Pro-Life "except in cases of . . . "

[prisonchaplain]

With caution, I offer this thread, as a means to discuss a common exception that many of us pro-life folk would permit. Most of us would generally support a law that bans abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. More than once I have seen this exception challenged by pro-choic folk. The argument is that we are hypocritical, in that we insist life begins at conception, and yet we would permit the killing of unborn children in certain cases. I answer the accusation by saying it is the best we can get in a corrupt society. However, I'm rethinking my position. Do I really want to sign off on the killing of any children, in order to protect others? Maybe such realpolitik is equally immoral? And, most especially, when we speak on behalf of our faith, of God, and of God's laws, do we dare allow for "except in the case of?"

Edited March 15, 2010 by prisonchaplain
clean up typos

[Guest]

With caution, I offer this thread, as a means to discuss a common exception that many of us pro-life folk would permit. Most of us would generally support a law that bans abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. More than once I have seen this exception challenged by pro-choic folk. The argument is that we are hypocritical, in that we insist life begins at conception, and yet we would permit the killing of unborn children in certain cases. I answer the accusation by saying it is the best we can get in a corrupt society. However, I'm rethinking my position. Do I really want to sign off on the killing of any children, in order to protect others? Maybe such realpolitik is equally immoral? And, most especially, when we speak on behalf of our faith, of God, and of God's laws, do we dare allow for "except in the case of?"

With all love and respect PC.

The problem with most pro-lifers is the "Life begins at conception" bit. That's where you get in a bind. Because if that is the argument behind the "Pro-Life" movement then you will need to go the Catholic way. There are no ... "except in the case of". Because, when life begins at conception then the right to life begins at conception - and that will have to be a protection of all innocent life regardless of victim status. The only way abortion can be deemed moral is when you have to choose between two lives - the life of the mother or the life of the child. And it has to be the LIFE of the mother in question - not the mental state of.

If you're going to add the "except in cases of" then you will have to reject the notion that "Life begins at Conception". Rather, the POTENTIAL for life begins at conception.

Now, if you look at it the LDS way - it makes more sense. LDS does not say life begins at conception. They do not know when the spirit enters the mortal body, therefore, life starts somewhere in between conception and the "quickening" of the fetus. The LDS perspective on the abortion issue is the ACT of procreation being a sacred act. The mother and father chose to be a part of the process of pro-creation and that is sacred and involves responsibility. Aborting a baby mocks that sanctity. "Except in the case of rape or incest" makes sense because the ACT of pro-creation itself was the one that was sullied by crime, not the result of such.

Now, personally, even if I am LDS, I still hold the Catholic view of abortion. The reason being, I hold that because we don't know when the spirit enters the body, I will go with life beginning at conception as the safest route. Therefore, I don't subscribe to the "except in cases of" arguments.

This is the same exact reason I am morally against capital punishment. The reason being - our justice system is not perfect, therefore, there are innocent people being put to death. ONE innocent life put to death puts the capital punishment in question. When the time comes that a Milchezedek Priesthood bearer holding the keys of discernment (bishop) judges punishment between life and death, then I can accept capital punishment as moral.

Edited March 15, 2010 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

A couple of exceptions Anatess, though I basically agree with you. The Catholic view goes beyond abortion, and says it is even immoral to prevent conception artificially. Also, while I am reticent about capital punishment, for the reasons you list, God does seem to have ordained its use for a society that was likely less careful than ours.

[rameumptom]

God gives commands, but then occasionally gives exceptions to those commands. He told Moses "thou shalt not kill", but then sent Moses, Joshua and others off to massacre entire cities.

In a perfect world there would be no abortions. But then, there also would be no incest, rape, nor danger to the mother's health. God commands in black and white, but then deals with the gray areas. The LDS view is as yours, however with the caveat that any considered abortion must be done with much prayer and counsel from one's bishop.

Yes, the innocent unborn needs protecting. But what about the 11 year old rape victim? Should she bear the scars of carrying for 9 months, risking her frail frame, and then giving birth, solely because we don't want an abortion to occur? What happens to the innocent 11 year old girl?

We need to weigh all lives as equally precious (both born and unborn), in making any decision.

[Guest]

A couple of exceptions Anatess, though I basically agree with you. The Catholic view goes beyond abortion, and says it is even immoral to prevent conception artificially.

That is correct about the Catholics - in the side of the sanctity of pro-creation. Note that pro-creation and conception are two completely different things separate from each other in Catholic doctrine even though they are not independent of each other.

In Catholic doctrine taking artificial means of birth control is basically the same as saying I'm going to use the act of pro-creation just to have fun and no other reason. It is disrespectful of the pro-creation act itself. This is not the same argument as abortion - it is separate from it.

LDS do not believe that. That's because LDS deems the relationship between mother and father as sacred and sex is not just the act of pro-creation but also the highest method of physical expression of love between husband and wife.

Also, while I am reticent about capital punishment, for the reasons you list, God does seem to have ordained its use for a society that was likely less careful than ours.

Only when judges were ordained with priesthood authority.

[Gwen]

the except approach has to be considered very carefully. i personally see it from the perspective that abortion should not be allowed except for rape, incest, mother's life, etc. that does not mean that an abortion should be performed in all those situations. just that after much prayer, thought, and counseling if the decision is made then it's not against the law. even when talking about the emotional health of the mother (like the cases of rape or incest). will having the baby really be more emotionally damaging than knowing they had an abortion? with incest you enter another realm of complications, being that genetically close the child could have major birth defects. is that fair to the child? contemplating one life for another is never an easy issue. but sometimes it does come to that.

if instead of saying "except in the case of...." why not put it into the situation that the exception to the rule would apply. your 11 yr old daughter is raped. she's pregnant. the dr has taken a very sound examination of her. her body isn't developed enough for a full term pregnancy (she was barely developed enough to get pregnant to begin with). her physical life is in danger. if she does survive it physically there will be long term consequences due to the trauma her body was under. the baby will most likely be born premature. it's chances of survival are slim. if it does survive it will likely have issues stemming from the trauma of the pregnancy and birth. then you look at your daughter's emotional state. she's not recovering from the rape well. to force her through the pregnancy would emotionally be to much. she is in no state to assist in making a decision on something so big, she leaves it up to you to protect and care for her. you have to decide, the life of your child or grandchild?

edit: lol ram i started my post before you posted, had to stop to take care of the kids. come back, posted, then see you already brought up the situation i had in mind..... oh well

Edited March 15, 2010 by Gwen

[Traveler]

With caution, I offer this thread, as a means to discuss a common exception that many of us pro-life folk would permit. Most of us would generally support a law that bans abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. More than once I have seen this exception challenged by pro-choic folk. The argument is that we are hypocritical, in that we insist life begins at conception, and yet we would permit the killing of unborn children in certain cases. I answer the accusation by saying it is the best we can get in a corrupt society. However, I'm rethinking my position. Do I really want to sign off on the killing of any children, in order to protect others? Maybe such realpolitik is equally immoral? And, most especially, when we speak on behalf of our faith, of God, and of God's laws, do we dare allow for "except in the case of?"

I consider myself “pro life” but there are circumstances when I believe a life can be taken. Before I begin I would differentiate between human life and non-human life. I would point out that human life consideration is much different than non-human life. I have no problem with anyone killing a bug for any reason.

I understand the conflict that was debated before the Supreme Court that during the first trimester that it is difficult to determine, by any means, if a developing child is indeed human life. I am willing to accept that even though taking life can be a grievous sin (both socially and religiously) that a woman in our society not be held to a same account of 1st degree murder because of a frivolous abortion.

Partial birth abortions concern me and I believe even society can be held to account for turning its head when there are genuine questions at stake concerning the life being taken. I believe, for example that a human child that has reached the development where our science can substantially guarantee a premature delivery should be given at least the considerations of house hold pets and other various domestic and wild beasts.

