Amy asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Pro-lifers who believe abortion to be okay when the pregnancy is the result of rape... a question?

The question is simple: why?

If you are pro-life, you are supposed to be in favor of preserving life at all costs.

Is a fetus conceived of rape any less "alive" than a fetus conceived of consensual sex?

If the pregnant woman's state of mind is at issue... why are we not allowing women with diagnosed psychological problems ranging from mild depression to schizophrenia to have abortions?

I truly want to know what the distinction is, and why murder is okay as long as the fetus was conceived of sex that was not consented to.


Chi Guy: That's a moldy old argument that doesn't have any merit. A woman's choice doesn't stop simply because she became pregnant. She chose to have intercourse. She can also choose whether or not to give birth. My uterus, my decision. I don't ask to have decision-making authority over your body.

Update 2:

Duminos: So it's your claim that no woman has ever been raped? Interesting. Could you support that with fact, please?

Update 3:

Pfo: But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Why is it okay to murder a child just because one of its parents didn't want it? Isn't that the central core of the anti-abortion argument?

Update 4:

Bob K: Thank you. I respect your point of view, because it's consistent. I disagree with it... but I respect it.

Update 5:

Chi Guy: While I totally respect your point of view and normally think your responses are well-reasoned, that example is a terrible one. In this case, you have already chosen to donate your kidney. No woman who is trying to get pregnant then turns around and has an abortion. Abortions happen when people DIDN'T choose to get pregnant. No one aborts a pregnancy they want unless it's a health risk. So the example is bad.

17 Answers

  • Best Answer

    You make a very good point. Here are my thoughts, which usually manage to alienate just about everyone:

    I say, if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, take the fetus out. If it is viable and can live on its own, then all measures should be taken to save it. If not, then unfortunately nothing can be done.

    Each side in this debate talks past each other. One side focuses on the mother; the other the child. My solution gives every woman the right to terminate a pregnancy at any point, but does not give her the right to terminate a viable human being.

    I am deeply troubled by abortion. But not everything that's immoral is illegal. I don't believe our society is willing to enforce a "preventive detention" on pregnant women who say they will, for example, leave the country and get an abortion abroad if abortion is illegal here. And wouldn't that be what we would have to do, in order to be morally consistent? After all, if it's murder, we should treat it like any other credible threat to kill someone, and prevent the killing from taking place. (I believe this covers the large majority of abortion situations - pre-viability).

    Then again, I am disgusted beyond words with the argument that abortion somehow spares the fetus a horrible life (because it is unwanted), or that only those willing to take care of the unwanted children resulting from a ban on abortions have a right to complain about the practice. Simply put, we don't "terminate" unwanted people in this society - if we did, the jails, homeless shelters, retirement homes, mental institutions, etc. would be empty. People don't say "let me kill my Grandpa unless YOU will agree to pay his way, because I don't want him." I can't see the difference in such an argument and the same type of logic being used to justify abortion.

    So again, whether or not rape was involved, my rule would be the same: take it out, and if it lives it's a person, if not, not. Yes, this sounds brutally cold, and satisfies no one in the end. But it focuses on the two separate and intertwined issues involved - that of the mother for bodily autonomy, and of the child for life. The women is not held prisoner to her body, but does not get to choose to kill a viable child. Rape is awful, but if the child is already viable how can we destroy it? If the child were already born, no one would argue for the mother's right to do so. And any rule making rape the relevant criterion would be unworkable. Would we need a rape trial before the abortion could occur?

    King Solomon I'm not. but this is the best I can do. At least I attempt some consistency. And I believe that a change in attitude is what's needed as well, which is difficult if not impossible to legislate. Sex creates babies. That's the rule; we have to be mindful of that.

    Interesting question!

  • 1 decade ago

    I guess I don't fit into that category. I see the life as innocent regardless of what took place during creation. However, it seems to be the politically correct thing to say "except in cases of rape or incest". I assume that is because pro-lifers realize that legislation would never pass if that phrase was omitted.

    All that being said, I agree with Chi guy that I can understand the woman's distaste for carrying and giving birth to a child that was the result of such actions. I'm sure the mental torment is the reason for allowing the abortion.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I am pro life and,although I understand what you are saying and agree that perhaps a "logical" argument can not be made,I have to admit that there are some instances where simple human empathy and charity come in. Each case of rape should be examined separately. There are cases of children under 10 who have been raped by older family members. Not only are their lives endangered by a full term pregnancy and birth(and, if they survive, they might suffer irreparable damage) but these little girls would probably be affected psychologically by having to go through such a physically traumatic experience. The destruction of the fetus would be "self defense".

    While it is evident that in such a case as the above,the rape victim is extremely vulnerable to lasting physical and psychological harm,other rape victims who are normal,sexually active adults might be better equipped to confront bringing a new life into the world and to distance themselves from the manner in which conception was achieved. But I still think that THAT decision should be left up to them and I would have a hard time arguing against any decision of a rape victim.

