Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?

[Deus Naturae]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

If abortion truly is murder (as I'm assuming you believe), how can it be "right" to provide an exemption for rape?

[DC Al Fine]

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.

You're missing my point. Pro-lifers don't have to answer for Ceausescu's Romania because it's irrelevant to the abortion issue. If the fetus is a person, then it should be protected under the law just like any other person. If it isn't, then the mother should be able to kill it.

That's a debate that we can have, but social consequences have nothing to do with whether something is a person.

[RI]

Your false premise is that dead children are better than orphaned children. Also, Ceausescu's deposal had little to do with abortion law.

[barfbag]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

If abortion truly is murder (as I'm assuming you believe), how can it be "right" to provide an exemption for rape?

I myself find it wrong in all cases unless we're talking about the life of the mother or a dead fetus. However, I don't think it's right for government to ban abortion in cases of incest and rape.

[Indy Texas]

Your false premise is that dead children are better than orphaned children. Also, Ceausescu's deposal had little to do with abortion law.

The creation of a generation of disaffected and dispossessed people had nothing to do with a dictator's overthrow roughly 20 years later by a bunch of people, a large number of whom were college students roughly 20 years old?

I'm not saying that "dead children are better than orphaned children." That's not the choice. It's a choice between orphaned children existing and orphaned children not existing.

When pro-lifers ask me how I would feel if my mother had had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, I tell them their question misses the point entirely. I wouldn't feel anything because I would never have existed to begin with. Asking me how I would feel if my mother had had an abortion is about as useful as asking me how I would feel if my mother had entered a convent, lived a life of celibacy and never had sex and never become pregnant with me.

[Deus Naturae]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

If abortion truly is murder (as I'm assuming you believe), how can it be "right" to provide an exemption for rape?

I myself find it wrong in all cases unless we're talking about the life of the mother or a dead fetus. However, I don't think it's right for government to ban abortion in cases of incest and rape.

How could it be wrong for the government to prohibit murder?

[Kitteh]

The violinist argument is a pretty good argument for why one could believe that human life begins at conception and yet still support abortion in cases of rape. Essentially it boils down to the uncomfortable but obviously true fact that the right to life is not all that matters morally, and that forcing another to sustain a life at their own expense can sometimes be immoral even if the only other alternative is letting that life die. I think it applies well to the case of rape but there are some problems with applying it to other cases (which is the intent of the author).

[DC Al Fine]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?

No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.

If abortion truly is murder (as I'm assuming you believe), how can it be "right" to provide an exemption for rape?

I myself find it wrong in all cases unless we're talking about the life of the mother or a dead fetus. However, I don't think it's right for government to ban abortion in cases of incest and rape.

How could it be wrong for the government to prohibit murder?

There's a realpolitik element for some. I know a coupe of conservatives who support a rape exception, and early term abortions and defend it as "it's better to have severely restricted abortions than no abortion restrictions at all"

I don't agree with it, but I can see their point, given the opinion polls.

[Person Man]

Seriously. Wouldn't incest be covered under "fetal deformities". I mean first cousins have sex and the kid is ok, how would abortion be a extenuating circumstance?  Of course you could allow abortion "in the case where there is probable cause that the abortion was caused by a felony which the person seeking an abortion is not culpable in".

[H. Ross Peron]

Seriously. Wouldn't incest be covered under "fetal deformities". I mean first cousins have sex and the kid is ok, how would abortion be a extenuating circumstance?  Of course you could allow abortion "in the case where there is probable cause that the abortion was caused by a felony which the person seeking an abortion is not culpable in".

Most kids born from incestuous relations are quite normal-it only becomes a problem after generation of inbreeding.

[barfbag]

Seriously. Wouldn't incest be covered under "fetal deformities". I mean first cousins have sex and the kid is ok, how would abortion be a extenuating circumstance?  Of course you could allow abortion "in the case where there is probable cause that the abortion was caused by a felony which the person seeking an abortion is not culpable in".

Incest doesn't always lead to abnormalities. In fact, you'd be surprised at the number of cousins who engage in such things. However, abnormalities aren't enough to call for abortion in my book. This is an issue no one ever agrees on.

[Person Man]

Then incest really isn't the same as rape, at least in what level of abortion need it generates.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The violinist argument is a pretty good argument for why one could believe that human life begins at conception and yet still support abortion in cases of rape. Essentially it boils down to the uncomfortable but obviously true fact that the right to life is not all that matters morally, and that forcing another to sustain a life at their own expense can sometimes be immoral even if the only other alternative is letting that life die. I think it applies well to the case of rape but there are some problems with applying it to other cases (which is the intent of the author).

