Unconscionable Exceptions
Oct. 11th, 2017 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mangosteen[CW: abortion, rape, and the politics thereof]
I have a theory about why the actively anti-abortion right clings to "abortion is allowed only in cases of rape or incest", and it took me down a different path than I expected.
I have a theory about why the anti-abortion right clings to "abortion is allowed only in cases of rape or incest." I used to think that this was just a cynical play to start moving the Overton Window on the acceptability of outlawing abortion, but now I'm not so sure. On the contrary, I think that it's an ideologically consistent position in and of itself, even if it's one with which I vehemently disagree. Here we go:
1. Rape has been unlawful for a very long time, but until recent history (say, 50-100 years depending on location), it was construed as a property crime. The man owned the woman, and if some other man had sex with her, then a significant part of her value (bearing his children, and his children only) was adulterated (hence, "adultery"). Ergo, rape was unlawful because it was theft plus destruction of property.
2. So, how do you handle a property crime? Aside from whatever criminal punishment is meted out to the perp, you try to make sure that the property gets back to the original owner. But what does that actually mean if the means of "taking" the "property" was impregnation?
3. All of which brings us back to the "rape and incest" exception in some abortion laws. It's completely consistent with a women-as-property view of the world:
- If women are property, then rape is a property crime.
- If rape is a property crime, then abortion is the most direct and obvious way to roll back a transaction involving misappropriated property.
4. I simultaneously feel better and worse for understanding this. Better, because it's a much more rational explaination with something resembling ideological consistency behind it, and if I'm right, it gives me a more useful way to understand the world. Worse, because I know what's at the bottom of that particular rabbit hole. This goes along with idea that the "rules for dating my daughter" list that one sees every now and then only requires a couple of changes to become "rules for borrowing my lawnmower."
I have a theory about why the actively anti-abortion right clings to "abortion is allowed only in cases of rape or incest", and it took me down a different path than I expected.
I have a theory about why the anti-abortion right clings to "abortion is allowed only in cases of rape or incest." I used to think that this was just a cynical play to start moving the Overton Window on the acceptability of outlawing abortion, but now I'm not so sure. On the contrary, I think that it's an ideologically consistent position in and of itself, even if it's one with which I vehemently disagree. Here we go:
1. Rape has been unlawful for a very long time, but until recent history (say, 50-100 years depending on location), it was construed as a property crime. The man owned the woman, and if some other man had sex with her, then a significant part of her value (bearing his children, and his children only) was adulterated (hence, "adultery"). Ergo, rape was unlawful because it was theft plus destruction of property.
2. So, how do you handle a property crime? Aside from whatever criminal punishment is meted out to the perp, you try to make sure that the property gets back to the original owner. But what does that actually mean if the means of "taking" the "property" was impregnation?
3. All of which brings us back to the "rape and incest" exception in some abortion laws. It's completely consistent with a women-as-property view of the world:
- If women are property, then rape is a property crime.
- If rape is a property crime, then abortion is the most direct and obvious way to roll back a transaction involving misappropriated property.
4. I simultaneously feel better and worse for understanding this. Better, because it's a much more rational explaination with something resembling ideological consistency behind it, and if I'm right, it gives me a more useful way to understand the world. Worse, because I know what's at the bottom of that particular rabbit hole. This goes along with idea that the "rules for dating my daughter" list that one sees every now and then only requires a couple of changes to become "rules for borrowing my lawnmower."
no subject
Date: 2017-10-11 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-11 10:45 pm (UTC)The other side of it, which is also not about the Overton window and is about women having agency, is that "rape and incest" mean it wasn't FUN for the woman to get pregnant so that makes it okay to have an abortion. Women shouldn't be having sex for FUN - that's for men.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-12 01:18 am (UTC)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html
TL;DR:
1971 - we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother
1980 - RESOLVED, That we favor appropriate legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.
I wonder what might have happened in those nine years. Politically, perhaps.
no subject
Date: 2017-10-12 11:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-10-14 12:30 am (UTC)