Are debates over abortion and rape a distraction from important larger questions about abortion, women, and the unborn, or are they an important part of working out how we think and feel about this area of life?
As you know, the question of whether a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape has been all over the news, thanks to United States Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
As a result of their statements/gaffes, every other public figure who self-identifies as pro-life is asked to respond to their comments. This has caused heartburn for pro-life advocates who want to avoid looking controversial and a) just want to get elected, thank you very much, or b) want to push for pro-life policies that have been reframed as common-sense, mainstream proposals.
An example of the first phenomenon is U.S. House of Representatives candidate John Koster (Washington state), who was taped being asked questions about abortion and rape.
Koster was clear enough in stating his policy views, but it was his phrasing and tone that caught people's attention. What I think he communicated, in particular in using the term "the rape thing," was a) rape as a abortion-related policy issue is a distraction and not terribly important to discuss, and b) rape itself is not so horrible that it deserves this much attention (and cluelessness as to how pregnancy could compound the trauma of rape):
That being said, Yoest's overall answer was very similar in tone, I think, to that of Koster's: Don't focus your attention on this.
For many people, including many people who self-identify as pro-life, the "minutiae of the rape exception" is exactly the kind of thing we should discuss. To oppose or support abortion at the level of grand principle is easy. The reason why most people think women should be able to obtain an abortion in some situations, however, is that the application of general principles to the real world is difficult and messy. This is especially the case when attempting to legislate-- and criminalize-- behavior.
Working out an abortion policy that fits with what most people really want requires aiming straight at the tough cases and, in doing so, exploring our (perhaps unconscious) beliefs about women, the unborn, and the world of human relationships. Anyone who bats away the tough questions as distractions is really telling you "don't think."
Links:
Article in The Seattle Times (October 31, 2012): Koster draws fire for comments about abortion, "the rape thing"
Articles in The New York Times (November 2, 2012): Charmaine Yoest's Cheerful War on Abortion
As you know, the question of whether a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape has been all over the news, thanks to United States Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
As a result of their statements/gaffes, every other public figure who self-identifies as pro-life is asked to respond to their comments. This has caused heartburn for pro-life advocates who want to avoid looking controversial and a) just want to get elected, thank you very much, or b) want to push for pro-life policies that have been reframed as common-sense, mainstream proposals.
An example of the first phenomenon is U.S. House of Representatives candidate John Koster (Washington state), who was taped being asked questions about abortion and rape.
Koster was clear enough in stating his policy views, but it was his phrasing and tone that caught people's attention. What I think he communicated, in particular in using the term "the rape thing," was a) rape as a abortion-related policy issue is a distraction and not terribly important to discuss, and b) rape itself is not so horrible that it deserves this much attention (and cluelessness as to how pregnancy could compound the trauma of rape):
On the tape, an activist with Fuse asks Koster whether there is any situation in which he would “agree” with abortion. He responds that he would make an exception for the life of the mother, but not for rape or incest, and describes his thinking in detail, using the phrase, “the rape thing” twice.“Incest is so rare, I mean it’s so rare. But the rape thing, you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept the child, gave it up for adoption and doesn’t regret it. In fact, she’s a big pro-life proponent. But, on the rape thing it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?”The activist says, “Yeah, but she has to live with the consequences of that crime.”And Koster responds, “Yeah, I know. I know crime has consequences, but how does it make it better by killing a child?”
(Source: The Seattle Times)An example of the second phenomenon (staying on moderate message while pushing strongly pro-life policies) is found in a New York Times profile of Charmaine Yoest, who is the head of the venerable pro-life advocacy group, Americans United For Life. (I wrote an earlier post on the profile.) The author of the article naturally asked Yoest, who tries to portray her organization's policies as moderate and pro-woman, about Todd Akin. I found Yoest's response startling:
When I asked what she thought about Akin’s reliance on bogus science, she said, “I’m not going to answer that.” Though Yoest agrees with Akin that abortion should be illegal in every circumstance, she said that talking about “the minutiae of the rape exception is not where it’s at at all.” It was as if Akin had undone all her careful framing. "It's a distraction. It's not relevant to the discussion."Now, Yoest was attempting to deflect a tough question that could reveal that she and the AUL are not mainstream when it comes to abortion. She also used the term "distraction" to refer to Akin's scientific claim about rape and conception, not rape itself.
That being said, Yoest's overall answer was very similar in tone, I think, to that of Koster's: Don't focus your attention on this.
For many people, including many people who self-identify as pro-life, the "minutiae of the rape exception" is exactly the kind of thing we should discuss. To oppose or support abortion at the level of grand principle is easy. The reason why most people think women should be able to obtain an abortion in some situations, however, is that the application of general principles to the real world is difficult and messy. This is especially the case when attempting to legislate-- and criminalize-- behavior.
Working out an abortion policy that fits with what most people really want requires aiming straight at the tough cases and, in doing so, exploring our (perhaps unconscious) beliefs about women, the unborn, and the world of human relationships. Anyone who bats away the tough questions as distractions is really telling you "don't think."
Links:
Article in The Seattle Times (October 31, 2012): Koster draws fire for comments about abortion, "the rape thing"
Articles in The New York Times (November 2, 2012): Charmaine Yoest's Cheerful War on Abortion
Comments