OPINION & EDITORIAL
Limiting abortions to rape not realistic
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jamie Shookman:
- State must protect even worst felons (November 29, 2004)
- Osama threat ineffective (November 5, 2004)
- Limiting abortions to rape not realistic (October 22, 2004)
- Citizens set bad example (October 5, 2004)
- Sport weekends underrated (September 20, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Supreme court faces vital test (October 10, 2006)
- Alan Keyes, John Kerry, one faith? (September 1, 2004)
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- Whoa, how the angry have fallen (January 20, 2004)
- Voting for a man, not against one (September 1, 2004)
by Jamie Shookman
Friday, October 22, 2004
Abortion is one of the many issues with which the Bush and Kerry campaigns have sought to distinguish their candidates in an election now less than two weeks away. Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; Kerry opposed it. Bush opposes the use of federal money for abortions; Kerry supports it. Bush wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; Kerry does not.
Yet regardless of their positions, each candidate agrees that certain instances warrant an abortion: cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life. In these cases, the mother has taken no voluntary action to put herself in an undesirable or unhealthy position, and her welfare is therefore placed above that of the unborn child.
With these three exceptions serving as the only justification for an abortion, an array of legal problems inevitably arises, clouding what proves to be an oversimplified solution to the endless moral and legal debate. Rape in particular is a criminal offense that cannot simply be confirmed through DNA testing. Its legal components are multifaceted and must be proven in a court of law or negotiated through a plea bargain. Therefore, in order to allow an abortion through instances of rape, a woman must wait for her case to reach the court’s docket, be heard and adjudicated by a judge or bargained by an attorney. Many states have grossly overfull dockets, and cases take months, if not years, to be heard. Once heard, cases themselves may take months or even years to complete, especially in highly publicized trials such as the Kobe Bryant case.
Furthermore, rape victims that cannot afford a private attorney would be forced to seek a public defender. While private attorneys can choose which cases they try, public defenders typically work in understaffed offices that handle hundreds upon hundreds of felony cases a year. It is unfeasible for rape to be proven in all — or even most — cases before a child’s birth. If there is any chance of a resolution before this point, there is a much smaller chance that one would be reached within the first or second trimester of pregnancy. If such cases are pushed through the system in time, it will place a strain on our already overburdened judicial system and further delay other felony trials.
In the Kobe Bryant trial, the defense found evidence that the victim had had multiple sexual partners in the days surrounding the incident. If the victim had become pregnant, she would have to prove not only that she was raped, but also that the unborn child was the result of the rape and not a different, consensual partner. This must be proven through DNA testing, which can now be performed before birth by taking samples of the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus. Yet, the question of placing the financial burden arises: if the defendant cannot afford the test, should taxpayers fund it? Furthermore, bringing in an expert to verify the results and forgo a cross-examination only adds more steps in deciding whether a woman can legally receive an abortion.
Instances of incest and the mother’s safety don’t involve the same legal battles as rape. Incest can be proven through DNA testing, although the same issue of bearing the financial burden arises and knowledge of the mother’s health can also be acquired through various medical tests. Yet, because rape involves judicial intervention, requiring the expediency of our inefficient legal system in determining the confines of a lawful abortion is naíve and shortsighted. Our courts couldn’t handle the added stress or the diverted attention from other felonies equally injurious to society. If rape is one of three outlets through which one may gain permission to abort a fetus, it is even feasible that it will lead to an influx of rape accusations, more cases to pack already overfilled dockets and an even lower likelihood that any given case will be completed while the child is still unborn.
Abortion rights must be all or nothing. With the technology to perform the operation safely, it would be wrong for science to turn its backs on women forced into pregnancy or a possible fatal delivery. Abortion should be available to all women, and attention should instead be given to assuring its completion as early as possible in the pregnancy and definitely within the first two terms. This approach may not be ideal to hard-line conservatives or Christian fundamentalists, but it is both realistic and necessary in today’s society.
Jamie Shookman (jlshookman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in English and political science.
Josiah (October 22, 2004 @ 4:36am):
A Pro-Life Vote is a Vote for John Kerry.
By supporting choice, fiscal responsibility, healthcare, jobs, and families, John Kerry is the best candidate for office of the presidency and promotes the lives of Americans.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 7:05am):
Of all the arguments I've heard on this topic, yours is one of the hardest to follow. You want abortion available to all women, but attention given to "completion" as early as possible and definitely within the first two terms.
The problem is, after conception and before birth, there is no magical line in the sand as to when life begins. If you agree with the pro-life side that life begins at conception, than an unborn baby has the right to life like anyone else and should be granted those rights accordingly. If, on the other hand, you agree with the pro-abortion side that life begins at birth, then the unborn baby is simply a glob of cells that the mother can remove from her body at any time she chooses- before and after the "first two terms". Unfortunately, you and other politicians try to have it both ways, perhaps because Americans don't want either extreme.
Regardless of your position on abortion, anyone honest with themselves will admit that Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling in that it invented a constitutional right, when that issue (abortion) should be left to the Congress and legislatures as it had been done that way since this nation began. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, if for no other reason than the fact it sets precedent for the Supreme Court stripping power away from Congress and the states.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 7:37am):
Most Americans don't agree with either "birth" or "conception" as the point in which "life begins." A five-month old fetus might not be an infant, but it also isn't a zygote.
The real problem is that we have to impose a binary criterion on a sliding scale. We don't have any good way of doing that; nor do we agree, as a nation, whether the courts or Congress should make this decision. Roe was bad constitutional law, but I think it substantive decision reflects the uncertainty most people outside the hard-core pro life or pro choicers feel about the issue.
Trent Steele (October 22, 2004 @ 8:09am):
I actually agree with Jamie here, aside from time constraints (abortions should be performed within the first two terms, etc), abortions should be an all or nothing proposition. The 3 scenarios cited (incest, rape, or to save the mother's life), are good for Philosophy class, however, it would be interesting to see how this applies to the real world.
There are certainly instances where any of these three apply, however, I do not believe that they are widespread enough to be used to justify abortion. If you listen closely, you will realize that I am actually pro-choice, yet I don't defend abortion using these hypotheticals. Actually, I am quite positive that there are very few children (or abortions) that derived from a rape. The reasons are as such: first, in most instances of rape, ejaculation does not occur. Second, it is standard procedure for rape victims to be administered an anti-ovulent that prevents the egg from being fertilized in either case. Pro-choice advocates need to stick to their guns and justify Roe v. Wade based on personal (woman's right to choose, etc) or practical (limit the amount of unwanted pregnancies, etc.) beliefs rather than these old philisophical stand-bys that are cliched and statistically insignificant.
Rob Deters (October 22, 2004 @ 9:16am):
Jamie - Your argument is, muddled? However you do make one fairly erroneous statement. Rape victims never use public defenders or hire private attorneys (except to sue), they use the prosecutor to carry out their case. The defender defends the accused, not the victim.
Also, while court dockets are pretty slow, rape trials are pretty quick. The Kobe case never went to trial, it was all pretrial maneuvering you saw on TV. And only the highest profile cases get dragged out that long. If a rape trial lasts more than three days, it's truly extraordinary.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 9:23am):
While I agree with your basic premise, your evidence has one major flaw. The rape victim would not need an attorney. This would be a criminal trial and thus a prosecutor would be used. Aside from filing charges and being a witness against the criminal, the victim would not have a role in a criminal trial. If she were to seek monetary damages in a civil suit, then she would need an attorney. They do not give out public defenders for people who want to sue other people, and personal injury lawyers typically do not charge unless they either win the case or reach a settlement with the defendant.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 10:04am):
Rob, you weren't listening. Jamie is referring to a rape victim needing an attorney if she has to have the approval of a court in order to get an abortion should Roe v Wade be overturned. And the "morning after" pill is also on the republican hit-list. By the way, as a date-rape victim, I can tell you that rape, and especially incest, is frequently not reported in time for the morning-after treatment to be effective.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 10:50am):
"In these cases, the mother has taken no voluntary action to put herself in an undesirable or unhealthy position, and her welfare is therefore placed above that of the unborn child."
