LARRY B. writes:

Of all the conditions that Republicans put on their conservatism, I can’t think of one as maddening or outrageous as the caveat: “I am against abortion except in cases of rape or incest.” 

Since 1976 both parties have allowed federal funding of abortions in cases of rape or incest, and then the recent Hyde Amendment was also dropped by the Republicans, which would have curtailed such funding (not even ended it entirely).

This half-way position only indicates that the would-be conservative is not, in fact, convinced that the fetus is a human child since conception, and is typical of the annoying proclivity among conservatives towards compromising the substance of their conservative platforms.

What does that condition mean, “only in cases of rape or incest?” If a woman gets pregnant from voluntary or non-incest sex, then they can’t abort her child. If she is raped, then all of the sudden she has, by virtue of her victimization, attained a new and exclusive right to abort the child? That’s probably the most perverted positive right I can think of. They didn’t have the right before, but now they do. Who gave it to them, the rapist? The child that was conceived?

Leaving aside the increased accusations of rape that would follow such a law (women wanting abortions and thus falsely claiming they were raped), this is still treating the child’s life as meaningless because he or she was not conceived properly.

Since conception takes anywhere from 6 to 72 hours to occur after intercourse, and since pregnancies from rape are already extremely rare, there’s isn’t much of a need for this condition. If all of the semen is removed from the uterus (easily done at the hospital where the woman should go anyway), then there won’t be a pregnancy. I realize this is equivalent with using contraceptives, but to me that is much less of an evil than terminating the human life.

The politicians who think this covers their bases are either just simple-minded and don’t think their platforms through, or else they’re not really conservative on abortion. Either way, they must really judge their constituents to be stupid.

                                      — Comments —

Clark Coleman writes:

I think that two different things are being confused here. One is the morality of aborting a child that was conceived by rape or incest, and the other is the political struggle over what the laws should say about it. We have about the same chance of enacting a total ban on abortion as a snowball has of surviving a weekend in you-know-where. I would gladly accept a ban on abortions that makes exceptions for rape and incest conceptions, because I doubt that I will see even that much success in my lifetime. The pro-life movement has been pushing an abortion ban single-mindedly since 1973, and we have just about zero to show for it.

When ancient Christians were a minority in the Roman Empire, they did not dream that they were going to enact a legal ban on infant exposure (that era’s “abortion” method of choice). If you don’t have the votes and the political power, you have to face the facts. We can wait until 51% of the voters have a morally consistent view of all abortions and ban all of them, including abortions after rape and incest conceptions, or we can face reality and try to accomplish something short of perfect. Given how little the pro-life purists have ever accomplished in the political realm, I would think we would be happy to ban well over 95% of all abortions.

Laura writes:

I am not closely involved in the political battles on this issue, but it seems to me that abortion opponents undercut the arguments they use by making these exceptions and thus are less persuasive. It would be one thing  if politicians said, “I am against abortion. Period,” and then in negotiations over specific bills compromised by making exceptions for rape or incest. But it seems they refer to these exceptions whenever describing their position on the issue.

Adriana writes:

In response to Larry’s comment, I believe there are a few arguments for the right to an abortion in the event of (real) rape and incest. In order to make these arguments we must assume that the woman is not lying about rape/incest, because then it becomes an entirely different situation.

The most popular argument against forcing a woman to carry to term a child conceived by rape or incest is the emotional/psychological impact it will have on the woman, especially if the woman is of a very young age. Many incest victims are very young — in their early teens, if even that — and so you can imagine that carrying the baby of such a coupling would have a severe psychological impact. Of course, there is the argument that women should just suck it up, and that the psychological damage bestowed upon them is incomparable to murder.

Another argument is that such a man — a man who would truly, forcefully have his way with a woman, whether she is related to him or not — shouldn’t be allowed to procreate.

Laura writes:

Both these arguments assume the fetus is not human.

In addition, abortion is psychologically damaging in itself to a woman and it is wrong for adults to impose it on a very young woman who has already suffered incest. She could give the baby up for adoption and know that she victimized no one.

Another argument is that such a man — a man who would truly, forcefully have his way with a woman, whether she is related to him or not — shouldn’t be allowed to procreate.

Whether he is allowed to or not, the man already has procreated in the cases Larry mentioned.

George Pal writes:

Judging constituents stupid is not necessarily to misjudge the situation. The electorate has long ago staked out personal economic concerns as greater than national economic concerns and certainly more vital than even vital concerns. Unequivocal politicians are the result of unequivocal electorates, rationalizing politicians of rationalizing electorates. It’s a kink in democracy.

Greg Jinkerson writes:

Larry B wrote:

The politicians who think this covers their bases are either just simple-minded and don’t think their platforms through, or else they’re not really conservative on abortion. Either way, they must really judge their constituents to be stupid.

The politicians posing as conservatives are not simple-minded, instead they are libertines in conservative-looking suits. And yes, the Republicans do judge their constituents to be stupid, and it is a sound and accurate judgment. Sam Francis often described the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively, as the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. In branding the Republicans stupid, he was not referring to their leadership, who are just as shrewd as the serpents who lead the Democrats; on the contrary, it is thoughtless loyalty of GOP voters which he was calling stupid. Against all evidence, loyal Republican voters cherish the baseless notion that there has ever been anything conservative about that particular party.

Mrs. H. writes:

Chroniclesmagazine.com had a concise summary of the GOP’s half-hearted attempts to reverse Roe v Wade, and those within the party who support abortion. You can read it here.

Larry B. writes:

Oh, as an aside, I also would like to point out the funny inconsistency between liberal positions on abortion and the homosexualization of society.

Their logic seems to be: Women should be allowed to have abortions because it’s their body; it’s their choice. (To which one should, I think, respond: It was her choice to have sex and court the possibility of pregnancy. She made that choice, and now she is sharing her body with another life. Pregnancy is not a choice, ever, but a (positive) possible consequence of intercourse).

The logic with homosexuals is: Homosexuals should be encouraged and given special protections by the state because it’s their body; they’re born that way; they can’t help it; they didn’t ask for this; they don’t have a choice.

Give women “abortion rights” (New York Times) because it’s their choice. Give homosexuals “rights” because it isn’t their choice.

Well, I choose neither, and that’s my choice.

Please follow and like us: