I’ve been debating abortion a little on the comments of Post Tenebras Lux (from which I swiped the title of this post). I’m reposting some of my comments here. somewhat edited.
Xon wrote (in part):
How successful has the war on drugs been at lowering demand for pot? How successful was prohibition at lowering demand for alcohol?
Let’s introduce another concept from (very) basic economics into the discussion: elasticity of demand. I’d argue that for pregnant women who don’t want to be mothers, the demand for abortion is extremely inelastic. If I’m correct, then raising the price of abortions – for instance, by making abortions illegal – will have a relatively small impact on demand.
The problem with before-and-after Roe v Wade abortion rate comparisons is that too many people mix up the rate of legal and reported abortions – which obviously went up post-Roe – with the rate of abortions. But in fact, there were about a million abortions a year in the US in the few years before Roe – about the same as there were in the few years just after Roe.
What we need, to lower abortion, is a substitute for abortion. Attacking the supply side won’t do much to lower abortion rates, but attacking the demand side can work. For instance, policies which push birth control on teenagers (including the importance of always using two types at once) so hard the teens get bruised. Countries like Belgium have used this sort of policy to have the lowest abortion rates in the world. I don’t understand why pro-lifers have so little interest in imitating that.
Lux comment-writer Matt Weber responded:
Nothing. But you’re not understanding the concept of elasticity of demand. If something has an inelastic demand, that doesn’t mean that making it more expensive won’t have any effect on demand, just that the effect won’t be especially large.
Look, let’s say we ban drinking alcohol. That will lower demand for alcohol – but there will still be a huge demand remaining, and the black market will be substantial. That’s because demand for alcohol is pretty inelastic; you can raise the cost a lot, and people will still want it. People want alcohol very badly.
Compare that to banning RCA brand alarm clocks. Such a ban would probably be totally successful, because the demand for RCA alarms is very flexible; people will switch to Sony or Panisonic alarms and never notice the difference. Pretty much no one wants an RCA alarm badly.
Which would you guess the demand for abortion is more like – the demand for alcohol, or the demand for RCA alarms? I’d say the former. Women who want abortions often desparately want one; they’ll take on substantial trouble, risk and expense to get one.
Will you lower demand on the margins by banning abortion? Of course. But it won’t make a very big difference, because the demand for abortion is pretty inelastic.
The countries in the world with the lowest abortion rates are countries where abortion is legal – without exception. No country has ever succeeded in getting to a really low abortion rate by banning abortion.
Do you believe in the marketplace or not? If you do, then you have to admit that when the demand is high enough, the market mostly finds a way around barriers – and that includes legal barriers.
The only way to have a really low abortion rate is to lower demand, rather than banning supply. That means pushing birth control on teens as if it were oxygen, and also providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers.
Will that have negative side effects? Maybe. But if pro-lifers are serious about lowering the abortion rate, they should be willing to consider the trade-offs. What good is an “idealogically correct” approach to lowering abortion rates, if it doesn’t actually work very well compared to other methods?
One method is to do a representative sample survey and ask women if they’ve had an abortion. This will lead to an underestimate of the true number of abortions, since people are strongly motivated to lie about having committed illegal acts (and even where it’s legal, many women prefer not to admit having had an abortion), but it’ll at least give you a baseline to work from.
Xon responded:
Dammit, why must it always come down to evidence! :-P
Although measuring something as hidden as illegal abortions is always difficult, the best pre-Roe scholarly assessment came to a figure of about a million abortions a year (“…prior to the adoption of more moderate abortion laws in 1967, there were 1 million abortions annually nationwide, of which 8000 were legal.” From Christopher Tietze, “Abortion on request: its consequences for population trends and public health,” Seminars in Psychiatry 1970;2:375-381, quoted in JAMA December 9, 1992).
Another option is to look at what happens to birth rates; a sudden, large increase in abortions should lead to a corresponding sudden decline in the birth rate. So if Roe caused a big jump in abortions in its first few years, we’d see it as a decline in the birthrate. So what actually happened after Roe was passed?
Year Births Birthrate
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4
1978 3,333,279 15.3
1979 3,494,398 15.9
1980 3,612,258 15.9
Similarly, what happened when Poland banned abortions in the 1990s? If pro-life policies reduce abortion significantly, there would have been a spike in Poland’s birthrate. But Poland’s birth rate remained steady. (See Reproductive Health Matters (Volume 10, Issue 19 , May 2002): “The restrictive abortion law in Poland has not increased the number of births.”)
There are three questions this brings up, in my view.
First of all, has the pro-life movement actually been proposing that we treat abortion as if it were murder?
I’d say not. The most recent federal partial-birth abortion ban, for example, said that mothers absolutely cannot be punished for their part in abortion; doctors could be punished by a fine.
Is there anyone in the world willing to endorse this policy for a murdered five year old child? A mother hires a hit man to kill her five-year-old child; if that happens, should we have a law saying that no matter what the mother cannot be punished, and the most that happens to the hit man is a fine?
The argument that pro-lifers can’t consider what is practical, because of their unshakable moral commitment to treating abortion as murder, falls apart when we look at the laws pro-lifers propose.
Second question: Is the “let’s do it both ways” plan viable, or are abortion reduction strategies a binary, one-or-the-other choice?
I’d say it’s one or the other. The U.S. has a two party system; no matter how nuanced our personal positions, the real choice we make is between column D and column R. One party supports policies that have actually led to low abortion rates in the real world, but opposes a ban. The other party opposes policies that have actually led to low abortion rates, but supports a ban. And that’s our choice.
And it’s a choice that matters in the real world. If the US had an abortion rate as low as Belgium’s, that would mean something between 700,000 and 800,000 fewer abortions a year, according to my seat-of-the-pants calculations.
Which brings me to my third question. In a system that forces us to choose between one or the other, which is better: 700,000 murders potentially prevented, or 700,000 murders not prevented plus an official statement calling abortion murder?
I don’t know what Xon’s position is. But the pro-life movement as a whole clearly favors the latter policy. And I find that incomprehensible. Putting abstract principle above 700,000 lives doesn’t seem like a supportable position, to me, and certainly undermines the pro-life claim to be motivated only by caring about what happens to babies.
Pingback: Post Tenebras Lux
Pingback: Crossroads
Pingback: Blogging My Life
Pingback: Feministe's Journal
Pingback: Bradford Plumer
Pingback: Bloodless Coup
Very well said, Amp.
One thing that I might add is the assertation that if the pro-lifers want to go with the strategy of
they need to start embracing these better ways before they try to outlaw abortion, as the first priority. They’re the ones who have the problem with the results of legalized abortion, not us—therefore they are not justified in demanding that we give up our rights while we wait for them to stop attacking things that decrease the demand to exercise them.
They don’t like the side effects of our rights to choose not to be pregnant, they need to find something to eliminate the side effects without damaging the rights. There are many things that reduce the demand for abortion without eliminating the right or messing with the availability. The fact that the pro-lifers haven’t embraced these is telling.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one who wants to know, if they don’t support contraception, sex-ed, financial help, et cetera to reduce abortions when they’re legal, how the hell could they be trusted to support them if abortion becomes illegal and from their perspective all the important problems are solved?
I disagree with whoever-it-was, obviously, regarding making abortion illegal—even if I had the goal of reducing abortions as much as possible. Any decrease in abortion that is not demand-based is a violation of the rights and autonomy of the women who are denied abortions in order to make that decrease. The only legitimate way for there to be no abortions is for there to be no demand for abortions, and if that were the case there would be no reason for a law against abortions because there would be no abortions.
100%-effective birth control, convenient and free and available to everyone, male or female, who wants it; encouragement to take it even if you don’t intend to need it; an end to rape; completely comprehensive, compulsory sex education that everyone recieves before they need it; an end to the stigmatizing of single and teenage mothers, universal, affordable health care, maternity and paternity leave, convenient, readily available, affordable, high-quality child care, a living wage, welfare and unemployment benefits for whomever needs them, and counseling and support for anyone who feels overwhelmed by family- or parenting-related issues or life in general.
Or, an incubation tank that creates a perfect copy of the environment in a uterus, complete with a means of delivering nutrients and oxygen and removing waste from a developing embryo or fetus, with the proper balance and amounts of everything it needs tailor-made for each week of gestation, so that anyone who wants an abortion can come in and have one, with the embryo or fetus placed in such a tank to grow to infant stage; sufficient funding to provide the technology and employees to manage them free of charge to the woman who had the abortion; and a culture that made no distinction between biological children and adopted children, to the point where every aborted pregnancy resulted in a preemie-ward-grown baby soon to be adopted by someone who is ready to love him or her.
Either of those scenarios, or both together, are the only ways that the abortion rate could rightly and legitimately zero out. Assuming, of course that the aspect of abortion that the pro-lifers want to end is the embryos-being-killed part and not the women-controlling-their-own-bodies part. Sometimes I wonder.
