Most anti-choice activists support exemptions to bans on abortions that cover the life or health of the mother, rape, and incest. It's rare for laws criminalizing abortion not to provide exemptions for rape and incest; it's unheard of for them not to provide exemptions for the life of the mother. Such exemptions are arguably inconsistent with anti-choice rhetoric and principles.
Daily Poll: If abortion really is murder, should there be exceptions for the life and health of the mother?
- No, the exceptions are hypocritical. No mother would kill her child to save herself.
- Yes for the life of the mother, no for her health.
- Yes for the health of the mother, no for her life.
- Yes for both the life and health of the mother.
- I don't know.
- I don't care.
Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results
Isn’t “self defense” always a legal defense for a charge of murder?
Self-defense is a legal defense against charges of murder, but not all claims of self-defense are themselves justified. Pregnancy is a complicated case because there is no mens rea on the part of the fetus – it isn’t deliberately seeking the death of the woman. It isn’t quite analogous to a knife-wielding mugger.
So, is it legitimate self-defense to kill a person who is only accidentally, unintentionally, and unknowingly threatening your life? Perhaps, but I think we can all agree that it’s not as obvious and easy of a call as most self-defense examples.
Then we have the whole mother/child dynamic to deal with. How many mothers will kill their child in order to save their own life? Some, but many – if not most – would shudder at the thought. So there are fair grounds for anti-choice activists to regard such an exception as illegitimate on this level as well.
“anti-choice”
Better to call them “Pro-life” than “anti-choice”. Do you want to be called “anti-baby” or “pro-infanticide”? Call the opposition by what it calls itself.
Is the threat to the mother’s life immediate? Is her impending death avoidable by any other method?
Todd,
Pro choice advocates are not anti-baby but opponents to abortion are anti-choice. It is an accurate label.
Is the threat to the mother’s life immediate? Is her impending death avoidable by any other method?
Circumstances vary. Sometimes, death is nearly certain without an abortion. In theory, a woman and child in a life boat might both die unless she tosses her kid overboard. The former is justified if the latter is; if the latter is dubious, then so is the former (working under anti-choice premises about the fetus have the same moral status as a child or adult).
In other circumstances, death is less than near-certain, but still a very real possibility. If you’re ready to make an exception when death is 99% or 100% certain, and not when it’s 5% certain, where would we draw the line? The current situation, where abortion is legal and a woman makes this choice in consultation with her doctor and while weighing all the factors in light of her own conscience, makes the most sense. It certainly makes more sense than the government arbitrarily setting a cut-off at 50% or 60% or something.
The fact that most anti-choice activists are willing to make an exception for the life of the mother, even when death is less than near-certain, is one of the pieces of evidence suggesting that they don’t really completely buy their “abortion is murder” rhetoric. Other exceptions, like for the health of the mother and in cases of rape, make this even more clear.
John is right. Every time a pro-choice woman becomes pregnant and gives birth to the baby, she is, for that pregnancy, “pro-life.” She did not, after all, abort the pregnancy. However, she would not wish to place herself into the group better known as “pro-life.” That group is best described as “anti-choice” because they oppose women having the choice to give birth to the baby or abort it.
Also, I can’t help but notice that many who call themselves “pro-life” are also in favor of the death penalty, so that label isn’t very accurate either in that case.
Question about the poll: Why is there an option for “yes for the health of the mother, no for her life”? I would think that dying would be quite deleterious to a mother’s health.
Sorry if that was unclear. Under this I was thinking of:
1. Cases where the chances of dying were significantly higher than normal, but not so high that she’s likely to die (as in, for example, an ectopic pregnancy).
2. Cases where there might be long-term damage to the mother’s health, but there isn’t much chance of dying.
Granted, it seems unlikely that anyone would choose this, but since the other three logical possibilities were included I thought I might as well drop this in as well.
Thanks for the clarification. Looks like at least a couple people chose that option, assuming it wasn’t just a web bot that followed that link & triggered a vote.
Let’s say you were in a well with a ray gun and there was someone falling from the sky about to land in the well on top of you causing your death. It would be self-defense to vaporize them even though they didn’t intend to threaten your life.
Same goes for a fetus that is threatening a woman’s life.