Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.

It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.

You'd probably say that sounds reasonable and humane - - except it was just three days ago that PolitiFact devoted a lot of space to this issue and found that while Romney backed abortions in cases of incest and rape, Ryan did not.

And had been an abortion opponent throughout his entire political career - - backing an exception only when the life of the mother was at stake - - thus earning a perfect score from a leading anti-abortion organization on this basic tenet of conservative ideology and practice.

News coverage of Ryan’s first congressional race in 1998, as well as statements he made to the National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group, show Ryan has taken a stricter anti-abortion view than Romney.

The only anti-abortion exception Ryan favors is situations where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The National Right to Life Committee concurs, based on information the group says it collected in 1998 and 2000 from Ryan as a candidate.

Dear xzins,

“I disagree, of course.”

About what? That the exception should or shouldn't be made? Of COURSE we disagree on that.

If that's our point of disagreement - you believe that abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, I don't - then there's little need to go on.

I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. I'm merely pointing out that you're not quite the “purist,” either. The difference between you and pro-lifers who accept abortion in cases of rape is a difference of degree, not kind.

“During those efforts, however, 54 million babies have been killed. And the killings proceed at a pretty quick pace.

“A little rescue is in order.”

I agree!

Which is why I would TRULY be delighted to get to a legal regime that prohibited abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, as that would RESCUE 96% of babies who would otherwise be aborted, and that is a legal regime that would be accepted far more readily than prohibiting abortions even where women become pregnant as a result of rape.

Here's a quote from an essay by Ramesh Ponnuru (someone, by the way, who agrees with me on the issue of abortion - they're ALL unjustifiable, even to “save a woman's life"):

“A combined 59 percent of men said that abortion should be legal either in no circumstances or in only a few; 56 percent of women chose those responses.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru

It is at least POSSIBLE to get to a legal regime that is actually endorsed by a majority of Americans.

Even there, it may still take years and years to get to that point. We haven't even hit the first major legal milestone - overturning, vacating or otherwise vitiating the effects of Roe.

To get to the point where YOU'D be happy might take an extra few decades. Or more. In the meanwhile, babies are dyin'.

So, c’mon over and join the crowd: The actual majority of Americans who would actually accept prohibiting in law 96% of abortions!

sitetest

Dear xzins,

Now we're retreading ground.

I'm not sure you read completely my admittedly-long post at 271. It reviews the medical meaning of the word “abortion,” as well as the meaning in Catholic moral theology.

Briefly, an induced abortion (we're not speaking about spontaneous abortions, often termed “miscarriages”) is the induction of delivery of an unborn human being prior to viability.

Viability, of course, means the ability to live outside the womb.

But just to clarify, here's the circumstances:

A woman is pregnant. Gestational age is well before there is any hope of survival outside the womb for the unborn child. The woman will die if pregnancy continues.

Someone (I'll call him “the abortionist”) induces labor, but is careful to deliver the child intact. The child, being of a gestational age that precludes living outside the womb, no matter what medical intervention then-currently available, dies.

Does xzins accept this as moral or immoral? Does xzins think this should be legal or illegal?

Thanks,

sitetest

As I said before, the person needing the transplant’s right to life isn’t interfered with in the least if they do not receive a new kidney, since they will simply continue to live out their natural lifespan unimpeded. Not providing someone with the means to extend their life is simply not equivalent to depriving them of their life.

This implies that your objection is that the woman seeking the abortion is acting to kill the embryo. I would agree, she should not have the right to strictly kill it, but she has full right to remove it from her body, to stop it from using her womb against her will. If the embryo is simply removed from her womb intact and set aside to continue out its natural life for as long as it can, would this satisfy your concern?

Another case that that is much more germaine to this situation would be Good Samaritan laws. The reason those laws are just is because in this conflict, the harm caused by obligating the Samaritan to try to help is usually quite minimal, while the harm caused to the party in distress if the Samaritan is not obligated to help can be extreme, to the point of death. Therefore, the proper resolution of the conflict is to say that the rights of the party in distress temporarily take precedence over the rights of the Samaritan.

Yes, but Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the donation of bodily resources (blood, organs). Again, the state has generally respected the bodily integrity of the people. Giving blood can be a fairly simple process and be minimally inconvenient, but no one, that I'm aware, is required to give blood.

Now, this doesn’t mean you must drive around looking for people to help; the laws only come into play when a situation arises that creates the conflict that it addresses. That is why your hypothetical “forced organ donation” scenario is ridiculous. There is no actual conflict between parties that would create a need for such a law to resolve the conflict. If I forcibly removed your kidney, then I would be infringing on your right to life, but simply not providing you with my kidney does no such thing.

I have to say, I honestly do not see a legitimate conflict between the raped woman and the embryo. The woman, who existed first, was forcibly impregnated. The embryo is now using her organs to survive. How can the law require her to continue to allow the embryo to grow inside her, using her bodily resources and putting her body through the normal stresses and health complications that often accompany a full term pregnancy? This burden can, in no way, be seen as minimally inconvenient and is a clear violation of her bodily integrity.

The reason I continue to bring up organ donation is that a law such as you propose would raise the bar so radically as to what innocent individuals in society should be expected to provide other individuals in need that it could conceivably affect all of us (and should, if we're to have a fair application of the principle). If a rape victim is required to help the embryo, why shouldn't you or I be required to help the kidney patient down the street? We're not responsible for his predicament, but the woman is certainly not responsible for that of the embryo either.

” If the embryo is simply removed from her womb intact and set aside to continue out its natural life for as long as it can, would this satisfy your concern?”

No, since that act is itself an act of killing, unless the child is old enough to survive outside the womb, and even then, it would be a crime to let the child die due to neglect.

“Yes, but Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the donation of bodily resources (blood, organs).”

No, and I didn’t mean to imply that they did. I’m simply offering that as a good example of a law where you may be obligated to subordinate your rights to the rights of another, even though the conflict arises of no fault of your own. You didn’t cause an injured person to appear on your doorstep, and you didn’t plan your day around dropping everything to help them, but it is still the just thing to do, and in some cases, the legally obligated thing to do.

“I have to say, I honestly do not see a legitimate conflict between the raped woman and the embryo. The woman, who existed first, was forcibly impregnated. The embryo is now using her organs to survive. How can the law require her to continue to allow the embryo to grow inside her, using her bodily resources and putting her body through the normal stresses and health complications that often accompany a full term pregnancy?”

The conflict is pretty simple. The child has an inherent right to life, regardless of how it got here. The woman has rights as well, which she may be impeded from exercising while she is pregnant with the child. She cannot “unimpregnate” herself in order to remove the impediment; it can only be done by killing the child, or by waiting for it to be born, or miscarried naturally. So, if the woman wants to exercise the option of killing the child, it creates a direct conflict with the child’s right to life.

“This burden can, in no way, be seen as minimally inconvenient and is a clear violation of her bodily integrity.”

The burden doesn’t have to be minimally inconvenient. It merely has to be less of a burden than deprivation of life, which pretty much every conceivable harm or burden is. I’m sure if you put the choice to the woman: carry the child to term, or we can kill YOU, she would choose to carry the child. That alone demonstrates her inconvenience or harm is less than the harm that abortion would inflict on the child.

“The reason I continue to bring up organ donation is that a law such as you propose would raise the bar so radically as to what innocent individuals in society should be expected to provide other individuals in need that it could conceivably affect all of us (and should, if we’re to have a fair application of the principle).”

I’m not proposing anything radical, in fact, I’m not proposing any new law at all. I’m simply advocating just application of a law that has been in effect, pretty much since time immemorial, in one form or another: thou shalt not kill. I’m not saying the rape victim needs to go to the OB/Gyn every week, or take all her pre-natal supplements, or get a nursery ready. Just don’t kill the baby, since we are not allowed to go around killing people because we feel like it, or because they inconvenience us. The application of that law, in this special circumstance, may be more burdensome than usual, but it isn’t anything radical or novel that could lead to the kind of legislation you are worried about.

“If a rape victim is required to help the embryo, why shouldn’t you or I be required to help the kidney patient down the street?”

No, because this isn’t about making a law requiring forced charity or aid. It’s about having your rights abridged in order to minimize the harm caused by the rights of two persons being in conflict. There is no conflict between you exercising your rights and the kidney patient exercising his.

