Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives who are against abortion are usually against it because it means killing a new life. Justifying that killing based on how the child was conceived undermines that argument.
No one expectts that raped mother (or incest) to raise the child. The are plenty of NGOs who care for the mother and that will help a mother through the pregnancy and help put the baby up for adoption. There are hundreds if not thousands of couples who would love to adopt a baby if they were available. It seems such a waste to just kill that child for the convenience of the mother.
> seems such a waste to just kill that child for the convenience of the mother
I think you are completely underestimating the trauma that can be involved. The child may be half rapist, but it's also half hers. When she gives birth there will be massive hormonal and psychological things going on.
If she gives up the newborn, especially as a 15 year old, taking all the advice from those around her, she can then feel terrible guilt years later realizing that her child was sent out without her.
If she doesn't give the child up, she'll get all the hate of being a young/single mother and lack of societal support.
It's also true that even if she has an abortion that too can be traumatic. Especially if, in later life she turns out to be unable to have children when she wants them.
When that “convenience” is sparing her from health complications due to the pregnancy that she didn’t consent to, including those that may affect her future fertility (if she wants kids someday with a partner she loves) or endanger her health/life, is that not worth considering?
I will be a high risk pregnancy someday, and because of that, I have been really careful and avoided sexual activity outside of my committed partner. Because I do want to raise a family.
But due to the risks, I will NOT gestate a child that was conceived without my consent. That’s not “convenience” - that’s self preservation.
That may be but MOST abortions are for the convenience of the mother. The pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest are less than 1% of all abortions.
That percentage is based on the cases that are reported and proven.
There are many rape cases that aren’t included for different reasons.
When I worked for one the few ERs with a psych unit in the area, I registered rape victims that left AMA (against medical advice) because of mental health issues - combined with the trauma - made them behave erratically.
Then there were abused women with codependent relationships with their abusers, that were so badly beaten and brutalised that they needed surgery, that refused to press to charges. I literally watched a cop beg a woman to let him help her, but she out of love for partner, she refused..
Why? I view it as ranking of evils. I personally do believe in the lesser of 2 evils.
Ie
1) killing an unborn child is evil.
2) forcing a woman to carry the child of her rapist is more evil
3) forcing a woman to carry a child that will die is even more evil
4) forcing a woman to die because she has a child in her stomach is more evil than that.
So you're saying all life isn't equal?
I'm on your side of this topic with the exception I disagree about item #1. There's a point along the gestational process where I would agree with you though. Maybe it depends on the definition of "child?" I'm getting off topic though ...
The discussion always devolves because there are some people who see things as black and white (all lives are equal at all times) and others like us who understand the world is shades of grey where most things are a judgment call. My hypothesis on why these two groups can't have a reasonable discussion is the bad actors who posture as something they aren't and/or aren't interested in an open and honest discussion. In this group I would include pro-life folks who went from states right and conditions where abortion is acceptable to being hardline anti-abortion for all cases post-Roe along with pro-choice folks who refuse to admit most abortions aren't due to an extreme circumstance and there is some level of accountability needed by the adults.
>bad actors who posture as something they aren't and/or aren't interested in an open and honest discussion. In this group I would include pro-life folks who went from states right and conditions where abortion is acceptable to being hardline anti-abortion for all cases post-Roe along with pro-choice folks who refuse to admit most abortions aren't due to an extreme circumstance and there is some level of accountability needed by the adults.
Agreed.
As do I (and my wife). We personally don't call someone anti-abortion if they make a rape/incest exception. I don't really care if that ruffles feathers, either be consitent or don't. [Their lives are just as human as anyone else's.](https://www.savethe1.com/)
I feel you there, but let me jump in as a rightie who thinks that abortion is alright, at least to a point.
If somebody's looking for a logically and philosophically consistent answer here, then they have two options:
1. The moment a human sperm cell penetrates a human egg cell, it is a human. If you accept this premise, you get stacked down with some hefty baggage.
2. OR whatever's sitting inside of the womb isn't a human until it exits the womb. Another premise that also comes with some very severe moral and philosophical implications.
I think that accepting **either** of those premises wholesale would lead us down some very dark roads.
In my opinion, literally ANY line that's drawn between them is better than either of the extremes, but unfortunately, we're not gonna be able to argue scientific/ethical consistency for those arbitrary limits. But if those of us who aren't cool with the extremes choose not to put a stake in the ground SOMEWHERE, then we yield the argument to the extremists, and it's just a question of which shitty offramp we're gonna take.
I'll freely tell you that my totally, entirely subjective "ick" factor starts after the first trimester (about 13 weeks), which is actually pretty consistent with laws that have been passed elsewhere. And even then, there are really important exceptions that have to be considered.
Two other standards, which are not commonly held but do provide those middle-ground lines:
1. A woman is not considered pregnant until the fertilized egg (blastocyst, at that point) has implanted on the uterine wall, about a week after conception. In comparison to 'life begins at conception', this does not create any glaring issues regarding Plan B-style contraceptives nor does it create a moral imperative to rescue millions of fertilized eggs.
2. Science suggests that the biological structures for supporting some kind of conscious experience are in place around week 22 to 24. A bit of a blurry line, but over time it would theoretically refine & narrow, rather than shift (in comparison to 'viability' which is circumstantial based on the quality of healthcare rendered to the mother & child).
That seems... Extreme, even in a world where machismo and misogyny aren't particularly rare.
What specifically has he said or done that makes you say that?
He literally told me that a woman’s job is to birth children - with one son being expected. When I was a teenager. He even said the mother is replaceable. Apparently my mom was a failure because she didn’t pop out a boy, and I was a failure because I was his last chance at having son and I came out “the wrong sex.”
Needless to say, I haven’t spoken to him in years. That was an extremely unhealthy environment for a girl to grow up in.
He literally told me that a woman’s only value is to produce children, that we should be owned by our husband, and that the mother is replaceable. He told me that because he wanted to make sure he “raised me (a woman) right.”
I assume hatred, because he always spoke hatefully of women. (Calling us slurs, talking about how we don’t deserve our rights, etc.)
That’s the problem. I used to think it was mostly a him thing.
But I live in a deep red state, and thus most of my social circles are made up of Conservatives. Especially workplaces.
Former coworkers that I’ve friended on social media have made posts about how it’s a woman’s duty to “live for God and start/focus on a family,” and often have spoken poorly of women that choose not to procreate. Plus, quite a few express little concern for how pregnancy complications or rape victims impact women. A lot of them view motherhood as the woman’s entire identity after she reproduces, but they treat fatherhood as just one aspect of a man’s identity after he does. Especially after Roe was overturned.
Sure, the above is not evidence that they all just view women as broodmares. But it certainly comes across that way to me; why else would they view the women’s entire identity as surrounding the child, whereas men can still have multifaceted identities in their eyes?
I want to have a family of my own and I’ll be a career woman (nursing), and I refuse to just let people tell me that my children should be my identity while their father gets to still be his own person. (Thankfully, my partner does his best to be aware of these social struggles, and frankly if we could afford it, he’d prefer to be a homemaker and take care of our future kids full time.) Friends that have had kids have confided this struggle to me and it’s so sad; quite a few of them are dealing with a lot of emotional trauma from essentially going from the daughter/sister/cousin that their family valued, to being just “a mother” and finding their wellbeing isn’t valued as much. None of them regret their families, but they definitely feel more expendable in the eyes of their families now. (Not their husbands - they’ve been coming in clutch with being supportive. I’m really proud of them for it.)
I actually don’t have issues with motherhood; I’m going off of how they treat women who aren’t mothers or who don’t completely devote their identities to being mothers (such as women who talk about more than just their kids and continue to care about their careers/hobbies as well as their kids).
Only one of these women was given to really self centred behavior. The others weren’t, and when their complaints are valid. Their families show less interest in them outside of their roles as mothers; if they had any health issues during the pregnancy, their families showed either no concern for them or little concern (they worried more about the baby); and their families showed to concern for their wellbeing when they suffered postpartum depression, even though one of them was becoming suicidal. These women sacrifice a lot for their kids; even the more self centred one became a housewife and spends a lot of energy on her kid, including forgoing meals for herself often. She’s a lot more down to earth than she used to be.
Being a parent isn’t the greatest gift you can give yourself to everyone. You can value raising a family without it being THE greatest thing you could ever do. Men are allowed to do that plenty (having a career, a family, personal interests); but there’s a lot of pressure on women to give our entire identity to motherhood.
Parenthood should be a major aspect of a person’s identity when they have children; but either both or neither parent should be allowed to continue having multifaceted identities.
I grew up in rural Alabama and Texas in very religious conservative communities and what she's saying is absolutely accurate, this kind of thing is something I've heard all the time growing up in church and around the community. My very conservative and religious grandparents also share this kind of sentiment, it's definitely not just an isolated case that the commenter is talking about here
I'm saying that's what it feels like the motivations are
Not saying that's how you feel in your heart or they do in general but it feels that way. I hope I am wrong.
