« There ya go again with the puppy eyes.... | Main | Lee Bandy's column, the movie »
Monday, 20 August 2007
Why would abortion foes exempt rape?
Today, I got this e-mail from a reader:
I always enjoy your editorials and read them whenever I see that you are featured in the State (though I normally refer to the "State" as the "Local "since its sports bias is almost always limited to Columbia-area teams).
I enjoyed reading your editorial board interview with Sam Brownback, but am curious about something.
I read some time back that Brownback stated that a woman raped should be forced to carry the child to term. Did this or a similar comment come up in your interview?Thanks and keep writing...
Which prompted me to break my rule and respond (actually, if I respond and then post it on my blog, it's not really breaking the rule -- since the rule is, after all, designed to get people to comment on the blog instead of via e-mail):
Not that I recall. But why would anyone who opposes abortion make exceptions in the case of rape? I've always had trouble understanding that. It seems to be a case of emotion overriding logic.
If we're talking about a human life, why would it cease to be worth protecting in the case of rape? We don't have the death penalty for rape, even in the case of the perpetrator. So why would we put the unborn result of the rape to death? It doesn't make sense.
Yes, it's horrible for the victim. But everything about rape is horrible. If one is truly opposed to abortion, the fact that a pregnancy resulted from rape should not negate one's position.
I'm guessing -- from your choice of words (specifically, your use of "forced") -- that you object to Brownback's position on abortion. Would you find it LESS objectionable if he said "except in cases of abortion?" If so, why? I ask this less from a pro-life perspective than from one of logical consistency. One of my colleagues who is pro-choice often says she finds pro-life people who don't make such exceptions more worthy of respect. I think she's right (narrowly speaking) to take that view.
What do you think?
If this exchange follows the usual pattern (and I hope it won't), it will spin off into misunderstanding and miscommunication, but I ask once again: If you believe (as do I) that abortion ends a human life, why again would it be OK just because the horrible circumstances of a rape are involved? Logically speaking, of course.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 04:29 PM in Crime and Punishment, Kulturkampf, Marketplace of ideas, Rule of Law
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/20966701
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why would abortion foes exempt rape?:
Comments
It's more of a political compromise rather than a philosophical nuance. If the goal is to limit the number of abortions and/or overturn Roe V. Wade, politicians who are pro-life understand that they cannot win if they go for the whole package at once.
It's a far harder sell to get support for a position that forces the rape/incest victim to carry the baby to term regardless of the emotional impact that might have on the victim. I think it would be very likely that no person could be elected President if he/she expressed a zero tolerance for all abortions.
A very prominent conservative religious leader in Columbia sat in my living room many years ago and told my wife and I that even though he was against abortion, he would not hesitate to counsel his daughter to seek one in the case of rape. I don't think he'd announce that from the pulpit, but I think it shows the struggle even the most fervent pro-life people have with the issue.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Aug 20, 2007 5:16:27 PM
Here's a link to some generally accepted polls related to people's views on abortion:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Basically, about 80-85% of Americans believe abortion should be legal at least in some circumstances. Roughly 55% of Americans believe abortion should be an issue between a woman and her doctor while another 30% believe it should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother.
I would guess that the breakdown of the 15% who are completely opposed to abortion is primarily older males.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Aug 20, 2007 5:25:13 PM
Maybe because carrying the consequences of rape to term might put just too much strain on the mother, physically and emotionally.
Maybe because the birth would produce an eternal reminder of the rape that would cause the mother a lifetime of pain.
Maybe because some people would say a birth thanks to a rape couldn't be God's will.
Maybe because in the battle of pro-choice and pro-life, abortion in the case of rape or undue risk to the mother represents a middle ground that would preserve at least an iota of the rights women gained through Roe v. Wade.
From my point of view, the God's will arguments falls flat, because who could successfully argue that God would approve killing to correct something that happened contrary to his will?
But the idea of rape as an exception to abortion law does make sense as a political compromise, because far fewer fetal (or embryonic) murders would occur, and that would please pro-lifers.
Methinks this is a topic best extrapolated by women, though.
Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 20, 2007 5:27:18 PM
Brad,
Are your views shared by your wife and/or daughters/daughters-in-law?
I think the reason why there are people who hold the "no abortion but for rape/incest" view is pretty logical. They understand the effect that carrying that preganancy to term could have on the mother's psychological well-being. Being reminded daily for nine months of the traumatic experience that led to the pregnancy and then being faced with the decision of giving up the baby after delivery is something you or I as males will NEVER have to face.
