Qball
Corner Pocket
A lot was made over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock's comments over this past election season. A lot of people say they contributed not only their failed campaigns, but to Republicans in general losing ground with women and young voters.
I have to say, though, it's a little confusing to me why rape is always being brought up when discussing abortion. I get why to the extent that rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse causes pregnancy. Though, as an aside, I find it interesting that "sex causes pregnancy" is completely valid when justifying aborting a fetus caused by rape, but when social conservatives push for abstinence-only sex education, all of a sudden "sex causes pregnancy" is too simplistic a notion to discourage sex in young people because it's "unrealistic" or, to use one of their favorite terms, "it isn't scientifically accurate". It's just as true in either case, it's just selectively inconvenient, I guess.
Anyway.
What I don't get about rape always coming up is that no credible source has ever suggested most, half, or even a third, of abortions are by women who were victims of rape. Not only that, but for as unsavory as Akin and Mourdock's comments were, and how "anti-woman" pro-lifers supposedly are, most women, regardless of how they feel about abortion, can't honestly say they only or mostly know of abortions taking place by women they know were victims of rape.
This isn't to say it's never happened, or is an impossibility. It's just that it's dishonest to justify the general practice of abortion based on something that is rarely ever the case.
Many pro-lifers, like myself, feel abortion is wrong primarily because it's the taking of a human life for no good reason. It's not that we're pro-baby, or we believe all women ought to have children, or that there's something wrong with a woman for not wanting to parent. It's that for all of the good reasons there are to wait to parent, or not parent at all, you don't get to wait until you're pregnant to use good sense and opt-out, especially if that reasoning wasn't enough to keep you from risking it in the first place.
Of course, there are caveats. If a woman is raped, I believe she should have the choice to abort, because she didn't choose to risk creating a child. That choice was made for her, and that should never be. And it should go without saying, but a woman whose life is at risk should be able to abort if it means saving her life.
But neither of those circumstances account for any significant number of abortions.
Because of that, it isn't right to excuse the practice of abortion or women who have aborted because they got pregnant through consensual means at an inconvenient time because they didn't have the wherewithal to use good judgment, use protection, or abstain.
I have to say, though, it's a little confusing to me why rape is always being brought up when discussing abortion. I get why to the extent that rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse causes pregnancy. Though, as an aside, I find it interesting that "sex causes pregnancy" is completely valid when justifying aborting a fetus caused by rape, but when social conservatives push for abstinence-only sex education, all of a sudden "sex causes pregnancy" is too simplistic a notion to discourage sex in young people because it's "unrealistic" or, to use one of their favorite terms, "it isn't scientifically accurate". It's just as true in either case, it's just selectively inconvenient, I guess.
Anyway.
What I don't get about rape always coming up is that no credible source has ever suggested most, half, or even a third, of abortions are by women who were victims of rape. Not only that, but for as unsavory as Akin and Mourdock's comments were, and how "anti-woman" pro-lifers supposedly are, most women, regardless of how they feel about abortion, can't honestly say they only or mostly know of abortions taking place by women they know were victims of rape.
This isn't to say it's never happened, or is an impossibility. It's just that it's dishonest to justify the general practice of abortion based on something that is rarely ever the case.
Many pro-lifers, like myself, feel abortion is wrong primarily because it's the taking of a human life for no good reason. It's not that we're pro-baby, or we believe all women ought to have children, or that there's something wrong with a woman for not wanting to parent. It's that for all of the good reasons there are to wait to parent, or not parent at all, you don't get to wait until you're pregnant to use good sense and opt-out, especially if that reasoning wasn't enough to keep you from risking it in the first place.
Of course, there are caveats. If a woman is raped, I believe she should have the choice to abort, because she didn't choose to risk creating a child. That choice was made for her, and that should never be. And it should go without saying, but a woman whose life is at risk should be able to abort if it means saving her life.
But neither of those circumstances account for any significant number of abortions.
Because of that, it isn't right to excuse the practice of abortion or women who have aborted because they got pregnant through consensual means at an inconvenient time because they didn't have the wherewithal to use good judgment, use protection, or abstain.
Last edited:
