Women are slightly more likely than men to say that abortion should be illegal when the pregnancy results from rape, according to Gallup.
This counterintuitive gender gap holds when the mother’s life is threatened, when her physical health is endangered, when the pregnancy results from incest, and when it is in the last two trimesters. Women also are more supportive of mandatory ulstrasound laws, waiting periods, and parental consent. (Women tilt more pro-choice when the child is disabled, when it is in the first trimester, and when the parents face financial pressures.)
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:24 am
It’s interesting to note that the Republican Platform at least implies abortion should not be permissible in the case of rape. Mitt Romney has said that the Romney-Ryan ticket will not oppose abortion in the case of rape, but Paul Ryan actually has opposed abortion in the case of rape. So Ryan, especially being a Catholic, is almost certain to be asked a tricky question about his personal position now that Romney has declared a position for the ticket that I don’t think Ryan can support.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:25 am
What are the actual percentages regarding the question of rape? Ponnuru does not mention them, and neither did his source. I suspect that it’s within the margin of error, especially given that the percentage can’t be higher than about 20% for either gender.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:35 am
For those who believe that a person, with a right to life, comes into existence at conception, I don’t see how exceptions allowing abortions for rape and incest can be justified. But the fact of the matter is that most pro-life politicians support exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. And the pro-life movement has been happy to embrace them.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:28 am
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
Blessed John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 73.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:36 am
Well-put, John V. That encyclical is inspiring. As relevant now as it was when written almost twenty years ago, it is long, but well-worth reading.
The first time I saw the argument against the rape exception summarized was this text from the Colorado Personhood initiative: “No innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.” (The proposed Colorado Constitutional amendment made it on the November ballot, thanks to a grassroots petition drive!)
And so the truth about the immorality of abortion continues to spread.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:47 am
David Nickol And the pro-life movement has been happy to embrace them.
…under the entirely reasonable logic that some restrictions on abortion are better than none.
August 22nd, 2012 | 12:06 pm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#2
it apeears that 75% of the repsondents think that abortion shoudl ebpermissible in cases of rape.
That’s a very large majority.
The linked aricle appears to very vauge as to the source and the actual numbers.
August 22nd, 2012 | 12:08 pm
Dontcha think Joe Biden will have a tad tougher time with the abortion issue than Paul Ryan. After all, as noted above, a Pope has weighed in to advise Ryan. Who does Biden rely on: let’s think, Charlie Curran?; Frances Kissling?: Father Drinan late of the Society of Jesus, for that needed touch of historical patina? I wouldn’t worry about Ryan at all. Not one skoshi bit.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:11 pm
Not to be overlooked in the discussion of the exception is this ad from Feminists for Life:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/img/cop/ads_PDF/03DeathPenalty.pdf
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:36 pm
…under the entirely reasonable logic that some restrictions on abortion are better than none.
Jack Perry,
Or, as some might put it, those who want to engage in only some baby killing are more virtuous than those who want to engage in much more baby killing. It’s all relative.
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Dontcha think Joe Biden will have a tad tougher time with the abortion issue than Paul Ryan.
ROB,
No, not at all. Biden is already in line with Obama and the Democratic party. He’s not in a position to lose support, even though he is not in line with the Catholic Church. Ryan, on the other hand, is out of step with Romney, and he is in danger of having to soft-pedal what has been up until now an “orthodox” Catholic position.
August 22nd, 2012 | 4:12 pm
David Nickol Or, as some might put it, those who want to engage in only some baby killing are more virtuous than those who want to engage in much more baby killing.
It takes quite a leap of logic to conflate virtue with the ability to represent and/or enact someone’s position, but then again, you took seriously Maximilian’s conflation of honor killing with circumcision defensible, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised as I am.
August 22nd, 2012 | 6:08 pm
David, most pro-lifers would be happy to see an abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. That would ban almost abortions, and most pro-lifers would accept it as a compromise. Unfortunately, Democrats want to continue the federal judiciary’s oversight of all state abortion policy, preventing any sort of compromise on the subject.
August 22nd, 2012 | 6:25 pm
It takes quite a leap of logic to conflate virtue with the ability to represent and/or enact someone’s position . . . .
