Abortion in the case of rape

[VanSensei]

What about young girls who logically speaking, should not be carrying a child, but get raped and impregnated? I am purely curious as it seems to be the big grey area of abortion issues.

 

[Cricket2]

What about young girls who logically speaking, should not be carrying a child, but get raped and impregnated? I am purely curious as it seems to be the big grey area of abortion issues.

First, I find it awful that anyone should have to endure this crime. I surly sympathize with all victims of this and certainly with a young girl who may land up pregnant as a result.

Still there are societies were pregnancy at an early age is seen as perfectly normal. It was actually common in our own country as little as 100 years ago. My only point here, is once a girl does start her cycle her body has become prepared at some level to carry a baby. I am not saying I think she should, just that it is possible.

These girls certainly need special care and observation. I think that it is better to counsel them that the child they are carrying is not the one that raped them, that we will do all we can to help them and then probably give the baby up for adoption given their young age.

Were we really fail is dealing with rapists in this country. I think we are way too easy on them. Why do we insist on having these people freed from prison and put back into the community? They should never see the light of day again. A lot of sexual assaults would be prevented if the perpetrators of these crimes, when caught and convicted, got life sentences. No release for good behavior or phoney ideas that they can be rehabilitated.

I do think abortions only add to the violence that has already occurred. Some how we have to start holding only the perpetrator of the crime accountable, not the victims, and that includes the unborn children conceived in this way.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

First, I find it awful that anyone should have to endure this crime. I surly sympathize with all victims of this and certainly with a young girl who may land up pregnant as a result.

Still there are societies were pregnancy at an early age is seen as perfectly normal. It was actually common in our own country as little as 100 years ago. My only point here, is once a girl does start her cycle her body has become prepared at some level to carry a baby. I am not saying I think she should, just that it is possible.

These girls certainly need special care and observation. I think that it is better to counsel them that the child they are carrying is not the one that raped them, that we will do all we can to help them and then probably give the baby up for adoption given their young age.

Were we really fail is dealing with rapists in this country. I think we are way too easy on them. Why do we insist on having these people freed from prison and put back into the community? They should never see the light of day again. A lot of sexual assaults would be prevented if the perpetrators of these crimes, when caught and convicted, got life sentences. No release for good behavior or phoney ideas that they can be rehabilitated.

I do think abortions only add to the violence that has already occurred. Some how we have to start holding only the perpetrator of the crime accountable, not the victims, and that includes the unborn children conceived in this way.

150 years ago the average age of menarche was 17 at which point the hips are indeed wide enough to pass a baby, now preteen to early teenage years is when the vast majority attain it.

Police often don’t even bother testing the rape kits despite the fact that it could easily result in hits in their databases (men who rape are also far more likely to commit other violent crimes) or link crimes to a specific perpetrator (vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders) even if they don’t know who that one is.

See
npr.org/2014/01/25/266275211/tested-at-last-rape-kits-giving-evidence-to-victims-stories
sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Clear-California-s-rape-kit-testing-backlog-5208773.php

It’s all over the US, not just a particular area.

 

[Cricket2]

150 years ago the average age of menarche was 17 at which point the hips are indeed wide enough to pass a baby, now preteen to early teenage years is when the vast majority attain it.

Police often don’t even bother testing the rape kits despite the fact that it could easily result in hits in their databases (men who rape are also far more likely to commit other violent crimes) or link crimes to a specific perpetrator (vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders) even if they don’t know who that one is.

See
npr.org/2014/01/25/266275211/tested-at-last-rape-kits-giving-evidence-to-victims-stories
sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Clear-California-s-rape-kit-testing-backlog-5208773.php

It’s all over the US, not just a particular area.

Yes I understand this. I did work with the Hmong for several years however, back in the 80’s and 90’s, and it was common for girls to be married off and have children by the time they were 12 or 13. I have heard of similar instances in other cultures. Again, and I can’t be clear enough, I do find it very horrible that any child should have to deal with rape let alone pregnancy as a result.

I imagine most people think that rape kits are automatically checked out against current data bases. If not, they should be. We need to clamp down on this issue a lot harder than we do, including incest. Honestly I don’t think there is a punishment harsh enough for these type of offenders. They just plain disgust me.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Yes I understand this. I did work with the Hmong for several years however, back in the 80’s and 90’s, and it was common for girls to be married off and have children by the time they were 12 or 13. I have heard of similar instances in other cultures. Again, and I can’t be clear enough, I do find it very horrible that any child should have to deal with rape let alone pregnancy as a result.

