I was talking to a friend of mine recently. He favors legislation permitting same-sex couples to marry. He believes it is the right and moral thing for the government to do.
I asked him how he felt about “civil unions.” He said they were not ideal, but he certainly favored them over no rights at all for same-sex couples.
It sounded OK at the time, but now, after reading this thread, I certainly intend to call him up and berate him for his lying, inconsistent, decepetive ways. I see now that any compromise for the sake of practicality undercuts his entire foundation. That rat bastard. I trusted him, too. Well, no more.
Of course this is true, but look at it from the pro-life movement’s perspective: you can compromise to prevent 97% of would-be murders, or you can stay hard-line and prevent none. If you truly believe that these are lives being lost, how do you not go with the compromise? It’s not like sticking to the hard line will save the incest-rape fetuses if they don’t get any laws passed.
That makes sense, cm - I’d be happier, and perhaps you would be too, if they were more open about that being their view. Those exceptions never seem to be discussed in the political arena, though, all this new proposed legislation starts with those exceptions in place right up front, not the result of actual debate and consideration.
To press it further, why do the anti-all-abortion advocates think their “opposition” holds the position that these exceptional circumstances should exist? As I said, isn’t it just one more tiny step to acknowledging that they just might have an actual good point?
I don’t either, since it seems clear that the next step, of dropping the pretense that those aren’t marriages, follows quickly and almost inevitably. Do the anti-abortion activists expect that rape-incest exceptions will be removed any time soon?
Pro-choice people have many good arguments, including the right to bodily integrity, the possible negative impact of laws outlawing abortion, and the impact on the freedoms of women in general. Acknowleging that the opposition has good points does not necessarily change the reasonableness or rightness of the pro-life position. It is a good point that the exceptions for rape or incest carry with it a certain “blame the victim” mentality, but a majority of pro-life people I’ve spoken with support the exceptions only as a practical compromise and not as a moral decision.
That’s weird to me. I am of the opinion that the pro-choice (or is it “pro-abortion”?) stance tends to be misogynistic, but that’s a topic for another debate, in another thread.
I don’t think incest needs to be an exception when it comes to abortions. As the OP mentioned, incestual rape is still rape. If it’s consensual, it’s nothing more than “icky” to you and me.
That being said, perhaps it is brought up as an exception because a couple may initiate a pregnancy and then realize “Oh my God, we’re cousins!” and suddenly you’ve got a dilemma on your hands. Even so, that wouldn’t necessitate an abortion, but you may then want to give them a choice (perhaps they’d want to look for birth defects at that point, in which case this would fall under the “birth defect” exception).
If anti-abortion advocates feel that they have to allow exceptions for rape and incest in order to get abortion legally banned, isn’t that an admission that they recognize that the majority of Americans don’t agree with their fundamental moral position that a fetus in all cases has an overriding right to life? And that the anti-abortion movement consequently has to lure supporters by playing to their baser motivations, such as the desire to impose “punitive motherhood” on women who choose to be sexually active but don’t want children?
In that case, I can’t see how a “punitive-motherhood” type of abortion ban, with exceptions for rape and incest, would constitute any kind of true victory for the principle of an overriding fetal right to life.
Similarly, if PETA managed to scare away lots of people from meat consumption via alarming rhetoric about horrible meat-borne diseases, then although that would further their immediate goal of reducing animal slaughter, I certainly wouldn’t call it a victory for their fundamental principle of animal rights.
Certainly. And that fact illustrates that discussion instead of confrontation and demonization is not only possible but productive. We don’t see enough of it, though, and that’s unfortunate, because IMHO the positions aren’t really all that far apart.
I will say that I’ve not ever seen the hypocrisy inherent in exceptions for incest, rape, or life of the mother (lotm). However, it does boggle my mind that pro-lifers don’t see how these exceptions complicate the enforcement on any ban on abortion, especially the rape clause. What sort of proof do you need? Must a woman press charges? Is an indictment enough, or do you need a conviction? Can a husband still rape his wife? As far as lotm goes, what would the threshold be? Is there a certain percentage of death to watch for? A short list of acceptable medical consequences?
Incest is the least problematic in this context- once you separate it from rape.
It seems that while most pro-lifers are against abortion, they’d like to keep the law vague enough that they can get one if necessary. But that is just IMO.
Not really. You’re pretty much exposing a fundamental weakness in the rape-incest exception. Ultimately, with reasoned debate, it’s inevitable that the conclusion will be that the fetus’s origin is irrelevant, and any permission or prohibition of abortion has to center around the status of a human fetus in relation to a born human (no jokes about “Born Again” humans, please). Either a) they are equal, in which case no abortion can be allowed, b) they are nothing, in which case, no restriction can be justified, or c) they do not have full human status, but are still lving beings worthy of some protection, in which case, certain needs of full humans can override that worthiness to protection, and the scope of that is open for debate, but the fetus’s origins cannot logically make a difference in that.
The thing that anti-abortion advocates recognize in making the rape-incest exception is that most people don’t have a firm opinion on the status of the fetus, but instead their opinions on abortion relate to an innate sense of sympathy. Of course there are dedicated believers on each side - I’m not denying that they have firm opinions, and they have solid reasons behind said opinions. But the fight over abortion is for the hearts and minds of the “squishy middle”…those who, quite frankly, don’t care to take a stand unless somehow the issue forces itself on them. Those people, without fully debating the issue, frequently find that in most cases of abortion, their sympathies lie with the fetus…why should this blameless baby (and I’m using the term because I think it reflects the mindset of the people I’m describing, not in an attempt to frame the fetus as such and alter the terms of the debate) be snuffed out because its parents were unprepared to deal with the consequences of having sex? HOWEVER, in cases where the sex is forced, their sympathies lie more with the aborting woman…yes, they still feel bad for the fetus, but in that case, the abortion isn’t an expression of carelessness or irresponsibility. They find themselves unwilling to force a victim to carry her predator’s baby for nine months.
So the anti-abortionists, by making this exception, get the undecideds more on their side…and succeed in saving a good 90+% of what they think of as babies who would have been murdered.
The above reply also relates to the following post of Kimstu:
They admit that the majority of Americans HAVE NOT FORMED AN OPINION THAT AGREES FULLY WITH THEM. However, that does not mean that they believe that the majority of Americans necessarily disagree with them.
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?
I find this position harder to accept than an absolute, no-abortions-under-any-circumstances (extreme pro-life) position.
An extreme pro-life position is (while not one I agree with) completely consistent. Killing an unborn fetus is murder, and unjustifiable under any circumstances.
This other position is inconsistent: killing an unborn fetus is murder, but justifiable under circumstances which somebody (i.e. NOT to the woman needing an abortion) finds acceptable for political reasons.
Either let women choose when to abort, or don’t let any women abort. Don’t arbitrarily determine that some women, under circumstances chosen for political expediency, may choose to abort, and the rest may not.
It is a political compromise. As such, it has the typical earmarks of a political compromise: the attempt to widen the base of support and willingness to compromise a little to gain a lot. It isn’t anything new in the realm of politics, despite the feigned shock.
Well, considering that many pro-lifers believe an overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to rape or incest (at least for now), an attempt to limit those numbers may come at a cost. The typical cost/benefit analysis still matters.
OK. And?
So says the baby killer!!
The positions, I think, are harder because, although they may not be far apart, there is a disagreement at the most funamental level.
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.
Again, a majority of pro-life people I know and speak with certainly do see the enforcement problems in a ban on abortion. YMMV.
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.
As I stipulated. Of course, please bear in mind that I don’t disagree on a basic premise of the pro-life movement. I’ll readily concede that life begins at conception- I just think that the fetus’ needs are trumped by the mother’s wishes. That’s why I don’t see the disconnect here- I see how reasonable people can disagree on what does and doesn’t trump the needs of the fetus.
That said, living on the edge of a town dominated by a Christian college, I’ve known too many college board members decry abortion in the public sphere, and yet take their wives, daughters, and mistresses(!) for therapeutic abortions. Of course, these are the same folks that keep dry counties dry…and but still belong to country clubs where they can take a drink when they want to. that’s more the hypocrisy I see. But I don’t see anything *inherently * hypocritical in setting an arbitrary line.