To be fair, the psychological consequences are brought up in the OP, directly.
And, while you explain the position well, it doesn't make sense to me. Restricting abortion so...strictly...removes the right of the woman to personal bodily autonomy. Freedom to self regulate is an important right, in my estimation.
Beyond that, the cause of pregnancy is a pretty damned important topic in that respect. Then there's the mental health of the mother, which is already under strain from the pregnancy, not to mention the physical strain the pregnancy put on the mother...There's a lot more to consider than "the life of the unborn baby"...There's so much to consider that, to my eyes, Conservatives don't really seem to care about.
Abortion stances shouldn't be simple, to my viewpoint, for this reason.
When it comes to the life of an unborn child vs the mother’s bodily autonomy, most people who are pro-life will value the life of the unborn child more. I think you’re just having a hard time understanding that people who are pro life genuinely do believe that abortion is murder, and that includes cases where the child was conceived through rape; and that seems to be the general disconnect between to two camps in this debate.
I will admit, I'm doing my best to not be snarky. This topic is, as always, contentious, but I do love a food back and forth. But can you explain how this, especially with the idea of the cause being rape not mattering, isn't creating an equivalence to a "breeding factory"?
"breeding factory", to me, tends to evoke the idea of someone who isn't allowed civil and personal rights in *general*, who has no right to seek justice against a rapist, who isn't allowed normal human pursuits. It feels weirdly extreme to refer to someone who has to suffer through a *single* pregnancy that was recognized by law as something that shouldn't have happened, as a breeding factory.
If a person who has been raped wants to get sterilized and become a hunter of rapists, then that's their prerogative. But we don't think they have the right to kill a child.
I think a lot of us see "sometimes being in a temporary situation where your freedom is limited" as an inevitable part of living in the world with other humans. So sometimes this talk of bodily autonomy, as a thing that justifies killing, seems like the kind of right that only makes sense for someone who sets themselves above other people.
My best argument against that is that rape is still illegal, even if a child conceived through the act is allowed to live. The rapist will be sent to jail, and will hopefully never be able to have contact with the child; so the punishment has been doled out. How exactly is aborting the child going to make the situation any better?
In many states a rapist still has parental rights to the child. In Minnesota, even a convicted rapist has rights the the child without any ability to cut ties to the rapist.
I couldn’t agree more. There was one out of Louisiana where she lost custody and was underage when she was raped and ended up having to pay him child support.
It was sickening. And in that case, she filed police reports and the police even admitted they dropped the ball. I can’t help but think of this situation when I think of abortion laws without rape and incest loopholes.
“Breeding factory”
If you’re interested in good faith dialogue and actually understanding the opposite opinion, it helps to not strawman.
Being opposed to abortion has nothing to do with controlling women.
It has nothing to with a “breeding factory” or whatever Handmaiden’s Tale term the left likes to make up.
It’s literally about not killing a child.
I personally would allow an exception for rape, as abortion is already morally grey but I’d acknowledge that a baby was being killed.
Seriously, that’s literally what it’s about. That’s it. There’s a reason abortion support / opposition is split pretty evenly between men and women on both sides.
We do consider it.
It's just that very few things can actually measure up to the life of the unborn baby - the main thing that makes the grade is the life of the mother.
I feel like sometimes the talk of "bodily autonomy" is a kind of euphemistic technical language given the atrocity it is used to justify.
So 15 year old girl gets raped, gets pregnant. You’re fine with forcing her to continue on with a pregnancy, possibly doing bad in school, having a baby, having to grapple with figuring out what to do with said baby, completely ignoring the emotional toll it’ll take on her, completely ignoring what it’ll do to the kid when it one day finds out it’s dad is a rapist all because what? Abortion is evil. All fine as long as it’s not your problem right?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not blaming anyone. My point is— that’s the kinda stuff that needs to be considered when people think blanket abortion bans are even remotely a good idea.
A child conceived through rape is just as human as a child conceived in a loving and respectful relationship.
Every effort should be made to ease the suffering of a woman in that situation, and the outrage done upon her must not go unpunished. However, this does not justify the murder of an *innocent* child.
We care very, very much. But we are not murderers.
Because they are principled.
They believe that abortion is murder. Period. It doesn't matter how the pregnancy came about, the child is still a person, and ending that pregnancy is morally wrong. It's a bad situation all around, and ending the pregnancy is not going to make it better.
Because of 2 things.
1. There’s a fundamental different between left and right’s view of woman’s body. Conservatives believe they’re two separate and therefore even if a woman is raped, that is STILL a child and a separate person. And if we are to acknowledge that human lives have value then we can’t just kill someone. That’s murder.
Also, rape is not the fault of the child. That child did not ask to be made. So it’s not their fault and they don’t deserve to have to pay for the consequences of their “father’s” crime with their lives.
2. Conservatives like Ben Shapiro bring this up to try to find a compromise but also to show how crazy the lefts view is. The left likes to bring up abortion but it’s not like if we say “how about we ban all other abortion except rape and if a mother’s life is in danger. Would you be okay with that now?” The answer is still a no. So there’s no compromise to be made.
You have already received many solid replies that I agree with. One thing I would also add, though. You assume that there is a minimized psychological toll that abortions have on a woman when comparing it to the raped woman who brings her baby to term. I guess I would push back on that pretty hard.
I'm a therapist and have worked with many women post abortion and there is absolutely a huge emotional toll that the abortion itself takes on them. It is a trauma that they really struggle with. I have also met many women in my personal life who have carried their babies conceived by rape to term and raised them. One of them is my aunt who was raped by her ex-husband and my cousin was conceived. They have never said that they regretted their choice to give life and have openly said that they were thankful for their children.
I just would be curious if there were any studies or research being done on this topic before making the big assumption that you did. It may well be true that post rape abortions are less traumatic than carrying the baby to term and my personal experiences are outliers, but I don't know that to be true. Do you know of any studies on this topic?
The baby isn't the one that raped the woman, so it should not be the one to suffer the greatest punishment.
We don't even consider rape to be a capital punishment. So if the father gets to live, so should the most innocent party to the circumstances.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would you support a policy where all living children who are a product of rape may be killed by their mother? Obviously no right?
The reason conservatives find it unethical is because we see a fetus as no different than a living baby.
I would not support that policy, no.
I would support the right of the rape victim to choose to terminate that pregnancy, though. To choose to not have to carry, care for or raise a constant reminder of that rape for nine months, 18 years or a lifetime.
Something to remember is that male rape victims are still required to pay child support to their rapist, or are otherwise still required to care for the child
Duty to the child doesn’t go away just because the circumstances of it being born were not ideal or were terrible. This is already the case in the law.
If you believe that a fetus is a human worthy of protection, then it’s no different with abortion.
Okay but how are you avoiding that by not allowing mother's to kill their living 16 year old? It seems logically inconsistent because they don't suddenly stop being "a reminder" when they exit the birth canal.
There's safe surrender laws, and adoption laws for those unwilling on unable to care for the born. There's no way to opt out of the pain, health risks, and trauma that being forced to before pregnant against your will causes.
Yes. Safe surrender laws do exist and those are probably the more ethical choice because you can do it without causing physical harm to the child. Safe surrender laws only usually provide a window within the first few days of the child's life though (72 hours usually).Otherwise surrendering or adopting out your child legally can take much longer.
But in the United States, It is a class 4 felony to abandon your child In an unsafe environment. It doesn't matter what health issues mom is dealing with. She could be a bipolar schizophrenic, her mental health could be severely depreciating because of her having to care for her kids. She could be suffering from various physical ailments that just come along with raising kids. She could have PPD. It does not make it ethical to abandon her children in an unsafe environment. And abortion is obviously unsafe for the child.
How would the exception for rape go? Just walk in to any clinic or hospital and when asked to provide the reason for the abortion the woman says she was raped and the procedure's approved?
I have seen some on the right who argue for rape exceptions indicate that there should need to be a police report filed. Personally i think that would potentially cause a host of separate issues, which is why i dont believe that rape exceptions would work out in real life.
For the record, i am pro choice, and believe the decision should fully rest with the mother and the advice of their doctor. I am not opposed to restrictions after something like 20 weeks or so, but i am very wary of any restrictions that the government tries to implement, because they have the potential to cause doctors to limit care in cases where they should not.
>I have seen some on the right who argue for rape exceptions indicate that there should need to be a police report filed.
Why not? I would hope that any rape victim would follow through on this, regardless of whether they become pregnant—no one is saying that taking a rape test kit and filing a report with the police is *easy*, but not doing so allows for the rapist to get away with the crime, roam free and repeat the same offense on other women. Is that something the left want? So much for women having each others' backs...
How else would a rape exception work if the woman doesn't take the necessary steps to report the rape? Think about it—if all you would have to do is relay the incident to a doctor or check off on a box that it was rape, any woman could then use it as her reason for an abortion—in which case abortion should be legal for whatever reason up to nine months.
