The Rapist Protection Act of 2011
That’s what Dennis G. of Balloon Juice is calling the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” recently introduced in the House. The bill would alter the rape exception for federal assistance for abortions by limiting that assistance to abortions that follow “forcible rape.” A woman drugged and then raped, for example, would no longer be able to get federal assistance to cover the costs of an abortion. Nick Baumann of Mother Jones reports that critics of the bill also worry that it could mean the end of private health insurance coverage for abortions.
The bill aims to make permanent prohibitions against taxpayer funding of abortion. Furthermore, by narrowing the meaning of rape that the federal government will use to determine eligibility to receive financial assistance for abortions, the bill will probably reduce the number of abortions that are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Does this make the sponsors, in the words of John Cole, pro-rape?
No, it doesn’t. Reducing the meaning of the word “rape” here isn’t an attempt to protect rapists or minimize its criminality. Accusations to the contrary are stinky whiffs of hot air. So far as I know, the language of this bill has no applicability toward the general legal definition of rape. The bill is an attempt to solidify within the law limits on federal money that goes to abortions and, apparently, to extend those limits. Even with the Hyde Amendment in place, a fair number of American taxpayers are forced by the law to materially cooperate in a procedure they find morally repugnant. They have no choice in the matter. The current setup doesn’t allow them to simply not have an abortion if they don’t want one; they have to help pay for abortions for others within a limited set of circumstances.
Now I don’t wish to minimize the terrors of being raped and being impregnated by one’s rapist. Nor is my intention to paint anti-abortion taxpayers as the real victims here. Carrying a pregnancy to term involves immense physical and psychological (not to mention financial) commitment and extreme pain, and it can put a woman’s life and health at risk. Pregnancy caused by a rapist compounds and intensifies this suffering. Remote material cooperation with abortion isn’t in the same universe.
However, classifying the bill’s sponsors as the protectors of rapists fails miserably to understand the motives of the sponsors. It’s somewhat akin to pro-lifers painting abortion rights advocates as worshipers of Moloch. Critics can disagree with the bill and point out the negative consequences the bill will have for women, but, seriously, they should respond to what the sponsors are actually attempting to do, attempt to understand their reasons for doing so, and, if they suspect underlying ulterior motives, offer evidence that actually points to those motives. Otherwise, they’re not really taking the efforts of the sponsors seriously. They’re not really responding to the proposed legislation.
[Update]
Does this bill’s new definition of rape have any legal consequence beyond what abortions will be covered with federal government assistance? I’m not a lawyer and honestly don’t know, but I haven’t yet seen an argument that the language of this bill could be used a precedent for changing the overall legal meaning of rape.
It does seem to me that this proposal implies some kinds of rape are not as serious as others. Statutory rape is not as bad as forcible rape, for example, since an abortion would be permissible in the case of forcible rape but not statutory rape. I am not sure I understand why the Republicans would merely narrow the definition of rape instead of just eliminating abortions for rape altogether.
It is maintained by some that rape is not about sex but rather about violence and control. Expecting a woman to bear her rapist’s baby is adding to the controlling aspect of rape. Not only does the rapist give the woman no choice but to be impregnated, but society then expects the woman to live with the consequences of being impregnated for nine months.
I really do believe that expecting a woman to bear her rapist’s baby is misogynistic. Women become incubators, not persons. If men could get pregnant, the thinking about bearing a rapist’s baby would undoubtedly be quite different. Imagine those places where rape is used as a weapon of war (Liberia, Congo, Darfur). Do you imagine impregnated male soldiers would allow themselves to be sideline by pregnancy and childbirth?
@David – A negative consequence of the bill’s language regarding rape has been the impression that these sponsors believe some forms of rape are less serious and therefore less deserving of abortion. At this point, I doubt they actually believe this, and I’d expect some evidence before I’d think otherwise. Assuming the restriction of meaning was intentional, I imagine they thought doing so was more politically feasible and in keeping with the goal of reducing abortions than either removing rape as an exception altogether or allowing the exception to remain unchanged.
Both sides in any political debate these days use an extensive amount of theater in their presentations. What I do not yet understand is why any Christians feel compelled to force any of their beliefs upon others who do not believe as they do. God called us to come to him, not by force but by choice. What sane human being desires another human to love them purely because they were forced to do so? And what human is smarter than God?
In the end, we will all be forced to explain our choices to God. But God is the one who will render the decision on our fate. God will not turn to any of us and ask for our opinion on another person’s fate. Let God sort it all out.
gisher, there are many non religious arguments against abortion.
The Maverick Philosopher has some here:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/abortion/
Oh BTW all laws legislate morality:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/all-legislation-legislates-morality.html
I never said I approve of abortion. I in fact do not approve of it. You are correct that there are many arguments against it that are not based on any religious doctrine.
My point is that God never asked for any of us to force non-believers to his ways, nor did God ask for us to judge each other.
gisher,
Don’t we routinely enforce our moral ideas through the law? For instance, I have the moral idea that it’s wrong for the owner of a restaurant to refuse to serve black people. Is it wrong of me to support a law making segregation illegal?
David,
I think the difficulty is on focusing one’s wrath in regards to rape on the innocent child resulting from the assault rather than on the person who actually committed the assault. I would certainly have not problem with publicly executing the rapist, if that would be conducive to the victim’s state of mind. But if someone really does believe that we’re talking not about “a pregnancy” but “a human being” then the fact that that human being is the child of a rapist does not necessarily make executing the child a desirable thing.
And yet, this bill does not even go so far as to outlaw the killing of the child. It merely states that the government is not required to pay for the killing, given that a portion of the government money comes from people who consider it just that, a killing.
Darwin,
I don’t think it is a matter of saying the child of a rapist must be executed. I think it is a matter of saying it is not unreasonable to draw a line somewhere regarding what a woman is required to do against her will as an incubator. Suppose we discovered that some unscrupulous scientist in a totalitarian country was impregnating women with genetically altered embryos — say human-animal hybrids. Is a woman being used by a monstrously immoral mad scientist supposed to bring his creations to term?
I said elsewhere (can’t remember if it was on Vox Nova), the famous violinist thought experiment seems to me to be a fairly reasonable analogy to the situation of a woman who gets pregnant through rape. And a woman’s body is not a passive participant in pregnancy. The woman is actually helping to form the baby. Are there no circumstances under which she has a right not to participate?
What about rape as a weapon in war? Must all the women bear the enemies’ children? Is it a reasonable reaction to something as reprehensible as mass rape to condemn it and then say, “But of course why take it out on the innocent fetuses?”
David,
Your human-animal hybrid example falls apart because it is uncertain whether this hybrid is a fully human entity (i.e., having an immortal soul, entitled to full human dignity, etc.). Your example is better if you get rid of the hybrids: suppose a mad scientist impregnating women with human embryos in order to do experiments on the fetuses.
As to the violinist: there is a distinction between actively killing and letting die. I know this distinction makes no sense to the utilitarian, but there is a difference: consider the ectopic pregnancy example.
Thales,
Well, I recently read an article about scientists splicing spider genes into a goat so that the goat’s milk will contain silk. I can say with some certainty right now that (a) the Church will condemn any such genetic tinkering with humans but (b) will consider anything having partial human DNA and born of a woman to be a human person. So I will stick with my example. The fact that it might not be human (or fully human) will simply mean that the Church will want to err on the side of life. Why should a genetically altered human be any less protected than a child conceived by rape.
As to the violinist: there is a distinction between actively killing and letting die.
Why would it be active killing to remove an unborn child from the uterus but “letting die” to disconnect the violinist from a life-support system that he cannot live without? If you pull the plug from a machine that enables an otherwise healthy person to breathe, and he suffocates to death, you have killed him, not allowed him to die.
David,
I was just trying to help you with a more powerful hypothetical. Regardless, I agree with you that the Church will err on the side of saying that any “human” hybrid has human dignity and should be afforded all corresponding rights.
I think your examples re: unborn child are unclear. I’m no expert, but I think that most ethicists have no problem with simply removing the portion of the F.tube (and therefore removing an unborn child from the uterus) in an ectopic preg. The problem is if the unborn child is directly attacked. And with regard to life support, there is the whole question wrt ordinary vs. extraordinary procedures – some can be pulled, some can’t.
In sum, these are all difficult moral questions that go far beyond this comment thread.
Why would it be active killing to remove an unborn child from the uterus but “letting die” to disconnect the violinist from a life-support system that he cannot live without? If you pull the plug from a machine that enables an otherwise healthy person to breathe, and he suffocates to death, you have killed him, not allowed him to die.
Because in one circumstance the natural, unimpeded process will lead to life. In the other, it will lead to death. It is no sin to let nature take its course.
Why would it be active killing to remove an unborn child from the uterus but “letting die” to disconnect the violinist from a life-support system that he cannot live without? If you pull the plug from a machine that enables an otherwise healthy person to breathe, and he suffocates to death, you have killed him, not allowed him to die.
Because in one circumstance the natural, unimpeded process will lead to life. In the other, it will lead to death.
What about rape as a weapon in war? Must all the women bear the enemies’ children? Is it a reasonable reaction to something as reprehensible as mass rape to condemn it and then say, “But of course why take it out on the innocent fetuses?”
I think what you may be reaching for here is not a question of reasonableness, but rather of emotional satisfaction. If one accepts the premise that the unborn child is, in fact, a human being — however tragically conceived — who as a human being deserves the basic dignity of having a chance at life, then the solution of abortion is not reasonable at all.
But this answer seems unsatisfying. Our human instinct is to feel that we must be able to strike back, to feel that we have reversed the injustice.
I don’t have a good answer for that. And I don’t attempt to claim that the moral answer is easy.
Perhaps more than most here, I think there’s some necessary latitude that needs to be given to the human need for earthly justice. If someone rapes a woman and society needs to see that man executed in order to feel that justice has been done, I can at least see that as understandable. Killing the child, however, means going after an innocent party. And no, I can’t see how that is right.
I think what you may be reaching for here is not a question of reasonableness, but rather of emotional satisfaction.
Darwin,
No, what I am saying (and there may be some emotional content to it) is that there has to be some limit on what can be done to a woman in terms of impregnating her that she doesn’t have to put up with. Suppose an evil doctor in a fertility clinic implants 15 embryos in all the women patients. Are they all forced to try to carry all 15 to term?
Is there no limit at all to what can be done to a woman against her will — in terms of impregnating her — that she doesn’t have a right to undo?
I say once again, if men could get pregnant, and the male population was raped en masse by an enemy, no one would expect the men to carry the babies.
I say once again, if men could get pregnant, and the male population was raped en masse by an enemy, no one would expect the men to carry the babies.
Are you certain of that? I don’t know anyone who believes abortion wouldn’t be evil under that circumstance as well.
Is there no limit at all to what can be done to a woman against her will — in terms of impregnating her — that she doesn’t have a right to undo?
I would replace “woman” with “anyone”. The limit in question is clear: It cannot be done if it infringes on the right of another innocent party. It isn’t fair, but neither is it fair to the innocent party to have their rights taken away, and what recourse do they have?
Think of it this way: Let’s say I am a woman and was assaulted by the husband of my next door neighbor. The husband was thrown in jail, but the neighbor still lives there.
Every time I see my neighbor, I have post-traumatic stress. Do I have the right to demand that she move because I can’t deal with the grief? How is it her fault? That wouldn’t be fair, would it?
there has to be some limit on what can be done to a woman in terms of impregnating her that she doesn’t have to put up with. Suppose an evil doctor in a fertility clinic implants 15 embryos in all the women patients. Are they all forced to try to carry all 15 to term?
Why is it necessary that we establish some sort of theoretical “limit” as to when, in some totally imaginary set of circumstances, we would support doing an evil thing?
I might just as well demand under what circumstances the evils resulting from you not doing so would make it moral for you to rape a two-year-old. To prevent a nuclear war? Well, then, see, this idea that raping two year olds is always wrong is clearly off base!
Employing fanciful limits is of no help that I can see in moral reasoning. What if an evil scientist shrunk the entire population of Palestinians and set them to living in your frontal lobe. Would that justify cutting your head off to create a Palestinian homeland?
There’s no point to answering these questions because the questions themselves are pointless. And as the saying goes: hard cases make bad law.
Do routinely enforce our moral ideas through the law?
Yes, we do. Are federal and state torts littered with such laws? Yes. Have you read amendment 1 to the U.S. constitution?
In other words, we have thoroughly trampled over the 1st amendment. That said, my comment above had zilch to do with the laws of man and everything to do with what God asks and requires. God does not ask us to be the judges and jury, that is is his job. Too many of us apparently have not read God’s word and have a nose just big enough to stick in everyone’s business.
Now that I have navigated all the way back to my point, do you feel any better now?
gisher,
I’m not sure what laws you’re thinking about when you talk about not forcing beliefs on others, but as for me, I don’t mind forcing my moral belief that serial killing is wrong on the Jeffrey Dahmers of society.
If you are referring to the United States, the Constitution clearly provided protection for crimes against our individual liberties. Any crime committed against your person, or your property would be included.
If there is no crime against your person or your property then you have no business interfering in the actions of others. Now that is only referencing the original intentions of the founders and has been meddled with constantly by both sides of the aisle sense.
Now if you are talking as a person of faith, your job is to find forgiveness for the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, and then stand back and let God do the judging.
Can I possibly be more concise people?
No, I’m not referring to the US Constitution, since the US Constitution is not the basis for laws against serial killing: state constitutions are. But regardless, if you see a role for law protecting against unjust (and therefore immoral) infringements or person or property, then I’m with you.
If I may further clarify, I meant “since” not “sense”. A very tragic typo on my part.
I might further add that the Constitution and the Bible originally worked in harmony with each other. It is the tampering of man that has constantly eroded the value of both documents.
Both set guidelines that allow you to live your life the way you have chosen, and to do so without interference from others who would meddle with your way of life.
That said, I think it’s probably worth questioning whether this particular kind of nibbling around the edges of what kind of abortions are state funded is useful. Suggesting that whether an abortion is “okay” or not has to do with how bad the circumstances of the conception were does nothing at all to advance us towards a pro-life society.
@DarwinCatholic – Do you see a way to prohibit abortion piecemeal without risking the impression that circumstances affect the morality of abortion?
I agree, Darwin. I think this distinction seems unhelpful to the pro-life cause. The most logical policy stance for a pro-lifer is to allow no funding of any abortion no matter the circumstances surrounding the conception of the child, since it is, in fact, a human being. If that is not politically feasible – and it is probably not – the second best idea is to allow funding of abortion under any statutory definition of rape. Seperating “kinds” of rape is ridiculous. All it does is make the pro-lifers look calluous to rape victims by distinguishing between “real” rapes and “less real” ones.
@Maria – I do wonder about the prudence of this move. I guess the the question the bill’s supporters have to ponder is whether the benefits of restricting the meaning of rape in the bill outweigh the costs.
For the record, whoever came up with the term “forcible rape” is a complete idiot and probably had never been sexually assaulted before. By definition, rape is unwanted sexual contact. It is ALWAYS forcible and coercive. That anti-abortionists are trying to make a distinction is just freaking obscene.