Thomson presumes that individuality is so sacrosanct that killing by refusing to offer help that only you can provide is neither a crime nor a sin. Hence a problem with the violinist argument is that there are plenty of jurisdictions in which being a Good Samaritan is considered obligatory, so clearly Thomson's premise is not universally valid.  But even if it were, would that not also imply that the modern social welfare system funded by taxation is equally problematic. After all, why should the rich be forced to share their wealth?  The violinist example is one that would not sound out of place in an Ayn Rand story.

[barfbag]

Then incest really isn't the same as rape, at least in what level of abortion need it generates.

They are different things.

[Kitteh]

The violinist argument is a pretty good argument for why one could believe that human life begins at conception and yet still support abortion in cases of rape. Essentially it boils down to the uncomfortable but obviously true fact that the right to life is not all that matters morally, and that forcing another to sustain a life at their own expense can sometimes be immoral even if the only other alternative is letting that life die. I think it applies well to the case of rape but there are some problems with applying it to other cases (which is the intent of the author).

Thomson presumes that individuality is so sacrosanct that killing by refusing to offer help that only you can provide is neither a crime nor a sin. Hence a problem with the violinist argument is that there are plenty of jurisdictions in which being a Good Samaritan is considered obligatory, so clearly Thomson's premise is not universally valid.  But even if it were, would that not also imply that the modern social welfare system funded by taxation is equally problematic. After all, why should the rich be forced to share their wealth?  The violinist example is one that would not sound out of place in an Ayn Rand story.

Fwiw, Thompson's response to that criticism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure how I fall on this argument, but one thing that's notable to me is how the overwhelming majority of responses to this argument (especially if you limit to just professional responses) don't attempt to claim that the woman has an obligation to support the violinist, they try to point out some difference that makes it right for the woman to unplug herself from the violinist but wrong for the woman to abort her child. Given that most of the responses I'm thinking of come from people who know a lot more than I do I'm going to say that that's probably the stronger line of attack.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fwiw, Thompson's response to that criticism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Military draftees?

Granted we don't currently have a military draft in this country, but it's still in use in some places.  People forced to serve as their country directs for the common good of that county, for a period longer than nine months, and if there happens to be a war going on during their term of service, they are at risk of dying to save others.  We didn't end the draft in this country because we felt it was immoral, but because we came to the conclusion that it was not the most effective way to man the military forces we wanted to have defending us.

As you can see, the argument that requiring an embryo/fetus to be carried to term imposes a level of burden unique to women doesn't hold water with me.

[Indy Texas]

Fwiw, Thompson's response to that criticism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

[Cory]

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.

This. It's like when Ron Paul said that states should be allowed to decide. If he genuinely thinks that abortion is murder of a person then he wouldn't have that position. He wouldn't allow the states to start killing seniors right? That would be murder. Then if he seriously think abortion is the same thing he wouldn't be in favor of allowing states to decide on that either.

I'm saying this as a pro-choice person.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

On what basis are you saying that they aren't really putting them up for adoption?  If the parent wants the child to be adopted, then there are adoption agencies and other resources to help them through that process. The foster care system isn't meant for that - they place children who are already in foster care. 

[Indy Texas]

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

On what basis are you saying that they aren't really putting them up for adoption?  If the parent wants the child to be adopted, then there are adoption agencies and other resources to help them through that process. The foster care system isn't meant for that - they place children who are already in foster care. 

There were 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008. My question to you is: if abortion were illegal and 1.21 million children were born, what would you expect us as a society to do with them? Do you really think they'd all be adopted into permanent families?

[barfbag]

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

On what basis are you saying that they aren't really putting them up for adoption?  If the parent wants the child to be adopted, then there are adoption agencies and other resources to help them through that process. The foster care system isn't meant for that - they place children who are already in foster care.  

There were 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008. My question to you is: if abortion were illegal and 1.21 million children were born, what would you expect us as a society to do with them? Do you really think they'd all be adopted into permanent families?

You'd rather see them die? The free market would create a livable enough society that we could afford to give them a great life. If only it were allowed to work correctly by our government. However, it's the job of the mother and father to be responsible. Gay adoptions would also help. You don't want unborn babies to be aborted do you?