Garance Franke-Ruta, writing in the Atlantic, has an article entitled “A Canard that will not die: ‘legitimate rape’ doesn’t cause pregnancy.” Congressman and candidate for Missouri Senator, Todd Akin, asserted to KTVI-TV that it’s really rare for “legitimate rape” to result in pregnancy.
Franke-Ruta makes the case that this assertion didn’t come out of left-field, but instead is something that keeps cropping up among pro-life politicians. Sometimes they call it “forcible rape” or “assault rape”. The abortion debates make more sense when viewed not so much as a “valuing life” issue but rather as an issue of disapproving of women having unsanctioned sex and enjoying it. Pregnancy is her punishment for such behavior; abortion and birth control are a sneaky way of escaping righteous punishment.
By pretending that “legitimate rape” doesn’t cause pregnancy, advocates of such a distinction can assure themselves that there are no difficult decisions to make because the pregnancy itself is evidence that, on some level, she was really enjoying herself and is only calling it rape now because she had second thoughts after the passion of the moment had passed. And since she enjoyed herself, the punishment of pregnancy is just.
Now, as a logical matter, if one accepts the premise that at the moment of conception, there is created a human life entitled to our full moral consideration — in other words, if the sanctity of human life comes from its biological properties rather than its biographical properties – it makes sense to not include an exception for rape or incest or really, anything. If you conclude that the mother’s right to bodily integrity is subordinate to society’s right to dictate that she use her body to preserve the life of the growing child, then it shouldn’t matter too much how the child got there. It’s not as if the fetus could help the manner of its conception.
But, putting it into such stark terms is politically difficult and makes some people uneasy — they are more comfortable if they can focus almost exclusively on the good things they want for the child rather than what they are imposing on the woman by mandating those good things for the child. They want to justify the imposition by assuming that the woman is morally culpable for the state she’s in. The fiction that, “if she’s pregnant, she probably liked it” helps thread that needle in cases of rape. And that is probably why the canard has such staying power.
These people disgust me. It’s the only way to even say it.
“Helps thread the needle.” Interesting metaphor there, Doug. :-)
Good post.
The stupid is astonishing. I try not to think too hard on those who so easily get elected despite such stupidity, and those who have no chance despite having some intelligence. It would be far too depressing.
To the extent it matters, this kind of thing strikes me as being more in the “wilfully ignorant” category than “stupid.” People who believe it do so, I think, because they very much want it to be true.
I hear a lot more eugenic- and race-tinged defenses of abortion than “serves the slut right” opposition. And the former come from top-quintile abortion supporters while the latter come from bottom-quintile opponents.
I’ll concede that rape is a hard case. I just wish your side would concede there are some easy cases. It would be easier to take your hard case protestations seriously if I did.
Methinks your side, too, has a guilty conscience and plenty of denial mechanisms.
That’s a fair enough criticism. My policy preferences come from my underlying belief that the fetuses being aborted aren’t yet fully human but are, rather, more of a biological precursor to a fully human life. It’s along the continuum between sperm & egg on one end and baby on the other.
So, in my world, rape isn’t a hard case. Abortion should be legal and easily available for rape victims. But, I respect that not everyone has such a clinical view of the biological processes that create humans; they have a more spiritual view of the process. And, for those people, the horror of rape competes against the magic of the creation of a human soul; it’s difficult in that case to reconcile which consideration should be subordinate to the other. While I respect that difficulty and people who struggle with it, I don’t respect people who create fairy tales like Rep. Akin’s in order to avoid the difficulty.
You bring to light the exact difference, and that the fight is for superiority of the process we like best. For religious folks, they want their view over all, while biological folks leave it to personal free agency. If your spritual view dictates that its wrong, don’t do it. If it becomes a biological necessity, then thankfully we can save your life, unless you choose not to, which you’re free to do if you’d rather. The idea that we as a nation should all submit to the spiritual beliefs of a segment of the population, when we have the capability to make our own free choices, based on real science, is precisely why this entire diatribe of Congressman Akin is so absurd.
please cite some examples of “top-quintile abortion supporters” (whatever that means) making “eugenic- and race-tinged defenses of abortion”
Very few people ever bring up what I think are the key issues:
1. What do we do about it, pro or con? Make it easier to adopt, put women in prison, shoot doctors…what? An awful lot of people make this a “litmus” issue without expecting any action; and that is, to me, sort of weird.
2. Is this really only a woman’s rights issue? Really? Don’t men have any rights at all to what is, really, their fetus too? They certainly have no rights to their income if the child is born, do they? Can a man demand an abortion, or can he abort his child support? Can he demand the baby’s born if he’s got the money in hand?
3. Who decides who’s human, and isn’t it time we think about this? The history of giving this over to politicians is horrific. Yes, it is the basis of eugenics and ethnic cleansing as well as slavery and many wars.
4. Does everything have to be one-size-fits-all/federal/UN?
stAllio!, I think he is referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics
I know I’ve seen other cases, but the founder of planned parenthood is as good of a place to start as any.
Thanks for answering that, I was wondering about it myself. Apparently I don’t hang with any of these quintile folks of either stripe because the eugenics argument was as foreign and bizarre sounding to me as Akin’s “pleasure induced ovulation” theory. I hear two arguments I’d summarize as: (a) abortion is unfortunate, but making it illegal only makes it worse, or (b) embryos and fetuses are innocent babies and must receive society’s highest protection. Both are legitimate points leaving reasonable people to seek a balance.
Unfortunately, many people who believe “b” don’t really care about the kid after birth is achieved.
Unfortunately, many vocal people who believe “b” are silent about the kid after birth is achieved.
Fixed that for you. There are many caring people that don’t get into abortion debates but volunteer their time equally at a Pregnancy Care Center (assist in non-abortion options for unwanted pregnancy: adoption, support of the young parent(s), etc) and other charities such as food banks.
There is a group of vocal assholes who spend their time repeating the hate they hear on radio to everyone who will listen, use their religion like being a fan of a sports team, and never show up to help those in need. In the circle of people I know, they exist, but are by far the minority.
I don’t disagree Jason, however typing on a phone, at times, leads me to forgo nuance.
I would counter that being silent is simply worsening the situation.
I would argue that most people who believe “b” do care, but believe that it is the responsbility of charities and private organizations to protect the child, not the government’s. This is why you see a positive correlation between people that believe “b”, and the size of the amount they give to charity.
Most people who believe “b” and give to charity give to their church. If numbers I have seen floated are to be believed, about 10-20% of that money flows through to charity and about 80-90% goes to church administrative costs. While the church is given charity status for tax purposes, I don’t believe church administrative costs falls under the definition of charity (generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless). Before people get up in arms, I do attend and give to my church. However, I am just realistic about where my money goes and also give directly to charities that I want to support and use a larger chunk of my donation towards programming as opposed to administration.
I see. So, you are arguing that: (1) the entire increase in charitable giving revolves around giving to church; and that (2) churches only give 10-20% of their money to “charity”.
So, I guess I am wondering: (1) why people who believe in “a” don’t give money to church? (2) is the whole increase in donations related to church offerings? I have never seen that statistic. (3) Even if we accept your 80-90% estimate of church costs, the religous folks are still giving more than the non-religious, yes? And we all realize that the most of the expense of a soup kitchen isn’t the soup, it is the costs behind organizing people, a facility, and so on, yes?
ah, silly me. i figured “top quintile” would mean “relevant to contemporary debate” and not something from 80 years ago that has been repudiated for decades. my mistake!
it’s interesting, because it seems the only people using race-tinged abortion arguments these days are pro-lifers.
“it’s interesting, because it seems the only people using race-tinged abortion arguments these days are pro-lifers.”
Agreed. That is interesting. Pro-choicers love to play the race game and argue that the same people who are pro-life are also somehow racists (Joe Biden’s recent inappropriate remarks being a GREAT example of this false allegation), yet if it were up to pro-lifers, we would have a lot more minorities living in the United States.
if you think there’s no overlap between racists and pro-lifers then i invite you to type a phrase like “abortion white babies” into google.
also, nice trick of “playing the race game” while trying to pretend your opponents are the ones playing the race game.
You are seriously delusional if you don’t think that pro-choicers (i.e., Democrats) don’t play racial politics at a high multiple to the point pro-lifers (typically Republicans) do. Biden’s quote is one example of many.
“Wilfully ignorant” is apt; or said another way, unwilling to bring one’s beliefs into alignment with known facts. If “conservative” mean retaining age-old beliefs in the face of contrary data, then, in this context, “liberal” isn’t the opposite of conservative. The opposite of conservative would be “reality based”, meaning a willingness to adjust beliefs to be consistent with the weight of the known facts; e.g. carbon content in the atmosphere, genetic similarity of chimps and humans, and where babies come from.
Can we please stop calling the anti-woman crusaders “pro-life”? It’s the pro-choice side that has the only legitimate claim to being pro-life in any meaningful sense.
How about both sides be accurate and say “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”?
To dissect your point a bit, many “pro-life” people would argue that they are not anti-woman, but they are defending women better than “pro-choice”. A majority of pregnancies are female, therefore by preventing abortion, they are saving women’s lives.
The disconnect is that “pro-choice” are debating about what a woman can do with her own body, and “pro-life” are debating about the personhood of the unborn. The two sides are talking past each other since they’re not even debating the same point.