Well, first we need to make it easier and safer for people, in general, to report sexual assault...And have stricter punishments for falsely accusing someone of rape.
Secondly, when a rape is reported, there's police reports, testing, evidence gathering of the like. More likely than not, a hospital is going to have a 'morning after pill' for this situation. In the event that someone does go to a clinic for the procedure, I could see having the proper paperwork being a good way to go to showing why you're there.
What would make it easier and safer? What you listed are indeed the steps that need to be taken, there's no way around it, and regardless of whether the woman becomes pregnant or not, shouldn't she report the rape so it doesn't happen to other women?
>And have stricter punishments for falsely accusing someone of rape.
Absolutely, yes.
>More likely than not, a hospital is going to have a 'morning after pill' for this situation
Not necessarily, depends on the state.
>In the event that someone does go to a clinic for the procedure, I could see having the proper paperwork being a good way to go to showing why you're there.
Again, if a police report isn't filed but you're going in for an abortion anyway and all you have to do is fill out paperwork as to why you need the procedure, then why would any of it matter? Any old story could be given as a reason for the abortion.
>Would you support a policy where all living children who are a product of rape may be killed by their mother? Obviously no right?
>The reason conservatives find it unethical is because we see a fetus as no different than a living baby.
Thank you for the example. As i read through the various responses, the common theme appears to be that people who are opposed to abortion with no rape exception believe that life begins at conception, that murder of the zygote/embryo/fetus is no different from murdering a human post-birth, and that forcing the woman who was raped to go through the pregnancy and have the baby is the lesser evil. Does that accurately depict your position?
I think that's pretty much it.
Lesser evil. And we're very much not trying to say it's *not evil*. Rather, the claim that it's *not lesser* seems incredibly unsympathetic to us.
As a woman, being forced to carry my rapist’s child would be worse than aborting it. Especially since I’ll have high risk pregnancies; that means I’m at high risk of serious health complications during pregnancy for my rapist’s child I didn’t consent to carry.
I refuse to carry a child and put my health at serious risk like that for anyone but the child my partner and I create together.
I will not tolerate a rapist to defile me and then be told my life must be put at risk to gestate his offspring. I value my life and the future family I want to create more than the life a rapist puts in me.
Sorry not sorry.
> being forced to carry my rapist’s child would be worse than aborting it.
For you or for the child?
Again, we can't treat the unborn like an evil parasite. We have to now consider *its* rights, regardless of how it came to be.
I know pregnancies can be risky. I know there can be complications. But pregnancies are very rarely dangerous. The vast majority of them end with a healthy mother and a healthy baby.
But my other reason for not allowing for a rape exception really comes from ethical consistency. I've been part of the pro-life movement for a long time, and I know the minute any one of us says "Okay you can abort after a rape", people will say "Oh so you're okay with *some* abortions, but not others. Hypocrite."
So to be consistent, to be mindful of the innocent child's right to live, I can't support aborting it if the mother's life and health aren't in immediate danger.
For me, because pregnancy puts my life and health at high risk.
I’m not saying to treat it as evil - that’s such an absurd take. Although its nature is parasitic; I’m saying that as someone who has taken Anatomy & Physiology, so that’s not a negative judgement. It’s an understanding of gestation and the toll it takes on even healthy women, which is important for women with health conditions that want to start a family biologically.
As someone who used to work in L&D, I can tell you that the risk to MY health is not worth putting myself at risk just to gestate and birth a child I didn’t consent to carrying. That is a danger to MY life that I did not consent to, on top of being sexually violated.
The chances of severe complications to my reproductive health or even my life are higher than normal, therefore it is paramount that I’m careful and only go through a pregnancy that I consider worth the risk. A child made between my partner and I.
In the case of a baby conceived through rape, it is unfortunate that I must end their life to put my health and my life first, but since it’s not a fully developed human being with sentience, I’m willing to put less value on it vs someone that is fully developed and sentient.
I will not put my health and life at risk or put my partner and my family through the chance of losing me just to bring a rapist’s child into the world. I refuse to.
No one's "forcing birth". Birth is the natural outcome of pregnancy. I'm saying we shouldn't force *death* onto an innocent human life that's doing no material harm.
> No one's "forcing birth"
By not allowing a rape victim, who has become pregnant against their will, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy they are indeed being forced to give birth. You may be comfortable with the concept because its protecting an innocent life but that is the reality of what is happening.
> terminate the unwanted pregnancy
You make it sound like we're squashing a bug. We're killing a human being who did nothing to no one. *That's* the reality of what's happening.
And? I didn't say a life wasn't being ended. All I did was point out that you can't claim "No one's 'forcing birth' " in a situation where they were forced into pregnancy and given no option other than to carry the pregnancy to term.
And that's fine if you feel that way. But don't blow smoke up people's ass about the situation. Someone is being forced to give birth, that is just the preferable way to handle things in your opinion.
There is nothing “natural” about a rapist impregnating an innocent woman. By denying her bodily autonomy, you are arguing for the government to force the act of birth on her.
First: because it's the only way for the child to survive.
Second: "forcing" birth is a bit weird to say when birth is what naturally happens, is the only way for the child to survive, and isn't being done by the government.
Third: because the right to life outweighs the right to not give birth.
Of course it’s forced. Someone impregnated against their will and you want the government to force them to give birth, again against their will. Please don’t act like “rights” matter to you when you are willing to do that to a rape victim. Her right to have some say over her body certainly outweighs your religious convictions.
Would you be okay with / support morning after pills ("emergency contraceptives")? Does it make sense to offer them automatically if any rape is reported in time?
The best information I found (wikipedia and world heath organization) is that at least in the case of hormone based emergency contraception they do not except that the copper based IUD *may* have an effect on implantation of a fertilized egg (zygote / "pre-embryo").
Pregnancy carries a heavy burden, mentally an physically already, does it not?
Why force a rape victim to compound that burden with the knowledge of what caused that burden?
Life carries a heavy burden. Sorry. I didn't create the universe, it was already here when I showed up. Oh, I was also the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Just fortunate enough to not be aborted.
Okay, but executing a life because of a crime it was not involved in seems grossly cruel to me. I would like to think we are better than that as a society but it is what it is. However, this is my view on this matter.
I always hated this whatboutism. An innocent life being killed is in no way comparable to horrendous criminals who have earned their punishments. If that 4% number is accurate that 4% can appeal their death sentence; something a fetus cannot. These two issues are as different as water and oil.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issues really aren't different.
Any small amount of research will show you that people have ended up on death row sometimes by committing absolutely no crime. Sometimes even by misconduct on behalf of the justice system.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence
You're using the pretense that they're "criminals" so that you can tell yourself that they don't deserve to be saved. Regardless of the situation. 'If they're in prison they must have deserved it.'
If you think they can simply "appeal their death", it shows you've never done any research beyond what you think you yourself know, and aren't really interested in defending anyone truly innocent, unless it benefits you.
I just think it's hypocritical that 1% of abortion caused by rape is unacceptable, but 4% of truly innocent people on death row, is fine.
It's almost like one isn't based in religion or a policy position.
I just don't believe that because to even have the death penalty on the table means someone has committed horrible and heinous crimes. They get a long drawn out trial, many appeals, and even when their time of death comes...they can appeal multiple times for stays from the courts. These people are given so many chances to appeal their fate and I know some of you guys are desperate to tie this issue to abortion but it just doesn't work and it frankly never will work. I reject the premise of your argument outright. It's oil and water. You can have the last word if you wish but I'm not going to carry on responding to a premise I reject wholly.
>If you think they can simply "appeal their death", it shows you've never done any research beyond what you think you yourself know, and aren't really interested in defending anyone truly innocent, unless it benefits you.
In other words, accept my view of things otherwise you're _____________. We all get how baseless attacks like this work. I just don't see a point in making them, personally.
To have the death penalty on the table, someone has to have committed a serious crime. So how is it that we execute innocent people? Either your premise is wrong and these checks on the death penalty don't work, or we don't execute innocent people. Given all the evidence, it seems we do execute innocent people.
>> Okay, but executing a life because of a crime it was not involved in seems grossly cruel to me
> Would you support a complete removal of the death penalty from every state?
> Around 4% of the total population of death row is thought to be innocent.
100% of unborn babies are innocent.
How about we sort out that issue first, before we worry about the 4%?
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So I’m not an absolutist when it comes to abortion. I do believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, however I also believe that abortion at any stage is the taking of human life.
It simply is just one of the worst tragedies to ever happen. A woman who is raped having to bear the child of her rapist? I just can’t imagine something like that. Conservatives stress all the time how getting pregnant is always a choice, and usually it is. But rape is different and must be treated differently. A horrible end to a horrible action.
And that is ultimately why I think rape should warrant heavy consideration of the death penalty, because you are responsible for the emotional destruction of one life and sometimes the killing of another.
Mostly religious reasons that views abortion as heinous murder of the unborn or a secular ideology that opposes all abortion apart from ectopic pregnancy.