Jack Perry,
I was only answering in the same vein as many pro-lifers I have been in discussions with. When the suggestion of reaching a grand compromise on abortion is brought up, the response is generally rejected out of hand. There must be no baby killing. Many analogies are made. Would you be willing to compromise and allow some rapes if it could reduce the total number?
If you remember Rick Warren questioning the candidates in 2008, he asked them both when a baby acquired the right to life. Obama made an egregious blunder answering it was above his pay grade, and McCain got great applause by shooting back his answer: “At the moment of conception!” But McCain also supported abortion in the case of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother, and he supported destructive embryonic stem-cell research. If the right to life exists from the moment of conception, you can’t make exceptions. One might even argue that McCain’s position was even more pernicious than Obama’s in a certain sense, because McCain was saying it’s sometimes acceptable to take innocent life.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:35 pm
Mr. Nickel, do you think Biden is on the ticket to appeal to the base? Or is he positioned there to confuse Catholics with respect to the the Roe v Wade hegemony as expounded by the likes of Drinan. Say what you will, I’m awaiting this question and I expect Ryan will knock it out of the ball park. Clarity, like brevity, is a singular virtue.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:50 pm
Is it sometimes acceptable to take human life asks Mr. Nickel. I think he phrases the question not because he believes that all abortion destroys human life but because he wishes to paint Ryan into a corner. But Ryan isn’t an ethics teacher, he is a politician. There is little appetite in the country to ban abortions in these cases. There is no chance of a law being passed that would do so. Finally there is the lawmakers prudential judgement as to how efficacious such a law, if passed would be. But why isn’t Biden, a self proclaimed catholic asked to defend his commitment to abortion night and day. The debate will ensue, with the exception of nuns on the bus, Ryan will carry the day.
August 23rd, 2012 | 7:28 am
I think he phrases the question not because he believes that all abortion destroys human life but because he wishes to paint Ryan into a corner.
ROB,
It is the position of the Catholic Church that a direct abortion, in cases of rape or incest, or even to save the life of the mother, is the unjust taking of an innocent life, and consequently it is the moral equivalent of murder. Paul Ryan is a Catholic, and up until recently, he opposed abortion without exception. He is now running with Romney, who has said the Romney-Ryan ticket will not oppose abortion in the case of rape. It puts Ryan in a somewhat awkward position, although he is no doubt a deft enough politician to minimize any problems in the situation.
August 23rd, 2012 | 1:33 pm
[...] Women Strongest Supporters of Abortion Restrictions in Cases of Rape – Matthew Schmitz, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
August 23rd, 2012 | 3:12 pm
I wonder how the gender gap described is “counterintuitive.”
August 23rd, 2012 | 7:49 pm
Mike P.: Unfortunately, Democrats want to continue the federal judiciary’s oversight of all state abortion policy, preventing any sort of compromise on the subject.
This is a huge overstatement. Many states have adopted rather invasive and burdensome restrictions on abortion. That is more like a compromise, than an outright ban with two exceptions.
August 24th, 2012 | 7:21 am
David Nickol
You are confusing tactics with strategy.
To secure a majority to pass a bill restricting abortion, it is perfectly reasonable to allow amendments restricting its scope, rather than lose the bill.
That is very different to saying that one approves of the amendments in principle.
Politics, after all, is the art of the possible.
August 27th, 2012 | 6:48 pm
To secure a majority to pass a bill restricting abortion, it is perfectly reasonable to allow amendments restricting its scope, rather than lose the bill.
Michael PS,
But there is no negotiation going on over any bill. Ryan has always oppose all abortions, Romney has said the Romney-Ryan ticket will not oppose abortion in the case of rape, and Ryan finds that an acceptable position for the ticket. It would be quite a different matter if they were negotiating to try to get some legislation passed, and they compromised on rape in order to get tighter restrictions somewhere else. But Romney is merely stating a position in advance of any conflict or negotiation. If he is put in a position of having to negotiate, he has weakened his position be declaring he will not oppose abortion in the case of rape when it was unnecessary for him to take a position.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact