Via Mahablog and Lawyers Guns And Money, I read this interesting Washington Post article about a split in the “pro-life” movement over the “Partial Birth Abortion” ban.
What’s interesting is that some of the pro-lifers are admitting to the truth about the Partial Birth Abortion ban (PBA ban) — truths that leaders of the pro-life movement have been blatantly lying about for years. In this story, pro-lifers admit:
- That a PBA ban will not prevent a single abortion.
- That the alternative procedures are more dangerous for women.
- That some alternative procedures doctors will use now are if anything more brutal from a fetus-centric point of view.
- That PBA bans have nothing to do with reducing abortion and everything to do with fundraising and Republicans winning elections.
It’s refreshing to read pro-life leaders finally (albeit temporarily) telling the truth.
The most appalling quote comes from the vice president of Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, arguing in favor of the PBA ban. It’s nothing we didn’t already suspect, but it’s amazing that Minnery was careless enough to say it in pubilc:
“The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”
For years pro-lifers have been pushing the same lie: they’ve claimed ((See, for example, the text of the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which explicitly claims “partial birth” abortions are never safer.)) that a procedure that involves inserting forceps into a woman’s uterus as many as a dozen times over (a standard D&E) has no greater chance of causing injury than a procedure which requires only a single insertion (a D&X, which is more-or-less the procedure that’s been banned by the Partial Birth Abortion ban). ((This article, via Mahablog, describes other ways doctors are experimenting with possibly less safe procedures in order to avoid breaking the new law.))
Now Focus on the Family’s man in charge of policy not only admits that was a lie, but suggests that increased risk to women is a benefit: the “greater danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus” is good, because it might discourage some “later-term” ((In fact, as Mahablog points out, most uses of the now-banned D&X procedure take place pre-viability, and would be more accurately described as “mid-term” than “late-term” abortions.)) abortions.
As Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money writes:
As you can see, most anti-choicers (despite the bad faith Congressional findings that 2+2=171) don’t really think that these bans on a safer procedure protect women’s physical health. They simply believe that women can’t be trusted to make judgments about their own lives, and if this causes some women to be seriously injured that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s almost impossible to overstate how disgusting this legislation is, and how deeply entwined outright misogyny is with the American “pro-life” movement.
Although Minnery is correct to say that the ban he and his movement favor puts women in danger, I doubt there will be any less abortion as a result. Chuck Donovan of the pro-life Family Research Council is probably right when he says “there may not be even one fewer abortion in the country as a result” of the PBA ban — but note that he’s only admitting that now that the PBA ban has been made law. For years, contrary to what Donovan now admits, pro-life leaders have been claiming — ridiculously — that the partial-birth abortion ban would save little baby lives (all the better to pry open the wallets of the pro-life rank and file). And the vast majority of pro-lifers in this country, who are either totally amoral about lying or complete dupes of their leadership, have been content to let them get away with it.
Now some in the pro-life movement — although no one as major league as Focus On The Family or the Family Research Council — are complaining about the constant lying about this issue by pro-lifer leaders. From “An Open Letter To James Dobson”:
Dr. Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will “protect children.” The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child…. Your correspondence department… told us that with this PBA ruling, “The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal for women to have an abortion in the last trimester.” Online at KGOV.com, we also document other pro-life media outlets misrepresenting this vicious ruling. Following your example, many national ministries have spent years using the PBA ban to motivate financial donations, all the while misrepresenting the legal effect of the ban. Today millions of Christians, including your own staff, have been deceived. …The court explicitly stated the PBA ban “does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle” to “late-term” abortion (p. 26). And since this ban cannot prevent a single abortion, of course, it imposes no obstacle, and neither does it “protect children” (your words) or ban “abortion in the last trimester” (words offered by some of your staff).
More pro-life dissidents, quoted in the Washington Post article:
Rev. Bob Enyart, a Christian talk radio host and pastor of the Denver Bible Church, said the real issue is fundraising. “Over the past seven years, the partial-birth abortion ban as a fundraising technique has brought in over a quarter of a billion dollars” for major antiabortion groups, “but the ban has no authority to prevent a single abortion, and pro-life donors were never told that,” he said. “That’s why we call it the pro-life industry.”
In Rohrbough’s view, partisan politics is also involved. “What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they’re really a wing of the Republican Party, and they’re not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child — they’re geared to getting Republicans elected,” he said. “So we’re seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we’re deceived about what they really do.”
But despite this deep split within the pro-life movement, rest assured that there are some things that they all have in common. For instance, the way that virtually all of these pro-life spokespeople are men. For another, the way that none of them ever express the slightest concern for women’s health or well-being. So you see, they agree on the fundamentals.
More blogging on this story: Our Bodies Our Selves, Feministing, Balkinization,A Foolish Consistency, Dizzy Dayz, Political Animal, and Ryoga. And the aforementioned Mahablog and Lawyers, Guns and Money. And (edited to add) The Debate Link, The Thinkery, Fattmixx, Bligbi, RH Reality Check, Pseudo-Adrienne, The Carpetbagger Report, Obsidian Wings, and Pandagon.
awesome post.
Me too.
There’s a difference between wanting a bad thing to happen, and being glad that the existence of the bad thing will disincent people from a worse thing.
I am not glad that people die horribly if they are hurled through their windshields in car collisions; I am glad that the prospect of such a death is sufficiently gruesome to many people that they buckle up, thus preventing not only the windshield deaths, but a million other fatalities and injuries. The pro-lifers in question aren’t glad that women are going to have their uteruses perforated in abortions, they’re glad that many women will choose not to abort.
(Or at least they think that. I agree that the PBA bans aren’t likely to have any positive effects, and that pro-life people have been duped by some of their leaders.)
I am not glad that people die horribly if they are hurled through their windshields in car collisions; I am glad that the prospect of such a death is sufficiently gruesome to many people that they buckle up, thus preventing not only the windshield deaths, but a million other fatalities and injuries. The pro-lifers in question aren’t glad that women are going to have their uteruses perforated in abortions, they’re glad that many women will choose not to abort.
A better analogy to what the pro-lifers are doing is if you thought that cars were evil and therefore worked to get seatbelts illegalized, because they encourage people to use cars by making them safer. And if, at the same time, you not only failed to provide alternatives, but actively worked to make public transportation, bike paths, and even sidewalks less available. And then said that people who died in car crashes got what they deserved.
Robert, people might take that distinction seriously if the anti-choice organizations were so concerned about abortion that they would put their views of pelvic morality second and advocate comprehensive sex ed and available contraception and EC. Since they are unwilling to adopt positions that would help women have sex free of disease and unwanted pregnancy even if there is reason to believe that those policies would reduce abortion, many of us conclude that fetus protection is a secondary consideration and that retaining unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease as enforcers of religious commands about sex is the primary consideration.
I can’t say I really feel anything resembling pity for anti-choicers who feel “deceived.” You can only be deceived if you only listened to one or two sources, and when it comes to medical procedures and your source ISN’T someone in the medical field, then yes – you’re being duped.
Pingback: Read-Ems at Shakesville
In his analogy, Robert also forgot to add the bit where anyone, anywhere who ever gets in a car *deserves* to have something bad happen to them, whether it’s being hurled through the windscreen or just bruised and traumatised by a car accident.
i don’t agree with the religious right notion of sexuality, not least because it tends to be held up as the only possible Christian interpretation of sexuality. except the Bible is more egalitarian than any of that stuff.
However, all that said, I do wonder in such discussions of sexuality and sexual education why the discussion is always framed in terms of how people can have sex in ‘safer’ fashion rather than in terms of how people can just…not have sex. I mean, to me, the extreme pseudoChristian view that sex is dirty and wrong is misleading and not ultimately helpful or useful. Concurrently, the progressive liberal view that everyone ought to be having sex if they feel the urges (so to speak) so long as it’s consensual and involves barrier methods is problematic for completely different reasons.
It makes no allowance for restraint or demureness on the part of men or women, or patience in relationships. Though one can SAY abstinence is ok, or waiting until marriage to have sex is ok, etc, by focusing so much on how to implicitly and explicitly encourage teens and young adults to ‘just do it’ really shows that such advocates don’t have, er, faith that anyone would ever exercise restraint or discipline w/r/t sex.
Part of the problem with a harm-reduction philosophy towards sex is that assuming folk’ll do it anyway leads folk to think they ought to do it and that NOT doing it is ‘weird’ or ‘freaky’ or ‘abnormal’. It takes fortitude and discipline to not have sex, much as it does to not max out one’s credit. The doctrine of self-indulgence is a root from which springs both kinds of behaviors.
Of course, the flipside, demonising sex and saying ‘omg you will BURN if you evar touch another’s genitals and btw, you can’t even enjoy sex when married!!!!’ doesn’t really cover the discipline and restraint side of things. it just makes people feel bad for having felt good when they explored sexual feelings instead of offering ways to direct sexual energy away from indulgence for its own sake. also, there is a subtext of extreme focus on sexual sin or misconduct to the exclusion of other sins in right wing pseudo or sectarian Christianity.
i don’t think it’s accurate to say ‘abstinence education FAILS’ when it was/is done in a way almost calculated to not work in the real world. i mean, poor teaching methodologies for non-sex things are critiqued but not dismissed. and abstinence education could be done in a viable way. But a discussion of sectarian issues within Christianity would be an even bigger digression.
to get a bit more on topic, another issue with sectarian and/or pseudoChristianity among right-wing people is that pro-life and pro-choice views within the rest of the Christian community get zero play. Lots of Christians support in word and deed caring for single mothers, making adoption easier, supplying women with good prenatal care and even birth control. But they aren’t sectarians, or right wing, or part of the machine that now has become associated with Christianity despite openly advocating non-Christian beliefs and practices. They’re mostly small local groups or individuals doing what they can to help those in need in a way that is useful to those in need.
But a greater problem is the surrounding culture. You cannot have a culture of endless indulgence and then be shocked that some people turn sectarian. You also can’t be surprised that kids are having sex younger and younger.
Nabokov wrote of upper-middle class preteens having sex at 12 or so. Now it’s not just the richies being decadent, but everyone else too, and unlike Paris Hilton, the consequences are a lot worse for the indulgence when one isn’t well-off.
Also, in a world where people are encouraged to just do what makes them happy (indulgence of every whim at that instant one has the whim), one cannot be shocked that boys and girls are growing up having trouble respecting each other. Girls see guys as objects that exist to give them attention and validation and possibly material goods. Guys see girls as objects offering unlimited consequence- free sex. If one girl won’t put out, it’s not so hard to find another who will. And if a girl or girls won’t do the acts you want done, there’s always a bunch of women doing them on the easily accessible porn that permeates the culture.
And interestingly, the increasing social approval of being sexual without restraint has actually led to women just commoditizing other women. Strip clubs are full of lesbians behaving as piggishly as male customers, and also bisexual and straight women both behaving piggishly and also trying to appeal to the male gaze through simulating interest in the dancers. And yet, because women still expect to not pay for sex even if they expect to act like men about it, they cost the girls who will sell their sexuality more and more money each shift.
anyway, i got kinda offtopic there, but i think that the sectarians who hate sex so much nobody’s supposed to like it evarrrr are not so far removed from the people who advocate overt sexuality so much that other options become socially unacceptable. in this culture you have to pick either an extreme sectarian sex-negative viewpoint or pick a hyper-sexualised, ultra-indulgent sex-positive viewpoint (so media will have us believe). that’s a difficult place for kids to be in, for women to be in, for men to be in.
In response to “a person” in comment 8, I’d like to say that sex can be a good thing. It feels good, it enhances pair bonds, it makes people happy. Throughout their lives, most people want to have only a few children (at most). I don’t think it’s reasonable to demand that everyone only have sex that many times. A handful of people might have a vocation for a celibate life, but most do not. Where do you get off, being more demanding than St Paul?
I have a particular problem with policies that make unreasonable expectations for women who have borne children at risk of their lives (or who have nearly died while miscarrying.) It’s very dangerous for these women to get pregnant again, and I want them to have access to good contraception, and abortion services in case something goes wrong. I would not have the nerve to tell such a woman she should just abstain from sex until menopause–she and her husband should comfort each other however they can.
a person,
There are so many things to disagree with in your comments 8 & 9 that I don’t have the energy to address them all. Just a few that stand out and take little effort to address:
Concurrently, the progressive liberal view that everyone ought to be having sex if they feel the urges (so to speak) so long as it’s consensual and involves barrier methods is problematic for completely different reasons.
It makes no allowance for restraint or demureness on the part of men or women, or patience in relationships.
The first sentence of the above quote invalidates the claim made in the second sentence. An emphasis on sex being consensual makes allowance for “… restraint or demureness on the part of men or women…
It takes fortitude and discipline to not have sex…
This is certainly not true of everybody. I’m not even sure that it is an accurate generality.
You cannot have a culture of endless indulgence and then be shocked that some people turn sectarian.
I vehemently disagree with your claim that we live in a culture of endless indulgence. Certainly the overtly anti-gay and anti-trans attitudes on constant display repudiate the claim of endless indulgence existing within American culture.
Nabokov wrote of upper-middle class preteens having sex at 12 or so. Now it’s not just the richies being decadent…
I don’t believe that sexual activity is decadent. The fact that you do reveals a lot about the motivations behind your posts.
Strip clubs are full of lesbians behaving as piggishly as male customers, and also bisexual and straight women both behaving piggishly and also trying to appeal to the male gaze through simulating interest in the dancers.
Granted, I’m not a regular patron of strip clubs, but the few times I’ve been to strip clubs I have seen nothing of the sort. Even in the one that seemed almost like a neighborhood bar that happened to have nekkid women, the customers were at least 98% male.
in this culture you have to pick either an extreme sectarian sex-negative viewpoint or pick a hyper-sexualised, ultra-indulgent sex-positive viewpoint (so media will have us believe).
What makes you think so? I’ve seen and conversed with an awful lot of folks who don’t fall into either camp. In fact, nearly everybody I’ve ever spoken to on the subject falls into neither extremist camp.
i don’t think anywhere in there i said teen and young adults should NEVER have sex, ever. but again, they could NOT have sex until, you know, long-term relationship time rolled around. I mean, the idea of emphasizing celibacy for a period of time until one enters into a long-term relationship is honestly never a part of any sex education i’ve seen advocated by either right-wing people or left-wing people.
perhaps you missed what i said about it being problematic that sectarians focus on sexual sin to the exclusion of other sins. it’s not non-problematic to err in the other direction and think that always choosing the option to have sex is ‘better’, which is the subtext you get from the other side. plenty of people who are given to natural celibacy or asexuality or even people who do want to wait and only have one partner for their own reasons often, often, often are considered strange and weird for not choosing the option to have sex.
also, the anti-gay whatnot is just as much a symptom of endless indulgence as pro-gay. people feel free in this culture to indulge it all, be it tolerant support or intolerant dislike or outright hatred. it is an unintended consequence, but there it is.
also, i mentioned that plenty of Christians support birth control/contraception, adoption, prenatal care, and caring for single mothers with funds and community support.
jake squid, i kinda feel like what i am actually typing is being disregarded in favor of ideas vaguely related to what i typed, like where i mentioned that the media creates a very binary view of sex-positive or sex-negative and that’s said to be MY view.
also, if you’ve only been to titty bars a few times, how can you know what general trends within them look like? strippers complain about customers for a reason. not all customers are piggish and disrespecful, but those that are sometimes completely make one forget the ones that are ok. and even the ones that are ok are sometimes only ok in a very narrow sense. i did mean to specify that increasing numbers of lady customers behave as piggish male customers (the subset of customers like this) too often do and i did not make that clear, which is my bad.
to me, the extreme camps themselves aren’t so much the core problem as the fact that they are the operant ‘faces’ of each view to others. there are women who think they aren’t supposed to orgasm even in marriage (waaaay unChristian); there are women who think that they have to be extra freaky sexually and do a wide range of sexual acts with lots of different guys to be properly liberated. these women aren’t deriving this stuff from out of thin air. and there are women and men who are affected to lesser extents by the extreme and binary breakdown. something as tiny as watching a porno you don’t like with your husband or boyfriend, or having sex with your girlfriend when you’d rather wait a few months on it but you are worried she will think you’re ‘weird’ or don’t find her sexually attractive.
or conversely, trying to isolate yourself so totally from sexual expression that you really do end up unable to enjoy it. or getting so caught up in the presumed ‘dirtiness’ of sex that you express sexual desire only through extreme fetishes specifically chosen for ‘dirtiness’ or ‘deviance’ as you feel the words are defined.
the puritans were so much more rational about it all. wives and husbands were to please each other in bed and premarital sex was strongly discouraged, but you weren’t reviled if you had sinned that way because everyone sins and sexual sin wasn’t broken out and considered ‘worse’ than other sins and specific sexual sins weren’t judged as uniquely awful (like the current sectarian gay-hate. Puritans would have recognised that behavior as distinctly unChristian and rebuked it accordingly). buuut history is written by those who overthrew them, so the word has come to mean almost the opposite of what Puritans actually thought and believed, especially (though not limited to) sex.
A Person,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these posts, but I’m afraid the issues you seem interested in addressing are not the issues that are raised in these threads. Consequently, we are asking you that you cease posting on “Alas.”
Best of luck to you in all your future endeavors!
Robert, of all the willfully deceitful means used to justify the goal of preventing abortion, the hype over PBA is among the most disgusting. Most women who opt for PBA are carrying pregnancies that they wanted, and are devastated that they are not going to be having a live baby. They truly are choosing the best of bad options. D&E is safer, especially if a woman has a history of uterine scarring (of the kind that occurs in that not so uncommon procedure known as a c-section). There is something morally lacking in a person who would force a woman with prior history of c-section who is 22 weeks pregnant with a fetus with an unsurvivable chromosomal defect to have a less safe procedure on the grounds that the less safe procedure prevents abortion. It doesn’t even make sense. It is punitive. That hurting women in this manner would ever be seen as acceptable is chilling, and it’s even harder to accept that it would be considered an appropriate collateral consequence of raising funds.
Thank you Amp! Some guy with an off-topic axe to grind about the kids-and-lesbian-strippers-these-days could really kill a comment thread.
There is something morally lacking in a person who would force a woman with prior history of c-section who is 22 weeks pregnant with a fetus with an unsurvivable chromosomal defect to have a less safe procedure on the grounds that the less safe procedure prevents abortion.
Nonsense. We engage in this type of moral calculus all the time. It is necessary to do so, in order to act as an adult with agency in the world.
(I am not saying it is necessary to make this particular trade-0ff; in fact, I disagree with this particular trade-off. I am speaking to the general concept.)
Here’s a parallel with perhaps less emotional resonance: we require people to finish a certain level of schooling, even though for some individuals that level of schooling is really a bad choice, because if we didn’t require that level of schooling, a lot of other people would choose not to achieve it.
The root of the problem here, I suspect, is that people value fetal life differently. Many people (me among them) believe that fetuses are human people and should have the rights thereof. Thus, a hypothetical trade-off which results in a million less abortions at a cost of 100,000 adult lives, is nonetheless worthwhile – we’re netting 900,000 lives saved.
To people who assign fetal life a lower value (whether zero or some other amount that is nonetheless less than the value of an adult human), such a trade-off is monstrous – it nets 100,000 lives lost (or some fractional value thereof).
Same moral calculus, different results, because the input values are different. The decisions which other people make which strike us as fantastically evil, become simple common sense if we acknowledge that different values exist.
Robert, as I said above, if the kernel of the matter were really valuation of fetal life, it would be very, very hard for one who values fetal life highly to oppose (1) comprehensive sex ed; (2) broad avialability of contraception.
Certainly, their opposition to contraception & sex ed indicates that they find some things (abstinence, frex) to be more important than fetal life.
Women’s lives, however, are not more important than fetal lives.
That’s disgusting however you look at it. Either they are primarily concerned with stopping women’s sexuality, and the fetal life excuse is a thin veil; or they are not deceiving us, and they do value fetal lives, but they think they are less important than ignorance and the unavailability of contraception.
Vile.
Robert, as I said above, if the kernel of the matter were really valuation of fetal life, it would be very, very hard for one who values fetal life highly to oppose (1) comprehensive sex ed; (2) broad avialability of contraception.
Yes, if one valued fetal life AND had the sexual ethics that you, Thomas, had, then that would be the logical consequence. They (we) don’t have your sexual ethics.
No, no, Robert. You don’t weasel that easily out of it.
If they are saying that the deaths of women are a regrettable but necessary price to pay for fetal life, then they are ALSO saying that available contraception is NOT a regrettable but necessary price to pay for fetal life.
That means they think the free dissemination of contraception is MORE evil than the deaths of fetuses AND women.
I suppose, technically, if the greatest good is to have as many people as possible born, regardless of their quality of life or the effect having too many children will have on their parents, then opposing abortion and contraception makes sense…even if some of the fetuses conceived against the parents’ will are aborted illegally, some of them will probably be born for a net gain. But then wouldn’t abstinence be evil as well since it also prevents conceptions and subsequent births?
Robert, that was an obvious dodge. I said it would be:
That does not travel through my sexual ethics. Nor do I value fetal life.
The question is, if one places a high value on fetal life, how does one justify opposing comprehensive sex ed and availability of contraception if those tend to cause unwanted pregnancy and therefore lead to more abortion?
You seem to suggest that the answer travels through sexual ethics. Do you mean that some people value encouraging sexual restraint except in a married couple open to the possibility of conception so highly that they believe that steps that make it harder to prevent unwanted pregnancies from sex outside that context are desirable? If so, how is that consonant with a commitment to fetal life?
This is absolutely right, and it’s a big part of why I find the anti-abortion movement to be not just morally corrupt but also morally incoherent.
Really good analysis, Mandolin.
—Myca
Thanks. :)
I think the problem is that they’re incoherent if you take their claims at face value — that saving fetal life is their goal. If it is, then you have to accept that they think lack of contraception is more important than dead babies*.
It only makes sense if one accepts that sex is actually the fundamental evil. Which is, of course, what Amanda Marcotte has been saying all along, and most of us in this thread, too, I think. But, you know, I’ll restate it again, just cuz.
*to use their condensation of baby & fetus
The question is, if one places a high value on fetal life, how does one justify opposing comprehensive sex ed and availability of contraception if those tend to cause unwanted pregnancy and therefore lead to more abortion?
Those don’t “cause” unwanted pregnancy. You mistake a statistical correlation with causal power. Pregnancy is CAUSED by sexual intercourse.
You seem to suggest that the answer travels through sexual ethics. Do you mean that some people value encouraging sexual restraint except in a married couple open to the possibility of conception so highly that they believe that steps that make it harder to prevent unwanted pregnancies from sex outside that context are desirable?
It isn’t a question of “encouraging sexual restraint”.
We begin from a position that sexual activity outside a monogamous, committed and lifetime relationship is immoral. Of COURSE sexual activity that falls outside the bounds of moral behavior is going to have tragic consequences, including unwanted pregnancy and, people being what they are, abortion.
The way to preserve fetal life is not to accept an immoral sexual ethic and then try to minimize the harms it causes; it is to promulgate a moral sexual ethic in the first place.
So Robert would rather see tragic consequences for “immoral” behavior than accept an “immoral sexual ethic.”
Q.E.D.
I got what I wanted, and I’m done here.
It isn’t a question of what I would “rather”, Thomas. It is a question of living the morality we’ve chosen.
Yep. I guess it really is the same mindset as the belief that aboriton should be as awful as possible.
If there are tragic consequences to sex, maybe people will have less of it! So let’s encourage those.
Anyone up for imposing the death penalty on adulterers again?
Oh, but they’re not trying to legislate their religion on other people’s bodies, oh no.
The morality YOU’VE chosen, Robert. Not “we.”
The morality YOU’VE chosen, Robert. Not “we.”
My “we” referred to pro-life folks in general.
I guess it really is the same mindset as the belief that aboriton should be as awful as possible.
Abortion is death by dismemberment, or similarly gruesome methods. Exactly how “non-awful” do you think it can be?
Oh – you mean for ONE of the people involved – the one whose human rights you value. Which goes back to my original point: the issue rotates around whether you think the pre-born are people or not. If you do think that, then my position makes perfect sense. If you don’t think that, then your position makes perfect sense.
If one actually thinks that a fetus is a person, then a woman who gets an abortion hired a hit person to kill her child. From a pro-life perspective (which I certainly don’t share) I’m not quite sure what’s super evil about hoping murderers suffer negative consequences.
Sexual activity within a committed and lifetime relationship can result in unwanted pregnancy and abortion, too. It’s not just single women who have abortions.
Pregnancy is CAUSED by sexual intercourse.
Not always. It could be caused by IVF, for instance. But let’s not forget the main point is making sure that women pay for having sex, which is so wrong for reasons no one has ever adequately explained.
Sexual activity within a committed and lifetime relationship can result in unwanted pregnancy and abortion, too. It’s not just single women who have abortions.
A fair point, Lizzie. Those pregnancies do occur in a context, however, that provides a built-in framework for childrearing.
But let’s not forget the main point is making sure that women pay for having sex, which is so wrong for reasons no one has ever adequately explained.
We don’t even understand your logical chain, Amanda. It’s very unlikely that we’re going to be able to explain it.
No, Robert. Your position ONLY makes sense if you believe that contraception is more evil than the deaths of both women and fetuses.
I don’t believe contraception to be a vast evil. And yet my position remains coherent to me. Perhaps you can explain to me where the logical hole is.
Robert, Amanda’s (and my) argument has always been that the pro-life movement is against anything that would break the causal chain between sex and unwanted pregnancy or disease because you people think that unwanted pregnancy and disease are the proper consequences for behavior that you believe is immoral. That is not meaningfully different from one who believes that driving is immoral saying that he opposed seatbelts and airbags as merely concessions to an immoral driving culture. I consider your remarks here a concession.
If we are against anything that would break the connection between sex and disease, then why are we in favor of monogamy?
I was shorthanding. You’re against anything that would break the chain between non-monogamous sex and disease and pregnancy.
But of course, people throughout history have had a lot of sex outside of monogamous relationships. Even when they think that they will incur eternal damnation. And there is no empirical support for the proposition that they will stop doing so in the absence of protection from pregnancy and disease.
Also, if one partner of a supposedly monogamous arrangement cheats, the other is subjected to the consequences. And if a woman is raped, she incurs a risk of both disease and unwanted pregnancy.
I point this out, not to change your view, but to highlight to others its inhumanity.
Robert,
The difficulty with your position (set forth as follows):
“We engage in this type of moral calculus all the time. It is necessary to do so, in order to act as an adult with agency in the world. . . . Here’s a parallel with perhaps less emotional resonance: we require people to finish a certain level of schooling, even though for some individuals that level of schooling is really a bad choice, because if we didn’t require that level of schooling, a lot of other people would choose not to achieve it.”
My point is that for the vast majority of women who avail themselves of PBA there is no trade-off. They are almost uniformly facing dire consequences no matter what they do and their own choices have virtually no impact on the choices of other people. There is no “good” that comes out of imposing additional pain and risk on this population, it just imposes more pain on virtually every member of this population with no corresponding good to anyone, not even the fetus.
So the comparison to compulsory universal schooling is silly. First, because, in fact, once someone reaches a given age they can stop going to school even if they haven’t achieved the given “required” level, (i.e, even compulsory is much less than compulsory); and second, based on historical knowledge and experience, we know that school is a benefit to the majority of students (even if some won’t or can’t take full advantage of it) so calling additional schooling a “bad choice” for people seems, to put it mildly, anomalous, I mean, unless you are talking about someone whose range of alternatives includes high profile modeling or NBA draft pick status. And even then, for those people for whom school is the “inferior choice”, we come up with alternatives to optimize outcomes based on their individual needs and differences. Like individual tutoring or home schooling or GED testing.