No, since that act is itself an act of killing, unless the child is old enough to survive outside the womb, and even then, it would be a crime to let the child die due to neglect.

No, the act is simply intended to remove the being currently using the woman's organs. The fact that it will die without the woman's body is unfortunate, but is not something that she can remedy without enduring an unacceptably taxing, and traditionally unrequired, physiological burden. The fact that medical technology cannot help the embryo is not the woman's fault, and can therefore not be considered neglect.

This may be your view, but that has not been the tradition of this country in any other area besides pregnancy by rape. I can think of no other case where someone is, or has been, compelled by the state to provide physiological life support to a being for which they have absolutely no responsibility.

Just don’t kill the baby, since we are not allowed to go around killing people because we feel like it, or because they inconvenience us.

We are allowed to kill people when they present a direct threat to us. A forced pregnancy, created entirely without any kind of invitation, is a particularly aggressive form of physical assault (one that lasts for 9 months and could cause the woman any number of health problems). The woman is more than justified, according to our traditions of personal liberty, to have the being effectuating the assault removed from her body.

It’s about having your rights abridged in order to minimize the harm caused by the rights of two persons being in conflict.

The woman, a person with rights who existed before the embryo, is in a state of being, essentially, assaulted by the embryo. Again, the law allows use of force in cases of self-defense. If that force ends up being lethal, one is still generally justified in using it, if it is necessary to stop the assault. So, I still fail to see how your position is consistent with our traditions regarding personal liberty and rights of self-defense.

“No, the act is simply intended to remove the being currently using the woman’s organs.”

You can’t divorce the procedure from the killing of the child, which is a direct and inevitable consequence of it. Otherwise, I could say, remove a ladder that a workman was using, causing him to fall to his death, and I would not be guilty of murder. All I was intending was to remove the ladder!

“The fact that it will die without the woman’s body is unfortunate, but is not something that she can remedy without enduring an unacceptably taxing, and traditionally unrequired, physiological burden.”

An “unacceptably taxing” burden is simply not a just cause to kill another human being. If that is the logic that you want to follow, then you are one step away from euthanizing the eldery and handicapped. In fact, if you go back and read some eugenics publications back from their “golden age”, you’ll find plenty of references to “unacceptable burdens”.

“This may be your view, but that has not been the tradition of this country in any other area besides pregnancy by rape.”

It really doesn’t matter what the traditions are, but I’d still say you are wrong on this point. Our legal system has very often used the exact same type of arguments when judging cases of conflicting rights. In fact, I’d posit that it is the most often used method of determining those cases.

“I can think of no other case where someone is, or has been, compelled by the state to provide physiological life support to a being for which they have absolutely no responsibility.”

Of course you won’t find any specific instances which match up exactly with this one, since this is a unique situation that has no exact parallels. There is no other situation I can think of that would create a conflict of rights which matches the one created by this one in such a way to demand a similar judgement. However, that fact in no way detracts from the validity of the judgement, nor is there any reason to expect it would.

“We are allowed to kill people when they present a direct threat to us.”

Indeed, we are allowed to kill people in those situations.

“A forced pregnancy, created entirely without any kind of invitation, is a particularly aggressive form of physical assault (one that lasts for 9 months and could cause the woman any number of health problems).”

Hold your horses there. A physical assault is a pretty specific thing. You can’t simply call a pregnancy, wanted, unwanted, or forced, a physical assault, anymore than I can call a horse a donkey, and expect other people to accept that. An assault requires an attacker, as well as intent. Who is the attacker here? The rapist? The baby? If it’s the baby, then where is the intent? If it’s the rapist, then what is the baby, a weapon? This is a pretty huge leap of logic here that I’m not willing to accept.

Also, the principle of self defense is restricted by the idea of lawful or necessary force. You do not have a right to simply kill anyone who makes you uncomfortable, or may pose a threat to you. There must be an actual threat or actual violence that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their lives, if you wish to exercise a wilfully lethal level of self defense. A reasonable person does not consider a normal pregnancy a threat to their life, so your appeal to lethal self defense fails on that standard alone.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.