Rape and Abortion

Introduction: I am going to start by clarifying something I probably ought to have earlier. A consideration is considered relevant if it can, in some case, alter the correct outcome of an ethical dilemma. If we decide an abortion was not ethical in a certain case, and after considering rape it is still not ethical, than the consideration was not relevant because it did not help us determine our conclusion. This also applies to abortions that are considered ethical. Therefore, if someone thinks all abortions are wrong or all abortions are right, then rape (or any factor) is never a relevant consideration. This is an extremely absolutist perspective and I am not arguing for it. Instead, I will argue that under the most reasonable ethical analysis of abortion, considerations of rape will not alter any of our results. I expect my opponent with argue that a more reasonable ethical framework will indicate otherwise, but it is of course impossible to predict Kinesis' trickery. Much of the abortion debate hinges on whether a fetus has a right to life. I do not believe it does and will argue my perspective. However, I will also show that if you accept that a fetus has a right to life, the resolution still holds true. Perspective One: Fetus Has No Right To Life This one is pretty straightforward to argue. If the fetus has no right to life, than it does not matter how it was conceived. Aborting the fetus would still be ethical. It would of course be possible to argue that rape would be a consideration if the fetus had a right to life because of rape, but this line of argument is too irrational the be attempted. Perspective Two: Fetus Has A Right To Life As I said in the previous round, many people who otherwise oppose abortion allow exceptions if the fetus was conceived by rape. This is specifically the view that I am trying to refute with this debate. I content that if a fetus has a right to life, then the fact that it was conceived by rape cannot justify killing it. It has been argued that "Forcing [a woman] not to abort is to remind her of the rape day-by-day which would be a serious mental strain" and that the existence of the child would be a further traumatization. I agree that this is true, but is does not undermine the fetus's (supposed) right to life. If we hold that a fetus has a right to life then this is not sufficient grounds to kill it. An adult human being would not be killed for reminding someone that she was raped, even voluntarily. It would be extremely difficult, impossible in my opinion, to argue that one person's life is worth less than keeping another person happy. Any exception argued that could allow the abortion of a fetus conceived by rape would require a moral justification that would allow for abortions in all or nearly all factors, meaning rape would not be the determining factor. For instance, it were somehow (hypothetically) proven that all abortions on Earth are justified by virtue of being on Earth and they are otherwise immoral, rape would not count as a determining factor simply because it falls under this subcategory. The consideration of rape would have to be strongly related to the larger consideration. Conclusion: Now, ethier a fetus has a right to life or it does not. In both of these cases, rape is not a relevant consideration. My opponent may present addition presuppositions about abortion that there may be disagreement on, but the right to life is still a relevant consideration and additional considerations do not represent a third possibility. I am not sure of where Kinesis is going to go with this and I am expecting the unexpected, so I will rest my case for now. My reading comes mainly from here: http://www.iep.utm.edu... But this is not a debate that I feel should be judged on sources. Unless an argument hinges on facts from sources, sources are usually not very useful in purely philosophical debates.