Illogical morality: Exception for rape or incest raises questions

The right wing of the GOP claims it supports individual responsibility and freedom but proposes legislation which counteracts those values. Conservative legislators and candidates are poised this election season to drastically limit Americans’ individual responsibility and freedom. Rights to self-determination on financial decisions, family size and education opportunities which have existed for decades may soon fall victim to government policy. Rhetoric and moral claims are sometimes persuasive on the surface but are, on close inspection, based on faulty logic.

The issue of abortion is one of those. Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan personify two very different GOP approaches to banning abortion. Romney supports an exception for rape or incest. Paul Ryan supports no exception for rape or incest. Ryan’s policy may well be the more logically moral of the two.

The 2012 GOP Platform states; "…the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” New York Times, 2012/10/26. The Sanctity of Human Life Act, co-sponsored by Ryan, is one of many “personhood” laws introduced in Congress and at the state level. It reads in part; “The right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization.”

Both statements follow the premise that human life begins at conception. Both, a “personhood” law and a constitutional amendment, would redefine abortion as murder, as noted in a Center for Reproductive Rights paper on the Mississippi “personhood” law. Romney’s position, allowing for exceptions, is inconsistent with the GOP platform and with “personhood” laws. Ryan’s position, allowing no exceptions, is consistent.

Logic for banning abortion proceeds from human life begins at conception, to abortion is murder, to all abortion should be illegal. This line of reasoning is logical. However, when an exception for rape or incest is introduced, the logic becomes murky.

An exception for rape or incest presumes some fertilized human eggs may be aborted. The exception in the case of rape or incest is determined solely on paternity. A human egg fertilized by a rapist or in an incestuous relationship, would be legally different from others protected under “personhood” law or constitutional amendment. There is no evidence, I know of thus far, which has established that an egg fertilized by a rapist or in an incestuous relationship is less worthy of life than any other. The reasoning becomes capricious.

To proceed down this dangerous slippery slope of exceptions, providing an exception on the basis of paternity opens a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. A logical progression of reasoning might lead to the conclusion that an adult conceived as a result of rape or incest is inferior. Most rational people would categorically dismiss such logic, but a flawed premise results in flawed outcome.

Conservatives attempt to explain the inconsistency by stating that an exception for incest or rape is logical and moral because a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest did not consent to sex and so is not responsible for the pregnancy. Therefore, she should not be forced to carry the child. A woman who becomes pregnant because she consented to sex, it is argued, is responsible for the pregnancy. Therefore, she should be held accountable and be forced to carry the child. This reason obfuscates the issue by moving the argument to a different realm.

The issue is no longer about protecting human life because we have determined that some lives (conceived in rape or incest) are expendable. It is now about responsibility of the mother. The discussion has morphed from sanctity of life to responsibility.

If the intent is not to protect all human life from the moment of conception, as evidenced by logic which would allow exception for rape or incest, we might wonder if the true intent is indeed punishment and control of women. This harkens back to the archaic notion that women should engage in sex only to procreate or to satisfy their husbands. Women who engage in sexual activity outside of these roles have long been a target for the righteous elements of society. It seems those days are back.

That GOP legislators are seriously striving to ban abortion, many forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization is obvious based on the numerous laws proposed and passed since the GOP took control of the House and state legislatures. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2011 50 states introduced 1,100 health care and rights related laws and provisions. These laws were introduced and supported by GOP controlled state legislatures. By Dec. 2011, 135 of these laws had been enacted. 68 percent of the laws restrict women’s access to abortion services. By May 2011, three “personhood” bills had been proposed by right wing GOP members of Congress, according to th November 2011 issue of Mother Jones. These laws, and the constitutional amendment supported by the GOP in the party platform would essentially outlaw abortion, hormonal birth control (the pill), the IUD, in vitro fertilization and the morning after pill, according to livescience and Planned Parenthood.

When muddled logic is used to obfuscate an issue there is often an underlying truth that the premise, or logic, is itself flawed. In this case, an exception for rape or incest is an illogical bone thrown to mollify and win over those who object to anti-abortion policy which subjects women, who are victims of rape or incest, to further punishment by society. The rationale is not based on logic but on a need to placate in order to further the goal of removing women’s reproductive rights from each individual and placing those rights into the hands of the government.

The logic is suspect, the ruse is clear. In a few days American voters will decide if the right-wing of the GOP will have even more power to take away individual freedom and responsibility by outlawing abortion, many forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization. Candidates who, like Romney, offer the platitude of an exception for rape or incest do not do so for moral reasons. This is a political tactic used to bamboozle Americans into giving up individual freedom and responsibility.

If you like writing about US politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.

Sources and Resources:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr212/text

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/28/us/politics/20120812-gop-platform.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/mississippi-personhood-zygote-federal-law

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/state-attacks-planned-parenthood-1068.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Roe+v.+Wade

http://www.livescience.com/16917-mississippi-personhood-birth-control.html

http://www.christianet.com/abortionfacts/reasonstobanabortion.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html

http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/crr-opposes-mississippi-personhood-initiative

Related Article:

GOP war on women becomes war on families, personhood law and morality:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12939214-gop-war-on-women-becomes-war-on-families-personhood-law-and-morality