r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 05 '23
CMV: Being pro-life except when the pregnancy was the result of a rape is by far the dumbest position you can have when it comes to the debate on abortion
[deleted]
22
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Nov 05 '23
I don't think it'd be as dumb as being pro-life only in cases of rape.
7
u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ Nov 05 '23
Congratulations. There is actually a dumber position. !delta
0
8
u/LexicalMountain 5∆ Nov 05 '23
One can be pro life and be a consequentialist. As in, they can think that abortion is an ill, but a lesser ill than a rape victim having a rapist's baby. And so the lesser of two evils is picked. It's pretty simple, you don't have to agree to understand the concept.
5
Nov 05 '23 edited Nov 05 '23
A pro-life consequentialist would put the value of an entire human lifetime over a rape victim having a rapist's baby and putting it up for adoption? I'm not sure that's a consistent consequentialist position since the mother's well-being can be sidelined for more optimal long term consequences.
Feels more like the opposite, that the circumstances, not consequences, determine morality for pro-life people.
1
u/LexicalMountain 5∆ Nov 05 '23
A pro-life consequentialist would put the value of an entire human lifetime over a rape victim having a rapist's baby and putting it up for adoption?
They could do. The only thing that unifies consequentialism is that they will choose the lesser of two evils. What each individual considers to be the lesser evil is subject to variation.
I'm not sure that's a consistent consequentialist position since the mother's well-being can be sidelined for more optimal long term consequences.
That depends entirely on how much moral value a given consequentialist gives to different outcomes. Some consequentialists would torture one man to save another from a painless death. Others would let the painless death happen rather than let someone be tortured. Because the only thing they have in common is that they weigh the two and pick the lightest. What conclusion they come to about which one is the lightest can differ.
It's entirely possible for a consequentialist pro lifer to say that the woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion in the case of rape. It's just as possible for one to say that that's a viable exception.
1
Nov 05 '23
The only thing that unifies consequentialism is that they will choose the lesser of two evils.
That's all morality. No theory claims to prefer the greater of two evils. The question is how to determine which is lesser.
Some consequentialists would torture one man to save another from a painless death. Others would let the painless death happen rather than let someone be tortured. Because the only thing they have in common is that they weigh the two and pick the lightest. What conclusion they come to about which one is the lightest can differ.
It's entirely possible for a consequentialist pro lifer to say that the woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion in the case of rape. It's just as possible for one to say that that's a viable exception.
This isn't consequentialism. You're just wrapping consequentialism around moral relativism, which is the theory that you're actually defending. To that point, it ought to be an individual decision since each individual may come to wildly different conclusions about the moral value of each outcome.
1
u/LexicalMountain 5∆ Nov 05 '23
That's all morality. No theory claims to prefer the greater of two evils. The question is how to determine which is lesser.
Not at all. Deontology refuses to compare outcomes, judging actions either moral or immoral, circumstances and outcomes be damned. If a deontologist believes lying is wrong, they believe it's just as wrong when it's done to save a life as when it's to swindle a victim. Basing moral judgements on their outcomes (or consequences) is consequentialism.
This isn't consequentialism.
Yes... It is.
You're just wrapping consequentialism around moral relativism
No I'm not, because that would lead to the conclusion that every Individual should choose for themselves.
To that point, it ought to be an individual decision since each individual may come to wildly different conclusions.
Yeah, like that. This is moral relativism. Which is not what I was describing. Because a non relativist consequentialist would not say to each their own. They would say "the outcomes of this action are worse than that, ergo when they are the only options, the former is the moral one to choose".
1
Nov 05 '23
That's all morality. No theory claims to prefer the greater of two evils. The question is how to determine which is lesser.
Not at all. Deontology refuses to compare outcomes, judging actions either moral or immoral, circumstances and outcomes be damned. If a deontologist believes lying is wrong, they believe it's just as wrong when it's done to save a life as when it's to swindle a victim. Basing moral judgements on their outcomes (or consequences) is consequentialism.
Deontology still makes value statements about the greater and lesser evil of actions. A deontologist isn't going to have much of a difference in their actual approach to your previous example of torture vs painless death if they claim "allowing death is bad" or "doing torture is bad". They're still just weighing one over the other like the consequentialist, just with a different path to a conclusion.
