I really like to assume the best of everyone, even people I disagree with.
And I try hard to take what opponents say, at their word.
But sometimes it’s hard..
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.
I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. Although I’ve met some rank-and-file “pro-lifers” whose policy preferences were consistent with a belief that a fetus is morally indistinguishable from a child, those folks usually have policy preferences which are totally out of step with the abortion criminalization movement as a whole.
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex – to, as I’ve heard many of them put it, make sure women “face the consequences” of having sex. And they’ve done so with the apparent backing and blessing of the vast majority of the rank and file. Let’s review:
Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex “face the consequences.” are punished. After years of seeing this pattern repeated again and again, it’s difficult to take them at their word.
Tonochujo,
I would disagree that the discussion can be reduced to extremes of the baby has worth so the mother does not or vice versa. If our actions have the ability to affect others freedoms and rights those freedoms and rights must be considered in the decision to act. Consideration does not mean forfeiture of ones position, it means giving weight to the stake of the parties involved in the process.
Sex for pleasure for money or whatever motivation must encompass the possibility of procreation as a part of the process. Obviously pleasure, intimacy, communication, bonding, reconciliation, etc. all can be reasons as well. Again the effort to paint the discussion as “either/or” does little to create a genuine discussion of the possibilities.
Much of what I find offensive is the objectivism of a developing person. (One already implanted and growing.) It is the same discomfort I feel at the objectivism of women or other exploited people. It might be a stretch, however I have to believe that many women who are in the position where abortion as a compelling choice is because someone treated them as an object with no commitment to long term relationship or support. I would think that there would be an empathy for those often treated as objects towards those in a recognizably vulnerable situation. The Netherlands were mentioned as having very low abortion rates. One main reason is that women with children are secure in having their basic needs met in that society. When women are guaranteed support, healthcare, education and are not stigmatized, there is less pressure to abort a child. Good sex and relational education is also essential. IMO the effort is to minimize the need, this does not require the dehumanization of a baby. Blessings.
M:
I have to wonder if it is indeed a compromise. A compromise implies that both camps moved (or were forced to move) closer to each other for the sake of pragmatism. I say this because I don’t believe that the “typical” stance of pro-choicers is “abortion on demand and without apology at ANY point during pregnancy” as you mention.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but that position sounds very fringe.
Instead, I’d expect that the average pro-choice position is “abortion on demand up to a point where the fetus had developed to a certain stage”. If that’s the case, then Roe isn’t so much a compromise so much as it is an almost exact manifestation of the typical pro-choice mindset.
Of course, that said, I don’t know that compromise is possible at all, truly, if one side insists on “life begins at conception”. But, if discussing the pro-life camp relative to the pro-choice one, Roe is no compromise.
In any case, it does sound like you do, at some point, grant the fetus some right to exist that can supercede the right of the woman to total body autonomy.
But its not equal protection if the woman can be forced to give birth, just as it isn’t if the infant can be aborted at will.
The whole messy issue of pregnancy will never afford either participant true equality, but it is interesting to hear from a pro-choice person that that might be a desirable aim.
gengwall, you wrote:
And later:
I’m not acquainted with the relevant data, so I have no idea whether Europeans actually start sex-life later than Americans.
That said, in my country (Finland) it is a relatively common for people to assume that teenagers start having sex earlier than they actually do. I remember reading about a study about Finnish teenagers that addressed this, but since I don’t have a link and the article was in Finnish anyway, you’ll just have to trust me. ;-)
The notion that we have sex younger, more often etc. etc. is just a myth that doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the reality. It may have, I don’t know, but truthfully most people do not have the necessary knowledge to say anything one way or another. They are probably just tossing general statements around, statements that are based on vague “this is the way I think it is” ideas. And we all know how terribly inaccurate those can be.
ADS,
“P.S. – The Bible says a fetus is not a life, something that religious anti-choicers love to ignore. I think someone else may have mentioned this up thread.”
What part of the Bible? Certainly not the New Testament and I do not know of a citation that bears that out in the Old Testament. Show us where? Read Psalm 139; “You knit me together in my mothers womb…” “I praise You because I am wonderfully and fearfully made…” “My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place…” “Your eyes saw my unformed body…” etc. etc. In the Old Testament, the abhorrent to Yahweh are those that sacrificed infants to false gods. Jesus message (not what has been co-opted in name to meet worldly agendas) is of Peace, Social Justice, Spiritual Liberation, defense of the poor, the marginalized, widows and orphans, characterized by self sacrifice and servant hood, motivated by love for all, especially ones enemies. Emphasis is on serving the least; I can think of few folks in greater need of care and defense than a person faced with having to raise or abort a child and the life that has no voice of it’s own, what could be more defenseless and worthy of our compassion? Surly this is the body of Christ.
I think many are missing the point made by Rabbi such as Rashi. It is not that the unborn baby has no value, but that it must be taken into consideration with the mother. The mother’s life is not expected to be given for the child. (However after the advent of the cesarean that in fact has been elected by many.) The reference to Exodus 21:22 that has been misapplied here refers to a miscarriage caused accidentally by a third party, not intentionally like an abortion. The value in that situation assigned to the child is determined by the slave price of a similar woman who is pregnant as opposed to one who is not. (Rashi) In fact, in Biblical Jewish culture one of the greatest blessings given by God are children, the Jews in Biblical times would be perplexed by the thought of terminating a pregnancy if no apparent threat was eminent.
It is not my intention to highjack the thread to a defense of theist doctrine, however these gross generalizations need to be addressed. Blessings.