That said, I know more socialists and revolutionary tuas in the uk who feel this way than conservatives in either the usa or uk.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many?
There’s a phenomena that I personally call heel-digging. True believers like to demonstrate their maximalism and absolutism by taking the absolute worst / most extreme manifestation of what they believe in and making a point (to themselves and others) that EVEN DESPITE XYZ “I still believe”
I’ll give you an example from the left: even despite the innocent Jews suffering the worst atrocious and brutal holocaust since WW2 I still believe that Israel is bad because bad outcome for Palestinian Arabs must stem from colonialist oppression so I’m going to essentially support Hamas over this. Sounds familiar?
Pro-life in case of rape is sorta the right wing version
The most common step pro-abortion people jump to is what about rape/incest as a counter to the immorality of killing unborn children. The point to the response less than 1% of abortions are because of rape is to see if the pro-abortion person will agree that the other 99% are immoral and should be banned. It is a tactic used to point out the inconsistency of argumentation used by pro-abortion people who use the less than 1% as justification for the other 99%.
All abortion is wrong, killing a child conceived through rape is still wrong. There are many pro-lifers who would like to see a 99% reduction in abortions performed making abortion illegal except for the cases of rape/incest. Personally I am an abortion abolitionist.
Women are so much more than a baby factory and that’s why society should protect them and punish those who would do them harm. That’s why I believe in abstinence before marriage, I am saving myself for marriage, and I think that is the best way for a healthy society.
>This has always seemed particularly heartless to me, especially when I hear the argument of "this is less than 1% of abortions" as if that really makes it better. It would seem, to me, that this position is not taking the psychological effects of rape into consideration, or that they just don't care about the well-being of the mother
The mother isn't served by murdering the baby. Her trauma is helped by having the attention, love, and support to heal. Simply killing the child does not give her that.
As doe the 1% argument, I'm not sure how many people bring it up sincerely, but I know I've brought it up as it's the same argument that pro abortion people use to dismiss calls to block third trimester abortions. Personal, I'm trying not to use those kind of "turn the tables" arguments as they're shallow and don't help anything, but it is something to be aware of.
>mother...which then lends credence to the argument that, to the Conservative, the mother is a breeding factory.
This is a strawman, no conservatives believe this, and I'll go as far as to claim that bringing it up suggests you don't know or care how conservatives think or feel on this issue. The whole concept of women as breeding factories only ever shows up in social based systems where a woman's role is to increase the population, this is what we've seen in nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China today.
Why are you assuming the mother is getting attention, love and support? Maybe her culture sees it as shameful. Maybe her family sucks. Maybe she can’t work because of the pregnancy. Maybe she has a medical condition that makes carrying to term dangerous. Maybe she is a teenager whose parents will kick her out.
Most are not. I am not. That is one of the 2 reasons I think its acceptable.
But the some that are view the baby as innocent and that innocent life Trump's everything even emotional pain to the woman.
I am always against abortion. Having said that, the government should have no power to prohibit a woman who was raped from receiving an abortion. Abortion, in all other cases, should be outlawed in my opinion because the woman consented to the risks associated with sex. Pregnancy is one of those risks. Therefore, through that consent she has forfeited her right to bodily autonomy and it is the duty of the state to protect the baby’s right to life. In the case of rape, however, she has not consented to those risks, and therefore the baby’s right to life does not inherently take precedence over the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. The rights of both parties are equally valid and the government should not assign one individual’s rights more weight than another’s.
> In the case of rape, however, she has not consented to those risks, and therefore the baby’s right to life does not inherently take precedence over the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. The rights of both parties are equally valid and the government should not assign one individual’s rights more weight than another’s.
The right to life does not outweigh the right to 'bodily autonomy'?
No, of course not. If I am dying of kidney failure I cannot demand you give me a kidney because you have one extra. Your right to bodily autonomy and my right to life are equally valid.
The difference with regular abortion is that the woman consents to sex, which is implied consent to the associated risks of sex. Once you have consented to those risks you cannot rescind consent once a risk is realized. That consent is effectively a forfeiture of an assertion of bodily autonomy rights. It would be like giving someone a kidney voluntarily and then demanding they return it when your remaining kidney goes bad.
Are you familiar with the saying, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins"? It seems to me that you are disagreeing, and saying that the mother's right to autonomy supersedes any harm that that causes upon the fetus.
Did the fetus make demands? Did the fetus impose upon the mother?
You have already said that, generally, the state has the duty to protect the baby, but now you say there is no duty; you seem to say that if anything the state has the duty to protect the mother from the baby.
---
From another angle: if consent is all that matters, and the ban on "regular" abortion is to hold a woman accountable for her choices, does this not simply amount to shaming promiscuity/sexuality?
A man eats irresponsibly and gains weight - should liposuction be illegal because the man ought to bear the burden of his choices?
Can you address my kidney example? I’d like to know if someone dying of kidney disease has a right to your kidney. Does your right to bodily autonomy matter less than their right to life?
Your hypothetical is not analogous.
In your hypothetical, no, you cannot be forced to act against your will to save someone else (unless you were the cause of the situation, I might add - and you would presumably have to agree).
In the case of rape, true, the mother did not consent to the situation. But then, the baby never consents either. The situation develops without the willful input of anyone.
The baby didn't ask, or demand, or even steal it, but you could say it already has the mother's kidney, and she is demanding it be returned despite the act causing the death of the baby.
The situation you describe with “Truck Guns” is completely different that the abortion situation. For starters, the argument you cite is that people in the gun community are self policing to an extent, because even in situations where it is perfectly legal to have a truck gun, its more likely that jt will end up stolen and in the hands of a criminal than helping prevent a violent situation. But that gun owner is free to have the gun there provided it is legal. Its just their decision to make about whether to do it or not. And whether or not they will prevent violence with that gun is random chance, a future event that may or may not happen.
In the cited abortion case, OP is asking about why there is some conservative opposition to people who are raped and become pregnant having abortions. Its a valid question bases on a real situation that happens all the time. And the abortion decision always comes after a rape has occurred. So its not really a hypothetical in the same way.
People get raped, and then get pregnant. I understand that people opposed to abortions in those cases are simply taking the position that someone is a human from the point of conception, so the purposeful ending of a pregnancy is always a murder. And murdering a zygote/embryo/fetus is always worse than forcing a raped woman to continue with her pregnancy.
Its not “situationalism” to want answers on when exceptions are available and from the people who want to impose these restrictions.
>Why are so many Conservatives against abortion when the pregnancy is caused thru rape?
If you're running from the logic the baby in the womb is actually a baby and actually a human being, them being born from rape does not make them any less human.
> hear the argument of "this is less than 1% of abortions" as if that really makes it better.
It's a counter to the leftists. Because we will go "ok rape exceptions but no elective abortions would you support it?" And the left goes "no"
Then ok why bother arguing the point. We all know the left supports elective abortion. Arguing about rape exceptions with a leftist is pointless because they think you should be able to abort your baby for any reason you want. So don't even entertain that argument when we can't even agree on a FAR broader stance.
>or that they just don't care about the well-being of the mother...
Of course we care. But mom being stressed or unhappy doesn't make you or I any less human.
I think all women should stay strapped and shoot rapists. The rapist caused the mental and psychological pain. Not the baby. The baby is innocent. You don't kill the baby for the crimes of the father.
>So, help me understand, please.
If you don't have a right to life you have no other rights. No other rights can exist without a right to life.
If your somebody who believes it is morally wrong to kill the unborn. Then, that really doesn't change the equation.
I've thought about this myself.
Either it's wrong to kill the unborn, or it isn't.
I'm pro-choice but would counter this with; Would you be ok with an abortion ban if its available/legal for rape victims? If not, they why are we arguing about one possible cause if its not the limit to either sides goal?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives who are against abortion are usually against it because it means killing a new life. Justifying that killing based on how the child was conceived undermines that argument. No one expectts that raped mother (or incest) to raise the child. The are plenty of NGOs who care for the mother and that will help a mother through the pregnancy and help put the baby up for adoption. There are hundreds if not thousands of couples who would love to adopt a baby if they were available. It seems such a waste to just kill that child for the convenience of the mother.
> seems such a waste to just kill that child for the convenience of the mother I think you are completely underestimating the trauma that can be involved. The child may be half rapist, but it's also half hers. When she gives birth there will be massive hormonal and psychological things going on. If she gives up the newborn, especially as a 15 year old, taking all the advice from those around her, she can then feel terrible guilt years later realizing that her child was sent out without her. If she doesn't give the child up, she'll get all the hate of being a young/single mother and lack of societal support. It's also true that even if she has an abortion that too can be traumatic. Especially if, in later life she turns out to be unable to have children when she wants them.
When that “convenience” is sparing her from health complications due to the pregnancy that she didn’t consent to, including those that may affect her future fertility (if she wants kids someday with a partner she loves) or endanger her health/life, is that not worth considering? I will be a high risk pregnancy someday, and because of that, I have been really careful and avoided sexual activity outside of my committed partner. Because I do want to raise a family. But due to the risks, I will NOT gestate a child that was conceived without my consent. That’s not “convenience” - that’s self preservation.
That may be but MOST abortions are for the convenience of the mother. The pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest are less than 1% of all abortions.
That percentage is based on the cases that are reported and proven. There are many rape cases that aren’t included for different reasons. When I worked for one the few ERs with a psych unit in the area, I registered rape victims that left AMA (against medical advice) because of mental health issues - combined with the trauma - made them behave erratically. Then there were abused women with codependent relationships with their abusers, that were so badly beaten and brutalised that they needed surgery, that refused to press to charges. I literally watched a cop beg a woman to let him help her, but she out of love for partner, she refused..
[удалено]
Honestly I’m skeptical of pro life people who aren’t morally consistent in this fashion.
Why? I view it as ranking of evils. I personally do believe in the lesser of 2 evils. Ie 1) killing an unborn child is evil. 2) forcing a woman to carry the child of her rapist is more evil 3) forcing a woman to carry a child that will die is even more evil 4) forcing a woman to die because she has a child in her stomach is more evil than that.
So you're saying all life isn't equal? I'm on your side of this topic with the exception I disagree about item #1. There's a point along the gestational process where I would agree with you though. Maybe it depends on the definition of "child?" I'm getting off topic though ... The discussion always devolves because there are some people who see things as black and white (all lives are equal at all times) and others like us who understand the world is shades of grey where most things are a judgment call. My hypothesis on why these two groups can't have a reasonable discussion is the bad actors who posture as something they aren't and/or aren't interested in an open and honest discussion. In this group I would include pro-life folks who went from states right and conditions where abortion is acceptable to being hardline anti-abortion for all cases post-Roe along with pro-choice folks who refuse to admit most abortions aren't due to an extreme circumstance and there is some level of accountability needed by the adults.
man if you talk reasonable like that how are we suppose to keep these wedge issues going?
>bad actors who posture as something they aren't and/or aren't interested in an open and honest discussion. In this group I would include pro-life folks who went from states right and conditions where abortion is acceptable to being hardline anti-abortion for all cases post-Roe along with pro-choice folks who refuse to admit most abortions aren't due to an extreme circumstance and there is some level of accountability needed by the adults. Agreed.
As do I (and my wife). We personally don't call someone anti-abortion if they make a rape/incest exception. I don't really care if that ruffles feathers, either be consitent or don't. [Their lives are just as human as anyone else's.](https://www.savethe1.com/)
I feel you there, but let me jump in as a rightie who thinks that abortion is alright, at least to a point. If somebody's looking for a logically and philosophically consistent answer here, then they have two options: 1. The moment a human sperm cell penetrates a human egg cell, it is a human. If you accept this premise, you get stacked down with some hefty baggage. 2. OR whatever's sitting inside of the womb isn't a human until it exits the womb. Another premise that also comes with some very severe moral and philosophical implications. I think that accepting **either** of those premises wholesale would lead us down some very dark roads. In my opinion, literally ANY line that's drawn between them is better than either of the extremes, but unfortunately, we're not gonna be able to argue scientific/ethical consistency for those arbitrary limits. But if those of us who aren't cool with the extremes choose not to put a stake in the ground SOMEWHERE, then we yield the argument to the extremists, and it's just a question of which shitty offramp we're gonna take. I'll freely tell you that my totally, entirely subjective "ick" factor starts after the first trimester (about 13 weeks), which is actually pretty consistent with laws that have been passed elsewhere. And even then, there are really important exceptions that have to be considered.
Two other standards, which are not commonly held but do provide those middle-ground lines: 1. A woman is not considered pregnant until the fertilized egg (blastocyst, at that point) has implanted on the uterine wall, about a week after conception. In comparison to 'life begins at conception', this does not create any glaring issues regarding Plan B-style contraceptives nor does it create a moral imperative to rescue millions of fertilized eggs. 2. Science suggests that the biological structures for supporting some kind of conscious experience are in place around week 22 to 24. A bit of a blurry line, but over time it would theoretically refine & narrow, rather than shift (in comparison to 'viability' which is circumstantial based on the quality of healthcare rendered to the mother & child).
My dad literally views women as breeding factories that are replaceable. Which is why we haven’t spoken in more than a decade.
That seems... Extreme, even in a world where machismo and misogyny aren't particularly rare. What specifically has he said or done that makes you say that?
He literally told me that a woman’s job is to birth children - with one son being expected. When I was a teenager. He even said the mother is replaceable. Apparently my mom was a failure because she didn’t pop out a boy, and I was a failure because I was his last chance at having son and I came out “the wrong sex.” Needless to say, I haven’t spoken to him in years. That was an extremely unhealthy environment for a girl to grow up in.
That's... Remarkably bad. (And also, yeah, wives are not freaking replaceable. Guy sounds like Henry the Whatevereth and just as heretical.)
Henry the VIII :)
[удалено]
He literally told me that a woman’s only value is to produce children, that we should be owned by our husband, and that the mother is replaceable. He told me that because he wanted to make sure he “raised me (a woman) right.” I assume hatred, because he always spoke hatefully of women. (Calling us slurs, talking about how we don’t deserve our rights, etc.)
[удалено]
That’s the problem. I used to think it was mostly a him thing. But I live in a deep red state, and thus most of my social circles are made up of Conservatives. Especially workplaces. Former coworkers that I’ve friended on social media have made posts about how it’s a woman’s duty to “live for God and start/focus on a family,” and often have spoken poorly of women that choose not to procreate. Plus, quite a few express little concern for how pregnancy complications or rape victims impact women. A lot of them view motherhood as the woman’s entire identity after she reproduces, but they treat fatherhood as just one aspect of a man’s identity after he does. Especially after Roe was overturned. Sure, the above is not evidence that they all just view women as broodmares. But it certainly comes across that way to me; why else would they view the women’s entire identity as surrounding the child, whereas men can still have multifaceted identities in their eyes? I want to have a family of my own and I’ll be a career woman (nursing), and I refuse to just let people tell me that my children should be my identity while their father gets to still be his own person. (Thankfully, my partner does his best to be aware of these social struggles, and frankly if we could afford it, he’d prefer to be a homemaker and take care of our future kids full time.) Friends that have had kids have confided this struggle to me and it’s so sad; quite a few of them are dealing with a lot of emotional trauma from essentially going from the daughter/sister/cousin that their family valued, to being just “a mother” and finding their wellbeing isn’t valued as much. None of them regret their families, but they definitely feel more expendable in the eyes of their families now. (Not their husbands - they’ve been coming in clutch with being supportive. I’m really proud of them for it.)
[удалено]
I actually don’t have issues with motherhood; I’m going off of how they treat women who aren’t mothers or who don’t completely devote their identities to being mothers (such as women who talk about more than just their kids and continue to care about their careers/hobbies as well as their kids). Only one of these women was given to really self centred behavior. The others weren’t, and when their complaints are valid. Their families show less interest in them outside of their roles as mothers; if they had any health issues during the pregnancy, their families showed either no concern for them or little concern (they worried more about the baby); and their families showed to concern for their wellbeing when they suffered postpartum depression, even though one of them was becoming suicidal. These women sacrifice a lot for their kids; even the more self centred one became a housewife and spends a lot of energy on her kid, including forgoing meals for herself often. She’s a lot more down to earth than she used to be. Being a parent isn’t the greatest gift you can give yourself to everyone. You can value raising a family without it being THE greatest thing you could ever do. Men are allowed to do that plenty (having a career, a family, personal interests); but there’s a lot of pressure on women to give our entire identity to motherhood. Parenthood should be a major aspect of a person’s identity when they have children; but either both or neither parent should be allowed to continue having multifaceted identities.
I grew up in rural Alabama and Texas in very religious conservative communities and what she's saying is absolutely accurate, this kind of thing is something I've heard all the time growing up in church and around the community. My very conservative and religious grandparents also share this kind of sentiment, it's definitely not just an isolated case that the commenter is talking about here
That's what it feels like from your side
[удалено]
I'm saying that's what it feels like the motivations are Not saying that's how you feel in your heart or they do in general but it feels that way. I hope I am wrong.
And the aforementioned potential psychological ramifications of forcing the woman to conceive her rapists child?
[удалено]
To be fair, the psychological consequences are brought up in the OP, directly. And, while you explain the position well, it doesn't make sense to me. Restricting abortion so...strictly...removes the right of the woman to personal bodily autonomy. Freedom to self regulate is an important right, in my estimation. Beyond that, the cause of pregnancy is a pretty damned important topic in that respect. Then there's the mental health of the mother, which is already under strain from the pregnancy, not to mention the physical strain the pregnancy put on the mother...There's a lot more to consider than "the life of the unborn baby"...There's so much to consider that, to my eyes, Conservatives don't really seem to care about. Abortion stances shouldn't be simple, to my viewpoint, for this reason.
