A Logic Lesson, South Dakota-Style
Ok, just because I don't post enough good news, I thought I'd give a run down of some bright spots in the current political landscape which, when added together, might just be the faint glimmer of the light at the end of the tunnel.
...buuut, of course, I exceeded my word limit on the very first one. So maybe we'll take them one at a time, starting tonight with South Dakota.
OK. While I think the most likely outcome is that some state's abortion ban will eventually lead to an overturning of Roe (We only need one state out of fifty to pass something so odious that it gets fought up to the SCOTUS--if South Dakota can't do it, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama are lining up to give it a shot), there is heart to be taken in the fact that many South Dakotans are starting to realize a) how incredibly backwards the law makes them look, b) that--golly geepers--they might actually have use for an abortion one day ("What? You mean it would apply to my abortions, too? Hmmm--lemee give that a second thought. I thought it was just for sluts and Liberals.") and that c) the idea of forcing a 12 year-old girl to bear the child of the Uncle who raped her is simply repugnant to even the average Theocrat.
Thus, supporters of a petition to put the ban up to a public vote are finding it suprisingly easy to gather the necessary signatures.
Which raises an important question: Why is it that even the "
Ok, I know, I know,--it's because it really is all about punishment, and women who are raped can't be held responsible for the pregnancy, and thus don't deserve to be punished. But that's a logical contradiction that they pretty much can't acknowledge because it's what actually lies at the very heart of the anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive, anti-sex-ed, anti-HPV vaccine (basically, anti-non-Christian-monogamous-sex) movement.
What I find to be a much clearer logical contradiction, which I'm surprised more people don't bring up (and I didn't think of until Amp pointed it out), is this:
If you think abortion is murder, then how can you possibly support an exception for rape and incest?Serious: if you believe that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is exactly the same as offing a 5 year-old, then if you also believe in exceptions for rape and/or incest, then exercising that exception would be exactly the same as killing a 5 year-old because her father also happens to be your father.
Let's break that down Aristotle-style:
- Abortion is murdering a child
- Abortion is OK if you were raped
- Therefore, murdering a child is OK if you were raped.
- Give up and admit that abortion is not murder, Or
- Write a letter to the editor explaining how it's just fine and dandy for first cousins to pull an Andrea Yates on their 8 year-old offspring, OR
- Admit proudly to the world that you think 12 year-old rape victims should be forced to bear their attackers' children.
posted by RJ @ 11:26 PM
6 comments
links to this post
6 Comments:
I am one who believes in fetal equality. Just as I am repulsed by the thought of violence done to a born child through rape, I am equally repulsed by the thought of violence done to an unborn child through abortion.
Many people oppose abortion for reasons that do not have to do with the equality of the unborn child. The most ardent pro-lifers believe in the equality of the unborn child, and the ban is about protecting them against violence, because they also deserve love and respect like every other human being.
So, Suzanne, you're cool with 12-year-olds having their uncle's babies?
Suzanne, thank you for being willing to share your views. I am very interested in your answer to the basic logical problem (restated by Lauren).
Me, too.
I always think "pre-born" sounds like "pre-baked," btw.
My own thought is this: the emphasis with both the pro-life position and the rape/incest exception is on the "innocence" of the victim. Nothing more innocent than the "pre-born," after all. And women/girls who get raped/molested...weeeelllll, tricky, but man, they were innocent victims, too, after all.
Women who had sex willingly? Not "innocent;" they can grin and bear it, literally. Sex="not innocent."
excellent breakdown.
I'm concerned about putting too much weight on the moral consistency of the abortion bans that are proposed. I have read somewhere (which I can't find or reconstruct, sorry) that a motivation for the exemptions that are included into these bans are for tactical legal reasons—i.e., for stepping clear of legal cases where some restriction on abortion was overturned because it did not provide for such exemptions.
That is, while I'm not averse to the argument's conclusion (that a desire to punish women who have unsanctioned sex is a motivating factor for abortion bans), I don't think that the exemptions provided by the bans automatically support this conclusion. In fact, I can very easily see a scenario where, if the ban-with-exemptions legal tactic works, then the exact same contradiction that you are pointing out is used in further legislation and litigation to remove the exemptions.
In fact, opponents of abortion rights have systematicaly sought to chip away at the right to have an abortion little by little. Even if they in fact believe that victims of rape or incest should not have the right to have an abortion, why would they oppose a law that still puts abortion further out of reach of most women? They may well see it as an unwelcome compromise to be overcome later.
Also, a rape victim exemption can be subverted by other means: just require that the rape be legally demonstrated in court. Given that most rapes are unreported, and most reported ones don't result in convictions, how the courts treat rape victims, and the length and cost of legal proceedings, we know how much good that's going to do.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home