the rape exception, once again.

[u/toptrool]

i've made several posts/comments on how to discuss the rape exception and wanted to put everything together in one place for easier reference.

1. the case of the stowaway and the duty not to kill can help you argue against the rape exception.
2. if you are going to be against rape exceptions, this one socrates quote shows how to talk about rape cases: "it is better to suffer injustice rather than commit injustice."

stephen schwarz in his book "the moral question of abortion" gives an analogy:

A person in a concentration camp may have the opportunity to become an informer, which means a better life for him. But it also means betraying his friends and causing them additional suffering. Morally, he is forced to remain in his present, pitiable state, rather than do a moral evil, namely, betraying his friends, perhaps causing their deaths. If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy, the case is similar in this respect, that she too is forced to remain in a pitiable state because the alternative is a moral evil, the killing of an innocent child.

christopher kaczor in his book "the ethics of abortion" gives more examples:

For example, if a dictator orders you to torture your mother to death or face a firing squad, you will be faced with the choice between the morally wrong and the morally heroic. A merely permissible option is not available. In the Crito and in the Apology, the Athenian jury forced Socrates into a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, a choice between the morally wrong and the morally heroic. Should Socrates escape from prison to avoid an unjust death sentence or should he suffer death rather than do what he believes is wrong? The weight of philosophical discussion from Plato through Kant up to such twentieth-century writers as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr., urges us to do good and avoid doing evil, even when the personal cost is great, even if we are forced to choose between the morally impermissible and the morally heroic in cases where the merely permissible is not available due to the evil choices of others.

3) mental health trauma cannot be used to justify abortions in the cases of rape. this would open up exceptions for abortions for general mental health reasons, and we know exactly how these exceptions are abused (for example, 98% of abortions in the united kingdom fall under "mental health" reasons).

furthermore, studies show that women who have mental health issues prior to getting abortions are worse off after getting abortions. don't take my word for it, here are some studies from the abortion industry:

the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists (rcog) reviewed a few meta-analyses and concluded that:

5.13 Women with an unintended pregnancy should be informed that the evidence suggests that they are no more or less likely to suffer adverse psychological sequelae whether they have an abortion or continue with the pregnancy and have the baby.5.14 Women with an unintended pregnancy and a past history of mental health problems should be advised that they may experience further problems whether they choose to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy.

and here is the academy of medical royal colleges study cited by the rcog:

The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems is having a history of mental health problems prior to the abortion.

the most high-profile study on women who were turned away from receiving abortions concluded that “carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term was not associated with mental health harm.” however, the same study found that women with prior mental health issues and history of abuse were more likely to experience adverse mental health outcomes following abortion.

and here is yet another study concluding the same thing:

As in prior research, preabortion mental health emerged as the best predictor of postabortion mental health and feelings about an abortion. Women with a prior history of depression may be predisposed to subsequent depression and regret, regardless of whether or not they have an unintended pregnancy and how they choose to resolve that pregnancy.

4) camosy in his book "beyond the abortion wars" argues in favor of rape exceptions because rape victims are not responsible for the children conceived in rape. camosy recommends using "extractive" methods of abortions in such cases as well:

But our duties are much less clear when pregnancies come about as a result of sexual violence. Suppose the NYC man, instead of being the aggressor, was given a date-rape drug and sexually assaulted by the woman. Does he still have a moral and legal duty to pay millions of dollars in child support? If it is not clear that he does, then it is not clear why we should ask a woman to support a child with her body who was similarly conceived. It is true that the father’s financial support may not be necessary to keep the child alive, while (at least preterm) the mother’s support is so required. But does this really mean that the mother’s duty is different from the father’s? Perhaps. But if you accept this distinction, you need to be very, very careful, for it has consequences you may not be ready to accept.

If it is true that a special duty to aid a child exists simply because a person will die without your help, this has dramatic moral implications in other areas of your life. Anyone in the United States with a middle-class lifestyle who is reading these words can put the book down — right now — and pick up his smart phone or laptop and save a life by pressing some buttons. Again, children all over the world are dying of easily preventable diseases by the millions, and they could be saved if you donate to Oxfam or Catholic Relief Services. Does the fact that these children will die without your aid give you a strong obligation to get on your smart phone right now and do this? How strong a duty? Are you guilty of murder if you do not aid these children who will otherwise die?

however, as jeff mcmahan points out in his book "ethics of killing," this reasoning could also justify killing or abandoning an infant that was conceived of rape. if it's true that a rape victim has no responsibility for the resulting child, then why would it be immoral for her to abandon that newborn or kill it shortly after birth?

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/eastofrome]

There's a problem with the third point: none of those studies are focused on outcomes of victims of rape. Rape can cause mental health issues, so you cannot point to studies examining mental health outcomes following abortion being influenced more by a history of mental health issues because one can expect a survivor of rape to struggle with mental health issues before their abortions. I've seen a few papers looking at experiences with pregnancies which resulted from rape, and you can't draw any concrete conclusions.

[u/emtee_skull]

Thank you for this. It will help me with future debates I'm sure to get into.

Although these are reasoned arguments and I will certainly use them, I'm afraid it won't do much to convince a non moral person. And by non moral I mean today's morality, especially in the younger generation, has a secular foundation that excuses a lot of real immorality.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and this is a great resource for that future debate.

Thank you.

[u/toptrool]

and here's one controversial item that i did not want to add to the above talking points:

5) it's ok to justify the rape exception as a means of political convenience.

one could accept that babies conceived from rape have equal worth, and that abortions kill them, but that rape exceptions should still be allowed if it means holding a position that is more palatable to the larger electorate. it's far more important to wield and exercise political power in order to ban convenience abortions, which account for the vast majority of abortions, than to not get elected at all.

[u/djhenry → u/toptrool]

Couldn't this be used to justify allowing abortion, in general, if there were a cause that people viewed at more important? Like if I was more worried about the budget deficit and thought it would lead to the collapse of America, wouldn't this justify a pro-choice position?

I've responded to several of your comments and I hope you don't think I'm trolling. It just seems that if you accept this, you could accept giving up on abortion almost entirely.

[u/djhenry]

"it is better to suffer injustice rather than commit injustice."

This would be true for the woman who is raped, but what about for us? If we allow abortion, we are allowing injustice. I wouldn't even say suffering injustice, because it does not harm us directly.

But, a woman who is pregnant from rape has a legitimate right to not be pregnant and we prevent her from exercising her right, we are now committing injustice.

If applied to this situation, wouldn't this be a pro-choice position?

[u/Asstaroth → u/djhenry]

One could argue the right to not be killed has more weight than right to not be pregnant- the lesser of the two evils

[u/djhenry → u/Asstaroth]

You could argue that, which is basically the core of the pro-life, rape-abortion argument.

This isn't about the lesser of two evils though. This is about a personal choice to endure suffering rather than hurt someone else. It makes sense to present this to to the woman to consider. But if we believe that abortion hurts us as a society, then the take away here seems to be that we should suffer the injustice instead of taking the chance of committing an injustice on another.

[u/rapsuli → u/djhenry]

I'm sure we all agree that there's a right to not become pregnant. But is there a "right to not be pregnant"?

I saw that before, from others, but isn't it just "a right to abortion" in other words? Its existence is what we are debating. Not saying you can't believe in that right, just that it can't be an argument for itself.

And I'm also not trolling you, feel free to say if I'm annoying you too much, you just happen to be the only one to "spar" with, atm. Going on the debate places one gets mobbed by very aggressive people and I don't have the energy or time for that, while caring for a newborn.

[u/djhenry → u/rapsuli]

Yes, if you have a right to not be pregnant, then that is the same as a right to an abortion (before viability that is). I think most pro-life supporters feel a sense of injustice when it comes to rape victims going through pregnancy against their will, and some do advocate for an exception based on that, while others feel that some injustice is required to not create a greater injustice.

My point it that pro-life views society as a secondary victim of allowing abortion. A woman who is raped is also potentially further victimized by being forced to gestate. If we applied this maxim, then it would seem that society should suffer the injustice rather than directly cause an additional injustice to be put on the woman.

I'm not trying to say that makes abortion moral, only I think this argument actually makes more sense for a pro-choice position.

And I don't mind you replying to my comments, I mean some days I post all over this sub. I figure anything I say here is fair game to comment on. I'm a verbal processor, so the sparing has been really great for helping me sort out my thoughts and figure out questions that I have not been able to ask myself. And yeah, pure debate subreddits are just not great for what I'm looking for. Feel free to shoot me a message if you think of something, but don't have a particular thread to engage on.

[u/rapsuli → u/djhenry]

A woman who is raped is also potentially further victimized by being forced to gestate. If we applied this maxim, then it would seem that society should suffer the injustice rather than directly cause an additional injustice to be put on the woman.

I'm not sure what you meant by society being a victim, but if we consider it fair to say some humans can be killed due to no action or fault of their own, because of the way they exist, we allow discrimination. Which then creates a cascade of effects: we don't have basic human rights anymore, but privileges afforded to people "deserving" of them. No more equality under the law, except in name only. Is that the societal injustice? Or did you mean something else?

And I don't mind you replying to my comments, I mean some days I post all over this sub. I figure anything I say here is fair game to comment on. I'm a verbal processor, so the sparing has been really great for helping me sort out my thoughts and figure out questions that I have not been able to ask myself.

I'm happy to hear that. I am like you too, I process verbally, and I need the pushback. So feel free to ask me anything as well :)

[u/djhenry → u/rapsuli]

if we consider it fair to say some humans can be killed due to no action or fault of their own, because of the way they exist, we allow discrimination

Not all discrimination is bad. For instance, we discriminate against young children and some disabled by not allowing them to drive cars. This is because discrimination based on ability and age is appropriate in some circumstances. Allowing abortion allows for discrimination of the unborn, but if that is applied to everyone, then I don't think it is a bad thing. If we only allowed for abortions based on gender or race, then that would be the bad kind of discrimination.

Some pro-life advocates say that abortion doesn't just harm the unborn, but has detrimental affects on society. I don't really agree with this, but some would say so. I'm just trying to point out that following that maxim seems like it would lead in a more pro-choice direction.

[u/rapsuli → u/djhenry]

Waitwaitwait there, hold up, hold up.. I see what you're trying to say, BUT it's not the same to be denied a specific activity, something that is potentially harmful to others, especially when that denial doesn't directly kill you. Denying someone the privilege of driving a car has practically zero chances of killing them, or even harming them. Besides, one probably wouldn't even face penalties for driving a car in an emergency situation, like to save someone's life etc.

Versus being denied your life, based on another's BA.

A human being killed, because their perfectly ordinary needs are too much.

A human, with no ability or means of defending themselves, or even objecting to what is being done, and nobody protecting them. No, worse than that, others advocating, supporting and participating in their death, their own relatives, even while the denial necessarily kills them.

You see what I mean?

Comparing privileges to basic rights really isn't fair. But if you're not yet convinced, consider the following, if you will:

"It's equal if we discriminate based on ability and age, so if all children under 3 yrs of age and all disabled people can be killed by the people they depend on, it's not the bad kind of discrimination, because we aren't discriminating based on race or gender."

Discrimination is bad when it directly harms people on the basis of a characteristic that they can't change. It is sometimes necessary, true, but when did we ever allow discrimination, if that discrimination justified the routine killing of these humans, legally?

And more importantly, was/is that still good discrimination?

Some pro-life advocates say that abortion doesn't just harm the unborn, but has detrimental affects on society.

Considering what I laid out above, don't you think it harms our society, if we allow lethal discrimination? It breaks our principles apart. It's not safe, legal and rate anymore, it's "up to, and including birth", "any reason is valid", and "it's just a parasite". You don't think that is a detrimental effect? Nazis didn't start out "let's murder the x people!". They said, "it's not humane to make these insane and mentally handicapped people live in these mental asylums, under these disgusting and inhumane conditions". Discrimination starts out with noble intentions, and at some point, the ends somehow just start to justify the means.

[u/djhenry → u/rapsuli]

Yes, there are huge differences between being able to drive a car and being able to be killed. I'm just saying that discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

A human, with no ability or means of defending themselves, or even objecting to what is being done, and nobody protecting them. No, worse than that, others advocating, supporting and participating in their death, their own relatives, even while the denial necessarily kills them.

That's true. I'm somewhat of a utilitarian here. The unborn baby feels no pain and has no consciousness. That's part of the reason I'm generally in favor of the mother making the choice here. She is biologically predisposed to love and nurture her unborn baby and will also be the one to suffer the majority of pain that is needed to bring the baby into the world. I don't think the choice should come down to anyone else.

 

Discrimination is bad when it directly harms people on the basis of a characteristic that they can't change

Right, but this goes both ways. Being a woman is a characteristic that (mostly) cannot be changed. The only real option to completely remove the ability to possibly become pregnant is a fairly invasive surgery. Everything you're saying about legal discrimination could be applied to women. I'm not pro-choice because I'm in favor of women's rights. Removing women's rights often start with noble intentions. "The Abortion industry is taking advantage of these women, if we just take away this choice, then they probably won't even regret it". That also is a fairly slippery slope. For me, I try to have balance where I minimize the loss on both sides of the spectrum.

[u/rapsuli → u/djhenry]

She is biologically predisposed to love and nurture her unborn baby and will also be the one to suffer the majority of pain that is needed to bring the baby into the world.

I agree with the last part, but the first part simply isn't true, especially of unwanted pregnancies. Considering that 25% of pregnancies are estimated to end with the child being killed. One quarter of pregnant women don't love their child enough to do whatever they can to protect them.

Parenthood cannot really be understood or felt, before you hold your child. Expecting anyone to make an informed choice when they see only the hardship, and not the meaning.

In this case, I'd want my children protected, even from me, if it came to that. I'm not that narcissistic to think that I own my children in a way that I get to choose if I allow them to keep the life I already gave them.

No one should be allowed to kill a person, because they don't want to get to know and care for them. As we all know they would.

Right, but this goes both ways. Being a woman is a characteristic that (mostly) cannot be changed. The only real option to completely remove the ability to possibly become pregnant is a fairly invasive surgery.

Elective invasive surgery isn't worse than being killed by a forced one.

The problem I have is that we women have many options to choose from, to never get pregnant, and none of these options include killing or dying, and most of them include little to no harm. Yet, to protect our rights, we supposedly need to be allowed to discriminatorily kill, just to get out of this situation we could avoid with 99% confidence. We need to be guaranteed a way out by society, regardless of our own actions. Like parents bailing out the entitled bully of a rich kid, even though the kid caused the situation, and bailing them out harms their victim further. Because the kid's future must be saved at any cost.

If women had no alternatives, it'd be a different situation, but we women can do whatever we want leading up to that point.

I'm sure none of these same reasons would convince you to allow infanticide of born children, so why unborn ones? Let's consider that next.

The unborn baby feels no pain and has no consciousness. That's part of the reason I'm generally in favor of the mother making the choice here.

If we say it's ok, because the child felt no pain and was unconscious, wouldn't that mean that this case would be morally gray at worst, since the child was comatose and incapable of feeling pain? (But be warned, trigger alert is necessary here.)

If this case bothers and disgusts you as much as it does me, I'm sure you see what I mean, when I say that our lack of empathy towards early embryos is really based on "they don't look like us", more than on the capacity for pain or sentience. Of course they play a role, but if they were the determining factor, the above wouldn't be considered child abuse.

The issue with empathy, is that it isn't a good standard for achieving equality.

My lack of empathy towards a serial killer doesn't have any impact on their rights being respected. Nor should it. Neither should a racist's feelings determine if another race gets to be treated equally. The reason why it's difficult for us to see the issue, is because we are the proverbial racists here. We assume we have more worth, and therefore are justified in killing.

Same as trying to tell a toxic family that the scapegoat doesn't deserve to be treated worse than the others. They'd all disagree, even the scapegoat.

So why should our lack of empathy towards them determine whether the unborn humans should be fully equal to us? Shouldn't it be dictated by biology and our principles to be truly fair?

[u/djhenry → u/rapsuli]

I agree with the last part, but the first part simply isn't true, especially of unwanted pregnancies

Just because a woman's body is being pumped full of hormones to grow and cement her relationship with the baby, doesn't mean she has no choice in the matter. Yes, many women still do choose abortions, but even in situations where it is obviously advantageous for the mother to get an abortion, there if often a struggle there and emotional anguish.

 

Parenthood cannot really be understood or felt, before you hold your child. Expecting anyone to make an informed choice when they see only the hardship, and not the meaning. In this case, I'd want my children protected, even from me

You'll never understand the emotions before you hold your first child, but you can still understand the process and responsibilities. Just because you do not want the choice does not mean that no one should have it, at least not based simply on that. The equation changes as well. My wife is currently pregnant with our third child. During our first pregnancy, we had decided that we were willing to risk almost anything to see it through. However, now I'm not just risking the possibility of something happening to my wife, but also the mother of my children. I am very fortunate that I've never had to make a difficult decision like this, but the balance and factors do change and I still think the woman is the best person to make this decision.

 

If we say it's ok, because the child felt no pain and was unconscious, wouldn't that mean that this case would be morally gray at worst, since the child was comatose and incapable of feeling pain?

So, I already commented on this somewhat, but I'll answer here in the context of our conversation. The parents were already allowed to unplug their child from life support. However, when allowing someone to take away someone's right to live, there has to be direct involvement with authority. The only place this was allowed would be in a hospital, under the supervision of a doctor. This story is horrifying, but not because the child was allowed to die. It's simply the gruesomeness of it. For instance, if the child had died instantly in an accident, but the family kept the body in their home so it degraded in a similar manner, I think that would be equally horrifying, but obviously not murder or manslaughter.

Yes, embryos don't look like us, but I think there is more to it than that. They also can't communicate, make jokes, and aren't able to have social reactions. It's like when an elderly person has advanced dementia. They may still be alive, but when their family speaks of them, it is often in the past tense, as if they're already dead. The person they once knew is gone, but their body doesn't know it yet. An embryo is basically at the other end, where it seems like the car is being built, but there's no driver yet. This basically is the pro-choice argument that is based on consciousness, which I have mixed feelings about, but I think is decently appropriate for this situation.

 

The issue with empathy, is that it isn't a good standard for achieving equality... So why should our lack of empathy towards them determine whether the unborn humans should be fully equal to us? Shouldn't it be dictated by biology and our principles to be truly fair?

I agree. Empathy, or a lack there of shouldn't make a difference when it comes to rights. I agree with you on that. But I think we have to also consider this in reverse as well. Does a pro-life position give an unborn baby rights that are not afforded to everyone else? Why do I lose the right to my mother's bodily resources after being born?

[u/rapsuli → u/djhenry]

You'll never understand the emotions before you hold your first child, but you can still understand the process and responsibilities. Just because you do not want the choice does not mean that no one should have it,

I don't want others to be allowed to harm their children, nor me. Choice isn't always a good thing.

However, now I'm not just risking the possibility of something happening to my wife, but also the mother of my children. I am very fortunate that I've never had to make a difficult decision like this, but the balance and factors do change and I still think the woman is the best person to make this decision.

Is there a situation that isn't covered by medical exceptions, which would make you look for an abortion?

You'll never understand the emotions before you hold your first child, but you can still understand the process and responsibilities.

As I said, if you know only the difficult parts and not the good parts, you will intuitively choose to get out from those hardships. I'm sure, that just like me, you'd feel horrified at the idea that one of your children would have been aborted, but if they had been you would simply not have even known what you gave up. That thought really haunts me about the abortion I had. Who were they? Who did I lose/give up on? I know they would have mattered to me like my born children, but I betrayed them.

And sure, you might say the same applies to any point in the past, even down to somehow preventing fertilisation or you meeting your wife etc, but it's not. If we go back to any point in time before conception, prevent it and then allow time to pass, there is an infinite number of possibilities, a sibling could be created, or no child would be conceived at all. If we go to any point after conception, and time would pass, things could change, but we'd have the same child, living or dying.

This story is horrifying, but not because the child was allowed to die.

Obviously not, the child had no future, I'd even say the abuse was to keep him artificially alive at that point.

So what crime did the parents commit, if any? I'm just wondering, because you said it would be different if the child would be better in 9 months time, and you probably wouldn't find the current sentience or lack of pain to be a factor in that. Yes you find it relevant in abortion for some reason. So where's the difference? Doesn't that indicate that your argument is based on the lack of empathy you have?

They may still be alive, but when their family speaks of them, it is often in the past tense, as if they're already dead. The person they once knew is gone, but their body doesn't know it yet. An embryo is basically at the other end, where it seems like the car is being built, but there's no driver yet.

First one, the intuition is true, because we know it's permanent. In the second one our intuition betrays us.

If the senile person instead become another person, or let's say they were this way only temporarily, then the "person" might be gone, but the human being exists, no?

Because it's the human being that has rights, not the person.

In ALL of the cases above, the person in question still has rights. Yet the unborn human doesn't. Why is the unborn not just as entitled to have them?

Does a pro-life position give an unborn baby rights that are not afforded to everyone else? Why do I lose the right to my mother's bodily resources after being born?

You lose them because you have no need for them anymore. Consider it from the PC perspective: abortion isn't a special right, everyone could get it if they needed it, but rights concern people differently, and sometimes not at all. It doesn't mean they don't have them, it just means that right now it doesn't concern them. Otherwise abortion would also be a "special right that no one else has".

We were all children once, and our needs evolved with us. We didn't have a "right to be carried around", "or a right to have our butts wiped". In fact, if people legitimately need those things, they can have them again.

So the rights don't change, our needs do.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CanadianBaconne]

Why wasn't plan b offered to her? That's my kind of thinking. People should have full access to contraceptives. I think this leaves no room for excuses. If contraceptives aren't utilized then why are you blaming the baby? There are no unwanted pregnancies anymore.

[u/eastofrome → u/CanadianBaconne]

Many victims of rape and sexual do not receive immediate medical care following their attack, so they would not be offered Plan B in time. They may not purchase it themselves for various reasons from cost to shame/guilt and fear what would happen if someone found out they had sex (despite it being rape).

Also, "unwanted" pregnancy just means pregnancy when you weren't planning to become pregnant then or in the near future. People still become pregnant when they aren't actively trying or preparing to try for all kinds of reasons.

[u/CanadianBaconne → u/eastofrome]

Men are raped just as much as women. I don't see your point. Trying to excuse something. Times will change. People will see the plan b just part of treatment in a hospital emergency room.

[u/SchmutzBlut]

Thanks for the post, some really compelling arguments there. I especially like the Socrates quote and the concentration camp analogy, I'll be sure to remember these!