What Are They Saying to the Women of South Dakota?
It's a sad day for women's rights. Although they've still got a long way to go, a clear message has been sent to the women of South Dakota:
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Given that this bill neglects to protect the most vulnerable, the victims of rape and incest, I found this to be ironic:
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
I think it's more wrong to force a girl to have the baby of someone who's raped her. Effectively, this bill says: If you are the victim of incest, and you do not get to a doctor within 24 hours to get a day-after pill (you know, because you can't get that kind of pill over the counter in this country), then the state of South Dakota wants to force you to have the child of the person who raped you.
Unbelievable.
Is it really feasible to believe that all victims of rape/incest will have access to the day after pill in the time that it would take for it to work? Hardly. And what's more, some of those women will face pharmacists who refuse to give them the pill because South Dakota allows its pharmacists to withold medication if the medication conflicts with their moral beliefs.
You ever been to South Dakota? You notice a plethora of pharmacies or overall signs of civilization in that state? Give me a break.
This law assumes that a woman who has been raped has, at a minimum, the transportation and the financial means to make it to a doctor within 24 hours. This is an "economic sanction" of epic proportions.
This is unacceptable. This bill empowers a rapist with the opportunity to force a woman to have his child.
And if the counter argument is: the point of rape is not to get someone pregnant, I would respond: Well is that any reason to put laws in place that would protect such a motive?
A state that empowers rapists. Unbelievable.
Luckily, there are years ahead of this bill. It's just a shame that the immediate result is a message to the women of South Dakota that rapists have more rights than they do.
posted by Tanker311 @ 10:12 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Yah, hey.
That baby DESERVES the death penalty for the crime he/she committed, right?
As Dad said, if you believe the fetus is a person with rights, it's hard to justify punishing it for the crime of its father.
Personally, I have my qualms about not allowing those exceptions. But from a philosophical point of view, it's consistent.
If you both are so concerned about the right of the child (overlooking the right of, you know, the second class citizen known as the mother), then you must be VERY upset that pharmacists can withhold the day after pill.
In doing so, the pharmacist then has the right to deny the woman her chance at not NEEDING an abortion.
What steps do you propose are taken to ammend THAT situation?
And furthermore, there is nothing philosophical about this. What they are saying is: Men have the right to impregnate any woman they want because the law guarantees it.
The law guarantees it.
EXPLAIN TO ME how it can be interpreted otherwise?
This is just sick. I find it insulting.
You need to understand that in giving rights to a fetus, you also give rights to the rapist. IT IS A NECESSARY CONCLUSION. That is philosphy. It cannot be otherwise.
If you guarantee that any impregnated woman MUST have a baby then you also guarantee BY NECESSITY that any man who impregnates a woman can see that woman carry the baby to term because she cannot terminate the pregnancy.
You cannot seperate the two. It's a matter of formal logic.
I know a thing or two about philosophy and what kills me is that people are so quick to overlook the rights of the woman to protect the rapist...errr I mean baby. Sick.
FYI In the time it took you to read this post, somewhere a woman was raped.
Cantankerous, I know how passionate you are about women's rights, but I don't think this can be simply summed up as giving rights to the rapist.
This is a very, very tough situation. There isn't an easy answer. But you have to keep in mind that as much as you see this as empowering the rapist, others, including myself, see the alternative as taking an innocent life. It's unfortunate that the child was created through such a violent and disgusting act, but that doesn't take away from its right to live.
Like I said, this is tough. I wholeheartedly agreed with you when I first read your post and saw that cases of rape and incest were not an exception. But as soon as I saw Dad29's comment I was reminded that there was a child involved here as well, and found that the answer was not that easy.
As I'm sure you will, you can argue against that all you like. Just keep in mind that as much as you wish to advocate for the rights of the woman, others are considering the rights of the child.
It's so very unfortunate that the two can't be fought for at the same time.
Now I think the morning after pill could easily remedy much of the debate. But that comes with it's issues too.
My suggestion: stay out of South Dakota.
What makes you think that the rights of the "child" are more important than the rights of the victim?
Why is it so easy for you three to throw away the rights of the woman?
Because there's a 50/50 chance the "brood mare" might be pregnant with a boy?
Cheap shot. It was. I admit it. The above was a point: That was an irrational statement of "passion."