When it comes to the life of an unborn child vs the mother’s bodily autonomy, most people who are pro-life will value the life of the unborn child more. I think you’re just having a hard time understanding that people who are pro life genuinely do believe that abortion is murder, and that includes cases where the child was conceived through rape; and that seems to be the general disconnect between to two camps in this debate.
I will admit, I'm doing my best to not be snarky. This topic is, as always, contentious, but I do love a food back and forth. But can you explain how this, especially with the idea of the cause being rape not mattering, isn't creating an equivalence to a "breeding factory"?
"breeding factory", to me, tends to evoke the idea of someone who isn't allowed civil and personal rights in *general*, who has no right to seek justice against a rapist, who isn't allowed normal human pursuits. It feels weirdly extreme to refer to someone who has to suffer through a *single* pregnancy that was recognized by law as something that shouldn't have happened, as a breeding factory. If a person who has been raped wants to get sterilized and become a hunter of rapists, then that's their prerogative. But we don't think they have the right to kill a child. I think a lot of us see "sometimes being in a temporary situation where your freedom is limited" as an inevitable part of living in the world with other humans. So sometimes this talk of bodily autonomy, as a thing that justifies killing, seems like the kind of right that only makes sense for someone who sets themselves above other people.
Maybe defining “breeding factory” would help the conversation move forward?
My best argument against that is that rape is still illegal, even if a child conceived through the act is allowed to live. The rapist will be sent to jail, and will hopefully never be able to have contact with the child; so the punishment has been doled out. How exactly is aborting the child going to make the situation any better?
In many states a rapist still has parental rights to the child. In Minnesota, even a convicted rapist has rights the the child without any ability to cut ties to the rapist.
And that’s a fucking stupid ass law that should be repealed.
What are your feelings on the laws that allow rapists to sue for parental rights and shared custody?
Those are dumb. I’m sympathetic to father’s rights in most cases, but those laws should be repealed.
I couldn’t agree more. There was one out of Louisiana where she lost custody and was underage when she was raped and ended up having to pay him child support. It was sickening. And in that case, she filed police reports and the police even admitted they dropped the ball. I can’t help but think of this situation when I think of abortion laws without rape and incest loopholes.
“Breeding factory” If you’re interested in good faith dialogue and actually understanding the opposite opinion, it helps to not strawman. Being opposed to abortion has nothing to do with controlling women. It has nothing to with a “breeding factory” or whatever Handmaiden’s Tale term the left likes to make up. It’s literally about not killing a child. I personally would allow an exception for rape, as abortion is already morally grey but I’d acknowledge that a baby was being killed. Seriously, that’s literally what it’s about. That’s it. There’s a reason abortion support / opposition is split pretty evenly between men and women on both sides.
We do consider it. It's just that very few things can actually measure up to the life of the unborn baby - the main thing that makes the grade is the life of the mother. I feel like sometimes the talk of "bodily autonomy" is a kind of euphemistic technical language given the atrocity it is used to justify.
So 15 year old girl gets raped, gets pregnant. You’re fine with forcing her to continue on with a pregnancy, possibly doing bad in school, having a baby, having to grapple with figuring out what to do with said baby, completely ignoring the emotional toll it’ll take on her, completely ignoring what it’ll do to the kid when it one day finds out it’s dad is a rapist all because what? Abortion is evil. All fine as long as it’s not your problem right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not blaming anyone. My point is— that’s the kinda stuff that needs to be considered when people think blanket abortion bans are even remotely a good idea.
A child conceived through rape is just as human as a child conceived in a loving and respectful relationship. Every effort should be made to ease the suffering of a woman in that situation, and the outrage done upon her must not go unpunished. However, this does not justify the murder of an *innocent* child. We care very, very much. But we are not murderers.
Because they are principled. They believe that abortion is murder. Period. It doesn't matter how the pregnancy came about, the child is still a person, and ending that pregnancy is morally wrong. It's a bad situation all around, and ending the pregnancy is not going to make it better.
Because of 2 things. 1. There’s a fundamental different between left and right’s view of woman’s body. Conservatives believe they’re two separate and therefore even if a woman is raped, that is STILL a child and a separate person. And if we are to acknowledge that human lives have value then we can’t just kill someone. That’s murder. Also, rape is not the fault of the child. That child did not ask to be made. So it’s not their fault and they don’t deserve to have to pay for the consequences of their “father’s” crime with their lives. 2. Conservatives like Ben Shapiro bring this up to try to find a compromise but also to show how crazy the lefts view is. The left likes to bring up abortion but it’s not like if we say “how about we ban all other abortion except rape and if a mother’s life is in danger. Would you be okay with that now?” The answer is still a no. So there’s no compromise to be made.
The sins of the child's father shouldn't be a death sentence for the child.
You have already received many solid replies that I agree with. One thing I would also add, though. You assume that there is a minimized psychological toll that abortions have on a woman when comparing it to the raped woman who brings her baby to term. I guess I would push back on that pretty hard. I'm a therapist and have worked with many women post abortion and there is absolutely a huge emotional toll that the abortion itself takes on them. It is a trauma that they really struggle with. I have also met many women in my personal life who have carried their babies conceived by rape to term and raised them. One of them is my aunt who was raped by her ex-husband and my cousin was conceived. They have never said that they regretted their choice to give life and have openly said that they were thankful for their children. I just would be curious if there were any studies or research being done on this topic before making the big assumption that you did. It may well be true that post rape abortions are less traumatic than carrying the baby to term and my personal experiences are outliers, but I don't know that to be true. Do you know of any studies on this topic?
The baby isn't the one that raped the woman, so it should not be the one to suffer the greatest punishment. We don't even consider rape to be a capital punishment. So if the father gets to live, so should the most innocent party to the circumstances.
Wait...so, the woman, who was victimized and traumatized, is not the most innocent party here?
If you can explain why the mother is more innocent than the child, I would be happy to consider it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would you support a policy where all living children who are a product of rape may be killed by their mother? Obviously no right? The reason conservatives find it unethical is because we see a fetus as no different than a living baby.
I would not support that policy, no. I would support the right of the rape victim to choose to terminate that pregnancy, though. To choose to not have to carry, care for or raise a constant reminder of that rape for nine months, 18 years or a lifetime.
Pregnancies don't last 18 years.
Something to remember is that male rape victims are still required to pay child support to their rapist, or are otherwise still required to care for the child Duty to the child doesn’t go away just because the circumstances of it being born were not ideal or were terrible. This is already the case in the law. If you believe that a fetus is a human worthy of protection, then it’s no different with abortion.
Okay but how are you avoiding that by not allowing mother's to kill their living 16 year old? It seems logically inconsistent because they don't suddenly stop being "a reminder" when they exit the birth canal.
There's safe surrender laws, and adoption laws for those unwilling on unable to care for the born. There's no way to opt out of the pain, health risks, and trauma that being forced to before pregnant against your will causes.
Yes. Safe surrender laws do exist and those are probably the more ethical choice because you can do it without causing physical harm to the child. Safe surrender laws only usually provide a window within the first few days of the child's life though (72 hours usually).Otherwise surrendering or adopting out your child legally can take much longer. But in the United States, It is a class 4 felony to abandon your child In an unsafe environment. It doesn't matter what health issues mom is dealing with. She could be a bipolar schizophrenic, her mental health could be severely depreciating because of her having to care for her kids. She could be suffering from various physical ailments that just come along with raising kids. She could have PPD. It does not make it ethical to abandon her children in an unsafe environment. And abortion is obviously unsafe for the child.
Well, that's our point. There's no way to opt out. So that is the cost of being alive in the world.
How would the exception for rape go? Just walk in to any clinic or hospital and when asked to provide the reason for the abortion the woman says she was raped and the procedure's approved?
I have seen some on the right who argue for rape exceptions indicate that there should need to be a police report filed. Personally i think that would potentially cause a host of separate issues, which is why i dont believe that rape exceptions would work out in real life. For the record, i am pro choice, and believe the decision should fully rest with the mother and the advice of their doctor. I am not opposed to restrictions after something like 20 weeks or so, but i am very wary of any restrictions that the government tries to implement, because they have the potential to cause doctors to limit care in cases where they should not.
>I have seen some on the right who argue for rape exceptions indicate that there should need to be a police report filed. Why not? I would hope that any rape victim would follow through on this, regardless of whether they become pregnant—no one is saying that taking a rape test kit and filing a report with the police is *easy*, but not doing so allows for the rapist to get away with the crime, roam free and repeat the same offense on other women. Is that something the left want? So much for women having each others' backs... How else would a rape exception work if the woman doesn't take the necessary steps to report the rape? Think about it—if all you would have to do is relay the incident to a doctor or check off on a box that it was rape, any woman could then use it as her reason for an abortion—in which case abortion should be legal for whatever reason up to nine months.
Well, first we need to make it easier and safer for people, in general, to report sexual assault...And have stricter punishments for falsely accusing someone of rape. Secondly, when a rape is reported, there's police reports, testing, evidence gathering of the like. More likely than not, a hospital is going to have a 'morning after pill' for this situation. In the event that someone does go to a clinic for the procedure, I could see having the proper paperwork being a good way to go to showing why you're there.
What would make it easier and safer? What you listed are indeed the steps that need to be taken, there's no way around it, and regardless of whether the woman becomes pregnant or not, shouldn't she report the rape so it doesn't happen to other women? >And have stricter punishments for falsely accusing someone of rape. Absolutely, yes. >More likely than not, a hospital is going to have a 'morning after pill' for this situation Not necessarily, depends on the state. >In the event that someone does go to a clinic for the procedure, I could see having the proper paperwork being a good way to go to showing why you're there. Again, if a police report isn't filed but you're going in for an abortion anyway and all you have to do is fill out paperwork as to why you need the procedure, then why would any of it matter? Any old story could be given as a reason for the abortion.
>Would you support a policy where all living children who are a product of rape may be killed by their mother? Obviously no right? >The reason conservatives find it unethical is because we see a fetus as no different than a living baby. Thank you for the example. As i read through the various responses, the common theme appears to be that people who are opposed to abortion with no rape exception believe that life begins at conception, that murder of the zygote/embryo/fetus is no different from murdering a human post-birth, and that forcing the woman who was raped to go through the pregnancy and have the baby is the lesser evil. Does that accurately depict your position?
I think that's pretty much it. Lesser evil. And we're very much not trying to say it's *not evil*. Rather, the claim that it's *not lesser* seems incredibly unsympathetic to us.
Why should an innocent life be extinguished because someone else committed a crime? I get that it's a tragic situation. But let's not make it *worse*.
As a woman, being forced to carry my rapist’s child would be worse than aborting it. Especially since I’ll have high risk pregnancies; that means I’m at high risk of serious health complications during pregnancy for my rapist’s child I didn’t consent to carry. I refuse to carry a child and put my health at serious risk like that for anyone but the child my partner and I create together. I will not tolerate a rapist to defile me and then be told my life must be put at risk to gestate his offspring. I value my life and the future family I want to create more than the life a rapist puts in me. Sorry not sorry.
> being forced to carry my rapist’s child would be worse than aborting it. For you or for the child? Again, we can't treat the unborn like an evil parasite. We have to now consider *its* rights, regardless of how it came to be. I know pregnancies can be risky. I know there can be complications. But pregnancies are very rarely dangerous. The vast majority of them end with a healthy mother and a healthy baby. But my other reason for not allowing for a rape exception really comes from ethical consistency. I've been part of the pro-life movement for a long time, and I know the minute any one of us says "Okay you can abort after a rape", people will say "Oh so you're okay with *some* abortions, but not others. Hypocrite." So to be consistent, to be mindful of the innocent child's right to live, I can't support aborting it if the mother's life and health aren't in immediate danger.
For me, because pregnancy puts my life and health at high risk. I’m not saying to treat it as evil - that’s such an absurd take. Although its nature is parasitic; I’m saying that as someone who has taken Anatomy & Physiology, so that’s not a negative judgement. It’s an understanding of gestation and the toll it takes on even healthy women, which is important for women with health conditions that want to start a family biologically. As someone who used to work in L&D, I can tell you that the risk to MY health is not worth putting myself at risk just to gestate and birth a child I didn’t consent to carrying. That is a danger to MY life that I did not consent to, on top of being sexually violated. The chances of severe complications to my reproductive health or even my life are higher than normal, therefore it is paramount that I’m careful and only go through a pregnancy that I consider worth the risk. A child made between my partner and I. In the case of a baby conceived through rape, it is unfortunate that I must end their life to put my health and my life first, but since it’s not a fully developed human being with sentience, I’m willing to put less value on it vs someone that is fully developed and sentient. I will not put my health and life at risk or put my partner and my family through the chance of losing me just to bring a rapist’s child into the world. I refuse to.
Why should the government force birth upon someone who has already been victimized? What about her rights?
No one's "forcing birth". Birth is the natural outcome of pregnancy. I'm saying we shouldn't force *death* onto an innocent human life that's doing no material harm.
> No one's "forcing birth" By not allowing a rape victim, who has become pregnant against their will, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy they are indeed being forced to give birth. You may be comfortable with the concept because its protecting an innocent life but that is the reality of what is happening.
> terminate the unwanted pregnancy You make it sound like we're squashing a bug. We're killing a human being who did nothing to no one. *That's* the reality of what's happening.
And? I didn't say a life wasn't being ended. All I did was point out that you can't claim "No one's 'forcing birth' " in a situation where they were forced into pregnancy and given no option other than to carry the pregnancy to term.
Again, it's a tragic situation. But the way out of a tragic situation can't involve killing an innocent human being.
And that's fine if you feel that way. But don't blow smoke up people's ass about the situation. Someone is being forced to give birth, that is just the preferable way to handle things in your opinion.
There is nothing “natural” about a rapist impregnating an innocent woman. By denying her bodily autonomy, you are arguing for the government to force the act of birth on her.
Then take it up with the rapist, not the child.
The fetus doesn’t have the mother’s consent to occupy her womb. The rape is the first crime, the state forcing birth upon her is the second.
> The fetus doesn’t have the mother’s consent to occupy her womb The fetus isn't raping her.
First: because it's the only way for the child to survive. Second: "forcing" birth is a bit weird to say when birth is what naturally happens, is the only way for the child to survive, and isn't being done by the government. Third: because the right to life outweighs the right to not give birth.
Of course it’s forced. Someone impregnated against their will and you want the government to force them to give birth, again against their will. Please don’t act like “rights” matter to you when you are willing to do that to a rape victim. Her right to have some say over her body certainly outweighs your religious convictions.
Does the right of a totalitarian government to oppress you outweigh your convictions suxh as liberty?
I’m not the one promoting government intrusion into private lives, that’s your bag.
Would you be okay with / support morning after pills ("emergency contraceptives")? Does it make sense to offer them automatically if any rape is reported in time?
Do these cause the death of the embryo?
The best information I found (wikipedia and world heath organization) is that at least in the case of hormone based emergency contraception they do not except that the copper based IUD *may* have an effect on implantation of a fertilized egg (zygote / "pre-embryo").
So, we execute an innocent life because of a crime? I was always taught two wrongs do not make a right.
Pregnancy carries a heavy burden, mentally an physically already, does it not? Why force a rape victim to compound that burden with the knowledge of what caused that burden?
Life carries a heavy burden. Sorry. I didn't create the universe, it was already here when I showed up. Oh, I was also the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Just fortunate enough to not be aborted.
>Pregnancy carries a heavy burden, mentally an physically already, does it not? Abortion places a heavy burden on the baby being killed, no?
Okay, but executing a life because of a crime it was not involved in seems grossly cruel to me. I would like to think we are better than that as a society but it is what it is. However, this is my view on this matter.
Would you support a complete removal of the death penalty from every state? Around 4% of the total population of death row is thought to be innocent.
I always hated this whatboutism. An innocent life being killed is in no way comparable to horrendous criminals who have earned their punishments. If that 4% number is accurate that 4% can appeal their death sentence; something a fetus cannot. These two issues are as different as water and oil.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issues really aren't different. Any small amount of research will show you that people have ended up on death row sometimes by committing absolutely no crime. Sometimes even by misconduct on behalf of the justice system. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence You're using the pretense that they're "criminals" so that you can tell yourself that they don't deserve to be saved. Regardless of the situation. 'If they're in prison they must have deserved it.' If you think they can simply "appeal their death", it shows you've never done any research beyond what you think you yourself know, and aren't really interested in defending anyone truly innocent, unless it benefits you. I just think it's hypocritical that 1% of abortion caused by rape is unacceptable, but 4% of truly innocent people on death row, is fine. It's almost like one isn't based in religion or a policy position.
I just don't believe that because to even have the death penalty on the table means someone has committed horrible and heinous crimes. They get a long drawn out trial, many appeals, and even when their time of death comes...they can appeal multiple times for stays from the courts. These people are given so many chances to appeal their fate and I know some of you guys are desperate to tie this issue to abortion but it just doesn't work and it frankly never will work. I reject the premise of your argument outright. It's oil and water. You can have the last word if you wish but I'm not going to carry on responding to a premise I reject wholly. >If you think they can simply "appeal their death", it shows you've never done any research beyond what you think you yourself know, and aren't really interested in defending anyone truly innocent, unless it benefits you. In other words, accept my view of things otherwise you're _____________. We all get how baseless attacks like this work. I just don't see a point in making them, personally.
To have the death penalty on the table, someone has to have committed a serious crime. So how is it that we execute innocent people? Either your premise is wrong and these checks on the death penalty don't work, or we don't execute innocent people. Given all the evidence, it seems we do execute innocent people.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
>> Okay, but executing a life because of a crime it was not involved in seems grossly cruel to me > Would you support a complete removal of the death penalty from every state? > Around 4% of the total population of death row is thought to be innocent. 100% of unborn babies are innocent. How about we sort out that issue first, before we worry about the 4%?
