The convenient rape/incest exception. I call bullshit. (with poll)

Heard a snippet this morning on NPR about Mitt Romney's "pro-life" renovation. It included something along the lines of opposing abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman's life is in danger.

Hmm, I thought, there they go again with that really convenient exception that just blows holes in their entire arguement.

I looked it up just to be sure.

According to his site.

Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
(Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005)

We oughta be making hay with this backdoor escape plan.

To the jump!

As an intro, my personal preference is to refer to the different camps in the manner in which they both prefer. Pro-life, pro-choice. If I call them anti-choice, they call me pro-death. It gets ugly and doesn't really do anything constructive. That's my opinion and my choice.

Anyway, onto my rant.

Hey pro-lifers! It's human life right? That's why you're opposed to abortion? Well, what difference does rape or incest make? It's a human life regardless, right?

I can see how you can be pro-life and allow it when the woman's life is in danger. After all, better to lose one than two right? I can get that. But if a fetus is a human life, then what does rape or incest have to do with anything?

To be clear, I am pro-choice, and I especially value the right to choose when someone has been victimized. To have that choice at such a dark time is an exercise in autonomy, some semblance of control at a time when so little is left.

I had a long-time girlfriend who was raped. I've seen the damage. But really, for me, as it relates to abortion, rape and incest isn't an exception. It's part of a whole package. I don't think a fetus is a human life. There is no contradiction. The woman should have the choice. Always.

So what's up with this exception? And Romney's wording is even weirder upon further analysis.

I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.

It's the "wrong choice?" Does that mean that it can be the right choice? Apparently Mitt does. How's that?Again, if it's human life, it's human life!

But with Mitt and others of his ilk, it's not really about the sanctity of life. It's about pregnancy as punishment, as consequence for action. Play around? Tough, have the baby.

Victimized? Okay, we'll LET you have an abortion.

You know what this is about folks? This is about CONTROL. This is about lording as judge over women, deciding if what they have done or not done warrants the right to make the "right" choice.

As I said at the outset, I really do prefer to refer to the camps in the manner in which they prefer, and frankly, I did not anticipate this conclusion until I started writing the paragraph above.

But you know what? Mitt is NOT pro-life. He's pro-control. He wants to decide who gets to do what, based on the exceptions that he approves of.

Bullshit.

•  Tips?

  Thanks!

  by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:13:56 PM PDT

  •  i would have preferred

    ... a PRO-PUNISHMENT FOR EVIL SEX choice

    that's what it's really about ... non-procreative sex is EVIL, and pregnancy, along with subsequent child-rearing, is a punishment

    by wystler on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:25:25 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      Children are God's punishment for having sex, and nobody has a right to evade God's punishment.

      They're kind of like little holy ankle bracelets.

      by Irfo on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:54:36 PM PDT

      •  "Little Holy Ankle Bracelets"

        oughtta be on a T-shirt.

        by Powered Grace on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:46:29 PM PDT

  •  the sickness that propagates...

    "Play around?  Tough, have the baby."  

    That particular piece of the rightie mentality is a sickness that spreads itself.

    Having the baby is punishment for having sex.

    OK:  "Hey son (or daughter), you're my punishment."  

    What do you think that does to a kid who's growing up?  And don't think they don't get the message from the nonverbal cues.  

    This is a form of child abuse.  And like other forms of child abuse, it passes from one generation to the next.  

    The cure for this one is simple: every baby a wanted baby.

    And, about those blastocysts, "it's not a life, it's a blob."

    by G2geek on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:56:46 PM PDT

    •  Yup, lots of self-loathing in those folks.

      And speaking of life/blastocyst. Here's a good argument against the . . ."life begins at conception" crowd.

      Often they will say, "Well then, when does life begin if not at conception?"

      To which you can respond, well, both the sperm and the egg were "alive" BEFORE they came together, nothing really changed other than that they are now joined. No life was "created" at that moment. None.

      by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:06:46 PM PDT

      •  what I think is going on is...

