the myth of a "moderate" pro-life movement - thoughts on the rape and incest exception

A friend posted this article on Facebook recently, and I was halfway into a comment on her post when I realized that I'd probably exceed the character limit without ever actually making my point.

She expressed horror that anyone would oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest.  I find the concept of a rape and incest exception is incredibly problematic for a variety of reasons.  Below are three.

1) It would be impossible to implement.

The legal system's response to allegations of rape is far below even remotely acceptable.  Who qualifies for this rape exception?  Women who report?  Women whose reports are taken seriously?  Does the rapist have to be caught?  Convicted? 

Sure, because pressing charges is not amazingly traumatic.  Because cops always listen.  Because judges don't use any possible excuse they can cook up to acquit.

What about incest?  I'm sure those parental notification laws would be really convenient there!

2) It's inconsistent and blatantly misogynistic.

If you fervently believe with all of your conservative, religious heart that abortion is equivalent to murder, of course you want it to be illegal. If you sit around on Tuesday evenings mourning for all the little lost babies (who would all, of course, have grown up to be white, cis, het, Christian Reconstructionist genuises who cured cancer and paved the way for the glorious return of Jesus Christ by retaking both houses of Congress) then of course you're out picketing clinics and harassing women who are foolishly attempting to fend for themselves and be in control of their own lives.

I don't agree with you - I think you're misguided to the point of being evil. But in the land of if...thens, you've got a pretty solid case.

If you believe that abortion is murder, except when the woman in question was victimized, then we need to take you back to logic school.

You have here invoked a hierarchy of evil deeds, in which killing an innocent being is less heinous than continuing the victimization of a rape victim via forced pregnancy. Not an entirely ridiculous premise - people are allowed to have their own values and assign them varying points on the "how horrified this makes me" scale.

Continue down the list, though, and your Horrifying Deed Index looks like this:

1) Most Horrifying: Forcing a rape victim to complete a pregnancy
2) Slightly less horrifying: Murder
3) Not horrifying: Forcing a woman who had consensual sex to complete a pregnancy

The only difference between 1) and 3) is the victim status of the woman in question. We have agreed that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a horrible violation, but ONLY if that woman did not consent to sex. If the woman did consent to sex, then she deserves what we've already termed is horrible. We are punishing women for having consensual sex.

Anyone with any knowledge of rape culture knows that we do this anyway, as a matter of course, but the idea that the rape and incest exception is the more "moderate" position is frankly terrifying to me. If you're a "no abortion, ever" conservative, then you're "extreme" - but this position does make logical sense from some ideological standpoints. The "no abortion for you - you asked for it" conservatives are portrayed as reasonable and accomadating, when in reality their misogyny is just as frightening as that of their arguably more principled counterparts.

3)  It perpetuates the myth of a moderate pro-life movement.

Obviously, or hopefully obviously, I do not believe that abortion rights should be restricted.  But one of the most insidious things about encroachments on reproductive freedoms is that they come in pieces.  No one really believes that abortion should be legal and available BUT all women should have to hear a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the fetus.

The powers that push for those laws aim to chip away at reproductive choice a little piece at a time.  Chip, chip, chip, until the system is so complicated and the regulations so inane that no one will be practicing anywhere in your county, or your state, or the next three, and your choice isn't one at all.

Every single time a new law or regulation or requirement is passed, it takes a little bit of the decision-making power away from women who ought to be trusted to make their own decisions.  And every time we step back and say, "well at least they're not EXTREME pro-life," we're missing the point. 

There are only two positions here - women should be able to make their own choices, or they should not.  Women have the right to decide what is best for their lives, or they do not.  The seemingly gray area in the middle is a lie, and to believe that lie is to fall into a trap that strips our choices and our options away a little at a time, until we have none left.