  • 4 years ago

    All i'll say is those so called pro Choice people who abort and make all kinds of reasoning why they except Abortions can explain there reasons to GOD at there death.Of course there are those who in this life will deny there's a GOD or blame him for all the bad actions of some people but no matter at death we will all know the truth.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Life is still life. You answer the question. I see a few issues

    There is a huge movement that wants abortion legal in all cases at all costs. They will do what is done in KS, where underaged girls are being given abortions, which is a direct violation of the law.

    A fetus is alive at any time for any reason of conception. Watch a female going through a miscarriage and you will know when life begins. When you see what looks like a human on an ultrasound and hear a heart beat and then that is gone, you know.

    Your question brings up the hard points in abortion and there are no right answers.

  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    This would seem to go against the flow of pro-life, but I support abortions in these cases. Simple reason is it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child when she did not voluntarily play any role in its creation, and in fact was forced to. We all know raising children is a burden, one that should preferably be accepted when the person is ready, and when someone is raped it would literally ruin their life if they had to keep the child by law. I sympathize with the woman for being raped and having the burden of being pregnant on top of it all. It's nothing but punishment for her, and I imagine most raped women who become pregnant do get abortions and are extremely traumatized by the ordeal.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't expect you to agree with this, but from my perspective, the Christian fight against abortion, the way we talk about it, the way we think about it, has been more about politics than about faith.

    Abortion became an issue in the 1980 presidential election. Before that, the religious anti-abortion movement was made up almost entirely of Roman Catholics, but in this election it was Protestants who made it an issue. The 'official' Protestant Christian view of abortion used to be that abortion was only allowed in three cases--rape, incest, or danger to the HEALTH of the mother.

    After a few years it became clear that the GOP was not really interested in banning abortion, only in using it as an election issue. We have had SEVEN Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents since Reagan, every one of which we were promised would be the swing vote that overturned Roe v. Wade. This includes six of the current Supreme Court since Sandra Day O'Connor has retired.

    Ronald Reagan promised to propose a constitutional amendment, no less, declaring the pre-born as human beings to totally ban abortion, which of course he didn't even try. Both the Bushes have promised to ban abortion but haven't made the first move. The best Republicans could do was to ban 'partial birth abortion', a procedure that is so rare that the radio network I listen to couldn't even find a doctor to interview who had performed one. And that ban was so vaguely written (perhaps deliberately) that it was overturned by the court.

    In order to keep the issue alive to get the votes of Christians, Republicans have changed the way they talk about it over the years. One big hole in their argument was that they allowed abortions in -some- cases (rape, incest, and danger to the health of the mother). And the argument was that if it was allowed in -some- cases, then the decision should be made by the woman, her family, and her doctor, not by the state. So the politicians changed their position on this, disallowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, only if there was danger to the LIFE of the mother.

    The fact is, most people do not consider early abortions to be 'murder'. Even 75% of REPUBLICAN women do not consider 1st-trimester abortion to be murder.

  • 1 decade ago

    This subject is an emotional one, a woman is rapped which is tragic by itself but to top things off from that rape comes a baby. The baby is perfectly innocent and deserves a fair shot at life but to do this would likely cause more harm to the already injured mother, so whats the answer?

    There is no one perfect answer, that is why this issue will forever be debated. These are human lives we are debating here...... including that unborn child.

  • 1 decade ago

    Extenuating circumstances:

    In law, extenuating circumstances are criminal cases in which, though an offence has been committed without legal justification or excuse, its gravity, from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium, is mitigated or reduced by reason of unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the commission of the offence.

    According to English procedure, the jury has no power to determine the punishment to be awarded for an offence. The sentence, with certain exceptions in capital cases, is within the sole discretion of the judge, subject to the statutory prescriptions as to the kind and maximum of punishment. It is common practice for juries to add to their verdict, guilty or not guilty, a rider recommending the accused to mercy on the ground of grave provocation received, or other circumstances which in their view should mitigate the penalty.

    Quite independently of any recommendation by the jury, the judge is entitled to take into account matters proved during the trial, or laid before him after verdict, as a guide to him in determining the quantum of punishment. Under French law (Code d'instruction criminelle, art. 345), it is the sole right and the duty of a jury in a criminal case to pronounce whether or not the commission of the offence was attended by extenuating circumstances (circonstances attenuantes). They are not bound to say anything about the matter, but the whole or the majority may qualify the verdict by finding extenuation, and if they do, the powers of the court to impose the maximum punishment are taken away and the sentence to be pronounced is reduced in accordance with the scale laid down in art. 463 of the Code penal. The most important result of this rule in earlier times was to enable a jury to prevent the infliction of capital punishment for murder (now abolished).

    In cases of what is termed "crime passionel," French juries, when they do not acquit, almost invariably find extenuation; and a like verdict has become common even in the case of cold-blooded and sordid murders.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    wow..a moral dilemma

    as a prochoice conservative that applauds the introduction of an actual non-political...non religious tangent to the debate

    which is the root issue with abortion issues..they shouldn't be promoted as a deal-breaker for either side..

    like that's a shame the scope of Gov't has

    to even be a factor in any healthcare question..short of regulating quacks that do harm..on purpose

    when Drs are far more qualified than politicos who make policy based on the amount of campaign funds they can garner

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.