I don't understand how you could be pro-life and support exceptions for rape and incest. What does that have to do with anything? The life of the mother, I can understand. But rape and incest are just two random crimes that could lead to a pregnancy.
Failed birth control could lead to an accidental pregnancy too, what's the difference between an accidental pregnancy from rape/incest and an accidental pregnancy from failed birth control?
Again, philosophically, there's no material difference with regard to whether the baby has a right not to be murdered. Politically, the material difference is that voters are emotionally more responsive to appeals that it should be allowed for rape and incest. Since our system runs on emotional appeals to voters in order to justify the determined election outcomes, that matters.
This is a very simple one. If you disallow abortion in the case of rape and incest, then you incentivize both rape and incest as legitimate methods for propagating a genetic line.
If the state tries to force my daughter to bring to term her rapist’s baby, then I will do everything in my power to defeat the state. My family doesn’t tolerate violent incursion.
You also make abortion legal for only people that are willing to lie about being raped.
"in the event of rape" Does that mean a successful conviction for a rape? what if that rape didn't cause the pregnancy? doesn't matter anyway because most convictions last longer then 9 months so it's pointless.
So you have to do it on her word alone, does it require a conviction after the fact to be legal? or does someone just have to be arrested for it to be a "rape" before an abortion is legal?
The underlying problem comes to the fore pretty quickly if you spend longer then 5 seconds thinking about it.
Because we live in an insanely gynocentric society to the point that the moral question of do we punish the children for the crimes of the father is yes, but only if it impacts women.
The right to deny rapists entry into your genetic line is not irrational.
If a horde of immigrants descend upon your small town and rape a bunch of your women, should you accept an entire generation of replacement children along with the total destruction of your genetic line?
If a horde of immigrants descend upon your small town and rape a bunch of your women, should you accept an entire generation of replacement children along with the total destruction of your genetic line?
If you let a horde of immigrants descend upon your wives/mothers/ sisters and rape them then you deserve the results
Aborting a rape baby is punishing the father. The father's line shouldn't benefit from rape unless you feel like rape is a moral thing to do and should be encouraged through eugenics.
No sweetie, it’s killing the child, rapists don’t rape to procreate in the overwhelming majority of cases, unless you’re talking historically which has no value in current America.
You're just reducing it to one thing when it's more complicated than that because if you admit it's more complicated then your black and white ideology wouldn't hold up. It's killing the child and it's also punishing the father and his line.
You don't think there's any genetic component to rape huh? Like impulse control, delayed gratification for instance?
Leftists are the only people that still believe in their blank-slate theory.
You're not improving, you're just replacing out-of-touch-women with out-of-touch-old-people who are to old to get pregnant so it's a non-issue for them.
The counter argument to that (not my counter argument but one that the absolute pro-life side will make) is why should the baby be punished based on the nature of their conception? Rape and incest is bad obviously but the baby had no part in that, so there is no need to punish the child for the sins of the father.
Again not my argument, just one I have seen the pro-life side make.
In such cases, the aborted baby is a victim of the crime perpetrated by the rapist. If the rapist had not attempted to force his child on another family, then there would not have been an abortion.
This is similar to property rights. If a person tries to steal your stuff and ends up getting shot, whose fault was it? If the person who got shot was an “innocent” child, does the fault suddenly switch to the shooter? No. It switches to the guardian(s) of the child.
You have a right to defend your genetic lineage and that of your family. If your adult children choose to fuck things up, that’s on them. But no one should be permitted to force acceptance of violent incursion on your family line.
I lean pro-life and can understand exceptions for rape (not necessarily for incest, but let's set that aside for now).
...
Let's say you were walking home one day and a man pops out of an alley and knocks you unconscious. When you awake you discover that your circulatory system has been hooked up to a stranger in such a way that if you remove the linkage the stranger will die.
The link is onerous to you, interfering with your everyday life and sapping your energy. Worse yet, you know that if you maintain the link for the full nine months required to save the stranger's life there is a small but real chance that you may die when it is removed as well as a 100% chance that your body will be changed forever afterward.
What would you do? Would you endure the cost and risk to your own health to save the life of the stranger? Perhaps you would. But should you be forced to?
Obviously this is a metaphor for pregnancy via rape. I view bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. The state should not be able to demand that I give of up any part of my own body (life) even to save the life of another person. It's fine if I choose to do so (and perhaps that would even be the moral thing to do) but if the state demands it, well, that is tyranny, pure and simple.
Some pro-abortion people try to extend this bodily autonomy argument to every pregnancy, but I strongly disagree that it applies except in cases of rape. Ordinary pregnancy is the consequence of a woman's choice and that choice means they are responsible for the consequence (delivering the baby). Bringing it back to the analogy we started with, it would be as if the mother found a stranger and forced them to tie their circulatory system to hers. If she did that arguments about bodily autonomy fall away as she specifically chose to make the stranger dependent upon her own body. Removing the link at that point could only be viewed as murder, regardless of how she feels about the downsides or dangers of maintaining the link.
I don't understand how you could be pro-life and support exceptions for rape and incest. What does that have to do with anything? The life of the mother, I can understand. But rape and incest are just two random crimes that could lead to a pregnancy.