Pingback: Rhymes with Mango
But it has always seemed clear to me that they are not interested in babies. What they are interested in is fetuses and the untrammeled innocence and untaintable purity that fetuses represent to them. This has always seemed to me to be the underlying motivation for those who would institutionalize their opposition to abortion by making abortion not only illegal, but by defining it as murder.
I wish I had more time to flesh out what I am saying here, but my bed calls. I start teaching again tomorrow and I need my sleep. Perhaps I will post more on this on my own blog.
Thank you. This is one of the more original pieces I’ve seen on this topic today. I truly appreciate that.
I broadly support Amp’s position on abortion and disagree with the people he’s arguing against. That said:
Xon isn’t saying above that abortion=murder in a strict sense (the view Amp attributes to him), he’s saying that abortion=unjustifiable homicide. In common law countries abortion’s never been murder, because you’ve never been able to murder someone who hasn’t been born. Abortion’s always been a different crime – such as “child destruction” or so on.
Whatever you say about the pro-life movement, they’ve been consistant in maintaining that abortion is a form of unjustifiable homicide and should be recognised in law as such.
Aren’t you begging the pro-choicer’s question here? The question is “is the demand for abortion inelastic?”. Not “is the demand for abortion inelastic for pregnant women who don’t want to be mothers?”. The suggestion is that people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned.
Impressive post.
I agree, that is the argument. But does that argument really make sense?
It sounds almost like women are getting pregnant (where is the man in question, I wonder?) just to have an abortion. Or, perhaps more fairly, the argument is that women aren’t taking necessary steps to avoid possible pregnancies because of the availability of abortion (or that women deliberately delay the decision on whether to become a mother or not to include pregnancy). Some ugly stereotypes here.
The actions of pro-lifers betray them: Pro-lifers generally have little interest on making contraceptives and sex education widely available (thus making it less likely that women just get pregnant). Kudos to the ones who are fighting the demand side.
I think the fact that birth rates have been constant and that the number of abortions has not been reduced by pro-life policies is an empirical evidence on the invalidity of the argument people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned. That is covered in the post too, then.
Small addition to Kyra’s list of things that would have to happen for abortion to disappear through lack of demand: an improvement in medical science such that any condition that might afflict a woman during pregnancy can be treated without additional harm to her or risk of harm to the fetus.
I don’t know whether this has been discussed before, but…
I object to the characterisation of the abortion prohibitionist stance as ‘pro life’. Abortion antiprohibitionist advocates should not be buying into their opponents’ propaganda.
Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq. The only life that the prohibitionist stance is ‘pro’ is the alleged life of the foetus, and to call it a ‘life’ is to beg one of the central questions in the debate.
Secondly, in practice it is antiprohibitionist who are more likely to oppose the DP, the war, support medical care for all, etc., so they have a better claim to being ‘pro life’ than the prohibitionists.
‘Pro choice’, while not ideal, does at least accurately albeit incompletely characterise the stance: We are in favour of allowing pregnant women the choice to have an abortion. ‘Abortion antiprohibitionism’ is arguably a better term.
The suggestion is that people who don’t want to be mothers will be less likely to get pregnant should abortion be banned.
To be more blunt, there’s a sincere belief from anti-choicers that without abortion as a fallback position if contraception fails, women will quit having sex. Since most anti-choice activist groups are already moving towards agitating for bans on at least some female-controlled contraception, that seems to be the final goal overall–make women stop having sex or in lieu of this, be punished for it by repeated child-bearing.
The problem with this viewpoint, besides being unnecessarily cruel and invasive about stuff that’s none of their business, is that it’s based on some false belief that in the past the threat of pregnancy forced women to refrain from having sex. More likely is that it put constant strain on relationships between men and women because while both want sex, only the latter “paid” for it, meaning that negotiations about frequency, etc. were bound to be tense.
The only way to have a really low abortion rate is to lower demand, rather than banning supply. That means pushing birth control on teens as if it were oxygen, and also providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers.
Those certainly are ways to lower demand for abortion. But there are other considerations:
1) Teach the virtues of abstinence, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint. This has gotten a bad rap because of the efforts on some people’s part to teach this to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. But that doesn’t mean that it should not be a strongly emphasized part of the curriculum. It would also have the side effect of cutting down on STD’s, as it did in Uganda.
2) Making adoption a much more attractive option might encourage more single mothers to have their children and then give them up. A friend of mine adopted a child, and you’d have thought they were signing up for the CIA the way they were investigated. The whole process sounded like it was engineered to discourage people from adopting children. I’m also given to understand that there are a lot of sleazy operators in the adoption industry as well. Perhaps this could be cleaned up and made more easy for both the mother and the prospective adoption parents.
Do you think that providing painfully generous welfare support for single mothers encourage an increase in the number of single mothers? Do you consider that desirable, undesirable, or neutral?
As far as measuring the abortion rate by observing birthrates pre- and post-legalization, I’m curious to know what the abortion/live birth ratio is. Perhaps the rate is so low that significantly increasing the abortion rate would not appear to change the birthrate significantly. Perhaps there are some kind of “baby boom” effect from an imbalance of the number of women at various ages I wanted to give an example, but I found myself stymied by the “birthrate” statistic. Is that births per 1,000,000 people? Per 1,000 women? Per 100,000 women between the ages of 15 – 45? I don’t understand.
Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq.
What does the Iraq war or the death penalty have to do with opposition to abortion?
Nothing. It has something to do with a person styling themselves as “pro life”.
Ron:
Abstinence is NOT a moral choice. It is a very pragmatic approach to not getting pregnant (for women at least) but it is not a moral choice.
There is nothing moral about denying yourself something that is healthy, pleasurable, natural, and one has a strong urge to do.
This “deny yourself because it makes you a better person” is, at best, incomplete and at worst, harmful. The denial is not moral: denial is only moral if your denying to inflict harm on another person. (although, why one would naturally want to inflict harm on another is beyond me).
Denying yourself for the sake of denying yourself is harmful: it makes you frustrated and fixated. For moral actions, moderation is key.
You may disagree with me, of course, as is the right of every American to come up with your individual moral code. But to claim that YOUR moral code is the ultimate, and that is the one that should be pushed is discriminatory and harmful. At the same time, it has the very real effect of demonizing people (most likely women) for choosing it as a moral decision.
A very interesting article in the New York Times today by William Saletan. Three Decades After Roe, a War We Can All Support It also speaks to the fact that reducing the need for abortion (i.e. reducing unwanted pregnancies) should be something that both camps should embrace.
As a staunch pro-lifer (or “anti-choicer” if it makes you feel better) I would definately be all for reducing unwanted pregnancy first and working on moral sexual issues with my teens second. Of course, we had this discussion some time back and I was accused of keeping my children ignorant because I didn’t want schools to be preaching “when” to have sex. What was lost in that discussion was that I had no problem with schools teaching about birth control.
This has been brought up before and I still don’t know where this comes from. I am a republican right wing evangelical Christian so I would guess I am the quintessential anti-choicer and I have yet to hear anyone I know nor have I read any “like-minded” commentators I read indicate in any way they are “moving towards…bans on at least some female-controlled contraception”. I would really appreciate some links regarding this assertion since it apparently is happening with “most” groups but I know of none.
This is what I am guessing – Christian anti-choice groups are against most “morning-after” pills because they are primarilly abortive. Therefore, they are no better, in their minds, than abortion. Although pro-choicers would maybe disagree that they are abortive, the devil is in the details. Since most abortion providers don’t classify you as “pregnant” until implantation, anything that prevents implantation prevents pregnancy and therefore is contraceptive. The opposite view is that the “pregnancy” (carrying of a new life) begins at conception and therefore anything that ends it is abortive.
The only other thing I have seen in Christian circles is some grumbling about oral contraceptives. Since the last resort of these pills is to prevent implantation, and therefore they have at least an abortive potential, some (very few) Christians are against them as well. Although I have heard this stance in some circles it would be a great exageration to say that “most” are of this opinion.
Well, I would agree to a point. Christian believe heterosexual sex inside of marriage is the only sex that God blesses, therefore this is a moral choice outside of that circumstance. Inside of marriage, it would turn pragmatic. It should be pointed out, though, that any prolonged abstinece inside of marriage would be viewed as problematic, at best, inside Christian circles. At any rate, inside marriage, abstinence is not considered a viable birth control method for Christians (they use contraceptives or rythym methods). Conversely, when Christians talk about abstinence, they are universally speaking of extra-marital behavior. Therefore, for them, it is a moral choice. They don’t deny it is “healthy, pleasurable, natural, and (something) one has a strong urge to do”, they simply believe it is only morally allowed within marriage.
What Amanda said about morality.
Abstinence is being pushed in sex-ed curricula as the best way to avoid both pregnancy and STDs, just as it always has been. Other methods of prevention frequently get short shrift in classrooms, to the detriment of student health and safety, but not abstinence. Abstinence-based sex-ed is status quo, and its effects on lower pregnancy and STD rates will continue to be exactly what they are now: sadly insufficient, and far less effective alone than pro-abstinence plus comprehensive safer-sex education.
Substitute “most doctors and healthcare providers” for “abortion providers” in that sentence, and you’d be telling the truth. The idea that pregnancy starts at implantation isn’t an anti-medical minority viewpoint adopted for political reasons; that is in fact true of “life begins at conception.”
Amanda conceded that point: it’s a choice that fits into some moral codes. It doesn’t fit into others. That means that it shouldn’t be presented as the moral choice when we’re talking about a curriculum that is neither Christian nor designed for that subset of Christians.
I didn’t mean it as such.
I appologize, I wasn’t clear in my quoting. I was referring to Antigone’s post at this point.
I see. I didn’t mean to jump all over you.
I don’t have a problem with introducing the question of responsibility into the issue of whether or not to have sex. In good safer-sex education, that question is paramount. The possibility of hurting someone, endangering someone, or fucking someone over is a real one, and people are encouraged to think very carefully about it. Without that concern, protection doesn’t really make sense. The problem with “morality” is that it tends to mean morality the way Amanda interpreted it: continence, chastity. Having sex is just wrong, full stop. It’s damaging and insulting to you, your partner, your future partners, their future partners, etc. That kind of morality I have a problem with, particularly given its demonstrated potential to muddy issues of responsibility to one’s health and the health of one’s partners, and the way it inevitably conflates “contamination” and “filth” with transmission risks.
Pingback: LIBERTY BELLES » The Economics of Abortion
Yeh, I didn’t read her exactly that way (or wasn’t that clear on it) but let’s go with that. Actually, let me see if I read you right.
Historically, there has always been a “sex is bad…period” element out there. I am ashamed to say that this probably was propagated in Christian circles first and even more ashamed that there are some in the Church who still hold to this belief. If it is that that you are getting at, I totally agree with your points and emphasize, from my perspective, that even for those who choose to wait until marriage to engage in sex it is very damaging.
Even if I set my moral perspective aside, I can sympathize with what y’all are saying, especially if the approach to abstinence is one-sided like you outline.
And I have read the statistics on abstinence education and they are not great so far. Abstinence only programs are abysmal. The curriculum may be bad but my guess is it is more likely that those being “educated” are simply not interested, (or in the heat of the moment lose interest) in staying abstinent. If that is the case, other methods too avoid the ultimate tragedy, the unwanted pregnancy, need to be employed.
(I also should point out that I am no saint. In my youth I certainly did not practice what I now preach. Having two teenage daughters sure changes ones perspective on a great many things.)
… too avoid the ultimate tragedy, the unwanted pregnancy…
The ultimate tragedy is unwanted pregnancy? Honestly, I’d put AIDS (or a host of other, potential fatal, diseases) as a worse tragedy.
For anyone who might be interested, I have done my part to keep this discussion going by responding to this post over at my blog.
Although measuring something as hidden as illegal abortions is always difficult, the best pre-Roe scholarly assessment came to a figure of about a million abortions a year (“…prior to the adoption of more moderate abortion laws in 1967, there were 1 million abortions annually nationwide, of which 8000 were legal.” From Christopher Tietze, “Abortion on request: its consequences for population trends and public health,” Seminars in Psychiatry 1970;2:375-381, quoted in JAMA December 9, 1992).
Methodology?
Another option is to look at what happens to birth rates; a sudden, large increase in abortions should lead to a corresponding sudden decline in the birth rate. So if Roe caused a big jump in abortions in its first few years, we’d see it as a decline in the birthrate. So what actually happened after Roe was passed?
Year Births Birthrate
1973 3,136,965 14.9
1974 3,159,958 14.9
1975 3,144,198 14.8
1976 3,167,788 14.8
1977 3,326,632 15.4
1978 3,333,279 15.3
1979 3,494,398 15.9
1980 3,612,258 15.9
Uh – Amp, Roe occurred in January of 1973. To see what effect Roe had on births, you really need to include some statistics from 1972 and before for us to compare these to.
1963 4,098,020 21.7
1964 4,027,490 21.0
1965 3,760,358 19.4
1966 3,606,274 18.4
1967 3,520,959 17.8
1968 3,501,564 17.5
1969 3,600,206 17.8
1970 3,731,386 18.4
1971 3,555,970 17.2
1972 3,258,411 15.6
(1971 and before based on a 50% sample of births, except for 1967, which was based on a 20-50% sample of births)
source.
Ultimately, birth rates seemed to be going down anyway, so it is not apparent that Roe has much of an effect.
It sounds almost like women are getting pregnant (where is the man in question, I wonder?) just to have an abortion. Or, perhaps more fairly, the argument is that women aren’t taking necessary steps to avoid possible pregnancies because of the availability of abortion (or that women deliberately delay the decision on whether to become a mother or not to include pregnancy). Some ugly stereotypes here.
I don’t think that people are saying that women literally decide not to use birth control because abortion is available. What is being said is that the availability of abortion makes the consequences of getting pregnant far less burdensome, and therefore decreases the motivation to (a) abstain from sex and to (b) be religious about proper use of birth control. In other words, when abortion is available, people will be more likely to have sex, and will be more likely to be careless about birth control; this is not to say that anyone is deciding that birth control is unnecessary.
As for stereotypes: I don’t care if they’re ugly. I want to know whether or not they are, on average, accurate.
In any case, nik (#5) makes a good point: Amp’s use of live-birth statistics to show that the number of abortions did not rise significantly makes the assumption (without any support) that the number of unwanted pregnancies was not at all impacted by the legalization of abortion.
Steve Sailer has argued that legalized abortion increased the unwatned pregnancy rate, so that a large proportion of the abortions post-Roe were likely from pregnancies that wuld not have even occurred without Roe.
The idea that this is impossible, or that suggesting such carelessness is simply “perpetuating a stereotype,” is unrealistic, I think, and comes from a sort of middle-class assumption that everyone thinks like us, that is, “the availability of abortion would not affect my decision to use birth control, so it wouldn’t affect anybody else’s, either.”
The countries in the world with the lowest abortion rates are countries where abortion is legal – without exception.
Does “without exception” refer to how legal abortion is or to the constancy of the trend of pro-choice countries having low abortion rates? That is, are you saying that in the countries with the lowest abortion rates, all abortions are deemed legal, or that there are no exceptional countries with low abortion rates and where abortion is illegal?
According to this Guttmacher study, northern and southern Africa have a very low abortion rate, despite abortion being moistly or completely illegal (judging from the proportion of abortions, 96 and 100%, respectively, that are illegal).
Thing is, the alternative doesn’t involve flinging condoms at seventh-graders. Abstinence is a kind of protection, and it’s included in any discussion about how to protect yourself. It’s the best way to prevent STD transmission or pregnancy. It’s a good thing.
I think that the reason abstinence-only education tends to fail is because it introduces the morality question in a bad way. Transmission risks are non-negotiable. Morality is incredibly slippery, particularly when you’re dealing with people who really, really want to do an immoral thing. Once you conflate safety and morality considerations, the morality considerations will become subject to a lot of equivocation, and the safety considerations will suffer.
And when a dichotomy like “sex bad, abstinence good” gets imposed on the grayscale spectrum of higher-risk/lower-risk behaviors, you’ll have kids concluding things like, “Unprotected oral sex isn’t ‘really’ sex, so it’s better than intercourse with a condom,” “Well, I’m going to hell anyway, so why bother using protection?” All of the things that make you safer–planning, protection, careful discussions, regular testing, sobriety–make you a bad person.
I personally would automatically include this under the heading of “comprehensive sex education.” Probably the most important and far-reaching aspect of sexuality is deciding when and whether and why to have sex, and the emotional factors resulting from that decision, its application, and other people’s reactions to it.
I consider it highly important from a feminist point of view that everyone be able to make their own, uncoerced, unpressured, fully informed decisions regarding the choice to have or not have sex, to have access to all the support they need to live that choice safely, and to have their decision accepted by everyone whom it might affect and ignored by everyone else. And most of all, the self-esteem and courage to realize that they don’t owe anybody the obligation to change their ways for some other person’s amusement or convenience.
The thing is, it has to be realized that in many cases, contraception will beat out abstinence because it’s simply so much more convenient to avoid pregnancy by taking a pill every day, than it is to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex full-time when sex is something you greatly enjoy. Abstinence requires a significant behavior modification from people who enjoy sex—contraception does not.
A few have taken issue with Ron F.’s assertion that to teach abstinence ( as it hasn’t been taught forever, but even the Pope has a mother and all that) is an indefensible solution to the abortion wars, but I also take issue with his number 2 point. That is, adoption. Since we all know adopted children and many of us have adoption in our own families, we don’t always want to recognize that the rosy picture they are presenting of adoption post-illegal abortion is probably false.
Anti-choicers love to speak of adoption in unbelievably facile terms, as if bearing a child and giving it away were the simplest, most logical transaction in the world. All they have to do is imagine giving their own children away to see that this is untrue, but never mind, they don’t do that.
Why I really don’t like the “adoption is so easy” pushers is that I don’t think these people are really admitting what adoption can be like in a world where there is no abortion and/ or no good birth control. They think adoption has always been this well thought out choice, a sacrifice of a “redeemed” young mother, but really we only see it that way now because, ironically, it is a choice now. It won’t take much research by anyone to see that adoption’s history has often been one of coercion and shame and abuse. Think “Magdalena Sisters”.
Of course, even if the “seller’s market” were to end in the US, probably adoption wouldn’t go back to being how it was at times before. In this country. Maybe. But what about all of the children in orphanages around the world? What if there were a glut of white babies here? Orphanages in developing countries are frequently abysmal places, and many improve only after pressure from adoptive parents in developed countries. Will they remain so if women here are forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies?
The anti-choicers false view of adoption as the happy solution with no bad outcomes should no longer go unchallenged.
[applause for piny]
Self-loathing does not equal responsible views on sex.
The U.S. has a two party system; no matter how nuanced our personal positions, the real choice we make is between column D and column R. One party supports policies that have actually led to low abortion rates in the real world, but opposes a ban. The other party opposes policies that have actually led to low abortion rates, but supports a ban. And that’s our choice.
But do we have to accept that it’s going to continue to be that way? It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan that these reproductive questions got so deeply divided between columns D and R. That’s fine for those whose beliefs are fully in line with either the Ds or the Rs, but there are people who refuse to accept that as unalterable. At the same time that we vote now for Door #1 or Door #2, we will continue to advocate for another path.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t!) say that adoption does not have it’s pitfalls. I’m saying that it can have good outcomes, and that steps should be taken to maximize those. It’s not a solution for everyone, by any means. But I am proposing that it could be a solution for more people than it is now.
Abstinence is a moral choice. It may not be your morality in particular, but it’s a choice that is in accord with the prevaling morality, and certainly the parental opinions, of the communities that most of these kids are a part of.
We’re not just talking religion. Abstinence also means that you are much less likely to be the parent of a child you are not emotionally, financially or physically prepared to take care of. It means that you are less likely to have to go through the trauma (or be a factor in someone else having to go through the trauma) of an abortion or of childbirth. It means that you are going to neither pass along or get an STD and thus will not bring harm to yourself or someone else.
Now, in some people’s morality, none of that is a problem. You can see numerous postings thoughout the threads on this site and (I’d guess) hundreds of others that will show that a number of people’s moral codes in this area boil down to “I’ll take my pleasure as I see it, and if someone else gets stuck with a burden, too bad.” Do you then think that because this is a moral choice, we should not teach it? Do you think that because many people don’t learn this lesson and do it anyway, and have done so since antiquity, we should not teach it?
Oy vey.
I suppose I should have put an impossible amount of disclaimers in the statement as to define the fact that I consider those assumptions ugly primarily because I don’t think they are accurate. Truth is, on average, beautiful (even if it is not always “nice”).
That is, I believe the majority of women are religious about abstinence/birth control, and the ones who are not can probably not be helped by punitive measures (the ignorant/stupid ones, the nonconsenting ones etc.) The obvious solution is to reduce ignorance.
But, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is an area where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can be allies.
The fact that abstinence is also a pragmatic choice doesn’t mean that it’s not also a moral one. A choice can be both pragmatic and moral. I would propose that in many cases, morals develop from the understanding, though experience, that short-term desirable choices can lead to long-term undesirable outcomes.
Daran said:
Nothing. It has something to do with a person styling themselves as “pro life”.
Well, I’m sorry, Daran, but I’m completely missing your point. Please excuse my denseness. Could you elaborate?
All of the things that make you safer”“planning, protection, careful discussions, regular testing, sobriety”“make you a bad person.
It’s not the things that make you safer that make you a bad person. Or a good one. They contribute to it, of course. But the central point is what you plan to make yourself safer to do.
Once you conflate safety and morality considerations, the morality considerations will become subject to a lot of equivocation, and the safety considerations will suffer.
Something I have run into in “drugs are bad” discussions with kids. I end up making sure that 1) I present very factual information – I don’t lie about the bad effects/consequences to try to scare kids, and 2) I keep the morality and the scientific arguments clearly separate.
One thing I do say is that moral codes exist for a reason, and despite some apparently widespread opinions to the contrary that reason is generally not to jerk people around; they are the distillation of hundreds or thousands of years of experience. Moral codes should certainly be examined in the face of knowledge and experience. For example, it’s not appropriate to regard other humans as your property because they are a specific gender or relation to you, or a different race/nationality, even though this is still viewed as moral in many areas of the world. But you should come to learn about the ones prevalent in your culture and understand them before you decide to break them.
I consider it highly important from a feminist point of view that everyone be able to make their own, uncoerced, unpressured, fully informed decisions regarding the choice to have or not have sex, to have access to all the support they need to live that choice safely, and to have their decision accepted by everyone whom it might affect and ignored by everyone else.
Kyra, if a 15-year old girl decides to start having sex with her boyfriend, do you think that her parents should not pressure her to not do so, but should provide her with support?
I would agree with your statement for a 21-year old person. I think we’d all disagree with it if the person involved was 12 – for one thing, it’s pretty evident that such a person could be presumed to not be fully informed since, although they may have all the scientific evidence in front of them, they may not yet have the judgement to weigh it properly. The question then becomes, where do we draw the line? And how? And who has input – parents? Religious leaders? The law (e.g., the concept of statutory rape)? “Everyone” is a bit broad ….
LA Mom wrote:
No. But most folks will insist upon us all adhering to the status quo because they are scared shitless of the unknown. Even a known quantity that makes you miserable is somehow prized above an unknown quantity that might not.
I’d add that a lot of Demo flag-wavers who continue to champion their party as flag-wavers of women’s rights should wake up and notice the egg on their own faces. Undermining of Roe started with the Hyde Amendment, way back in the 1970s, and has continued ever since. It is useless to pretend Roe staying on the books is the be-all and end-all of reproductive rights. It is also useless to pretend that the situation is merely a matter of incompetence on behalf of the people who we elect and pay to defend us. I think it’s time to face the fact that the line between incompetence and malice was crossed by the leadership some time ago.
Full article here.
Since it has become obvious that the average Democrat will put up with any shit from the leadership, there isn’t much hope for real change. The best one can hope for is that once Roe is overturned and the S.C. is completely full of Neanderthals, the Democrats will at least have to find a new boogeyman to bullshit their rank-and-file with.
Thanks for proving my point, Ron. This is exactly what I’m talking. Having sex makes you a bad person. Having premeditated sex, therefore, is even worse. It indicates a deep-seated moral failing, rather than a momentary lapse. It means that you knew exactly what you were doing.
So if you sit down with your partner and discuss risks, safety measures, history, you’re a nasty, nasty slut. If you use protection or go on the Pill, it’s worse than having unprotected, unplanned sex. If you have sex while falling-down drunk, you can pretend you were under the influence and therefore not completely in control of yourself.
This moral calculus plays itself out in countless abstinence-educated teens. ( “I’m not gay, I’m an alcoholic!” is also a pretty familiar dynamic to us homos.) It’s a very real, very dangerous outcome of making abstinence a moral decision.
Daran, in comment 8: Firstly, ‘pro life’ does not describe any part of the abortion prohibitionist agenda. They wish to prohibit abortion; that is all. There is nothing inconsistent with abortion prohibitionism and support for the death penalty, for example, or the war in Iraq.
It doesn’t necessarily follow, but the Roman Catholic Church official stance is against both abortion and the death penalty. But, it’s telling that the RCC has focused its ire on abortion, and not on the death penalty. RCC officials have not threatened politicians who support the death penalty with withholding of Communion or excommunication, but they have to pro-choice politicians, most notably with John Kerry in 2004.
Give the RCC faint praise for at least outwardly stating that they’re anti-birth-control, which means they’re more in league with the Junior Anti-Sex League from Nineteen Eighty-four than the fundies. The fundies, for tactical reasons, aren’t going to talk about birth control, but the unethical pharmacists who ally themselves with the movement will.
The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish pleasure outside of basking in God’s glory.
They seek to punish pleasure through law, disease (including unwanted pregnancy), or guilt. Pretty much all sexual activity is sinful in the eyes of the fundamentalist, even masturbation.
Hence laws against fornication, sodomy, pornography, and abortion, and the cluck-clucking of fundamentalists at women who were forced to give up children for adoption, AIDS patients, and people with herpes. (Heathen medical science has helped cure some venereal diseases, lessened the problem of herpes flareups, and turned AIDS into a chronic disease rather than an acute killer. Those doctors who flout God’s will will pay with an eternity in Hell, though.)
Of course, the fundies embody H.L. Mencken’s definition of puritanism: “…the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
Most more traditional societies in Africa favor a very high birthrate, to ensure that sons (ie, wives of sons) survive to take care of the parents when parents are old, and to ensure adequate farm labor when children are younger – even the youngest walking children can feed fowl and graze animals. However, there are studies suggesting that at least some of the African HIV transmission due to non-placental, non-sexual causes is due to illegal abortion, and that this may be more important than ritual circumcision/female genital mutilation, also a known factor in transmission.
The demand for abortion goes up as a society modernizes and it becomes more likely that children will survive to adulthood, more necessary to educate such children, and less likely to use children for home-based or factory-based child labor for survival of the family as a whole. Children in excess of one or two sons become expenses, not economic assets, to the family. Selective abortion of female fetuses still comes into play because in many rapidly developing or mixed-economy countries, females do not support their family of origin, and in some of the religious/ethical traditions there is a requirement for sons to perform ancestor rituals (Hindu, Confucian).
Glaivester presents 1963-1972 US live-birth stats and rate. Note that although the 1969 rate (pre-any-state-legalization) is 17.8, the rate was gradually dropping since 1963 (and before then as well). The late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s cohort had larger family sizes than following cohorts, and were in fact larger than pre-WWII family sizes. The rate in 1972, 15.6, is slightly higher than 1973 and 1974, 14.9, but note the rate rises again in the late 1970s. The rate drops more between 1971 and 1972 (17.2 to 15.6) , a year when abortion was available in New York and Hawaii (I think) but not in the other 48, than between 1972 and 1973/1974 (15.6 to 14.9 and 14.9), when abortion became available in all states. This suggests that the demographic shift in live births rate is related to broader social change (wider use of birth control is the most obvious, increase in women’s participation in labor market another) and PRECEDES legalized abortion availability.
Glaivester presents 1963-1972 US live-birth stats and rate. Note that although the 1969 rate (pre-any-state-legalization) is 17.8, the rate was gradually dropping since 1963 (and before then as well)…This suggests that the demographic shift in live births rate is related to broader social change (wider use of birth control is the most obvious, increase in women’s participation in labor market another) and PRECEDES legalized abortion availability.
To be fair, I never denied this, and in fact, made a shorter version of the same point myself:
Ultimately, birth rates seemed to be going down anyway, so it is not apparent that Roe has much of an effect.
My reason for including the statistics was not to disporve Amp’s contention, as I admitted that the stats did not seem to indicate that Amp was wrong. I included them because including only the statistics for the years after abortion tells you nothing about how the legalization of abortion affects the birth rate because it lacks a control.
As for the issue of Africa, my point was simply to disprove the assertion that every society with a low abortion rate had legalized abortion (if that was what Amp was saying).
However, there are studies suggesting that at least some of the African HIV transmission due to non-placental, non-sexual causes is due to illegal abortion, and that this may be more important than ritual circumcision/female genital mutilation, also a known factor in transmission.
In other words, the level of abortion in African countries may be higher than listed on the table. Perhaps, but the Guttmacher study I cited attempts to include illegal abortions in its equations: 96% of the north African and 100% of the south African abortions it tabulates are illegal. In other words, there could be a significant number of HIV infections caused by illegal abortions without the statistics I cited being inaccurate.
Amanda,
To be more blunt, there’s a sincere belief from anti-choicers that without abortion as a fallback position if contraception fails, women will quit having sex. Since most anti-choice activist groups are already moving towards agitating for bans on at least some female-controlled contraception, that seems to be the final goal overall”“make women stop having sex or in lieu of this, be punished for it by repeated child-bearing.
To the extent that the anti-choice movement also opposes contraception they tacitly admit their true intentions.
No one could rationally believe that unmarried women will cease to have sex or that, facing modern society, would use abstinece within marriage to control the size of their families.
On the other hand, women would certainly face extremely strong social incentives to marry young or to face the perills of having many children without the added support of a man…
Well, your first statement is partially right. It should read (this is from the Fundie perspective so don’t everybody freak) “The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish sin outside of basking in God’s glory. They seek to punish sin through law, disease (including unwanted pregnancy), or guilt” No “Fundie” I know gives a rip about your pleasure or lack thereof. They do care about sin, even yours.
Now, is this good policy? I don’t think so. I think that we need to be an example to the world but the world makes up their own mind. When we don’t follow this policy, we get Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Not exactly the type of spokespersons I would prefer as I don’t think they convey what the rank and file really desire.
The second part of your statement is almost right, but pretty much bull. Certainly sexual activity inside of marriage is not sinful (unless it is forced, of course). Maybe you meant to exclude in-marriage sexual activity, but that isn’t apparent from the statement.
Considering masturbation, Christians are split into three camps. There is a “no problem with it” camp, a “no not ever camp”, and a “it’s permissable but has implications that can cause significant relational problems.” The “no problem” camp is across the board. certainly there are those in liberal denominations that are more “post-modern” that think it is a natural expression of sexuality. There are also many traditional older generation people who actually allow it to prevent men from having to carry out their sexual desires through fornication. (I have many older relatives that are very conservative that have alluded to it in conversation). The “not ever” camp is predominantly purity proponents who consider it a form of “self-sex” (i.e. not sex with your wife) and therefore consider it either fornication or adultery depending on your situation. Most of these people are closely associated with or are recovering from pornography or other sexual addictions or problems. The final camp understands where the “not ever” camp is coming from but realizes that there is actually no admonition in scripture against masturbation so they are relunctant to say it is, without exception, sinful.
The reason I go through this is to point out that stereotyping “fundies” based on whatever feminist propoganda you have read or heard or based on the few actual personal contacts you may have with them creates a very warped and false impression of who we really are. In reality, we are a much more varied group of people than you could possibly imagine.
There it is again. Where do you get this? I have yet to have any person who has made such a statement actual provide any evidence that it is true. I’d be willing to read any feminist material you could provide just so I could see the name of any anti-choice organization that supposedly holds this position. Seriously, I know of none and these are the circles I move in. It certainly is not true of evangelical Christians who supposedly, according to Aaron V., ARE the anti abortion movement.
Sorry, grabed the wrong quote – it actually was
I don’t deny that there are some feminist writings that stereotype evangelicals (or fundimentalists, if you’d prefer). But a great deal of the stereotyping is caused by the people that are in the position of being evangelical spokespersons, such as Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson. And although you personally disagree with those two (to your credit), I don’t think they could have reached their current positions without at least some support from ordinary rank-and-file evangelicals.
Absolutely, even a majority of support. But it is not an overwhelming majority and the rest of us are a pretty varied bunch.
No “Fundie” I know gives a rip about your pleasure or lack thereof. They do care about sin, even yours.
I know it’s the job of the clergy to eliminate sin within one’s flock, but when it comes to abortion and the denial of prescribed birth control, it becomes legislating one church’s morality. I am as uncomfortable with Catholic or some Christian doctrine becoming law as I am with mandating that the Jewish position of mandatory abortion if the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life.
Considering masturbation, Christians are split into three camps. …The “not ever” camp is predominantly purity proponents who consider it a form of “self-sex” (i.e. not sex with your wife) and therefore consider it either fornication or adultery depending on your situation.
I come from Catholicism and a mother who had that belief drilled into her for a long time, so that colors my view.
Certainly, I did not imply that Christians view marital sex as sinful, although some would probably think sex for pleasure instead of the explicit intent of producing a child is sinful. (What about same-sex civil marriages or same-sex religious marriages?)
I came to the view of fundamentalist Christians (and some Catholics) being anti-sex and anti-pleasure through my own observation, especially of conservative Catholics (who sometimes were born-again) I knew growing up. Feminist theory had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I part ways with both some feminists and Christian conservatives in my First Amendment absolutism.
Aaron – fair enough. I follow you now. And I should say that it is true that there are many Christians who deny the pleasure aspect of sex (I think I mentioned that before). What a shame.
Aaron V. writes:
The fact is that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a religious movement seeking to punish pleasure outside of basking in God’s glory.
If you say “wholly”, then it’s not a fact. There are secular, non-believing people who are anti-abortion (link to Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League).
Glaive, point well taken.
LAmom, fair enough. But one could say that the anti-abortion movement is “overwhelmingly a religious movement” and that would be pretty darn accurate.
Ampersand writes:
Indeed. And is America a theocracy yet? “Very nearly, dear.”
My heart aches for the women of America (or anywhere) who have to fight for the right to control their own bodies, from access to sex education, to contraception, to the morning-after pill, to abortion. It despairs of the Christian women upholding patriarchal control – control in the most blatant and brutal way, trying to drag America back to the dark ages. (Or forward to ‘The Handmaids Tale’?) I want to offer up something by way of contrast.
In Sweden there are members of the ruling Social Democrat Party trying to find ways to provide foreign women with access to the free – yes – free – abortions that are the right of every Swedish woman. This attempt even includes illegal immigrant women, and how to achieve this for them without at the same time undermining the police and immigration authorities. This is what the separation of Church and State can look like. (though more than this is needed…) Sorry if I’m off topic here, but isn’t there some way a legal challenge can be mounted against the blending of these in your country? Because if Fundamentalist Christian morality around sex and sexuality and abortion etc. informs the laws of the land, something very basic to your democracy has been lost even inside the democratic process.
You are very informed and intelligent people on this blog, so I’m not suggesting I know something more than you do about how to meet this challenge in your own country, but I sure hope y’all give your foreign liberal allies something to shout about come your mid-term elections!!!!!
As to the ‘justifiable homicide’ comments above – if personhood is ever legally deemed to begin at conception – can ‘anyone’ explain to me how such a law could be anything other than total and absolute patriarchal control when the vast majority of women in the world ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion should the need for it arise? That is, most women will never consider abortion to be ‘murder’ or ‘homicide’, in any degree, regardless of any man-made ‘law’ that says it is. What could be more stark?
So, you are saying that you prefer a country where there is not equal protection under the law when it comes to a right to life? Who decides then, which lives are worthwhile and which we can discard? Such a law would not be “total and absolute patriarchal control”. It would be a balancing of the acknowledged women’s right to privacy and control of her own body vs. the right to life of the unborn person. In general in our society, right to life trumps privacy and “bodily integrity” (short of life and death) rights. Not always, (I think there are cases where your property rights can justify you killing someone) but generally. That is not a hard call to make and has nothing to do with patriarchy.
Now, that isn’t to say that an argument can’t be made that abortion rights trump the right to life of the unborn. But no one in the pro-choice camp will go there because it acknowledges their greatest fear – that the fetus will indeed be considered a person. So, they wait cowering in the corner for the inevitable to happen.
At best, I think that kind of justification would be a very uphill battle.
It would be interesting to see how Sweden classifies the unborn. My guess is that they don’t consider it a person. Or, they may have less “right to life” protections for persons than we do. I don’t know. All I know is that if someone prefers their laws, then they should go live there. I hope they don’t mind 60% taxes as well.
As far as the personhod argument in general, it has nothing to do with patriarchy either. It has everything to do with biology. I’m afraid you are stuck with this one as the objective biological facts don’t change depending on which country you go to.
Get a grip. Feminist hysterics only feed the patriarchal paradigm you wish to escape from. Besides, no one is trying to revert to the “dark ages”. A “Victorian utopia” is the more likely.;-)
As to the ‘justifiable homicide’ comments above – if personhood is ever legally deemed to begin at conception – can ‘anyone’ explain to me how such a law could be anything other than total and absolute patriarchal control when the vast majority of women in the world ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion should the need for it arise?
If the vast majority of women in a democracy with universal suffrage (e.g., the U.S.) want a given law to be passed, it should pass, given that there are more women than men of voting age. It might take two or three elections to get the job done, but eventually they’ll get it. So if such a law is passed, perhaps the underlying premise of “the vast majority of women ‘want’ access to safe and legal abortion” might be false in such a case.
In Sweden there are members of the ruling Social Democrat Party trying to find ways to provide foreign women with access to the free – yes – free – abortions that are the right of every Swedish woman.
I’m curious as to how the Swedish government and whatever documents the government is based on justifies taking money from people by force (i.e., collects taxes) to fund abortions for free for whoever wants one. Why should anyone have to pay for that?
This attempt even includes illegal immigrant women, and how to achieve this for them without at the same time undermining the police and immigration authorities.
Especially people who aren’t even citizens of the country. And good luck on that “without undermining” bit.
This is what the separation of Church and State can look like. (though more than this is needed…) Sorry if I’m off topic here, but isn’t there some way a legal challenge can be mounted against the blending of these in your country? Because if Fundamentalist Christian morality around sex and sexuality and abortion etc. informs the laws of the land, something very basic to your democracy has been lost even inside the democratic process.
There is no process within American government that requires the governmental bodies to take notice of any particular religion’s doctrines or precepts. But due to our republican democratic government (note with a small “d” and “r”), our representatives are bound to take note of their voters’ desires, and they are also allowed to express their own. If the voters don’t like what’s going on, they can vote out the officials and put in ones whose actions and beliefs they approve of.
People who describe themselves as “Fundamentalist Christians” are a minority in this country. There is no way that any of their moral views can be imposed on the rest of the country unless the particular view in question is also held by a majority of the rest of the country.
Does anyone know of any surveys that match up opinions regarding abortion and religious beliefs? How many people who do not describe themselves as “Fundamentalist” oppose unlimited abortion rights? Certainly I would fall within that classification.
cicely, I’m curious; can you give me a brief review of what bodies make up Sweden’s government (who has legislative power, executive power and judicial power) and how they are chosen and elected?
Free as in paid by taxpayers (btw, “60 % taxes”, is still complete bull. Where do the American conservatives get such “facts”?). Nevertheless, there are plenty of restrictions to abortion in Sweden. Second/third semester abortions require more reasons (health etc.), and I’m not sure, but it might be that the abortion law in Sweden is more restrictive than it is in the US. As it is in Finland. There is no absolute right to abort. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Yet I can’t remember a single case rising in which a woman would sue or otherwise need to fight for her right to abort (late-term). I suppose the system has been succesful in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and making sure that abortions, if performed, are done early (which I would say is a good thing for all). Thus the demand for abortions does not appear to be very high.
Protections for life for legal persons don’t suck in any of Scandinavian countries.
I fail to see how the personhood of embryo/fetus is an objective biological fact. Life, yes. Personhood, debatable.
I have to agree with RonF on providing abortions to illegal immigrants. Doesn’t sound right.
Simple. If people don’t like it, they will vote for someone who wants to reduce public spending on abortions. Surely that holds true for most free societies that collect taxes from citizens?
RonF, I’m not cicely, but:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2853
is something.
From my Swedish brother-in-law. That is what he was paying in taxes (56% to be exact, so I rounded up) before he moved to America. His primary reasons for moving here (other than my sister of course) were to escape socialist medicine rationing of care, the government run (and paid for) church, and the burdensome tax rate. Something to think about if you really think Sweden is such a great place to live.
See this discussion at biology-online for a complete breakdown of the argument.
Basically:
Person – A Living (biological state) Human (biological classification). The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Human – A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
From Zygote on, the developing “thing” is living, genetically human, genetically distinct, and a complete organism (it is not a tissue, organ, or organ system based on the definitions of those roganizational levels). Therefore, by biological definition, it is a person – a living organism (member) of the species Home sapiens.
I also checked Stedman’s Medical online, and it didn’t list any medical definition at all for the word “person” or “personhood.” Presumably you looked at a different edition.
The American Heritage dictionary online lists several definitions of “person,” , but not the one you’ve attributed to it. Among the ones it includes are these two:
It is these senses of the word “person” – most especially sense 3 – that I suspect Tuomas was referring to in comment 56. And he’s quite correct; the personhood of the fetus is not an objective biological fact.
You can, of course, respond by saying “personhood in the medical sense of the word is a biological fact.” Even if that were so, however, it is certainly not a biological fact that we must use that particular definition, rather than the definitions quoted above, when having this debate.
I see what you’re doing now as playing games with words. You’re too smart not to realize that there is a legitimate sense of the word “person” in the English language that is not resolvable by biology.
Amp – strange. I used dictionary.com to look up my definitions and cited their reference. The definition I used is the first definition in each instance. The definitions you use are also there.
I followed your link to American Heritage Dictionary and here is the full entry (at least those definitions of consequence):
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner’s person.
Physique and general appearance.
5. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
As you can see – mine is the first one. Not sure how you missed it.
I reject 2-4 because they define characteristics or components of personhood but not objectively what a person “is”.
I would also disagree with using a philosophical definition because it is subjective. It makes personhood relative to what each person thinks it is. Of course, subjective and philosophical definitions have been used to tragic end in the past by many awful people who wanted to get rid of persons they didn’t like. Simply deny their “personhood” and it is ok to kill them. That is why an objective definition is imperative. The biological definition is the only objective one I can find.
gengwall – Your definitions are not the legal definitions of personhood.
Legally, no one becomes a person until they are born. Note that birth certificates (not pregnancy certificates) are issued, taxing authorities do not give double deductions for pregnant women, state legislative and Congressional districts are based on born population, etc.
In practice, people tend to frown on abortion if it occurs later – quickening was the dividing line at common law (abortion bans were passed later, more to protect women from incompetent and unscrupulous doctors than to legislate morality).
And God is the biggest abortionist of all – 15-20 percent of all pregancies end in miscarriage.
Gengwall,
Look at how to read a dictionary entry (there is a page in every online dictionary that I have ever seen). The first sense is no more valid than the one hundred & seventy-eighth sense. Usually, senses are listed in chronological order. Even in the few cases where they are listed in order of common use/meaning, no sense is more valid than any other. I have some obtuse troll to thank for my knowledge of how to read a dictionary and for the rather enjoyable, if obscure & tangential debate, about the rules used in dictionaries.
“Person” is a legal concept, when mentioned in the laws of this country. A long tradition of common law has considered embryos and fetuses as not having legal personhood, even after “quickening”. Only live-born infants have legal personhood. The law just Doesn’t Want To Go There (pre-live-birth legal personhood) in matters of inheritance, taxation, etc. Think about proving responsibility for every miscarriage (2/3 of conceptuses, by the way) – “act of God”, maternal smoking, paternal smoking and passive smoke influence, bad management of gestational or conventional diabetes by mother or doctor, intent to procreate by an individual (male or female) with a known chromosomal anomaly such as balanced translocation that leads to high rate of miscarriage, secondary liability (accessory to murder) of cigarette companies and supersizing fast food companies, etc etc.
Aaron – I didn’t say mine was a legal definition. But if you want to go there, fine. Some states have legal definitions that read “a human that is born and alive”. Many states have definitions that include the unborn at various stages of development including from conception forward. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has this definition.
“a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”
So, as you can see, legal definitions are currently subjective. That is why I want to stick to an objective definition.
Jake – I don’t pretend it is the most important entry (did I say that? I don’t think so), just the most applicable to the issue.
Amp – I’ve done it again – led us all off hopping down the bunny trail. Sorry. I’m happy to continute this discussion but suspect you would rather we get back on topic. I’ll shut up about it unless you give the go ahead to continue. I refer to my forum entry on biology-online (link above) if anyone wants to continue the discussion from a purely biological perspective.
Every woman alive (including me) who has miscarried a wanted
childpregnancy has agonized over whether she did or didn’t do something to cause the miscarriage (the medical term btw is “spontaneous abortion”). If conception starts personhood, maybe we should convene a special court to decide each case?Accidental homocide is justifiable. If you had been negligent, depending on the state you live in, you might have been in trouble.
See? This is exactly why this defining the fetus as a person is incredibly dangerous for women. This is exactly why it represents an enormous incursion on their bodily sovreignity and privacy. Think for a second about the practical implications of enforcing the law as you’ve just interpreted it.
Accidental homicide is often called involuntary manslaughter, for which one can serve time.
True story: I had a miscarriage the day after mowing the lawn.
Another true story: The fetus I was carrying was found by ultrasound to have died three days after I would have had amnio had I not refused it because of concern over the small but measurable risk to the fetus.
If Falwell et al. were in charge, could I be prosecuted for mowing the lawn? Or for having the amnio, if I’d had it?
Gengwall, you’re skating on thin ice.
Compare these two definitions, please:
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. A Living (biological state) Human (biological classification)
They use a few of the same words, but they are not at all the same thing. Do you honestly not see that your definition has some rather important provisions in it (i.e., “biological state” and “biological classification”) that the dictionary definition lacks?
Furthermore, the dictionary definition goes on to give examples that seem more social than biological to me.
If you’re going to modify the dictionary definition – which appears to be what you’ve done – then honesty should compel you to let everyone else know you’ve modified it, rather than dishonestly attributing your modified version to the dictionary.
The question under issue is whether or not “personhood” is an objective term. (The original term you responded to was “personhood,” not “person.”) You can’t “prove” that a word is objective, not subjective, by arbitrarily choosing to reject all non-objective definitions; that’s called “assuming what’s at issue,” and it’s completely illogical.
It’s as if I said “all bowling balls are black,” and you responsed by showing me a bowling ball rack containing three black, two red and one blue ball. I can’t logically resolve the argument by saying “well, I reject three of those balls on the basis of non-blackness. Since all the remaining balls are black, clearly I’m correct.” But that’s what you’ve done here.
The fact that a definition is subjective doesn’t logically establish that it’s not a correct definition of the word; subjectivity is not a reasonable grounds for rejecting definitions.
The next time you, explicitly or implicitly, compare the pro-choice position to either the Nazi Holocaust or American slavery, you’ll be banned for a month. Do it a second time and you’ll be banned, period.
Likening the people you disagree with in a debate to slaveholders and/or Nazis isn’t reasoned debate; it’s invective.
I reject 2-4 because they define characteristics or components of personhood but not objectively what a person “is”.
Fine. I reject sense 1 because biology is not the sole factor in determining whether a human life is a person or not and it totally ignores the social factors required to determine personhood.
Amp – I will leave the last word to you for now on personhood as I still believe you would like this to get back on track.
I certainly was not comparing anyone to Nazis or Slave holders nor do I believe anyone here is like that. What I was saying is that Nazis and Slave holders used subjective and philosophical definitions to dehumanize their victims. Is this not true? Was not the woman’s movement about the fact that a patriarchal society had made women “second class persons”? To simply point out the facts is not name calling or stereotyping (at least not stereotyping anybody here and now). If we remove ugly historical points from the discussion we don’t learn from our history. I don’t think it is out of line for me to point out that, for example, the Dred Scott decision used subjective logic to treat slaves as “not persons”.
If I have offended people I certainly understand and accept banishment. I mean no malice with statements that I have made and I know in my own mind I did not direct those statements toward anyone here or to pro-choice people in general. If that was the effect, I appologize. It was not my intent. I am simply trying to determine if an objective definition is possible and to point out why an objective definition is necessary.
I don’t doubt that. Highly progressive taxation (which of course has bad side effects too: It is hard to really get rich by salary income, no matter the education/amount of work you do. Thus, motivation for those things is mainly provided by protestant work ethics and social/cultural benefits, not economic incentives. Getting rich requires business-owning, investment and/or luck).
However, it is misleading to simply state: “You’ll pay 60 % taxes”, majority of Swedes do not pay even close to that. And they get government child-care, health care, quality education (all the way) and more provided by those taxes.
But no system or a country is perfect and without flaws/trade-offs, if that’s what you mean.
Better than many, yes, but I’ll probably stay in Finland for all my life. Barring tourism (and hanging out at foreign blogs), of course.
But what relevance could that possibly have if you weren’t trying to imply that pro-choicers do the same thing to the people of fetus–and, thus, comparing us to both of the above.
We use subjective and philosophical definitions to “dehumanize” cysts, corpses, and gorillas. What’s your point? Every definition of human excludes certain groups as non-human. Every definition of person excludes certain groups as non-persons. The difference between the pro-choice definition and the pro-slavery definition is the criteria, but that doesn’t mean that defining “human” and “person” means you’re comparable to every other group that’s ever defined “human” and “person.”
Well, this isn’t really a thread about the scandinavian welfare state. Just had to jump at some (IMO) common misconceptions, if you all don’t mind. I will bow off from those subjects now.
“Accidental homocide is justifiable. If you had been negligent, depending on the state you live in, you might have been in trouble. ”
If this is how you want to view the world, I would like to know if we can also hold the men who didn’t use birth control negligent for the death of a fetus. Based on your highly subjective view of a woman’s relationship to her uterus, I would think there would be plenty of grounds for male liability in regards to not ensuring that their sperm were implanted in a trustworthy incubator.
Criminal negligence if you cum in the wrong vagina. I kinda like it.
You want to define objectivity so that it fits a male viewpoint on pregnancy, sort of a male defined bodily relationship between a woman and her uterus. Which tends to make your objectivity highly subjective. Furthermore, you fail to explore those instances of death/murder of a fully developed human which are socially condoned, andthat most often come about through the hands of men. To ignore this is, again, highly subjective. Your objectivity towards defining human beings is strongly and subjectively tied to what women do and don’t do, i.e, the choices that women make, and hence your comment above that I quoted. You’re asking for a double standard and berating *us* for being subjective. Strange times indeed.
>>. In general in our society, right to life trumps privacy and “bodily integrity” (short of life and death) rights>>
No, it does not. If you need a kidney to live, even if you’re my child, the law does not force me to have one of mine removed to give you. My bodily integrity trumps your need for a kidney. The same is true for blood, bone marrow, corneal lenses, etc. etc…..nowhere in this country is anyone forced to risk their health or life for the benefit of another person, and the only place it’s under discussion is when it comes to pregnant women.