Here's a bad analogy - let's say you're walking down Gervais Street some night and a guy runs up and kicks you in the testicles. The police catch the guy and decide that the best course of action is that every day for the next nine months, he gets another free kick at you... just so you won't forget what a horrible experience you went through. And at the end of nine months, you have to decide which testicle you're going to have cut out. Even if the guy who did the kicking gets sentenced to life in prison, do you think your mental state would not be seriously damaged by the experience?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Aug 20, 2007 6:06:45 PM
I am a reluctant pro-choice person. Reluctant because I do believe that life is precious. While I don't consider a blastula or a gastrula to be human life, I do recognize the potential. Having said that, I haven't heard of nearly as many people willing to take in and care for the profoundly involved babies, as there are such unfortunate children. I haven't seen many willing to take the crack babies, the alcohol syndrome babies, the babies with rare syndromes (which were no fault of the mother's), and so on. When I have asked the 'on the street' folks who advocate banning abortion how many unwanted children they have adopted, or even have helped support, I have gotten very insulted responses. Most of those responses were along the lines of "if the mother couldn't afford the baby/didn't want it, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant." Don't these folks understand that if the mama had their resources/upbringing, she probably wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Rape puts that in spades.
Now, we come to the worst scenario. And I'm going to put this in "you/your" terms, because I think we need to think of this very personally, before we're willing to make these ethical choices for another. You and your young spouse want a baby. You find out you (the family) are pregnant. Two weeks later you find out it's a condition which will kill the woman, and probably her baby. What do you do? The last time I checked, the law does not allow you to kill one innocent person to save another, even if that person may die any way. The way I see it, if that fetus is fully human, there is no choice but to let the mother die, even if the chances of saving the baby are small. But, if you say that the fetus is not as human as the mother, than what right do you have to take away her choices? I don't have all the answers here, to say the least. I would, like everyone else, make abortion rare, but I don't think that outlawing it will. I think it will just make it very unsafe. And I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate to make sure all children have adequate care from inadequate parents. And we have been cutting, cutting, cutting, the funds to take care of those profoundly affected children I spoke of originally, and to continue caring for them when they become adults.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Aug 20, 2007 7:15:19 PM
According to supporters of Brownback, the "Baptists For Brownback" Sam doesnt support abortion in cases of rape.
read this thread:http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/use-updates/
Posted by: jenny | Aug 20, 2007 9:07:56 PM
Brad,
I think your logic regarding the consistency issue is solidly rational and also steeped in faith, regardless if that was your intention.
Take this a step further and apply this logic to capital punishment. If a life is a life then how can being pro-life and pro-death penalty be reconciled? Conversely, what's the rationale behind being against capital punishment but being pro-choice?
Posted by: Randy E | Aug 20, 2007 11:40:16 PM
Following this logical perspective, I pose the following scenario.
Let's say a pregnant woman is pro-choice. If her doctor mishandles her or if a drunk driver crashes into her car and her pregnancy is prematurely and tragically ended, it would be phrased "she lost her baby". On the other hand, if she had an abortion it would be phrased "the pregnancy was terminated". How can ending a pregnancy be viewed in such contrasting perspectives?
Posted by: Randy E | Aug 20, 2007 11:48:28 PM
Randy,
I think you have it backwards.
Most pro-lifers, logically, would be pro-capital punishment, and most pro-choicers anti-capital punishment.
Pro-lifers value innocent life, which a doctor takes from a fetus or a murderer from a victim.
Pro-choice people value the rights of the doer, the pregnant woman who doesn't want to be that way and the killer who doesn't want to suffer the same horror inflicted on someone else.
But this question was about rape, not murder. And it's a question that would have to divide the pro-life people, some sympathizing with the mother, others sympathizing with the innocent life, even if be the fruit of a rapist's seed.
Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 21, 2007 11:52:17 AM
That should be "divide pro-choice," not pro-life, in the last paragraph. It may be. But that wasn't what I thought I saw as it zipped off into cyberspace.
Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 21, 2007 12:08:21 PM
If you believe (as do I) that abortion ends a human life, why again would it be OK ...
-Brad
It is critical when discussing this issue to use the proper verbiage. Instead of OK the word LEGAL should be used. That is the correct way to frame the debate. Pro-choice folks do not believe abortion is OK. Once you correctly frame the debate it is absolutely essential to stipulate what the penalties are if you decide that abortion should not be LEGAL.
Posted by: bud | Aug 21, 2007 12:11:41 PM
Brad, it's interesting that you posted this. I thought in the same terms you did as I read this commentary about Amnesty International:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/cath_elliot/2007/08/valuing_womens_lives.html
If someone is opposed to abortion (in general) because they believe the unborn child is an innocent life, then the question (in the case of rape) becomes: Does the value of your life depend on the circumstances surrounding your conception?
Why is the answer to this question any less obvious when discussing the unborn as it is when discussing the already born? It shouldn't be.
We shouldn't, in this country, put children to death for the crimes of their fathers.
None of this diminishes the suffering of an innocent women who is the victim of a horrible crime. But neither does her unjust suffering diminish the value of the other innocent life involved.
If the life of the mother is in danger, there is an ethical decision to make, but it's really not the same issue we're discussing here. It's a doctor or team of doctors trying to save two people. If it comes down to choosing one over the other, that's a call doctor and patient have to make.
Posted by: Jeff Mobley | Aug 21, 2007 3:51:04 PM
Here's a note I got today from someone with the Brownback campaign:
Brad,
I read your recent blog post regarding abortion and rape exceptions. I
wanted to know if you have been contacted by our campaign in South Carolina.
I commend your efforts to promote what is true, simply by using logic. I am
unaware of your religious views or your background, but it is irrelevant.
What I see is the employment of Socratic logic to a very black-and-white
issue made gray by those who wish to undermine what's at stake--life.What you've written here, based on the tenets of logical dialogue, cannot be
disputed by any rational human being.If you haven't already been contacted, I would like to give your contact
information (email/phone) to our SC Director, Jim Corbett.Thank you,
Teddy Sifert
New Hampshire Grassroots Coordinator
Brownback for President
It was quickly followed up by THIS one:
Brad,
Forgive me, I just read the interview, so I know you've already spoken with
Jim. Sorry to bother you, I was just trying to cover all the bases. Thanks
again for bringing out the truth so eloquently!--Teddy
Since I just finished sifting through 1,500 unread recent e-mails, this is the kind of message I love -- the kind that answers itself.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Aug 21, 2007 4:39:30 PM
Bud hits the nail on the head. If you are in the "make all abortions illegal" camp, then you have to be specific about how you would handle those people who seek and/or perform abortions. That's where the "no exceptions" pro-life position tends to lose its supposed "logic".
Because how could holders of that opinion logically consider abortion anything but murder? what is Brownback's position on punishment for doctors who perform abortions and the women who seek them? Want to be he avoids that aspect of the issue?
Are you able, Brad, to tell us what your views are on criminal punishment related to abortion? Lay it out for us so we can understand the logic.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Aug 21, 2007 5:14:24 PM
Just to try to reply briefly to everyone above:
- Doug, I agree that it's a political compromise. Obviously. I'm speaking about when it's NOT a compromise between two parties who disagree. I'm saying, how does ONE person hold that position, logically speaking? And I don't know what to say about the "prominent conservative religious leader" in your living room, except that -- all due respect and all -- the man is a hypocrite, by definition. Finally, I have no idea about the "older males" thing on the poll, but I've had the position I've had since I was a "younger male," and I was mostly influenced in my thinking on the subject by the women in my life.
- Weldon, the idea that "this is a topic best extrapolated by women" is completely unsound. That's like saying "the only people who should decide a capital punishment case is the victim's family." It runs utterly counter to the notion of rule of law. The most emotionally involved -- or potentially most involved -- people are the last ones you would go to in composing a jury, and this is a matter that compares very closely to capital punishment -- it is government-sanctioned killing. You want the folks deciding to be as calm and disinterested as possible. That doesn't mean you exclude women, but you certainly don't limit your pool to ONLY women.
- Doug, my views are indeed shared by my wife and daughters, to the best of my knowledge (I'm sure of my wife, sure of one of the daughters, and pretty sure about the other two). I have one daughter-in-law, who has only been part of the family a few months, and have not discussed it with her. And I understand "the effect that carrying that pregnancy to term could have on the mother's psychological well-being." But I stack that against a life, and that overrides. And you're right, that's a bad analogy.
