That's, of course, a valid concern. But IMO, that doesn't justify late-stage abortion. The main argument would be the ubiquity of morning-after pills and pregnancy tests.
Also, it is noteworthy that only a very small fraction of abortions are done because of rape. [1]
Don't most people hold that "two wrongs don't make a right"? In Hindu view abortion no matter the reason, except to save the mother's life, incurs strong negative karma.
Everyone agrees that rape is wrong, whereas ~80% of the US believes that abortion is okay under some circumstances (~30% under ANY circumstance).
The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions, so now we are going to have rape victims attempting to end their daily reminder of their rape, end up with a crooked back-alley doc butchering them. Many would consider that a wrong as well.
If abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, which is what the pro-life side asserts, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. Its important to understand where opponents of your view are coming from otherwise there will be a communication disconnect which helps noone.
I'm aware that many pro-life proponents anchor their beliefs in the idea life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, but many (more?) people believe differently. I'm sympathetic to the concept that "abortion is murder" and anyone with that viewpoint should be 100% on board for doing everything we can to reduce the need for abortion, such as robust sex-education starting at an appropriate age (12 or 13), availability of contraception and counseling to discuss concerns, ... (these measures reduced abortions in Colorado). Unfortunately, many pro-lifers are also against contraception and sex education, and other measures which would reduce the need for abortions, which muddies their underlying intentions, and leads many to believe that their primary concern has more to do with controlling women and inflicting their religious beliefs on others.
If we assume there is an underlying intention, maybe we shouldn't assume that the anchor of their beliefs is in the idea that life begins at conception. The question I would ask is what outcomes they want to have and what negative outcomes they want to avoid. A lot of religious views seems to me to be anchor to the old view that children only life support is their family, and thus the most critical aspect is the focus on a core family that guaranties that the child will survive. There also seems to be a bit focus on inheritance and family lines, issues which is not trivial but significant less than when much of those religious text was written.
> The reality is that this won't stop abortion, just safe abortions
I think that's probably incorrect. People respond to incentives.
The evidence that I know of for that assertion comes from studies which are poorly done and biased. The methodology is to compare the rate of the abortion in places with different legal frameworks for it. The main problem is that it is hard to estimate the prevalence of an illegal activity.
Additionally, some of the places they put in the "not legal" category tend to be poor places in which rule of law is much less important than the US. (So you can't expect similar laws to have similar effects)
Many states have already decided they don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy. Even before this ruling there are places where women's lives have been endangered because accessible clinics were forced to close.
No matter what state you are in, being an American citizen should guarantee you certain rights. Not being forced to give birth, and having access to healthcare should be among those rights. It's terrible that we've moved farther from that as a nation.
> Many states have already decided they don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy.
I sympathize with the concern about dignity of rape victims, but the second part of your assertion is incorrect: "At present, all states allow the procedure to preserve the life and health of the mother". [1] (That includes even the Texas law [2])
[2]: "The act contains exceptions in the case of medical emergency, such as if the mother is at risk of death or severe irreversible bodily harm." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act)
Not all laws have included such provisions (see for example BMJ 2003;327:1009 which was passed and signed by Bush), and those that do are so vague that it does things like leave doctors at great risk of getting their lives ruined for doing what they think is right for their patient or would make procedures that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother illegal any time it wasn't also an active and immediate emergency (such as in this bill: https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2116/id/1846191)
It turns out when lawmakers have even bothered at all to play lip service to protecting the lives of pregnant women they still haven't done a very good job actually making sure they are protected.
You can go looking at all the laws states have tried to pass over the years that didn't protect the life of the mother or would have forced her to give birth to her rapist's child. You can also look at all the laws which would have made doctors risk their freedom and security for performing a medical procedure that they felt was needed.
You could do that, but I recommend saving some time and just looking at the states which have closed clinics and forced out providers:
How many women do you think exist in those states who needed help, but didn't live within driving distance to the one provider in the state and can't afford to take several days off work to travel to get one in another. How many were too busy dying to start booking plane tickets and hotel rooms so they can get the emergency procedure done?
I think some states have been making their position on this pretty clear.
He asked which states "don't care how many women are forced to give birth to their rapists children or die due to medical problems surrounding their pregnancy."
In return I not only told him how to identify other, but gave him a list of six which have pressured providers to close to the point where currently only one remains in the entire state. States who care about how many women can't get access to a life saving abortion don't try to make it impossible for women to get the care they need.
Both major parties are guilty of it and people keep electing the divisive politicians that use issues like abortion to create division but that routinely get involved in proxy wars that result in the deaths of innocent children.
The argument that antiabortionists make is that it's murder. You can be against something without personally caring about the victim. If Bill kills average Joe down the street, I may not care about Joe personally, but I am concerned about him getting killed.
Abortionists and antiabortionists make arguments that work in their echo chambers , without ever understanding what the other side thinks.
It's a great day for rapists and for people who like seeing young females have illegal abortions and endanger their lives ("oh they deserve it, those ungodly servants of satan").
