Why do some pro-life people seem to think that babies created by rape or incest have less value than a baby created accidentally by two consenting adults?

I find that when discussing anything, the exceptions are things that really shed light on the rule. When we think about hunting, many of us will say that trophy hunting is wrong but killing for food is acceptable. If we spend some time in those distinctions and really work out why the exceptions break the rule, we’re likely to figure out exactly what it is we believe.

In an attempt to argue for these FB friends of yours, let me assert that abortion is murder. However, there are some scenarios in which murder is better than the alternative. So, in this case, it’s better to not force women to carry out a pregnancy that is the result of rape. But I still can be against abortion in non-rape cases because I see non-rape pregnancies as a choice. And therefore, the people engaged in sexual activity that leads to this pregnancy (“life”) must deal with the consequences – or at least carry to term and give up for adoption.

While I’m presenting the anti-choice position here, I’d like to note that:

- I’m actually extremely pro-choice.
– I’m also not a fan of abortion. But safe access to legal abortion is a necessity.
– There are people in the US that refuse to even concede that there should be an exception for rape. I think it would be wise for us to reach out to those who do see room for exception. These people may be just one step removed from fully supporting reproductive freedom.
– For those non-US people here on fluther, yes – we still have to worry about this “issue” here in the US. While legal, there are constant legal challenges to it in the most creative ways.

GA,

While many pro-choice people believe that a woman’s choice should be absolute, I think some people who are pro-life view a woman’s choice as something she should have made prior to having sex. Rape or incest precludes that choice.

And then there are pro-choice people who think a fetus’ right to life should be absolute. Regardless of a woman’s choice.

(I think @DoNotKnow has it right. This is a good opportunity for discussion with people who are open to this grey area.)

First off, many pro-lifers have a lot of inconsistencies. They want the baby to be born, but they don’t care if it gets sick, starves, or winds up uneducated, shipped off to Afghanistan at 18 and shot. Once it leaves the womb, they stop caring about the value of human life. The only lives they care about are unborn babies and the mothers acting as the fetus’ life support system.

Now that we’ve explained that we’re dealing with people who think in an arbitrary manner than a crowd with consistent ideology, lets get into another false dichotomy. A baby conceived by rape or incest was not the product of the love between a man and his wife, but of violence. Violence is inferior to love, so that means that the results of violence are less legitimate as well.

Therefore, for arbitrary reasons, children conceived by rape or incest have less value than those conceived by a broken condom.

Pro-choice all the way here. I think pro lifers make exception for rape or incest because to look at your child who is a result of an awful occurrence might not make for a happy parent.

Also, for obvious reasons, a child that is the result of incest might have genetic issues.

I also agree with @jerv, that it seems pro-lifers only care about the “life” while it’s in the womb. After that, food, medical care, education, etc. is something that they want nothing to do with, especially when it’s the paid for by social services and social programs (in other words, tax dollars).

That is some twisted logic there, @jca. So the parent might not be happy, so it’s OK to “murder” the baby?!

@Dutchess_III: Let’s be clear that is not my logic. That’s what I am guessing is the logic of those who are against abortion but for it when there’s rape or incest.

The value of a product of rape or incest baby isn’t lower. Who knows that child could cure a disease or produce amazing things. It’s the baby was conceived by force or worse. I don’t think forcing a woman to carry the child for nine months, give birth, and face what to do with the child is right.

Oh, I know it wasn’t your logic @jca.

I don’t either, @Adirondackwannabe. But why is it OK to kill that baby, and not others?

It’s never okay to kill a baby. But the baby is conceived under duress. Is it right to force a woman to live with the results for 9 months or even a lifetime? It’s a crappy choice either way.

It is a crappy choice but in order to come to the decision that it’s OK to kill one baby but not the other takes quite a mental feat of gymnastics. Apparently the pro lifers don’t see it that way.