I imagine most people think that rape kits are automatically checked out against current data bases. If not, they should be. We need to clamp down on this issue a lot harder than we do, including incest. Honestly I don’t think there is a punishment harsh enough for these type of offenders. They just plain disgust me.

When the get the DNA results back they do check them, the issue is that often they don’t get the DNA analyzed, in some cases there have been found to be kits still untested two decades later. It isn’t cheap to get the kits tested (800-1500 dollars), but give the extremely high repeat offense rate (90%+) 1.5k seems to be a rather modest sum to pay to prevent a woman from getting raped.

 

[marymary1975]

I like presenting the following scenario when talking to people about abortion in the case of rape:

A husband and wife have sexual relations. The next day, she is raped. A few weeks after, she discovers that she is pregnant. She decides to go through with the daughter (y because there’s a good chance she conceived while she was with her husband. She carries the child to term and gives birth. When the child is born, they do a paternity test. It turns out that the rapist is in fact the child’s father.

Is it okay to kill the child?

People will say, “of course not.” To which you reply, “why is it okay to kill a child who’s father is a rapist before birth but not after?”

The point of this story and the questions that follow is to point out that the way in which a child is conceived does not change his or her right to life. From here the conversation can move to the heart of the matter: the humanity of the unborn child.

Hope this helps!

Good point. And very close to that I always think of the case of the girl kidnapped and raped by Ariel Castro, Amanda (I can’t remember the last name right now). She was raped and forced to give birth to the child of her rapist in captivity. Now she is free. Should we kill her daughter (who i think is about 6 or 7) because Ariel Castro is the father and because the child will remind Amanda of the years she spend being raped and kidnapped?

To go further let’s say the mother in this situation does not want to raise the child, should she be entitled the 6 year old kid because the child is going to end in the foster system?

 

[ccmcmg]

I have good reason to believe that possibly (perhaps 50% chance) I was a child of rape; not stranger rape, but perhaps date rape. If so, it would explain a lot about my birthmother’s reaction to me when I was an adult and contacted her privately. A lot of it doesn’t make sense otherwise. I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong.

Of course, it could also be that it was a consensual relationship but she chose to place me for adoption without telling him for my own good (and it was, very good).

I don’t want to know. Personally, that would be hard for me to take. But I do think I’ve brought value to the world, as have the children I’ve had.

God bless all those children who know that they are the product of rape.

 

[Cricket2]

When the get the DNA results back they do check them, the issue is that often they don’t get the DNA analyzed, in some cases there have been found to be kits still untested two decades later. It isn’t cheap to get the kits tested (800-1500 dollars), but give the extremely high repeat offense rate (90%+) 1.5k seems to be a rather modest sum to pay to prevent a woman from getting raped.

I would fully agree with you. Does anyone think about how much it costs the victims of rape and other violent crimes for their therapy, lost jobs, even having to go on disability because of TSD? I can assure them it costs a lot more than running the DNA tests. A whole lot more.

 

[Dryden77]

Does the Church condemn abortion in the case of rape on the grounds of justice or on the grounds of charity (or both)?

The problem with appealing to justice is that such an approach requires the fetus to have more rights than an adult human. If a fetus is regarded as having the same rights as an adult, abortion in the case of rape could be defended as a form of justifiable self-defense.

Justice recognizes a woman’s right to protect her bodily integrity against any invader – against anyone or anything that finds its way into her body without the woman’s permission. Absence of malice on the part of the invader changes nothing.

I think there’s a Latin term – I heard it once and can’t remember it – for “guilt in innocence.” Cases in which such a term would apply, cases involving the infliction of harm by someone who’s free of malice and even sometimes completely oblivious of the harm he’s inflicting, are rare but do come up occasionally, and when they do, and when the person being harmed uses force in response, usually the right of self-defense is affirmed.

Here’s a silly hypothetical example to illustrate my point: If an evil alien shrunk an adult human and implanted the adult (who’s encased in a survival suit) inside a woman’s uterus, and if the evil alien made it impossible for the man to be removed alive before he’d been there for nine months, I’d argue that the woman would have the right to kill the man (who’s entirely innocent) to preserve her bodily integrity. Now maybe she’d choose to suffer through a nine-month ordeal out of charity, and such a choice would certainly be commendable, but her right of self-defense remains.

Thoughts?