        ..."life begins at conception" is all about the idea that the male orgasm is a gift from God, thus the male is participating in a divine act of creation.  

        And so they peg the beginning of life to the event of the male orgasm, or as close to it as possible, namely the fusion of sperm and egg.

        I'm serious about this.  

        by G2geek on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

        •  I think you're onto something n/t

          by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:27:37 PM PDT

          •  spread the meme...

            Thanks, and you can help spread the meme:

            "It's all about life begins with the male orgasm, where for a few brief seconds, men think they are God creating the universe."  

            by G2geek on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 07:50:38 PM PDT

      •  A blastocyst is potential for life

        Until that potential can fulfill itself outside the womb, then there should be decisions made only between a woman, her doctor, and if she believes, her god.  

        No woman can get an abortion at 8 1/2 months pregnant, and from there back until maybe 6 months there should be a sliding scale of availablity, depending upon the woman's and/or fetus's health. Before 6 months, it is not in the state's interest to make decisions for a woman.

        'Not in the state's interest' is not a widely aired opinion. It is in society's interest to have healthy, well educated, well cared for children - wanted children. Women who are unhealthy (including drug addiction), poorly or not employed do not usually make the best mothers.  Freakonomics says that relatively legalized abortion after Roe v. Wade was responsible for the drop in crime in the 1990s - not gun control, booming economy or anything else, abortion was responsible for the crime drop.  I'd say that right there is a major benefit to the state.

        If the state wants women/parents to be responsible for children - as the draconian reduction the welfare rolls seems to indicate, then it is in the state's interest to provide an abortion option.

        by sailmaker on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:31:48 PM PDT

        •  I'm personally pro-induced labor

          in cases of extremely late-stage abortions.

          My one hesitation is that most late-stage abortions involve cases of severe genetic or physical defects -- i.e. cases in which the would-be-baby is going to have a significantly reduced quality of life, if it has a life at all.

          by lemming22 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:34:35 PM PDT

          •  Yes.

            Because amneocintius (sp?) is not available to every woman  at 5 months (nor can every woman tolerate it), if say a sonogram reveals major defects, or fetus death (perhaps due to umbellical cord strangulation) then all options are necessary.

            The availablity of amneocintius gave me the option of planning for my babies. If the results came back negative, then planning for care was an option, positive and the plans went for college. Fortunately, it is the college bills I'm looking forward to. While I would not personally choose abortion, I will defend every woman's decision.

            by sailmaker on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 06:11:52 PM PDT

  •  any pro-lifer willing to made an exception

    in the case of rape or incest is either cynically trying to win votes, or a pro-punishment moralist.

    I vehemently disagree with but nevertheless respect those who believe a pregnancy from an incestuous rape should be carried to term.  It's an unpopular position that nonetheless demonstrates real conviction about a human fetus.

    The mainstream GOP position, otoh, is sheer disgusting, moralizing hackery.

    by thereisnospoon on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:48:26 PM PDT

•  They are all into control.

  If they weren't, they would be handing out contraceptives on every corner.  We know for a fact that better accessibility and correct use of birth control does indeed equate with lowered rates of abortion.  

  Quite frankly, after my own personal treatment at the hands of a health care plan ran through a Catholic hospital system, I believe they are more into control than into being "pro-life", too.

  by tjb22 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:16:26 PM PDT

  •  I don't know

    My aunt is pro-life and for her it really is all about the little babies.

    And she is VERY Catholic too by the way.

    But yeah, I do think that for most, it is about control.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:28:31 PM PDT

    •  I think for policy makers

      its often, if not usually, about control.  I'm sure there are plenty out there who do have their own beliefs and convictions...however, I just don't see such deep expressions convincingly expressed by most politicians.

      by tjb22 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:39:41 PM PDT

    •  is it really so?

      (trying not to sound like you don't know your aunt's mind)

      So your aunt believes that a person whom she doesn't know - a total stranger - should be limited by law when it comes to determining whether a pregnancy should be carried to term? Or does she believe that she'd never consider (or had considered) an abortion for herself?