@Dutchess_III It seems like you are more okay with the logic of pro-lifers who make no exceptions?

@Dutchess_III I get your point. It is a little ironic what the pro lifers point of view is.

I’m pro choice. But I think that from a pro life perspective “no exceptions” is only logical. A baby is a baby, murder is murder. ”ALL life is precious,” is it not?

^ Those same people are probably also okay with killing out of self-defense, right? I think that same logic may apply. In a way, the mother is defending her body from a past crime having an even larger impact on her life.

Good for you, though, if it made any of them think!

@Dutchess_III: “It is a crappy choice but in order to come to the decision that it’s OK to kill one baby but not the other takes quite a mental feat of gymnastics.”

I don’t see it this way at all. We all make some evaluation and draw moral lines. Sometimes we have reasoning that simply weighs the cost of a policy and determines that we need to draw a line. Other times, we are just completely arbitrary. We don’t care about the suffering of chickens, but we do with dogs.

And as pro-choice as I am, I also need to create some line. Whether that line is viability, birth, or some arbitrary month, there is some point in the discussion where things get a bit uncomfortable.

I don’t find anything illogical about being pro-life and being ok with it in cases of rape. But even if there were some logical issues here, this is a case where we’d want to embrace the small agreement we have with these people while we work to narrow the gap elsewhere. I don’t want them to abandon their exception to rape for the sake of logical consistency. I want them to continue to inject reality into their moral calculus.

Then one of them smugly said, “However, I would allow an exception due to rape or incest.”
Because they have been bamboozled into an appeasing spirit to think the sins of the father, the rape or of both parents in incest is greater than other sins, lace in the fact of feminism thinking it is all about the woman having to suffer carrying the child for nine months and let’s spare her of it, because we can, that is why. But Milk Christians or Believers can easily be fooled by this because of their lack of spiritual knowledge, all you can do is pray the eyes of their enlightenment be opened.

My logic is saying that they were saying that because they had some compassion for the woman’s feelings. Perhaps the poster felt that just because she becomes pregnant, (by those distorted and perhaps violent means) doesn’t mean she should lose dominion over herself. I think it would be an exception based on compassion for the victim.

I, too, draw lines, @DoNotKnow. I also agree with @cazzie about compassion. However, the biggest argument pro-life people have is about the baby’s life, not the mother’s. Not the mother’s.

I don’t understand it either. I really think it’s possibly because they feel like if you did the deed you live with the consequences. Kind of like a punishment. My dad, who I would never classify as pro-life, I know he had that stance at least in years past, I don’t know about now. Punishment might be too harsh of a word, bit still it related to consequences and responsibility.

There are some pro-life people who don’t make an exception for rape and incest.

I agree with @DoNotKnow. If abortion was so black and white than it would be an easy choice to make. I find myself in the middle of pro life and pro choice. I don’t believe in abortion at all. But I’m not a woman carrying a baby that was forced upon me by rape or incest or who has been diagnosed with having a child that will live a painful existence or that carrying the child will kill me and the baby. I don’t have to face those choices so I do not know what I would do if it were me. So I will not add to their pain by condemning them for a difficult choice. But I will not applaud a women who consented to sex, knowing that it will result in a life and then tossing it away. I cannot be one hundred percent pro choice because they even want to do away with medical aid and birth control and other methods that can actually aid in preventing pregnancies in the first place. So I find myself in the middle.

@Pandora So, for you, it does have to do with a woman living with the consequences of her actions basically.

I don’t quite understand why men can’t identify with a woman who became pregnant when they were not planning a child. I’m not talking about rape or the physical burden of carrying the child, I just mean having to care for the baby every day until it’s an adult, or ending the pregnancy before the baby ever comes to be. Sure birth control is better, I agree completely, but in the event a pregnancy happens, the man has a child too. I guess most men in an unwed situation don’t have to think about it that way, because the baby isn’t with them daily. The reason I think the law should protect women’s right to choose (I believe in limiting this, I agree with the Supreme Court that viability draws a line) is because women should have control over their bodies, but I think the decision to abort or not often has less to do with going through pregnancy and more to do with whether the woman wants to have a child or not.