You can look far and wide. There aren’t many instances where we are societally committed to absolute standards that impose harsh consequences on some individuals purely for the theoretical (and in this case totally phantom) benefit of others. Come up with a better one than compulsory free education and then we can debate.
You’re against anything that would break the chain between non-monogamous sex and disease and pregnancy.
But we think that the very best way to break that chain is to have a culture of fidelity and monogamy. We can disagree about whether we are correct or not – but that is what we believe. Your way is a distant second best.
You are arguing for us to revamp our morality to facilitate a harm-reduction strategy – but that is treating morality in an instrumental way. We don’t believe it’s instrumental, we believe it is prefigured. In essence, you demand that we abandon our world view and adapt yours.
The political answer to this conflict would seem to be federalism – where local communities can decide these things, and if you don’t like the local community’s view, you can find a more congenial set of fellow citizens. It’s not a perfect solution, but it would seem to harm the fewest number of people. Making everything our way would harm all of you folks who dissent from this sexual morality by impinging on your liberty. Making everything your way would require all of us to be complicit in what we view as murder.
You’re talking about abortion, again, with the murder shtick?
What about contraception and comprehensive sex ed? You’ve repeatedly failed to explain how the right’s attachment to eradicating these two things does anything but facilitate the possibility of more dead women and fetuses.
What about contraception and comprehensive sex ed? You’ve repeatedly failed to explain how the right’s attachment to eradicating these two things does anything but facilitate the possibility of more dead women and fetuses.
What about them? As I’ve said, opinions on these topics vary. I’m not opposed to contraception or sex ed. You’ve got this monolithic “right” in your head that exists nowhere else.
Amanda’s (and my) argument has always been that the pro-life movement is against anything that would break the causal chain between sex and unwanted pregnancy or disease because you people think that unwanted pregnancy and disease are the proper consequences for behavior that you believe is immoral.
Unwanted pregnancy and disease are not ‘proper’ consequences, they are just ‘consequences’. They are consequences that no reasonable person would desire, that is why the behaviors that result in them are called immoral. Sex only within what Robert refers to as moral boundaries is the safest option; it has the least chance of disease, the fewest unwanted pregnancies, the fewest abortions, the greatest number of children born within a structure where responsible adults are both ready and available for nurturing. It is difficult to tally the number of abortions not needed, the number of diseases not transmitted, the numbers of orphans not produced through the promotion of such sexual conduct, nor any of the other harms prevented by it, but I believe them to be high, higher than would commonly be believed. High enough that it explains the universal presence of similar ethics throughout history.
Not that I support religious views regarding women, children and childrearing roles just necause their religion also promotes monogamy. I just think that sex within monogamous marital boundaries has significantly fewer negative consequences and significantly higher and more beneficial positive consequences than their opposite, hence the enduring nature of societies that adopt them relative to societies that don’t.
Wow: this thread contains “abortion is murder” AND the term (offered, apparently, in complete seriousness) “titty bar.” I doubt that convergence has happened before. God, the Internet is grand.
Anyway, I used to hang out with some serious fundamentalists (good friends, scary folks, long story). I actually believe Robert–which is not to suggest that I agree with him.
For example, the belief that moral positions need to be consistent is itself a belief that is not universal. Since many fundies don’t believe that they need to be consistent, then pointing out lack of consistency doesn’t work. And of course, there’s always the “non-Euclidean geometry” counter: consistent based on what assumptions?
[shrug] So sure, isolation would work. Let them secede; can’t we give them Texas or something? I wouldn’t miss Texas. [/snark.]
Realistically though Robert, let’s talk about this:
Can you explain this a bit more? What you seem to be saying is that your morality is uncompromising; that you don’t consider the magnitude of other harm. (I can’t see what else rejecting a “harm reduction strategy” would mean.)
It feels a bit like those bad science fiction stories where some robot is instructed to “keep Johnny out of the pool whatever it takes because he might drown” and the robot ends up killing Johnny–but hey, he didn’t drown, right? He followed orders, right?
So you’re following orders. Does that mean that any harm no matter how bad is justified to stop an abortion? Where did this view come from? Do you follow all orders with such zeal and specificity?
Can you explain this a bit more? What you seem to be saying is that your morality is uncompromising; that you don’t consider the magnitude of other harm. (I can’t see what else rejecting a “harm reduction strategy” would mean) Does that mean that any harm no matter how bad is justified to stop an abortion?
Good question. I’d say no; abortion is an evil, but it is not the ultimate evil, so certainly there could be some action or configuration of actions that would be “worse”.
The trouble with harm reduction strategies is that they implicitly assume the necessary continuation of the underlying situation or problem – basically, their acceptance as part of the moral universe. If you reject the underlying problem on an absolute or near-absolute basis, however, then harm reduction is just compromise with evil.
We’d like to reduce the number of abortions, but selling out principles for a 10% reduction (or whatever) isn’t on the table. You’re a pretty committed anti-sexist, from what you’ve said – would you accept patriarchy as the organizing principle for society, if doing so would (somehow) cause misogyny to decrease by some fractional amount?
(And if you wouldn’t, pace Amanda, the only possible explanation would be that you hated women. Because different world views don’t exist, apparently.)
Where did this view come from?
God. Or at least, our belief and conception of same.
[shrug] So sure, isolation would work. Let them secede; can’t we give them Texas or something? I wouldn’t miss Texas. [/snark.]
Last time I checked, there were about as many of us as there are of you, if not more (for broad values of “us” and “you”). There’s a reason abortion rights are predicated on court rulings and not legislative acts.
You’re the one defending the right as a monolith. You’ve said the stances against sex ed & contraceptives make sense.
You took it on. So, justify them.
I don’t think even Robert would define behavior as “immoral” simply because it results in undesired consequences.
But I think Amanda’s larger point is that sex within the “proper” boundaries is only the “best” way to avoid undesirable consequences because we’ve structured a lot of social programs, laws and various other societal incentives to make sure that’s the case. You don’t see anything like the proportion of unwanted pregnancies in Europe notwithstanding people are having lots of extramarital sex. And their STD rates, by and large, are significantly lower than ours. Sure, if you compare *within* the U.S. a population of married versus unmarried sexually active people, you will find that unwanted pregnancy and the rest of it are higher among the latter (though I bet there are lots of unwanted pregnancies among the former as well). But that’s not because it has to be that way — in many respects it’s because there is a significant subset of people with disproportionate influence over public policy who *want* it to be that way and who are doing their utmost to make sure it stays that way.
You’re the one defending the right as a monolith. You’ve said the stances against sex ed & contraceptives make sense.
And you say that the work of feminist “x” makes sense, so that makes feminism a monolith. Sheesh.
So, justify them.
Sex outside the framework of a monogamous and committed partnership is immoral and dangerous, both temporally and eternally. Accordingly, activities that would provide encouragement, whether explicitly or implicitly, to that type of behavior are objectionable.
Personally, I can see some leeway here. Condoms don’t kill anybody and learning how reproduction happens isn’t going to cast you into Hell. But I understand the position of people who think of it as a slippery slope; hell, maybe they’re right and I’m wrong. (I’m inclined to think there’s no way they’re right about basic sex ed, but they might be right about contraception.)
I don’t understand these ppl that keep saying monogomous, lifetime relationships prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion. how, exactly?
is a wedding ring some kind of contraceptive???
You don’t see anything like the proportion of unwanted pregnancies in Europe notwithstanding people are having lots of extramarital sex. And their STD rates, by and large, are significantly lower than ours.
Europe has not established that their social and cultural model is workable over the long term. It has led to populations that cannot or will not reproduce themselves, and the gradual replacement of their culture with people who will; the theory that those replacements will assimilate to the European cultural model is unproven at best, and seems contradicted by many of the facts on the ground. But I’ll concede it’s an open question, and they may yet prove us wrong.
I just doubt it.
OK, let me try to help Robert out.
Why is the following reasoning incoherent?
1) Having people fly airplanes into buildings intentionally is bad. (Abortion is bad.)
2) We could prevent people flying airrplanes into buildings by completely banning immigration. (We could prevent abortion by making contraception more available.)
Therefore, if you don’t support banning immigration, you must think that people flying airplanes into buildings is not really a bad thing.
It seems to me that all the same counter-arguments apply to the argument in parentheses as to the other.
Sex outside the framework of a monogamous and committed partnership is immoral and dangerous…
That’s all fine for you to believe. But the monolithic right or, as I prefer to call them, the anti-choicers are trying to force their morality on me. Honestly, I believe that there are consensual sexual activities that both you and I believe are immoral and dangerous. The difference is that I don’t believe that I have the right to impose my morality on something that has a negligible, at best, impact on my life.
Christian: They are consequences that no reasonable person would desire, that is why the behaviors that result in them are called immoral.
That’s funny, I don’t recall a widespread belief that smokers are immoral. After all, the consequences of smoking are something that no reasonable person would desire. We can say the same for skydiving, driving, eating refined sugar, hunting, rollerskating and skiing. As a result, I find this argument to be implausible at best.
That’s all fine for you to believe. But the monolithic right or, as I prefer to call them, the anti-choicers are trying to force their morality on me.
And you’re doing the same, are you not? It’s a two-way street. You’re insisting that your moral conviction that abortion is negligible/justifiable override our moral conviction that it is not. You should be able to do what we think of as killing, and we should let you or even fund you.
(You personally might not do it – aren’t you one of the I-wouldn’t-but-it-should-be-legal crowd? – but you know what I mean.)
Honestly, I believe that there are consensual sexual activities that both you and I believe are immoral and dangerous. The difference is that I don’t believe that I have the right to impose my morality on something that has a negligible, at best, impact on my life.
All legislation involves the forcing of morality on people. That’s a fairly silly objection.
If this were true, then Poland would have a lower abortion rate than Belgium. In practice, accepting that not everyone will be celibate and designing policies to make unwanted pregnancies less likely is the actual way to reduce abortion. No other way has ever worked as well in the real world.
Now, of course, right-wing conservatives will find ways to deny that fact (just like global warming). But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was not at all in factual dispute that moving to Belgium-style policies (contraception pushed on teenagers like insulin on a diabetic, and generous welfare policies for single parents) would reduce the abortion rate in the US by around 300,000 a year. Do you still think that opposing Belgium-style social policies would be a moral choice for those who believed that those 300,000 abortions were the same as 300,000 murders?
Generally, this is called “living in the real world.” If you’re not accepting that some things you don’t like will continue to happen, then you’re not accepting reality.
You bring up the example of feminism and patriarchy. But feminists favor lots of policies that we don’t think would exist in Feminist Paradise, but that we accept are needed in the here and now, even while we work and hope for a day when the underlying problems will be solved. For example, in feminist paradise, there will be no battered women’s shelters, because the underlying ideology that makes a nationwide network of shelters necessary will have been healed. But that doesn’t prevent feminists from favoring shelters in the here and now. Why? Because harm-reduction is necessary for anyone who’s serious about helping people in the present and in the future.
Only insofar as your morality requires using force to make other people obey your morality against their wills.
In other words, no pro-choicer suggests that pro-lifers should be forced to have abortions; forced to have non-marital sex; or forced to use contraception. (Of course, many pro-lifers do all of these things, but it’s their choice to do so.) In contrast, pro-lifers do want to use force to make unwilling women give birth, and to discourage non-marital sex.
The only “right” being taken away from pro-lifers is the right to force other people to follow their religion. I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that right.
Let’s suppose that I want to be free, and you want me to be bound and gagged against my will. It’s not reasonable to say “well, there’s no way to decide which is better, because either way one of these people is being harmed; Barry by losing liberty, and Robert by forcing Robert to be complicit in Barry’s liberty. So let’s say that in New York Barry gets to go free, but in Alabama Robert is allowed to put Barry in a straightjacket.”
Eh, maybe I didn’t write it as clearly as I would have liked.
All legislation involves the forcing of morality on people.
Does it? I can think of several pieces of legislation that don’t involve any morality that I am aware of. Does every instance of lack of legislation force morality on people?
And you’re doing the same, are you not?
No, I don’t think so. I’m not forcing you to get an abortion. I am forcing you, I suppose, if you twist things enough, to live with other folks’ immoral choices and actions.
… aren’t you one of the I-wouldn’t-but-it-should-be-legal crowd?…
No, I’m not.
Well, Ampersand, you could just as easily put it “The only “right” being taken away from pro-lifers is the right to force other people to [treat those they consider human as human].”
Phrased that way, it is a right that I would expect you to think important.
I’m very much in agreement with the idea that all human people should be treated equally under the law. But that doesn’t obligate me to agree that non-people should be treated as people just because religious conservatives believe so. That would be theocracy.
Secondly, I’m unaware of any law requiring any person to make the kind of sacrifice, for another person’s benefit, that pro-lifers demand women to make for fetuses. If my kidney fails, my father is not legally required to donate one of his to me — not even if I’d die otherwise. But the pain, risk and discomfort involved in giving away a kidney (as my mother recently did) is if anything less than that involved with a pregnancy.
So, no, the pro-lifers aren’t calling on us to treat fetuses as equal to people. They’re calling on us to treat fetuses as better than people, with more rights than non-fetal people get.
Ampersand,
I’ll stick with your first point, as I think a response to your second point would really derail this (if this is too derailing already, tell me.)
That doesn’t obligate me to agree that non-people should be treated as people just because religious conservatives believe so. That would be theocracy.
What I don’t see is any way of determining whether fetuses/Africans/women are people that doesn’t boil down to “because I said so.”
Robert,
You totally avoided my point. “Europe” hasn’t proven that its cultural model is workable la la la la . . . But the point isn’t whether it’s sustainable, the point is whether it’s possible to live in a society where abortion and other undesirable effects of non-monogamous non-marital sexual activity are minimized so that they are about as likely to happen to married as unmarried people. I take it the answer is yes.
I have no problem at all with enforcing my views on prolifers. That said, I’ve always found the “we’re not really asking anything of them” argument a bit weak. Why even go there? It’s a lot harder to argue that it’s not harming them, or that it’s not a right, than it is to basically say (as we do with lots of things): “Sure, it harms you. So what?”
I mean, I happen to be in the category of “unrestricted abortion on demand” folks, but i don’t need to pretend that it doesn’t somehow upset/harm/anyone to get there. It’s just that I don’t care about them.
I think it’s a stronger political position, too. And more similar to what we’re up against. Prolifers aren’t saying that lack of abortion isn’t a problem* for women who can’t get abortions; they’re just saying that the problem is irrelevant to them. Why, then, do we need to attempt to take a much less defensible position in response?
*to put it mildly.
Ampersand:
If this were true, then Poland would have a lower abortion rate than Belgium.
Poles as a group do not internalize the sexual ethic that I’m talking about; they have (had?) harshly punitive laws against abortion. Was I talking about punitive laws about abortion, or about a moral sexual ethic?
Do you still think that opposing Belgium-style social policies would be a moral choice for those who believed that those 300,000 abortions were the same as 300,000 murders?
That depends on what the other consequences of the Belgian social policies are. We believe them to be socially dire, even if they don’t show up in the statistics. Not everything that is real shows up in the statistics.
Generally, this is called “living in the real world.” If you’re not accepting that some things you don’t like will continue to happen, then you’re not accepting reality.
To an extent. But there are some crimes which are so large that they break this rationalistic paradigm. Genocide is likely to continue to happen, but we do not adopt a harm-reduction strategy against genocide; we try to eliminate it entirely.
…feminists favor lots of policies that we don’t think would exist in Feminist Paradise, but that we accept are needed in the here and now, even while we work and hope for a day when the underlying problems will be solved…that doesn’t prevent feminists from favoring shelters in the here and now. Why? Because harm-reduction is necessary for anyone who’s serious about helping people in the present and in the future.
But if the harm-reduction policies are also likely to perpetuate the underlying problem, then this argument doesn’t hold up. Domestic violence shelters don’t cause people to beat their spouses, but tacitly or explicitly encouraging sexual activity may well cause people to become pregnant who will then choose abortion.
In other words, no pro-choicer suggests that pro-lifers should be forced to have abortions; forced to have non-marital sex; or forced to use contraception.
Many of them suggest that we should be forced to allow our children to have abortions, forced to do business with people having non-marital sex, forced to pay for the contraception and abortion choices of others. Force is force.
The only “right” being taken away from pro-lifers is the right to force other people to follow their religion. I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that right.
Come now. Are you being forced to follow Judaism because you are prohibited from murdering and stealing? Nobody is forcing anyone to follow a religion; many pro-lifers (not all) would use the power of the state to extend the concept of murder to the pre-born, and to say “you cannot kill this entity”. That’s hardly the same thing as sending the sheriff to roust you out of bed on Sunday morning to attend services.
I’m very much in agreement with the idea that all human people should be treated equally under the law. But that doesn’t obligate me to agree that non-people should be treated as people just because religious conservatives believe so. That would be theocracy.
I think SamChevre has this one. There is no test for human-peoplehood that everyone agrees with. Is it a democratic question? If 200 million of us think that fetuses are people and 100 million of us think they aren’t, who wins? Or vice-versa, for that matter. I don’t know what the actual count would be.
Secondly, I’m unaware of any law requiring any person to make the kind of sacrifice, for another person’s benefit, that pro-lifers demand women to make for fetuses.
Nonsense. We require people to make sacrifices for other people all the time. And a good thing, too – child support, anyone? Financial support – a levy on time and talent – isn’t the same thing as biological support – a levy on time and health. But the difference isn’t so stark as to stagger me with its brilliance, or a lot of other people, either.
There’s a valid counterargument about risk to life and limb, of course – yet our society requires its citizens, at times, to give life and limb for the defense of the nation. The draft still exists – and the people who would be drafted have considerably less say about their fate than women have about getting pregnant (absent rape or coercion). They’ll lock you up or shoot you if you don’t report for duty; not too many pregnant women had a gun to their heads.
The “nobody else is asked to sacrifice” argument doesn’t wash.
So, no, the pro-lifers aren’t calling on us to treat fetuses as equal to people. They’re calling on us to treat fetuses as better than people, with more rights than non-fetal people get.
What rights would those be? The only right I can think of that pro-lifers are expecting is the right not to be killed, which is a right we all have. The counter that not killing it means the woman is enslaved for nine months doesn’t wash – there is no law prohibiting a couple from finding some other way of gestating their fetus. Develop artificial wombs if it’s that important to you – the current lack of options in this regard is not a conferral of rights upon the fetus, it’s just the way biology works.
Jake:
Does it? I can think of several pieces of legislation that don’t involve any morality that I am aware of. Does every instance of lack of legislation force morality on people?
Examples?
I can’t think of any legislation that doesn’t impose a moral code or value, albeit it can be pretty abstract (say, arcane tax rules – but those go to things like equity and fairness). But the laws that really affect people’s behavior are almost all starkly and obviously moral. No killing. No stealing. No raping. There are practical reasons those laws would be a good thing, even in a species that didn’t think of killing, stealing and raping as intrinsic evils. But those justifications aren’t the reason we have the laws, and everyone knows this. Nobody thinks it’s OK to kill people for fun, and that the only reason we prohibit it is the loss of tax revenue from the murdered people.
No, I’m not.
My error. Apologies.
…i don’t need to pretend that it doesn’t somehow upset/harm/anyone to get there. It’s just that I don’t care about them.
Then why should they care about you?
Prolifers aren’t saying that lack of abortion isn’t a problem* for women who can’t get abortions; they’re just saying that the problem is irrelevant to them.
Um, no. We’re saying that the problem is a question of balancing rights (the fetus’ right to live versus the woman’s right to liberty, for lack of a better word), and that it comes down on the side of life for us. We don’t want you to get an abortion, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care about your situation.
I am certain that you can find plenty of partisan activist type pro-lifers who won’t talk much about the woman’s situation, but I assure you that the plight of women with unwanted pregnancies is very much with us. We believe that the solution to the problem is front-loaded – don’t have sexual intercourse if you aren’t prepared for a baby, whatever other measures you may take to minimize that possibility. It’s a bit like the liberal position that (say) sexual harassment laws are a stopgap measure, but the real solution is educating people to not harass in the first place.
An interesting, and refreshingly civil, discussion, but I have to go do work now. Many thanks for the informed responses and disputes, and I’ll check in later. (Further bulletins as events warrant.)
Many of them suggest that we should be forced to […] do business with people having non-marital sex
Oh no!! THE HORROR!!!!!!! Doing business with people who have (gasp!) sex?!?!? without the sacred wedding ring and approval of my religion?!?!?!
surely worse than pregnancy, i’d say.
Nonsense. We require people to make sacrifices for other people all the time. And a good thing, too – child support, anyone? Financial support – a levy on time and talent – isn’t the same thing as biological support – a levy on time and health. But the difference isn’t so stark as to stagger me with its brilliance, or a lot of other people, either.
You’ve obviously never been pregnant.
The only right I can think of that pro-lifers are expecting is the right not to be killed, which is a right we all have.
Eh? I’m pretty sure pro-choicers aren’t trying to kill pro-lifers. They already have the right not to be killed. So what right is it you want? the right to force women to give birth? that’s not a RIGHT by any means.
The counter that not killing it means the woman is enslaved for nine months doesn’t wash – there is no law prohibiting a couple from finding some other way of gestating their fetus. Develop artificial wombs if it’s that important to you – the current lack of options in this regard is not a conferral of rights upon the fetus, it’s just the way biology works.
Uh, it’s the pro-lifers who care about the fetus’, so why would the pro-choicers be forced to make artificial wombs? seems like the pro-lifers would be more interested in that. i like how because there’s no law that prohibits ppl from developing artificial wombs, that means the pregnancy is not REALLY enslavement. So slavery is totally cool, right? as long as your slaves are free to invent a robot that does their work, but until then, they still have to do it.
anyway, there is not a current lack of options, as ABORTION is an option. always has been (yes women have been stopping unwanted pregnancies forever) and always will be. denying this is denying reality. pregnancy can be LETHAL, and if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she has every right not to have to face that risk.
PLUS this post is about late-term abortion, which is usually performed on women who have a WANTED pregnancy that has gone wrong, ie the baby is dead. how can you pretend it’s about the babeez when the baby is already dead and you would prefer women get a perforated uterus or be forced to die in childbirth???
We believe that the solution to the problem is front-loaded – don’t have sexual intercourse if you aren’t prepared for a baby
poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have sex? married women who would die if they give birth again should just stop having sex? what a load of crock.
so i assume you have as many kids as times you’ve had sex, right? look, if you want to have a dozen babies or no sex, be my guest. please don’t try to force it on everyone else though.
But they ALREADY DON’T CARE! They may (on occasion) say they do, but their actions speak otherwise.
And although I’d rather live in a world where everyone is caring, respectful, etc., there’s only so long i can go on being the “nice one” in an argument. (in terms of caring; i can be civil for much longer than that.) In the abortion fight, that time has long since passed.
in law school, we used to have a saying “don’t fight the hypothetical.” Which is to say, don’t try to insert an easier-to-argue set of circumstances when it suits your case. If you change the hypothetical, you’re not addressing it.
When you talk about the “plight” of women with unwanted pregnancies, and you claim to be balancing it, at first glance that appears to be reasonable. But when you note the solution to that plight is something that is literally impossible–to go back in time and prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place–it becomes obvious that you’re not actually being reasonable.
Here’s an example in which I believe that the plight of drunk accident victims is sad, but I believe the solution should be front loaded:
“This person got in an accident and is dying, what should we do to help him?”
“Would he have gotten in an accident if he wasn’t drunk?”
“No. What should we do to help him NOW?”
“We should have kept him from getting drunk in the first place.”
“Perhaps. But it’s too late for that. He got drunk. he’s hurt. Can you help him?”
“Just make sure he didn’t get drunk in the first place, and then we won’t need to help him now. That seems reasonable.”
[headdesk headdesk]
You can’t deter, or stop, something that has already happened. You don’t get to reset time like that. So you can’t stop people who are ALREADY pregnant from getting pregnant–nothing you can do to them (whether allowing or forbidding them to obtain an abortion) will change the act that they got pregnant.
The only thing you CAN do is to make a decision based on the facts before you that is as “good” a decision as possible. Do you wish you had different facts? So do they. But the facts are the facts; there is only one reality. Denying it is not reasonable. It’s one thing to work towards your “dream world”; it’s another thing to pretend you live in it now.
So now, back to that decision. You can’t use the “shouldn’t have gotten pregnant” option–or if you do, you may as well call it the “why don’t you have George Bush’s child instead?” option, seeing as they’re equally impossible.
So, you can argue that denying people abortions will provide a disincentive to other women to have them. OK, reasonable argument in theory. But also one which is subject to factual analysis, and this particular argument seems not to be true. Equally to the point, you seem to believe that you cannot be convinced by facts or logic in this area.
You can argue that denying abortions to a specific woman will provide a disincentive to THAT woman to abort. Again: reasonable argument in theory. But also subject to factual proof. before we even get into facts, are you willing to accept them if they go against you?
You can argue that denying a specific woman an abortion is punishment for her loose ways. Again: reasonable argument, if you believe such things (I don’t.) But that’s inconsistent with even the pretense that you give a shit about her plight.
And so on.
No, not at all. the liberal position is the OPPOSITE of what you describe. that’s because we differentiate between the present and the future. We can (maybe) control what happens in the future. But the present just…. is. We would like to see a future with no harassment, but we also need to deal with it NOW.
“An interesting, and refreshingly civil, discussion, ”
Given the context — both of this thread, and of discussions about civility — this remark reads as loaded and unpleasant.
I have to say that I have not found this thread to be civil. The cavalier treatment of women’s lives which has been displayed is deeply appaling.
I state this, as Thomas said of one of his comments earlier, not to change your mind, Robert, but to note for those reading who may be dismayed that they are not alone.
“The trouble with harm reduction strategies is that they implicitly assume the necessary continuation of the underlying situation or problem – basically, their acceptance as part of the moral universe. If you reject the underlying problem on an absolute or near-absolute basis, however, then harm reduction is just compromise with evil.”
You’re right in that there are larger principles for which every one of us would sacrifice something or other for the greater justice. If you tried hard enough, you could probably paint any one of those ‘acceptable sacrifices’ in an embarrassing light. However, every one of us also adopts harm reduction strategies as well – more than often than not, in fact. Thus it is in where we choose to make those uncomprising stands that are indicative of our true motives.
Even within the pro-life movement, there is a pretty big ‘harm reduction strategy’ working behind the scenes. (Perhaps ‘accommodation’ or ‘appeasement’ would be more appropriate terms, but they all amount to the same thing, do they not?) That is in the choice to not criminally prosecute women who obtain abortions – or if they do, to a degree that is in no way commensurate to how they would deal with other women who commit premedidated murder on small children for their own economic or social convenience (as so many pro-lifers believe). And why is this their position? I would say – contest this if you wish – that it is because it is counterproductive to the aims of the pro-life movement, as by far the majority of people in the country – and even the pro-life movement within the country – would not support such penalties for women who get abortions. (Now, I would say that this is because in their heart of hearts, they know that a fetus is not on the same level as a human being, but that’s a matter for later.) Since adopting this hardline approach would turn everyone against the pro-life movement and make it impossible for it to achieve any political victories, they accept the immorality of allowing those who participate in genocide-like massacre get off basically scot-free. Dare I call it an immoral [i]culture[/i] of letting people get off with genocide-like massacre?
I don’t know about you, but allowing the Nazis to get away with the Holocaust unpunished (or perhaps fined and be given an angry stare by a law enforcement bureaucrat) is the ‘harm reduction strategy’ at its most self-mockingly ludicrous, especially if you consider that doing so will not stop the actual Holocaust itself by any means. Most people today have a “appeasement + bad = Neville Chamberlain” association in their heads anyway.
But you are not willing to budge an inch on allowing some people you don’t know from getting some without doing so in basically dangerous, pre-industrial conditions. No 20th century contraception, unsafe abortion methods are better than safer abortion methods, and I’m pretty sure they’d ban showers in hotel rooms if they got the chance.
You call it a delicate balance between women’s rights, the fetus’ rights, and supposedly, the correct sexual morality that holds them all together. But calling it that is not some get out of jail free card. Scrutinizing positions such as these tell us just how much this ‘balance’ is skewed, and in what direction.
“Poles as a group do not internalize the sexual ethic that I’m talking about; they have (had?) harshly punitive laws against abortion. Was I talking about punitive laws about abortion, or about a moral sexual ethic?”
How are punitive laws against abortion [b]antithetical[/b] to a moral sexual ethic? Perhaps you would be against it for separate political or social reasons, but sexual ethics? Won’t punitive laws against abortion – at least in their intent – decrease the number of abortions, and as such reinforce the sexual ethic? Perhaps I’m missing something here.
And I hope you’re not insinuating that the evidence that they didn’t *really* internalize the True Sexual Ethic is the very fact that their abortion rates remained high. That would reduce your position to unfalsifiable theology, which would bring us right back to fantasy land.
Mandolin,
Thank you for telling me that I am not alone.
I frequently wonder why people engage with him. For all his seeming erudition, his argumentation style as well as his patent and latent condescension make joining numerous discussion threads here 100% not worth it.
With his use of such sentiments as “Nonsense” [June 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am], “That’s a fairly silly objection,” [June 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pm], and the ever-popular, “Um, no,” [June 6th, 2007 at 7:06 pm], in concert with his generally tediously long thread-jacking, I just have no interest in what could otherwise be a truly interesting discussion (on this and other threads – I’m thinking of his
dissertationdiatribe on the definition of “faith”).The fact that “we” (those who are not him) have read / heard his position stated in virtually the same words and phrases countless times by countless others – well, it’s just boring. Seriously – same arguments that I’ve been reading / hearing since I was in junior high in the ’70s.
And then “we” who engage waste our time and energy in the thread-jack instead of discussing the issue of the post and then perhaps, oh, maybe having time and energy left over to actually figure out solutions here and there.
Do “they” honestly think that “we” have never been exposed to “their” line of reasoning? Seriously? Bring something new to the table. Please. ‘Cause “we” get it – women are tramps, pregnancy is a woman’s punishment for sex, poor people can’t be allowed the same agency as non-poor, non-white people, atheists are evil goonies who are stupid to boot, blah blah blah.
Mandolin, again, thanks. But I think I’m finished. With him and with RonF (who in a thread earlier in the Spring refused to accept the possibility that the number of straight couples who have anal sex more likely than not outnumbers the number of homosexual male couples who have anal sex – because he just couldn’t wrap his mind around himself wanting to do that so how could that be?? *blink*). I hope to encounter you on the other blogs I read and periodically comment on.
Apologies for my own private little -jack.
Bonnie
For those that can’t sense the seething contempt behind my formalism, I want to make something clear. I regard engagement with Robert as not dissimilar to clearing roadkill from my yard. I do it because there is something to be gained; and that is to get Robert to state his position in a way that will alienate anyone who does not already embrace his worldview. As I said above, I consider his statements an admission that Amanda has always been correct, and I believe that the vast majority of the readership here will see it that way as well.
So, what I hear you saying Robert is that you expect to see an increased percentage of men taking responsibility for their own birthcontrol. Sweet!
Wrong. Pregnancy is CAUSED by men ejaculating viable sperm into women’s vaginas.
There are steps to preventing 1) viable sperm and 2) men ejaculating into women’s vaginas.
Comprehensive sex education and contraception are key to that.
So, what I hear you saying Robert is that you expect to see an increased percentage of men taking responsibility for their own birthcontrol. Sweet!
Of course. And not simply birth control; it takes two to tango; any pregnancy resulting from consensual sex is equally the responsibility of the man and the woman. The biological reality makes this a little tricky to implement fairly in the actual world, but there’s no doubt that the moral onus of supporting a conceived child is equal between partners.
Barbara: I don’t think even Robert would define behavior as “immoral” simply because it results in undesired consequences.
I don’t judge it quite that simply either. The most moral of actions can have unintended undesireable consequences. But to me, an action’s morality in general is based upon the possibility of harm against the promotion of health and the affirmation of life. Sex is not harmless. There are many millions of people suffering from sexually-transmitted diseases. There are many thousands (maybe millions worldwide) children orphaned, families broken up, fetuses being terminated and men and women being attacked or killed over emotional responses to ‘harmless’ sexual acts. These are all culturally divisive and extremely expensive problems, not to mention ruinous to the individuals involved. If we could go back in time we could prevent most of them with the application of a cold shower. The net difference between the present global situation and the theoretical absense of these cases is, in my opinion, staggering. The net difference between the present global situation and what it might be had the idea of marital, monogamous sex been completely overthrown is, IMO, horrific.
Although I consider marital, monogamous sex the pinnacle of safe and responsible sexual conduct, I don’t expect to everyone to agree that it is necessary, and I certainly don’t desire to compel it by force. And I agree that safe sex education and availability of contraception is essential. That said, I believe the further a society tilts toward this theoretical peak (fewer partners rather than more, committed relationships more than casual flings, tendency toward monogamy, within marriage more than out) the healthier and stabler it is going to be, therefore this is the moral direction to take.
I could be wrong.
Sex is not harmless. There are many millions of people suffering from sexually-transmitted diseases.
There are six million car accidents a year, over three million injuries and forty thousand deaths a year. That’s roughly as many deaths in five quarters as the entire US KIA in Vietnam; or as many dead a decade as US KIA in WWII.
Yet I don’t hear people railing against the immorality of driving, screaming that we should tell kids that driving cannot be made safe, demanding that we reorganize our lives so that people can get where they need to go on foot or by public transportation.
So, Christian, are you willing to concede that danger does not determine morality, or have I converted you into an anti-auto crusader?
(See also drinking water around the world. Just drinking the available water supply makes people sick. Drinking water is immoral! And don’t get me started about those fishermen. You know how many sick, depraved individuals are maimed and killed by their god-offending, fish-catching lifestyle?!)
So, what I hear you saying Robert is that you expect to see an increased percentage of men taking responsibility for their own birthcontrol. Sweet!
Robert: there’s no doubt that the moral onus of supporting a conceived child is equal between partners.
Agreed!
Ah, but the moral onus on preventing conception should be on men, no? Afterall, it’s their seed their spilling. No seed = no pregnancy.
There are six million car accidents a year, over three million injuries and forty thousand deaths a year. That’s roughly as many deaths in five quarters as the entire US KIA in Vietnam; or as many dead a decade as US KIA in WWII.
Yet I don’t hear people railing against the immorality of driving, screaming that we should tell kids that driving cannot be made safe, demanding that we reorganize our lives so that people can get where they need to go on foot or by public transportation.
So, Christian, are you willing to concede that danger does not determine morality, or have I converted you into an anti-auto crusader?
Generally, every action exists on a contiuum or bell curve where at the extreme left you have ‘no one harmed at all, everyone benefits’ and at the extreme right you have ‘everyone harmed, no one benefits’. No matter where the action lies on the curve, if you’ve acurately plotted it’s position, then all actions to the left are morally preferably to it, all actions to the right are morally inferior to it.
Metaphors for sexual conduct and consquences thereof break down easily. I’ve found nothing that accurately parallels it, but the car thing isn’t bad. But I’m not advocating the abolition of sex any more than the abolition of driving. If every driving and maintenance regulation were always followed by all drivers, car-related deaths or property damage would be almost non-existentent. So I tend to disagree with anything that suggests that a irresponsible vehicular conduct is acceptable. Theoretically, each vehicle onthe road is legally registered, and there is some particular person who can be turned to for damages if a crash event is determined to be caused by neglicence, even if that someone isn’t the one that was driving it at the time, and I think that’s a necessary condition. Accordingly, given the clearly life-altering consequences that sex can result in, I would prefer it if those engaging in it be both capable of bearing appropriate responsibility for it, and understood to bear appropriate responsibility for it. This responsibility becomes murkier the more frequently partners flip, and the less ‘family-oriented’ the intentions are.
Ah, but the moral onus on preventing conception should be on men, no? Afterall, it’s their seed their spilling. No seed = no pregnancy.
And no egg = no pregnancy. As I said, it takes two to tango. I’m not sure what purpose you intend to serve by casting the man as the active partner and the woman as a passive receptacle who contributes nothing, but that isn’t the way things work.
“Poles as a group do not internalize the sexual ethic that I’m talking about;”
Can you prove that please? Poland is an OVERWHELMINGLY catholic country. Catholicism informs much of daily life and traditions/customs (in fact, almost all of it).
Aren’t Catholics the people who internalized the sexual ethic you are talking about?
They might *also* have punitive laws, but as far as I know, they absolutely also have the same sexual ethics you speak of.
And for the billionth time, unwanted pregnancies occur in the confines of monogamous long term relationships too. And just because people are married doesn’t mean they have the appropriate resources to deal with having a child.
I can tell you that if I were to get pregnant right now, I would have an abortion without question. It would not be an EASY thing for me to do, especially given how much I would like to have a second child someday, and as a result I am doing everything in my power (short of abstinence) to avoid a pregnancy right now, but nothing is failsafe (I learned that lesson the hard way – her name is Maya). But, the fact remains my family can not sustain another child right now. We simply don’t have the appropriate resources – despite being in a healthy, loving, productive monogamous marriage. Love is NOT enough as they say. So lets cut the crap about how married women don’t need abortions. We do. Trust me.
Can you prove that please? Poland is an OVERWHELMINGLY catholic country. Catholicism informs much of daily life and traditions/customs (in fact, almost all of it). Aren’t Catholics the people who internalized the sexual ethic you are talking about?
No. We ought to have done, but mostly we have not. Maybe we used to; I wasn’t around then.
I don’t know of any culture/society that has adopted this ethic in a pervasive way in modern times. There are lots of individual people who have, of course, and probably some subcultures where it’s very prevalent.
Kate: And for the billionth time, unwanted pregnancies occur in the confines of monogamous long term relationships too. And just because people are married doesn’t mean they have the appropriate resources to deal with having a child.
I don’t think anyone disputes the truth of this. The issue is that overall, couples in long-term monogamous relationships will have fewer unexpected pregnancies, are better at adjusting to them, are more of a mindset to adjust to them, and more likely to have access to resources than singles in short-term non-exclusive relationships will. Fewer unexpected/unwanted pregnancies, and more of those that do happen occuring in family structures capable of handling them (even if that only means they can afford a safe abortion), is a good thing in my opinion.
I’m not. You can only come to your conclusion if you’re looking at pregnancy from a male-centric viewpoint. You are insisting that it takes two to “tango”, while quietly hoping that we won’t catch on to your conflation of conception and carrying a pregnancy to term. You also want to conflate a woman’s autonomous relationship to her own eggs with her relationship to viable sperm that has been deposited inside her body. The two are definitely not the same, as a woman has a continuous relationship, from in utero, with her eggs and it is the viable sperm that represents the insertion of the other, if you will. This has nothing to do with active and passive, as you so quaintly try to paint it. It has everything to do with the relationship that a woman has with her body, and her valid desire and assumption that men will respect that.
If every driving and maintenance regulation were always followed by all drivers, car-related deaths or property damage would be almost non-existentent.
So why have airbags and seatbelts? Since nearly all auto accidents are preventable if the participants simply acted responsibly, by offering (indeed, mandating) seatbelts and airbags, are we not simply reducing the risk of death and maiming to irresponsible drivers, and therefore encouraging negligent maintenance and careless driving? Shouldn’t the cautionary tales of those carcasses and cripples warn the youth to heed well the yield sign and check the tire pressure?
The egg and the sperm both cease to exist at the moment of conception. Whatever relationship a woman has with the new life growing within her, it isn’t the same relationship that she originally had with her half of the genetic material. I’m not sure what the point of all this is; you’re apparently making the same claim to autonomy and control based on location but adding a “but it’s my genetic gook” component. Unfortunately the scientific facts about what happen at conception undermine that component; your genetic gook ceased to exist as recognizably yours, as did his, when they became a zygote.
I see the parallel, but it doesnt track very far. Vehicle-related deaths and damage don’t just occur as a result of their own actions, but from circumstances beyond their control as well. If STD’s and unwanted pregnancies could be transmitted to you by your next door neighbor having unprotected sex in his bedroom, everyone would have condoms and diaphragms sugically installed by now.
And I’m not opposed to safe sex training or contraception, but it doesn’t eliminate all risk. Whatever the incidence of safe sex training and contraception is, assuming it’s consistent across the population, the greatest incidence of STD and unwanted pregnancy will occur among the most frequently active couples, with the highest turnover of partners, that practice the highest degree of concurrency.
Would you mind providing some evidence for this?
To the best of my knowledge, %s of unexpected pregnancies are mainly a factor of two things: 1) Frequency of sex, and 2) Type of BC, including resulting errors. Neither are linked to monogamy, nor to length of relationship.
If I were to guess (and I could be wrong) I’d guess that it was MORE frequent in long term relationships, because the Amtrak method is essentially based on trust.
Now, this:
I am more willing to think might be true, though I am still not sure it is.
Say this is true.
You have two ways to get to what you call a “good thing”:
1) push folks towards monogamy; or
2) make it much easier for folks to “handle” unwanted pregnancies–including being able to afford abortion.
Why not go with #2? It’s easier.
To the best of my knowledge, %s of unexpected pregnancies are mainly a factor of two things: 1) Frequency of sex, and 2) Type of BC, including resulting errors. Neither are linked to monogamy, nor to length of relationship.
But a couple committed to a long-term sexual relationship is likely to be aware that unanticipated pregnancies are a possibility, and in the interests of continuing the relationship smoothly, are more likely to have a mutual agreement on how to adjust in a shared and respectful fashion
You have two ways to get to what you call a “good thing”:
1) push folks towards monogamy; or
2) make it much easier for folks to “handle” unwanted pregnancies–including being able to afford abortion.
Why not go with #2? It’s easier.
First, I’m not sure of any way to say that this would not be a good thing. Secondly, say, for the sake of argument, out of a million sexually active couples (without martial monogamy, or anything approaching it) you get (for example) 100 STD’s transmitted, with 20% of them transmitting it to one or more other people unawares, and say you also get 100 unintentional pregnancies where 50% of the affected people can afford either to adjust to the presence of a child, or afford a safe abortion. If this million had instead been composed more of monogamous, long-term relationships and thereby resulted in (say) 50 STDs were 10% of them passed on the disease, and the same number of unwanted pregnancies where 80% of the them can afford to respond responsibly, your goal of making safe abortion accessible to everyone is much easier to achieve.
Oh, so not so. There are many things a woman can do to *her* own body that will cause that genetic gook to cease and desist. There isn’t a man out there that can do something, post ejaculation, to his own body to keep that gook from existing. It really is that obvious.
Scanning down this thread I may have missed it but I think that there is something that remains to be addressed. If I am being redundant, please excuse the error.
Robert’s position/argument is essentially totalitarian in character. His approach is one that precludes the acceptance of a diversity of views and the embrace of personal liberty that it entails. He has argued that damage reduction strategies are inadmissable because they would enable behaviors that he considers immoral. He argues that any policy that countenances such behavior is unacceptable since it would violate his moral code. He further argues that the proper course is to inculcate, indoctrinate or otherwise impose his moral code on the population at large.
It’s clear from his approach that Robert believes it is the role of Law and governance to codify and enforce a society wide standard of morality. This contrasts with those of us who hold that the role of public administration is to serve and protect both individual and collective liberty. The two positions are fundamentally hostile and irreconcilable. The former implies the subjugation of the population to a central moral authority, whereas the latter accepts that the right of one to think and act as one sees fit necessarily implies the right of the many to think and act differently.
This is well illustrated by the following:
This puts it plain. Robert sees nothing wrong in balkanizing society at large, so long as it would result in polities that dictate a morality congenial to himself, even as they trample over the free conscience and morality of others to the extreme of driving them into exile. All this is justified in Robert’s mind, since requiring that he live with and accomodate those of differing views makes him complicit in their behavior. This view is supportable only if one presumes not just the right but the positive obligation of enforcing one’s moral beliefs on others. If no such obligation exists, there can be no complicity.
I have no way of knowing whether or not Robert has actually read the propaganda of Rushdooney, Morecraft, DeMar or other Christian Reconstructionists. Never the less, it is fair to say that his ennunciated principle, that social compromise with differing beliefs is equivilant to forcing him to abandon his own, is identical with the thinking of such theocrats.
It’s worthwhile to note here that the brand of “federalism” that Robert touts is nothing new. It has a long, dispicable record in our history. It’s the same sort of “federalism” that was used to legitimize America’s aparthied system for close to a century. Before that it was employed to defend the practice of human slavery. It is as true today as in the time of Lincoln, that a house divided cannot stand. It’s equally the case that no nation can endure half theocracy and half free anymore than it could endure half slave and half free.
All of the above applying equally to those who echo Robert’s arguments.
I see the parallel, but it doesnt track very far.
I’ve got to say that I agree with this. We need to go further. We need to outlaw, or at least impose severe restrictions, on treatment related to injuries sustained while driving. We need to do that for all other immoral activities (as previously defined by Christian). No treatment for injuries sustained as a result of skiing or smoking or skateboarding or cycling or playing football or eating refined sugars.
For the record, WB, I do not advocate the use of government power to impose my preferred viewpoint. It has to come as a voluntary cultural change.
“Vehicle-related deaths and damage don’t just occur as a result of their own actions, but from circumstances beyond their control as well. “
Rape.
Now, don’t you feel like an asshole?
Robert wrote:
From a strict libertarian point of view, the goop is still hers. She made the goop herself, using entirely material that belonged to her and material that was freely given to her. That makes it hers, from a libertarian perspective.
…Nah. She didn’t make it; it makes itself. She provides a hospitable environment, but she didn’t do it. (Neither did he, of course.)
It makes itself? Great. Extract it and let it continue making itself.