I also believe that there should be in all abortions enough considerations be given to a developing human child as to end all considerations of cruel and painful deaths for economic reasons only – at least to the allowances and considerations we give dumb beasts. Even in light of the most blatant arguments for abortion – I do not believe that such abortions need be so cruel and painful to the life being ended. I do not understand why there are no humanitarian efforts or considerations.

I also do not understand any mentality (in a father or mother) that believes that the best way out of a perceived crisis is to kill that one life, in all the universe, most like the individual(s) that does not want or expect to give birth and neuter another human being. I see this as a major disconnect with reality and signs of social ineptness as well as mental illness to the extreme.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Yes, the innocent unborn needs protecting. But what about the 11 year old rape victim? Should she bear the scars of carrying for 9 months, risking her frail frame, and then giving birth, solely because we don't want an abortion to occur? What happens to the innocent 11 year old girl?

Another poster noted that the LDS view is not necessarily that life begins at conception. That of Catholic and Protestant pro-lifers is just that. And, indeed, a secular pro-life person likely argues with us--biologically, would not life begins when growth begins?

So, from our perspective, if life begins at conception, the 11-year old could only seek to have her baby killed if giving birth would actually threaten her physical life. Otherwise, if psychology is the argument, how is ordering the killing of a child less traumatic than giving birth to one conceived by force? Horrific choices. But, in reality, this is not a choice that should have to be made. The option to kill ones child should not be made available, unless that child's birth physically threatens the mother's life. What happens to the 11-year old? Most likely, she gives the baby up for adoption.

We need to weigh all lives as equally precious (both born and unborn), in making any decision.

And yet, how does killing the innocent child help the innocent mother? Unless the birthing process threatens her life, how does she gain by knowing her baby was killed?

[Guest]

PC, I'm not quite familiar with how Assemblies of God sees life. You believe life begins at conception right? As in, life with spirit? Just like the Catholics do? I'm not so sure about this.

The Born Again Christians believe life/spirit begins at conception, but I'm not sure if this is shared by all Protestant faiths. I don't know if the BAs perceive "rape or incest" abortions to be okay.

[MarginOfError]

With caution, I offer this thread, as a means to discuss a common exception that many of us pro-life folk would permit. Most of us would generally support a law that bans abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. More than once I have seen this exception challenged by pro-choic folk. The argument is that we are hypocritical, in that we insist life begins at conception, and yet we would permit the killing of unborn children in certain cases. I answer the accusation by saying it is the best we can get in a corrupt society. However, I'm rethinking my position. Do I really want to sign off on the killing of any children, in order to protect others? Maybe such realpolitik is equally immoral? And, most especially, when we speak on behalf of our faith, of God, and of God's laws, do we dare allow for "except in the case of?"

I've offered an alternative look at how the LDS church looks at abortion that reconciles these exceptions rather seamlessly. This can be seen in a pair of posts here and here.

I'm certain that I'm in the minority, but I would actually oppose a law that bans abortion with the exceptions that you provide. But I would do so on the grounds that I don't think the interactions between this and other social issues would provide a positive end result.

[hordak]

With caution, I offer this thread, as a means to discuss a common exception that many of us pro-life folk would permit. Most of us would generally support a law that bans abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.

I would fear an increase in "rapes" (AKA allegations )to receive access to the procedure.

[Dravin]

I would fear an increase in "rapes" (AKA allegations )to receive access to the procedure.

You know I never thought of that.

Why hello there Mr. Law of Unintended Consequences.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I'm not quite familiar with how Assemblies of God sees life. You believe life begins at conception right? As in, life with spirit? Just like the Catholics do? I'm not so sure about this.

The Born Again Christians believe life/spirit begins at conception, but I'm not sure if this is shared by all Protestant faiths. I don't know if the BAs perceive "rape or incest" abortions to be okay.

