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

[gangleri2001]

Do you have any trouble with the raped woman having to bear this rape baby for nine months constantly reminding her of her ordeal?

I have no trouble with her. I know it's a hard expiereince that I, as a man, can't even imagine. But again, is it the fetus fault? In my opinion he/she is also a human being, no matter what stage of pregnancy, why killing an innocent may help to solve anything? In such a case, the best thing is helping the mother even more, via psychiatrists or any other means, but not killing someone who is completely innocent.

Moreover, couldn't the abortion worsen things? It's well known that many women who have aborted regret it and get traumatized once they have aborted. A woman who has been raped is in a worse psychollogical situation than most abortists, so if she later regrets it, the abortion wouldn't be the sollution, but part of the (already huge) problem.

All the necessary help for the mother (provided by the state if necessary) and respect for the fetus' right to life (and in case the mother doesn't want him/her, give him/her in adoption) is, IMO, the best sollution in such cases.

 

[gangleri2001]

Interesting proposition. Although there is an obvious difference, perhaps made more obvious if I choose a better word. Unaware. The fetus has no memory, and nothing, in fact, to remember. Nor will it be aware of its fetal stage when it is aware of other things. You could call it an unaware state of existence. When you go to sleep, however, you are aware of your sleeping state when you awake, and have memory of past events. That's probably a horrible way to distinguish between the two, but it's a start. You get the idea.

Ok then, let's kill everyone who has amnesia or a mental disease that doesn't let them be "aware" of his or her own existance too.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have no trouble with her.

Right, not what I asked, but your answer provided me with some insight in how you feel about it. Thanks. I'll refrain from commenting on it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ok then, let's kill everyone who has amnesia or a mental disease that doesn't let them be "aware" of his or her own existance too.

I think you're underestimating how 'unaware' the fetus is. I cannot think of a disease that has the person alive, but as unaware as the fetus is. Amnesia is leaps & bounds more aware. So is the very worst cases of Alzheimers. It's on a completely different scale.

Magister: citation needed.

 

[Ayatollah So]

When trying to reason through a complex subject, start with El Mac's posts. Sometimes you can stop there, too. This isn't one of those times.

Note, I'm following the rules set out in the OP, here. I.e., assume the fetus is a person, and explain whether rape provides a justification for abortion that does not apply in other cases.

It cannot be a perfect analogy, because there's nothing analogous. [...]

The majority of abortions are done at a stage where the fetus cannot be safely withdrawn from the woman. Now, in my mind, a woman has the right to withdraw her resources (from the orphan or from the fetus), because she never consented to become the life support device for those two.

No analogy can be perfect, but we can use multiple analogies, and get closer.

Suppose Fred accidentally shoots Barb, who is then in danger of bleeding to death. Also, Ted accidentally shoots Bob. Fred, feeling responsible, donates blood repeatedly to Barb over the course of several months. Barb lives. Ted feels differently. "I never consented to become someone's life support device," says Ted. Bob dies. Ted is convicted of manslaughter. Is that fair? Well, Ted did create the dependent condition that Bob was in, and then left him to die. So yes, it's fair.

Coincidentally, Ned owns a gun, and it is wrestled from his grip by an attacker. During the struggle, the gun goes off. Beth is wounded, and in danger of bleeding to death. Ned doesn't donate blood, and Beth dies. Ned is not convicted of anything, not having been responsible for Beth's condition.

Of course, baby-making is different from all the above stories. In the above stories, the person existed before any gun went off. In baby-making, the same act that creates a dependent condition, creates the person in the first place! So that's totally different, right?

Well, maybe. But we already have a settled answer to the question, what duties do you get when you create dependence by creating a dependent person. And the answer is, a whole lot of duties. You're allowed to stop providing usual & customary caregiving for your children, but only when you pass those duties to someone else.

 

[useless]

Ok then, let's kill everyone who has amnesia or a mental disease that doesn't let them be "aware" of his or her own existance too.