Has the unborn child taken a voluntary action to put itself in an undesirable or unhealthy position? Didn't think so.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 10:54am):
Roe v. Wade is no different from Dredd Scott; beings are viewed erroneously as property that belongs to other beings. Time will show not only the mistake of the court weighing in on this issue, but also the fundamental flaw in its argument when it chose to.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:55pm):
'Limiting Abortions To Rape Not Realistic'
Abortion-on-demand isn't realistic either, Jamie! Conservatives may not be in their right mind when they come up with half-cocked anti-abortion legislation, but liberals sure as heck don't have a clue as to where to draw the line either. Doesn't anyone want to meet halfway anymore?
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 3:22pm):
In reference to the inference that people can't get the morning after pill soon enough for it to be effective:
While rape victims are just that, victims, I place the blame of underreporting squarely on the victim's shoulders. It's true there's a stigma that goes along with being labeled a rape victim, and more and more the question of motive has been brought up (false accusations); two factors, along with myriad others that may lead someone to not report a rape. But even with all of those factors involved, I find it unacceptable for someone to not immediately report a rape case, and hence not be given the Morning After pill in a timely fashion.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 4:15pm):
In the case of a rape victim needing a trial to determine that she was in fact raped, that would still never involve a public defender. It would be a civil suit with the victim as the plaintiff and the state or federal government as the defendant. Plaintiffs don't get public defenders.
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 7:03pm):
No murder of babies for any reason! American people should be greatly ashamed of the butchering of innocent babies every day. The leftists on the university campus, whether a professor or a student, have not one clue about right and wrong. God is patient; He will judge. As the Bible says, "after death, the Judgement". You will all stand before God someday and your knees will bow to the Him.
Class of 1977 UW grad
Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 7:11pm):
GO TO THIS WEB SITE
http://faculty.southwest.tn.edu/wray/images/2nd%20trimester%20uterus.jpg
JUST SO WE ALL KNOW WHAT A SECOND TRIMESTER FETUS IS ALL ABOUT. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND WALKS LIKE A DUCK IT MUST BE A ......
Joe Stephens (October 24, 2004 @ 1:22am):
Multiple studies show that pregnancy occurs in less than 1% of rapes. The number of abortions due to rape is about 1 in 2500. (see here:http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae079.htm)
A judicial bypass for official rape or incest charges filed by the victim might solve the expressed time delay problem. This provision would be similar to current bypass laws for juveniles. Jamie, attempting to validate the need for or moral correctness of abortion on demand by use of your argument is unconvincing.
Anonymous (October 24, 2004 @ 6:22am):
"A Pro-Life Vote is a Vote for John Kerry."
An old white goat in a boat for mon cheri.
Anonymous (October 24, 2004 @ 3:47pm):
Hey folks, Badger Herald Sports Editor Pat Klemz is sniffing down everyone's IP address. He knows who you are, where to find you, and God only knows if he can find out anything else. That poor lonely fella can't possibly have a social life if he spends all his time sniffing other people butts on the Internet.
Pat, if that's your fix, just tell us. We'll be happy to come down to the Badger Herald in person so you can do it for real!
Anonymous (October 24, 2004 @ 7:28pm):
If your mother was raped, and you were the product of her resulting pregnancy, does that mean you don't deserve to live?
You have to ask "who is the criminal?" to decide who will be punished. I doubt many people will be able to rationalize punishing a child for its father's crime.
Anonymous (October 25, 2004 @ 3:33pm):
How can we, in a day when most Americans know that killing is wrong, still advocate killing babies. Though you may regret the mistake of getting pregnant, that will never justify aborting, aka killing, it. The issue cannot be about the chance to choose what happens to your body anymore than murder is about having the choice to kill bad people or unwanted and dangerous people. Also if a doctor has to make a choice to save a pregnant woman, a mother, this is a medical decision that at times may endanger a baby, however it has nothing to do with abortion and is only being used to pull sympathy from those naturally opposed to this murderous procedure.
