"...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.

i think the problem is that most fundies don't seem to recognize that familial rape is rape. 50 to 60 percent of child molestors are first generational male relatives. fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers. and yet the only people you hear about on the news are catholic priests and pop culture has-beens.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't even understand this much. According to most anti-abortionists, "Abortion is murder." So what does it matter how a human being came about, rape or voluntary sex? A person comes into existence at conception, according to them, so isn't it still murder? Why punish this person for the sins of the father?

That's what they say when asked.I always assumed that, for many of them, the real issue is that the woman ought to be required to bear the child as punishment for her sexual sins.

I think you might mean "... abortion in the case of voluntary incest as well ..."

The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience, like the Nazis and the Jews, but with the US Government's approval.

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

Lord knows, an invasive medical procedure that leaves you sick as a dog, hormonally all over the place, and experiencing the joys of a month-long period is incredibly convenient. Especially if you get the fun of a bunch of dickweeds screaming at you as you approach the clinic.Gosh, abortions are such a walk in the park. That's why they're used for convenience's sake all the time.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I have defined myself as a "pro-choice Christian---a position that earns me scorn from the right wingers, but I would guess that the reason abortion is "accepted" in the cases of rape/incest have to do with the Mother having no choice in the conception. From what I've heard lately, the big argument these days is on the acceptance of partial-birth abortions---where the babies skull is crushed on its way out of the womb. I would not support the Mothers right to commit infanticide. Then again, maybe I've only heard one side of the issue......

quote:

---

The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience, like the Nazis and the Jews, but with the US Government's approval.

---

So how do you propose we punish women who get abortions (and the people who perform them) if they become illegal?Should we convict them of murder and execute them?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-14-2006 11:55 AM

quote:

---

From what I've heard lately, the big argument these days is on the acceptance of partial-birth abortions---where the babies skull is crushed on its way out of the womb. I would not support the Mothers right to commit infanticide. Then again, maybe I've only heard one side of the issue......

---

"Partial Birth Abortion" isn't a medical term and isn't rigorously defined by those who use it. They define it as "any procedure where living fetal tissue passes through the birth canal, with a very narrow exception to save a woman's life." What is living fetal tissue?The procedure they diagram is Dilation and Extraction (D&X). This is when forceps are used to pull the fetus's head out of the cervix. Then a hole is poked in the back of it and a vaccuum is used to suck out the brains.It sounds horrible, but it must be recognized that this is only used in the third trimester and only in cases when the mother's life is in danger or when the baby has severe abnormalities.The discrepency between the terminology pro-lifer's use, i.e., partial-birth abortion instead of D&X, is because they want to obfuscate the issue. They want to show you D&X and then have you outlaw what they call "partial birth abortion." Once this is done, the bill can be used to outlaw other procedures like Dilation and Extraction (D&E), a procedure used mainly in the second trimester when the fetus isn't viable.I don't see why the method used would matter. Either the fetus has the rights of a human or it doesn't. When does it get this right? That is the question.

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?

All the more reason not to have them wouldn't you say?

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

That is up to the legislature to decide, but second degree murder sounds good. It is the sentence Scott Peterson recieved for killing his unborn son. This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:01 PM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

double post :/This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:00 PM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people