I'm getting frustrated, Casper, because this isn't an argument of passion, this is an argument of necessities. And it IS as simple as empowering a rapist. If A then B. Or, rather, A = B. If you're not okay with B, then by necessity, you can't be okay with A.
Which is to say, if you're not okay with denying women the access to prevent or end a pregnancy that is FORCED upon them, then you cannot be okay with that bill.
It's a SIMPLE matter of consistency.
If you are okay with that bill, then you are okay with giving men the legal empowerment to force a woman to have his child.
Do I wish that there was never a NEED for an abortion? Absolutely. However, I live in reality. Do I condone people who have abortions because they refused to take responsibility for the outcome of an action they were aware of potentially happening? Absolutely not. Personally, am I against abortion? You betcha.
Should any of the personal judgments I make about abortions and the people who have them extend to a woman who is a victim of rape? I don't think so.
Casper, it can NOT be otherwise: In South Dakota, if you do not allow any woman to terminate a pregnancy that is forced upon her then you allow any man to force a woman to carry his baby.
It's not as difficult as you make it out to be, Casper.
I invite someone to prove this wrong. Because you know what? I want to be wrong. I want there to be a way to end abortion AND protect women's rights. I just don't think you can have it both ways if you do not respect the cases of rape and incenst.
And to your suggestion of staying out of South Dakota: Tell that to the girls who are born there.
Your argument fails Logic 101.
You state that SD "empowers" rapists. That assumes that SD has NO criminal laws about rape.
So let's get past the rhetoric-with-no-foundation here, and go back to basics. There is one victim of a criminal rape--the woman. The rapist does not have "rights," nor "empowerment" to commit the crime.
Similarly, the woman does not have "rights" nor "empowerment" to commit ANOTHER crime--murder of an innocent.
I do not accept your statement: That assumes that SD has NO criminal laws about rape.
In no way does it assume that SD has NO criminal laws about rape.
Whatever criminal laws SD does have about rape do NOT negate the empowerment given if the abortions in question are illegal:
The condition of forcing a raped woman to carry one's child is not affected by the laws that pertain to punishing rapists.
In fact, rape could be punishable by death in SD, and the condition WOULD STILL remain that the rapist is empowered to FORCE a woman to carry his child if she cannot abort it.
Whether rapists are punished or not, the condition will remain the same. To be clear, the empowerment of which I speak is not in the rape but in the forced pregnancy that may follow.
That empowers ANY man to make ANY woman carry his child (if he is so inclined knowing that he may possibly get caught and face whatever laws they may have).
I also do not agree with this statement: Similarly, the woman does not have "rights" nor "empowerment" to commit ANOTHER crime--murder of an innocent.
Here's a little thought experiment for you if you're game. My intention here is to show that your position about abortion is flawed by using your reasoning in another situation: If you are so interested in protecting innocent lives, I wonder, how can you be in favor of the war?
I am for the war, don't get me wrong. I support it 100% However, I accept that there will be casualties in a war. With the way you're arguing, and the value you place on innocent lives and children, it would seem to me that knowing a war will inevitably produce the deaths of innocents would prevent you from ever supporting one. Interesting. See below, I have framed it in the manner of a question:
Are you saying that in the case of war it's okay to commit "murder of the innocent" (to use your term)? But it's not okay to commit "murder of the innocent" in the case of a raped woman?
Because if your argument is that it's always wrong to commit "murder of the innocent" (which is what I've inferred from what you've said) and you know that a war will cause that, then by necessity, you cannot support the war.
(You've shown me that you're not a big fan of utilitarianism by your former argument, so I'm going to guess that you won't claim it as part of your defense and I won't attempt to anticipate an argument or provide a counter argument).
So now you've got me totally confused. Which is it? Is it okay to do things that will result in "murder of the innocent" so long as you think it's okay? Is that the way we should decide things?
The only counter argument I can think of to this is that in a war "murder of the innocent" usually happens by accident, whereas an abortion is intentional.
My response is that the condition of KNOWING that innocents will die in a war but going through with it anyway creates the condition (within moral justification) of intention. It really doesn't matter though because I believe your position is that it's always wrong to kill innocent people.
Anyway, the argument would look like this:
A. Some innocent people will die as a result of any war.
B. It is always wrong to kill innocent people.
If you accept that A and B are true, then the conclusion must be that any war is wrong. I know that you support the Iraq war. So, tell me, what makes it okay for those innoncent people to die?
Post a Comment
<< Home