A exchange of ideas in the comment section got me to thinking and I ended up posting an article to another site which I also reproduce here…
An inconsistency came to light in a recent discussion on the abortion issue. As some of you may know, I recently came out as pro-abortion (see collapsed article), but that doesn’t mean I don’t still enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies in the progressive position. In this case my discussion partner was actually a conservative, but the thought he expressed is certainly one that many consider a “main stream” position.
Personally I don’t feel we can make the raped mother morally responsible for the child that results from the rape.
I can’t see many progressives disagreeing with that position. The question now on the table is, if we agree that an exception should be made for rape, and I’m for abortions without restrictions, based on the fact that the woman had no choice in the matter, how does that support the notion that the rest of the nation should be responsible in any way for the product of an act of which they either had no knowledge or actively opposed? Rape is rape and choice is choice, shouldn’t the same rules apply to like situations?
Am I really going to do this? Am I really going to stick my neck out and blog about abortion? Am I really going to try and defend a position that will upset liberals and conservatives alike?
When I started this blog, I promised myself I would use it as a public sounding board for my own thoughts, and if in doing so I alienated every reader of the blog and had no followers, then so be it. Mind you, I’m not trying to alienate everybody, but if I was, a regular abortion essay would probably be the fastest route. As a Republican atheist professor, I’m used to having a minority world view.
The stimulus for today’s essay comes from a letter to the editor in the Orlando Sentinel. It appears to be an attack on Mitt Romney from the right:
Mitt Romney’s current position on abortion appears logically…
View original post 1,925 more words
AaronInvestigates 
Unfortunately it seems I am unable to edit the formatting when copying to a reblogged article.
Yeah, that reblog thing is kind of annoying.
As for your question… I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean here:
“The question now on the table is, if we agree that an exception should be made for rape, and I’m for abortions without restrictions, based on the fact that the woman had no choice in the matter, how does that support the notion that the rest of the nation should be responsible in any way for the product of an act of which they either had no knowledge or actively opposed? Rape is rape and choice is choice, shouldn’t the same rules apply to like situations?”
What do you mean by:
“…how does that support the notion that the rest of the nation should be responsible in any way for the product of an act of which they either had no knowledge or actively opposed?”
I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying there.
If I and a partner have a baby, something which you had nothing to do with, why should you be held morally responsible for the care and feeding of said baby?
Aren’t I essentially raping you and than requiring you to be responsible for my actions?
Ah! Good point. I, being a conservative, obviously would agree that I’m not responsible for that baby. So, I’ll sit back and wait to see how others who think that I am respond.
I confess I don’t understand your point here. If you and your partner have a baby, of course it is only you that is held morally responsible for the care and feeding of said baby. Who said otherwise? The second point is just offensive. Rape is a sexual violation and shouldn’t be used as a euphemism for taking care of a baby. I hope I am completely misunderstanding you here.
I think what he’s saying is that if it’s wrong to force a woman to care for a baby she didn’t choose to have then how is it okay to force other members of society to care for a baby (via welfare, etc) that they didn’t choose to have.
I think he’s aiming this at progressives/liberals.
From what I read on your abortion post, I think you actually agree with this, because you state “that individual human beings cannot be compelled to save another human being’s life.”
And, the only thing that makes abortion different, in your eyes, is that the woman CHOSE to have the baby… EXCEPT in instances of abortion.
And, that is the basis for your belief in abortion being okay in the case of rape. He’s just saying that forcing society to pay for a child (via welfare, etc) they didn’t choose to have would be similar principle-wise to forcing a woman who has been raped to keep her child.
Dang! That’s supposed to read… “EXCEPT in instances of rape.”
I might say forcing you to help me take care of your baby. Rape is no doubt forcible, but the euphemism is repugnant.
I think you mean dyphemism. Euphemism is a word or phrase that intentionally makes things sound better than they are. It’s a dyphemism that is the use of an intentionally harsh word. Saying “You’re raping me” instead of “forcing me to help you take care of your baby” is a dyphemism.
John…always nice to have someone else explain something..sincerely…it suggests that what was said was not completely unintelligible. On another note, in rereading some of my comments, I can’t say that I’m always as clear as I would like to be either.
Moving on…
“rapsheetblog”…John did explain things rather nicely, but let me add on to his explanation and speak to what I see as being a related point.
“Rape is a sexual violation and shouldn’t be used as a euphemism for taking care of a baby. I hope I am completely misunderstanding you here.”
I’ll get to the quote in a minute, but first a time out to explain my position on taking a position using styersbd as an example. Our first encounter occurred some time ago and we certainly did not see eye to eye. It’s now two or three years later and we still have our disagreements, see his comment below, but more often have common ground. Of course he can speak for himself, but my point is that what follows is not meant to be offensive and I think he would agree that the positions I take are not taken lightly.
