I don't get the distinction:
House Republicans plan to sidestep a charged debate over the distinction between “forcible rape” and “rape” by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortions.
The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of “forcible rape,” touched off a firestorm of criticism from women's groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central's “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
But a spokesman for the bill's author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.
“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.
[. . .]
But proponents have found themselves on the defensive in the last few days over the phrase “forcible rape” and a decision to grant an incest exemption only to minors. Under the Hyde amendment, which is recodified annually in an appropriations law, women who are victims of any type of rape or incest at any age are eligible for federally subsidized abortions.
I don't mean the difference between "rape" and "forcible rape" which is juse a silly semantics debate. Rape by definition involves the use of force, whether actual physical force or, in the case of statutory rape, the psychological force of an adult mind taking advantage of someone too young to make a sound judgment.
I mean the distinction between fetuses that result from rape or incest and fetuses that result from plain old ordinary, consensual sex. If the argument is that the unborn baby is a person with distinct rights, what difference does it make how that baby was conceived? It had no say in the circumstances of its conception, after all, so why does it deserve less consideration as an innocent human life with all human rights? Doesn't making an exception for rape and incest concede the pro-choice side its point that "women's rights" have to be taken into account and undercut the moral authority of the pro-life side?
This is a question for just the pro-life side to answer, since pro-choice people tend to always be consistent. They are perfectly content to abort all preganancies, whether they result from rape or incest or a condom breakdown in the back seat of a '57 Chevy.
