"...except in the case of rape or incest."

I've never exactly understood this exemption language in reference to criminalizing abortion, and I'm hoping that somebody who is anti-abortion can explain it to me. I understand that some who oppose abortion oppose it in any case whatsoever, but I don't understand the reasoning behind the moderates who allow in the case of rape and incest. I'm hoping that some of them would be kind enough to explain it to me. I, of course, support abortion for any reason the mother sees fit.Rape, of course, I understand. Allowing for exceptions in the case of women who were involuntarily impregnated could be argued as the lesser of two tragedies. That I understand. But incest?Involuntary incest would be rape, and so covered under the exception for rape. So by specifically referring to incest these anti-abortion proponents indicate that they would allow for rape in the case of voluntary incest as well, and I can't discern from their arguments why this would be the case. Why should women who have voluntarily had sex with their brother or cousin or whatever be allowed to use abortion as birth control when more mainstream women cannot? Seems unfair.Unless we're saying that a child born of incest should not be allowed to be born, and that's a surprisingly eugenic position for anti-abortion advocates to choose. It's the genetic undesirability of the fetus, I imagine. But genetic flaws can strike any couple. If my wife becomes pregnant but the fetus tests positive for, say, trisomy 23, why is it that abortion is inaccessable to us simply because my wife and I are not brother and sister? Why should we have to be siblings for our genetically flawed fetus to be aborted? Still not fair.Like I said, I don't understand it. I've asked around and mostly I just get funny looks. I rather suspect that "except in the case of rape or incest" is just a phrase that abortion foes toss off without really thinking about it.

Oops. You're quite right, of course.

That's an interesting question, but even if a fetus gains all human rights at the moment of conception, I'm not familiar with any concept of human rights that mandates that any human being has a right to divert sustenance from the body and organs of another human being.Over 50,000 people are sitting on the transplant lists, waiting for kidneys. And just about everybody has a spare one that they can live without. What's the difference between a putative right of a fetus to take residency in a woman's uterus and a dialysis patient's putative right to go around harvesting kidneys against the will of their donors?

Understand, Tal, that we're talking about one out of every three women in America.You're advocating the death penalty for one out of every three women in America? Don't you think that could have some repercussions on the population? (yeah, yeah, "so does abortion." Here's the thing - laws against abortion don't prevent abortions.)

Actually, there's not. There's always more kids up for adoption than couples willing to adopt them. Even if you factor in gay adoption. What on Earth does that matter? I'm married too, and if my wife got pregnant we'd have an abortion. Wouldn't even have to think that hard about it; easiest choice in the world. We simply can't support a child right now - she's a graduate student and I plan to head back to finish my degree. We can barely feed ourselves much less care for a child.Marriage didn't suddenly place us in a situation where we could raise a child. It doesn't do that for anybody. And shame on you for reducing the argument to nothing more than punishing sluts with the consequences of spreading their legs.

I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view, but where is that point where it has those rights?And, indeed, yes, she has certain responsibilities. Food, clothing, shelter if she has them to give. But you can't, for instance, legally compel a parent to give up a kidney for their own child. They have every right to sit there and watch their child die rather than risk their own life on the operating table. It's hard to imagine who could make such a choice but there's no legal reason they couldn't. We're talking about newborns? Yes, I agree. Care of a newborn can be transferred to another person so fatal abandonment is hardly necessary. Care of a fetus cannot. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside of the uterus of its mother is unfortunate for the fetus but it's irrelevant to the fact that no person can compel you to make space for them inside your body, or collect parts of your body for their own health or nourishment.Sovereignty of the body is absolute. I don't see it that way. And I don't see what being a stranger has to do with it. For that matter - a fetus is a stranger to you; its connection to you is merely genetic. You've never spoken to it, never made any arrangements or deals with it. It's as unknown to you as any other person you've never met.

Same problem as above - there are more children up for adoption than couples waiting to adopt. Possibly because pro-life people like you feel absolutely free to toss off adoption as an alternative to abortion without having the balls to cowboy up and actually adopt any unwanted newborns yourself. (Apparently the choice of not to have a child is fine for you but a moral outrage for the woman.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2006 11:26 PM

Yeah, I mean, we just want to control women's uteruses. That's completely unrelated to all the other aspects of control we want over women.These damn feminists, can't keep the issues seperate!

