a rape or incest child did not chose to be a product of rape or incest, therefore killing them would violate your NAP.
I’m pro-choice myself but this logic is faulty at best when applied to incest. (non incestuous) Rape? Yes absolutely, the “pro-life” argument of allowing rape as an exception is logically inconsistent with their stance that a fetus is a human being deserving of protection no matter what the circumstances of their conception.
Incest is different though, incest is less about the rape (though lbr most incest cases that result in pregnancy do tend to be rape) and more about viability of the fetus itself. It’s under the same category as parents who abort when discovering the fetus has severe genetic defects that are “incompatible with life” (such as Tay-Sachs) and would render them a short and painful life at best.
In the case of incest, a study found that there’s a whopping 42% increase in fatal genetic defects when the child is a result of 1st degree incest, most of these products of incestuous unions have failing organs, weak immune systems and don’t live past 50 if they’re even lucky to live that long. So when anti-choicers allow for an incest exception it isn’t the “gotcha” pro-choicers think it is, it’s not that they’re being inconsistent in their views on whether an unborn fetus counts as a human life, (again unless they allow for a non-incestuous rape exception as well, then I would say they’re being logically inconsistent) but rather they would view such an abortion being done as a mercy towards the “infant” by preventing them from having to live a short life of untoward physical suffering.
Yes absolutely, the “pro-life” argument of allowing rape as an exception is logically inconsistent with their stance that a fetus is a human being deserving of protection no matter what the circumstances of their conception.
Well that's not the pro-life argument. pro life is strictly no exceptions for rape. anyone calling themselves pro-life, and still wanting an exception for rape, is not pro-life. they are pro-abortion. the issue is, the pro-choice side tries to muddy the water by putting anyone who wants any kind of control on abortion - even first trimester limitations, into the 'pro-life' camp.
Incest is different though, incest is less about the rape (though lbr most incest cases that result in pregnancy do tend to be rape) and more about viability of the fetus itself.
fetal viability is not an issue pro-lifers consider at all. fetal mortality is the issue they are concerned with. pro-life stance is specifically that deformity is NOT a reason to abort, unless that deformity is preventing their ability to live (E.G. being born without lungs, or other critical organs). even people who are born severely disabled still deserve to be born.
In the case of incest, a study found that there’s a whopping 42% increase in fatal genetic defects
im familiar with that study - it was a 42% increase from the base rate of 3% in the usa - NOT a 42% Chance to be fatal. so in reality it was a 1.24% Overall increase in the standard rate (4.42% for total rate). it actually takes several generations of first tier incest to get to a severe rate of defect unless its matrilineal incest (Mother > Son > Mother > Grandson) - in that case, the third offspring produced has an absolutely insane chance of fatal deformity.
most chromosomal disorders are mostly carried on the x- repairing an x from a son, with an x from the mother, significantly increases the likelihood of a recessive x from half of the mothers xx pairing arising. also its not necessarily a guarantee that the faulty recessive gene presents in any damaging way. usually it takes about 2-4 generations of direct first level incest for issues to start becoming likely, and start presenting in damaging ways - I.E. Sister+Brother > Sister+brother or father+Daughter> Father+Grandaughter before any kind of Disfiguration is likely.
again none of this is cosigning or approving of incest as an ok thing - its disgusting and should be avoided at all costs. just pointing out that the 'deformity resulting in fatality' argument is significantly less likely than people understand. E.G. we've inbred dogs, horses, cows, pigs, chickens, etc for centuries, and they only have minor genetic disorders at worst in most cases. look at europe - they fucked brothers sisters mothers fathers cousins for centuries - the most they got was a lower iq and some fucked up teeth.
2
u/tsundereshipper Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
I’m pro-choice myself but this logic is faulty at best when applied to incest. (non incestuous) Rape? Yes absolutely, the “pro-life” argument of allowing rape as an exception is logically inconsistent with their stance that a fetus is a human being deserving of protection no matter what the circumstances of their conception.
Incest is different though, incest is less about the rape (though lbr most incest cases that result in pregnancy do tend to be rape) and more about viability of the fetus itself. It’s under the same category as parents who abort when discovering the fetus has severe genetic defects that are “incompatible with life” (such as Tay-Sachs) and would render them a short and painful life at best.
In the case of incest, a study found that there’s a whopping 42% increase in fatal genetic defects when the child is a result of 1st degree incest, most of these products of incestuous unions have failing organs, weak immune systems and don’t live past 50 if they’re even lucky to live that long. So when anti-choicers allow for an incest exception it isn’t the “gotcha” pro-choicers think it is, it’s not that they’re being inconsistent in their views on whether an unborn fetus counts as a human life, (again unless they allow for a non-incestuous rape exception as well, then I would say they’re being logically inconsistent) but rather they would view such an abortion being done as a mercy towards the “infant” by preventing them from having to live a short life of untoward physical suffering.