@JLeslie I’m not saying a guy shouldn’t be held responsible. That is why there is child support. But the fact remains that the men don’t physically carry the child or need to make the decision. I was fully aware from the age of 13 that intercourse can always lead to pregnancy. That is why I didn’t have sex till I met my husband. I knew even if he ever left me I would not abort a child.

Goodness knows there were plenty of guys before him that I wanted to complete the deed with. But I’m a realist. I know who carries the burden. Wishing men could be the ones to suffer the consequences is like driving to a dessert with a gallon of gas and wishing the car had more gas, or that you bought water with you, or some sunblock. When the truth was, you should’ve probably just never ventured out into the dessert if you didn’t know what your were doing or have enough sense to be prepared.

In life there are consequences. Wishing or pointing fingers doesn’t fix anything. Whatever decision you make in life, you have to always be sure you understand the consequences before making them.

Only problem is that in abortion, another human life pays for that consequence as well. I’ve actually only come to this conclusion most recently because I can’t help but feel this is a symptom that is plaguing our society. Our youth are growing up without any sense of morality or respect for human life. No, abortion isn’t the main cause. I think there are a ton of things contributing to this. But I feel the message we are sending as we extend abortion beyond the 3 months is that life isn’t precious. Abused children are sent back to their abusers, women are allowed to be beaten with little consequences, murderers and rapist sometimes have shorter prison sentences than a guy with a few ounces of weed, cops are allowed to murder with no consequences, he with the most money gets the best medical care. We have gone down the proverbial slippery slope and there is quick sand at the bottom.

@Pandora I didn’t think you were trying to say men shouldn’t be held responsible, that was possibly my bad wording that might have implied that. I think the stat is less than 2% of abortions are after 20 weeks. I’m not sure if that’s correct. A portion if those are fetus that would not survive. Another portion are medically necessary for the mother, and then some are elective.

The pro-life movement has focused on late term abortion, because it more easily disgusts people, but three people I personally know who had late term abortions wanted their babies. One, a pro-life woman who tried for month to get pregnant, who found out her fetus basically had no brain. One, a dear friend of mine who became pregnant after she has her first baby with IVF, then a miracle pregnancy that resulted in a fetus that would not survive. She wanted the fetus removed like the pro-life woman I mentioned, so she could get pregnant, and because she couldn’t bear the thought of going through a pregnancy knowing it was fated in a horrible end. Another was a roommate of mine’s sister who wanted to be pregnant and chose to abort when she found the baby had a serious genetic problem. I think it’s Down’s, but it might have been something else. Getting rid off late term abortions scares me. Literally scares me. Fewer and fewer doctors perform them. The pro-life girl had to travel over two hours to get hers. I am in favor of limiting them to medical reasons.

@Dutchess_III You need to quit using the term pro-life.

The vast majority are not pro-life by any means. They are anti-abortion. Once the child is born they no longer want anything to do with it.

As Sister Joan Chittister said: “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

As this article in the Daily Kos points out:

“You don’t hear of these Right Wing anti-choice extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies or putting funds into sex education. But you do see Republican lawmakers cut access to birth control which prevents abortions. You do see the GOP’s 54 attempts to repeal the ACA/Affordable Care Act and their $24 Billion Government Shutdown both to destroy universal health reform which protects the needs of millions of American children. And you do see Republican lawmakers cut government programs like school lunches for children and block government financial aid to families who are homeless and/or in need. No, the goals of these so-called anti-choice/‘pro-life’ hypocrites are not about fetuses or children once born, their agenda is about controlling women’s bodies and women’s futures.”

