Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Abortion and Rape 17

Journal by pudge

I was listening to a pro-choice conservative talk show host the other night who said, essentially, that it is not a defensible position to be against abortion because you think the child in the womb is a life deserving of rights, and to also be in favor of an exception in the case of rape.

He is mostly right, but not entirely so. Some people (I am not one of them) believe that the reason the child's rights take precedence over the mother's is because the mother has already made her choice, when she chose to have sex. She chose to engage in behavior that she knew might result in the child existing, and therefore intentionally caused that child to exist, and has no right to destroy it.

And if you believe this, that the mother already exercised her right when she chose to have sex, and that this is the only reason why the baby's rights take precedence, then it is perfectly reasonable to say the mother's rights take precedence when she is pregnant against her will, such as because of rape.

I don't believe that, but apart from saying "I disagree that the mother's rights can justify killing another person," I can't say the reasoning is false.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Abortion and Rape More

Abortion and Rape

Comments Filter:
  • The woman's choice determines the rights of the fetus? The lack of choice makes the fetus not alive on conception, or just that it deserves a death sentance?

    I don't totally disagree. By removing that fetus, you're removing that man's reproductive rights.
    • The woman's choice determines the rights of the fetus?

      No. In this scenario, both have rights, and you have to balance them. In normal pregnancies, the baby's rights come out on top when you balance them, because the woman already exercised her rights when she decided to have sex. In the case of rape, the woman comes out on top because she had no choice.

      It's not that the rights of the child in the womb are changed. They remain; nothing is changed about them, at all. But the woman's rights, having not be
    • Ignoring the fact that you've misunderstood what Pudge was saying, are you claiming that rapists have reproductive rights over the children that are the result of their crime?

      Personally I think that rape is bad enough without asking a woman to then go through pregnancy and bear a child as a result of it.
      • Personally I think that rape is bad enough without asking a woman to then go through pregnancy and bear a child as a result of it.

        I agree with that. However, I also believe it is killing the child, and that this killing is even worse than asking (even forcing) the woman to bear the child.
  • When a woman chooses to use a contraceptive, to prevent her having a child, if that contraceptive fails, you do not support her 'right' taking precedence over the right of a child. Strange. In both cases the woman has made a conscious choice not to have a child, and in both cases her external environment has caused her to have one against her wishes.

    Why does being pregnant against her will matter when the agent is human, and not when the agent is mere chance?
    • I am more aligned with pudge on this issue, which is to say I do not support abortion even in the cases of rape.

      That said, there is a difference between engaging in a risky actions with proper precautions and being forced into the action. One is acknowledging the risk, and saying you are willing to take the risk, the other is having the option completely removed from you.

      It would be similar to being on a ski slope, where once you get off the lift, you have time to check all your snaps and buckles, bindings
    • When a woman chooses to use a contraceptive, to prevent her having a child, if that contraceptive fails, you do not support her 'right' taking precedence over the right of a child. Strange.

      Do you really mean me when you say "you"? Because this is not about me, as I made perfectly clear.

      Assuming you mean the hypothetical you, it's still logical, whether or not you like it or agree with it. Again, I am not talking here about what is right and wrong, just what is logically reasonable given a set of beliefs y
      • The view is simply that when you decide to have sex, you are taking the risk of creating the child into your own hands, whether you tried to prevent it or not. That the child is created is your responsibility, because you intentionally took action that directly led to it, even if you tried to prevent it from happening.

        So, say Jane tells Dick that she'll only have sex with him if they're engaged, knowing and even hoping that she may become pregnant but also knowing that she won't be alone, etc... Dick ag

        • but now there's a fetus because of a decision (by Jane)

          Right. She made the decision.

          Should we force Jane to go through with the pregnancy?

          That's the wrong question, in this discussion, which is about the belief that the child in the womb is a human being with rights. The question is: should she be allowed to kill the child? The answer, according to some, is obviously no. She made the choice to have sex that led to the existence of the child, and in doing so exercised her rights already, and therefore ha
          • Right. She made the decision. ... She made the choice to have sex that led to the existence of the child, and in doing so exercised her rights already, and therefore has no justification to kill the child.

            When a woman is raped, it could be argued that she made the decision not to fight back (enough) and allowed conception to occur -- it's an extreme viewpoint, but in the same continuum as the point I was making. Is it that much of a leap from rape by coercion ("do it or I'll kill you") to rape by deceit

            • When a woman is raped, it could be argued that she made the decision not to fight back (enough) and allowed conception to occur

              It can also be argued that gnats are smarter than humans.

              Is it that much of a leap from rape by coercion ("do it or I'll kill you") to rape by deceit ("do it and I'll be with you forever").

              In one, you are not willingly having sex. In the other, you are. And "rape by deceit" is, therefore, a contrived and nonsensical phrase.

              So, um, yes.

              If you're saying that in balance, the mother's
              • It can also be argued that gnats are smarter than humans.

                It's a continuum from no sex is rape to all sex is rape -- and there are people who believe those. It's all in where you draw the lines.

                Threatening to use physical force to convince the woman to have sex is, itself, force.

                Threatening is coercion, just as illegal as assault but not the same. Sex without informed consent is rape, which is itself assault. What I'm arguing is that using deceit to gain consent for sex does not make it informed

                • It's a continuum from no sex is rape to all sex is rape -- and there are people who believe those.

                  Yes, there are stupid people who believe those. I categorically ignore such people.

                  Threatening is coercion, just as illegal as assault but not the same.

                  No, assault IS threat, in the context of law. Assault is not actually harming someone, it is threatening or attempting to harm someone (a lot of people think assault is the act of physically harming someone, but that's the battery part; the assault part comes
                  • Right. And you are wrong, according to long-established law, and rightfully so. In the end the woman is still free to make the choice whether or not to have sex, and there is no expressed or implied repercussion for not doing so.

                    Coercion can be purely psychological -- sure it would be difficult to prosecute, but not impossible. If a woman felt pressure (for whatever reason) that she needed a husband to survive, a man could coerce her to have sex as a condition of marriage.

                    • Coercion can be purely psychological

                      Right. But the scenario you offered is not coercion. Look, this is about force. In your scenario, there was no force exerted. She was free to make the choice.

                      If a woman felt pressure (for whatever reason) that she needed a husband to survive

                      Then she is stupid.
      • I posted above because I thought your line "I can't say the reasoning is false." was wrong. (I believe) you cannot justify what the people who hold that view justify by appealling to an idea of the mother's choice / non-choice.

        Firstly, as I said before, the mother's choice when using contraception was not to have a baby. So bare 'choice' alone can't justify a different response to abortion from accident to abortion from rape.

        Now you add 'risk' into the equation. The argument is, the mother was engagin
        • as I said before, the mother's choice when using contraception was not to have a baby

          But her choice was to have sex, which she knew could lead to a baby, regardless of her attempt to prevent that.

          So bare 'choice' alone can't justify a different response to abortion from accident to abortion from rape.

          Sure it can. In one, you chose to take action which is quite likely to lead to a baby (for example, condoms, when used properly, still fail what ... 2 or 3 percent of the time?). In the other, you did no such

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer

Close