It seems like the news lately has been dominated by stories involving fights over abortion and rape. I think abortion in the case of rape draws so much attention because it forces consideration of what is, really, the primary question of abortion: What is the value or status of the 'unborn' relative to the value or status of pregnant women? Whose interests or status is primary and superior to the other?
Many people who self-identify as "pro-life" nonetheless believe that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape, despite the fact that the ontological status of the unborn child is same regardless of the circumstances of conception. Put another way, many people who oppose abortion accept a victim of rape obtaining one, even though a fetus is a fetus regardless of how it is conceived.
Furthermore, the question of whether a pregnant woman should bear responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior is set aside in cases of rape. (Whether women in more socially conservative societies really have the freedom to not enter marital relationships and not have sex is worth discussing, but let's set that aside.) The charge of 'responsibility' allows pro-lifers to avoid a direct balancing of the relative interests of pregnant women and the unborn, because women, they assert, are morally obligated to see through the consequences of their own 'voluntary' behavior: sexual intercourse that carries the possibility of conception. Because women are seen as ultimately 'responsible' for getting pregnant, they are not entitled to put their own interests above those of their unborn child.
This underbrush is cleared away in the case of rape-- by definition, a woman is not responsible for being pregnant. The sole issue in cases of rape, then, is whether a woman's interest in avoiding the trauma of having to endure pregnancy, delivery, and the raising of their rapist's child outweighs the interests of the human product of the rape.
For people who are pro-choice, there is no question that the woman's interests (or her right to be the person responsible for weighing those interests) outweigh those of the embryo or fetus. For some who are pro-life, consistency rules, and the interests of the unborn child always are superior, except perhaps in cases where the physical life of the mother is at stake.
For many pro-lifers, however, the trauma and aftermath of rape is so awful that they acknowledge that, in this situation, pregnancy, delivery, and child-raising is too much to bear. That, I think, is a fundamental concession to pro-choice reasoning about abortion. It employs the same logic that allows pro-choicers to argue that abortion should be generally-- or at least more widely-- allowed: the interests of the pregnant woman in X situation outweigh the life interest of the unborn.
Now, some pro-lifers may accede to a rape exception but not others by arguing that rape is an isolated case due to the fact that women are seen as not responsible for getting pregnant. In other situations where pro-choicers think abortion is justified for 'situational' reasons, pro-lifers can say, "well, in those cases, the situation is ultimately of the woman's choosing, by engaging in sex that is open to procreation, and therefore the natural human interests of the unborn child take precedence."
People who are pro-choice may retort that pro-lifers overestimate the agency of women over their lives and their ability to avoid pregnancy. More importantly, they may argue that the self-responsibility/non-responsibility distinction is irrelevant. As pro-lifers point out, the status of the fetus is the same regardless of the circumstances of conception-- yet many pro-lifers still allow for abortion in cases of rape. Therefore, a woman's interests can outweigh those of the fetus, regardless of the circumstances of conception-- even in those circumstances in which a woman may have played some 'voluntary' role in getting pregnant.
In other words, once that line has been crossed-- namely, a woman's life situation can override the life interest of the embryo or fetus-- then the argument about abortion fundamentally shifts away from the ontological status of the fetus and toward a discussion of the interests of women. That is pro-choice logic.
In short, allowing abortion in cases of rape opens the door to justifying abortion in a wide range of situations. For this reason, pro-choice and pro-life activists see the issue as a particularly important battleground-- and they are right.
Many people who self-identify as "pro-life" nonetheless believe that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape, despite the fact that the ontological status of the unborn child is same regardless of the circumstances of conception. Put another way, many people who oppose abortion accept a victim of rape obtaining one, even though a fetus is a fetus regardless of how it is conceived.
Furthermore, the question of whether a pregnant woman should bear responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior is set aside in cases of rape. (Whether women in more socially conservative societies really have the freedom to not enter marital relationships and not have sex is worth discussing, but let's set that aside.) The charge of 'responsibility' allows pro-lifers to avoid a direct balancing of the relative interests of pregnant women and the unborn, because women, they assert, are morally obligated to see through the consequences of their own 'voluntary' behavior: sexual intercourse that carries the possibility of conception. Because women are seen as ultimately 'responsible' for getting pregnant, they are not entitled to put their own interests above those of their unborn child.
This underbrush is cleared away in the case of rape-- by definition, a woman is not responsible for being pregnant. The sole issue in cases of rape, then, is whether a woman's interest in avoiding the trauma of having to endure pregnancy, delivery, and the raising of their rapist's child outweighs the interests of the human product of the rape.
For people who are pro-choice, there is no question that the woman's interests (or her right to be the person responsible for weighing those interests) outweigh those of the embryo or fetus. For some who are pro-life, consistency rules, and the interests of the unborn child always are superior, except perhaps in cases where the physical life of the mother is at stake.
For many pro-lifers, however, the trauma and aftermath of rape is so awful that they acknowledge that, in this situation, pregnancy, delivery, and child-raising is too much to bear. That, I think, is a fundamental concession to pro-choice reasoning about abortion. It employs the same logic that allows pro-choicers to argue that abortion should be generally-- or at least more widely-- allowed: the interests of the pregnant woman in X situation outweigh the life interest of the unborn.
Now, some pro-lifers may accede to a rape exception but not others by arguing that rape is an isolated case due to the fact that women are seen as not responsible for getting pregnant. In other situations where pro-choicers think abortion is justified for 'situational' reasons, pro-lifers can say, "well, in those cases, the situation is ultimately of the woman's choosing, by engaging in sex that is open to procreation, and therefore the natural human interests of the unborn child take precedence."
People who are pro-choice may retort that pro-lifers overestimate the agency of women over their lives and their ability to avoid pregnancy. More importantly, they may argue that the self-responsibility/non-responsibility distinction is irrelevant. As pro-lifers point out, the status of the fetus is the same regardless of the circumstances of conception-- yet many pro-lifers still allow for abortion in cases of rape. Therefore, a woman's interests can outweigh those of the fetus, regardless of the circumstances of conception-- even in those circumstances in which a woman may have played some 'voluntary' role in getting pregnant.
In other words, once that line has been crossed-- namely, a woman's life situation can override the life interest of the embryo or fetus-- then the argument about abortion fundamentally shifts away from the ontological status of the fetus and toward a discussion of the interests of women. That is pro-choice logic.
In short, allowing abortion in cases of rape opens the door to justifying abortion in a wide range of situations. For this reason, pro-choice and pro-life activists see the issue as a particularly important battleground-- and they are right.
Comments