Friday, June 21, 2013

News of the week

The House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. But unsurprisingly, it's unlikely to get anywhere in the Senate. (Elections have consequences.) Also unsurprisingly, the mainstream media coverage has been pretty sad.

Mormon SPL supporter Nathaniel Givens responds to Dan Becker, who proclaims the wrath of God on all incrementalist pro-lifers:
"It has been openly stated within the movement that we need to distance ourselves from the 'rape/incest' debate by giving up the argument. This is a total abdication of duty and a grave moral failure that will incur God’s judgment."
The first sentence is a little strong, but it represents a genuine belief on the part of some within the pro-life community, and I sympathize with their sense that they alone will speak for the innocent and voiceless. But the second one? We’re going to start calling down God’s judgment on fellow pro-lifers? I believe that lacks discretion, to put it mildly. Of course, according to Becker, if you allow a rape and incest exception you aren’t really pro-life at all.
Yesterday, pro-life leaders held a press conference demanding the closure of Douglas Karpen's abortion center. Karpen's former employees allege that he ran a Gosnell-like infanticide operation. State authorities are investigating, but Karpen remains in business in the meantime. That's unacceptable, say LEARN, National Black Pro-Life Union, Black Pro-Life Coalition, and Operation Rescue.

Ohio Right to Life condemns a high school that refuses to let a student with Down Syndrome participate on the cheerleading squad.


ockraz said...

I'm confused.

"If pro-life means pro-right-to-life... then the
rape-exception... violates the right-to-life of an innocent human being."

Okay - the right to life exists regardless of how you're conceived.

"When a couple engages in sexual intercourse.., you make someone dependent on you, you owe that person the care required for that dependency. "

Isn't that why people want a rape exception? If you're opposed to the exception then isn't the presence or absence of a choice irrelevant because of the right to life?

Are you raising the obligation for some reason other than to address rape? If so, are safe haven laws wrong?

Drew Hymer said...

i was differentiating between rape-exception folks and pro-aborts. Pro-aborts (those who propagandistically call themselves "pro-choice") think its ok to kill the baby for any reason, thus lethally ignoring the obligation that parents owe to their children.

Rape exception folks correctly see that the mother didn't choose to engage in behavior that would obligate herself to caring for the child. Though off subject, I would argue that even though parental obligation doesn't apply in the rape case (except to the scumbag rapist), the mother still has an obligation not to harm an innocent human being.

Safe havens are necessary because we live in a world where people murder the innocent to avoid their obligation. The saving of the baby's life is more important than the parents' obligation.

ockraz said...

Okay - I just had trouble recognizing which parts were supposed to belong to what groups.

"I would argue that even though parental obligation doesn't apply in the
rape case... the mother still has an
obligation not to harm an innocent human being."

I don't really buy into the parental obligation part- especially given that many unplanned pregnancies occur in cases where contraception was used. I think that the obli. not to take an innocent life is all that's nec. to prohibit abortion.

Personally, I don't believe in the rape exception, but I'm not as troubled by it as many are. First, there's the practical side: it closes off support for the other 99% of what we want to hold out.

Second, I see the normal (non 'hard case') abortion as a conflict between a right to control your body and choose how to live and the duty not to take an innocent life. All things being equal, both are important goals. With abortion you have to prioritize one over the other because of biology and the duty not to kill must trump a PARTIAL loss of autonomy (after all, pregnancy isn't going to prison) that lasts 9 months. In cases of rape, the burden of carrying the child is far greater. Some people say it's psychological torture to require it.

Although I don't agree with it, I think a plausible case can be made that while by itself a temporary loss of a portion of your freedom definitely doesn't outweigh the duty not to kill, adding the trauma of being required to carry your rapist's baby can tip the scales in the other direction.