@RCM – I’m not sure anti-abortionists are making the distinction so much as using a distinction already present in the legal definition.
I agree that rape is always forced and coerced. Do you think there’s any legal benefit in distinguishing between rape following a violent attack and rape following getting someone drunk? Should the punishment be the same for both?
Kyle, of course there should be levels of degree in rape. There should be first degree rape, second degree, etc. But the legal definition of “forcible rape “is so outrageous and it needs to go. I know one incest victim who literally freaked out when she heard the definition of “forcible rape.” The law is a problem here. And while anti-abortionists are focusing on what already exists, do you think women who have been sexually assaulted think these people care for them and their needs when it comes to a discussion like this? No! And that is so sad to me.
The perception is probably that the sponsors don’t care, but then, I have my doubts that the GOP really cares about the unborn either. They have other priorities.
Kyle I must first say I enjoyed your post on Pluralism and the Confessional State; it is an issue near and dear to me. I am still chewing it over along with my oatmeal.
With your question to RCM I am unaware of any current U.S. torts (for that matter state) where the legal term “forcible rape” appears.
The only appearance of such a term I am aware of is located within H.R. 3. The only similar expression I have seen in other areas of criminal law would be “forcible entry” applied in the case of a burglary.
I think the usage of the term “forcible” in H.R. 3 tells us more about the attitudes of either the person who drafted the bill and/or the intended political targets than anyone may have realized.
In other words there are the “women” who left their “doors” unlocked and then you have the “ladies” who, shall we say, “left their doors wide open”.
We can speculate all day about the attitudes of whoever used the word “forcible,” but unless we can demonstrate the contrary, it’s unfair to accuse the bill’s supporters as being pro-rape.
Most assuredly, I would never accuse the sponsor of H.R. 3 of being either pro-rape or pro-logic.
“However, classifying the bill’s sponsors as the protectors of rapists fails miserably to understand the motives of the sponsors. … Critics can disagree with the bill and point out the negative consequences the bill will have for women, but, seriously, they should respond to what the sponsors are actually attempting to do, attempt to understand their reasons for doing so … Otherwise, they’re not really taking the efforts of the sponsors seriously. They’re not really responding to the proposed legislation.”
Kyle, what IS the motive?
Is the motive just a way to chip away at the margins the number of federally funded abortions? Because
I agree with DC at 10:33 am, and with Maria — the babies of forcible rape aren’t any less worthy of life than those conceived by a 13yo girl and her 24 yo “boyfriend.” If there is some purpose that doesn’t make arbitrary distinctions between which women “deserve” abortions, I’d like to know what it is.
@R – That’s the apparent motive, yes. Assuming this, I’m not sure why the sponsors decided to attempt a reduction of federally funded abortions by restricting the meaning of rape rather than by removing the rape exception altogether. Perhaps they thought a partial revision would get them further than a whole removal. I doubt they believe some rape victims deserve abortions while others do not.
The problem many people have R is that while babies conceived by rape are no less worthy of life, how many people feel comfortable forcing a woman to carry a child that she NEVER consented to have and was implanted in her by force?
I am pro-life, but I do not know how I could ever look at a woman and tell her that she HAS to carry a child against her will that was put there by force. God help us! Heck, even the CT Bishops said rape victims have the RIGHT to emergency contraception because they should not be forced to conceive against their will.
Lastly, if pro-lifers REALLY want to focus on abortion numbers, can we PLEASE start talking about women here? Can we PLEASE meet the needs of these mothers over 1 MILLION a year who feel their only choice is the death of their children? Why focus on these poor rape survivors? Why? Guess who is going to win the press on this argument? Surprise! It is not going to be pro-lifers.
Kyle says: “Critics can disagree with the bill and point out the negative consequences the bill will have for women”
The only way not paying for some rape abortions could be a “negative consequence for women” would be if abortion in rape was sometimes a better option than not abortion. But abortion in the case of rape perpetrates a second violation on the woman. So how is not facilitating a rape abortion a negative consequence?
I’ve talked with many persons who were conceived in rape. I’d like David Nickol or anyone else here who claims to believe in equality and compassion look one of those people in the face and tell them it could have been better and right had they been killed before birth.
Kyle did you mean that critics can point out what they *perceive* to be the negative consequences? Or were you affirming yourself that sometimes not being able to abort as easily in the case of rape is a negative consequence?
@Matt – Just about any piece of legislation will have its positive and negative consequences, its benefits and costs, its upside and downside. Of course, supporters and critics of a bill will differ on what they say qualifies as a plus and a minus.
I’ve got no problem with pro-choice critics making an argument that the bill will deny poor victims of rape something available to victims of rape who can afford the expenses of an abortion; that’s something the bill would do. My problem is with accusations that the supporters of the bill are pro-rape because they wish to set more restrictive limits on what abortions are funded through taxpayer dollars.
Is not being able to abort a negative consequence? It would be for a women who wants to have an abortion. Whether the prohibition or prevention is an injustice is another question, though.
I’d like David Nickol or anyone else here who claims to believe in equality and compassion look one of those people in the face and tell them it could have been better and right had they been killed before birth.
Matt,
That would be nonsensical. What could have been better and right?
It is not my position that people who were conceived through rape and are living today should have been aborted. It is my position that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant should not be forced to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn’t want to. Those are two utterly different positions.
It would be a meaningless statement to tell someone it would be better if he or she had been aborted. It’s kind of in the same realm as asking me how I would like it if my mother had had an abortion.
Anyone who believes in a woman’s absolute right to have an abortion for any reason could say to me, “I believe it was the right of your mother to have aborted you.” Yes. So? Am I supposed to be bothered by that?
If someone said to me, “Your mother should not have been forced to go through her pregnancy — you should have been aborted”, yes, that would bother me.
Thales,
What if someone said to you, “Your mother was raped. She was traumatized by the experience. She loathed the baby growing inside her and wanted to abort it, but she was not permitted. She gave you up for adoption. She was never the same after the whole experience.” Would that make you feel good?
DN when you are prepared to say the same thing about discrimination against homosexuals at least you will be intellectually honest–still deeply wrong, but at least consistent.
Yes, it would. I’d be thankful that she let me live (or was forced to let me live), and that she didn’t kill me.
Are you implying she would be “the same” after aborting her child, as if somehow that would heal her pain?
DN those aren’t two positions b/c “shouldnt be forced to go through” just means a right to kill. Tell people conceived in rape their mother had a right to kill them, that it could have been better or right had they been killed. That takes you out of the realm of someone who can come here and argue for justice on your pet issues. Maybe it doesn’t “bother you”–then stop complaining about bigotry by anyone, because it isn’t bothersome.
For similar reasons Kyle, there is no distinction between saying denial of abortion is a negative and saying abortion is not unjust. More than that, you are overlooking the fact that abortion hurts raped women–it is a violation and inflicts psychological harm even worse because they bear guilt of a participant. It is much like rape. I asked if you believe objectively that denial of abortion could be called a negative, or just that abortion supporters claim it.
@Matt-
there is no distinction between saying denial of abortion is a negative and saying abortion is not unjust.
Sure there is. The two words aren’t even synonyms.
More than that, you are overlooking the fact that abortion hurts raped women–it is a violation and inflicts psychological harm even worse because they bear guilt of a participant.
I did? Where?
Denial of an abortion is not a negative in terms of justice, and it is not a negative in terms of the woman. If you say it is a negative it seems to me you are denying at least one of these. If you are saying it is a negative in terms of the woman in particular, it seems you are overlooking the fact that abortion harms, not helps, a rape victim. Please help me understand what you mean, or instead how denial of an abortion is still objectively a negative if both of these are true.
If you are saying it is a negative in terms of the woman in particular, it seems you are overlooking the fact that abortion harms, not helps, a rape victim.
Matt,
Do you have any data to back this up? Are there surveys in which a majority of rape victims who had abortions regret their decision? I don’t want anecdotal information based on your personal experiences in the pro-life movement. I want facts.
I don’t think you do want facts, It seems to me you want affirmation of your justifications for killing preborn children. You have never been satisfied by any facts reflecting negatively on abortion, and you’re not going to change in this thread.
Matt,
And my guess is that if the facts showed that pregnant rape victims who had abortions fared better psychologically than women who didn’t, you would still be adamantly opposed to abortion in those cases, just as you are adamantly opposed to abortion in cases where a woman’s life is in danger.
I am not saying you don’t believe all the things you say about the victimhood of women who have abortions or the negative consequences of abortion. But I am saying that your one and only one concern is protecting the life of the unborn, no matter what the consequences to the mother (even if it’s death).
And you are saying that is my “one and only one” concern completely absent any statement of mine–in fact in utter contradiction to my continued assertion (and your denial) that abortion itself hurts women. You don’t get to dictate what evidence is legitimate, and you don’t have standing to dismiss the evidence people present anyway. If you were open minded you would give credence to the research, and anectotal, and principled explanations of the harm of abortion including in rape such as found at afterabortion.org , rather than posturing to dismiss it out of hand.
That abortion may cause psychological harm doesn’t mean that being forced to carry a child conceived in rape cannot also cause psychological harm. They can both be negatives.
Kyle–I think you are overlooking the fact that the woman in question is already pregnant by rape, so there are only two options. They can’t be both more negative than the other. The question is whether denial of killing her child is a negative in relation to not killing the child. If you say it is a negative, you are overlooking to a significant degree the nature of abortion itself and its effect on the woman, as I suggested you were.
Another way to say it is this: the scenario we are discussing isn’t described precisely or really accurately enough as “being forced to carry a child conceived in rape.” This is a rephrasing of the one and only mechanism by which such “force” possibly occurs: whether to kill the child, or not. Killing the child is the only way to choose not to engage in this “force” (and it’s a very strange use of the word force, objectively, unless someone adopts pro-abortion premises). So it’s not valid to assess negativity in this situation by considering the concept of “being forced to carry a child conceived in rape.” You can’t call that negative without calling not-killing-the-child negative, because not-killing-the-child is the choice we’re really talking about. Since the only two options are killing-the-child or not-killing the child, and the issue of this thread is an assessment of whether to facilitate the latter, saying that NOT facilitating the latter is negative necessarily involves a relative judgment between the only two options–which one is more negative.
Tell people conceived in rape their mother had a right to kill them, that it could have been better or right had they been killed.
Matt,
You are making very little sense. What is being discussed here is government funding. Any woman in the United States has a right to an abortion in the first trimester whether she is raped or not. Consequently, anyone who is pro-choice is, by that position, basically saying to everyone alive: “Your mother could have aborted you if she wanted to.” Anybody I can say this to, however, wasn’t aborted!
Tell people conceived in rape their mother had a right to kill them, that it could have been better or right had they been killed.
Since Roe v Wade, anybody’s mother has had a right to abort them. Your argument seems to be about hurting people’s feelings who might have been aborted but weren’t. This does not seem to be a very powerful argument against abortion.
What you are talking about is telling someone they could have been aborted, and how they would react. What I am talking about is having to tell a woman who has been raped and traumatized that she has to carry a baby to term that she does not want. It strikes me there is no comparison.
It is not my judgment that it could have been better or right that any woman chose to abort. That is for each woman to decide.
That takes you out of the realm of someone who can come here and argue for justice on your pet issues. Maybe it doesn’t “bother you”–then stop complaining about bigotry by anyone, because it isn’t bothersome.
Exactly what this amounts to other than a typically unpleasant, personal swipe on your part it’s difficult for me to say. I think it qualifies as both an ad hominem remark and poisoning the well. You are basically saying any argument I make is invalid or hypocritical because I am such a bad person.
Of course one point you never acknowledge is that for most people who are pro-choice, abortion in the case of rape is not “killing the baby.” It is preventing that baby from coming into existence. Anything you do as a pro-life advocate to try to get people to ponder how unfortunate it would have been had they been aborted is just encouraging fantasy. Not only can no one know what it would be like had they been aborted. It’s simply meaningless. And if there is an afterlife in which aborted babies live on, there is no way to get — or even imagine — what they think or feel. There are reasonable arguments against abortion, but none of them have to do with how aborted babies feel or what it would have been like if someone now living had been aborted. All of that is purely imaginary.
You cannot avoid the fact that in justifying abortion that is a judgment you are making on the lives of people. You have only arbitrary grounds for making that judgment while arguing justice on other issues, since you assume the prerogative of deciding at the outset who is a human deserving the right to life. I am not surprised that you are dodging the question–it just affirms that you really do think it could have been right or better to kill people conceived in rape. This is what underlies your justifications for rape abortions in this thread. If you don’t like it when your assumptions are pointed out, that is itself telling.
since you assume the prerogative of deciding at the outset who is a human deserving the right to life.
Every person has a right to life. It is my current belief that in early pregnancy, there is no person. It all boils down to that. It seems to me an argument can be made that a developing embryo has great value and should not be aborted except for very serious reasons. But I simply do not accept that an early embryo is a person with a right to life. It is a potential person that should not be interfered with except for serious reasons. A pregnant woman, however, is a full-fledged person with a right not to suffer unduly and not to die.
So I do not arrogate to myself the right to decide which persons should live and which persons should die. All persons have a right to life. I do, however, believe it is within my power to make a judgment as to when personhood begins. Obviously, no bright line can be drawn (at least based on what we know now). But that doesn’t mean I can’t say a fertilized egg is not a person and a 35-week-old unborn child is a person.
“I do, however, believe it is within my power to make a judgment as to when personhood begins.”
That’s exactly what I said. You look out at all the human beings and decide some aren’t persons and can be killed. So you have no basis for claiming that any human “rights” exist for persons, except as is derivative from your fiat about which humans are persons in the first place. You have no basis for calling any other person or institution bigoted for denying groups of human beings things that you deem to be rights, since you discriminate in a far more deeply fundamental way.
Of course one point you never acknowledge is that for most people who are pro-choice, abortion in the case of rape is not “killing the baby.” It is preventing that baby from coming into existence.
Technically, what is killing except for a prevention of that person’s future existence? If I want to kill you, I want to ensure my future is free of you. Where’s the difference?
Dan,
Killing a person is the prevention of that person’s future existence. Killing something that has not yet developed into a person is not killing a person. Scrambling a fertilized egg is not killing a chicken, although because you had the egg for breakfast, that egg will never be a chicken. Killing a person is an injustice. Preventing a person from coming into existence is not.
Semantics. Why is killing a person injustice, yet preventing their existence is not an injustice? Aren’t you denying both entities their futures, which they are entitled to?
And yes, scrambling a fertilized egg could very well be seen as killing a chicken to some people.
“Scrambling a fertilized egg is not killing a chicken”
Utterly unscientific.
Dan and Matt,
You don’t cook much, do you?
Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
David,
I’m confused by your response. Have you ever cracked open an (unknowingly) fertilized egg and seen a chicken embryo fall out? I have.
Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Is a girl a woman?
You also ignored my question – why is killing a person an injustice? What am I doing to them that is unjust if I kill them?
I don’t know if this helps the current debate, but there are 2 issues here which people have touched on:
1. Whether a woman who has been raped can be further traumatized/hurt by being forced to carry a baby to term that she does not want. Whether this hurt is a actually legitimate one or if it is only an illusory one is an issue for debate.
2. But assuming that there exists a legitimate additional hurt by being forced to carry a baby to term, does this hurt trump the embryo/fetus/unborn baby’s right to life? (To this last question, I say no, and as I said above to David, if I was the surviving person in question, I’d be thankful I was alive regardless of what my mother felt — I wouldn’t feel bad at all.)
David,
The crux of the whole matter here is not one of sympathy toward the woman – I think everyone sympathizes with a woman in such a traumatic and unfortunate circumstance. I also think that everyone would honestly support any measures that would alleviate her suffering – provided those measures aren’t unjust toward an innocent party. I think you would agree with this.
The disagreement here seems to be rooted in your uncertainty that the fetus is a person, irrelevant of its dependence on the mother. If the fetus is objectively a person, it is ergo an innocent party, and, while the situation remains unfortunate, it would not be morally correct to afflict suffering on an innocent party to alleviate the suffering of another. I think you would agree with this as well.
If, of course, the fetus were not a person independent of its mother (as is currently the legal standard), then of course it would be cruel to continue to afflict the mother, and your position is reasonable.
For most people on this board, the question is answered to their satisfaction. For some others, it is not. While there remains disagreement on that question, everything else in this discussion is irrelevant. Examples and arguments on both sides are utterly useless, because there is disagreement on the fundamental premises.
Well said, Dan.
Dan,
I agree with most of what you said, except we are talking about what is legal and what is not legal in America. Most people on Vox Nova probably do believe that life (personhood) begins at conception, but they also probably believe that because it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Likewise, they probably believe in the Real Presence. However, there are many citizens of the United States who don’t believe that personhood begins at conception. In a pluralistic democracy, how do we accommodate both those who do believe and those who don’t? Certainly no reasonable Catholic would try to change the law to reflect the Real Presence. So the question is, how should secular law deal with issues of profound importance in which religious beliefs differ.
As I never tire of pointing out, if a Jewish woman has a life-threatening pregnancy, an abortion is not merely permitted, it’s pretty much required. It is one thing for Catholics to try to discourage Catholic women from having a life-saving abortion. It is another thing for Catholics to try to pass laws to prevent Jewish women from having life-saving abortions. Would you really want to argue that the Catholic view on abortion is so right that it should prevail when a Jewish woman, according to her own tradition and the advice of her rabbi, wants to have a life-saving abortion?
Ultimately, although there are some people (atheists among them) who claim it is clear that personhood begins at conception, I see that as a religious belief. And I don’t think secular law should be based on religious beliefs.
Having said that, I do not think it is necessary to “prove” life begins at conception in order to legally restrict abortion. The argument that abortion should be against the law because life begins at conception is a new argument (legally speaking). Abortion in the United States was never considered murder. (I doubt if it will be even if the pro-life movement wins, actually.)
I know you disagree, David, but for most people seeking changes in law when it comes to abortion, “personhood begins at conception” is not a religious belief.
Thales,
It seems to me that if a person really believes that personhood begins at conception, then that person must logically oppose in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research (in which embryos are destroyed), and abortion in all cases with no exceptions. I really don’t think even most people who identify themselves as pro-life (and certainly not pro-life politicians) go that far.
David,
You’ve just described the official position of the Catholic Church. Maybe you need to get out more. In my experience, I would say that most people active in the pro-life movement — not politicians trying to accommodate everyone by holding illogical positions in order to win people’s votes, but active people in the pro-life movement — also are against in vitro, ESCR, abortion in all cases.
It’s convenient to define all pro-life arguments as religious (even athiest ones, even ones asserting no religious premises)and then also self-impose a rule saying that all religious arguments are illegitimate in deciding public policy. Heads I win tails you lose.
It’s convenient to define all pro-life arguments as religious . .
Matt,
But I didn’t. I said I considered the proposition that life (personhood) begins at conception to be a religious belief.
David,
The proposition that personhood doesn’t begin at conception is a religious (or philosophical) belief. Not sure why that religious belief should be the status quo in society rather than its opposite, esp. when I think it’s got a weaker basis in scientific fact than the “personhood at conception” belief. But maybe this is outside the scope of the comment thread.
It seems to me that men aren’t at all empathetic when it comes to women with unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life men get all emotional about embryos, but they seem quite cold-blooded when it comes to pregnant women. Even if the pro-lifers are right about the absolute impermissibility of abortion, many of them make arguments as if they were utterly indifferent to the suffering of “post-born” persons.
I know there are a lot more men than women who argue on blogs, so to some extent it is not strange that men dominate most discussions. But when it comes to discussions of abortion, I wonder if women who would otherwise participate decide not to do so because they are alienated by the way men discuss the issue.
“Arguements that are utterly indifferent to post born persons”: for example, a dismissive attitude towards the intense suffering that women undergo because of their abortions. As David said above: none of that anecdotal trash!–meaning, you, woman, and your pain, don’t count.
You got it David. It’s pointless because you are never going to change the way they see women. We are incubators and nothing more. We should die for our unborn child even if you are only a few weeks pregnant. They could care less about women. A 9yr old child pregnant with twins should be made to bare that child. Who cares if she’s just a 3rd grader. It’s only the unborn that count. Once you are born, to heck with you.
There are a couple of other points I have thought about:
Even though I think pro-lifers lose out BIG on targeting rape survivors the reality is that if anyone benefits from an abortion after rape it is the rapist. Anyone who deals with the sex crime community knows that the #1 reason most sex crimes cannot be prosecuted is no proof. There is nothing like DNA to prove sex did indeed occur. As a matter of fact, a former student of mine who was repeatedly raped by her father got pregnant by him. The abuse was discovered because of the child. Likewise, many incest survivors I know had forced abortions on them from their abusers in order to hide the evidence. The abortion industry never wants to talk about their own complicity in continued sexual assaults.
Secondly, the men here who are arguing for the child’s right to life sound so cavalier when it comes to women who have been sexually traumatized. Please, focus on a tone a bit. Have some REAL compassion towards these women. I HAVE worked with a rape survivor who had her rapist’s child (not the former student, another one). Guess how I figured out that the child was a product of rape? By how her mother treated her. The reality is some women who choose to have their rapists’ babies find healing and other hate the kids. Life is complex.
I appreciate David here standing up for women who have been deeply injured and while I can appreciate that the others are deeply concerned about the innocent child conceived in all of this, so is the woman. She is innocent and who cannot have mercy on her if does choose an abortion? Who can justly judge her?
The only one’s that are benefiting from this bill are the pro-life and pro-choice associations with their fund-raising attempts as well as the GOP maintaining a steady grip onto it’s fragile base with this ongoing wedge issue. As far as I can tell it was already illegal to use federal funding for abortions. But you know, this has everyone worked up into a real tizzy.
What is lost on everyone is that before Roe VS Wade abortions were illegal then and yet they still occurred. The solutions to the problem then as well as now are social and not legal in nature and require effort from each one of us in our communities to minimize the number of abortions that occur, whether they are legal or not.
That is the rub. Solutions require more effort than jaw-boning and legislating. So sit back and watch the fur fly endlessly while these associations and political parties profit from a never-ending argument over the death of the unborn.
I update the post with this question, but I’ll ask it here as well:
Does this bill’s new definition of rape have any legal consequence beyond what abortions will be covered with federal government assistance? I’m not a lawyer and honestly don’t know, but I haven’t yet seen an argument that the language of this bill could be used a precedent for changing the overall legal meaning of rape.