Rock, I agree with you that the issue of abortion is a complex one. I do not think there is room for compromise when it comes to a woman’s rights, and in order to give equal rights to the fetus inside her body some of her rights must be compromised. Can you give me an example of a situation in which we can accord a fetus the same rights as human being without restricting a women’s freedom?
You said “sex for pleasure for money or whatever motivation must encompass the possibility of procreation as a part of the process.” This is a nice sentiment, but it is not realistic. The reality is, women and men are going to have sex whether or not they want babies. What you are saying is that a woman should not have sex for pleasure (or for any other reason) unless she doesn’t mind being pregnant. If you are going to genuinely address this issue, you must address reality. Look at the wide range of contraceptives being sold in this country. Your ideal is not the reality.
You also said “the effort to paint the discussion as “either/or” does little to create a genuine discussion of the possibilities.” Please clarify how abortion is not an either or situation. You either abort the baby or force a woman to have a a baby that she does not want. We don’t have the technology to remove the fetus from a woman’s uterus and allowing it to grow in a glass jar. It’s a shame, but there is no neutral zone when it comes to abortion.
Finally, you said “it might be a stretch, however I have to believe that many women who are in the position where abortion as a compelling choice is because someone treated them as an object with no commitment to long term relationship or support.” First of all, how is forcing women to have babies that they don’t want a cure for this objectification? Furthermore, this reads to me like you think that any woman who accidentally becomes pregnant was somehow objectified (treated as an object) and used sexually by a man- that she didn’t just decide to have sex for her own pleasure or reasons without wanting to become pregnant. To me this suggests that you are projecting traditional feminine ideals upon women to limit their freedom, NOT that you care about saving the lives of embryos.
//Dianne Writes: Not this argument again! Life doesn’t begin at conception. It doesn’t begin at birth.//
Your incorrect. A sperm is not alive and an ovum is not alive. They do not meet the scientific criteria for life.
//Ampersand Writes: If all human life is valuable, regardless of personhood, then a severed toe kept alive with machinery would have a right to life, and shooting the toe with a shotgun would be murder. //
A human toe, once severed from the human body it was attached to, is not alive and kept be kept alive by artificial means and made to fit the definition of life. It cannot move or respond to stimuli and it cannot feed itself. The body is what was/is alive, once the toe is no longer part of the whole then it is no longer alive.
///Dianne Writes: So suppose the possessor of a current driver’s license gets into a car while not drunk, not on any mind altering substances, and proceeds to drive. Despite driving at the legal speed, using proper turn signals, and otherwise following the rules of the road, he or she gets into an accident and is badly injured. Should the EMTs treat such a person or should they ignore him or her because, after all, if he or she didn’t want an accident, he or she should never have gotten into a car? //
This argument has nothing to do with the argument that I presented to you. The EMTs should treat the person because that is their job.
A better argument to make would have been should the person have their car paid for by an insurance company because they were driving without insurance and didn’t think they would get into an accident. Just because you didn’t think it would happen to you and you failed to take adequate precautions because of that is no ones fault but your own and the insurance company should not have to pay for your irresponsibility.
I just want to say one thing…. not all pro-lifers are for criminalizing all abortions, some are but many ( I am loathe to say the majority without any evidence to support it) are not.
You’re incorrect. You’re confusing the definition of a life form with the state of being alive; but they’re not the same thing. A sperm in not a life form, because it doesn’t eat; but in another sense, it is a living human cell. It is possible, looking through a microscope, to distinguish between dead and live sperm; if you were correct, that would not be possible.
Okay, make it a severed arm, kept alive on life support. A severed arm can have reflex motion in response to stimuli (just press a live electric wire against it, for example).
As for feeding itself, that’s not and never has been part of the definition. Stephen Hawking cannot feed himself, but he’s still alive. (You’re mixing up “feeding oneself” with “possessing a metabolism.” But they’re not the same thing, and a severed body part kept alive with machines does have a metabolism.)
So none of your explanations hold water. If someone walks in and shoots a severed arm, kept alive with artificial life support, why shouldn’t they be charged with murder, in your view? As far as I can tell, you don’t have any logical reason.
Rock, for a very short and somewhat reductive discussion of the Jewish view on abortion and fetal personhood, you might want to check out this post on my blog. It doesn’t take on the question of what the Hebrew Bible has to say about fetal personhood, but the two books I refer to there do.
M:
No I’m not. If you think I am, then you’ve misunderstood my argument. In fact it’s central to the argument I give at the end of this post that I distinguish between them
This is the “women’s bodily autonomy” argument. As I’ve shown, the policies supported by +C4W-C4M advocates (hereinafter “pro-choice” so long as it’s understood that I mean those opposed to C4M) go a long way toward that stated aim.
Kindly don’t adopt a condescending tone with me, at least until you’ve found out what my views are on the subject. I support choice for women, largely because I do put a very high value on people’s bodily autonomy.
However, it wasn’t the purpose of my post to express a view one way or the other on any of these issues. Rather, it was my intent to explore whether the policies supported by pro-choice advocates further their stated aims.
Now, it seems to me that you could legitimately respond to my post by saying that pro-choice advocates don’t have these goals, don’t support these policies, or you could disagree with my analysis of the effects of the policies on the goals. You haven’t done that. What you’ve done is argue against a variety of positions that I never put forward. I’ll respond to your points, but they in no way rebut my earlier post.
Where? In the world? In the US?
Surely not the US. Assuming that the population of the US is 300 million, half of which are female, and that the female life expectancy is about 75, that works out as about 2 million female deaths each year. I do not believe that a quarter of all female deaths in the US are caused by pregnancy.
If the world, the figure of half a million looks a little on the low side.
I’d like to see that last claim cited.
But yeah, I agree that there are significant health risks to pregnant women, and that that is another reason why abortion should be a choice for women.
In my opinion, fathers have an interest in the foetus, equal to the mother’s. That interest doesn’t trump the mother’s interest in her own body, so I say yet again, pregnant women should have the right to abortions. The word ‘right’ means that they don’t have to ask anyone’s permission.
Fathers should have rights to. Specifically, they should have the right to be timely informed of the foetus’s existence, and the right to express a view to the mother on the matter. ‘Express the view’ does not mean ‘have the say’, the decision should still be the woman’s. Finally they should have the right to take on parental rights and responsibilities if the child is born.
These rights would in no way compomise the woman’s right to an abortion. Unfortunately even these minimal rights are often ignored.
The corresponding medical operation on the woman would be a tubal ligation, not an abortion. I do agree that couples should discuss such matters with each other before deciding, but not that either should be able to dictate to the other.
It is indeed a strawman argument, because I have made no such claim. The point about adoption is that one justification for requiring fathers to pay maintainance is that children once born should have the right to support from both parents. Yet I have never heard anyone argue that both parents should pay maintainance to support their biological children adopted away. This leads me to the conclusion that the “children have the right to support from both parents” argument is bogus.
I too know many women who give birth time and time again to babies that they have absolutely no ability to care for no matter how much support they get. These children go into care, placing a significant burden on the social services, and hopefully end up adopted. You’re right that the fathers are often nowhere to be seen, but pointing out their irresponsibility while ignoring that of the mothers (who have access to abortion and post-coital contraception, but don’t take it) is also “not backed up by anything close to reality”.
I also know several single dads, including one (non-biological) father who was left holding the baby – well, the three-year-old – when his partner, the girl’s biological mother, abandoned them both. He then had to go through the process of first securing legal custody, then full adoption, and has been bringing her up as a single father ever since. She’d be 14 or 15 now. Of course he gets no maintainance from the mother, nor does he have the legal right to any.
Those are not the only alternatives.
Didn’t we have a thread recently about how pro-choice arguments against C4M sounded just like the anti-abortionist arguments against C4W? “unless the female in question had a ligation to ensure she wouldn’t become pregnant, she knew what she was getting into, and that she wouldn’t be able to have an abortion.”
Yes, the brunt of reproduction falls on the women. That sucks, and it’s unfair, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
We agree that children have the right to support. We agree that it doesn’t have to be from the child’s biological parents. We disagree as to who should be responsible for ensuring that the child gets the support that its entitled to. I say it should be the person whose decision caused the child to born in the first place.
With all the post-coital contraceptive and abortion options available to women today, a child is not the inevitable result of a couple’s decision to have sex.
It’s not the inevitable result of conception.
It’s not the inevitable result of implantation.
But it is the (near) inevitable result of the choice not to have an abortion.
That choice, we agree, lies solely with the woman. And with that choice should come the responsibility to ensure that the child is supported. The mother doesn’t have to do the providing all by herself. She doesn’t have to do it at all, but she should otherwise find someone who will. If she can’t find someone else, and she’s unwilling or unable to do the providing by herself, then don’t have the child. Don’t force someone unwilling to do the providing.
Damn, I meant to hit “Preview” rather than post. I had one more paragraph to add.
If I may anticipate a possible objection to what I’ve just said, I do appreciate that the right to abortion is under serious threat in the United States, that it may not exist in other parts of the world, and that even where the right exists in theory, there may be practical obstacles to women obtaining abortions. My advocacy is C4M is not independent of C4W. If women, as a practical matter, do not have access to post-coital contraception or abortion, then father’s should be obligated to support their children. If fathers are so obligated, then women should still have access to abortion. C4M is contingent on C4W, but not vice versa.
Daniel, in critiquing what I wrote in post 233 wrote the following:
I just wanted to clarify that what I was talking about in my post was not the way either side of this debate frames their positions, though the question I asked about the pro-choice side might have sounded this way. What I was talking about was the underlying metaphors driving the two positions. We don’t normally think about “free and autonomous” individuality as a metaphor because it is so central to the definition of personhood as it is understood in the US–and since what I am going to say here is about culture, I should be clear that I am talking here about the US. Nonetheless, to define an individual as free and autonomous is to think about personhood metaphorically. The easiest way I can think to show this–since I do not want to turn this thread into a philosophical discussion of metaphor–is through the negative example of cultures where personhood is defined by an individual’s place in the web (there’s the metaphor) of human relationships, most prominently those of family, in which he or she is implicated.
So, to posit a pregnant woman as a free and autonomous individual–and since we’re talking about abortion here, I will put this in terms of women–is to posit her personhood (and, therefore, the justifications for the rights that the pro-choice side argues are hers) on a very different metaphor than the web that I just mentioned. On the other hand, to posit a pregnant woman as a person in whose body the life of another person exists and on whose body the life of that other person depends, is, metaphorically speaking, to posit that woman as a vessel for that other life. There may be, among the anti-abortion crowd different understandings of what that “vesselhood” means. In other words, some might take it to its extreme interpretation and completely objectify the woman, while others might be more reasonable and talk in terms of competing sets of rights, but the only reason one can even begin to talk about competing sets of rights in the first place is that one has decided that the woman’s individual rights have been compromised because she is carrying another life inside her body–in other words, because she is a vessel.
