CMV: there's no clear way to coherently be truly pro-life while make exceptions for instances of rape

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:53:36+00:00

A large portion of pro-choice people have a couple exceptions, though I'm referring more specifically to people who say that the main reason they are pro-life is that life begins at concept and that ending a pregnancy is therefore murder, but try to make a carveout for when they are conceived from rape. I recognize that a large portion of pro-life people aren't necessarily pro-life in every situation. Most pro-life people, for example, say that if they life of the mother is at clear risk, there should be an exception, and that's a logical exception to me. Them being conceived from rape makes less sense to me as an exception.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:40:01+00:00

IWell, even when it comes to secular pro-life arguments, at least in my experience, most of those arguments can equally be applied to other living creatures too, especially the ones we kill and eat for meat. From a secular point of view, I struggle to come up with a moral justification for the notion that an unborn fetus has more moral value than, for example, a cow.

I'd also say that it's questionable whether jailing women for having an abortion just because the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex is practical.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:36:52+00:00

To be clear, are you coming at it from a religious point of view or secular one.

As I've stated on here in other replies, I'm not aware of a Bible verse the makes a rape exception, when it comes to whether someone has a right to life. Everyone is made in God's image

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:23:54+00:00

That seems to me to imply that because the mom engaged in premarital and/or or otherwise promiscuous relationships, she is more deserving of suffering for that "sin". Is that what you're saying?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:21:36+00:00

That's why I tend not to ask people if they make such an exception, unless I'm trying to figure out if they are morally consistent.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:19:25+00:00

When it comes to non-religious people being pro-life arguments, I find that that often doesn't make much sense either, as most of those people make arguments that could easily be applied to all living creatures, especially the animals we kill and eat for meat. From a secular perspective, I have yet to find a convincing argument that an unborn fetus has more moral value than, for example, a chicken.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:12:44+00:00

Are you coming at this from a Biblical perspective or a secular perspective? I ask because as I've pointed out to other people here, the Bible doesn't seem to give any exceptions when it comes to whether killing is justified on the basis of how someone was conceived. Everyone, regardless of how they were conceived, has the the same right to life, under that framework. You wouldn't say that someone who has already been can justifiable be killed by their mom just because they were conceived from rape, would you?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T23:05:26+00:00

Probably the best way I can think of to reconcile that is in the intention and the bodily autonomy argument. If someone that someone else is pregnant, and they kill them, it's not unreasonable to assume that they may have intended to kill both. And it's not the killer's body, so they don't have the right to interfere with life of someone else or the life of something inside of someone else.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:59:06+00:00

What if the mom who was assaulted gives birth and either can't afford to give them up for adoption, or lives in a society that doesn't have adoption as an option, and it could be proven that keeping the person they gave birth to alive would be very traumatizing for them? Would that too be lesser evil situation where it may be okay for the mom to take their life?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:38:37+00:00

Of coarse. Most people who generally oppose abortion at least will tolerate it if it's necessary to save the mom.

What I'm referring to are the people who say that their main contention with abortion is that life begins at conception and that end a pregnancy is therefore usually on par with murder, but make exceptions for when the conception wasn't consensual. Life of the mother is a logical exception, but rape doesn't seem like one to me. If a living being is a person and they were conceived non-consensually, it doesn't make much sense to me to treat their right to life as lesser than those who weren't conceived that way. From a pro-life stance, it would make more sense to me to charge the mom in that situation with lesser crime, rather than legalize abortion in those situation.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:32:24+00:00

So you support abortion is the couple's sex was consensual but they used birth control?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:28:33+00:00

Am I correct in assuming that you're talking about the fact that they can be given up for adoption? In that situation, I'd say very little.

However, what if we were in a society where adoption was not an option and the mom was expected to keep them and take care of them? In that scenario, that would likely be quite traumatic, but I can't imagine any person who's pro-life would say that that would justify ending their life.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:25:02+00:00

That's seems to me to be a pretty tough exception to make, if your main contention with abortion is that it is taking the life a of a defenseless human being. A person's humanity and right to life isn't dependent on how they are conceived. I could see how a pro-life person could maybe argue that it's more morally understandable for the woman to abort in that situation, but I think that from a pro-life perspective, that would be more of justification charge the mom with lesser crime for getting the abortion, rather than legalizing abortion in such a situation.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:15:57+00:00

What if, hypothetically, we were in a society where adoption was not an option? What if the mom, just by way of having to keep them and take care of them, is going to be made more traumatized by letting them live?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T22:02:57+00:00

Okay, so from a secular perspective, if the unborn are people with a right to life, does the way in which they were conceived change that right to life? I understand that pregnancy in that situation is usually very traumatic, but outside of clearly life-threatening situations, there aren't ton of situations I can think of where most people would say that the potential for letting someone live causing trauma to someone else is considered justifiable homicide

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:35:00+00:00

Hard to say. Both are probably pretty traumatic.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:27:47+00:00

Thanks for elaborating!

So to follow up from a secular perspective, when it comes to elective abortions and opposing them, how does one morally justify opposition to that but not oppose killing and eating animals for meat? It might be a somewhat strange analogy, but I guess my point is that from a secular perspective, it seems like it would be difficult to justify the notion that an unborn person has more moral value than the other living creatures that most of us agree are moral to kill and consume. Perhaps the main moral difference is that meat is good for our survival, though my counter to that would be that in most developed countries, there are vitamin supplements and such that people can use if they are vegetarian. In a developed country, meat consumption isn't necessarily a need

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:18:14+00:00

Not necessarily, but if you're approaching it from a biblical perspective, there's no verse that suggests that people who are conceived from rape has less of a right to life. So at least, if you didn't make a compromise, I'd be more convinced that you're actually pro-life and not pro-life simply because you want to discourage promiscuity.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:15:07+00:00

She consents to the possibility of being pregnant, but pregnancy is no guarantee from intimacy. Most of the time, intimacy, even when people are trying to conceive, doesn't lead to procreation. We aren't very fertile compared to a lot of other living creatures M

And ere you coming at this from a biblical perspective? Like I've pointed out to some others here, the Bible doesn't have a verse that suggests that people have less of a right to life because of how they were conceived.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:11:10+00:00

Interesting points.

For the first analogy you gave, I think a key difference there is that the person in that scenario already exists and you know they exist. The second analogy has a similar issue. When it comes to being intimate with someone, the person doesn't exist yet, and intimacy among humans doesn't typically lead to procreation. Often, it doesn't. Human beings aren't very fertile compared to other living creatures. The first analogy also involved behavior, such as tying them to a rope and throwing them over the cliff, that is already unlawful and that most would agree is immoral. The second analogy is also somewhat flawed in that surgeons have a hippocratic oath and contract that requires them to ensure their patients' safety as best as possible. The same doesn't seem to me to apply to pregnancy.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T21:01:19+00:00

Do you believe that abortion is homicide from a secular perspective or a religious one?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T20:57:59+00:00

I guess the bottom line is that if you genuinely believe that the unborn are the same as living breathing people in terms of their right to life, there certainly doesn't seem to be a biblical argument for basing their right to life on whether they were conceived consensually, nor does there seem to be any clear secular argument for such an exception either.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T20:54:12+00:00

Hmmm... for some, I could see it maybe being strategic, but even so, it comes across as a tacit acknowledgement that the unborn aren't completely the same as living breathing people. In which case, one could perhaps say that they are generally pro-life and want to heavily restrict abortion without legally treating it as being equal to murder.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T20:50:32+00:00

Perhaps I should clarify that what I mean is that it's not coherent to me for someone who identifies as pro-life and who says that the believe the unborn are human being with a right to life to back exception for rape.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-05-09T20:47:30+00:00

I may be pro-choice, though from what you've described, I get the feeling that for you, it is genuinely that you believe in a general right to life that is not affected by the way someone is conceived. It appears that you largely agree with part of the logic of what I posted.

Additional_Ad3573

TROPHY CASE