 

[Dryden77]

1. Suppose a mad scientists captures two people, Mary and Martha, and manages to operate upon them so that they are permanently attached to each other (like conjoined twins). The thing is, Mary can live if Martha is killed, but Martha cannot live if Mary is killed. If Mary has Martha killed, she would be able t have better use of her organs and be able to live an easier, less burdened life. In this instance, can Mary kill Martha, whom she was unjustly combined with, so as to make her life easier? If she cannot, then it would seem that a mother cannot abort her child simply on account of the fact that the child came to be there through rape. .

What we have here is a false analogy. The physical relationship between fetus and mother is fundamentally different from the physical relationship of conjoined twins. In the case of conjoined twins, certain parts of the bodies are shared and hence cannot be considered by either party to constitute foreign invading objects. Perhaps the twins share a liver, perhaps a spleen, etc. When body parts are shared, they are jointly owned, and the permission of both owners is required to do violence to those body parts. Body parts held in common by Mary and Martha can’t represent an assault on either woman’s bodily integrity as the distinction between Mary’s body and Martha’s body disappears where their body parts are shared. So Mary would have no right to kill Martha unless Martha agreed.

To put it another way, adults can’t really “invade” each other’s bodies except through rape or similar acts of violence, and there wouldn’t be any disagreement about a woman’s right to kill a rapist while she’s being raped. So if adults are conjoined, it can only be because they have shared body parts, not because one of them is “invading” another.

But a woman who’s been impregnated by a rapist has in fact been invaded – and not just by the rapist. The fetus, however free of malice, is an invader. The woman has every right (as a matter of justice, though not of charity) to remove this invader from her body.

 

[Mulligan2]

This is a losing political issue that thankfully will never gain mainstream acceptance. Seriously, forcing a women to carry the child of her rapist? That is abhorrent. Perhaps you should read the following for some perspective:

huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html

 

[Cojuanco]

This is a losing political issue that thankfully will never gain mainstream acceptance. Seriously, forcing a women to carry the child of her rapist? That is abhorrent. Perhaps you should read the following for some perspective:

huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html

What is abhorrent is gunning for an innocent person as punishment for something he had no part in compassing. The kid didn’t rape his mother; his father did.

As for the political question, even ninety-nine percent of people supporting an immoral practice does not make the practice any less immoral. It might provide grounds for minimizing culpability, but the act itself would be abhorrent nonetheless.

Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the baby is an invader, it would seem that we avoid disproportionate harm, especially to those whose invasion is inadvertent. To do otherwise would, say, be like summarily executing an undocumented immigrant, as I see it.

 

[Dryden77]

This is a losing political issue that thankfully will never gain mainstream acceptance. Seriously, forcing a women to carry the child of her rapist? That is abhorrent. Perhaps you should read the following for some perspective:

huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html

Exactly. That’s my point. I couldn’t agree more. Not sure where the confusion is here.

 

[Dryden77]

Brilliant!

The child’s father isn’t the issue. The issue is the woman’s bodily integrity. The woman has the right to remove any object, human or otherwise, that has been implanted in her body without her consent.

The child ceases to be a legitimate moral target after birth BECAUSE IT NO LONGER IMPOSES ITSELF ON THE MOTHER.

 

[Dryden77]

What is abhorrent is gunning for an innocent person as punishment for something he had no part in compassing. The kid didn’t rape his mother; his father did.

As for the political question, even ninety-nine percent of people supporting an immoral practice does not make the practice any less immoral. It might provide grounds for minimizing culpability, but the act itself would be abhorrent nonetheless.

Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the baby is an invader, it would seem that we avoid disproportionate harm, especially to those whose invasion is inadvertent. To do otherwise would, say, be like summarily executing an undocumented immigrant, as I see it.

The principle of proportionality doesn’t deprive a woman of her right to self-defense. The state allows a woman to use the highest degree of force – deadly force – to keep a man’s genitals from invading her body for mere seconds. Even if it could be shown that the woman knew her attacker and thus knew without a doubt that the man was a) free of STDs and b) infertile (because he’d had a vasectomy), the woman’s right to kill her assailant merely to keep his genitals out of her body for a moment or two (lets say the woman also knew that the man was a premature ejaculator and thus that her experience of rape wouldn’t last longer than a few breaths) would be upheld by any court in the country. Proportionality is an important principle in international law of armed conflict, where one country responds to an act of aggression by another country. In such cases self-defense isn’t strictly speaking the issue but rather retribution. When self-defense is the issue, the victim is almost always allowed to use the highest degree of force necessary to defend herself, and proportionality isn’t much of a player.

