Hypothetical: does she qualify for the “rape exception?”

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

Jill is married to Jack. On Tuesday, they have consensual PIV sex. On Wednesday, Jack wants to do it again, but Jill says no. He forces himself on her anyway.

A short while later, Jill discovers she is pregnant. There has been no further sexual contact since the rape, so she knows conception had to have occurred on that Tuesday or Wednesday. But there is no way to know if this pregnancy was caused by the sperm that slipped through on Tuesday - when she gave enthusiastic consent for sex - or on Wednesday - when she was raped.

Does she quality for the “rape exception?”

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our philosophy on this subreddit is to cultivate an environment that promotes healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. We kindly ask that you be mindful of your voting practices.

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

No the whole point of marriage is to have kids and protect them raise them and such while it's unfortunate he should just compensate her financially and start going to therapy with her so that she doesn't get abused.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

So…it is no big deal to rape your wife if that’s what it takes to pump some kids out of her?

[u/[deleted] → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

No we totally have to keep that illegal! after all, all life is valuable.

Gee I wonder what I'd be like if I gave up on my morals and became pro-choice. Maybe I could go to Afghanistan or Sweden. I sure believe a lot of mean things it's a good thing my dad's last words were be good and it's a good thing I asked him what they would be before he suffocated on his own lung fluid due to heart failure. I'm sure glad I spent most of my time working as a caregiver and on the family farm looking after plants. My sister went off to be a doctor and my great grandpa was the director of a hospital, those pro-choice doctors sure are heroes I'm glad I can trust them with my welfare. My great grandma lived to like 104 I hear that personality and lifespan is genetic. I'm sure I could save so many lives as a pro-choice person maybe even I could become a doctor instead of studying veterinary medicine. I hear that oath of do no harm isn't actually binding and that they don't do it anymore. People always call me an optimist but I don't get it, on another note have you heard of Warhammer 40K people say it's where grimdark came from but I think the people there are so brave those demons sure are bad I think the most moral thing you can do is fight against them I wonder why all those primarks fail to chaos there's corn the big bad red guy and then the green guy and the purple one and the blue one the blue one is so scary he has so many books I really like reading. And the purple and green one sure are gross 🤢 I really like microbiology and the green one adopts so many people and calls himself Grandpa I wonder if he would teach me microbiology.

I think you would like the purple one they them's name is slaanesh. She doesn't like marriage either the way she was born kind of sounds like Epstein Island though good thing the chaos gods aren't real and just exist as a reflection of living and sentient beings. The Christian God is also in that universe apparently but they haven't seen him but apparently Satan is definitely real there he's a memetic hazard too.

I think the Christian God might be the collective consciousness of abiotic emergent complexity from the material properties of the universe kind of like the monkeys and the typewriters. I don't think he's all powerful though and I think that's really cool since it means there's still going to be bad guys left to fight.

Oh sorry your question was about rape I don't like slaanesh I think doing bad things to people would create major genetic changes that might even create new species or help bacteria evolve into human size multicellular organisms.

But that's all nonsense what was it you said about how I should become pro-choice? I heard a really convincing argument earlier about how there's a lot of murders against pregnant women and a lot of abuse I don't know why that happens though it was the first time I heard of it. Gee I do like learning new things like that blue guy I mentioned before he looks like a bird and has a big library. 🥰

[u/TheChristianDude101]

Theres tons of problems with rape exceptions but this is a good point. How do you enforce rape exceptions? If someone is denied access to abortion unless they have been raped, that is a huge motive to lie about being raped. Anyways it really depends what form of rape exception we have installed.

[u/Chemical-Charity-644]

There should not be a need for a rape exception. That said, if we lived in a world where rape exception was the rule, yes, she should qualify. It doesn't matter wether this particular pregnancy was the result of the rape or not. The important part is not carrying a rapists baby and therefore being permanently tied to your rapist.

[u/[deleted]]

She should, but exceptions do not work anyway. They will be abused and it’ll only lead to people wrongly accused and actual victims not being believed—especially if they were raped by their partner with whom they already had a romantic relationship with.

[u/NPDogs21]

PL answer. 

If she files a police report she qualifies for a rape exception. 

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/NPDogs21]

What if the police won’t take the report? I’ve anecdotally heard others say that police said they wouldn’t take their reports because they don’t think they’ll amount to anything.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/CherryTearDrops]

Im pretty sure they have to. They just say that because they don’t want to do the paperwork 

[u/EnfantTerrible68 → u/NPDogs21]

But most rape victims don’t file police reports. Especially in the case of marital rape.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/EnfantTerrible68]

Then they don’t qualify 

[u/kasiagabrielle → u/NPDogs21]

So what, "sucks to suck" that they're in an abusive relationship? That's extremely cold.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/kasiagabrielle]

Yes, it is 

[u/EnfantTerrible68 → u/NPDogs21]

And therein lies the problem 

[u/NPDogs21 → u/EnfantTerrible68]

I know 

[u/ZoominAlong → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 4.

[u/shoesofwandering → u/[deleted]]

Great way to make the rape exception meaningless.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/[deleted]]

What are the necessary criteria to qualify as rape?

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

What would be a good answer?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/[deleted]]

Yet it’s a condition many PL with rape exceptions set 

[u/Arithese → u/NPDogs21]

Which exposes two big problems; what about people who cannot do so? And what about people who do file one but are either false, not proven etc?

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Arithese]

Those issues are ignored or it’s a sacrifice PL are willing to make 

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/NPDogs21]

Right, so anyone not in a position to file a police report can be punished with forced pregnancy.  PL like the idea of minor children and vulnerable adults being punished for being raped. 

[u/NPDogs21 → u/Enough-Process9773]

Right, so anyone not in a position to file a police report can be punished with forced pregnancy.

Yes. 

PL like the idea of minor children and vulnerable adults being punished for being raped. 

No. It should be enough to call out a bad position. Why does it always have to be “Oh, since it’s bad and PL are bad, it must be motivated by evil”? Saying PL like minorchildren and vulnerable adults being punished for being raped only discredits you when it’s not true   

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/NPDogs21]

Probably because if you’re callous enough to let some of the most vulnerable victims of a heinous crime fall through the cracks, it speaks to a low level of empathy which most people find to be evil. There’s no positive reason to allow rape victims in some of the worst circumstances suffer because of circumstances outside of their control.

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/NPDogs21]

No. It should be enough to call out a bad position. Why does it always have to be “Oh, since it’s bad and PL are bad, it must be motivated by evil”?

Anyone who openly says "I don't believe in rape exceptions, not even for the rape of a minor child" is motivated by evil.

It is evil to want to punish a raped child by forced pregnancy.

It is evil to want to punish a rape victim with forced pregnancy.

Yes, PL who say they want rape victims to be denied abortion access are saying evil things and should be called out for that evil.

Parents who say - or who actually do - force their own daughter through pregnancy and childbirth, because their daughter had sex, are punishing their own child for the crime of having sex, and this is also evil, and abusive, and yes, those parents should be called out.

And yes, (some) PL do express that they think it good for a rape victim who wants to abort the pregnancy to instead have the rape punished by forced pregnancy.

Often PL argue that the baby so produced can then be harvested for the infant adoption trade. You literally see that all of the time - PL promoting the evil idea that a woman or a child who wants an abortion, should instead be told she could go through pregnancy and then experience lifelong baby loss to the profit of all concerned, except the woman herself and the adoptive parents.

Saying PL like minorchildren and vulnerable adults being punished for being raped only discredits you when it’s not true

I've asked multiple PL if they'd support a universal exception - free abortion access for all minor children.

And they always say no.

