Prohibition of Abortion in Rape: Who is Responsible for the Outcome?
Particularly these days, as a Presidential election is nearing, the politics of abortion is now in the forefront though it always has been a political and religious issue. Even, from an ethics point of view, the debate has been engaged as to whether a fetus was a person and what ethical, if not legal, rights was available for the fetus.. The issue of abortion is usually associated with either disease or injury on the part of the mother or in the case of an unwanted, unintended pregnancy. Another area for consideration of abortion is in the case of rape with an associated pregnancy. Should abortion be an option for the mother if pregnant as a consequence of rape? There are political and religious views which deny such an option for the mother since rape should not lead to the punishment of the fetus for such a criminal act. Yet, one can argue that if the fetus of rape is unwanted by the mother and even by the rest of the family and abortion is not an option, who will be responsible for the continuing of the pregnancy and who will be responsible for the further life of the child when it is born? Some might consider if the responsibility is put on the mother and family that this is simply an ongoing punishment of the mother and family for a crime they did not commit. If the rapist is not the one to assume the responsibility for the result of the crime, do the politicians and religions and others in society who hold that abortion is not acceptable in such a pregnancy, agree that then they are all responsible for the consequences of their dictum including the ongoing management, care and expense of the product of the rape? Making political, religious or ethical decisions and failing to be responsible for the consequences should be open to scrutiny. What do you think? ..Maurice.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 4:58:00 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
To start out in an attempt to answer the question posed for this thread, I present below the pertinent excerpt from the transcript of a CNN Piers Morgan interview with Rick Santorum January 20 2012 21:00 ET as Santorum was awaiting the South Carolina Republican primary voting.
MORGAN: On abortion, you did harden your position on that as you got older. Why was that?
SANTORUM: Life. You know, when I decided to run for public life, I was informed very quickly people wanted to know what my position on that was. So I went through the process of trying to better understand the facts.
It became very clear to me that life begins at conception and persons are covered by the Constitution and since life -- people, a human life is the same as a person, to me it was a pretty simple deduction to make. That's what the Constitution clearly intended to protect.
MORGAN: But do you really -- do you really -- let me ask you this. Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.
SANTORUM: Yes.
MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?
SANTORUM: I would do what every father must do, is to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing.
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: It's an almost impossibly hypothetical thing to ask you, but there will be people in that position, and they will share your religious values.
SANTORUM: It's not a matter of religious values.
MORGAN: And they are looking at their daughter ,saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn't it going to just ruin her life?
SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn't, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created -- in the sense of rape -- but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.
As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
The issue is should the victim be compelled to "make the best out of a bad situation" when the alternatives of the situation are being substantially limited by those who reject abortion in these pregnancy after rape cases? ..Maurice.
Government involvement in personal life decisions does and should have a consequence.
Should individuals be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will, the government should be responsible for the consequences to that individual both in covering all expenses both medical and for the psychological mental health of the mother.
belinda
In addition to what she wrote above, Blinda wrote me the following today which she wanted to have published. ..Maurice.
This issue is a very personal one. I will always advocate for the rights of individuals to make their own decisions. I am a supporter of a woman's right to choose. What happens to the rape victim's mental health when she is forced to carry and give birth to a helpless child that may be repugnant to her (even if she gives it up for adoption)?
The mother of two, I have also suffered two miscarriages. I AM NOT A BLATANT SUPPORTER OF ABORTION AND WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING A DECISION TO ABORT.
Should a daughter of mine become pregnant under any circumstance including rape, I would counsel my child to consider all if she found herself pregnant before making a decision, pointing out the pro's and cons to every choice available.
A product of the 60's I always wondered as a young girl why parents sent their pregnant daughter's away and didn't support them to raise the child? It's a time when a daughter needs her parent most. There was no legal abortion option at that time.
That being said, there are two situations, where abortion (even for the most conservative) should be considered.
Rape and some congenital diseases, for example,(tay sachs) where the baby is born healthy and deteriorates and dies within two years.
THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO LIVE WITH A DECISION AGAINST THEIR WILL IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. It's like they are being raped again by society.
belinda
1Belinda, I understand what you are saying: "they are being raped again by society". The rapist has rejected the woman's autonomous "NO!" to accept the sex act and then after that physical suffering and emotional pain, society has turned around and rejected the woman's autonomous and currently legal right to say "Yes" for an abortion. The rapist no longer has responsibility sitting in prison and society (well, like Santorum remarks} says "it is still her child... and will always be her child" and "[as] a gift of human life..accept what God has given you." My question is whether society can become so blind to the consequences of what they "see" as their ethical conclusions as to fail to accept their own responsibilities in the matter. ..Maurice.
Maurice,
Sadly, the answer to that question is that a faction in society is already blind and they want to make everyone take their position.
Additionally, this same faction is against birth control as well causing an even larger burden on society.
Let's face it. People who have money will go where they must for a legal abortion if that is their choice and the poor won't have that option.
One thing though has changed. It is no longer the ultimate shame to be pregnant out of wedlock.
It makes this issue even sadder.