To bring this back to the original post: to ask whether abortion is murder is to ask whether a fetus (or go back as early in fetal development as you want) is enough like a born person that killing it rises to the standards set in law for charging someone with homicide (again, a metaphor.) To the degree that those questions are asked as if it doesn’t matter that the fetus exists in the body of another person and so therefore is profoundly unlike a born person in very fundamental ways, the questions assume that the person inhabiting that other body is of secondary importance. She is, in other words, reduced to her pregnant body and her pregnant body is merely the vessel in which the fetus-as-person is carried. Again, I am not talking about the ways in which anti-abortion people approach this in terms of the policies they might want to implement or the ways in which they talk about this in order to be sensitive to the fact that a pregnant woman is indeed a person. I am just trying to point out the metaphorical thinking underlying their position.
gengwall:
Isn’t it generally true that Christians conveniently ignore the totality of what the Bible has to say on anything?
Richard Jeffrey Newman,
Your link in post 292 isn’t working for me, could you site the address please? I would like to read them. Thanks.
Tonochujo,
I will respond when I have a little time.
Daran post296,
That is a very offensive and prejudicial statement. Especially in light of your excellent analysis in your previous post. I admire your elocution.
What’s so wrong with having children as a punishment for women having sex?
“I say it should be the person whose decision caused the child to born in the first place.”
Both father and mother are responsible for creating the pregnancy.
If she terminates the pregnancy, the cost of this is often borne by both, reflecting their co-responsibility.
If the child is carried to term, the mother must do it. She can decide whether to raise it, or not.
The father can’t carry it, but he can decide whether he wants to raise it or help raise it, or not. THAT’s his choice.
But if he doesn’t want to raise it himself, and the mother does, he should be a man, and pay child support.
Daran:
I apologize for the tone of my previous response. I’ve been encountering the Men’s Rights arguments on a number of websites this week, most of which have rapidly become a declaration that men are oppressed by women who don’t have abortions and force them to pay child support. The presentation of your original statement, with its emphasis on how pro-choice priorities seem to override men’s rights, led me to believe you were going to launch into the exact same argument.
Pregnancy Mortality Cite Maternal Homicide Cite
We agree that children have the right to support. We agree that it doesn’t have to be from the child’s biological parents. We disagree as to who should be responsible for ensuring that the child gets the support that its entitled to. I say it should be the person whose decision caused the child to born in the first place.
With all the post-coital contraceptive and abortion options available to women today, a child is not the inevitable result of a couple’s decision to have sex.
It’s not the inevitable result of conception.
It’s not the inevitable result of implantation.
But it is the (near) inevitable result of the choice not to have an abortion.
I think we are disagreeing on a basic assumption or two, and I suspect that’s where the problem is arising.
Assuming consensual sex, two people decide to have intercourse. Time elapses, and the female is impregnated by the male. Ignoring the early miscarriages for a moment, most of these pregnancies if left alone will result in childbirth and one or more children. If I understand your statement, if the woman does not choose to abort the pregnancy, she should automatically be understood to provide or arrange the bulk of the support of the resultant offspring, because she did not exercise her right to choose an abortion. Is this a correct assumption?
My argument is that abortion is a form of birth control, albeit one used after conception (literally, it prevents birth). It may not be a desireable method, being expensive, painful, and surrounded in this country with cultural shame, but it is legal and available. However, like all birth control methods, it something that should (note word) be discussed as an option prior to the sex, and if it’s not going to be used as a birth control method, then other methods need to be considered and employed if the couple does not want to reproduce.
Or put more simply, I wouldn’t have sex with a man who won’t wear a condom, and a man who expects a woman to abort a pregnancy better be certain she’s not pro-life (or pro-choice but personally not going to have an abortion without medical cause, like me) before they have sex. And if they don’t have that discussion beforehand, and then she is impregnated by him and takes the pregnancy to term, then yes, he’s just exactly as responsible as she is for the baby. He didn’t exercise his option to be surgically sterilized (and a vasectomy isn’t the same as a tubal — it’s far less invasive, it’s outpatient surgery, it costs a tenth of the price, and the modern procedure is reversible should he change his mind later) and thus he knew that any intercourse could result in a pregnancy that he would not have a say in terminating. You can say that sounds suspiciously like an anti-choice option, but as you said: That sucks, and it’s unfair, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
You have anecdotal evidence of men who took on responsibility, and I’ve got anecdotal evidence of men who fled the minute the second line showed up on the stick. We can lob examples back and forth for days, and I’m still going to think I’m right (and so are you, I’m sure).
Specifically, they should have the right to be timely informed of the foetus’s existence, and the right to express a view to the mother on the matter. ‘Express the view’ does not mean ‘have the say’, the decision should still be the woman’s. Finally they should have the right to take on parental rights and responsibilities if the child is born.
These rights would in no way compomise the woman’s right to an abortion. Unfortunately even these minimal rights are often ignored.
The problem with this statement is that the thought process leads to legislation regarding paternal notification prior to abortion, which is nice and equitable in theory and horrendous in execution. Specifically, in any healthy relationship, the two partners have already discussed the matter together and come to the decision to abort as a result of the discussion. In an unhealthy relationship, legal paternal notification can require a woman to seek approval from a man she’s fleeing for her life, or try to locate a man who’s already made himself scarce and/or is calling her a slut and saying it’s not his and how dare she embarrass him like this. (And you can feel free to think these are exaggerations; every one is a situation I’ve known someone to be in, without the added burden of paternal notification.)
So yes, in practice, not providing a legal recourse for men to be informed of an impending abortion (or even the pregnancy) can look on the surface like it infringes on men’s rights, but despite your claim that men’s rights don’t supercede women’s rights in the matter, in practice, this kind of legislation would make women’s lives even harder.
