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

[civ_king]

I think the idea is to avoid abortion becoming used as a contraceptive.

lol, I didn't know Abortion was used to prevent conception...

 

[holy king]

you know what he meant.

the statement is ridiculous enough as it is, no reason to deliberately misunderstand.

 

[Earthling]

then why do most people who consider themselves PC have no problem with the government dictating that a woman cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time?

The pro-choice movement isn't about "government involvement in a women's medical decisions" or whatever you thought you were saying. When you say people are "rationalizing government intrusion" or whatever - then for the most part they are probably not pro-choicers. In fact, the various polls now posted in the OP show that 20-40% of the population support abortion legal in all circumstances - essentially, the core of the pro-choice movement. Thus, nothing at all is inconsistent however you thought it was - pro-choice people aren't all of a sudden/randomly deciding when the government should dictate abortion becomes illegal. Those would be pro-lifers, or various moderates with in-between views.

 

[Bei1052]

The pro-choice movement isn't about "government involvement in a women's medical decisions" or whatever you thought you were saying. In fact, the various polls now posted in the OP show that a consistent 20-30% of the population support abortion legal in all circumstances - essentially, the core of the pro-choice movement. Thus, nothing at all is inconsistent however you thought it was - pro-choice people aren't all of a sudden/randomly deciding when the government should dictate abortion becomes illegal. Those would be pro-lifers, or various moderates with in-between views.

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. Whether you acknowledge it or not, a great many PC'ers do believe (Or, at least they state) that the government shouldn't be involved in a woman's private medical decisions. The problem with this statement is that given how support for abortion drops drastically the closer to birth you get, it's safe to assume that most PC'ers believe there's a point where abortion-on-demand becomes impermissable and that the government can and should get involved in a woman's private medical decisions. I was merely asking how one who believes that abortion is a decision which shouldn't involve the government rationalizes government intrusion into a woman's decision to have an abortion. Surely, you can see how the two are irreconcilable?

Of course, the above raises two questions: by "all circumstances" do you mean "whenever the woman wants it" or do you mean "whenever the woman wants it and the government has decided she can have it"? If it's the first position, then you would conceivably have to allow a woman to have an abortion whenever she wants. If it's the second position, then you're really no different than the PL'ers. What I mean, is that then the only difference between you and most PL'ers would be that you believe it's permissable for a government to regulate abortion six or so months after the point where most PL'ers believe that it's permissable for the government to regulate abortion (Viability vs. conception).

 

[Earthling]

a great many PC'ers do believe (Or, at least they state) that the government shouldn't be involved in a woman's private medical decisions.

Yes, I didn't say this wasn't true.

it's safe to assume that most PC'ers believe there's a point where abortion-on-demand becomes impermissable and that the government can and should get involved in a woman's private medical decisions

Just like it's say to assume all pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape are just misogynists who, according to folks like Ecofarm, have their views "compromised?" Yeah, again, where's your citation on that? Since the studies show 20-40% (pro-choicers) support abortion legal in all circumstances, up through so called "partial birth" or late-term abortions, there is no hypocrisy or whatever you think you're finding there.

Furthermore, there isn't any evidence that people who solely oppose "government involvement" are the ones who change their minds. There may be other pro-choicers who come at things from different approaches than just who change their minds at some point, but again, even this hasn't been backed up by any evidence you've posted.

 

[Bei1052]

Yes, I didn't say this wasn't true.

So what are you arguing against, then?

Just like it's say to assume all pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape are just misogynists who, according to folks like Ecofarm, have their views "compromised?"

I'm sorry, but how do you quote part of a sentence? It's easy to misconstrue what people say when you do that.

Yeah, again, where's your citation on that? Since the studies show 20-40% (pro-choicers) support abortion legal in all circumstances, up through so called "partial birth" or late-term abortions, there is no hypocrisy or whatever you think you're finding there.

All right. Let's play. According to the website in the OP, the Pew Research Center has 16% of Americans supporting abortion in all circumstances while Gallup has that figure at about 21% (Their most recent figures). Assuming that the 46% of Americans calling themselves PC is accurate (According to Gallup), that means that the majority of those who would call themselves PC do not believe that abortion should be always legal. Furthermore, 51% of Americans believe that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, while 31% believe it should be only legal in cases of rape and incest while another 15% believe it should be always legal (WSJ). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that PC'ers would more-than-likely fall into the first group than the latter two.