Yes, the fetus isn’t a rapist – he’s/she’s free of malice. But the fetus is an invader, if he’s/ she’s the product of rape, and the mother does have the right to an abortion on grounds of self-defense.

 

[on_the_hill]

The child’s father isn’t the issue. The issue is the woman’s bodily integrity. The woman has the right to remove any object, human or otherwise, that has been implanted in her body without her consent.

You’re almost spot on. She does have the right to remove any object, like a bullet, or a blade, or a secret tracking device.

But the fetus/baby has an undeniable right to body integrity also. You cannot argue the right away. It’s an absolute right that is just as valid as the right not to be raped or murdered.

Sorry, but you lose. There is no debate, no qualification, no instant replay review.

 

[Dryden77]

You’re almost spot on. She does have the right to remove any object, like a bullet, or a blade, or a secret tracking device.

But the fetus/baby has an undeniable right to body integrity also. You cannot argue the right away. It’s an absolute right that is just as valid as the right not to be raped or murdered.

Sorry, but you lose. There is no debate, no qualification, no instant replay review.

Your whole argument is that the fetus has the same rights as an adult. Here we agree. I then hasten to add that adults who are free of malice can sometimes be killed intentionally without injustice. So if an adult who’s free of malice can, under certain circumstances, be killed intentionally without injustice, why can’t a fetus under certain circumstances be killed intentionally without injustice as well? You’re treating the fetus as if it had more rights than an adult.

A fetus has the same rights as an adult – no more, no fewer. If an evil alien shrank me down to the size of a fetus, put me in a survival suit, and then beamed me into a woman’s uterus, all without my consent or cooperation, the woman would have the right to remove me from her body, even if the only way to do so was to kill me first. Never mind that I’m not only totally free of malice but also that I’m a helpless victim myself. Doesn’t matter. The reason the woman has a right to kill me is that I’m the one whose presence violates her bodily integrity, not the other way around.

 

[on_the_hill]

Your whole argument is that the fetus has the same rights as an adult. Here we agree. I then hasten to add that adults who are free of malice can sometimes be killed intentionally without injustice. So if an adult who’s free of malice can, under certain circumstances, be killed intentionally without injustice, why can’t a fetus under certain circumstances be killed intentionally without injustice as well? You’re treating the fetus as if it had more rights than an adult.

A fetus has the same rights as an adult – no more, no fewer. If an evil alien shrank me down to the size of a fetus, put me in a survival suit, and then beamed me into a woman’s uterus, all without my consent or cooperation, the woman would have the right to remove me from her body, even if the only way to do so was to kill me first. Never mind that I’m not only totally free of malice but also that I’m a helpless victim myself. Doesn’t matter. The reason the woman has a right to kill me is that I’m the one whose presence violates her bodily integrity, not the other way around.

Would you willingly submit to being killed?

 

[Dryden77]

Would you willingly submit to being killed?

I’m sure I wouldn’t. I’d be an odd human being if I did. I’d try to escape from the woman’s body using any method I could. If I could communicate with her I’d appeal to her charity (compassion is a moral good), her pride (if you spare me you’ll have a reason to think more highly of yourself), her vanity (other people will admire you for sparing me), her mental health (killing me could darken your mind with guilt for years to come), the interests of society (I’m a doctor, perhaps, who’s working on a cure for the cancer that will one day strike your children), etc. I’d even offer to pay her when the nine months were up and the alien beams me out anyway.

But if she told me that she had no interest in charity, nor any interest in what other people thought of her, nor in her mental health, nor in the good of society, and that she could be moved only by an appeal to justice, I’d have nothing to say.

 

[Dryden77]

You’re almost spot on. She does have the right to remove any object, like a bullet, or a blade, or a secret tracking device.

But the fetus/baby has an undeniable right to body integrity also. You cannot argue the right away. It’s an absolute right that is just as valid as the right not to be raped or murdered.

Sorry, but you lose. There is no debate, no qualification, no instant replay review.

Here’s another way of explaining why a fetus conceived by rape, while free of malice and fully in possession of all rights enjoyed by adults, remains nevertheless a morally legitimate target. The following scenario (“The Violinist”) is the brainchild of philosopher Judith Thomas and is taken from a Wikipedia article.

---

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person’s body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. “*f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due *.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion*​

Those who would prevent a victim of rape from removing an unwanted fetus should have no problem addressing this scenario.

So here I ask: Do we have the right to unplug ourselves from the violinist? Forget about abortion for a moment. Do we have the right to unplug ourselves from the violinist?*