Most born again Christians believe that life begins at conception, and that life is both physical and spiritual. The Assemblies of God is certainly in line with that thought. See: http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4196_sanctity_human_life.pdf

[Elphaba]

The problem with most pro-lifers is the "Life begins at conception" bit. That's where you get in a bind. Because if that is the argument behind the "Pro-Life" movement then you will need to go the Catholic way. There are no ... "except in the case of". Because, when life begins at conception then the right to life begins at conception - and that will have to be a protection of all innocent life regardless of victim status. The only way abortion can be deemed moral is when you have to choose between two lives - the life of the mother or the life of the child. And it has to be the LIFE of the mother in question - not the mental state of.

I see this as an issue for those who insist, as you say, that life begins at conception. However, I think it goes beyond that.

The hpocrisy of some people's position, like ColorMeReal's, baffles me. She has written posts where she has gone into detail to describe the terrible suffering one fetus will experience if it is aborted, yet she has no problem if another fetus, through no fault of its own, goes through the same terrible suffering if it was conceived in one of the "exceptions." That fetus can be "sucked out" and "torn apart," and she is fine with that.

I don't doubt she'd say the decision should be arrived at prayerfully and cautiously, but once that decision has been made, she sees nothing wrong with that innocent fetus going through what she has already described as a very painful and terrifying death--the very reasons she is opposed to abortion in the first place.

I find this approach to abortion very hypocritical, and frankly, nonsensical. If you believe abortion kills a life, then it kills a life regardless of how it was conceived. If you believe abortion causes the fetus a painful and terrifying death, then it causes a painful and terrifying death regardless of how it was conceived.

So, how could it possibly be acceptable to such a person in the event of one of the exceptions? It truly baffles me.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Most of the reasoning behind allowing exceptions actually comes from the pro-choice side of the debate. A total ban is unfair to the innocent mother, often a child herself. As a teenager, taken a philosophy class at a community college, our professor raised the question by asking if it was moral to forcibly kidnap a woman, strap her to a bed, inject her with tubes that connect to a person in another bed, and then tell her that she is keeping the other person alive, and must remain where she is for nine months, until the other is strong enough to survive on his/her own. That, he suggested, is the equivalent to not allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest. Mother has no violition in such cases, and so, the unborn child becomes a parasite. Thoughts?

[Just_A_Guy]

I see it as more an issue of self-defense than choice.

Under certain circumstances the baby can pose a threat to the physical/emotional well-being of the prospective mother. A person whose life is in danger should always be permitted to defend him/herself--even with deadly force if necessary. Where the mother has not willfully or recklessly assumed that risk (e.g. she is a victim of rape/incest), I would also give her latitude to defend her emotional well-being as she sees fit.

[Elphaba]

. . . the unborn child becomes a parasite. Thoughts?

If the unborn child is a parasite, it is a parasite regardless of how it was conceived. It does not "become" anything than what it always was.

I don't think it matters where the concept of "exceptions" originates. You can attribute it, probably accurately, to the pro-choice movement, but they are not the ones arguing a woman is putting her baby through a terrifying and painful death. It's the anti-abortion groups that do that, and I find their inconsistency hypocritical.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Elphaba, when I heard that professor's argument, I did not like it. At the time, I could only see the exception of the mother's life being physically endangered. Perhaps I'm coming full circle. What I see now is this:

1. The rape/incest was unfair.

2. The pain, discomfort, and health risks attached with the pregnancy (especially if the victim is young) is unfair.

3. The exposure to STDs is unfair.

BUT, none of that makes it right to kill the baby. Will adding yet another wrong make all the others right?

[Wingnut]

I would fear an increase in "rapes" (AKA allegations )to receive access to the procedure.

One would need to be required to produce medical evidence of rape. Or in other words, one would have had to go to the hospital shortly after the incident happened, receive an exam and have a rape kit done (which is common sense after a rape anyway). Later, should a pregnancy result from the rape, one would have documented proof that it had been address 6-8 weeks earlier, not just when it became convenient to "cry rape."