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! Way to pull more Strawmen out of your pocket eh? Any ways, i do believe a woman has the right to abort a rape child, if she so choses, and why shoudn't she? She was raped, she had no say in whether or not she wanted to become pregnant and for all this talk of "Women's rights", not allowing a woman to abort it in such circumstances isn't really respecting their rights.

 

[gangleri2001]

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! Way to pull more Strawmen out of your pocket eh?

I was looking for a picture of a strawman and the first one I got from Google was this:

So yeah, I like strawmen, any problem?

 

[useless]

Way to dodge the issue, dude.

 

[JerichoHill]

I have no trouble with her. I know it's a hard expiereince that I, as a man, can't even imagine. But again, is it the fetus fault? In my opinion he/she is also a human being, no matter what stage of pregnancy, why killing an innocent may help to solve anything? In such a case, the best thing is helping the mother even more, via psychiatrists or any other means, but not killing someone who is completely innocent.

Moreover, couldn't the abortion worsen things? It's well known that many women who have aborted regret it and get traumatized once they have aborted. A woman who has been raped is in a worse psychollogical situation than most abortists, so if she later regrets it, the abortion wouldn't be the sollution, but part of the (already huge) problem.

All the necessary help for the mother (provided by the state if necessary) and respect for the fetus' right to life (and in case the mother doesn't want him/her, give him/her in adoption) is, IMO, the best sollution in such cases.

You, as a man, never have to go through carrying to term a baby produced by a rape. I do not have to go through that. I do not think we're in a position to say that we, as men, who do not ever have to worry about this, can honestly make such a determination.

Yes, there are horrible scars from an abortion. My first GF, who I dated for 3.5 years and thought I was one and done for a long time, eventually broke down psychologically because she had an abortion caused by date rape in HS. It was NOT the abortion that was the psychologically traumatizing event, it was the rape. And over time, when no one wants to talk about it because rape doesn't happen in good southern families, stuff breaks down.

I have sympathy with your viewpoint about caring for the fetus, who is a human life, but I can't then say "tough" to the woman who's body was taken from her. I think she gets to make that choice, weigh her options, and then decide. I don't think that is up to society to choose one way or the other for her.

 

[gangleri2001]

Way to dodge the issue, dude.

It's not my fault if strawmen now look like that.

 

[gangleri2001]

You, as a man, never have to go through carrying to term a baby produced by a rape. I do not have to go through that. I do not think we're in a position to say that we, as men, who do not ever have to worry about this, can honestly make such a determination.

I already said that I can't even imagine that situation because I'm a man, it's not necessary to remind me.

Yes, there are horrible scars from an abortion. My first GF, who I dated for 3.5 years and thought I was one and done for a long time, eventually broke down psychologically because she had an abortion caused by date rape in HS. It was NOT the abortion that was the psychologically traumatizing event, it was the rape. And over time, when no one wants to talk about it because rape doesn't happen in good southern families, stuff breaks down.

I think you are giving me the reason here. The problem with your ex was not the abortion, it was the LACK of help. I said that women (and the more rare cases when men get raped too, because we're forgetting the STDs here, which affect rape victims of both sexes) in such situations need all the necessary psychological help, provided by the state if necessary. I think that all this isn't incompatible at all with the fetus right to life.

I have sympathy with your viewpoint about caring for the fetus, who is a human life, but I can't then say "tough" to the woman who's body was taken from her. I think she gets to make that choice, weigh her options, and then decide. I don't think that is up to society to choose one way or the other for her.

I already said that such a choice often traumatize women. We all know that lots of abortists later regret it. If a victim of rape decides to abort and later regrets it, all we're doing is screw things up. I'm not saying that this is your ex's case, I'm just saying that it's a possibility that may affect rape victims that has to be avoided by any means, and thus I think that abortion in such cases is not the solution.

