Rape Should Not Be An Exception In Abortion Policy

1. Laws Pertaining to Philosophical Views Pro states that all laws must be based to some extent on philosophical views. He makes this claim as if he is refuting my argument, which is not the case. The entire purpose of my argument was to affirm that when there is philosophical disagreement on an issue such as this one, we must turn to the facts. This is how every law with any significant level of disagreement in society is determined. Facts are what determine how we should proceed on anything. If for example we look at laws pertaining to murder, there is no reasonable disagreement that murder is wrong. Because there is no disagreement there is no reason to argue about it. Society accepts this very basic view, even if it is purely philosophical. As a result murder is illegal and highly punishable. On the other hand consider gun control laws. Some may believe that our freedoms to carry guns are absolute, others believe that they are not. In this case we have disagreement, so we determine our laws by looking at the facts. We look at gun death statistics, we look at safety concerns, etc… Although our views tend to dictate how we interpret those facts, it is still the facts that determine how we handle our disagreements. 2. Property Rights Pro uses an analogy to illustrate his disagreement with my consequence argument. This analogy is of a stranger wandering into a house because the owner left the door open, and will die if he gets kicked out. In it, Pro equates the stranger wandering into a house to a human fetus “wandering” into the womb. First, the stranger in the analogy has a responsibility to protect himself. Wandering around in the cold was his choice, if he dies from it the homeowner is not responsible for that. Second, the stranger is trespassing. Breaking the law is not a good way to win a legal dispute. Third, the state has an interest in not allowing the stranger to stay in the house for the good of society. If strangers were aloud to stay in a house any time the homeowner leaves their door open it would cause havoc. Homeless people would suddenly have a loop hole to stay in other peoples houses just by checking their doors. For these reasons, it is obvious why the homeowner does not have to suffer the consequences of leaving their door open. A human fetus does not have personal responsibility for decision making, it is not illegal for a fetus to enter a womb of the mother, and there will be no sudden influx of fetuses deciding to sneak into mothers wombs everywhere if abortion is outlawed. None of these circumstances apply to fetuses so they can not be used as an accurate comparison for this type of analogy. The other major flaw with Pros analogy in the fact that he equates a women’s decision to have sex to a homeowners mistake of leaving the door open. Any woman who is old enough to have sex understands the possible implications of it. Yet if they became pregnant, they obviously made a conscious decision to take that risk. The consciousness of that decision is what makes the argument of consequence compelling. It is what separates actions from mistakes, and is the basis of the level of punishment in any law. Yet this argument does not apply to a victim of rape. The victim neither made the decision or the mistake. 3. Second Class Citizens Pro claims that legalizing abortion in some circumstances but not others creates a “second class citizenship”. He claims that a person either has the right to life or not, and it is better to keep it simple. I really don’t understand his logic here. This argument sounds like it is intended to fight for the rights of the fetus but according to the argument, legalizing all abortion would be better because it is simpler. If Pro is fighting for the rights of the fetus then how does he justify this? How would killing all fetuses be better? On the other hand if he is not fighting for the rights of the fetus then how do the cons of making it a 2nd class citizen apply to his greater point? Pro should explain. Pro still continues with his point that legalizing abortion only in the event of rape is punishing the fetus for the crimes of the father. Pro makes this argument because he incorrectly asserts that outlawing abortion in the case of rape is intended to take away the fetuses right to life. By comparison, I have a right to life. But if my life depends on another human being to give up their rights, then my life will depend on the choices of that individual. For example; if I need a blood transfusion, I can not have another individual forced to give up their blood because that individual has a greater right to his own body. The fetus depends on the mother to give up her rights to her own body in order to survive. The fetus as well has a right to life, the question is whether the mother should have a greater right to her own body. The only significant factor that separates these two scenarios is that of consequence. The example of my needing a blood transfusion is naturally assumed not to be the result of another individuals conscious decisions. But if suddenly we asserted that it was, then the idea of that individual being forced to give up their own blood suddenly warrants consideration, because they are now responsible for my life’s condition of dependence. Likewise, the mother is also responsible for this condition. In the case of rape she is not. Conclusion None of Pros arguments stand. Pro disregards the fact that a women’s right to her own body is a crucial factor in determining abortion law, and that under certain circumstances rights can be taken away. The very act of outlawing abortion is taking away a women’s right to her own body. Doing so is considered by most to be reasonable only if the woman did something to warrant having her rights removed. This very reasonable argument gives a good reason for abortion to be outlawed, but it does not apply to victims of rape. Strong arguments to justify a law being enacted are what creates laws. When those arguments do not apply to all situations, exceptions are made. That is how all laws are written. Abortion policy is no different.