- Karen, your "worst scenario" is outside of this discussion. You're talking about a life for a life. There IS no clear answer, logically speaking -- although I think most of us would tend toward giving greater weight to the mother's life because so many people would already have a stake in, and depend upon, her continuing to live. In all other scenarios, it's life versus big things like psychological or physical trauma, or economic ruin, or a host of lesser considerations such as disruption of plans or inconvenience. In all of those other cases, life trumps any other considerations, however big or awful they may be. The issues may be emotionally difficult, but they are logically clear, which is where we started with this. But things are not clear at all when it's a life for a life.
- Thanks, jenny. I suppose I assumed that was the case and didn't bother to look it up, but thanks for doing the responsible thing.
- Randy, I oppose capital punishment for many of the same reasons as I do abortion. To put it simply, the main common factor is respect for life.
- And no, Weldon, he doesn't have it backwards. All we can control as citizens is what the state does. The state must uphold and protect human life, and while one can argue that capital punishment does that, in the end, you can't escape the fact that an execution involves the state doing the thing that it says is wrong, and that is logically indefensible.
- bud, that's fine. Say "legal." That's the context of the argument, what should be "OK" under the law.
- Someone -- I must have just read over it, or maybe it was in an e-mail -- brought up war. I subscribe to Just War theory. There are cases when it is immoral not to use military force to put an end to injustice. But that always puts you in the realm of moral ambiguity, which is why war is so spiritually wrenching to those who participate in it, however justified they may be, and believe themselves to be. I just thought I should touch on that one before finishing...
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Aug 21, 2007 5:20:57 PM
And oh yes, Doug, thanks, I missed one:
I think revocation of a medical license would be a reasonable punishment for abortionists. You'd have to come up with fines or something else for non-physicians who do abortions.
I don't think I've run across anyone who is interested in criminal penalties for the pregnant women. The only people who bring that up are the pro-choice people who are trying to whip up sympathy for their position. The people you would want to penalize would be the perpetrators, not those trouble souls who seek them out in desperation.
If you want to heave stones at the poor woman, you go right ahead.
I'm sorry if my answer disappoints you. I'm going to go back to drawing in the sand, now.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Aug 21, 2007 5:26:41 PM
Brad,
Your answer regarding punishment for abortionists is exactly why your logic is broken. You claim that abortion is taking a life yet would punish a doctor who performs an abortion with a much less severe punishment than any other similar crime. Why do you equivocate? If the life that is taken is the same as any other life, why do you suggest a far lesser punishment than murder, manslaughter, or even assault? Why are your compromises on the punishment any different than the compromises someone who is opposed to all abortion except in rape cases?
And you would have been smarter to leave off your convoluted "war is justified" rationalization. It only weakens your case, particularly when you would have to navigate logically around the issue of innocent civilians killed by our soldiers. Where's the logic in that?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Aug 21, 2007 5:45:13 PM
The reason I brought up what you call the "life for life" scenario is specifically because it makes the ethical problem so clear. The mother may have many more relying on her. That is not the point. If another person is just a fully human as she is, then legally you may not kill that person to spare her. And if the other person is not "as fully human" as her, then the ethical problem is solved. Now, must the mother die, so that the unborn may have a chance?
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Aug 21, 2007 6:11:03 PM
Brad, What makes you think that a person who performed illegal abortions would be a doctor?? Are you that young? Talk about punishing the desparate woman! The man who drew in the sand talked about those without sin casting the first stone. Let those who are without sin make the decision regarding which is the worst scenario. And if we lack qualified people, then let the persons who are involved and capable of deciding do so. And what did you say about supporting the helpless ones out there after they come into the world? Or are you only worried about their destruction before they are born?
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Aug 21, 2007 6:20:52 PM
What? You consider abortion "murder" but you're only willing to revoke the abortionist's medical license as punishment?
Heck, why aren't we taking drivers licenses away from people who are convicted of murdering a real, living person who's proven capable of existing outside of the womb?
If you term abortion as "murder" then you can't logically differentiate between my wife hiring a hit man to murder our 16-year-old child; or her hiring an abortionist to end her pregnancy.
Just because you write "The only people who bring that up are the pro-choice people who are trying to whip up sympathy for their position" doesn't make the analogy incorrect.
Would you let Susan Smith out of prison since she "only" murdered the kids that she carried to biological viability?
