When Representative Todd Akin made his inflammatory remarks regarding abortion — primarily, that “legitimate rape” does not result in a pregnancy — he thrust something else into the national spotlight: the conservative position on abortion. Now, the question of how to treat the unborn is not exactly a new one; in fact, the issue has been plaguing U.S. politics for decades now, especially since the pivotal Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court case. I will not attempt to weigh in on the politics of it, and this article will not lay down a verdict on whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” is the appropriate path for the nation to take — though, like everyone else, I do hold an opinion on the matter. Instead, I want to tackle something that has little to do with the merit of one side or the other: specifically, why the pro-life position cannot make exceptions for rape or incest if it is to be philosophically sound.
This initially seems to be absurd. Indeed, politicians like vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan who have held this view are labeled as extremists and “far-right.” Making exceptions for rape and incest is seen as a tempering of views. Witness current presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s views on the issue: Broadly against abortion, he has made exceptions to this conviction in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Ryan initially opposed abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother; he has since swung to the “center” by joining Romney in permitting the practice following rape or incest.
But the pro-life position, whether you agree with it or not, cannot afford such an unstable policy on abortion. The issue becomes quite simple when you look at it frankly. Pro-life advocates believe that the fetus is a life worth protecting. They do not differentiate between an underdeveloped fetus and a fully developed human; the right to life, they claim, does not hinge on development. Under their framework, abortion is murder. Why, then, would the causes of the conception, however repugnant, be legitimate grounds for murder? Homicide of an innocent third party is never the appropriate response to rape — yet this is precisely what pro-life advocates often concede. This is, I think, something people from both ends of the spectrum would acknowledge: at the point where you believe the fetus is a life, whether that’s at conception or nine months into the pregnancy, you would not tolerate an abortion for any reason other than to save another life. Even pro-choice politicians avoid advocating for murder in response to rape because they believe the fetus isn’t a life yet in the first place. You can either admit a fetus is a life, which under no circumstances should be destroyed, or you can refute that claim and freely allow abortions. There is no middle ground; there is no “life except in cases of rape or incest.”
In cases of incest, the argument is often made that the child would be at risk for severe birth defects. This argumentation falls flat in the face of existing norms concerning disabled people. Simply the possibility of birth defects is not enough to justify making exceptions for incest, and moreover once the baby is considered a life, disabilities or defects cannot — and most would agree should not — impinge on the child’s inherent value as a human being.
It is important to note that this argument says nothing about whether or not it is reasonable to consider a fetus a life. That is not the issue here. The point is that once a politician — or anyone, for that matter — adopts a stance that assigns life to an unborn child, he or she cannot compromise on this position except when the mother’s life is at stake. Some would not even make an exception for the mother’s life; however, I consider this exception highly reasonable. In cases of rape or incest, pro-life politicians are pitting privacy rights against the right to life — the latter must necessarily win out. When the mother’s life is at stake, however, we end up with two competing rights to life. It is reasonable to accept that it is better to save one life than lose two.
What are the consequences of this argument? Pro-choice advocates should no longer label all those who unequivocally oppose abortion “extreme”: Ryan was actually holding a consistent, philosophically sound stance on the issue. For purity of discourse, we should in fact demand this rigor from all who hold a pro-life stance. You may disagree with their conception of life and rights, but you must respect their solid framework. When pro-lifers ignore their philosophical premise, they instead rely on ridiculous claims in order to justify a “no-exceptions” policy; Akin’s comments are a clear example of this. People with Akin’s views should instead argue on the basis of consistency of values instead of using pseudo-science to justify what is in many ways a reasonable stance. As it stands, the pro-life camp cannot survive strict scrutiny of its own philosophical premise because, in its most centrist form, it does nothing less than advocate life while permitting murder. Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan — make up your mind.
Russell Bogue’s column appears on Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.bogue@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 1 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | YesterdayIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