Therefore, I don't think anything I typed out thus far is wrong. I think it's safe to say, as I have, that the majority-- If not all-- PC'ers would argue that the government has no business interfering with a woman's "private medical decisions". But given how the majority of them squirm at the thought of late-term abortions and do not oppose government restrictions on abortion after a certain point in time, I was asking how one reconciles those two positions. I didn't think it was this hard, personally. But maybe I was wrong.

Furthermore, there isn't any evidence that people who solely oppose "government involvement" are the ones who change their minds. There may be other pro-choicers who come at things from different approaches than just who change their minds at some point, but again, even this hasn't been backed up by any evidence you've posted.

Huh? I'm not understanding what you're arguing here, so you're going to have to explain it to me.

 

[Shadylookin]

If you get pregnant because you would rather have an abortion (or a series of abortions) rather than use birth control, yes, I would say that you are being irresponsible. I don't see how that is an anti-woman view - I would say that men who don't insist on birth control, but then don't want to be responsible for any resulting children, are also being irresponsible. It's my view that if you know something undesirable could happen from your actions, and you refuse to take relatively easy an inexpensive measures to prevent that from happening, then yes, you are being irresponsible. Would you disagree with that stance if we were talking about anything else? If I were, say, worried that my dog might get out of the yard, but I didn't bother to patch the holes in the fence, even though I passed Lowe's on my way home every day, wouldn't I be acting irresponsibly? If my dog got out, as you could reasonably expect, wouldn't it be my responsibility?

I'm not saying don't have sex if you don't want babies. I'm saying, if you don't want babies, but want to have sex, then be responsible about it. (And implicitly, if you do not act responsibly, then you are being irresponsible) I confess, I'm having trouble seeing the controversial side of this. Tell me, if you don't mind - do you believe in abstinence only education? I doubt it. If you don't, what would you like to see replace it? Perhaps a message based on the idea of being responsible and safe? (With the implicit assumption that there are irresponsible, and unsafe behaviors?)

I think if you're going to have sex and don't want a kid you're a blithering idiot if you don't take some precautions. I mean popping a pill once a day or wrapping your Johnny is a lot easier mentally, physically, and financially on a person than an abortion.

However if you're a pro-life person a pregnancy shouldn't be about how responsible or irresponsible the parents are. It should be about the life of an innocent fetus. I mean just because you're a responsible adult doesn't mean you get to go around knocking off innocent lives does it?

Now personally I'm pro choice right until the thing pops out. I believe that we are masters of our own bodies and we have the right to kill whatever goes on inside of it we don't like. However I'm not trying to reach some moral high ground(the air is too thin for me up there anyway) and interfere with people's personal privacy in the name of protecting the innocent lives of the unborn unlike the pro-life group

I don't see why it can't be about both the fetus, and the mother. If we start with the assumption, as we have in this thread, that both are human persons, then I think it's obvious that anything that seriously impacts both of them has to take into account both their situations. Because that's all that's happening here. In rape versus non-rape situations, the situation of the mother changes, so it's not unreasonable for possible avenues courses of action to change as well. Do you honestly disagree with that? If so, could you explain why? Now, that's still a value judgment, so you can agree or disagree on whether abortion would or would not be justified in that instance - all I'm saying is that you can legitimately change from "no abortions are allowed" to "OK, they're allowed in this one instance," and not be acting out of misogyny.

I would say the only philosophical reason for a pro-life person to allow abortion is to save the mother's life because it's better to have the mother live than both die. Now I'm sure rape is emotionally traumatic, but that's no excuse to kill innocent people.

 

[Earthling]

So what are you arguing against, then?

I think it's safe to say, as I have, that the majority-- If not all-- PC'ers would argue that the government has no business interfering with a woman's "private medical decisions". But given how the majority of them squirm at the thought of late-term abortions and do not oppose government restrictions on abortion after a certain point in time, I was asking how one reconciles those two positions.

The problem is - the second part here simply isn't true - in fact, this is the only thing I've really been trying to debate with your posts. Part of the problem, of course, is the difference in polls - but if the % pro-choice is no greater than 50%, various other polls have found those supporting abortion "generally available" or not opposing "partial-birth abortion" at 38-43%. For instance, the 2009 CBS poll has 41% say abortion should just be "generally available" and some poll's like the Fox poll have the total "pro-choice" as low as 43%. Thus, the majority of pro-choice advocates are not changing their minds - some do, but it's not a clear cut line (also, none of the polls mentioned give an inbetween option between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" even while other polls get high percentages like 10-20% answering "undecided" so again, there problems with what set of folks we're even dealing with in the first place), and furthermore, there's no evidence that those who change their minds are doing so because of "government involvement" instead of something else, since people can be pro-choice for different reasons just as they are pro-life.

Edit: clarification

I was merely asking how one who believes that abortion is a decision which shouldn't involve the government rationalizes government intrusion into a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Basically - I'm trying to say these two groups of people are not the same people. It's not one group of people changing their minds, it's just two groups of people. It was disappointing there were no polls which had clear options of "pro-choice," "pro-life," and "in between" as I suspect those numbers would make things more clear. So yes, there may be some pro-choicers with different opinions on different things for various reasons, but I don't think the majority do change their minds - those would simply be moderates or pro-lifers. And again, I don't see evidence that the people are changing their minds because "government intervention is now ok" - it's probably or often another reason.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I don't see how you can justify that in the case of rape. The initial "wrong" act was of no choice of the woman involved.

Being wronged doesn't mean you get to kill babies.

 

[emzie]

Because there is no instance in which the law allows one to violate your rights and then makes you accountable for the product of that violation. You know... That wasn't a hard question to answer at all, and the fact that the first page is full of mind-numbingly obtuse responses boggles the mind.

People keep ignoring the first presumption of the OP: the foetus is being considered human.

I was looking for a justification when the foetus' right to life was more important than a deprived right of the mother. To say her rights are more important (though, I agree with that stance) ignores the premise of the OP.

 

[Lord Gay]

Earthling, this isn't an attack but I don't understand why you've posted some of the things that you have in this thread. I may be mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I am, but it seems to me that you've missed the points of both the OP and Bei. Perhaps you're over-analyzing their questions?

Admittedly I didn't come here until the OP was already edited, but I thought Contre's question was rather clear. Given that the most common refrain from PL is that abortion is murder, Contre asked why some feel rape abortions are okay, since murder is still murder. I thought it was a fair question. Bei in turn asked that since some PC claim gvt has NO place to tell women what to do, why they feel it's okay for gvt to restrict late-term abortions. Again, a fair question IMO.

Neither was talking about ALL members of each side, nor trying to assert or redefine what members of either side hold, nor what the majorities think. I thought they were both valid questions concerning common sentiments frequently expressed in abortion debates. I'm just surprised that this isn't clear to you, as I don't question your intelligence, and I struggle to see how these points could be missed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Being wronged doesn't mean you get to kill babies.

This is like some new zen level of utterly baffling oversimplification. I'd applaud you, but the vibrations might cause the fragile construct-universe in which you apparently dwell to shatter irreparably.

 

[Counterclaw]

It isn't justifiable. Those who take the stance in the OP may take it because they haven't thought the issue through sufficiently and because they are afraid of being called extremists.

But, as I see it, a baby has the same right to life that any other human does.
The only time abortion might be justifiable in my view, is if the woman's life
is in danger. Then one could make the argument that she acted in self-defense.
I, personally would still not have an abortion if my life was in danger. I couldn't
accept the idea of killing my own child.

 

[Earthling]

Earthling, this isn't an attack but I don't understand why you've posted some of the things that you have in this thread. I may be mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I am, but it seems to me that you've missed the points of both the OP and Bei. Perhaps you're over-analyzing their questions?

I'm just surprised that this isn't clear to you, as I don't question your intelligence, and I struggle to see how these points could be missed.

On the first page, everything I posted was before the OP was edited - it didn't seem clear to me whether the OP was asking for "our opinions," the opinions of a "hypothetical person" with this stance, the opinions of actual pro-life movements, or what. About Bei - I'm just not sure what he was saying anyway - I mean, basically, he seems to be thinking that people who are committed to one opinion then change their minds at some point in the pregnancy - I'd say that there are simply two groups of people, one who aren't changing their minds, and another group of more "moderate/in between" people who hold other beliefs important besides the woman's right to privacy with her doctor or whatever, and hence, the second group aren't being illogical hypocrites or whatever in "changing their minds" either.