      I'd tend to want to wager that it's the latter, rather than the former, and that she'd prefer not to judge - either herself or by a codified system of justice acting on her behalf - another human being who's faced with difficult choices.

      by wystler on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:54:01 PM PDT

      •  It's been a while since I talked to her about it

        but when I did, she told me that she had been pro-choice and then she worked as a nurse in a neo-natal (sp?) unit with all the premature babies.

        That experience, she says, changed her mind.

        by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:00:54 PM PDT

        •  perhaps a gig at a battered women's shelter then?

          or maybe a rape crisis counsellor, or a regular social worker whose caseload includes more single mothers on public aid than she can imagine?

          or maybe a pediatric unit at a public hospital that serves medicaid patients?

          funny how warped one's viewpoint can become when one shrinks the world to their own sphere of experience ...

          by wystler on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:34:40 PM PDT

          •  yup. n/t

            by thepdxbikerboy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:10:10 AM PDT

•  What that would start...

  would be an AVALANCHE of girls claiming rape and/or incest. Which would, of course, lead to an AVALANCHE of prosecutions.

  Which might actually eventually increase condom sales.  

  by kmiddle on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:22:05 PM PDT

  •  And...

    All rape prosecutions that fail to result in a conviction will require the victim to be re-impregnated.

    by Zackpunk on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:30:41 PM PDT

  •  How do you "claim incest"?

    I mean, you can say that someone's your 3rd cousin and you just didn't know it at the time, but that can be proven false...

    by pepito on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:19:39 PM PDT

    •  "So I met this guy at a party ...

      ... and we slept together, and then in the morning, we compared names and it turned out that he was actually my second cousin!  How weird is that?  Anyway, I'd like an abortion."

      Yeah, the incest clause seems to have issues -- for one thing, people have a fairly limited number of close relatives, and so you'd basically have to falsely accuse a specific family member.

      by lemming22 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:37:45 PM PDT

•  Good Diary - One Quibble

  and it know it wasn't your phrasing... but you're not technically a mother until you've given birth.

  At least I wasn't.

  That's always gotten under my skin - when they say it's ok if we get an abortion if the mother's life is in danger.

  Phrasing is EVERYthing folks - starting with calling them pro-control, or anti-choice instead of (wretch) pro-life.

  by Alegre on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:38:00 PM PDT

  •  thanks, will edit. n/t

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

•  No, I think you're misreading

  the code.  "wrong" is not a qualifier; it's an enhancement. "choice" is a not good thing in itself, so a "wrong choice" is doubly bad.

  But, just to be clear, every pregnancy is dangerous and potentially life threatening. That's a reality many males don't want to face because, if they did, it would be incumbent upon them to be much more attentive to whom they are impregnating and what measures they should take to compensate a female for that imposition.

  It's much more agreeable to pretend that "she likes it" and go on one's merry way to the next attraction.

  by hannah on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:39:00 PM PDT

  •  But he's not just saying "wrong."

    And he is reserving "choice" for rape and incest.

    In my mind, if there's a wrong choice, there's a right choice.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:46:51 PM PDT

    •  It's all moot for Mitt

      he has no position on abortion that he won't alter to advance his career.

      But what he really believes is that a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion even if her life hangs in the balance.

      by moiv on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:11:33 PM PDT

    •  What I meant to say was

      that Mitt is addressing an audience that doesn't believe in making choices of any kind.  Making choices is bad; doing what you are told to do is good.
      When someone with that mind-set is told to make a choice, they are either terribly conflicted or convinced that, because what they are being told to do is bad, the person telling them must be bad.

      Substitute the words "drink wood alcohol" for the word "choice" and you'll see what I mean.

      by hannah on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 03:56:38 AM PDT

  •  what to do about that...

    Make the males go through it themselves.  

    Ideally, either give them an entactogen (empathy-inducing drug) and make them watch their wives in labor, or have them shove an appropriately-sized object up their rear ends and poop it out again to discover the joys of labor.

    How'bout a law that requires expectant fathers to wear "pregnancy simulators" 24/7, that weigh as much and stick out as far as a real fetus in a real womb?    

    If we can't do it that way, we can try it as part of sex ed classes in highschool.  Have the boys wear an "third trimester simulator" for a week.  After that they will think twice.

    by G2geek on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:01:56 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately, the apparent

      aspects of pregnancy aren't what's life-threatening.  The real issue is whether or not a woman's body is able to sustain the growth of another creature without being permanently injured or even killed.  

      by hannah on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 03:50:48 AM PDT

•  good points

  I've never understood that argument either.  Abortion is the brutal, senseless murder of an innocent child!!!!!!  MURDER!!!!  

  . . .so it's only alright if the child is conceived through rape.  Ok.

  by cardinal on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:40:32 PM PDT

  •  yes, you see

    certain children deserve to be "murdered" apparently.

    Their platform is unclear or incomplete in that regard.

    by Marlboro Lite on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

    •  Fits right in with their foreign policy though

      It's okay to kill kids (or people in general) so long as they aren't rich and white (and maybe even male).

      So lets all bomb some brown kids who're squatting on our oil! </snark>

      Sean

      by whytwolf on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

      •  actually I think you're pretty close to the truth

        My opinion is that the rape exception plays into their racism and fear that their wife/daughter would have to carry a "brown" baby.

        by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:26:27 PM PDT

•  Mitt Romney is

  pro-Mitt.  The consumate opportunist, that's all.

  by marykk on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

•  Excellent points.

  Abortion is either actual MURDER, or it's not.

  If it is, as they claim, then their exception is absurd and amoral.

  But if it's something else -- as these "exceptions" say -- then stop fucking accusing women and their doctors of murder, you pigs.

  by chumley on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:29:03 PM PDT

  •  not necessarily

    You can be against abortion and not think its murder of a human life.  There is a federal statute making it a crime to destroy a bald eagle's egg.  No thinks an eagle is a human life, but Congress has seen fit to give legal protection to a bird embryo. Likewise, Congress or a state legislature could give legal protection to a human embryo, regardless if the embryo is human life or even "alive" in any scientific sense.  Beyond that, Romney's position is to differeniate between pregnancies created as a result of consensual sex and those created as a result of rape.

    Its a valid distinction for two reasons (one ethical, the other constitutional). One, a man's parental obligation arises once he has consensual sex with a woman. After that point, he has no right to refuse child support payments on the grounds he doesn't want the child.  In contrast, a teenage boy statutorily raped by a woman has no child support obligation. With no valid consent, there is no parental obligation.  Likewise, a woman who's consented to sex is responsible for her actions, so its fair to make the distinction between women who become pregnant by their own voluntary actions and those who are coerced into sex.  

    Second, Roe v. Wade was ultimately about guaranteeing the right of rape victims to have an abortion. Jane Roe claimed she was raped and sought an abortion to terminate the pregnancy of her rapist's child. Granted, the plaintiff is now a pro-life activist and says she was lying. Whether she was lying then or now is irrelevant, the court case was litigated on the assumption she was a rape victim.  Thus, the legal question the case presented was, does a rape victim have a constitutional right to an abortion, and the court agreed that she did. Ultimately, that holding is the binding precedent of Roe. Everything else Roe said was dicta because it wasn't relevant to the facts of the case at hand.  

    In other words, if Congress or a state legislature passed any abortion law that restricted a rape victim's right to an abortion, Roe would have to be overturned.  Any other abortion restrictions can distinguished from the Roe case and could be upheld by the courts without overturning Roe.  

    I would note in passing, since any pregnant girl under the age of consent (between 16 and 18 depending on the state) is, by definition, a victim of statutory rape, any law that restricts her right to an abortion is a violation of Roe.

    by Beowulf on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:52:31 PM PDT

    •  Great analysis. Truly.

      But you're confusing my point of view with the most rabid anti-abortion people.  I guess I expressed myself poorly, because I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to.

      When I say "Abortion is either murder, or it's not" what I mean is:  those who claim it is murder, specifically -- and that is what most anti-abortion people claim -- are making a false case.

      They want the moral authority of claiming it's murder, but then they make exceptions where it's OK to "murder."  This makes no sense, logically or legally.

      by chumley on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:41:24 PM PDT

      •  Thank you

        And I didn't mean to pile on you (I should have responded to the diary and not to your comment in particular).

        My only point is that although most anti-abortion folks think its murder, since its possible for someone to be anti-abortion even if they're unsure if its even human life, a rape/incest exception isn't necessarily illogical.

        by Beowulf on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:24:12 PM PDT

•  Rape exception fits male paternity theory also

  The rape exception does indeed speak to the anti-choice need to punish only women who have "illicit" sex, but I think there's something even more primal underlying it. Here's a summary of the section on rape from my May 21st diary Abortion: the Ultimate Insult to Male Authority, which talks about the roots of patriarchy:

  According to patriarchy, a woman's consent to sex or pregnancy is irrelevant, because the overriding concern is that men need to reproduce and ensure it's their children being produced. That’s why it’s acceptable to rape your enemy's women, or any woman that doesn’t "belong" to you, and of course your own wife, but it's never OK for the enemy to rape your wife (or daughter). The fact that rape victims are often treated with contempt and disgrace, sometimes even charged with adultery, or murdered or exiled by their own families, is further proof that women's consent (or lack of) is irrelevant. Under patriarchy, rape cannot be a crime against women, who are chattel - instead, rape is a crime against family honour, male ownership, and the male assurance of paternity.

  In the abortion debate, most anti-abortionists allow exceptions for rape and incest. This makes no sense if all life is sacred, but it fits the male paternity theory perfectly because these pregnancies represent unauthorized paternity.

   

  by choice joyce on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:33:06 PM PDT

  •  Mmm, not quite

    If the pregnancy is the product of incest, wouldn't that be essentially the same as being allowed to rape the enemies women?

    Most incests, I'm guessing, are fathers raping daughters.

    In that case, I think the incest exception is the projection by men of their own patriarchal protection/authority onto other families.

    Okay, so maybe I just proved your point in a round about way.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

    •  the very strong taboo against incest...

      makes it unauthorized paternity when it happens. That taboo is pretty much universal (with odd rare exceptions) and ancient, and may stem from the genetic problems that result from inbreeding.

      Thanks for a great diary btw!

      by choice joyce on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:48:49 PM PDT

•  There are plenty of "pro-life" folks ...

  ...who agree with the premise that there should be no exceptions for rape and incest. 45% of South Dakotans last November voted for that brutal law which would have banned abortion in all cases except to save the life of the woman.

  Therefore, while you can call Romney a hypocrite, it doesn't apply to "pro-lifers" across the board. Some of them are perfectly consistent in this matter. Wrong. Irksome. But consistent.

  by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:44:42 PM PDT

  •  yes very true - wonder if heaven explains this?

    I guess those 100% "pro-lifers" have a higher calling than just ensuring the "right" babies are born - they want ALL babies to be born.

    I wonder if it's because they're perhaps more religiously extreme, and their motivation is to just produce as many souls for Jesus as possible? To them, maybe every abortion represents a tiny lost soul forever denied the chance to go to heaven (now that the Catholic Church has abolished Limbo!).

    by choice joyce on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 03:59:31 PM PDT

    •  I think most denominations ...

      ... generally have an escape clause for newborns and other people who couldn't have had a chance to get baptized.

      IIRC, even a Puritan minister declared that unbaptized newborns were in "the most comfortable part of Hell".  It's been a meme for a long time.

      by lemming22 on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 05:41:23 PM PDT

  •  I am aware of that. I should have been more clear

    by thepdxbikerboy on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 04:14:23 PM PDT

•  There's one other 'exception' most anti-choicer's

  have: 'If the abortion is for ME'.  Good journal, keep it up!

  by docswede on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

  •  I think that is what's at the heart of the

    rape/incest exception. It's when THEY can imagine wanting an abortion.

    by thepdxbikerboy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:11:25 AM PDT