I don't think that's worse; I think that's better. Better that a child should be raised in America by someone who could afford the 100 grand the adoption requires than into the grueling poverty and homelessness of their home country.My brother-in-law was adopted from the Philipines. We expect to have a child the old-fashioned way and adopt a child, as well, as my wife's parents did. I think that's a great example as well as an entirely appropriate response to overpopulation.But, look. I'm sorry that you found my reply harsh. But the implication that a woman should just bear the risky consequences of pregnancy and then just hope that her child is one of the lucky few who gets adopted is callous. It's out of touch with reality. And people who find the reality of unintended pregnancy scary and life-wrecking deserve better than the sort of callous disregard for the issue that you've been displaying in your post.

I think for a lot of people in the debate, on both sides, these phrases are just stuff they toss out without really thinking. These exemptions and restrictions are just a standard set of bulwarks in the debate. Like, critical points on a battlefield that are fought and taken and defended and lost and taken again, without anybody really thinking about whether or not that position is really beneficial to women or to the babies or what. Like a series of nested defenses to be breached:1) No abortion at all, which is worse than
2) Abortion only for medical necessity, which is worse than
3) Abortion for medical reasons, or in the case of rape or incest, which is worse than
4) Abortion for medical reasons, rape, or incest up until the third trimester, which is worse than
5) Abortion at will up until the third trimester, which is worse than
6) Abortion at will up until the third trimester; after that, only for medical reasons, rape, or incest, which is worse than
7) Abortion at will at any time until birthAnd it's just back and forth (usually between the 4th, 5th, and 6th layers) without anybody actually reviewing these bulwarks to see if the battle could be taken somewhere else.You know what I mean? The whole debate is so very polarized that even the people who take the time to think clearly about their position don't think about the terms they frame it in, and they simply wind up taking arms at one of these arbitrary, pre-defined positions.

What is it about American babies that you think nobody wants? Because, thank god, her responsibilites and duties vis-a-vis the infant end once it passes through her vagina. Oh, wait. No, they don't.Question - would you drive her to another state for an exam and an abortion? (That's two trips.) Would you let her stay at your house if your house was nearer to the abortionist than where you lived?Does your benevolence stretch that far?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-15-2006 12:49 PM

That's actually "implantation." Like what, exactly? Look, if a human being takes up residence in your body against your will, seems to me you have every right to evict that person.We're talking about the death of something too simple even to know that it's alive in the first place. Less of a mind than a cat or dog. I don't believe it has a "soul" or whatever and I certainly wouldn't hold another person hostage to my own personal speculations about humanity's place in the cosmos.I don't think that's callous. Callous is the attitude that a woman who has sex has only one purpose, and that's as a life-support system for a fetus. Indeed, some women find it traumatic. Maybe that has something to do with all the people that line up to call them sluts and babykillers.Other women, who aren't inculcated in the belief that taking an entirely reasonable action in the face of an unexpected situation, have little trouble with abortion.

Actually, in the Bible, God promises to cause an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of infidelity, provided that you dose the woman with abortifacent whose recipe is given in the Bible.I mean, if we want to be Biblical, and all.

Stop me anytime you think I'm making a false step of logic.1) God is good.
2) Therefore the actions of God are good.
3) Therefore actions that we take in the example of God are good.4) God caused abortions in situations where pregnancy is not wanted or desirable.
5) Therefore it is good for us to cause abortions in the same situation. Your sarcasm is so funny. I mean, yeah - it's not like religious zealots have never taken it upon themselves to brutally kill those that they find "wicked", right? I mean that doesn't ever happen, does it?

Communist dictatorships are not atheist; they deify and worship the state.Not surprised that you were misinformed about that, though. It's all part of a decades-long effort to associate perfectly harmless atheism with the tragedies of the religious rule of communists. And quite off-topic. Go back to your Bible. God doesn't automatically abort the babies of adulterers. There's a ritual that must be performed first, by humans.The Bible is clear that abortion is not God's perogative, it's ours. Otherwise God wouldn't need humans to dose the woman with a concoction made of dust from the temple floor. God leaves the choice of abortion up to the humans; he just helps.