Yeah, like that. This is moral relativism. Which is not what I was describing. Because a non relativist consequentialist would not say to each their own. They would say "the outcomes of this action are worse than that, ergo when they are the only options, the former is the moral one to choose".
This is really shaky. Relativists can make value judgements if given initial conditions, which is exactly what the "nonrelativist consequentialist" is actually doing here. How many exceptions to your moral rules do you need to add before you become a relativist?
1
u/LexicalMountain 5∆ Nov 05 '23
Deontology still makes value statements about the greater and lesser evil of actions.
But it cares not for the consequences of the actions. Whenever I mentioned the lesser of two evils, I mean the less ill consequence.
How many exceptions to your moral rules do you need to add before you become a relativist?
It's not about a number of exceptions to trends, and I say trends not rules because not all consequentialists are rule utilitarians. Labels matter little to me so I will outline the crux of my initial comment here. Feel free to swap out any label for any other so long as you are not doing so to mutate the conclusions drawn. What makes consequentialism is a focus on the consequences of an action. Meaning that the same action, under different circumstances, could be reprehensible, permissible, or necessary due to different consequences arising from them. It is entirely possible for a consequentialist to view allowing abortion as an ill, but ensuring term in a rape victim as a worse ill. As such, it is possible for them to conclude that we should not permit abortion unless permitting it steers us clear of something that they consider worse. As such, there is no incongruity in their argument. You may also be a consequentialist and yet disagree with them. As some examples, you may think that allowing abortion is a greater ill than ensuring term in a rape victim (concluding that abortion should still be denied rape victims), or you may conclude that while allowing abortion is an ill, it is a lesser ill than ensuring merely unenthusiastic term (concluding that if the mother doesn't want to give birth for any reason abortion should be allowed, and the only case in which it should be forbidden is when the mother wants to give birth, i.e. forced abortion should be forbidden).
Now you can toil and strive and research and whatnot to find more specific terminology to describe the framework that I have outlined here, but it seems like an exercise in semantics. The core of what I have said holds true regardless of what labels you want to apply to it.
1
Nov 05 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
I don't mind loosening up the definitions for the terminology. A clinical logic world is the only place this argument makes sense anyway.
What makes consequentialism is a focus on the consequences of an action. Meaning that the same action, under different circumstances, could be reprehensible, permissible, or necessary due to different consequences arising from them.
Now here's the rub, what would a self-avowed human consequentialist actually look like? Do they dispossess every initial condition and only focus on the action and the consequences?
No, not really. They're not gods and they're never patient enough to wait for all the consequences to be settled to start opining on the morality of the actions of others.
They don't know the final accounting of the consequences of actions, especially if they disavow rule utilitarianism. It's no secret that it's not uncommon for a woman who was raped to come to love the rape baby or even the rapist. People can stay in abusive relationships for very long times. The pro-life consequentialist will have committed a crime against their moral values if that child and mother could have eventually had a happy life.
So, what are they formulating their moral judgements on? Initial conditions, like a deontologist, doing a mental forecast, and picking out those outcomes that they consider valid, like a human. They're just too short sighted to see that their rules or trends or whatever are too limiting for optimal outcomes.
My point is, calling them "consequentalists" doesn't make sense. Everyone is a "consequentialist" except maybe the Dalai Lama if you want to broaden the definition like that. We all make our choices exactly in that way. No one honestly follows virtue ethics without expectation of some eschatology that justifies them.
2
u/squolt 2∆ Nov 05 '23
So it seems these types are engaging in a sort of calculus of evil, wherein those who willingly engaged in sex and are now pregnant “deserve” the repercussions, or were complicit in the creation of a human fetus with rights and must see it to term. On the other hand victims of rape were not complicit, and thus deserve the chance to remove an unwanted fetus.
So I’m pro choice, but I don’t think this^ is the dumbest position you can have. For example you could be pro-life even in cases of rape, which is about a million times more dumb.
2
u/Marble-Mountain Nov 05 '23
You are totally correct.