[ADoyle90815]

I think that when it comes to the life of the mother, if she has children who need her already, then she might make the choice to have an abortion if continuing the pregnancy meant that her children would be left without a mother. In the case of incest, especially if the perpetrator is the father or brother of the victim, there's a greater chance of genetic disorders than found in the general population, especially if the family are all carriers of a particular nasty gene.

[Elphaba]

I see it as more an issue of self-defense than choice.

Under certain circumstances the baby can pose a threat to the physical/emotional well-being of the prospective mother. A person whose life is in danger should always be permitted to defend him/herself--even with deadly force if necessary. Where the mother has not willfully or recklessly assumed that risk (e.g. she is a victim of rape/incest), I would also give her latitude to defend her emotional well-being as she sees fit.

I remember that you explained this in another thread where we were discussing abortion, and I've thought about it quite a lot since then.

Who is to determine the emotional impact having an unwanted child will have on a woman? It seems obvious to me that it should be the woman, as she knows her situation, and herself, better than any other person. Yet, it is my impression that those adamantly against abortions give absolutely no merit to a woman's explanation that having an unwanted child will severely, and negatively, impact her emotionally. Yet who, other than she, is best able to make that determination? No one.

I think this is where anti-abortion groups have it completely wrong. They do not acknowledge the severe emotional impact having an unwanted child can have on a woman, and therefore, on the child. For example, most women have an abortion because they believe an additional child would negatively affect their ability to take care of the people already in their lives, and who are any of us to tell them they are wrong? They certainly know their lives better than any one of us, including those who are anti-abortion activists. And, again, many of these children are traumatized because their mother did not, and does not, want them.

Additionally, who is, ultimatley, to determine whether she was really raped or not? If the woman truly believes she was raped, was she really raped if there was no "force" involved? How do you define "force"? (I use "you" in the collective sense.)

What if her husband was her rapist? Would you then apply the "exceptions" when judging whether or not she is guilty of killing her unborn baby? Many people would not, as they do not believe a husband can rape his wife.

I think your self-defense explanation is interesting, but if it isn't already, I think it should be expanded to allow the woman to decide whether she was unable to defend herself, or not. She should not have to prove "force," because it is, ironically, hardest to prove in some of the cases where it is most true. An emotionally battered woman is often raped by her husband on a regular basis. She doesn't fight it because she has learned it not only does no good, but makes things worse. Yet it is a rape nonetheless.

I've thought about this quite a bit since you posted it in the previous thread. It helped me articulate some things I'd previously struggled with trying to explain, and I'm usually very good at explaining myself. So, thanks for that.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, when I heard that professor's argument, I did not like it. At the time, I could only see the exception of the mother's life being physically endangered. Perhaps I'm coming full circle. What I see now is this:

1. The rape/incest was unfair.

2. The pain, discomfort, and health risks attached with the pregnancy (especially if the victim is young) is unfair.

3. The exposure to STDs is unfair.

BUT, none of that makes it right to kill the baby. Will adding yet another wrong make all the others right?

Yours is the more consistent approach to abortion for one who is adamantly opposed to it.

Obviously, I don't agree with your position, as I am definitely in favor of letting a woman make the decision whether to have an abortion or not. And I don't mean to give the impression that I think everyone who is opposed to abortion is hypocritical, because I don't think that.

It's only those, like ColorMereal, who vociferously pontificate about the reasons to be opposed to abortion, but then completely ignore those reasons because the fetus was conceived in a certain way, that I find hypocritical.

Elphaba

[MarginOfError]

Most of the reasoning behind allowing exceptions actually comes from the pro-choice side of the debate. A total ban is unfair to the innocent mother, often a child herself. As a teenager, taken a philosophy class at a community college, our professor raised the question by asking if it was moral to forcibly kidnap a woman, strap her to a bed, inject her with tubes that connect to a person in another bed, and then tell her that she is keeping the other person alive, and must remain where she is for nine months, until the other is strong enough to survive on his/her own. That, he suggested, is the equivalent to not allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest. Mother has no violition in such cases, and so, the unborn child becomes a parasite. Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure that a fetus IS a parasite* as it feeds off the host (mother) while providing no benefit to the host (disqualifying it from being a symbiotic relationship).