Kyle,
For what it’s worth, here’s the National Right to Life Committee’s take. In sum, there is no legal consequence, as it just reaffirms the Hyde amendment policy making a distinction between statutory rape and “forcible” rape.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/01/pro-abortion-groups-mislead-in-rape-attack-on-tax-funded-abortion-ban/
The bill doesn’t have a new “definition” of rape. All it says is that, for the purposes of deciding which abortions can be funded by the federal government, “forcible rape” and incest against minors can be paid for. That language affects no other state or federal law’s definition of rape. A lot of states don’t even use “rape” the same or even for all victimizing activity–some refer to degrees of sexual assault. It’s pure speculation by pro-abortion advocates of government abortion funding that “forcible” won’t apply various shocking scenarios, for example, to drug-and-rape situations. Giving someone a drug is battery (force) in every state. But two things are fairly obvious now: 1) to the extent there was any intention behind the change, it was only to omit some kinds of consensual sex like between a 15 and 16 year old (which, again, many states don’t even call “rape” anyway), and 2) this provision will undoubtely be clarified in committee–but not because anyone was saying that drugged rape isn’t rape, nor because this change would hav legalized rape, which is the impression that has clearly been given and intended to be given by abortion supporters complaining about this bill.
Well, the “Cone of Silence” has descended the RTL groups. “No comments” or just a refusal to return press class about the forcible rape language seems to be the practice of National Right To Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United For Life and the Susan B. Anthony List.
I would bet the GOP pulls this bill from the calendar. Boehner and Cantor are going to run away from it.
I’m confused by your response. Have you ever cracked open an (unknowingly) fertilized egg and seen a chicken embryo fall out? I have.
Dan,
No, I haven’t, but obviously a fertilized egg can develop into a chicken embryo, which can develop into a baby chicken, which can develop into an adult chicken. That does not in any way mean that a fertilized egg is a chicken.
Is a girl a woman?
No, a girl is not a woman. A woman used to be a girl, and if all goes well, a girl will become a woman. But a girl is not a woman. A child is not an adult.
You also ignored my question – why is killing a person an injustice? What am I doing to them that is unjust if I kill them?
You have deprived them of a right to further life. But only persons have rights. We may have obligations regarding potential persons, but potential persons do not have rights. (I do not think animals have rights, although I believe we have an obligation to treat animals well.)
That distinction is helpful, thanks. I see more clearly that you’re speaking from a legal standpoint rather than a moral one.
In addition to the political theater I mentioned above the other issue everyone overlooks is the question of “at what point is there an actual human being inside the womb”.
When that is determined you are no longer talking about abortion, you are talking about murder.
I think this area has been avoided because the pursuit of the answer is not profitable.
It seems to me that abortion is a handy tool for rapists…father, uncle, boyfriend, much older boyfriend. Hey I need to erase the results of my crime…it’s an abortion for you. This has always been true, and what do you know, Planned Parenthood has just found them self in a scandal that proves this.
You’ve just described the official position of the Catholic Church. Maybe you need to get out more.
Thales,
Please give me credit for knowing what the position of the Catholic Church is! I know what it is on contraception, too. But many Catholics don’t follow the teachings of the Church, nor do they vote the way the Church wants them to vote.
In my experience, I would say that most people active in the pro-life movement — not politicians trying to accommodate everyone by holding illogical positions in order to win people’s votes, but active people in the pro-life movement — also are against in vitro, ESCR, abortion in all cases.
We’re talking about what are politically feasible “pro-life” restrictions. Pro-lifers may oppose in vitro fertilization, but there is no campaign to stop or restrict it. Also, many people may call themselves pro-life but nevertheless be in favor of stem-cell research, in vitro fertilization, and exceptions allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
The proposition that personhood doesn’t begin at conception is a religious (or philosophical) belief.
Under current law, personhood begins at birth. This is the way the law has been for hundreds of years. In American law and common law, abortion was never considered to be the killing of a person, even when abortion was a serious crime. It is the pro-life movement that wants to change the law to conform to (what in my view is) the religious belief that personhood begins at conception.
David,
You said that you “really don’t think even most people who identify themselves as pro-life (and certainly not pro-life politicians) go that far.” I found that surprising since I know many people, including the institution of the Catholic Church, that go that far.
I know no longer what the issue we’re arguing about is. Yes, many people in the political sphere advocate what are illogical positions in the abstract: e.g., being against abortion but allowing it for rape/incest. So what? We live in a body politic where compromises are made all the time for various reasons, like seeking to change the law by incremental steps, or obtaining a compromise from the opposing side, or advocating legal prohibitions for some immorality and not for others because of the problems the law would create in society (e.g., being against legal prohibition of masturbation while still thinking it’s immoral).
Under current law, personhood begins at birth. I wasn’t talking about the legal definition of personhood, I was talking about the moral definition of personhood. Current abortion law in this country is based on the premise that the moral status of the person begins at birth, and I was noting that this is a religious/philosophical belief (one that is scientifically weaker, IMO, than the opposite). And if you want to look at legal history, you’ll see that this religious/philosophical belief is not the prevalent one, considering the differing levels of legal recognition given to pre- and post-quickening embryos/fetuses over the centuries.
Yes, the pro-life movement wants to change the law to conform to a religious/philosophical belief that personhood begins at conception. So what? Abortion advocates want to change or keep the law to conform to a religious/philosophical belief that personhood begins (1) at birth and/or (2) when the mother says she wants to keep the baby.
If the pro-life assertion about personhood is “religious”, any assertion about personhood is religious. The only point in calling the pro-life assertion religious is to label it and dismiss it, instead of dealing with it as an argument. David refuses to deal with the argument, and he refuses even to argue (using non-”religious” premises) how the pro-life assertion is religious, what religious premises it contains, or why “religious” arguments are any less legitimate. David just asserts as dogma that the argument he disagrees with is dogma and therefore is illegitimate. And it is factually false that the killing of preborn children was never treated as killing a human being.
It might be helpful if we heard what David’s personal view about personhood is. I don’t mean “legal personhood” – we all agree that currently, our law generally considers personhood beginning at birth. But presumably David thinks that the human entity at some point gains moral personhood — that is, becomes a human being with full dignity including a right to life, regardless of what the law says. (Whether and how the law should approximate this view of moral personhood are different questions.) There are many different beliefs as to when moral personhood occurs:
-at conception
-at viability
-at first or second or third trimester
-at birth
-at 2 years old
-at the moment the mother says that the human entity is a human being with full personhood.
There is also the belief that personhood is an incremental thing (ie, personhood and corresponding human rights increase in the human entity over a period of time.) But even if someone subscribes to this view, there must be a point when the entity has full personhood, so the earlier question remains.
If the pro-life assertion about personhood is “religious”, any assertion about personhood is religious.
Matt,
No, I don’t think so. For example, I don’t think the dictionary definition of person is religious. I don’t think the definition of person in the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is religious. I think there is a totally non-controversial, non-religious understanding of person that no one would dispute. I think we can all agree, for example, that the pope is a person without having to get into any religious or philosophical arguments. It is extending the definition of person all the way back to a fertilized egg that it seems to me is matter of religious belief. So I think the definition of person as applying to what Scalia called “walking around persons” is non-religious and non-controversial.
And it is factually false that the killing of preborn children was never treated as killing a human being.
I said, “In American law and common law, abortion was never considered to be the killing of a person, even when abortion was a serious crime.” If you would like to disprove that by citing a source, please do. I am relying on the following:
David just asserts as dogma that the argument he disagrees with is dogma and therefore is illegitimate.