To me, the point should be to decide when that clump of cells becomes a human and deserves the rights we recognize for all humans. My hope is that science will help define this for all sides. Once that is established, the “what a woman can do with her own body” is clear: She can do anything to her own body, but she can no more harm an unborn human than she can harm one that is born. The same rules apply for all of us.
@Jason,
I am forced to vehemently disagree with you. No one I know – NO ONE – is pro-abortion. Am I pro-choice? Yes, absolutely. Am I pro-abortion? Of course not! I firmly believe that abortion should be a last choice option. First though, I want women (and men) to consider abstinence, birth control, adoption, whatever… I don’t want them to go out and get an abortion. But, yes, I believe that a woman has the right to have access to a safe and legal abortion.
Please stop using such divisive language – that doesn’t help the dialogue. And we all know that calling it a dialogue at this point is hopeful, at best.
@Rebecca,
I understand that no one is pro-abortion, I was responding to the divisive language of steelydanfan by going back to the terms that were used before pro-choice and pro-life were coined. The camps of people are no different, it is just different labels.
I suppose the truly accurate term that could be used is “pro abortion rights” and “anti abortion rights”.
It can’t define that–and the language you used (indeed, which we are forced into) to discuss that issue is excellent evidence of it. What something “deserves” and when it deserves it is entirely an ethical, normative judgment outside the domain of natural science. Biology can help us verify whether or not something does indeed have the physical qualities we decide are relevant, but exactly what qualities are relevant (and they’re not necessarily physical or material ones) are outside its bounds.
So, then the answer seems to be that we should have the debate first on what qualities are required to be recognized as a human, and then allow science to show if they are there?
If we’re not talking about something that can be measured by science, isn’t this then a debate about faith?
It seems this same framework can be used for end of life issues as well.
It’s a discussion (not “debate”; I really hate the way that word is bandied about–it implies an adversarial relationship, which is the exact opposite of what we need) of ethics, not faith.
If you were a Christian, you’d know that faith is incompatible with proper moral reasoning.
“It’s a discussion (not “debate”; I really hate the way that word is bandied about–it implies an adversarial relationship, which is the exact opposite of what we need) of ethics, not faith.”
I so agree with you. “Debate” implies that there must be both a winner and a loser. Nothing is that clear in real life. In debate contests, the winner/loser may be a function of technicalities of speech or articulation of logic. On website “debates” there is often so much trumping the other “speaker”
(“a-ha!”) that the discussion itself gets totally lost. Concerning discussion, one author (that I can’t name now due to faulty memory, but will look up as soon as I get back to my home library) cautions that “expert” (read abstract) input often overrides “real” (read people who are actually living in the described situation) input, precisely because the “real” side isn’t even included in the discussion because they are not “experts”! I have really been part of such lop-sided “dialogues” and it is too frustrating to see, hear, feel what is going on in the name of “dialogue”.
Pro-abortion doesn’t exactly cover it because, what we’re really talking about, is whether government should criminalize abortion.
If a blastocyst is fully human at the time of conception, should a doctor and a woman who conspire to abort the blastocyst be charged and convicted of murder? A lesser crime? If a lesser crime, why the distinction?
Biologically human is irrelevant. A tumor is biologically human.
What is relevant, then?
I’m not trying to debate abortion or not right now, I’m trying to establish at what point a human being is afforded “inalienable human rights.” The abortion discussion is a quick one once we establish that.
To Doug’s point, I would think that IF (big if) we can agree as a society that a person is human and deserving of rights at the moment of conception, then yes, terminating that life is a type of murder, and the sentence should match that. At the same time, killing done in self-defense is permissible in our legal system.
People of faith are often accused of avoiding the truth when it conflicts with their faith. I sense the same thing with those that are pro abortion rights. Protecting a child, even an unborn one, is a noble and good thing until it interferes with a woman’s ability to have an abortion, it seems.
Not necessarily.
Even if we were to conclude that a fetus is entitled to basic human rights, we would still need to determine whether or not that gives it a claim to its mother’s body. After all, no one seriously suggests that a born child is entitled to literally eat the flesh off of his mother’s bones, and few would argue that if you are the only person for hundreds of miles around who has the same rare blood type as someone who is bleeding out, that the law may then compel you to donate blood to that person.
To follow your analogy, if a parent denies their child food and shelter, isn’t that child abuse?
After all, if we have accepted it is legally human, then we have accepted the legal roles of mother and father in terms of their responsibility to care for the child.
the most important question here is not when a fetus becomes “human”, but do the rights of the fetus ever supersede the rights of the mother, and if so, when?
caring for a fetus that’s inside your body is much different than caring for a born child, which can be given up for adoption or placed in day care.