With Rape On The Rise, South Dakota Governor Signs Bill Banning All Abortion
On Monday, March 6, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill banning all forms of abortion in the Mount Rushmore State, including instances where an unwanted pregnancy was the result of forced and violent rape--with the singular exception of situations where a mother would outright die without an abortion. Too bad he has done nothing to stem the rising tide of violent rapes in South Dakota. As a result, South Dakota should expect a sharp rise in rape pregnancies, about 100 to 200, over the next year.
Irrespective of what one thinks about abortion, or where life begins, or who has the right to choose, or Roe, or Wade or any of that--the thought of your own daughter--an innocent you girl--being forced to give birth to a child that resulted from violent rape or incest--forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term--this is beyond horror.
Here is a page of official statistics on rape in South Dakota for the year 2004 taken from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation:
The problem that the South Dakota law creates is a moral conflict between what society should do, how we as Americans should respond in the face of two kinds of unwanted pregnancy.
In the one hand we are confronted with unwanted pregnancy that results from consensual sex. On the other hand, we are confronted with an unwanted pregnancy that results from a violent crime--rape or incest. We do not as it were, have the luxury of imagining that we live in a world where unwanted pregnancies result only from consensual sex, so long as we also live in a world where rape exists. And so we have both moral situations to confront, both problems to solve.
Now, the South Dakota Governor has concluded that the best way to deal with these two types of unwanted pregnancy is to ban all abortions. He begins by saying that the problem begins at conception. Once there is conception, according to the Governor, well then we have a problem that needs to be solved. The problem is that this form of conception, in his view, has created a life that must be protected--like any other life. Fair enough. I do not agree with that view, but it is important that we see it in full view.
The moral down side of the Governor's view is that by banning abortions he is also condemning the victim of a rape to a form of punishment that seems only to compound the suffering of what is, arguably,the most horrific crime. To be raped and then forced to carry that child to term and deliver that child. In the absence of this anti-abortion law, I cannot imagine any court in the land every condemning a rape victim to this type of punishment. It just makes no sense. And so we have to conclude that the Governor's bill looks at the suffering of rape victims, looks at the forced pregnancies of raped young girls and considers them a morally acceptable downside to this bill.
What, then, is the other side of this moral dilemma?
The other side is to say that the problem actually begins long before conception. What we really should do is talk about reducing unwanted pregnancies before they happen.
The opposing perspective to the South Dakota bill looks at the two types of unwanted pregnancy in my opening example (consensual sex and rape victim) and asks: How can we prevent both of these pregnancies from happening?
The opposition to the South Dakota bill starts with a different premise. It sees the key to lowering abortions not as the introduction of a law that makes abortion a crime, but as the introduction of laws and programs that require states to actively engage in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.
These laws would require all states to provide sex education and birth control to women and men, would require states to reduce their rape rates through preventative interventions and education.
The downside of this approach? Well, in some cases unwanted pregnancies would result in abortion. But in no cases would rape result in forced pregnancy and delivery.
And this brings us to the logical moral question:
Do we as a society believe it is more important to force young girls to carry and deliver the child of the man who raped them or more important to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies as much as possible?
South Dakota has made its choice. It views the unwanted pregnancies of rape victims as morally acceptable. I doubt the country will agree.
© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman