Why support abortion for rape victims?

Post Reply New Topic

I am confused on this point. From a pro-lifer's point of view, why would aborting a foetus which came about as a result of rape be acceptable while aborting a foetus which came about through recreational activities be murder?
I was raped many years ago, I was a few months under the age of consent, I was scared I was pregnant, but luckily I wasn't.
Other times in my life I have been afraid I might be pregnant, but I didn't actually conceive except the times I chose. I was very fortunate in that.
I am not sure that having to be pregnant after a rape would have actually have been worse than any other kind of unwanted pregnancy. I think any unwanted pregnancy would have been equally unbearable and since compassion for the mother and respect for her own decisions about her body are lacking somewhat in the prolife camp, I would like to know why they generally make an exception for rape?
Is it because these are virtuous women and only sluts should be punished?

It's simple, it's about your choice vs someone else's choice.

If you have consentual sex, and get pregnant, you have to accept the consequences of that action. You knew the risk, and you accepted the risk. No one forced you to have sex, and you are responsible for your own actions.

A woman who is raped has not had consentual sex; therefore to force her to have and raise the child allows the rapist to control the course of her life, even if he is in jail. Through no fault of her own, she has had a totally different lifestyle forced upon her.

Now there are women who choose to accept that new life, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's right to force it upon someone, who did nothing to deserve it.

Why abortion?
1) Because children born of rape aren't really welcomed in our society.
2) A lot of prospective adoptive parents aren't willing to take in such children or are just downright scumbags.

So children who are fathered by rapists are not like other children then?

Just saying no one would want to raise one.

I don't accept that a woman who hasn't been raped, but is pregnant, deserves to have her life dictated from that point on by strangers who would stand in judgement over who deserves a choice and who doesn't deserve a choice. It is a bit like enduring a different kind of rape.

It rather undermines the argument that the baby comes first too.

It isn't actually wrong to have sex, it doesn't need punished.

Women only ever abort children they don't want to raise, so I don't understand your logic.

I wouldn't say that that's true. A lot of victims of rape do end up having the baby after all.

Adoptive parents wouldn't want to take in an older child borne of that relationship because they feel that there is a high risk of that child being violent, a danger or abusive themselves.

I don't think a victim of rape should be forced to have a constant reminder of that trauma in their body for 9 months.
And if there is a positive argument for eugenics, the genes contributing to sociopathic behavior need to be purged from the gene pool. Yes, rapists need to be sterilized.

Because everyone, every woman and every man who get pregnant have the right to decide to abort. This includes rape victims, sure.

From a pro-lifer's point of view, "life" begins at conception and ends at birth. Why should anyone care about the pro-lifer point of view? I used to call them misogynistic pricks, but really , they are equal-opportunity misanthropes. They hate the world. They hate life. They think that life is a punishment. And a punishment for... sex? Really, they hate sex*! What's next? They also hate kittens? Pizza? o_O

(* And they are not even asexuals. It is perfectly understandable when an asexual person hates sex, because of all the way the whole culture ignores asexual existence, but I am talking about heterosexual people who hate sex and think people who have sex deserve punishment. (And that the punishment is babies)



The idea they have is that because of the rape culture that infests everything, it is actually unlikely a rape victim will prove that (s)he was raped in time before being able to abort. So a "rape-exception" is really no exception. It is a way to sound as if they are compromising, when in practice they will still be forcing a shedload of people to give to birth, including the raped ones.

The difference is complicated as it's multiple. After a rape most women at the hospital get a pill that stops the fertilization before it occurs so it's not really an abortion.

It's just stopping the millions of unwanted and uninvited invading sperm. This is not a pro-life/pro-choice issue, as consent is the key. Some sperm swim in as welcome guests, while others are beaching an invasion like a home invader.

Who put's up a home invader for 9 months? Only a sadist would say a woman should have a daily reminder her whole life (over even a day longer).

So to pro-lifers you are inviting a person in then killing him = Murder. Where with Rape you are killing a home invader = Self-Defense.

It's pretty easy to understand how they see it as they believe every life is equal, but I'm a pro-choice and don't believe every life is equal as that's kinda naive. The naive and sentimental will never look at the truth as their ideal world is not our reality.

It's different worldviews that's all. (If I'm wrong on addressing the pro-lifers point, then correct me pro-lifers.)

Abortion is never "good" or "ok". Nothing that brings about the destruction of a human being is acceptable.

I support the death penalty because there are some crimes that cannot be repaid to society. Killing a murderer doesn't bring back the victim. But letting him live incarcerated both denies justice to society and is unduly cruel and unmerciful to the convict who will never have a life in society even if he could return to it.

Abortion for rape is a means of providing justice to a woman who has conceived through choices not her own but through force. I understand the reasoning behind denying rape victims an abortion, but you can't call that a free society, and that's not how we operate in the West.

The first injustice done is that to the mother from the violation of her body. But the greatest injustice is the loss of life in an abortion. That is never acceptable. If you can't hold the woman responsible for killing the baby, since it was not her choice to get pregnant, then the person who forced her to conceive should be held responsible. I'd be happy if all rapists, regardless of circumstance, we're charged by default with attempted murder even if the woman never conceives. I just think it's wrong to allow abortions to happen after rape if rapists aren't held responsible.

I would say after a rape most women don't go to hospital at all. After a vicious beating they might, but these are not the same thing, only sometimes occurring together.



But the baby isn't the rapist, so why would that life not be equally sacred? How can the mother's feelings count more than the baby's life, they usually believe the opposite. Legally if the woman is too drunk to give consent, for example, its rape. If the woman is underage but consents, its legally rape then too, would these women also be permitted abortions by prolifers?

I think it ought to be the mother's choice, she is best placed to decide what is best in all circumstances, so I'm not likely to agree with any prolifers, I just don't get this particular distinction and I would like to understand even if I disagree.

My brain must have gone on holiday, I am not understanding these arguments.

Do you mean its ok to abort if the rapist is caught and charged, otherwise have the baby?

Why is having someone to blame so important in the decision?

Yes, like many surgical procedures the correct adjectives to describe it would be like "opportune", "appropriate" or "timely".


Oh, I thought we were talking about abortion. Apparently we are talking about human beings, somehow.



So apparently *something* that brings about the destruction of a human being is acceptable.

Therefore you mean that "ending a life" can be good if it is for the greater good?

Since an abortion would allow a pregnant person (man or woman) to postpone pregnancy to a more appropriate time (or a more appropriate father) then we agree abortion would be fine, even if it ended a human being's life (which it doesn't). Good to know.

I'm not absolutely against abortion, I was just illustrating the difference.

But, while you do make a point that sex should not be punished; it is an act that carries certain consequences. Accepting the consequences of those actions is not a punishment.