Should abortions be allowed in cases of rape and incest?

Jump to navigation Jump to search

In any civilized, first world country, this would not be a debate. The United States, "god bless them", is a unique case. Perhaps we should be debating universal suffrage? Maybe stoning of women should be adopted? (talk)22:52, 15 October 2010

Very interesting points, thank you.

-- Cirt (talk)23:21, 15 October 2010

Self-righteous ass. (talk)00:39, 16 October 2010

Thus proving that those who are extreme pro-life are only capable of making ad hominem attacks in response to a blunt criticism. (talk)10:17, 16 October 2010

The world isn't divided between conservative fundies and enlightened utopians; just because a significant portion of America society doesn't want to allow abortions doesn't imply they're all buddy-buddy with the Saudi Arabian government. Polarizing comments aren't conductive to discussion or mutual understanding. Nor, for that matter, are ad hominem comments.

That said, my opinion is that, yes, unconditionally, abortions should be allowed in cases of rape or incest (though obviously not in the third trimester). I don't believe an unborn, unconscious fetus has ethical priority over a woman's quality of life, especially not when she did not even have a choice about the sexual act to begin with, let alone the conception. I can understand the position that abortions should not be handed out unconditionally to anyone (though I disagree with it, at least within the first trimester), but I can't think of any reason to bar coerced conceptions from candidacy for an abortion - besides religious justifications, which ought to inform a person's, family's or spiritual community's own norms, not those of individuals outside the community. (talk)10:24, 16 October 2010

Ah, but I think it's fair to say that the US has an above-average level of people with... strange opinions. Therefore, a comment that only in Amerika is such a debate possible in Western civilisation may hold true, even if we assume the the majority of US citizens are sensible people.

I'm willing to make similar comments about the UK, of which my country is a member, so I don't read the comment as such that all Amerikans are stupid or crazy, which seems to be how others are reading it.

Now I'm here... From an impact perspective (as it should be from a sentencing perspective) rape isn't even physical. It's psychological. If rape victims had forgotten about it by next week it would be a summary offence punishable on first conviction by a fine; though of course, many perpetrators would be locked up in mental institutions anyway.

Rape is a life-changing, usually life-ending event. I take the view that if a person is substantially changed from who they used to be, in a short time, then the previous personality can be said to have 'died' after a fashion. In any event, something that ruins a life can easily be compared to life-ending events, and I have argued previously that rape and murder should be roughly equal in terms of average sentence.

From this impact-based perspective, I think it is key that we allow maximum support and choice to victims. Abortions where required is a non-negotiable part of this, to me. If a woman does choose to carry a pregnancy through, then that also should be supported - full-time if needed. I dread to think of trying to convince people to fund that in the current economic conditions. However, I can't imagine most women would want to carry around their attacker's baby, nor give life to it. Viewing rape as a psychological thing, dragging it out from one single attack to a constant and daily reminder via pregnancy must be unendurable torture to many.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)12:12, 16 October 2010