*the disqualifier would be if a parasite can leave a host in search of another. I'm not sure if this is part of the definition and I'm too lazy to look it up. But kids sure act like parasites.

[prisonchaplain]

I think this is where anti-abortion groups have it completely wrong. They do not acknowledge the severe emotional impact having an unwanted child can have on a woman, and therefore, on the child.

In a typical debate we may come across that way. The truth is, of course, when we see a young teenager anguished over an unplanned pregnancy, our heart wrench. If the child is ours, or perhaps our brother's or our sister's, we might even be tempted to help her get rid of the problem. I had one friend who did just that. Not for the girl, but for her boyfriend--his friend.

And, at the end of the day, despite the obvious anguish, emotional trauma, and on-going difficulty this new life will bring to the mother, that human life deserves protection. BTW, I disagree with those who would allow termination because incest would indicate increased risk of defects. We don't encourage abortions, even when we know there is such a risk. And, who are we to say that the life of a special needs individual is not just as precious in God's eyes, than one without such limitations? I've worked with mentally challenged adults. Their smiles and joys were as important as mine.

For example, most women have an abortion because they believe an additional child would negatively affect their ability to take care of the people already in their lives, and who are any of us to tell them they are wrong? They certainly know their lives better than any one of us, including those who are anti-abortion activists. And, again, many of these children are traumatized because their mother did not, and does not, want them.

Can we really respond to these very real concerns by saying, "Well, if it's like that, maybe you should just kill the baby?" If abortion had never been an option, we would consider starting to allow them for such reasons?

Additionally, who is, ultimatley, to determine whether she was really raped or not? If the woman truly believes she was raped, was she really raped if there was no "force" involved? How do you define "force"? (I use "you" in the collective sense.)

I agree with you that if a ban on abortion ever occurs, with a rape exception, the courts will likely apply an extremely loose definition. It may even be enough for the mother to say she was raped.

[Elphaba]

In a typical debate we may come across that way. The truth is, of course, when we see a young teenager anguished over an unplanned pregnancy, our heart wrench. If the child is ours, or perhaps our brother's or our sister's, we might even be tempted to help her get rid of the problem. I had one friend who did just that. Not for the girl, but for her boyfriend--his friend.

I'm not talking about these kinds of situations where it is obviously, as you say, heart wrenching. I'm speaking specifically of the average woman who finds herself in a position to want an abortion, and how not being able to obtain one can cause her to suffer emotionally.

And, at the end of the day, despite the obvious anguish, emotional trauma, and on-going difficulty this new life will bring to the mother, that human life deserves protection. BTW, I disagree with those who would allow termination because incest would indicate increased risk of defects. We don't encourage abortions, even when we know there is such a risk. And, who are we to say that the life of a special needs individual is not just as precious in God's eyes, than one without such limitations? I've worked with mentally challenged adults. Their smiles and joys were as important as mine.

I know some states that outlaw first cousins marrying are considering rescinding those laws, as genetic testing is now so readily available, these couples would know whether or not having children would be a risk. Additionally, studies now show that the children of first-cousin marriages do not have the birth defects we once thought they did.

Can we really respond to these very real concerns by saying, "Well, if it's like that, maybe you should just kill the baby?" If abortion had never been an option, we would consider starting to allow them for such reasons?

In a word, yes. If you now understand the suffering a woman goes through when she finds herself in a situation where she wants an abortion, especially if she is a caretaker, isn't her well-being as important as her unwanted child's? What if having an additional child really would make it impossible for her to care for those she already has?

And no, adoption is not always the easy way out, as many women find, after nine months of carrying a child, that she cannot give it up for adoption. That does not mean that she wasn't right from the beginning in knowing it would make it so much harder to care for those already in her life prior.

I don't expect this to persuade you. I offer it as perspective only, because this really is far more complicated than I've seen any anti-abortion group acknowledge. I admit, however, that I may not have seen it because I have not looked.

Elphaba