Having made that disclaimer, due in large part to my belief that conservatives need to work together in an effort to further their common agenda, I now return to the rebuke above with the understanding that I didn’t take it personally. In a leap of faith I’d like to take this opportunity to make a point with the understanding that my intent is not to do harm. Whew…
I don’t think there is any doubt that if I take the two statements as two parts of a whole there is, at minimum, an implication that I have exceeded the boundaries of good taste, possibly exhibited a moral failing, certainly suggested an inexplicable inability to understand the horrific nature of rape, arguably displayed latent misogynistic tendencies, fired a shot in the “war against women”, and/or reverted to the stereo typical neanderthal conservative male who has absolutely no clue as to how (irony alert) sensitive women are.
Obviously, I disagree, and hope that my explanation will satisfy you. The reason I am answering the way that I am, rather than using a much shorter format, is because I wish to speak to an issue on which I place a great deal more importance. You see, in my opinion, what was done here was to misrepresent the point I was making and further to attack my character. This is how progressives do it, and unfortunately with great success, success so great that their premises are accepted as normal and the tactic has bled over into civil conservative discourse.
I’m going to apologize here once again because I mean no harm and certainly do not mean to offend you. I am simply using this opportunity to point out how easily things can go horribly wrong if one is a conservative. Any discussion between a conservative and a progressive quickly degenerates into a situation where the conservative is attempting to defend himself against charges of racism, bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, and the like while the progressive sits back and enjoys the view.
The quote, once again:
“Rape is a sexual violation and shouldn’t be used as a euphemism for taking care of a baby. I hope I am completely misunderstanding you here.”
Objectively, why not? For one thing, we are not comparing rape, we are speaking to who takes care of the child. See how you took the one comparison…child/child…and turned it into rape/taking care of child? Remember, we are addressing the principle of the thing, or at least you were in your article. That principle being:
“Personally I don’t feel we can make the raped mother morally responsible for the child that results from the rape. ”
How is that different from assaulting others who may also have clearly stated their objection to the activity which led to the pregnancy and making them responsible for the child which resulted from that prohibited action? John suggests that you agree with the fundamental premise, and I see no reason to disagree, thus the entire point of this discussion is that you are offended by my use of the one example to illustrate the principle of the other.
My real point in providing this rather long winded response, is that rather than chastising me you should be agreeing with me. The progressives are winning the cultural war by using emotive language and easily understood examples which draw a clear line between good and evil in an understandable way. I don’t agree with their examples or their fundamental premises, but here’s what I said using the same tactics.
Anyone who supports stealing money from one citizen and giving it to another is a thief and no better than a rapist.
That’s what we are up against and progressives have no qualms about comparing an individual crime such as rape to some conservative policy position that may have little to do with it.
Yes, this ended up being a bit of a rant…I hope we’re still friends.
Perhaps the essential point is that you took the who takes care of the child/child comparison and made it into something else.
yep, I didn’t know the word exists. I always used euphemism — didn’t know the dyph-word. Thanks.
Exactly right, CC…
“You see, in my opinion, what was done here was to misrepresent the point I was making and further to attack my character. This is how progressives do it, and unfortunately with great success, success so great that their premises are accepted as normal and the tactic has bled over into civil conservative discourse. ” ….
Obfuscate, distort, divert, distract, straw man and as a last resort tactic — ridicule (ad hominem). That’s what they do, because there is ‘logical’ defense for their position.
So sorry, the word “no” was left out. s/b = “no logical” defense..
Additionally, from the “repost”…
“Instead, this is an essay on whether or not this position – objecting to abortion except when “the life has been created through rape or incest or is a threat to the mother’s life” – is, in fact, “logically inconsistent.” ….
Points to my overall consensus of why abortion cannot be intelligently discussed — because there is no “logic” involved! To the contrary, it is quite the opposite – it’s all about ’emotion.’
Even the legal compromise of ‘viability’ is an emotional decision. Law is about preventing harm; they would naturally have an objective to find a way of saving a potential life under the code of human rights, while simultaneously being obligated in honoring the human rights of ‘priority’ for the mother as a Constiutionally protected free individual. The dichotomy of human rights vs. civil rights and liberties is reduced to an “emotional” value judgment — not a logical one.
Thanks for your comments. I see relevance an everything you said and I particularly hope that my comment was in no way taken as casting aspersions on the author or the related blog. My point was primarily to illustrate exactly what you suggest, that emotional arguments are used against conservatives and they must be rejected and than turned around and used against the progressives by a significant number of conservatives.
Hi CC…
My previous comment was two-fold: one to highlight your observation of the ‘tactics’ they use, and second, to comment on how Progressives try to ‘use’ “logic” as their basis for their opposition, when in fact, it becomes a moot point in an emotional topic.
Some Conservatives do favor the emotional, a compassionate stance regarding the human rights of the life that was just created, but other Conservatives favor a compassionate stance regarding the mother, her Constitutional right to privacy, as well as being the guardian and caretaker of her own body.
I agree that Conservatives need to be more proactive in defeating the argument, imo, by pointing out that the issue cannot be logically or intelligently discussed – because emotionalism always overrides intelligence. 🙂