I have argued the matter of personhood many times, and I am perfectly willing to argue it again. It seems perfectly plain to me that a 1- or 2-celled entity cannot be a person. But I am about to read Robert George’s book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, so I will be giving the whole matter a fresh look.
I have argued the matter of personhood many times, and I am perfectly willing to argue it again. It seems perfectly plain to me that a 1- or 2-celled entity cannot be a person. But I am about to read Robert George’s book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, so I will be giving the whole matter a fresh look.
The litmus test for me is nature – you can’t argue with nature. Change occurs in all organisms according to its genetic code. The stage of development is ultimately irrelevant. Can an organism, left to natural processes of change, develop into what we instinctively conceptualize as an elephant, a cat, or a human? If so, then it is an elephant, a cat, or a human. The only difference is time.
If a scientist who has the ability to decipher DNA could look at a single-celled organism and say “this is a cat”, or “this is an elephant”, and be right 100% of the time, then I think that is part of the essential definition of what it is.
To argue otherwise would be to assume that an organism is not actually what it is until some arbitrary point in the future when it acquires sufficient characteristics to make it what it is. But, if that were the case, that would imply that the scientist should not be able determine what it is by looking at its internal structure. But he can, with absolute certainty. That means something.
Furthermore, if you were to take the position above, then “what something is” becomes a relative concept – existing to differing degrees in the subject. For example, if we define a person as an autonomous, cognitive, functional human being with emotions, intellect, and will – then an embryo is most certainly not a person. However, that would also mean that an infant, a senior, or a disabled person, is, by definition, less of a person than a healthy 27 year old.
My personal view is that there are only two consistent positions on personhood:
1. That personhood is a an abstract and relative concept describing an autonomous, cognitive, functional human being with emotions, intellect, and will. Personhood therefore must exist in degrees – an infant is less of a person than an adult, and an embryo is not a person.
2. That personhood is a static concept describing the whole of the human being throughout his or her existence. A girl is as much of a person as a woman. An embryo is a person, because the same natural processes which occur in an adult occur in the embryo after conception – it has its own genetic code and, left to natural processes, will undergo transformation and growth, with no external intervention required – the only difference between an embryo and an infant is time and nourishment.
The law seems to want to have its cake and eat it too – it defines a person in a static sense, such that an infant is as much of a person as an adult. Yet the embryo is not a person. It is inconsistent.
Dan,
I pretty much agree with position 1. Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, should we encounter it, how will we decide whether Vulcans or Klingons or Cardassians (not to mention Data and The Doctor) are persons? Not by examining their DNA, which they may not even have. And of course God and angels are persons, but they have no DNA (excepting Jesus). It does not seem unlikely to me that there may be life forms that nobody will be able to definitively classify as persons or nonpersons.
You make some interesting arguments, but if I am ever going to read Robert George’s book, I have to stop writing so much!
By the way, when I say holding that personhood begins at conception is a religious belief, that is a personal opinion. I don’t claim it is a fact. I certainly believe it at the moment, but I reserve the right to change my mind, and I don’t claim that people who disagree with me are “objectively” wrong. I think they are wrong, but I don’t pretend to know they are wrong.
Also, saying something is a religious belief is not saying it is untrue. I have said any number of times that if God creates an immortal soul for each individual, then from the moment that soul is present, a human person exists.
David’s only assertion to support his claim that the pro-life argument of personhood is “religious” is that not everyone agrees with it–it is “controversial.” But lots of non-religious claims are controversial and people disagree with them. The disagreement doesn’t make the claim religious. So I assert again, David never offers any argument why the pro-life personhood argument is itself religious. Nor can he do so, because the argument in _Embryo_ is demonstrably not religious.
David’s only assertion to support his claim that the pro-life argument of personhood is “religious” is that not everyone agrees with it–it is “controversial.”
Matt,
I wasn’t attempting to demonstrate that the claim that a fertilized egg is a person is a religious assertion. I was pointing out that the concept of person as generally used is nonreligious.
So I assert again, David never offers any argument why the pro-life personhood argument is itself religious.
You do a lot of asserting, but very little in the way of making opposing arguments.
Nor can he do so, because the argument in _Embryo_ is demonstrably not religious.
I haven’t read it yet, but one possibility is that it is not religious and also doesn’t succeed in doing what it sets out to do. The Publisher’s Weekly review begins, “In this unconvincing book . . . .”
Thank you for confirming–you have no basis for saying this argument is religious. Let us know when you have one.
David’s quote does not show that the law considered the preborn nonpersons. The quotation doesn’t even refer to American law. Nor does it reach the concept of personhood. Even if abortion was treated procedurally differently than homicide in some jurisdictions, in some ways (but personhood was recognized in other ways), none of that SPEAKS TO THE ISSUE of the personhood of the victims. Lots of killings are dealt with in various ways in criminal law. It is a legal and logical non sequitor to draw personhood conclusions from procedural differences in criminal law. David is asserting “facts” about legal history, unjustifiedly imposing those as if they reach a philosophical conclusion and ignoring other concerns, and then telling others that they have the burden to disprove him, while only citing an authority that doesn’t show what he says it shows.
Matt,
All you need to do is point to English or American laws before 1972 that dealt with “pre-born persons” as legal persons. Abortion was not considered homicide. Homicide is the killing of a person. If the unborn had been considered persons, abortion would have been homicide. I don’t understand why you wrote a whole essay claiming my quote didn’t demonstrate what I think it did instead of giving a few examples of American or English law over the past, say, 500 years, in which the unborn were regarded as persons.
Homicide was not the “killing of a person”–another assertion you haven’t supported– it was the killing of a human being. States criminalized abortion precisely because it killed people, but human beings in a different circumstance. But you don’t know the law so you are blurring categories and distinctions, while offering no source proving your actual assertions, just one showing different points that don’t reach the conclusions you are proclaiming. The birth rule for homicide was evidentary, with a dearth of scientific knowledge proving a particular baby’s life and about precise causes of death, and had nothing to do with personhood. Do you comprehend the difference?
Homicide was not the “killing of a person”–another assertion you haven’t supported– it was the killing of a human being.
Matt,
So if homicide is the killing of a human being, and abortion in common law and in American law has not been classified as homicide, does this indicate that the unborn are not even human beings under the law?
There is something about your responses to my messages that reminds me of a student taking an essay test who hasn’t done his homework. You keep trying to demonstrate I haven’t proved my point, but you don’t address the issue. The question I put to you was whether you could show any American or British laws in, say, the past 500 years that regarded the unborn as legal persons. Because of the pro-life movement, we are beginning to see attempts to classify the unborn, in certain circumstances, as persons. But prior to the “fetal personhood” campaign, I am unaware of any British or American laws that deemed an unborn infant to be a legal person. You no doubt have the resources to point out the existence of such laws if they existed. Why aren’t you doing so?
David,
if homicide is the killing of a human being, and abortion in common law and in American law has not been classified as homicide
Many states classify abortion as “homicide” but make it a justifiable exception to the homicide law.
The question I put to you was whether you could show any American or British laws in, say, the past 500 years that regarded the unborn as legal persons.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for. You looking for statutory law? There are plenty of “fetal homicide” laws in which the fetus is defined as a “person” or “human being” for purposes of battery, manslaughter, etc.?
http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html
You looking for common law? It’s pretty clear that under traditional English common law, the fetus after quickening had some legal protections.
I think there is too much talking past each other and equivocation on the word “person”. This word “person” means different things legally, theologically (ie, God is a person), and philosophically. And under the legal category, “person” is used in many different ways, depending on the statute, depending on the state, and depending on the circumstances. For example, some states define “person” as including a fetus, but then say that this “person” can receive protection under the homicide statute but receive no protection under the abortion statute. Yes, we live in a legal world that is sometimes incoherent and illogical.
So this debate about the definition of “person” and whether the “person” has included the fetus and what rights were given to this “person”… this is fruitless. Forget trying to get one definition of “person.” What we are really debating is the legal status of the human entity before birth, whether we call that a person or not.
And I think it’s indisputable that over the course of history, both common law and statutory law has recognized that the pre-born human entity has some legal rights (and that people can be punished for harming this pre-born human entity) — and that the pro-abortion position that law has never recognized legal rights for pre-born human entities is simply wrong.
There’s no point to answering these questions because the questions themselves are pointless. And as the saying goes: hard cases make bad law.
Darwin,
I don’t see how the saying about hard cases is relevant here. You already have the “bad” law. The “law” you are operating under is, “No abortion, ever, at any time, for any reason.” The difference between the hypothetical scenario of raping a 2-year-old and the hypotheticals on abortion is that the hypotheticals on abortion are very close to reality. “Octomom” had had 8 fetus. Women with life-threatening pregnancies are not allowed to have abortions. Rape is used as a weapon, whole populations of women are raped, and abortion is not supposed to be an option for them.
The same rule that applies to the “intrinsic evil” of abortion should apply to the “intrinsic evil” of lying. One must not tell a lie to prevent a nuclear war. Who would not?
David,
Let me get this straight. You are asking me questions about what to do in a situation where an “evil scientist” impregnates numerous women with fifteen embryos each, and where rape is being used as a weapon to get whole populations of women pregnant, and you say that I already have a “bad law” in which abortion is always illegal, and I need to decide whether to make exceptions to it.
And you tell me that these questions are “very close to reality”. I’m not entirely sure which reality it is that you think these moral dilemmas are close to, but I’m quite certain it’s not one which I inhabit. If you think that it is, all I can do is offer to throw a trolley at it and shake my head.
When we started, you asked whether the fact that a woman had been raped made abortion moral. I held that it wasn’t, but said I would be happy to support hanging the rapist if you really felt someone needed to pay the ultimate penalty for the crime.
Oddly, this failed to address the question, and we’re now talking about evil scientists and marauding armies of rapists. I can’t help you with this one. I can’t see it as any more realistic than asking you whether you’d rape a two year old to prevent a nuclear war. (Or even stop that ever-present “ticking time bomb.”)
I don’t think that kind of questioning is conducive to moral reasoning. If we only applied morality in the situations where it seemed easy and obvious, we wouldn’t need a system. We’d just do whatever we pleased and be sure we were right.
The modern history Western law shows that all human beings are considered persons, the exceptions being notable things like slavery. Laws against abortion themselves reflect this, which I referred to and whose existence is indisputed. All that has changed is the science of what we know and can prove about when living human beings exist. The principle of there being one category deserving protection hasn’t changed: human beings, when their existence and life is known. This is supported by all the laws we’ve both cited. Your idea, however, that the law once said that the preborn though living human beings weren’t persons, is not true and you have utterly failed to cite anything showing it. Whenever I point that out, you change the subject rather than citing something to support your assertion.
Looks like “forcible” is being dropped because of all the fuss over it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48766.html
Oddly, this failed to address the question, and we’re now talking about evil scientists and marauding armies of rapists.
Darwin,
You seem to think marauding armies of rapists are hypothetical. Rape is more and more used as a weapon in war. Of course, not every woman becomes pregnant, but many do.
My point in raising hypotheticals is that apparently there is nothing happening now, and nothing that can be conceived of even in highly unlikely hypotheticals, that will convince Catholic pro-life advocates that an abortion is ever permissible.
Let’s not get into anything as inflammatory as raping a 2-year-old. But suppose an innocent man must be killed to prevent nuclear war. In reality, who wouldn’t kill an innocent person to avert a nuclear war?
In reality, who wouldn’t kill an innocent person to avert a nuclear war?
Catholic teaching wouldn’t, due to the principle that it is never permissible to commit an evil even to achieve a good (or avoid a greater evil). Imagine the absolutely worst scenario, like nuclear annihilation, and Catholic teaching would still say that you couldn’t kill an innocent (or have an abortion) to avoid this scenario.
The real question is what’s worse: David Nickol’s willingness to kill the innocent to achieve good goals, or his willingness to usurp the authority to declare that his victims aren’t even persons. And here’s the irony: a blog of anti-war peace loving American military criticizing Catholic liberals will run to the defense of Nickol every day of the week even as he spouts the moral justification of “collateral damage,” just because he faithfully adheres to liberal orthodoxy on abortion.
The bill (HR3) would gave to be specific and clearly what the term “forcible rape” includes and excludes. The fact that it does not leads me to believe the whole bill is a sham. As written it has little chance of being enacted into law.
We can close this thread. The Republicans have caved and are withdrawing their provision regarding rape.
Correct, Kurt, in part–as I suggested, it would likely be clarified through the committee process. But contrary to your dire predicition, the bill itself is not being pulled, nor abandonned by leadership. Quite the contrary. Did it even lose any sponsors? Or maybe we should be asking, let’s track how many more sponsors will it get. It’s at least in the 170s. Defunding federal involvement in abortion is a good, common sense idea, and it not an effort that is going to be abandonned.
David,
My point in raising hypotheticals is that apparently there is nothing happening now, and nothing that can be conceived of even in highly unlikely hypotheticals, that will convince Catholic pro-life advocates that an abortion is ever permissible.
Well, if so, I guess that seems pretty evident.
Perhaps I’m engaging in some sort of dreadful misreading, but it seems to me that you were arguing the opposite — that Catholic pro-life advocates should concede that in some circumstances abortion is permissible.
Let’s not get into anything as inflammatory as raping a 2-year-old. But suppose an innocent man must be killed to prevent nuclear war. In reality, who wouldn’t kill an innocent person to avert a nuclear war?
Perhaps it’s just sick curiosity, but why, according to your rationale, is it inflammatory to ask whether, by this rationale, it would be right to rape a two year old to prevent a nuclear war, but simply obvious that it would be right to kill an innocent person in order to prevent a nuclear war.
If anything, I would think that by a strictly rationalistic estimating such as Peter Singer might provide us, unclouded by such old mythologies as Catholic morality, it would actually be less wrong to molest a two year old than to kill an adult. And if we’re following a strict consequentialism, why would the one but outrageous but the other be virtuous?
Perhaps what you’re confusing here is the matter of what is right with what is something one would expect an ordinary and rational person to do.
You’re certainly right that an ordinary and rational person would almost certainly be willing to personally kill one innocent person if doing this could avoid a nuclear war — or come to that torture one person if that would succeed in defusing a “ticking time bomb”.
Similarly, most ordinary and rational people would say it would be fine for a woman who was raped to get an abortion.
I don’t question whether these reactions are ordinary and rational, but I do question whether they are morally right. Something might seem so entirely necessary that virtually any person would do it, and yet still be a wrong thing to do which stains the person who commits the act and thus requires forgiveness.
And in my own example of hypothetical brinksmanship, I think that picking something more viscerally heinous than the rather rhetorically antiseptic “kill one innocent person” brings out the basic human understanding that these acts are still wrong even if their consequences would result in most people choosing to commit the one evil in order to avoid the greater one.
Matt,
I join with the USCCB in opposing the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act while supporting HR 3 to make the Hyde Amendment restrictions permanent law. While I am pleased that to date, all regulations written, particularly for High Risk Pools and the Community Health Center funds, respected the Executive Order and no funds have been used for abortion, there is no reason not to support an opportunity to codify the long standing Hyde Amendment restrictions.