*Jake, piny, Q Grrl, Broce write. Gengwall beats head against wall while holding hand over mouth*
Back to the point of the thread. I would like to follow up on this a little more:
OK – let me put on my “fundie” hat (I don’t mind that term BTW which is why use it liberally). I think we have two fears although personally I don’t have so much of a problem with this.
Fear 1 – It is very easy for teens to translate “policies which push birth control” into adult acceptance and even encouragement of sexual activity. Since this would go against our moral code, we would have a hard time buying on. My take (a minority view at present), is that it at least could succeed in what we both want, reducing abortions. I am willing to accept the lessor evil. Personally, I have had no problem with my girls despite blatant contraception education at schools. But, I have never expected the schools to be morality teachers.
Fear 2 – Even more than allowing encouragement of promiscuity, we fear we will tacitly be endorsing the same. We seem hypocrytical to our kids if we don’t take a “no budging” stance against teen sex. I realise what a bad position this puts us in. And isn’t comfortable. But that is the fear. Personally, again, I don’t have a problem with the presumed paradox. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the reality that teens have sex and I am perfectly happy, despite my moral objection, if they take measures to prevent even greater damage to their lives.
Gengwall,
What percentage of your fellow fundies do you believe have never had extramarital sex? I’m willing to bet that the percentage is very, very low. Hell, I’m the least sexually active person that I have known & I have had sex outside of marriage. My problem with your fears #1 & #2 is that those are essentially hypocritical positions for the overwhelming majority of US adults. A, “do as we say, not as we do,” position. Not to mention that neither of those positions actually work in the real world. Kids have been having sex, promiscuously, even in the strictest, most sexually moral upright societies in our historical record. Sometimes we have irrational or unproductive fears. It is our job to recognize that in ourselves and to find the right thing to do despite those fears.
Hey, thanks, gengwall! Why don’t you make a few more careless comments about dehumanization and killing and see if that makes the conversation a bit more productive, huh?
The hell with this.
I was hoping for another obnoxious use of “hysterical,” myself… :/
As has already been pointed out, the flip side of this is that it’s very easy for teens to translate “sex outside of marriage is bad and you shouldn’t even think of doing such a thing” into “if I don’t think about it beforehand it’s not as bad” — which of course eliminates all possibility of using birth control.
I think you’re hysterical in the good way, Alsis.
Absolutely true. I make no claim otherwise. I stated some time earlier that I am under the same “do as we say…” burden. But, again as I said earlier, having two teenage daughters changes ones perspective. I have no problem explaining to them the (in my view) mistakes I have made in my past and helping them so that they don’t make the same mistakes. It is precisely because of this open relationship with my girls that I don’t hold the same fear as many of my friends about sex education in schools.
Of course. I don’t think I said otherwise.
Acknowledging that kids have sex is not the same as resigning ourselves to the fact they will. There are certainly plenty of people in this country who did not have sex in their teens and there are many more who waited until marriage. Although I would agree that it is not a majority even in the church, it is higher than you probably think. Moreover, don’t we want our teens to wait? I mean, that isn’t necessarily a religiously motivated desire. I know plenty of non-religious parents who have the same “do as we say…” situation.
Lu – very good point. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) our methods of conveying our morality to our teens backfires. Sometimes they could care less what our morality is. And sometimes, even if they agree they lose control. In any case, the less fuel for the fire the better. All of those things may be going on in a kid’s mind but if their teacher also conveys the message that “it’s ok for teens to have sex” (a moral position I would say) or “it’s too hard for teens to avoid having sex” (a social position, maybe?) it can look like adult approval of their behavior. That is what we fear.
But, again as I said earlier, having two teenage daughters changes ones perspective.
Yes, that it was okay for us but not for them. I wonder if having two teenaged sons would change ones perspective in the same way.
Moreover, don’t we want our teens to wait?
Do we? Wait for what? is the real question. I want our teens (and our pre-teens and our adults) to wait until they have a good working knowledge of contraception, tranmissible diseases, no means no, peer pressure, consequences etc. related to sex. If a 14 year old understands these things and feels mature enough, go ahead (w/ a peer, not w/ an adult). What do you want teens to wait for? (I mean that as: for what do you want teens to wait? not as why do you want teens to wait).
I waited until I was 21 for a variety of reasons. I don’t think that I was any more mature (sexually) or knowledgeable than many folks that I knew when I was 16.
I know plenty of non-religious parents who have the same “do as we say…” situation.
That doesn’t make it right or even a viable strategy.
Acknowledging that kids have sex is not the same as resigning ourselves to the fact they will.
Really? What is your strategy to end this everyday occurrence? I haven’t seen one that works yet. Although, generation after generation, we are shocked, shocked! at how and how much kids are screwing around. Is it any more or less prevelant than it was in the 1940’s? Or 1930’s or 1880’s? I’d be surprised if there was much of a percentage change between then & now. I really don’t think that shaming and keeping kids ignorant about sex has done much to reduce teen sexual activity. It can only cause an increase in harm, though.
Understood. I have a preteen daughter btw, so, despite being on the other side of just about all the fences you’ve enumerated, I know where you’re coming from.
But, as has also been pointed out, it’s possible to say “there are all kinds of reasons [and you can enumerate them and cast them as practical or moral or both, depending on your philosophy] why it’s a good idea to wait to have sex, but if you don’t, for pity’s sake use birth control.”
Two little notes from Glaivester, the Guardian of Clarity:
What percentage of your fellow fundies do you believe have never had extramarital sex? I’m willing to bet that the percentage is very, very low.
It might be better to say “non-marital sex,” unless you are saying that the vast majority of fundies cheat on their spouses. (I’ve always interpreted “extramarital” to mean sex with someone other than your spouse while you are married).
One question about Scandinavia: When you say pay 60% of your income in taxes, do you mean 60% of your pre-tax income or 60% of your post-tax income?
E.g., if you are paid $100,000 a year before taxes and pay taxes at a 60% rate, does that mean you pay $60,000 in taxes (60% of $100,000) or that you pay $37,500 in taxes (i.e. so that you pay 60% of the amount you are allowed to take home, i.e. $62,500). In the U.S. we think in terms of the former, but I was under the impression that in sme European countries they evaluae tax percentages in the latter way, which would make taxes seem higher than they are.
Jake – I hear where you are coming from. We certainly would raise our kids differently. That’s OK. Let me just jump on one point
Why not with an adult? What you just described was a 14 year old with an adult’s perspective and maturity level. So why would you not allow this type of interaction?
I think this is the slippery slope those with your perspective find themselves on. There is nothing in your criteria – “have a good working knowledge of contraception, tranmissible diseases, no means no, peer pressure, consequences etc. related to sex” – that changes just because the partner is an adult. So why not?
Jake Squid wrote:
Seems to me that it’s always been an accepted thing in this culture for men and boys to “educate” themselves about sex. That is, a man should not go to his marriage bed a virgin, though his bride most definitely should.
I often suspect that when the average Fundie is talking about “kids knowing too much,” they really mean that “girls know too much.” In the worldview that creates the Fundie ideal of marriage, the stability of the marriage is based upon experienced male/inexperienced female. The male always should have power-over in matters of sex just as he should in everything else. Anything else would threaten the marriage/the ideal of marriage.
Personally, I don’t see why we should assume that either A) Marriage must be the ultimate goal of all who desire sexual activity or B) Men must have power over women for the marriage to be the right kind of marriage. Also, like Jake Squid, I’m one of those evil secular humanists who waited until she was in her twenties. Make of that what you will.
It might be better to say “non-marital sex,”…
Very true. Thanks for understanding what I meant.
Why not with an adult?
Because the power dynamics make it almost impossible for it to be an equal relationship. This level of power imbalance doesn’t just enter the equation for a 14yr old and a 25 yr old. You can find that same imbalance w/ a 19yr old and a 50 yr old or any of a large number of other examples that have nothing to do with age. It’s just that you can be 99.9999999% sure of that imbalance of power between an adult and a 14 yr old.
I think this is the slippery slope those with your perspective find themselves on.
I think that you would need to know a lot more about my perspective (and those w/ similar views) before you can talk about any “slippery slope,” as my answer above should indicate. And gaining knowledge of my philosophy, morals, etc. will take a lot more than some fairly short exchanges on a blog.
Glaivester:
The former. However, I did check what the tax percentage would be for 100,000 dollars (about 81,000 euros), for a single childless person, and got 38,5%, which is awfully close to the what it would be with latter method 60%.
Coincidence perhaps, or you are on to something.
Arg. Sorry folks. Mr. Thread Drift stroke again (that is me).
Point being, awfully few scandinavians ever pay as much taxes as gengwall’s brother-in-law did. Altough (IIRC) Sweden had higher taxes during the early 90’s. Economic depression and unwillingness to cut public spending.