s where I’m coming from. I don’t see how you could say that a fetus has a right to life (in the 1st trimester) but that the woman can terminate that life at her whim. What kind of a “right” is that? One that doesn’t trump the right of a woman to her bodily integrity. Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics, but I don’t see it as the fetus somehow getting the right to life immediately after the first trimester, I see it as a fetus’ right to life being more easily trumped in the first trimester. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/51 "2006-03-01T23:11:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sorry, but I lost track: which “views” are those? Do you mean the view that, e.g., **Hamlet** and **cmkeller** and **Bricker** are ascribing to many anti-abortion advocates: namely, “we support the principle of an absolute fetal right to life, but we’re willing to waive it for certain fetuses in order to garner political support from people who don’t share our principle, to enact a ban on certain abortions”? > > If so, I don’t know who those people are either, but I assume from the comments of, e.g., **Hamlet** and **cmkeller** and **Bricker** that such people exist and that this is their position. Sorry. I was talking about people who oppose abortion but make an exception for rape and/or incest. We haven’t heard from one person with those views, nor has anyone cited someone who claims to have thows views and explains why. I don’t undertand how you can be shocked that someone would hold those views without first talking to someone who does. Maybe I’m reading too much into the word “shocked”. Do you mean it in the sense of “confused” or “indignance”? > [@](#): > > It would depend on why I was against the death penalty. If I opposed it on the grounds that legal execution is murder in all cases, then no, I don’t think I would favor such a bill. I’m not speaking of a hypothetical “you”. I’m talking about you, right now. You do oppose the death penalty, don’t you? Correct me if I’m wrong on that. Now, suppose you are given the choice to vote on the legislation I proposed. Would you vote in favor of it, knowing that if you don’t, the death penality laws already on the books will remain as they are? I know this argument has already been proposed, but I’m suggesting that the issue might be confused by a lot of people who either 1) are just making political compromises we all make in choosing how to vote or 2) simply haven’t thought it all the way thru. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/52 "2006-03-01T23:32:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sorry, but I lost track: which “views” are those? Do you mean the view that, e.g., **Hamlet** and **cmkeller** and **Bricker** are ascribing to many anti-abortion advocates: namely, “we support the principle of an absolute fetal right to life, but we’re willing to waive it for certain fetuses in order to garner political support from people who don’t share our principle, to enact a ban on certain abortions”? Well, I think a more accurate assessment would be that they’re willing to compromise to get support from people who don’t share their principles to the same degree. I have to admit, I don’t get where these charges of hypocrisy are coming from. Although there’s certainly an ultra-hardcore extreme that oppose abortion under any and all circumstances and consider any compromise to be tantamount to genocide, I’m sure the vast majority of pro-lifers recognize the reality of the situation. Well, maybe they can be appeased with miniature American flags. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/53 "2006-03-01T23:42:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I was talking about people who oppose abortion but make an exception for rape and/or incest. We haven’t heard from one person with those views, nor has anyone cited someone who claims to have thows views and explains why. I don’t undertand how you can be shocked that someone would hold those views without first talking to someone who does. No no, sorry if I was unclear. I’m not shocked that somebody might **for some reason** oppose abortion but make an exception for rape and/or incest. I do consider it somewhat shocking if someone **who opposes abortion specifically because they consider abortion in every case to be murder** would be willing to legally permit the murder of certain groups of fetuses simply based on the circumstances of their conception. > [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not speaking of a hypothetical “you”. I’m talking about you, right now. You do oppose the death penalty, don’t you? Correct me if I’m wrong on that. I’m not entirely sure, actually. I definitely have a lot of problems with the way the death penalty is implemented in most cases, and I’m very troubled about its potential impacts on society as a whole. No doubt I fall **more** into the category “DP opponent” than “DP supporter”. However, I certainly don’t equate legal execution with murder in every case, which would be the parallel to the absolutist anti-abortion principle that we’ve been talking about here. I could see myself coming to different decisions on your proposed anti-DP bill, depending on what the details of the legislation were and what its impacts would be. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/54 "2006-03-02T00:10:15Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Well then I hope we don’t have any more of this nonsense about “the majority Americans” having some special meaning when it comes to abortion. It does have a special meaning, if enough of them vote. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/55 "2006-03-02T00:35:08Z")
