People who are opposed to abortion view the fetus as a human being. They believe that human life is sacred, and that destroying it, even in its earliest forms, is a mortal sin. Many “pro-lifers” believe that a human being is created at the instant of conception, so even removing that fertilized egg from the womb…whether it has attached itself to the wall of the uterus or not…is murder.
However, polls have shown that the vast majority of such people are willing to grant an exception when the fetus is the result of a crime…rape or incest. In these cases, they are willing to allow the fetus to be aborted.
Think about that for a moment. An unwanted fetus in the womb of a poverty-stricken woman…married or not…must be carried to term, even though she does not have the resources to pay for the obstetric care or to support the resultant child, but an unwanted fetus in the womb of a victim of rape can be aborted. How do the two fetuses differ? Does one carry the guilt of the rapist, making it expendable, while the other is sacred in its innocence and must be preserved?
Most defenders of this idea would probably reply that the decision to allow the abortion in the case of rape is “the lesser of two evils.” The rape victim should not be forced to carry the unwanted fetus, or care for an unwanted child. The unfortunate child would be placed in a terrible situation, unwanted and unloved. Abortion is preferable to this nightmare.
I agree completely with this argument, but I ask you to look closely at what has happened here. The abortion opponents initially said that human life is sacred, and should never be destroyed. But in the case of rape, that “sacredness” must be weighed against the consequences of allowing the fetus to continue to develop, and be born.
Sacred human life vs. consequences. Who decides what consequences justify abortion? That is a value judgment that anti-abortionists don’t want to make…but they have opened Pandora’s Box when they allow abortion in the case of rape and incest.
Nobody will argue, I am sure, that there is any difference in the two fetuses described above. So, the distinction drawn has nothing to do with the sacredness of human life. It has to do with…what? Well, if it ain’t the fetus, then it must be the person carrying the fetus in her womb. So the distinction is a moral judgment about the woman.
The victim of rape or incest was an unwilling participant in the sex act that produced the fertilized egg, but the ghetto mom might have actually enjoyed the encounter! Is that the difference? If people have sex for fun and a fetus results, why does this change the morality of abortion?
To try to answer that question, let us look at a few examples:
Example 1: Unmarried ghetto mom isn’t as careful as she should be. She already has three kids, and can’t support a fourth…financially or emotionally. The results of an unwanted pregnancy and another child will be great stress on her, and an additional burden that may reduce her caregiving to her other children. The new child will be born into a toxic environment, unwelcome, possibly unloved and most likely with insufficient care.
Example 2: Young married couple, both professionals, busily establishing themselves in their careers. They have decided to postpone having a family until later in their lives so that they can pursue their careers, travel and enjoy “the good life” for a few years. They are careful about contraception, but…something goes wrong. The result of this unwanted pregnancy, will be arrested careers and lifestyles, and possibly higher stress levels for both parents, as they are forced to adjust their lives to accommodate the new arrival. The new child will be born into a potentially toxic environment, unwelcome and possibly unloved.
Example 3: Teenage couple, both in high school, let their passions get out of control. Both are good students, headed for college and professional careers. The result of this unwanted pregnancy could be canceled or postponed college plans, downgraded career opportunities, and higher stress levels as they are forced to adjust their lives to accommodate the new arrival. The new child will be born into a potentially toxic environment, unwelcome and possibly unloved by its immature parents, who are unprepared for their roles.
Example 4: The rape case. The result of this unwanted pregnancy will be even greater stress on an already traumatized person. The additional economic and emotional burden could be disastrous to her life. The new child will be born into a toxic environment, unwelcome, possibly unloved and most likely with insufficient care.
Notice the similarity in all four cases. How can anyone make a judgment about any of these, and decide that this case should be allowed to abort but that one should not? Clearly, there is no difference in the fetus. They are all the same. Why must this one live while that one is allowed to die?
Furthermore, who should make such judgments? Should society pass a law that arbitrarily discriminates amongst these fetuses, allowing destruction of some, but not others? Who among us want to play God?
There are some anti-abortionists who do not believe that victims of rape or incest should be allowed to abort. While I disagree with them, I must admit that at least their position is logically consistent. To those who oppose abortion, but would allow it for victims of crimes, I ask: Have you really thought about this? Your position makes no sense morally or logically. If you really believe that the fertilized egg is a person, then you are condoning the murder of an innocent person to nullify the consequences of another crime, rape.
It seems clear to me that society has absolutely no business trying to intervene in these decisions. The only people who are qualified to make the decisions are the people directly involved. The rest of us should keep our nose out of their private business.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58
But, I am still opposed to infanticide............
So am I, Berf.
Are you distinguishing between abortion...termination of a pregnancy...and infanticide...killing of a baby? It's a baby after it's born. Before that, it is a fetus.
I'm not sure what you mean by your comment, Berf.
Please explain
Okay, Berf.
Should ALL life be prolonged?
The planet has too many people.
What should we do about that?
Should we insist that every single fetus be allowed to mature and be born?
Even if the life they will face is horrible?
When people reach the final weeks, days, hours of their lives...
How much effort should be expended to extend it?
Thousands of dollars? Millions?
Your simple "Life, Bert...life...
...doesn't answer any of these questions, Berf.
Come join the human race, engage yourself in REALITY...
...and tell us what you think we should do about these things.
You're trying to switch subjects, as usual, Bert.....
However, getting back to the topic we (or, at least, I) was talking about, if we are discussing life in the womb being prolonged, specifically, then my response is: Yes, all life in the womb should be prolonged.
The only acception I personally would agree to is if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother......
So, what do you think? Should the mother's life be prolonged?
I admit that I was confused and a little frustrated by your somewhat cryptic comments. But my response was far too argumentative. Again, I apologize.
I tried to show my confusion when I gave you a definition of infanticide, because infanticide has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article unless you were attempting to redefine the term.
Your second comment...well, I just didn't know what you meant by it.
You have made your position clear in your third comment.
Inevitably, it is the womans choice. But a choice that should be chosen carefully. Many women have lost the ability to have children due to the lack of thought. At the age of 18, one might think it is the only option, when in fact it is not.
Unfortunately it is not the exception...it is becoming more the norm. That is really sad. With or without the moral implications...it should be the exception. Children are a precious gift.
~M
con·tra·cep·tion n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, etc.
Young women are using abortion to discontinue the impregnation problem they have encountered.
~M
I am not sure exactly what you mean by this, Michael. Abortion counseling services in this country are mostly funded and operated by anti-abortion organizations, and they dispense a lot of misleading and downright false advice. I was just reading on an anti-abortion web site that claimed that "50% of women who get abortions end up with breast cancer." That is so absurd that I almost fell out of my chair laughing...until I realized that they are telling young, scared women this BS.
Here is a link that documents some of the false and misleading claims spread by anti-abortion organizations.
Married or unmarried couples who have sex, regardless of whether they are using contraceptive methods or not, if conception results, then they should NOT destroy the fetus, but should allow it to develop and be born.
To put it more succinctly as an aphorism:
If you absolutely do not want a baby, then absolutely do not have sex.
Have I understood you correctly, Michael?
LOL, there's a lot to be said for homosexuality and masturbation. If you absolutely do not want a baby, then absolutely do not have sex with men.
But I wasn't advocating that, Alex. I was trying to show Michael what his comments really meant, if I understood him correctly.
I think such a notion is unrealistic, to say the least. The Catholic Church's experience with celibacy shows what attempting to defy natural human urges can lead to. If our whole society were to follow such a dictum, all the young boys would have to wear chastity belts backwards.
What you describe is a sort-of "pragmatic morality," and it is certainly preferable to arbitrary moral codes established by rulers or church dogma.
But the Declaration of Independence defined certain "unalienable rights."
Don't they include the right of a woman to control what happens in her own body? Should society be able to vote on such things and strip her of those rights?
As far as the rest of the examples, there is no excuse. I think abortion is barbaric, but I think that barbarians should have the choice to abort their own offspring.
I don't think men should be allowed to make laws about it.
I don't even think men should be discussing it.
The supreme court decision was about privacy. It is alwaya a very personal and very private and from what I have been told always a very difficult decision.
There is nothing offensive to women in your article. I was responding in fact to Berf and Michael A's comments.
I've often wondered about that "inconsistency", but then, to be fair, many pro-choicers, myself included, are also somewhat inconsistent in their views. For example, the legality of abortion in the first trimester, but not afterwards (except under certain conditions that don't apply earlier). And then there's the distinction between a "fetus" in the womb the moment before birth, and the "baby" that has been born a moment later.
Peter Singer, an Australian ethicist, has pointed out that many of the same arguments that can be used to justify the legality of abortion (and also the killing and eating nonhuman animals) can also be used to justify the legality of infanticide (at least up to the end of the first month after birth).
I accept that he makes a pretty good argument, and yet I'm cool with living in a society that draws a legal line between early and late-term abortions and another line between abortion and infanticide, even if those lines are somewhat arbitrary.