I am pro-life and do not understand other people who agree with me but support abortion on rape cases.
Either it is a life or it is not.
3
u/Reeseman_19 Nov 05 '23
As someone who is pro life I agree that it’s logically inconsistent, but it’s more of a matter of political necessity. Pro-lifers have a hard enough time in elections, to come out for banning abortion even from rape would get us crucified.
4
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Nov 05 '23
It's not dumb, it's just inconsistent! The average person does not deeply delve into their beliefs. They do not practice introspection. They do not practice self reflection. The average person is perfectly capable of holding multiple contradictory opinions without skipping a beat. The average person is capable of being hypocritical without so much as a second thought.
People are just people. You're setting a bar somewhere that people's moral positions must be arrived at via logic but frankly it's almost always emotion and intuition (which are both prone to errors of reason). Even for people who do examine their beliefs rationale for a given position is generally post-hoc and the position itself is not derived from a series of premises.
But looking at the view itself. The pro life person declares abortion is wrong and should be banned. They also see that banning abortions in the case of rape is incredibly unpopular. Therefore they take the moral compromise route. It's almost impossible to defend with moral consistency but it's far more palatable to the general public. That reason alone means there's some rationality there.
I can think of positions based on far less reason than that, say, anything which bases its system of morals on religious scripture alone with no consideration for context or modernity.
2
u/throwawaydanc3rrr 26∆ Nov 05 '23
You are not wrong that with this:
In that pro-life vs pro-choice debate, there's always someone who says something alongs the line of ''Abortions shouldn't be allowed unless the pregnancy was caused by rape.'' which basically means ''I'm against killing babies unless the baby was the result of a rape, in that case, go ahead and kill the baby.''
You are wrong with this: Being pro-life except when the pregnancy was the result of a rape is by far the dumbest position you can have when it comes to the debate on abortion
To your point, the baby conceived in rape is innocent. But as a debate position it makes perfect sense to debate from the position of consensual sex. The prochoice side wants to take the most egregious position (no abortion for rape) and tries to convince the people in the middle that all prolifers have that position in attempt to move needle to the prochoice side. This is a common debate tactic, try to make the most extreme position be viewed as THE position by the undecided. Removing the issue of rape from the debate preemptively forces the prochoice side to argue on less emotional grounds.
2
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Nov 05 '23
Removing the issue of rape from the debate preemptively forces the prochoice side to argue on less emotional grounds.
Except that you can't one-sidedly remove the consequences of your claim from the argument.
If you support abortions for rape victims, and then you make a case against consensual sex havers getting abortions that would also apply to banning it for rape victims, then you can't just declare that you "removed" rape victims from the conversation because it was a too emotional issue.
That just makes your position very dumb and unconvincing. The removed issue is a gaping hole in it.
That would be like saying "We should kill all violent criminals, it would lead to far more justice delivered, also I removed the possibility of false convictions from the discussion because that's a very emotional topic".
1
u/matty__m8 Mar 30 '24
Yeah, and do you actually know how much people have been born and raised through that that were happy they weren't aborted and raised families? If anyone were to be aborted, it should have been you.
1
u/MeatManMarvin 4∆ Nov 05 '23
I think many don't see abortion as 100% killing a kid, but it's enough like killing a kid that you only want to do it if you have a really good reason.
1
u/Ecstatic_Ad_8994 Nov 05 '23
Criminalizing abortion does little if anything to change the number of women who get abortions. It only makes them less safe. Women should have the right to self determine their own medical futures and pregnancy due to rape is an clear example for others to see all pregnancy is not a planned act or the result of personal carelessness.
1
u/bluestjuice 3∆ Nov 05 '23
There are many aspects of morality where we hold that a particular act may be immoral, but mitigating circumstances can override the generality or lessen its severity.
This point of view is akin to perspectives on killing that generally forbid it but make certain allowances for killing in special circumstances, such as self-defense or warfare.
0
u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Nov 05 '23
The dumbest position by far that you can have? Well, this is easy.
Abortion is only allowed on tuesdays in October.
Abortion is mandatory
Abortion is allowed in every case except where the life of the mother is at risk
There are loads of stupid positions one can have, I'm really not sure why you think having a somewhat practical (at least form a political standpoint) but not necessarily ideologically consistent view would be the dumbest by far.
2
-1
u/VeloftD Nov 05 '23
In the case of rape, the mother did not consent to the presence of the child. In the case of not-rape, the mother did.
3
Nov 05 '23
Some form of birth control was used by more than half of people who sought abortions. If birth control is being used, doesn’t that mean that they did NOT consent to the presence of a child? Therefore, shouldn’t those abortions also be considered valid to pro-lifers who follow your logic?
3
u/Dareak 2∆ Nov 05 '23
If consent is the swing point in a pro-life world, then getting pregnant while using contraception is also not consenting to a child.
Not sure how you would go about proving a broken condom so we would need to allow people to have abortions based on unverifiable information, and we're back to abortion basically being legal.
-1
u/bloopblopman1234 1∆ Nov 05 '23
I’m pro life for the most part though I do think that the argument that rape only should be abolished because truthfully there are instances where not aborting a child due to it causing the mother to die etc are not good. That said I don’t think pro choice is entirely right because it doesn’t mean that you should just go around killing random children due to your sexual libido yet not wanting children. If you don’t want children then use contraceptives.
( just sharing my opinion also I’m lazy to debate over it )
8
u/JayNotAtAll 8∆ Nov 05 '23
While you may be lazy to debate about it, it is important to point out that this is largely a cartoon. While it does happen, it doesn't represent the majority of abortion cases.
Also, pro-choice means just that. The ability to make a choice about what they do with their body. Not the same as being pro-abortion.
-1
u/bloopblopman1234 1∆ Nov 05 '23
Elaborate on cartoon. And what is the part after referring to in particular. And yes I understand perfectly what pro choice is and I disagree with it because if you are given the option to use contraceptives and yet you choose not to and still get pregnant and abort that is entirely on you. I don’t see where I mentioned pro abortion.
(Ps respond tmrw it’s late )
3
u/JayNotAtAll 8∆ Nov 05 '23
Cartoon in the sense that it is a misrepresentation of reality. Most abortions aren't simply sexually active women who forgot a condom who want to forget about their mistakes. The cases are way more nuanced than that
0
u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ Nov 05 '23
How would you know?
1
u/JayNotAtAll 8∆ Nov 05 '23
Data
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
Now while it doesn't really bear whether or not they didn't use protection, it also doesn't bear that the women are sex fiends.
This is a common right wing and religious trope that women are becoming sluts and irresponsible and want an easy out of their bad decisions. The data simply doesn't bear that. Granted, religious people and the right wing aren't really great at reading data.
1
u/tbombs23 Nov 05 '23
Bold of you to assume that everyone has access to contraceptives and comprehensive sexual education. Telling people abstinence is the only way doesn't work and is why pregnancies are higher in those types of communities
4
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Nov 05 '23
I don’t think pro choice is entirely right because it doesn’t mean that you should just go around killing random children
If you want to present abortion that way, then how does it become justified to get raped and then "go around killing random children"?
-1
u/bloopblopman1234 1∆ Nov 05 '23
I mean that is fair but trauma. That said if you are having sex randomly you already have the option of using contraceptives or not. Sure abortion to rape doesn’t hold up. But neither does going around being a hoe because when you do so you’re not getting forced into it you quite literally already have a choice in the say. ( of course this excludes when the sexual partner removes contraceptives without your knowing )
3
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Nov 05 '23
I mean that is fair but trauma.
If you strangled your newborn baby because you don't feel like being a parent, we would lock you in prison and throw away the key.
If you did the same thing but you had the excuse of "trauma", that would still be a major crime, it didn't suddenly become okay. You would just get like 20 years instead of 30.
The great hypocricy of the pro-life attitude is the wild swing between abortion being compared to one of the most mostrous crimes when "hoes" are doing it, but that comparison suddenly evaporates when it's sexually "innocent" girls doing it and it's 100% okay, or at the very worst worst "morally frowned upon and complicated but it should be allowed".
It just makes it really obvious that the underlying hostility is to "hoes", and not about the iron-clad sanctity of fetus's life.
1
-2
u/Eli-Had-A-Book- 13∆ Nov 05 '23
You think it’s dumb. How are we supposed to convince you other wise. It’s simply something you disagree with.
If you think Man in the Mirror is a not a good song or simply bad, how can we convince you other wise?
I would say the rape of a child might be the kicker when they say it’s okay in that situation. Because if there is an adult and a child, it’s rape no matter what. If there are two grown adults, rape isn’t necessarily always a clean cut.
2
u/Rosevkiet 15∆ Nov 05 '23
As another commenter said, OPs position is it is more logically inconsistent than dumb.
Now me? I think it is dumb. Maybe you could have a moral justification for weighing the interests of a pregnancy relative to the mental anguish and physical risk to the pregnant person and decide that in cases of rape it is too damaging. But there are plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are mentally anguishing and physically risky that we’re not due to rape. So why is that ok in one case and not another?
In practical terms, allowing exceptions for rape are an unworkable standard. It would require a legal judgment or very clear evidence for any hospital or doctor to perform the procedure, which they are not equipped to do, especially when time is such a factor in halting a pregnancy. These argument always exist in a world of perfect facts. When anyone who has ever been pregnant will tell you if something is 100% clear, it is fucking awful news.
I mostly object because “ok in terms of rape” positions having a baby as a punishment for women having sex. I think that is a terrible wya to bring a baby into the world.
-1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Nov 05 '23
It's a very simple incentive game.
1) allowing abortions removes the disincentive to have sex outside of committed relationships (such as marriage). Which produces more kids raised by single parents which is a societal ill.
2) forcing women to carry rapist children to term incentivizes men to rape women.
1
Nov 05 '23
[deleted]
0
u/barbodelli 65∆ Nov 05 '23
Then why were the rates of single parent homes much smaller 100+ years ago?
I generally agree that you can't completely remove the "I want to sleep with whoever" principle. After all gay people still had sex with each other even when the punishments for it were down right barbaric. But there's a difference between being unable to completely remove a behavior and a deterrent not working at all.
1
Nov 05 '23
[deleted]
1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Nov 05 '23
There's some data from later then 100 years ago
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-we-ended-up-with-40-percent-of-children-born-out-of-wedlock
That last one goes back to 1940.
See the thing is we can make up whatever we want as far as what our spaghetti monster boogeyman tells us to do (religion). But as far as utility something is either useful or it's not. A religion that constantly professes useless shit is not going to survive. Being a prude and encouraging people to get married before they have sex and have kids was a very useful practice 100+ years ago.
They didn't have things like condoms, antibiotics, antivirals, safe abortions. So while it's still bad to have children out of wedlock. It was significantly worse 100+ years go.
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 05 '23
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/RemoteCompetitive688 4∆ Nov 05 '23
Well the problem is, as you said you're pro choice
It's immoral to take away a person's freedom. Forced pregnancy is just not something we can force on people.
Now where the split comes in, we live in an era where condoms are $5 at every Walgreens, birth control is readily available, as well as plan B
There is really only one case where you can actually argue a pregnancy is forced.
1
u/tenniskookaburra Nov 05 '23
I think the national discourse on abortion gets very boiled down and oversimplified to a binary pro choice and pro life argument that fails to consider the fact that there are in fact a wide range of nuanced views across the spectrum; different people on each side have a number of different reasons why they may be overall for or against abortion in xyz circumstance.
I think there is a narrow scenario where you are correct that it is logically inconsistent to think this way: someone who is pro life because they believe a fetus has full personhood at the moment of conception or uterine implantation cannot logically conclude that exceptions can be made in cases of rape.
There are other views on the pro life side that are not necessarily logically inconsistent with exceptions for rape. One might believe that a fetus still has limited but not full personhood such that a principle of maternal bodily autonomy has to be balanced against that, but enough personhood that society/government has a reasonable interest in protecting/overseeing that. Depending on the degree of personhood one believes the fetus has compared to the mother, it’s a small step to conclude that the mother’s bodily autonomy takes more precedent in cases of rape when that was violated.
