If abortion is wrong, why is it justifiable in the case of rape?

[emzie]

Contre, I think it's because people still recognise that a woman has jurisdiction over her body. You can withdraw your resources from someone who you never consented to take care of.

There seem to be gradients on this, though. If I were to discover during a cross-country trek that someone had snuck a baby into my car at the last service station, I would be expected to take the baby to the nearest authority (even if it was dozens of miles to the next town); I wouldn't be allowed to toss the baby out of my car. I'd not even be allowed to sedate the baby to the point where it wasn't bothering me.

OTOH, if you were to steal my VISA and sponsor a third world orphan, I'm allowed to cancel my payments; even if I knew this would result in the orphan's death.

I like your response. Good analogies.

I guess this would raise the question of what's the difference between passively and actively killing someone? I can't quite explain my gut feeling on this, but actively killing someone is far worse an action, even if they both end with the same result.

An abortion is an active process where as withdrawing your funding would be passive.

Your link

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . ."
.
Legal Illegal Unsure
% % %

"If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest"
70 21 9

PFFT FOX NEWS!!

I should read through pages I link entirely.

So in that poll, we had 21% illegal for rape incest and 50% illegal for unwanted pregnancy, which is ~30% of respondents who, as I read it, think abortion should be legal for rape / incest but not for just any unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Earthling]

Your link

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . ."
.
Legal Illegal Unsure
% % %

"If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest"
70 21 9

So, this poll shows that out of pro-lifers, roughly a third go with including "rape/incest" while most are for always illegal or "only the mother's life?" Though the other questions don't perfectly distinguish who stands for what exactly, but still, the difference between this and "mother's life" is small.

Edit: The CBS News poll lower down is even a bit more clear, though with slightly different results. Most recent poll has:
1) It should be permitted in all cases. 26%
(2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. 16%
(3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. 34%
(4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life. 16%
(5) Never (volunteered answer) 4%

So that would have it at about 50/50 between pro-lifers on "woman's life" versus "also ok for rape/incest"

 

[Ecofarm]

It gives a minimal respect to the other side of the argument's case (much like banning 'late-term' abortions concedes to the pro-life camp). It is a concession, given because our view might not be perfect. As a compromise, pro-choice agrees no late term and pro-life agrees early-term is ok for those cases.


Of course it fundamentally compromises the view, just as setting some kind of a "date line" when it is ok compromises pro-choice fundamentally. Such is politics. I'll stand by it though, when it comes to extreme cases I'll let the woman be the scapegoat - because no view is perfect.

 

[Elrohir]

The logic goes something like this: If you choose to take an action, then you're liable for the foreseeable consequences. So if you have sex, knowing you could get pregnant (And especially if you don't take action to prevent it) then you're responsible if you get pregnant. So it's not fair to punish an innocent, because you were irresponsible. But, in cases of rape, there was no foreseeability - the woman didn't act irresponsibly, but rather had the choice taken away from her entirely. The question shifts from "Should we make someone take responsibility for their actions, instead of punishing an innocent person?" to "Is it acceptable to further burden the victim of a horrible crime, and deny her complete control of her bod for 9 months, if doing so saves the life of an innocent person?"

Some people will say that it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term, if she had no choice in getting pregnant - others will say it's more wrong to allow an innocent to be killed, even if that means further harming an innocent adult. Either way, it's a value judgment weighing the rights of an early human life versus the rights of a human adult and victim.

It might not be expressed in quite that detail very often, but this is basically the line of thought that takes place. So while I'm not sure where I stand on this, I do understand both sides, as someone who considers himself to be a pro-lifer.

I've said it before and I"ll say it again

Nonsense. I really don't think you understand the pro-life movement at all. Perhaps there are elements that think that way, but most people don't. Don't ascribe sheer bigotry, when a reasonable explanation fits just as well - have the decency to presume common decency in your ideological opponents. Doing so is not only more moral, but also much classier.

 

[Earthling]

Of course it fundamentally compromises the view, just as setting some kind of a "date line" when it is ok compromises pro-choice fundamentally.

There may be a problem with certain justifications for the pro-life "soul/sin/God's will" view, but otherwise, no, it doesn't.

 

[emzie]

@Elrohir

Then abortion isn't wrong because it's murder, it's wrong because it's a fix to a social ill (irresponsibility)?

 

[Elrohir]

@Elrohir

Then abortion isn't wrong because it's murder, it's wrong because it's a fix to a social ill (irresponsibility)?

Abortion, according to this view, is the killing of a human being. Generally, that's wrong - but there are instances where society allows for it, because the only alternative is worse. (For instance: in war, we kill enemy soldiers) The question is whether forcing women who were raped to bear their children to term is "better," or less bad, or worse than allowing them to have abortions that kill human persons.

Agree or disagree, it's a whole lot more complicated and sincere than "Let's only punish the fornicators!" (As was said by several posters earlier in the thread) It's unfortunate that some people can't look beyond extremely simplistic explanations.

 

[bhsup]

I cannot actively participate in this thread because it's always wrong, rape or no.

 

[Ecofarm]

There may be a problem with certain justifications for the pro-life "soul/sin/God's will" view, but otherwise, no, it doesn't.

It compromises the "all life is equal" justification (which would ignore the circumstance of existence).

I don't know or respect any of the soul/sin/God crap, and it compomises my position.

So, yes, it does. Don't tell me when my views are compromised or not, I'm not some little kid.

 

[Earthling]

It compromises the "all life is equal" justification (which would ignore the circumstance of existence).

I don't know of any major side in the abortion debate that uses "all life is equal" as a justification - perhaps some odd fringe, but that's not central to pro-life (human souls or life or whatever) or pro-choice, since pro-choicers often in fact regard an undeveloped embryo to not be equal or have the rights of other humans.

Agree or disagree, it's a whole lot more complicated and sincere than "Let's only punish the fornicators!" (As was said by several posters earlier in the thread) It's unfortunate that some people can't look beyond extremely simplistic explanations.

The problem is at one point the OP and some posters were specifically asking not to discuss the prevalence/views of people in real life, but hypothetical justifications.

 

[Ecofarm]

Fine. As long as you recognize that your counter-arguments are based on a partial assessment of the opposing arguments, and are therefore woefully unsatisfactory. I wouldn't recommend arguing with whatever piece of the puzzle that you find easiest to master, while ignoring the issues you don't like.

Anyway, "all human life deserves human rights" (THE MOST COMMON VIEW) is compromised by accepting cases of rape, etc. If you can't even see that, I can't do more.

 

[Earthling]

Then you plead ignorance?

It's not about ignorance, it's the fact that what you suggested has nothing to do with what the majority of people think or debate on the topic. I'm not saying I know of every fringe view held by some small religious group or something - if you call that ignorance, I don't care, though it would be great for all folks reading this if you could link to the folks who do hold these unusual views.

 

[Earthling]

With all the editing go on:

So, yes, it does. Don't tell me when my views are compromised or not, I'm not some little kid.

You're pro-choice now? Even if you are, most pro-choicers don't base their views on some "all life is equal" theory, so fine, compromise your own views all you like, it doesn't compromise everyone else's.

 

[Ecofarm]

With all the editing go on:


You're pro-choice now? Even if you are, most pro-choicers don't base their views on some "all life is equal" theory, so fine, compromise your own views all you like, it doesn't compromise everyone else's.

I'm pro-life (ecocentric). And I've explained things perfectly. I'm done. Hopefully you will eventually figure out what I have written.

 

[Karalysia]

Why is the mother's life more valuable than the fetus's life? Why should it be done only to save the mothers life? How are you measuring that?

 

[Shadylookin]

The logic goes something like this: If you choose to take an action, then you're liable for the foreseeable consequences. So if you have sex, knowing you could get pregnant (And especially if you don't take action to prevent it) then you're responsible if you get pregnant. So it's not fair to punish an innocent, because you were irresponsible. But, in cases of rape, there was no foreseeability - the woman didn't act irresponsibly, but rather had the choice taken away from her entirely. The question shifts from "Should we make someone take responsibility for their actions, instead of punishing an innocent person?" to "Is it acceptable to further burden the victim of a horrible crime, and deny her complete control of her bod for 9 months, if doing so saves the life of an innocent person?"

Some people will say that it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term, if she had no choice in getting pregnant - others will say it's more wrong to allow an innocent to be killed, even if that means further harming an innocent adult. Either way, it's a value judgment weighing the rights of an early human life versus the rights of a human adult and victim.

It might not be expressed in quite that detail very often, but this is basically the line of thought that takes place. So while I'm not sure where I stand on this, I do understand both sides, as someone who considers himself to be a pro-lifer.


Nonsense. I really don't think you understand the pro-life movement at all. Perhaps there are elements that think that way, but most people don't. Don't ascribe sheer bigotry, when a reasonable explanation fits just as well - have the decency to presume common decency in your ideological opponents. Doing so is not only more moral, but also much classier.

Yet in your own explanation you used irresponsible to describe women who get pregnant consensually, innocent to describe women who got pregnant through rape, and similar language to back up my stereotypical and generalized statement that it's not about the fetus, but about the mother.

I guess you're a bit nicer about it than many, however my point still stands that the idealogical position of "legal abortion in the case of rape" is not about being "pro-life", but anti-woman.

 

[Earthling]

Hopefully you will eventually figure out what I have written.

Yeah, I think your own posts make quite clear what you have written:

Of course it fundamentally compromises the view, just as setting some kind of a "date line" when it is ok compromises pro-choice fundamentally.

Don't tell me when my views are compromised or not, I'm not some little kid.

There you have it, folks. Ecofarm thinks that he, and only he, can tell people on both sides of the debate when their "views are compromised."

 

[Ecofarm]

Basic logic shows when a view is compromised. It doesn't matter what side you are on.

"All life is equal" (my pro-life view)

AND

"All humans (fetus counts) deserve human rights" (the most common pro-life view)


Are both compromised by allowing special circumstances. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist, or hold either view, to see this.

You're the only person who doesn't get it. I'm really not going to explain it anymore. The OP sees it clearly, everyone else sees it clearly.

 

[Earthling]

You're the only person who doesn't get it. I'm really not going to explain it anymore. The OP sees it clearly, everyone else sees it clearly.

No, you're ignoring the fact that you claimed that other pro-lifers' views or pro-choice views were compromised. Like I said, I don't care what your problems with your own logic, philosophy, or views are here, it doesn't change the fact that you basically just decided you could call everyone else "compromised."

 

[Ecofarm]

Perhaps it is the most common view in the US where the religious hold so much sway. But that is certainly not true in less provincial and fundamentalist countries. And it certainly wasn't even the most common view in the US prior to the Reagan Era.

What does "human life gets human rights" have to do with religion? There is nothing religious about deciding that a fetus is a person and the UDHR applies to them. 'Pro-life = religious' is a simple case of correlation =/= causation.