Anyone else feel this way? (Abortion)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I consider myself to be atypical on the abortion issue myself.  I have no strong opinion as to when the line should be drawn (i.e., at this stage of development abortion should be legal but at the next stage it should not be legal) but I am strongly opposed to the exceptions for rape and incest that some favor.  To me the central question in the abortion issue is "Are we talking about a human life yet?"  If we are, then abortion should generally be illegal save where the physical health of the mother is at stake and if we aren't, then the state should butt out.  However, the fact that the physiological father of the child is a reprehensible criminal does not affect whether a human life is what is being considered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I consider myself to be atypical on the abortion issue myself.  I have no strong opinion as to when the line should be drawn (i.e., at this stage of development abortion should be legal but at the next stage it should not be legal) but I am strongly opposed to the exceptions for rape and incest that some favor. To me the central question in the abortion issue is "Are we talking about a human life yet?" If we are, then abortion should generally be illegal save where the physical health of the mother is at stake and if we aren't, then the state should butt out. However, the fact that the physiological father of the child is a reprehensible criminal does not affect whether a human life is what is being considered.

I don't think you understand what its doing to a woman having to carry her rapists child. This is an extreme cruelty towards the victim of a violent crime and has severe mental consequences. Its basically a choice between ruining one humans life or destroying another life. In this context its fair and reasonable to choose the individual that's already born over the fetus.

In short: Giving birth to a child conceived by rape and/or incest very much affects the mother mental health, and why should that be any less important than her physical health? The consequences can certainly be just as severe.

Would you support killing the rapist in this situation if the biological mother thought it would help her mental health?  The situation is analogous.  In both cases, we have what society has judged to meet the standards of being a human life and yet are proposing to allow to be terminated at the discretion of another because of their belief concerning how it would affect their mental health.  Frankly, killing the rapist in this situation is more justified, because at least he has committed a crime.

The reason I have for supporting a physical health exception is that it can often be determined in an objective fashion, especially in those cases where not only the physical health of the mother is at risk, but the physical health of both is at risk.  Unfortunately, our ability to determine the risks to mental health is mostly subjective.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can accept the property right theory as one possible rationale for legalizing abortion in the general case at various stages of development.  (Of course, that leads to other thorny issues, such as if the woman was married at the time of conception, is the spouse's permission required for an abortion to proceed?  (Or even thornier, if the pregnancy is a result of adultery, can a spouse force another spouse to have an abortion so as to free the space for a non-adulterous child?))

Yet, in the specific narrow wedge we're talking about, the society has already determined that the property rights of the woman to her womb do not outweigh the rights of what is inside that womb to a chance for life.  Since what is inside had no part in the commission of the rape or incest, it is not just to punish it with death for the actions of a third party.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Right; I'm not arguing against your position, which is a perfectly consistent position. I'm just saying that there is also a possible internal logic to the rape exception (not that most people who support the rape exception necessarily do so for logical reasons). If you believe that a woman's surrender of the right to her womb occurs when the woman voluntarily engages in intercourse, which is known to carry a risk of pregnancy, then she didn't surrender that in the case of rape.

Thing is, with the property rights angle, the question becomes, whose rights?  If we're talking about the property rights of the fetus itself, then that the fetus is a person has been conceded and we're back to the issue of whether rape or incest are a sufficient reason to terminate a human life.

The only way I see the property rights angle coming into play when rape or incest has occurred is if the fetus is considered the joint property of both biological parents and the consent of both is required to terminate the pregnancy.  Under those circumstances, I can see rape or incest being sufficient grounds for depriving the biological father of his property rights in the fetus and leaving the decision solely to the biological mother to make.

(Blech, that analysis is rather cold and clinical, isn't it?)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

     The father did help make the fetus, but it resides solely in the property of the mother. If I were to plant a tree on somebody else's lot (with their permission, of course), could I claim part-ownership of the tree?

    Depending on the terms of the contract (implied, oral, or written), you might be able to claim full ownership of the tree, but in my opinion we're getting awfully off topic.