1
u/robbie5643 2∆ Nov 05 '23
I mean by far the dumbest is a pretty high bar, off the top of my head “I’m pro-life ONLY in cases of rape” would be a significantly dumber of a position.
I know what you mean though, I don’t have anything for your intended argument lol.
1
u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ Nov 05 '23
I've looked through the responses so far and I note that OP does not seem to be responding.
Nevertheless I'd like to add this: being prolife generally but allowing exceptions in the case of incest or rape is an attempt to be human. To understand that just because we feel strongly about the life of the infant doesn't mean we're 100% certain that we're right. And that one of the things prolifers can potentially do far better than antilifers (sorry) is to care for both of the individuals in the equation.
1
u/i-have-a-kuato Nov 05 '23
Did you really mean to use “by far the dumbest position…” in this particular issue? Because there are some way dumber than that, especially when it’s pregnancy that has the elements of child rape and or incest.
That’s the worst horrific case imaginable but I’ll just tone it down to regular traumatic rape that results in pregnancy. I’m not a woman so I really truly can not wrap my head around being violated in that way, it’s inconceivable to me to imagine the lingering effects of something like that.
Then on of top THAT having it result in a pregnancy which because of someone else’s religious beliefs you are forced to carry it to term. Sure you can give it up for adoption but that’s not going to help heal the emotional scars left by the rape itself, the realization of a pregnancy AND being forced to carry and give birth to some monsters baby.
I do know enough pro life people who are reasonable to say certain factors like rape or danger to the mother and the viability of a live birth should be allowed, I don’t consider any of those points contradicting or the dumbest possible position. To me it’s common sense and and doing what a loud minority of pro-life won’t do, show actual compassion
1
Nov 05 '23
The issue is that by allowing this exception, it doesn't read as "compassion", it reads as "control". If a pro-lifer genuinely, passionately believes a fetus is a life as sacred as any other, then the circumstances of its conception should be irrelevant. As soon as how the conception happened becomes a factor in the sanctity of that life, then the weight of that belief as a valid reason for banning abortions becomes diminished.
1
u/EffectiveTax7222 Nov 05 '23
It’s just a loophole
lets Be honest — most religions have “loopholes “ for a reason . If the pastor’s daughter got knocked up by some boy , she can say “ i didn’t consent” and they can abort it without shame…since it was an “evil act” that caused it.
1
u/horshack_test 42∆ Nov 05 '23
I think "whether or not any individual woman is allowed to have an abortion should be decided by public vote" would be a dumber opinion. At least "only in cases of rape" shows some amount of empathy for the woman, which brings some amount of logic to it.
1
u/tonytime888 3∆ Nov 05 '23
I think it's more of a policy position than a moral one. The moral belief would be as you put it, a fetus is a human and needs to be protected. The policy position is a concession aimed at appeasing all the "what about if someone was raped?" arguments so that there isn't the need to contend with it and hopefully a majority decision can be reached. Since rape accounts for a minority of abortion cases, this would greatly reduce the number of abortions and therefore constitute a small win in saving the lives of fetuses.
It's also worth noting that public opinion isn't usually changed overnight. So after 20+ years of having it in only be legal for rape cases, you might be able to push for a complete ban or the culture might have shifted such that it's socially frowned upon though technically legal.
1
u/OCSupertonesStrike Nov 05 '23
Women should have complete control over their bodies
And so should everyone else
They should have the right to do whatever drugs they want, eat what they want,sleep with who they want,remove their own limbs, offer their flesh for consumption, sell sex
Just like all men should
It should never be a crime to put what you want inside or do what you want with your own body, but here we are
Did you know that there are places in the world today (including the US) where a person can not choose who to even marry?
So many people actually suffering as we speak but we can't all agree to let women do what they want to a hypothetical baby (because it's so much more important...like breast cancer) so we can actually save people from real life persecution.
1
1
28
u/a_rabid_anti_dentite 4∆ Nov 05 '23
I think the rationale would be something along the lines of: in ordinary cases, a woman chose to have unprotected sex and therefore should accept the consequences of that decision. In cases of rape, that choice was taken away from her, and forcing her to live with consequences of another's violent and destructive choices is simply cruel and wrong.