Nice try at avoiding the logical consequences of your philosophy.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Aug 21, 2007 10:43:18 PM
Sorry, Brad, but abortion in the case of rape is precisely a topic BEST extrapolated by women, as I wrote, not ONLY to be decided by women, as you interpreted.
This ain't just hard logic and law.
When you get through nine months of nurturing a fetus resulting from rape to birth, let me know how it feels. And how the next two decades feel, knowing the child you didn't want is half you and half rapist, while ever you wonder which genes dominate which, and what that child, the one you never wanted at all -- the product of a godforsaken nightmare -- might become.
This issue you've raised isn't so simple as pro-life equals pro-life no matter what, even rape or murder.
And the idea that an execution "involves the state doing the thing that it says is wrong, and that is logically indefensible" is just reason half-baked.
I hope you're not asking me to believe the murder of a highway patrolman who stops a car for speeding and the execution of the patrolman's killer are equivalent acts.
I'd just tell you the execution was the state acting in self-defense.
And I'd ask you why it's OK to declare war on terrorists but not on murderers.
This can't be, after all, a discussion of what's legal rather than what's OK or what's right. What's legal is abortion, and, in some states, execution. The law has it half right, I think, but whatt one issue has to do with the other, I can't see.
Really. If abortion, then execution? Or if execution, then abortion? Terminating an innocent blob of potential and executing a fully developed, desocialized monster who knows right from wrong, those are kith and kin?
Sounds like the ticket to a lost world to me.
But here we are.
Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 22, 2007 12:05:19 AM
All right, everyone, pay attention now: RTH has just provided us with a beautiful, museum-quality exhibition of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that characterizes this debate.
Would someone please -- in order to assist RTH -- point to where I referred to abortion as "murder." You'll note that RTH sets forth the word repeatedly in quotation marks, which to literate people means that it is a direct and accurate representation of what the other party said. (Of course, many semi-literate people mistakenly use quotation marks for emphasis, which in this case would be equally illegitimate and worthy of condemnation.)
This setting-up of straw men in order to knock them down is both pathetic and offensive, which is why the comments of those who employ such unworthy tactics don't get approved on this blog -- unless they present an example that might be helpful in drawing the lines.
Others expressing confusion, I believe, are not acting in bad faith to the extent that RTH is. I therefore refer them to the various degrees of homicide under the law. -- there's quite a variety, depending upon intent, method, circumstances, etc. I would think that the best state law would probably place abortion within its own category. There would probably be subcategories within that category, I suppose, and probably various aggravating or mitigating circumstances. But these are technicalities that don't go to the essence of what we were discussing.
And Karen -- who I believe writes in the best faith of all -- please go back and read what I wrote more carefully: "You'd have to come up with fines or something else for non-physicians who do abortions."
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Aug 22, 2007 8:50:32 AM
Based on the legal definition of muder, how does an abortion differ? By modifying the definition of murder to treat a fetus differently, you then ascribe to the idea that a fetus is not a person.
The legal definition of murder is:
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
---
Posted by: Lee Gality | Aug 22, 2007 9:44:20 AM
The penalty or sentence that exists for any given crime may indeed reflect some information about that crime, but it doesn't speak to whether the action in question should have been outlawed in the first place.
You have first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, for example. The fact that there are different penalties for these crimes in now way implies that the lives of the victims had different worths. Many factors go into which charge is prosecuted and sentenced: the brutality of the crime, whether there was provocation, the extent, or immediacy of that provocation, and so on. A prosecutor might have only enough evidence to pursue a lesser charge than the "true" crime that was committed.
Would Bud or Doug claim that there should be no difference in penalty between premeditated murder and negligent homicide? Maybe they honestly would, I don't know.
The point is, abortion should be viewed as the killing of an innocent life, and should therefore be illegal. Personally, I don't think it would be unreasonable to prosecute abortions as first degree murder, but even if a lesser sentence were established by law, that in now way negates the legal basis for the criminalization of abortion.
Karen, consider a case of infant conjoined twins, who will both die if they are not separated, but one is more likely to survive after separation than the other. This situation is ethically similar to the "life of the mother" situation. It's really not an "abortion" question.
Posted by: Jeff Mobley | Aug 22, 2007 9:45:07 AM
So Karen writes in the best faith of all, but the idea this is a topic best extrapolated by women is completely unsound.
My, how Brad did walk into the door he shut in my face.
Posted by: weldon VII | Aug 22, 2007 11:07:52 AM