 

[bhsup]

This is terrible of me, but every time I see this thread title, I think of the Barbara Mandrell song and want it to read If abortion is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm ashamed to admit I have had a similar thought. If Abortion is wrong, why does it feel so right?

(Brain Adams?)

 

[JerichoHill]

I already said that such a choice often traumatize women. We all know that lots of abortists later regret it. If a victim of rape decides to abort and later regrets it, all we're doing is screw things up. I'm not saying that this is your ex's case, I'm just saying that it's a possibility that may affect rape victims that has to be avoided by any means, and thus I think that abortion in such cases is not the solution.

No. You're not screwing things up. Would they regret bringing the baby to term. You're being unnecessarily paternalistic. You must think that women who were raped are incapable of making decisions over their well-being.

I have confidence that, if well-informed, a woman can make the best decision over what to do with regards to her self and her psyche. It is not for society to decide this for her. It is the providence of the society to help ensure she has the best information available over all her options. THEN you let the person be FREE to CHOOSE

(There, I busted out Milton Friedman to argue a pro-choice position [when a women is impregnanted via rape]. Freedom FTW.)

 

[emzie]

JH, if you found out your coworker was conceived by a rape, would he or she be less a person compared to yourself?

The point of this thread was never to argue that a raped woman should not be allowed an abortion -- or that any woman should not be allowed an abortion. It was only about the merit of an exemption in the case of rape from the "pro-life" stand point, which, I as a pro-choice guy, don't understand. Your arguments seem to be justifying abortion in case of rape from a pro-choice stance.

 

[JerichoHill]

JH, if you found out your coworker was conceived by a rape, would he or she be less a person compared to yourself?

The point of this thread was never to argue that a raped woman should not be allowed an abortion -- or that any woman should not be allowed an abortion. It was only about the merit of an exemption in the case of rape from the "pro-life" stand point, which, I as a pro-choice guy, don't understand. Your arguments seem to be justifying abortion in case of rape from a pro-choice stance.

Of course not contre. But that's not what i was discussing. I am in favor of leaving the decision up to the woman who was raped. I am not in favor of either all-or-nothing position (force abortion for all women pregnant via rape vs. force all women pregnant via rape to carry to term). You're deliberately attempting to redefine the argument, which you cannot do.

The pro-life person that is okay with abortion when a woman is raped are very likely making the same argument, in that the woman was not in control, was not consenting, and that the violation of her body without permission trumps the created baby. In essence a pro-life person in this situation would be against abortion in all situations where the woman had a choice. Once one makes the choice and gets pregnant (deliberate or accidental given consensual intercourse), they are not allowed to abort. The key to this is "choice". Rape does not give a woman a choice. That is how my pro-life friends who are pro life except in the case or rape would talk about it.

 

[Bei1052]

He answered already.

No, Bill, he really didn't.

Also please note that there is a difference between "the decision is to be left up to a woman and her doctor" and "abortion on demand" - El Mach is clearly stating that he believes the former to mean things such as medical necessity as opposed to elective abortion.

But, Bill, when you try to differentiate between the two as you've done, you run into a problem. Saying that the decision should be left up to the woman and her doctor only when there's a medical necessity refutes the entire PC position, which says that a woman should more-or-less have the freedom to abort at her will as it's a decision between her and her doctor.

Other than the fact that I think it's pretty impossible for Medicare to cover abortions (since that's for the old people ) Medicaid doesn't cover abortion due to the [wiki]Hyde Amendment[/wiki].

The Hyde Amendment was changed in 1993 to allow funding for abortions in case of rape, incest or dangers to the mother's health.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm pro-choice because I expect that the majority of the time, it's going to be medically necessary. How many times do I have to say "I think it should be between the woman & the doctor"?

If I recall McCain's scare quotes properly; it's that the pro-life movement is the one that does not want an exemption of 'health of the mother' to a restriction of a late-term abortion. While the pro-choice movement might not be completely 100% 'pro-choice' (under all analyses), it's still much more pro-choice.

 

[Bei1052]

I know it's not completely cohesive, but please keep in mind that the decision to have an abortion, in my system, is up to the woman and the doctor. It's left to them to decide. It's without government interference.

Thus far, I understand this much.

With the understanding that there're medically necessary abortions, and that medical information is confidential, we're going to have to allow late term abortions if the woman & the doctor decide that it needs to be done.

For argument's sake, let's ignore abortions out of medical necessity, as I'm pretty sure that few people would deny a woman the ability to have an abortion if it's going to negatively impact her health to carry the pregnancy to term. What I want to focus on are abortions performed out of pure want.

The 'downside' of this is that women might be killing viable fetuses in cahoots with their doctors. The 'upside' is that women are able to get necessary medical intervention.Obviously, it's difficult to gauge the statistics of women who're getting late-term abortions for 'proper' reasons (due to confidentiality), but let's please realise that very few women are going to decide after 6 months that, yeah, they want to kill the fetus afterall.

It doesn't matter the number of women who want an abortion at any point in time during their pregnancy; it only matters that there's at least one woman who wants that abortion at that specific point in time. Let me ask you a question: Let's assume you're a government official of some sort and a pregnant woman walks into your office. She says to you, "I'm eight months pregnant but I don't want to be pregnant anymore. I've already talked to my doctor and he's willing to perform an abortion on me. Would you allow me to have one?" What do you say to her?

This is one reason why I don't like forcing delays onto women who want to get an abortion; especially governmental delays. Because as the time passes, the chances of an abortion being an 'undesirable one' (according to my ethics), increases.

Wait... But why should 'your ethics' matter in a woman's "private medical decisions"? Do you see where I'm going with this? I would hope so.

I'm pro-choice because I expect that the majority of the time, it's going to be medically necessary. How many times do I have to say "I think it should be between the woman & the doctor"?

Well, I don't know much about Canada, but if it's anything like the U.S., then the overwhelming majority of abortions aren't medically necessary. They're purely elective procedures, which is why most people find the issue to be rather distasteful.

Of course, you could be solely talking about late-term abortions here, but then you'd be ignoring what I was trying to get at with my question, which was to deal with issues of a woman merely wanting an abortion because it conveniences her do to so, rather than her needing an abortion for some medical reason.

If I recall McCain's scare quotes properly; it's that the pro-life movement is the one that does not want an exemption of 'health of the mother' to a restriction of a late-term abortion. While the pro-choice movement might not be completely 100% 'pro-choice' (under all analyses), it's still much more pro-choice.

McCain said that the "health exemption" could be used as a blanket for abortion on demand. Whether you like him or not, he does bring up a good point. If abortion was ever made illegal again, there would have to be strict regulations in place to prevent women from abusing it and using it as a guise under which to have an elective abortion.

 

[Bill3000]

But, Bill, when you try to differentiate between the two as you've done, you run into a problem. Saying that the decision should be left up to the woman and her doctor only when there's a medical necessity refutes the entire PC position, which says that a woman should more-or-less have the freedom to abort at her will as it's a decision between her and her doctor.

There isn't one "pro-choice" position - it's a diverse movement, much like the pro-life position is diverse, too. There are people who genuinely believe that abortions should be elective until birth, but as said before, those people aren't the ones who supported banning intact dilation and extraction.

The reason why he wants to restrict it is because he believes that before 24 weeks, the fetus has no mind and no personhood. After that, he is uncertain and as a result believes that the state interest to regulate abortion, and specifically to limit abortions to medical necessity/health/etc, begins to outweigh the mother's rights to bodily autonomy/privacy.

The fact that one wants there to be a period of elective abortion at all (<24 weeks) is enough to merit the label "pro-choice".

...and you probably shouldn't be arguing strawman positions of a political talk point anyway.