Kimstu: > [@](#): > > I do consider it somewhat shocking if someone who opposes abortion specifically because they consider abortion in every case to be murder would be willing to legally permit the murder of certain groups of fetuses simply based on the circumstances of their conception. Maybe you’re forgetting, then, that abortion legality is not starting from a blank slate. Without any movement in legislation, the “murder” of ALL fetuses is legally permitted, regardless of the circumstances of their conception. The anti-abortionists WANT TO SAVE LIVES (in their view). Should firemen stay away from a burning building if they’re certain they won’t be able to save everyone inside? They consider it a terrible shame that the kind of legislation they’d prefer cannot be passed in the current political atmosphere, but trying to save the ones they can save is not the same as “willingly permitting the murder” of the others. ---
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/56 "2006-03-02T01:05:26Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Their _position_ is not that it is justifiable under some circumstances. Their _strategy_ is that it’s justifiable to pass a law that will prevent 90+% of abortions to save what they see as lives, rather than hold out for preventing 100% of abortions and not getting a law passed. That’s even worse! My body should not be a pawn in anybody’s political strategy. > [@John Mace](#): > > You do oppose the death penalty, don’t you? Correct me if I’m wrong on that. Now, suppose you are given the choice to vote on the legislation I proposed. Would you vote in favor of it, knowing that if you don’t, the death penality laws already on the books will remain as they are? I’m not **Kimstu** , but I do oppose the death penalty, and I would oppose that legislation for precisely the same reasons that I would oppose rape/incest exceptions to anti-abortion laws. The critical problem is at the margins: what do you do with the woman who claims to be raped but can’t conclusively prove it? What do you do with the person we suspect is a terrorist but can’t conclusively prove it? In both cases the costs of guessing wrong - forcing a woman to bear her rapist’s baby, or executing an innocent person - are unacceptable. Particularly considering the practical problems we as a society have in determining who is guilty of rape in a timely and accurate manner, and in determining who is or is not a terrorist. I would prefer to err on the side of individual bodily sovereignty: in the woman’s case, she should choose what to do with her body by aborting a fetus or carrying it to term; in the accused terrorist’s case, s/he should have the opportunity to keep on living. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/57 "2006-03-02T01:21:08Z")
> [@cowgirl](#): > > The critical problem is at the margins: what do you do with the woman who claims to be raped but can’t conclusively prove it? Or, consider this: If abortion were allowed only in the case of rape, I imagine we’d see at least a few women claiming to have been raped just so they could get the abortion. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/58 "2006-03-02T01:21:26Z")
cowgirl: > [@](#): > > That’s even worse! My body should not be a pawn in anybody’s political strategy. How exactly does this render your body a pawn? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/59 "2006-03-02T01:26:01Z")
> [@](#): > > The anti-abortionists WANT TO SAVE LIVES (in their view). Should firemen stay away from a burning building if they’re certain they won’t be able to save everyone inside? They consider it a terrible shame that the kind of legislation they’d prefer cannot be passed in the current political atmosphere, but trying to save the ones they can save is not the same as “willingly permitting the murder” of the others. Are you joking? First of all, it’s not either/or. You can pass a bill banning all abortions except rape and incest today and then pass a bill banning abortions even in the case of rape and incest tommorow. The former doesn’t prevent the later at all. There’s no “burning building dilemna” here. And far from at LEAST passing the former, the current Republican majority strategy seems to be to pass bills that are as extreme as possible, have no chance of withstanding court scrutiny, have the states spend millions in obligatory taxpayer defense of them, see them struck down just as predicted, and whine about it some more when the next election year comes along. Meanwhile, abortions that could have been banned in the interim were not. > [@](#): > > Without any movement in legislation, the “murder” of ALL fetuses is legally permitted, regardless of the circumstances of their conception. Why would you lie so blatantly like this? Third trimester abortions are heavily restricted in many states. There’s no prevailing unified federal law, but hell, ROE set up the ability of the state to restrict elective abortion in the last trimester, adn Casey extended and confirmed it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/60 "2006-03-02T01:31:17Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Or, consider this: If abortion were allowed only in the case of rape, I imagine we’d see at least a few women claiming to have been raped just so they could get the abortion. Not necessarily. The cops are pretty good at fereting out fakers, and you can be prosecuted of making false criminal claims. Remember the Runaway Bride? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537.md?page=4)