It's frightening to think but a rape victim who is denied the abortion that she needs to go on, won't. She has another choice if she's desperate enough. She can commit suicide and then she and her unborn child will both be dead. I wonder how that works for them?
belinda
An example of how society while willing to consider "no abortion" legislation to preserve the life of a fetus created by rape is yet unwilling to protect the mother and even the child born by such a law since in 31 states in the United States, the parental rights laws fail to specifically include prohibition of custody and visitation rights to the rapist.
Read the CNN article by Prewitt and click on the link there to her Gerogetown Law Journal article for more on the continuing burden placed on women who elect to continue the pregnancy or cannot have an abortion. ..Maurice.
Being pro-choice, I believe that the law should permit the woman to have an abortion. So, for me, the solution is simple. Not easy, mind you, since an abortion is never a cause for celebration. But, it is simple.
However, I can definitely see the conundrum for those who are pro-life. Were I in this camp, I would agree with Belinda. If the government decrees that the woman must carry the baby to term, then all costs associated with the pregnancy must be covered, if those costs are not already covered by insurance.
This is most definitely true for the scenario that Dr. Bernstein describes, where “The rapist has rejected the woman's autonomous "NO!" to accept the sex act”.
I wonder, though, if the answer would change if we use the “expanded” definition of rape that is popular with some? One example being the categorization of an act, consensual at the time, but given when the woman had been drinking. Not drunk, not passed out, just “under the influence” of alcohol. The claim being that, under such circumstances, the woman is incapable of giving consent.
If I was pro-life, but in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape, I would probably not include the above scenario in that exemption. What other scenarios would I exempt, or include? It all gets very messy, and I doubt that any consensus could be built within the pro-life movement.
This goes a bit off-topic, but I also had a thought when Belinda stated “Should individuals be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will, the government should be responsible for the consequences to that individual...in covering all expenses...”.
Should similar logic apply to a father, who, when informed that his lover is pregnant, requests that she have an abortion? If she refuses, he, too, is “forced to continue a pregnancy against (his) will”. Should that exempt him from financial liability for the child?
Very good point. The answer to this one I think is easy too. Yes, he should be forced to support the child because the father was responsible for making the child.
Let's take this one step further. If the government forces the mother to have the child and she chooses to keep the child, it seems that logic would support the idea that the government support the child as well.
However, if she gives the child "up" for adoption, then the new family would support the child without the government. So, does that mean that the government would try to force the mother to give up the child so they don't have to support it? Or..could the adoptive family ask for support and create yet another burden for society?
This is a mess because the legislation that wants to abandon abortion doesn't make provisions for nor anticipate the consequences of that legislation.
belinda
Another interesting aspect of this thread question is something that is brought up by Shauna R. Prewitt referenced in my comment above who wrote in her Georgetown Law Journal article that since women are expected to find that a baby born out of rape is disgusting or that such a birth is so unwanted that the normal woman would seek an abortion, those who do not and allow the pregnancy to continue are "odd" and in a way a co-conspirator in the rape and don't deserve social help. (At least that is my interpretation of what Prewitt is writing.) Here is what Prewitt writes in the introduction to her law journal article:
Approximately 25,000 women become pregnant through rape each year. In
response, many states have passed special laws, devised streamlined procedures,
or both, to aid pregnant women who seek abortions or wish to place
their rape-conceived children for adoption. However, few states have passed
laws to aid the large numbers of raped women who choose to raise their
rape-conceived children. Without such laws, in most states, a man who
fathers through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that
child as does any other father of a child. Moreover, as a result of this legal
void, raped women and their children are left to face substantial and potentially
terrible consequences. This Note argues that the absence of these laws
stems from the societal images and other rhetoric concerning the pregnant
raped woman that depict raped women as hating their unborn children and
viewing their rape pregnancies as continuing their rape experience. These
societal constructions have created a biased “prototype” of the pregnant
raped woman and of the prototypical rape pregnancy experience by which all
pregnant raped women are judged. Women who raise their rape-conceived
children depart from the prototype and are, as a result, viewed with suspicion.
Legal protections, such as alternate custody rights, are then denied to them
because, being viewed as “imposter” rape victims, it is thought that there is
nothing special about these women or their conceptions requiring any change
in the manner in which custody and visitation determinations are made.
Interesting. What do you think? ..Maurice.
I am pro-choice; I think the best person to judge whether they are capable of bearing and raising a child is the mother, and their partner if the sex is consensual.
To continue on with the idea that the child has a 'right to life'.....what kind of life are we bringing that child in to? Even if the child is adopted to a loving family what will happen - will the adoption be kept hidden from the child? Or will the truth be told, and the child must then have the burden of knowing that they are a product of rape? Will the child be taunted about it in the school playground? What if the rapist has severe congenital disorders that are passed on to the child...is it fair to the child to have to endure this kind of life??
Are we once again valuing life, at any cost??
MC, thanks for moving this discussion also to the impact on the child and in the years beyond childhood regarding the child's origin as a product of rape. Has the psychologic, medical and sociologic aspects of the child of rape been statistically studied rather than simply those children later expressing themselves on talk websites? Those would be most interesting and important statistics and provide an argument for whether there are other ethical values for abortion beyond an autonomous and currently general legal right of the mother to select and have an abortion. ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home