The moral problem of a "rape exception"

[Recursion]

So, other than being very much pro-choice I tend not to talk much about reproductive rights, I suppose vaguely on (pre-crazy) Dennis Miller's theory of "one dick, no vote" on the issue. That may be a good idea or not.

But I have to say I think the serial gaffes committed by Republicans about not wanting to allow abortion in cases of rape is a much more logical and even a less misogynistic position than wanting to ban abortions "except in cases of rape or incest*."

If you take (which I don't) the pro-life position that opposition to abortion is based on respect for the life of the fetus, then having a rape exception makes no sense: we don't kill the children of murderers, so why kill the children of rapists? But, in fact, the widespread sentiment that a rape victim should not have to carry the child to term is pretty clearly evidence that the "pro-life" position is not at all about the life of the fetus, but about the perceived sexual morality of the woman. If pro-life people really were simply interested in saving the fetus, then Akin and Mourdock and Ryan are right that from that perspective how that fetus was conceived is absolutely irrelevant. That's not to mention the overwhelming problem of enforcement: does a man have to be convicted of rape before the woman can get an abortion (and that would almost always take longer than nine months), or would it be based on her report? Would she be required to press charges? Would the police have to get involved? In addition to the moral horror of forcing a woman to carry her attacker's child, it's simply an impossible law to enforce meaningfully.

My point is that people who are "pro life" but would allow abortions in cases of rape are not actually engaged in baby-saving, but in slut-shaming, and in a weird way Mourdock's and Akin's views are kind of more understandable.

* I'm also troubled by the phrase "rape or incest"; what we're clearly talking about is incestuous rape, so it's covered under the "rape" rubrick. Nobody's actually concerned about the reproductive choices of the vanishingly small number of consensual incestuous couples

[Kber]

1. Beautifully and perfectly put!

Not about baby saving but slut shaming!

Exactly!!

[LadyHawkAZ]

2. Confront an anti-abortion person with that

and you get:

"It's not about the sex! I love sex! But she should have just kept her legs closed if she didn't want a baby."

"It's still a baby after a rape, but I just can't justify inflicting more emotional damage on a rape victim. NORMAL pregnancy doesn't inflict any kind of damage on NORMAL women- NORMAL women all want babies! These women will all love their babies once they're born, you'll see! That's what NORMAL women DO!" (this argument extends to physical damage too- higher risk of death and nearly 50% risk of serious damage from term pregnancy? NORMAL women WELCOME the idea of risking their life and health! That's what NORMAL women DO!)

"How would we enforce it? Ummmm... I'm late for an appointment, gotta run!"

[Recursion]

4. The enforcement issue is kind of a throwaway for me, but that's the only one that's worked

At least in my small anecdotal sample of talking to people.

[seabeyond]

3. absolutely. before it became hip to say rape victim cant abort, that used to be my HUGE argument

with anti abortionists.

you say abortion is murder. you say ok with rape and incest and mother life. that is murder, still. you ok murder sometimes, but not others. ergo, you are using it for punishment on the "promiscuous" girl.

it would drive the anti abortion people mad.... they could not justify it cause i always took them to the point of being murders.

[sad sally]

5. Here's another ignorant Republican. Keep wondering under what rock did they crawl out from?

What must female supporters of John Koster, the Republican candidate in the First Congressional District, make of his remarks about "the rape thing" and his view - unsubstantiated - that incest is rare?

The Times Editorial Board endorsed Koster. His willingness to examine tax laws and loopholes and push for tougher financial regulations may spur other Republicans in Congress.

But before Koster can get to D.C., he must go deep in his brain and figure out the source of the absurd, mysognistic things coming out of his mouth. For example:
"... Incest is so rare, I mean it's so rare," Koster says in statements that were recorded. "But the rape thing, you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept her child, gave it up for adoption and doesn't regret it. In fact she's a big pro-life proponent. But, on the rape thing, it's like, how does putting more violence onto a woman's body and taking the life of an innocent child that's a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?"

http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019582924_republican_candidate_john_kost.html

[caraher]

6. That's right

The rape/incest exception thing has always been, for me, the "tell" that the real driver is a desire (perhaps not conscious) to regulate women's sex lives (if it's "not your fault" you can have an abortion, but not otherwise).

The "no exceptions" position is certainly more logically coherent with using a belief that human life begins at conception as a rationale to ban or restrict abortion.

Where Mourdock in particular went wrong was the "God's will" angle. You can say "killing the baby" doesn't right the wrong of rape and sound like a reasonable person. But when you start invoking God's mysterious ways... frankly, I'd imagine those who should be most offended should be the religious, for his implying that the products of rape are all just part of God's plan.