Perhaps I shouldn't have endeavored to answer Bei, as someone who fully and completely shares the view he is curious as might be better equipped - I didn't get much further from considering this:

The range of pro-life and pro-choice opinions go from people who always oppose abortion to people who still would allow late abortions, so is your question something like "why are moderates moderate" or what?

Also, keep in mind the frustration of having another poster just declare "everyone's opinons but mine are compromised." Sorry if I let that get to me a little much. Again, I'm not even saying I share the opinions he was attacking, but other posters do, and such statements really didn't help this thread.

 

[Dachs]

Is the lack of a view possible to be compromised? I dunno, I'm not up on fancy pants terminology?

 

[shortguy]

I think there's somewhat of a false dilemma between a fetus having the same right to life as a born person and it having no right to life at all. Perhaps the OP's hypothetical person believes that a fetus has a right to life weaker than that of a born human--and thus it can be aborted in certain circumstances--but it has enough a right to make abortion wrong in general cases. I think this view has a lot of flaws, particularly in practical circumstances, but I don't see how it's prima facie inconsistent or silly.

 

[Lord Gay]

On the first page, everything I posted was before the OP was edited - it didn't seem clear to me whether the OP was asking for "our opinions," the opinions of a "hypothetical person" with this stance, the opinions of actual pro-life movements, or what.

I don't know what Contre wrote before, so I can't comment. It may have set you off down the wrong train of thought though, which is why perhaps you still didn't get what he was saying even after s/he edited the post. No biggie.

About Bei - I'm just not sure what he was saying anyway

It was clear to me; your responses weren't (not being harsh) :

Anyway, what I was asking is how someone who believes that abortion is a decision to be left up to the woman and her doctor rationalizes government intrusions into that decision.

[citation needed]

Sorry if it sounded like your line was directed about some sort of "PC media" or something - but otherwise, it doesn't sound like you're describing the pro-choice movement at all either.

I don't understand why you asked for evidence. Bei was neither claiming anything nor asserting anything. Maybe it might help if I rephrased it for you?

1) Some people who are pro-choice think gvt has ZERO right to control whether a woman can abort.
2) Currently, gvt has laws restricting when women can abort.
3) For those who agree with both 1 AND 2... how do you reconcile that?

This is what Bei was asking. How can a person accept gvt controlling late-term abortions if they feel gvt shouldn't be controlling abortion at all.

I don't want come across as didactic, so I'll leave it there.

Also, keep in mind the frustration of having another poster just declare "everyone's opinons but mine are compromised." Sorry if I let that get to me a little much.

I felt the discussion between you and Eco involved misunderstanding on both sides. Again, it could be me who misunderstood, but what I saw was both of you misunderstanding pronouns and references the other used, leading to interpretations the other hadn't meant.

I will admit I find it a bit frustrating myself when Eco feels he's explained himself sufficiently on something and refuses to comment further, but... we are who we are. Diversity makes life interesting.

Is the lack of a view possible to be compromised? I dunno, I'm not up on fancy pants terminology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu71EAdnjQ0

 

[Berzerker]

So here's the question: if a foetus is a human life, why should the circumstances of its conception impact the value of its life

it certainly may impact the value the woman has for the kid, and she's the one having it, and raising it, and... But the kid aint at fault, obviously.

or its right to life?

What right? Are we assuming a natural rights stance for this discussion? It appears a majority of people here reject natural rights.

Why does a rape victim's desire to avoid further trauma trump the right of the life that would be the cause of that trauma?

She did not consent to having a rapist' baby.

Its easy to oppose abortion, but what should the consequences be? Ban abortion, and what? Put women in jail as murderers for having abortions? Or the death penalty? The "abortion is murder" crowd wont even support the logical conclusion of its position... If abortion is murder, women who have abortions are murderers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So here's the question: if a foetus is a human life, why should the circumstances of its conception impact the value of its life, or its right to life? Why does a rape victim's desire to avoid further trauma trump the right of the life that would be the cause of that trauma?

They don't. The only time when abortion should be considered is when the life of the mother is threatened and the baby cannot be sustained outside the mother's body.

 

[Bill3000]

What exactly would be the punishment for the woman attempting an abortion? Same as regular first-degree murder? Can a woman be given the death penalty for attempting to abort the fetus?

If you run into the middle of an abortion procedure, are you ethically obliged to use deadly force against the doctor doing the procedure in order to prevent the murder?