Since that is totally illogical, I suggest that they do not really believe that the fetus is a person, and that it is a coverup for their real agenda...which is to force their moral/religious views upon the woman.
No argument from me, Bert. Other than that I agree with Anita in that they want to force their moral/religious views on everybody, not just women. That's the way fundamentalism works, and that's why it's a problem for those of us who don't share those fundamentalist views.
Not just women ... I am think the father's life can often be ruined too. What is unfair is how others want to impose their own values and beliefs on others.
If one does not befieve in abortion than that is not an alternative they need to consider.
I am thinking of a young woman at Chico State University that became pregnant. Told no one. Delivered the baby herself than suffocated it, My guess is she did not know how to keep it from crying. I cannot imagine EVER feeling that isolated or ashamed that I could not turn to another for advise. ...... I know not abortion.
For another discussion consider starting a discussion: "Abortion is okay up until when?" Is it ancient Roman Law that allowed the Father to kill his offspring if they did not meet his standards?
Why don't YOU write an article about "Abortion is okay up until when?"
Or about the ancient Roman laws.
I am not sure how well I will travel this distance but am starting to get excited about being with my older daughter and her husband.
I couldn't agree with you more Bert. I don't think this is something we as people should be making decisions about for other people. Wait, wait could this be bordering on the other evil socialism???? We are trying to intervene on someone's else's life and tell them what them what they have to do??? I may be stretching here but I still think there is correlation.
Seems inadequate to use a respectable word like "conservative" on the gun slinging rabble.
Your comments above got me thinking...I wonder what a true, old fashioned conservative thought about abortion and gay rights. Barry Golldwater's name popped into my head. A quick trip to Wikipedia found this:
"Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s. He also had a substantial impact on the libertarian movement.
By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life."
Does that include Mr. Singer's arguments regarding infanticide within the first month after birth?
But to answer your question, no.
I think that working out just where society should and should not stick its nose is difficult in many instances. At some point, we draw lines, and where we choose to draw them is often arbitrary. And not everybody agrees that they've been drawn in the right place, or even that they should be drawn at all.
Geo H. W. Bush & Barbara used to make donations to Planned parenthood. They had to renounce the organization during the campaign.
I guess if we want a Democrat in office, elect a Bush first!
There is also the issue of separation. I think the religious groups from which these ill-guided ideas come have been regularly crossing the line, flaunting their tax-exempt status and pronouncing from the pulpits of this world which positions members should support, in well-orchestrated, well-funded politically motivated calling and emailing campaigns. They should either keep to matters of the spirit or be deprived of their tax-exemptions.
Should Churches Be Tax-exempt?
A Zen Exercise...Taxes and Tax Exemptions
I also take great exception to oft-repeated argument that anti-abortionists use that abortions are detrimental to the mental health of the women who have them. As a woman who has had an abortion herself, and one who knows many women who have had abortions, I can attest to the fact that, at least with the women I know, they are not 'damaged' by their abortions. In fact, it was a well-thought out decision that all I know are not sorry they made. Speaking for myself and the others I know, abortion was not used as a substitute for contraception. It was a result of contraceptive failure. And the reasons for obtaining the abortions were substantial and, as you beautifully stated in your article, were for the benefit of the potential child as well as for the benefit of the woman/girl.
How can someone say that 'life is sacred' when they do not take into account how terrible someone's life would be if actually brought into this world? Does the theoretical 'sacredness' of life negate neglect, abuse, even starvation? If given the choice to come into the world and not be loved, to be abused physically and mentally, to not have a chance to live up to one's potential in any way, and not being born at all, I think most people would choose not to be born. As you point out, it is not simply the child but everyone connected with that child who is impacted.
Some would say that even the lousiest of existences is better than not. I think not, but I believe that is a private decision to be made only by those impacted by the pregnancy.
There is another logical inconsistency in some of the above comments. Cary Cook, for example, says that abortion may have been immoral when the world was far less populated than it is today. The morality of it doesn't change as the population increases.
I certainly agree with your assertion that those who would accept abortion in the case of rape are more interested in the sexuality of the mother than the well being of the baby.
Another moral inconsistency (probably too big to handle here) is with those who support the death penalty, yet oppose abortion as a "culture of death".
I had a problem answering Cary's challenge...would I prefer to let the Supreme Court make our morality choices instead of by popular vote?
The Court should be a better choice, but it has become so politicized in recent years that I don't trust it to defend the Constitution any more.
How would you answer him?
The same people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion are also the most eager to wave the flag and send our young men out to die in senseless wars.
Thanks for your comments. Please tell me where you stand on abortion for victims of rape and incest. I am curious.