Hypocrisy and Forced-Birth

Roger Ebert tweeted a link to an article about the Republican candidates who are against exceptions in abortion law for victims of rape and incest.

I found myself torn. On the one hand, I am of the opinion that it’s important to get this info out there because it may get folks who are undecided to make up their minds about these assholes. A lot of folks uncomfortable with being pro-choice all the way like to support anti-abortion legislation with rape and incest exceptions.

On the other hand, however, I actually respect folks who are pro-forced-birth without exception more than the “it’s okay if you got pregnant against your will and aren’t a filthy slut who must be punished with pregnancy” people. I mean, if abortion is murder, then it is always murder. If you’re against abortion, be against abortion. A fetus is a fetus, regardless of how it was conceived.

By drawing a distinction between those who got pregnant from sex they consented to and those who got pregnant from sex they did not consent to, people are essentially saying that the first group is less than the second group. Only those who are victims, who didn’t want to have sex, get to decide what to do with their bodies. Those who wanted to have the sex that got them pregnant, well, they’re just getting what they deserve by being forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

As I’ve blogged about before, this shit makes me see red.

I wanted to tweet back at Ebert to this effect, but it’s not really possible to condense the above into less than 140 characters.

This entry was posted in Srs Bznss and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Hypocrisy and Forced-Birth

  1. Alex Summers says:

    I guess I agree with your conclusion–that not allowing for an exception is internally consistent and therefore less bad in the sense that it is not compounding an infuriating position with hypocrisy.

    However, I have some quibbles: First of all, while PFB’s like to throw the word “murder” around for shock value (or whatever shock value remains after beating that dead horse for 37 years), it doesn’t necessarily follow from their axioms that all abortion is murder. It follows that all abortion is killing a human being, but even in the general sense not all instances of killing a human being are murder.

    That having been said, it is difficult to imagine how the circumstances of impregnation can have an effect on the moral status of the act of terminating the pregnancy. So I think you’re right that allowing such exceptions does appear to be a hypocritical position (in that there doesn’t seem to be any internally consistent way to call the one thing murder and not the other). Which, of course, makes my point above a true quibble.

    Perhaps more significantly, while I agree intellectually with your position, emotionally I have to side with the exceptionists. Of the two, I have to believe that there is greater hope for them–after all, if they’re open to the idea of there being exceptions, doesn’t that make them (if only marginally) more likely to allow more exceptions, perhaps even until the exceptions swallow the rule?