It's philosophically incoherent, but strategically useful in the battle to reduce the amount of baby murders.
Failed birth control could lead to an accidental pregnancy too, what's the difference between an accidental pregnancy from rape/incest and an accidental pregnancy from failed birth control?
Again, philosophically, there's no material difference with regard to whether the baby has a right not to be murdered. Politically, the material difference is that voters are emotionally more responsive to appeals that it should be allowed for rape and incest. Since our system runs on emotional appeals to voters in order to justify the determined election outcomes, that matters.
This is a very simple one. If you disallow abortion in the case of rape and incest, then you incentivize both rape and incest as legitimate methods for propagating a genetic line.
If the state tries to force my daughter to bring to term her rapist’s baby, then I will do everything in my power to defeat the state. My family doesn’t tolerate violent incursion.
You also make abortion legal for only people that are willing to lie about being raped.
"in the event of rape" Does that mean a successful conviction for a rape? what if that rape didn't cause the pregnancy? doesn't matter anyway because most convictions last longer then 9 months so it's pointless.
So you have to do it on her word alone, does it require a conviction after the fact to be legal? or does someone just have to be arrested for it to be a "rape" before an abortion is legal?
The underlying problem comes to the fore pretty quickly if you spend longer then 5 seconds thinking about it.
Because we live in an insanely gynocentric society to the point that the moral question of do we punish the children for the crimes of the father is yes, but only if it impacts women.
The right to deny rapists entry into your genetic line is not irrational.
If a horde of immigrants descend upon your small town and rape a bunch of your women, should you accept an entire generation of replacement children along with the total destruction of your genetic line?
Absolutely not.
Christians need not be fucking cucks.
If you let a horde of immigrants descend upon your wives/mothers/ sisters and rape them then you deserve the results
If the horde of immigrants couldn't protect their rape babies, they deserve abortions.
Aborting a rape baby is punishing the father. The father's line shouldn't benefit from rape unless you feel like rape is a moral thing to do and should be encouraged through eugenics.
No sweetie, it’s killing the child, rapists don’t rape to procreate in the overwhelming majority of cases, unless you’re talking historically which has no value in current America.
You're just reducing it to one thing when it's more complicated than that because if you admit it's more complicated then your black and white ideology wouldn't hold up. It's killing the child and it's also punishing the father and his line.
You don't think there's any genetic component to rape huh? Like impulse control, delayed gratification for instance?
Leftists are the only people that still believe in their blank-slate theory.
abort the rapist.
You're not improving, you're just replacing out-of-touch-women with out-of-touch-old-people who are to old to get pregnant so it's a non-issue for them.
It's like how gun control advocates support complete bans but will take what they can get. A war isn't won in one fell swoop.
In the meantime, there's plenty of people on the ground who speak out to pregnant women about keeping the baby in cases of rape/incest.
The counter argument to that (not my counter argument but one that the absolute pro-life side will make) is why should the baby be punished based on the nature of their conception? Rape and incest is bad obviously but the baby had no part in that, so there is no need to punish the child for the sins of the father.
Again not my argument, just one I have seen the pro-life side make.
In such cases, the aborted baby is a victim of the crime perpetrated by the rapist. If the rapist had not attempted to force his child on another family, then there would not have been an abortion.
This is similar to property rights. If a person tries to steal your stuff and ends up getting shot, whose fault was it? If the person who got shot was an “innocent” child, does the fault suddenly switch to the shooter? No. It switches to the guardian(s) of the child.
You have a right to defend your genetic lineage and that of your family. If your adult children choose to fuck things up, that’s on them. But no one should be permitted to force acceptance of violent incursion on your family line.
I lean pro-life and can understand exceptions for rape (not necessarily for incest, but let's set that aside for now).
...
Let's say you were walking home one day and a man pops out of an alley and knocks you unconscious. When you awake you discover that your circulatory system has been hooked up to a stranger in such a way that if you remove the linkage the stranger will die.
The link is onerous to you, interfering with your everyday life and sapping your energy. Worse yet, you know that if you maintain the link for the full nine months required to save the stranger's life there is a small but real chance that you may die when it is removed as well as a 100% chance that your body will be changed forever afterward.
What would you do? Would you endure the cost and risk to your own health to save the life of the stranger? Perhaps you would. But should you be forced to?
Obviously this is a metaphor for pregnancy via rape. I view bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. The state should not be able to demand that I give of up any part of my own body (life) even to save the life of another person. It's fine if I choose to do so (and perhaps that would even be the moral thing to do) but if the state demands it, well, that is tyranny, pure and simple.
Some pro-abortion people try to extend this bodily autonomy argument to every pregnancy, but I strongly disagree that it applies except in cases of rape. Ordinary pregnancy is the consequence of a woman's choice and that choice means they are responsible for the consequence (delivering the baby). Bringing it back to the analogy we started with, it would be as if the mother found a stranger and forced them to tie their circulatory system to hers. If she did that arguments about bodily autonomy fall away as she specifically chose to make the stranger dependent upon her own body. Removing the link at that point could only be viewed as murder, regardless of how she feels about the downsides or dangers of maintaining the link.