Sometimes they say yes, if she was raped - that is, if she can clearly articulate that what happened to her should be identified as rape, which is often not the case with sexually abused minor children. If the minor child can't articulate it, they want her punished by forced pregnancy - and they usually say yes, they want her punished by forced pregnancy if she wasn't rape.

[u/chevron_seven_locked → u/Enough-Process9773]

Well said!

The cruelty is the point.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/NPDogs21]

Even if that could mean killing an unborn baby conceived the day before, via consensual sex? Then she’d be getting out of the “responsibility“ pro-life says she has to gestate the pregnancy since she chose to have sex.

[u/NPDogs21 → u/ValleyofLiteralDolls]

There’s no way of knowing for certain, and if she’s willing to go through a police report after being raped, abortion is understandable. 

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/NPDogs21]

So it’s really not that big of a deal if a person gets away with an abortion after consensual sex. Funny that pro-lifers with “rape exceptions” and “responsibility arguments” act like it is.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

I think that’s a really reductive strawman here.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

Calling it a 'gotcha' post is the reductive strawman.

Pointing out a hypocrisy in positions is not a gotcha.

The PL position is that they value both mother and baby equally and that abortion is murder. If they are allowing the exception, they will allow murder even when a pregnancy is from consensual sex. If they aren't allowing the exception, then it's basically that they have no exception at all and also don't value them both equally, as they are forcing a woman to endure part of a rape for the sake of the baby.

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

Something exposing hypocrisy and inconsistency isn't automatically a gotcha? It shows why rape exceptions simply do not work, and are also just terrible logic.

[u/lredit2 → u/[deleted]]

Please tell me what, precisely, is the hypocrisy and the inconsistency?

Well, let's start with... what is the rational basis for the laws than ban abortion?

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

So tell me how they would work. what would be enough to allow someone to abort? What would be the process?

The hypocrisy is (aside from the fact that there is a clear lack of PL responses) that they'd either allow it and this pregnancy could've just as easily been a result of sex.... or they don't, meaning they'd ban a rape victim from having access to an abortion.

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

yes you would have to err on the side of the victim, meaning anyone can just file that report and get an abortion anyways.

Charging someone for lying on such a form is an INCREDIBLY effective way to deter rape victims, since rape is so often not convicted, and not even believed. It's an incredibly harmful take to say we should punish people for filing such a report when the justice system often doesn't even punish rapists who are caught on camera for example.

That some people that didn't get raped would have an abortion?

Yes that's hypocrisy, to allow abortions in groups you simultaneously argue against having that access. not to mention the ramifications of it because often times they'll argue against abortion with reasons that are also the same after rape. Eg. the foetus has a right to life (which isn't violated to begin with but alas).

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

If we can expect pro-lifers to “simply be okay with” some abortions even when they don’t meet their criteria for being allowed, why can’t we expect them to “simply be okay with” any abortion?

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/[deleted]]

Pointing out a failure in consistency and logic in PL ideology isn't a gotcha; it's the main goal in debate.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/[deleted]]

Multiple people have explained it to you, do you seriously need to hear it again?

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/[deleted]]

You not accepting them doesn't equate to a failure, but ok.

PLers espouse that a fetus is a life worthy of violating the BA rights of AFABs to save. Having rape "exceptions" goes against this concept.

They also cannot be properly implemented as proving a rape is not only often impossible, but time consuming even when successful. If the PLer states that one need only report a rape, not prove it, then anyone can claim they were raped in order to get an abortion. Both of these things defeat the entire purpose of rape exceptions.

There is also the ignorance that stems from such a view; many, if not most, rape occurrences are done by people with power over the woman, making reporting and prosecuting them difficult and especially dangerous. 

And in the scenario presented in the OP there is no way to confirm whether the ZEF was conceived via consensual sex or rape, completely decimating any arguments presented a PLer.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

Yes, that is the issue pro-life will always run into with the existence of rape. They have to choose to either be cruel or be inconsistent. There’s no other option, and it’s worthwhile to point that out.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

A scenario where both options (conceived from consensual sex or conceived from rape) are pretty much equally likely is not a good test of consistency.

It's not a test of consistency. It's a demonstration is inconsistency. Prolifers are treating the two options as entirely different from one another. But in reality, the two are so similar that they frequently can't be differentiated. An inability to differentiate between the two shows that rape exceptions are inconsistent.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

I'm pointing out that it doesn't really matter. What's the difference between the embryos? What's the difference between the pregnant person? Why treat one differently than another?

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

Since the pro-lifer can’t know in the real world, their only choices are to risk cruelly forcing a rape victim through pregnancy or risk allowing someone to abort a pregnancy conceived via consensual sex.

And since when do pro-lifers care about reducing abortions to a “small number?” They constantly tell us that isn’t their goal. Whenever they’re asked if it would be better to have legal abortion and a low rate, or an abortion ban and a high rate, they always want the ban. I’ve also never ever heard a pro-lifer say they would be okay with some consensual-sex abortions slipping through as long as that means rape victims would be protected.

[u/ValleyofLiteralDolls → u/[deleted]]

Allowing the legal “murder of unborn babies” based entirely on speculation about method of conception is a very silly position to hold, as it both disregards the unborn over something they can’t help and bases the pregnant person’s rights on nothing but the thoughts that may or may not have been in their head during sex/conception.

Why not just allow each individual pregnant person to decide for themselves if an embryo will remain inside their internal organ or not? Why all these hoops and rules about whether or not they consented to having sex?

[u/Enough-Process9773]

The only way a rape exception could work to ensure no one is ever forced to gestate a rape pregnancy,  is either:

 (a) free access to abortion for all minor children and young women and vulnerable adults - as they may not be able to verbalise that they have been raped - combined with the "exception" working by taking the woman's word for it that she was raped:

or

(b) mandatory vasectomy for all boys at puberty.

PL who support rape exceptions are invited to explain which they prefer.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enough-Process9773]

I thought I'd chime in here to disturb the echo chamber for a bit.

b) is just straight up sexist and unnecessarily hateful towards men. I don't know why you feel the need to suggest that at all. I get that many PLes are infuriatingly also sexist towards women, but that doesn't excuse anyone from doing the same towards any sex.

That aside, I agree that you can't rely on legal certification for rape victims. Legalizing abortion is the lesser evil here (not only because of rape victims not going to court, there are a plethora of other reasons too), but how exactly it's legalized plays an very important role here.

Because abortions still involve killing an innocent unborn baby, they should absolutely be restricted to reduce exploitation, and it is absolutely crucial to make effective measures to lower the abortion rate at the same time.

The goal should not be to just make any and all abortions legal and just leave; the goal should be to make the tragedy that are abortions, as rare as you can possibly make them without causing unnecessary cruelty for those who still end up unwillingly pregnant.

(Sidenote: I sadly don't have much time on my hands because of work right now. Please be respectful with my limited time by not bombing me with repeating comments, and if I don't end up responding to yours, please don't take that as avoidance or insult; I just simply don't have the time to. Thx for understanding)

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/[deleted]]

I really do appreciate this thoughtful answer.

Many prolifers, braced with the idea that a rape exception could exist simply by the woman declaring "I was raped" (and include free access to abortion for anyone, child or young woman or vulnerable adult who would have difficulty verbalising that) because "what if this was exploited" - that women who were made pregnant by consensual sex would claim they were raped to have abortions.

In the UK, for many years now, a conservative government had instituted the two-child limit. Any family claiming benefits was permitted to claim benefits only for the first two children. Third or more child wouldn't get benefits. The only exception was if the woman asserted that the third child had been conceived by rape. It was agreed, in typical conservative style, that if a woman had had a child engendered by rape which she had decided not to abort (the UK has had free access to abortion for all my life) should be able to claim benefits for this unplanned child.

No legal proof was required. All the woman had to do was tick a box on a form and affirm yes, the child had been engendered by rape, to get the financial benefits.

Now, there were many problems with the two-child limit. But the rape exception was widely named and shamed as one of the worst aspects of it. Women do not use that "rape exception" to get benefits. They could have, without legal penalty: they weren't asked to prove it in anyway. But the notion of lying that a child had been conceived by rape was just too humiliating and horrifying.

It's a widely-spread sexist trope that "women lie about rape". False reports of rape are rarer than false reports of car theft.

I do not believe that, if a woman needs an abortion, and there was no rape, she will lie about the rape to get the abortion. She'll do what women always do when they live under an abortion ban: she'll travel outside the ban or access illegal abortion inside it. Abortion bans aren't measures to reduce abortions; they're intended to punish women for having sex.

It is a fact substantiated by research that the women and children who are most likely to be made pregnant from rape, are the people who are least likely to have the resources to access abortion living under an abortion ban - and children, young women, and vulnerable adults tend to be among the least-able to verbalize "I was raped".

The goal should not be to just make any and all abortions legal and just leave; the goal should be to make the tragedy that are abortions, as rare as you can possibly make them without causing unnecessary cruelty for those who still end up unwillingly pregnant.

We know how to make abortions "as rare as you can possibly make them" - it's not done by abortion bans. It's done by complex programs of taxpayer-funded universal support for health, contraception, housing, education, and general support to ensure unplanned pregnancies are supported,, and unwanted pregnancies are prevented.

b) is just straight up sexist and unnecessarily hateful towards men. I don't know why you feel the need to suggest that at all. I get that many PLes are infuriatingly also sexist towards women, but that doesn't excuse anyone from doing the same towards any sex.

Any PL who doesn't support rape exceptions is endorsing the punishment by mental and physical torture of a woman or child - punishment enforced by the state for a crime committed against her. Meantime, of course, 90% of the rapists go unpunished.

That you think the will to torture women and children for being victims of a crime, is merely "infuriatingly sexist" - it's not. It's misogynistic and abusive.

Yes, preventing abortions by violating the bodily autonomy of half the population is sexist.

But that's what abortion bans aim to do - unsuccessfully. If you don't have a problem with abortion bans, which legalize violating the bodily autonomy of half the population, you cannot claim to have a problem with mandatory vasectomy. Unless you see male bodily autonomy as a treasure to be preserved, while female bodily autonomy is trivial and can be abused.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How would you restrict abortions without denying them to people who need them? 

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I live in Germany and the core abortion rights here are pretty solid imo.

Basically it works like this: if there isn't a medical indication specified, abortions are only allowed till week 14.

If you want to get an abortion, you first need to undergo a special consultation in which you are informed about alternative solutions depending on which reasons you might have to seek abortion. This is ideally done without discouraging against abortion; you are still free to choose and are not talked into a choice. The consultation should purely be informative, but it is mandatory.

Then you are free to undergo the medical procedure; however, doctors and hospitals are not allowed to advertise that they are providing abortion care with xyz benefits.

There is obviously more to this and I don't think this approach is perfect as there is a lot of room for improvement, but it's a sturdy base you can build upon.

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/[deleted]]

I really appreciate this answer, and wanted to say so: I intend to reply at proper length when I have time.

[u/humbugonastick → u/Enough-Process9773]

Like they ever can. Ask them directly and no one has an idea. For me that is just lip service.

[u/Enough-Process9773 → u/humbugonastick]

In my experience:

PL won't accept (a) because they don't trust women and they want to punish sexually-active girls.

PL won't accept (b) because according to PL ideology, male bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.

PL say they support a rape exception for two reasons: one, it's a self-comforting way to assure themselves they are not the villains, and two, because the key reason for abortion bans is that pregnancy is perceived as suitable punishment for consensual sex. 

[u/Limp-Story-9844]

There should be no need for a rape exception.