As a pro-choicer, I find the idea of exceptions for rape and incest to be troubling. Saying that abortion is okay if the woman was raped shows a real moral inconsistency. Do these people really care about the life of the "child", or do they just see pregnancy as the rightful punishment for a woman who chooses to have sex?

Thank you for posting about this. It is very relevant to take a look not just at what "real people" think, but also at pre-Roe abortion laws, and I'm interested in reading Gorney's take on them. I suggest reading the book "Abortion" written by Lawrence Lader in 1966, which not only explains all the state abortion laws of that time and details the horrors that faced real women with unwanted pregnancies, but the book provided a blueprint for the abortion rights fight, which was won.

Considering how unflinchingly draconian most state laws used to be, and how completely accepted that was by the majority of society, we really have come a long way, in light of the rifts forming not just in pro-life political camps but in the minds of the majority of ordinary US citizens right now (the "real people" who are mostly Christian, mostly conservative, and voted Bush into office) -- rifts and questions that are entirely due to the South Dakota and Louisiana abortion bans, the latter of which doesn't even make exception for the life of the woman. Thank you, Napoli et al, for removing the blinders from a great deal of pro-lifers. Now they realize that the woman's life matters, too, doesn't it?

On which note, I don't believe it's hypocritical of someone to despise the idea of "killing" an unwanted baby while simultaneously despising the idea of forcing a rape victim to give birth, or forcing a woman to give birth even though it may kill or cripple her. In each case, they believe they're choosing the greater good; these laws have just caused them to realize that not every choice is as black and white as they may have once thought.

As a long-time pro-choicer, I've been watching this slide to the right with horror, and dreading the ultimate loss of Roe. I'm much less worried about it now and even see it as possibly a good thing in some ways. As long as Roe was in place, several groups with very diverse end-state goals have been able to work together under the blanket of "pro-life". Now that it's getting down to brass tacks, the fractures are starting to appear and the monolith is breaking down. Sure, there are some people who would like to see any birth control outlawed (not to mention unapproved sex) but they are the minority. When we pull away the blanket and have true open discussions about it, I have to hope that we'll come up with something that represents the true american middle ground - that the goal is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Regarding Velora's comments, I totally agree. People are notoriously (sometimes outrageously) inconsistent with beliefs that they associate with or draw from religion. There are two logical poles wrt abortion that I can identify (with gradations).

1) There is some point at which we can agree a cluster of cells becomes a person. From that point on, any action against that person (especially abortion) should be considered as against any other person. In case of rape or incest, the life of the unborn person carries identical weight to the life of the mother and nine months of physical and emotional pain of the mother must be balanced against the death of another person. Hard to see any abortion except life-for-life as justified with that perspective. (obviously there is another world of debate as to where exactly that line falls, which is where the abortion = morning after pill = birth control pill discussion lives)

2) There is no point before viability that we can agree to at which a cluster of cells becomes a person. The person hosting the cluster of cells must decide based on her understanding of biology and morality, as well as her personal desires, whether it is a person and she is a mother or it is just a cluster of cells that she is (briefly) hosting.

Thus if a person decides she is a mother-to-be and gets in a car accident and the baby-to-be is killed, it's murder. If a woman decides to have a non-viable cluster of cells removed from her body, it's not a person yet. Totally consistent.

>>On which note, I don't believe it's hypocritical of someone to despise the idea of "killing" an unwanted baby while simultaneously despising the idea of forcing a rape victim to give birth, or forcing a woman to give birth even though it may kill or cripple her.<<

I don't think this is necessarily hypocritical either; people's personal tolerance level for abortion isn't really my business as long as they aren't making laws about it. However, I'm still really creeped out by the idea that forcing a rape victim to give birth is repugnant, while forcing say, me, to do it is just fine.

Pro-Life seems to be, as you noted, a very flexible term. Apparently, in South Dakota, it applies only to people not born yet. South Dakota has the death penalty. The more consistent Pro-Lifers, including the Catholic Church, and Right to Life, Inc., are also against euthanasia and the death penalty.

As a person who is personally against abortion but pro-choice in my politics, I can speak to the contradiction of having an exception for rape and incest. It's true--it you think that the fetus is a person, then it is not obvious that there should be an exception for rape and incest. My thinking is this: if a woman needs an abortion because the pregnancy endangers her life or her health, then you are weighing a life against another life, and the law should not make that decision. If a woman needs an abortion because the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, you are weighing the life of the baby against something less than another life, but nonetheless very serious; however, that decision is so difficult and complicated that the law should not make that decision. Some women will want to have the baby, and may even see the baby as a good thing coming out of a bad situation. They may then wish to put the baby up for adoption or they may wish to raise it themselves. Other women will be so appalled and traumatized by the thought of having the baby that they believe the best thing is to abort. I just can't imagine making that decision for someone else.

On the other hand, if you think that a fetus is a life, and the mother wants an abortion for purely birth control reasons, you are weighing a life against the convenience of another person. I don't think having a baby is punishment for having sex, or that women who have sex deserve to be forced to carry the baby to term. But we don't allow you to kill your children because you've decided you can't afford to raise them, or you aren't responsible enough to be a parent, or whatever. If you really think that a fetus is a baby, then allowing a woman to abort it just because she doesn't want it is not okay--the balance of a life v. personal convenience doesn't justify it. We do allow you to put a child up for adoption, so you don't have to raise a child that you don't want--you can allow someone who really wants a child to do so. I don't think that decision is so morally complicated and fraught that the state, having an obligation to protect life, can't or shouldn't make it.

I don't pretend to speak for all pro-lifers--as I said, I am pro-choice in my politics, for a number of reasons. And you don't have to agree that a fetus is a life--many people don't, in which case, abortion before viability presents no difficult issues. But if you accept that many people do think life begins at some point before viability, then the exception for rape and incest makes sense as moral humility and compassion--the understanding that some decisions are so difficult that even though my moral principle covers it, I don't want to make it for you.