I would like to discuss an aspect of the abortion debate I find to be kind of strange.
First, I think it's appropriate to state my position on abortion, just for the record. I'm not particularly fond of the practice, but at the same time, I'm not up in arms about overturning Roe v. Wade. I tend to prefer strategies meant to cut off a problem at its source. Specifically, in this case, methods which would help prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Anyway, I find it kind of curious that even the majority of Pro-Lifers are accepting of abortion under certain circumstances. Now, I understand why most people would be ok with it when the life of the mother is at risk, but the logic behind supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest seems a little faulty.
Pro-Lifers are willing to allow abortions of rape babies to slip under the table. After all, it seems unfair to the victim to force her to carry around the child of her rapist. However, I am curious as to how the crime of the father invalidates the life of the baby? This is obviously a form of inherited guilt, in which a child becomes responsible for something it is completely innocent of. I'd really like to know how "circumstantial" Pro-Lifers reconcile with this fact?
The tolerance for aborting incest babies is something I don't understand either. Now, I know there is a near universal taboo against incest, and I assume this repulsion probably influences the "circumstancial" Pro-Lifer's position (perhaps on a more subconscious level than something they're cognatively aware of). I know incest babies are more likely to have birth defects. Nevertheless, why would these issues invalidate the child's right to life?
Are these just examples of people compartmentalizing their beliefs, or is there something I'm simply not aware of?
I just want to say you are absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteIt's nuts to oppose abortion in most cases but not all. I submit that most people who are pro-life are anti abortion all the way.
I think people are afraid to take the stance that a rape victim should have to take a child to term, but they should.
The crimes of the father have no bearing on the child's right to live.
Same for incest babies, sick babies etc.
Hmm..
ReplyDeleteI should point out that so far Matt has submitted that most pro-lifers probably support abortion in the case of rape or incest, and that John has stated the opposite, that most pro-lifers oppose abortion in all cases (but are sometimes too afraid to state it openly). It would be a good idea to dig and find out which assumption is supported by the facts.
For my part, I find the whole argument about when abortion is acceptable versus when it is not to be completely arbitrary. There is no perfect formula to be applied to such a complicated (and deeply personal) situation, to determine whether it's morally acceptable or not. Like most moral questions in the real world, it requires individual judgement, which is both subjective and personal.
Obviously I don't agree with John that it's absolutely forbidden in all cases. I would compare that to absolute passivism, rejecting violence in all cases, even self-defense. It's a nice, clean, simple law that's absolutely impractical for anyone trying to live by it, let alone a whole society.
I was pretty brief in my response so let me elaborate.
ReplyDeleteMany in the pro-life world are probably actually ok with the rape/incest exceptions. I find those people to be someone inconsistent.
Also, I didn't say it should be forbidden in all cases. If the mother would die (with relative certainty) by finishing the pregnancy, then you're stuck in a tough spot. Someone has to die, and there can be no rule to determine who. Ultimately I guess this is something women should have predetermined like a living will but I'm not sure.
"I didn't say it should be forbidden in all cases"
ReplyDeleteActually, yeah you did.
"It's nuts to oppose abortion in most cases but not all"
Yes I did....Fail one for me.
ReplyDeleteI guess I should say abortion is bad in all cases. But in the limited case I described, perhaps it could be the less bad of two bad options.
Outside of those dire circumstances though, across the board badness.
I am, by my own definition, nuts.
Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteEvery poll I have ever seen on the matter shows that a larger percentage of people are supportive of abortion under certain circumstances than people who want it completely illegal.
ReplyDeleteHere are some results from a Google search.
pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
I don't find it too surprising that most Americans have a "middle of the road", circumstantial approach to abortion. I lean that way too. But since we're talking about pro-lifers specifically, and their possible.. inconsistency?.. of approach, we should check out the opinions of folks who only self identify as pro-life.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....well, I think we need settle one thing before moving on. Should a person who is only supportive of abortions under certain circumstances still be considered pro-life?
ReplyDeleteI certainly wouldn't call them pro-choice.
Limited pro-life maybe? Pro-life really covers everything from being against abortion, to opposing euthanasia, assisted suicide and the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteMatt, isn't that the main point that you're trying to make with this blog? That is, the pro-lifer's aren't exactly 100% consistent.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is a strict, according to canon criteria for being pro-life. If that's how you label yourself, so be it. Being "pro-choice" likewise doesn't necessarily mean that you support a person's right to abort a fetus at any stage. Or at least, if that's the case, people don't always pay heed to the convention...
Aren't we beating around the bush on this subject? We aren't talking about individuals who are generally opposed to abortion in most cases, we're talking about ideologically rigid activists (i.e. religious people, or to put an even finer point on it - fundamentalist Christians). Are some Christian Fundamentalists engaged in hypocrisy when it comes to abortion policies?
Abortion: Neither here NOR THERE!
ReplyDeleteHoly crap...this blog is still alive.
ReplyDelete"..isn't that the main point that you're trying to make with this blog? That is, the pro-lifer's aren't exactly 100% consistent."
Yes, I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page.
"Are some Christian Fundamentalists engaged in hypocrisy when it comes to abortion policies?"
Oh, must all roads of our debates lead back to Christianity? Christians may make up the bulk of pro-lifers, but they're not necessarily definitive of the movement. Personally, I feel as though more secular humanists should be pro-life, as the act of abortion robs something that will be human of the only life it is guaranteed.
Likewise, Christians who happen to believe dead babies get a free pass to Heaven should certainly be docile towards the whole practice. Perhaps it is a bit twisted, but wouldn't it be a greater good to ensure the child has a place in Heaven than to leave it to its own sinful devices? They can worry about saving the mother's soul after the deed is done.
"Oh, must all roads of our debates lead back to Christianity?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
"wouldn't it be a greater good to ensure the child has a place in Heaven than to leave it to its own sinful devices?"
Peter Griffin's Dad tells me that unbaptised babies go to purgatory.
Abortion isn't bad because it sends babies to heaven. It's bad because it screws with God's plan/natural order and it's murder. Murdering a devout Christian also sends them to heaven, but it is not allowed.
ReplyDelete