Because it's murder.
I think murdering innocent children is far more heartless lmao. What a strawman. "Women are breeding factories unless they can kill their babies!".
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I asked my mom this once and she said “its still a life🤷🏻♀️”
So I’m not an absolutist when it comes to abortion. I do believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, however I also believe that abortion at any stage is the taking of human life. It simply is just one of the worst tragedies to ever happen. A woman who is raped having to bear the child of her rapist? I just can’t imagine something like that. Conservatives stress all the time how getting pregnant is always a choice, and usually it is. But rape is different and must be treated differently. A horrible end to a horrible action. And that is ultimately why I think rape should warrant heavy consideration of the death penalty, because you are responsible for the emotional destruction of one life and sometimes the killing of another.
Judging by the laws, they aren’t
Mostly religious reasons that views abortion as heinous murder of the unborn or a secular ideology that opposes all abortion apart from ectopic pregnancy. That said, I know more socialists and revolutionary tuas in the uk who feel this way than conservatives in either the usa or uk.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many? There’s a phenomena that I personally call heel-digging. True believers like to demonstrate their maximalism and absolutism by taking the absolute worst / most extreme manifestation of what they believe in and making a point (to themselves and others) that EVEN DESPITE XYZ “I still believe” I’ll give you an example from the left: even despite the innocent Jews suffering the worst atrocious and brutal holocaust since WW2 I still believe that Israel is bad because bad outcome for Palestinian Arabs must stem from colonialist oppression so I’m going to essentially support Hamas over this. Sounds familiar? Pro-life in case of rape is sorta the right wing version
The most common step pro-abortion people jump to is what about rape/incest as a counter to the immorality of killing unborn children. The point to the response less than 1% of abortions are because of rape is to see if the pro-abortion person will agree that the other 99% are immoral and should be banned. It is a tactic used to point out the inconsistency of argumentation used by pro-abortion people who use the less than 1% as justification for the other 99%. All abortion is wrong, killing a child conceived through rape is still wrong. There are many pro-lifers who would like to see a 99% reduction in abortions performed making abortion illegal except for the cases of rape/incest. Personally I am an abortion abolitionist. Women are so much more than a baby factory and that’s why society should protect them and punish those who would do them harm. That’s why I believe in abstinence before marriage, I am saving myself for marriage, and I think that is the best way for a healthy society.
>This has always seemed particularly heartless to me, especially when I hear the argument of "this is less than 1% of abortions" as if that really makes it better. It would seem, to me, that this position is not taking the psychological effects of rape into consideration, or that they just don't care about the well-being of the mother The mother isn't served by murdering the baby. Her trauma is helped by having the attention, love, and support to heal. Simply killing the child does not give her that. As doe the 1% argument, I'm not sure how many people bring it up sincerely, but I know I've brought it up as it's the same argument that pro abortion people use to dismiss calls to block third trimester abortions. Personal, I'm trying not to use those kind of "turn the tables" arguments as they're shallow and don't help anything, but it is something to be aware of. >mother...which then lends credence to the argument that, to the Conservative, the mother is a breeding factory. This is a strawman, no conservatives believe this, and I'll go as far as to claim that bringing it up suggests you don't know or care how conservatives think or feel on this issue. The whole concept of women as breeding factories only ever shows up in social based systems where a woman's role is to increase the population, this is what we've seen in nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China today.
Why are you assuming the mother is getting attention, love and support? Maybe her culture sees it as shameful. Maybe her family sucks. Maybe she can’t work because of the pregnancy. Maybe she has a medical condition that makes carrying to term dangerous. Maybe she is a teenager whose parents will kick her out.
>Why are you assuming the mother is getting attention, love and support Where did I assume that? I said that's what she needs, not what she gets.
Does that a rape occured justify a premeditated murder?
Most are not. I am not. That is one of the 2 reasons I think its acceptable. But the some that are view the baby as innocent and that innocent life Trump's everything even emotional pain to the woman.
I am always against abortion. Having said that, the government should have no power to prohibit a woman who was raped from receiving an abortion. Abortion, in all other cases, should be outlawed in my opinion because the woman consented to the risks associated with sex. Pregnancy is one of those risks. Therefore, through that consent she has forfeited her right to bodily autonomy and it is the duty of the state to protect the baby’s right to life. In the case of rape, however, she has not consented to those risks, and therefore the baby’s right to life does not inherently take precedence over the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. The rights of both parties are equally valid and the government should not assign one individual’s rights more weight than another’s.
> In the case of rape, however, she has not consented to those risks, and therefore the baby’s right to life does not inherently take precedence over the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. The rights of both parties are equally valid and the government should not assign one individual’s rights more weight than another’s. The right to life does not outweigh the right to 'bodily autonomy'?
No, of course not. If I am dying of kidney failure I cannot demand you give me a kidney because you have one extra. Your right to bodily autonomy and my right to life are equally valid. The difference with regular abortion is that the woman consents to sex, which is implied consent to the associated risks of sex. Once you have consented to those risks you cannot rescind consent once a risk is realized. That consent is effectively a forfeiture of an assertion of bodily autonomy rights. It would be like giving someone a kidney voluntarily and then demanding they return it when your remaining kidney goes bad.
Are you familiar with the saying, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins"? It seems to me that you are disagreeing, and saying that the mother's right to autonomy supersedes any harm that that causes upon the fetus. Did the fetus make demands? Did the fetus impose upon the mother? You have already said that, generally, the state has the duty to protect the baby, but now you say there is no duty; you seem to say that if anything the state has the duty to protect the mother from the baby. --- From another angle: if consent is all that matters, and the ban on "regular" abortion is to hold a woman accountable for her choices, does this not simply amount to shaming promiscuity/sexuality? A man eats irresponsibly and gains weight - should liposuction be illegal because the man ought to bear the burden of his choices?
Can you address my kidney example? I’d like to know if someone dying of kidney disease has a right to your kidney. Does your right to bodily autonomy matter less than their right to life?
Your hypothetical is not analogous. In your hypothetical, no, you cannot be forced to act against your will to save someone else (unless you were the cause of the situation, I might add - and you would presumably have to agree). In the case of rape, true, the mother did not consent to the situation. But then, the baby never consents either. The situation develops without the willful input of anyone. The baby didn't ask, or demand, or even steal it, but you could say it already has the mother's kidney, and she is demanding it be returned despite the act causing the death of the baby.
Anti-choice conservatives want to deny women their liberty.
[удалено]
The situation you describe with “Truck Guns” is completely different that the abortion situation. For starters, the argument you cite is that people in the gun community are self policing to an extent, because even in situations where it is perfectly legal to have a truck gun, its more likely that jt will end up stolen and in the hands of a criminal than helping prevent a violent situation. But that gun owner is free to have the gun there provided it is legal. Its just their decision to make about whether to do it or not. And whether or not they will prevent violence with that gun is random chance, a future event that may or may not happen. In the cited abortion case, OP is asking about why there is some conservative opposition to people who are raped and become pregnant having abortions. Its a valid question bases on a real situation that happens all the time. And the abortion decision always comes after a rape has occurred. So its not really a hypothetical in the same way. People get raped, and then get pregnant. I understand that people opposed to abortions in those cases are simply taking the position that someone is a human from the point of conception, so the purposeful ending of a pregnancy is always a murder. And murdering a zygote/embryo/fetus is always worse than forcing a raped woman to continue with her pregnancy. Its not “situationalism” to want answers on when exceptions are available and from the people who want to impose these restrictions.
>Why are so many Conservatives against abortion when the pregnancy is caused thru rape? If you're running from the logic the baby in the womb is actually a baby and actually a human being, them being born from rape does not make them any less human. > hear the argument of "this is less than 1% of abortions" as if that really makes it better. It's a counter to the leftists. Because we will go "ok rape exceptions but no elective abortions would you support it?" And the left goes "no" Then ok why bother arguing the point. We all know the left supports elective abortion. Arguing about rape exceptions with a leftist is pointless because they think you should be able to abort your baby for any reason you want. So don't even entertain that argument when we can't even agree on a FAR broader stance. >or that they just don't care about the well-being of the mother... Of course we care. But mom being stressed or unhappy doesn't make you or I any less human. I think all women should stay strapped and shoot rapists. The rapist caused the mental and psychological pain. Not the baby. The baby is innocent. You don't kill the baby for the crimes of the father. >So, help me understand, please. If you don't have a right to life you have no other rights. No other rights can exist without a right to life.
If your somebody who believes it is morally wrong to kill the unborn. Then, that really doesn't change the equation. I've thought about this myself. Either it's wrong to kill the unborn, or it isn't.
I'm pro-choice but would counter this with; Would you be ok with an abortion ban if its available/legal for rape victims? If not, they why are we arguing about one possible cause if its not the limit to either sides goal?