We need to quit calling it Pro-Choice and call it Pro pre-life murder selfish me

@Hypocrisy_Central I’d go for pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Not everyone in the pro-life movement fits that definition really on it’s face. Some think it’s ok to terminate a pregnancy for rape and incest. Some think it’s ok to terminate for medical reasons. Some are fine with the death penalty. It’s not black and white. That’s the thing it’s not black and white. So many pro-lifers have no idea all the shit that can go wrong in pregnancy and what they would want or need to do in the same circumstance. The pro-choice movement keeps abortion safe for the pro-lifers who need one.

I am pro-choice all the way but I especially can’t imagine the emotional pain of what it might be like being in the example given by @JLeslie above, where a woman is carrying a fetus that is not viable and having everyone talk to her about “the baby” when she knows it’s not going to be “a baby.” @Hypocrisy_Central I think a lot of people who are anti-abortion don’t think of things like that.

Good point @rojo. They are the ones wanting to strip as much dignity and money away from the poor as they can. They are the ones demanding silly-ass drug tests for welfare recipients so hopefully they can be denied benefits. They are too narrow minded (stupid?) to realize that the vast majority of people who get welfare only get it because they have children. It is the children who will lose a roof over their heads, and food on the table. They don’t think of that.

@JLeslie I can’t imagine anyone on this green earth would would consider themselves “Pro” abortion. No one wants it. But some women find themselves in tough situations sometimes, even if all precautions were taken, and they’re often left alone to deal with the consequences.

The biggest hypocrisy I can think of was when that anti-abortion moron took George Tiller’s life.

They day they can take the pre-19 week fetus and install it in someone else’s body to be a parasite off of, is the day there will be a better choice, but until then, I stand up for the right for a woman’s domain over her own body. If you want to defend the bacteria and viruses that also want to dominate a person’s body… then you can call yourselves pro-life, but until then, you are defending a species that needs no more help in dominating and depleting it’s societies and planet of resources. We need to limit our numbers NOW more than ever and anyone who stands in the way is ignorant of the bigger picture. We need to avoid pregnancies. If pregnancies occur that are unwanted, we need to come to terms with the fact that they need to end and end quickly and without repercussions because it will be what is best for the planet and for the local society. Being short sighted and strong minded about this is only going to harm all of us.

@Dutchess_III Pro-abortion to me means pro the availability of abortion. I don’t see how someone can get an abortion and not say they are in favor of abortion. It doesn’t mean they are happy about it, it just means (to me) they want the option to exist. I guess it just depends how you define it.

I thought about this Q today while watching the Republican debate. Governor Scott supports no abortion exceptions not even to protect the life of the mother. That makes me sick. Deal breaker. Even if you are pro-life do you want a law deciding for women that they must die for a fetus? Do you even want to associate with someone who believes they get to decide an adult life that prospers, is responsible for other children they have (if they have other children) who is healthy otherwise and can possibly go on to create more life should die for a fetus that might not make it anyway? Pregnancies fail all the time. If a woman wants to give her life for a fetus then fine, I disagree with it, but I accept it. Someone else deciding that for her? How can anyone be ok with that? His ideal world would give women no medical control of their bodies, they would be imprisoned.

The pro-life movement is not about abortion at all @JLeslie. The whole “it is a human from conception” argument is but a cover for the real reason. It is about punishing women for having sex; the premise being that if women cannot get an abortion then fear of pregnancy will keep them from being promiscuous. Deep down inside they do not look upon a child as a gift from their god but as a punishment from him; a consequence for your improper actions that you now have to live with for the next eighteen years or so.

I am not sure what the fear of sex is or where it comes from but restricting or limiting abortion is about control and manipulation of an entire gender. It is about keeping women subservient to men. Scary thing is there is a sizable contingent of women out there who are comfortable with the concept of having males in charge of them and want all women to abide by the same.

It’s amazing how many sanctimonious, pro-life males suddenly become pro-abortion when their mistresses get pregnant.