I always look forward to Dr. Marty Klein’s Sexual Intelligence newsletters, so I was tickled to see one in my inbox today. But one of the headlines took me by surprise: End Rape & Incest Exceptions to Stupak Abortion Ban. Dr. Klein always has excellent analyses, and this one is no exception.
If you’re against reproductive choice for so-called “moral reasons” (as if anyone getting an abortion or supporting its legality isn’t “moral”), be consistent. If killing a fetus or even a fertilized egg wandering around a woman’s body is the same as killing a person (the position of every anti-choice activist), why should it matter how the fetus or fertilized egg got there? Why is a fetus’ right to live diminished because its father was a rapist or a sadist? After all, we don’t say the children of such men have fewer rights than other children.
While I totally get where he’s going with this, the whole thing seems to be headed straight towards “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
And if you take the genetic route and say, “Well, if it’s incest, then there’s potential for genetic diseases..” then you open up the whole genetic testing can of worms and I can see the end result of that, which is genetic screening for all embryos and mandatory abortions for those that have genetic diseases…. a terrible step that leads straight into eugenics.
True. I’m not saying that I agree with that attitude, but then, I don’t agree with ANY of their arguments. Taking them to their logical conclusion simply shows how very ridiculous they truly are. When they start picking and choosing which abortions are “acceptable,” their arguments fall apart.
It’s the same with the whole business of claiming that life is sacred while also supporting capital punishment. Wait, that means that some life is sacred, right? Oh, and war is okay? So only our citizen’s lives are sacred, and maybe our current allies, unless they commit certain crimes? Or they happen to be fathered by a rapist or in an act of incest? Gosh, that’s complicated!
I can see the end result of that, which is genetic screenÂing for all embryos and mandaÂtory aborÂtions for those that have genetic disÂeases.…
True – but that would be murder, wouldn’t it?
The point is that if abortion is murder in one case, it’s murder in any case, and it cannot be justified. We do not kill the disabled, the old, the sick, the poor, the illegitimate, or those whose parentage might be a result of rape or incest after they are born, so why make any other exceptions IF life begins at conception? We don’t murder children because their parents can’t afford them now, so if one truly believes that life begins as soon as sperm hits egg, then ending every pregnancy is murder, even if it’s your own daughter (or you!0 and it would be a terrible inconvenience/embarrassment/ruin your political/religious career/etc.
I have one and only one good thing to say about Sarah Palin: many people in her position would have quietly arranged for an abortion for her daughter. I don’t know if there was pressure on the girl to do that, but if there wasn’t, then at least the family practices what they preach in that respect. (I would hope that the girl was given a real opportunity to choose for herself, but I seriously doubt that was the case.)
I agree with cyn…He is right
I got here completely by accident but couldn’t resist adding a comment to say: Most truly anti-abortion people (I am one of “those people!”) ARE against abortion for incest and rape. The only reason they say “fine, let’s make exceptions for incest and rape” is because incest-and-rape abortions are such a small percentage that MOST abortion would end if these exceptions were left open. Just thought I’d clarify the thinking for ya 🙂
Merry Christmas!
Hello, Deborah. Thank you for adding that information. Are you also against capital punishment? a pacifist?