Rape, Incest and the life of the mother...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The last couple of days have revealed that choice needs to be re-adjudicated on DU, a development as remarkable as an emergent need to re-argue public school integration on an ostensibly Democratic/liberal/progressive web site, but the thing is what it is.

So let's review the typical legislative exception to restrictions on choice... "Rape, incest and the life of the mother."

RAPE and INCEST: It is odious for a raped woman to have to bear the rapists child. It is odious for a daughter to have to bear her father's child. Both instances are, however, much less odious than murdering an innocent child because his father is a bad man. The rape/incest exception is pure politics with no basis in morality. If anyone believes that a fetus is an entity with a right to live then it is irrelevant how the fetus came to be. In our system of law and public ethos you cannot kill someone because it would be traumatic for you to not kill them. Hence a fetus is not 'someone.'

Since the rape/incest exception establishes that a fetus is not a human being then why do we have it?

Simple. Polling and voting behavior. With the rape/incest exception abortion limitations are politically viable. Without the exception they are not. So we have them, even though they render the pro-life position incoherent.

Principled pro-lifers do not accept the rape/incest exception because they believe a fetus is a person.

Hack politicians like Hyde and Stupak accept the rape/incest exception because their interest is playing politics and because their real priority is--apparently--hassling women.

LIFE OF THE MOTHER: The Stupak amendment offers and exception for the LIFE of the mother, not the "health" of the mother.

"Health of the mother" is better than "life of the mother" because it is less restrictive in practice, but it doesn't make a scrap of sense. Why should strong healthy women be required to bring forth children they do not want? Are they communal breeding stock? Is their healthy reproductive capacity state property?

In practice, civilized doctors are expansive about what constitutes the health of the mother. So health of the mother tests face perpetual limitation to exclude "minor" health issues. I's not just RW types who play the limiting the meaning of "health" game. If I recall correctly, President Obama once got into some hot water for implicitly disparaging claims of psychological distress as a legitimate health issue in the context of permitting abortion. (If I do not recall correctly on that point then please correct.)

Anyway, Hyde and Stupak are life or the mother. This is a principled position if you think a fetus is a person... a life for a life. But people do not tend to think through just what LIFE of the mother means.

For instance, if carrying a pregnancy to term will result in a dead baby and cost you the ability to ever have another child that is not LIFE of the mother.

Life means life... to qualify for such an exception you must be facing DEATH. Not sickness, insanity, sterility, poverty or a life-long relationship with some abusive psycho who managed to impregnate you.

Unless the abusive psycho is a parent or other rapist. That's different. Notice that "life of the mother" types usually do allow a psychological distress exception, but only on their own terms. Rape and incest are psychological health exceptions.

But if you have consensual sex with someone who turns out to be an abusive psycho then you are... what? Asking for what you get? Apparently so.

Anyway, life of the mother means L-I-F-E.

[kestrel91316]

1. It is odious for any woman to be forced to bear a child she does not wish to bear.

PARTICULARLY when she took major steps to prevent such child from being conceived in the first place, by using birth control.

I don't get why abortion should be limited to "rape and incest". Seriously, WTF??????

[sandnsea]

2. One can oppose the Hyde Amendment

and accept that it's been the law for 30 years and continues to be and refuse to allow it to derail health care reform.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. you are dishonest

Why invoke Hyde when the topic is Stupak?

Why not invoke the Magna Carta? That's even older.

[sandnsea]

4. Your post describes the Hyde Amendment

Stupak doesn't change that.

Further, the entire problem of abortion policies can be fixed with a mandatory rider on every health insurance policy.

I'm not the one being dishonest here. The women's groups are. They're tryinig to provide complete abortion coverage to all women, and that's an admirable goal. But it didn't work so they need to try another approach.

And I will add - nobody around here gave a crap about women on Medicaid or Medicare for the last 8 years. I never once saw a post about poor women not being able to get abortions. Now they care??? Puhleeze.

It's just political dog-whistling.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Stupak does change that

[sandnsea]

8. Stupak says subsidized policies

can't include abortion services.

I frankly can't even believe any legislator thought they would get away with including abortion services in anything associated with the government. In fact, I was so sure it didn't, that I never even looked to see. In light of Hyde and every other abortion battle, what kind of dingbat includes abortion in federal insurance policy?

In any event, there is still a solution as I've said repeatedly. Now for people who want to sabatoge this plan, abortion is as good a reason as any to do it. For those who don't, the question becomes, why do we not want to back a solution that will work.

[demwing]

5. thank you for this

This is the type of conversation we need to be having - the "Should/Can Hyde be overturned" rather than "Does Stupak Make abortions less legal/accessible."

Stupak simply applies Hyde to the HCR bill.

If you want to get rid of Hyde, that's a fine goal. It would probably overturn Stupak by default, or at least set the precedent. THAT is how this should be approached, but not by turning the HCR bill into a choice obliterating boogey monster.

[Vattel]

6. You should read

Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion." Thomson doesn't believe that a human fetus is a person, but she argues quite plausibly that even on the assumption that a human fetus is a person, abortion in the case of rape or incest may be morally acceptable.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I will make a note of it. Thanks.

[Odin2005]

10. I constantly point out that inconsistancy to anti-choicers and they squirm.

[Jeneral2885]

11. America: home of the

care for the unborn. The "greatest" democracy on earth rest upon some politicians caring for unborn children/life. Yer nationally and internationally, America promotes greed, inequality and strife.