In an ideal world, people who have sex discuss birth control methods before they have sex, and they agree on what to do with a pregnancy before they start one. In an ideal world, a woman who is pregnant is in a relationship with a man who wants to have a child with her, or else fully supports her decision not to have a child, and more, she’s in a relationship with someone with whom she can make a decision as part of a couple. In an ideal world, women aren’t afraid of their partners, or afraid that their partners will leave them as soon as they find out about the pregnancy. Of course, in an ideal world, all contraceptives work perfectly and are universally available, there are no rapes, and thus there are no unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
We live here. In this world, men’s rights are the default setting, so much so that every time women’s rights come up, they are seen as encroaching on men’s rights (or privileges, as they ought to be called most of the time). Legally, both men and women have the right to walk down the street or go out on a date or go to a bar or go to a party and not be assaulted. Effectively, women don’t, because any time that situation results in an assault, we’re blamed for being there / not being watchful enough / drinking / wearing the wrong clothing / smiling at someone. Legally, both men and women have the right to wear whatever they choose as long as it conforms to local decency codes. Effectively, if a man walks down the street wearing a speedo, and a woman does so wearing a miniskirt and tank top, only one will be blamed for “advertising I want sex and obviously this means you” if someone rapes her. Legally, men and women are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Effectively, work that women perform is valued less monetarily than work that men perform, and so on average women earn only three quarters of what men earn. I could go on, but it’d bore you and I suspect you know this already. Men have the lion’s share of the rights, enumerated by law and otherwise.
In the past thirty years in the U.S., there has been a change, albeit a small one. Women have been legally given a right that existed before as a birth control option but was limited (by state), or was vastly dangerous (one woman I know had two friends who died from botched illegal abortions). It’s an option, and as you said, one that can only be chosen by the woman in question. At the same time, she can also choose not to exercise that option, and your argument seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong) that such a choice means she then consequently assumes the responsibility of supporting or finding support for the child (and I concur that in too many cases, she has to do precisely that as the father is long gone anyway). My argument is that like all methods of birth control, it’s efficacy relies on the choice to use it (and use it properly) and that both parties are still responsible for the result if it’s not. How they choose to deal with the responsibility is up to the two of them, and is generally given some direction by the state (laws regarding abandonment, adoption, child support, or marriage).
Or think of it like this. Two people have sex, and he says he’s had a vasectomy when in reality, he hadn’t. She gets pregnant. She has the option of having an abortion or not, and she chooses not to. They are both responsible for providing for the child (per various methods of “providing for”), because they both made decisions that resulted in the birth. Two other people have sex, and she says she’s on the Pill, when in reality, she’s not. She gets pregnant, and like the first woman, chooses not to have an abortion. They are both still responsible for providing for the child because again, they both made decisions that resulted in the birth.
Now, are we on the same page, or are we not?
Rock–
Here is the full link: https://itsallconnected.wordpress.com/2006/01/16/9/. I will add only that what I wrote places an emphasis on the more liberal stream of thought laid out in the books I cite, and I have no idea whether that stream is in the mainstream today or no.
Uh, a zygote can’t move, respond to stimuli, or feed itself either. The cells in a severed toe are most certainly still alive until they die of hypoxia, some time after they are severed. Remember, a severed limb can be reattached if it is handled properly. If it were dead, this would not be possible. Dead cells don’t come back to life.
Pingback: What is the philosophy behind the movement to ban abortion? at Live from the Nuke Free Zone
//Ampersand Writes: You’re incorrect. You’re confusing the definition of a life form with the state of being alive; but they’re not the same thing. A sperm in not a life form, because it doesn’t eat; but in another sense, it is a living human cell. It is possible, looking through a microscope, to distinguish between dead and live sperm; if you were correct, that would not be possible.//
When a scientist looks through a microscope at a sperm to see if its “alive” he is just checking to see if it is moving. A sperm cannot reproduce itself or evolve and if it does not fulfill the function of fertilizing an ovum it does die but like you say, it was not alive in the same sense as a human.
//As for feeding itself, that’s not and never has been part of the definition. Stephen Hawking cannot feed himself, but he’s still alive. (You’re mixing up “feeding oneself” with “possessing a metabolism.” But they’re not the same thing, and a severed body part kept alive with machines does have a metabolism.)
So none of your explanations hold water. If someone walks in and shoots a severed arm, kept alive with artificial life support, why shouldn’t they be charged with murder, in your view? As far as I can tell, you don’t have any logical reason.//
I should have been clearer; I used bad wording when I said “feeding oneself”.
A severed body part does not reproduce itself; it will not create other arms. The severed body part does not evolve; it cannot create other arms that will be better arms than itself. The logical reason that it would not be murder to shoot the arm is because it does not have all of the criteria used to determine whether or not it is alive. The cells that make up the arm are indeed alive, but the arm itself does not fit the criteria whereas a human fetus does fit the scientific definition.
Amp,
Thanks for this post. I made a similar argument in connection with Eric Robert Rudolph’s trial last year, in GT 2005-01-29: Hello, Birmingham. In the United States alone, there are over 1,360,000 abortions every year. The overwhelming majority of those are elective abortions that would be criminalized under South Dakota-style bans or even “reformed” bans with provisions for the usual rape / incest / health-of-the-mother exemptions. If you earnestly believe (as many anti-abortion folks claim to) that almost every single abortion is an act of murder, then you’re committed to believing that over 40,000,000 people have been murdered in the U.S. since abortion was decriminalized in 1973, that every single day that passes another 4,000 are being murdered. If that’s what’s happening, then we are living through the worst holocaust in all of recorded history.
And if that’s what you earnestly believe, then what the fuck are you doing writing checks to Michigan Right to Life or GOPAC? Why aren’t you shooting doctors? Why aren’t you blowing up clinics? Why aren’t you contributing funding or arms or safe space to militant networks such as the Army of God? If that’s what you earnestly believe, it would be very easy to do what you’re comitted to thinking of as saving a lot of innocent people from being murdered, just by going out tomorrow and injuring or killing a provider. If that’s what you earnestly believe, it’s precisely as if you were standing by and doing nothing (other than perhaps some “sidewalk counseling”) as you watch the SS shove men and women onto the cattle cars to Auschwitz.
Lots of people, even those in the anti-abortion movement, regard Rudolph, James Charles Kopp, et al. as murderers and dangerous lunatics. They’re right about that, but the only way that they can have any right to believe that is if they do not earnestly believe that abortion is murder. If you think Rudolph is a dangerous lunatic, then what can you say about someone who earnestly believes exactly what Rudolph believes about abortion, has no principled opposition to the use of violence to defend the innocent, and yet sits back and does nothing about it? That kind of person might be less dangerous than Rudolph, but they are also more contemptible: by their own lights, they ought to be regarded as cowards or moral monsters of the most depiscable sort.
I think the only charitable conclusion is that most people in the anti-abortion movement don’t really believe that abortion is murder; they believe that it’s wrong, for other reasons (because they think it’s cruel, perhaps, or tragic, or irresponsible, or something else), but the constant use of the terms “murder,” “infanticide,” etc. to condemn it can’t be anything more than empty and bloody rhetorical flourish.
A flourish which they really need to stop using, for the sake of their own compassion and humanity.
Tonochujo,
“What you are saying is that a woman should not have sex for pleasure (or for any other reason) unless she doesn’t mind being pregnant.”
That is not at all what I am saying. Actions have consequences, some of which are not intentional to the action, yet are consistent with the action. For example sex for pleasure, the goal is pleasure; some potential side effects are STD, procreation, emotional attachment, etc. Even while practicing excellent birth and STD prevention (which I hope all do) the best case scenarios are in the mid to upper 90% (with exception for sterilization which only prevents fertility). This means that while doing the best we can to simply have sex for pleasure there is still a 1 to 6% chance that something other than pleasure will occur. I suggest this needs to be considered before embarking in that behavior. We do this in many areas of our lives. We assume there is the chance that we will have an accident while driving even though transport is the goal. We therefore require insurance, mandated safety devices (not enough in my opinion), licensure/age of privilege (the State grants this), limit personal choices such as phone, alcohol and drug usage while driving, enforce standards for the society to provide appropriate roads (even if some do not utilize them), limit the usage of the vehicle with laws and limits. And, provide an enormous legal apparatus to determine responsibility and precedence when issues occur. There is an entire ethical, legal and moral framework built around the use of a vehicle. There are similar assumptions and weighing of consequences every time we choose to use a drug or medication, all drugs have side effects. Engage in activities like sports and athletics. Enter into business or social/relational contracts. In each of these and many more actions the rights (whether assumed or mandated) of the stakeholders is given weight, a place in the discussion and an opportunity to be represented if the person or the item is material to the discussion. My point is that denying that potential life, or a person, is germane to the discussion or the decision to having sexual relationships is ludicrous. It is my belief that acknowledging the personhood of the not yet born will in the end advance the cause of human rights including women’s rights.
“Please clarify how abortion is not an either or situation. You either abort the baby or force a woman to have a a baby that she does not want”
For one, I am totally against criminalizing abortion or impinging on a woman’s choice.
I am advocating the raising of the value we place on life so we become better stewards of what I see as a gift (for me from God). That would be all people; women, children, elderly, people with disabilities, convicts, addicts, etc. all people have a soul (IMO) and for no other reason deserve to be loved. Those with pathologies need our special care and are often the hardest to love. (I think they often remind us of our personal frailties and flaws, that all of us are broken; in some way we are all “disabled,” ouch!) There are many considerations after the fact of impregnation. Women need to be supported and informed throughout and after the decision is made regardless of what choice it is. Some will choose to abort, some will choose to raise a child, some will share that with the family, and some will help another by giving in adoption. Raising the value of human life will shift people to where more resources are provided (hopefully de-stigmatized) lowering the need to abort. We see this in societies that do provide better care and education. I believe recognizing that life is sacred will help in this process.
“how is forcing women to have babies that they don’t want a cure for this objectification?
I have never, nor will ever suggest a woman is forced, or not, to have or not have a baby, or judge their decision; that is not my place.
“Furthermore, this reads to me like you think that any woman who accidentally becomes pregnant was somehow objectified (treated as an object) and used sexually by a man- that she didn’t just decide to have sex for her own pleasure or reasons without wanting to become pregnant.”
This is another case of your trying to frame things in an all or nothing format. Certainly there are many women who are objectified by men for sex. Some women are told they are to fat and dumped (do not meet the looks/object criteria) often with children. “It was fun but I don’t want no commitment,” with or without kids, not an uncommon situation. (I deal with it daily in men and women.) Some rape victims are a result of objectification. Many women (and men) suffer from past abuse and set themselves up to be repeatedly objectified and objectifiers. This is more than tragic and contributes to a perpetuating of objectification. I do not believe that all women who have sex or abortions are doing so as a result of objectivism; you must concede that many are at risk because of it.
“To me this suggests that you are projecting traditional feminine ideals upon women to limit their freedom, NOT that you care about saving the lives of embryos.”
I am sorry if that is what you perceive. Blessings.
“No woman should become pregnant, if she doesn’t so desire. With the contraceptions available today, this is a reality.”
No, it is not reality. Some women are more fertile than others. Contraception fails. I got pregnant at 42 when a condom broke, and the morning after pill, taken in a timely fashion, failed. As my doctor said at the time “It should not be this easy for a woman your age to get pregnant.” But it was.
I terminated the pregnancy, because it was the right decision for me and for the child I was already caring for.
SBW, it is entirely possible to look at adult humans as a sperm’s way of making more sperm. It is all a matter of perspective.
Richard Jeffery Newman,
Thanks for the link. I am limited in Modern Jewish ethical thought. (Though my nickname for years was Moshe… another story.) It is a shame as there is a wealth of reasoning and historic context in the process. (Need more hours in a day!)
I agree with the basis being quality of life as I have always felt that the reliance on Privacy was just to get the door open, as the Legislators are unwilling to work it out (as they should) and put the safeguards into law.
I am uncomfortable with the death penalty example, as I do not believe the death penalty is just or humane. There is also a decided lack of choice for the woman being executed in their example. Perhaps the condemned person wishes to pass her life onto her child? Perhaps the process of nurturing the life inside of her becomes redemptive? It is fascinating and difficult to consider the ethics of it all, but a worthy effort.
Thanks for the spot, do you have more? Blessings.
Rock:
Regarding the death penalty example: It’s important to understand how Talmudic reasoning works; what they do, in a nutshell–it’s actually more complicated than this–is construct a situation that may or may not be realistic but which gets very precisely at the question they want to think about, and then they proceed to argue by analogy from their. So the example of the death penalty is not, I think, about the woman–by which I mean, simply, I am not sure what the rabbis would say if the condemned woman were to express the desire to carry her pregnancy to term–but rather about the status of the fetus, and Jewish law, and Jewish reading (as I understand it) of the relevant passages in the five books of Moses, which are the only books that have real legal weight in Jewish law, is that the fetus, while a living thing, is not individuated and so cannot be understood to have the same rights as a born person.
As for your question about my having more, all I can do, unfortunately, is direct you to the two books I cited in my blog post. I read them a long time ago and they are now in storage and my memory of them is not good.
Me:
Rock:
I don’t think it’s prejudicial. I observe that the Bible is contradictory on just about anything, and that to come to any view at all about ‘what it has to say’ requires that a Christian ignore all the parts that say the opposite.
This of course makes it useless as a guide either to truth or to moral conduct. It does, however, make it the perfect vehicle for anyone seeking to justify whatever evil he intended to do anyway.
As far as offence is concerned, the core belief system of Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) is about as offensive to me as it is possible to be, and I long ago ceased to concern myself over whether my views were offensive to them.
Thank you for your kind remark.
M, I’ll respond to your main argument in due course, however this little digression is not particularly germane to that discussion.
M:
Me:
M:
Well, that’s what it says.
Assuming a world population of 5.5 billion and a world-wide life expectancy at birth of 55 years (obviously higher in the developed world, much lower in developing nations), the 1.7 billion child-bearing-aged women in the world have to produce 100 million live-births every year, just to maintain the population. In fact the population is increasing, so 100 million could be an underestimate. Ignoring the possibility of more than one live birth in a year (multiple births or nine month apart) that means 100 million women give birth each year, and upwards of 150 million women fall pregnant (because at least a third of pregnancies do not result in childbirth).
If half a million die, then that’s downwards of 1 in 300 of them. That’s still a significant risk, but by third-world standards (or at least my perception of them) it seems a little low.
M:
M:
If it were that important to the discussion, I’d want to see the primary source, as news reports often quote statistics in ways which are misleading, and sometimes downright inaccurate.
In this case, it is you who have misrepresent what the report said, (unintentionally I’m sure). Firstly the figure applies only to Maryland and can’t reasonably be extrapolated to the entire US, still less to the world as a whole. Secondly there is nothing to indicate that the womens’ pregnancies “lead to” their homicides or that the murderers even knew that their victims were pregnant. You’d probably also find that homicide is a leading cause (if not the leading cause) of death of non-pregnant women and of men in the comparible age range. After all, none of them will be dying from age-related causes.
Well, a sperm without an adult man can, under a few circumstances (already in the female reproductive tract, frozen in a sperm bank, in a turkey baster, etc) still reproduce. An adult man without any living sperm is always, without exception, sunk as far as reproduction goes. I guess that tells you which of the two is more important as far as the genes go.
Daran,
From what you say in your posts, I do not doubt your sincerity when you dismiss the Abrahamic Faiths. I have no problem discussing inconsistencies in the faiths or in those that profess them. (They are even more evident for some of us from inside of the disciplines.) I cannot however get to the extremes of your complete dismissal to see where you are coming from as I have seen and know a different experience. (I have been rolling it around while in Services today and I confess I do not posses that certitude on any subject, least of all billons of human beings I have never met.)
The failings of the Abrahamic Faiths are the same as those in other belief systems in my observations. This leads me to believe that they are fundamental to humanity and not a single belief system. I railed for many years against many Christians and their failings, than I read the words of Christ and found His namesakes frequently missed His message, the core of which is rooted in the Deuteronomic texts; the law of love. It is my hope you meet one such as I have that leads you to qualify your statement. Blessings.
Daran, it makes perfect sense that homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant women for a single reason: pregnant women tend to be young and healthy and unlikely to die of other causes than (a) accidental death; (b) the pregnancy itself; or (c) homicide.
Logic is supported by experience: I used to work with battered women and it was a truism among all of the professional staff that for women who were abused, it was common for abuse to begin during or immediately after a woman’s pregnancy. Abusers are not, how can I say this, best in breed — they are often jealous, even of their own children. Homicide might involve abuse, or be directed at a woman who is having a child against the father’s wishes.
In any event, no one is saying that the majority or even a significant proportion of women are threatened or killed by the fathers of their babies.
M:
I’m used to having the MRA label pinned to me, along with all the baggage that goes along with it.
Not quite. I set out some of the rights that I think men and women and respectively should have in regard to a pregnacy, and some of the responsibilities which attach to those rights. One of those responsibilities is, for the woman whose sole decision it is to carry the foetus to term, thereby creating a child with rights of its own, to ensure that those rights are provided for.
Any statement about what does or doesn’t happen ‘automatically’ is a statement about the processes by which those rights and responsibilities are implented. This is something we haven’t discussed.
I agree that abortion is a form of birth-control, which is a superset of contraception and a subset of family planning. The latter concept would also include child support.
By ‘this country’ I presume you mean America. I live in Britain, where the stigma appears to be much less. It’s still a far-from-ideal method of birth control, though.
Agreed, but as your ‘note word’ indicates, we both know this does not always happen.
Or conversely, if he is adamant that any resultant foetus not be aborted, then he should be certain that she will not do so. Unfortunately, he can’t be certain either way. Anti-choice women sometimes have abortions, and a woman who is initially minded to abort may find herself bonding to her foetus. It would be interesting to debate whether any undertaking made by the woman at the time of intercourse to the man, to abort or to not abort in the event of a pregnancy should be binding upon her.
I used that formula to refer to a biological reality – the fact that the physical burden of childbirth falls on women. The obligation on men to support their children is a legal and social one, and “we”, i.e., society at large, certainly could do something about it. What we’re debating is whether we should, and if so, what?
Your position boils down to this: that if a fertile man is not willing to risk being forced to support a child, he should refrain from sex altogether. When anti-choicers make the identical argument about women, pro-choicers respond, rather persuasively, that this is not just unfair, but also infeasible. Well it’s just as unfair and infeasible to demand that fertile men refrain from sex altogether, and to penalise them if they don’t.
If you, or your antichoice counterpart became pregnant from recreational sex, then you would have a choice: you could abort, or you could carry to term. The fact that you and she are unwilling to abort does not mean that don’t have the choice. It just means that you are unwilling to excercise it in a particular way. It’s still solely your choice to bring a child into the world, and it should be your responsbility to ensure that it is provided for.
Where you part company from your antichoice counterpart is that she wants to make that choice for all women, while you want each women to be able make that choice for themselves. Where I part company with you is that you want women to make the child-support choice for men, and I want the men to be able to make the choice for themselves.
Note that there as absolutely nothing stopping you or your antiabortionist counterpart from requiring your partner to agree as a precondition to having sex to support any child that might issue. In the alternative, a man could make it a condition on haveng sex with a woman that she accept that he will not be sopporting any child that may issue. The law does not accept this kind of negotiation. I think it should. But if the conversation does not take place (which would be irresponsibity on both sides, agreed?), then I think women should have no more power to dictate to men that they pay, than men have to dictate to women that they abort.
I’m sure that we’re both well aware that some men will support the child, and some won’t. I’m sure that you’d also acknowledge that some women behave responsibily in respect to their reproductive choices, and some don’t. However my argument doesn’t depend upon weighing the respective irresponsibility of the two groups to see which is the greater.
This would be a valid objection if I was arguing that in every case the man should be notified. I’m not; it’s obvious that there should be exceptions, but the mere fact of that does not mean that men shouldn’t be entitled to notification in unexceptional cases.
The implication of that remark is that men’s rights can be disregarded if respecting them makes women’s lives harder. That’s not a proposition I would agree with.
They should also agree on whether the man will support the child if the decision is that it be born.
I find it interesting that you frame this aspect of your ideal world in terms of the woman coming to her own decision, while the man merely supports whatever his partner decides.
We can’t create an ideal world. What we can do, is formulate and advocate the fairest policies for the world we live it.
Unsurprisingly I disagree with that proposition
That’s an extraordinary remark, given the context is your argument that it is an encroachment upon women’s rights for men to have any post-coital family-planning choice at all.
You’re confusing ‘rights’ with ‘practical freedoms’. Your rights are whatever the law says they are. You have the right not to be assaulted. That right is infringed by someone assaulting you. It is not infringed by someone being an arsehole about it after the fact.
I have twice been assaulted – physically beaten – without provocation while walking in the street in the past ten years. On two other occasions – once in the street, and once on a bus – I was physically threatened. The bus incident was particularly scary because there was no possible escape; the bus was moving, and my assailant was between me and the door. I have seen other violent attacks upon men and many of my male acquaintances have described similar incidents. I have never seen a woman beaten in the street. In contrast, I’ve never seen a woman beaten in the street. I’ve seen a couple of incidents of women being grabbed (by people they obvously knew), and once saw a drunk women – clearly non-consenting but incapable of effectively resisting – being non-violently sexually molested. (I use the word ‘violence’ in its normal English sense – injurious physical force. I do not accept the feminist co-option of the word to apply to any sexual assault.)
In conclusion, my own experience backs up the statistics which (as I’m sure you well know) show that men suffer more violence than women overall, and overwhelmingly so outside the home. For you to suggest that the dangers faced by women outside the home is an example of male privilage is a 180 degree reversal of the true situation.
Men are usually allowed (by law) to walk down the street in a speedo, while women may be obliged to cover their breasts as well as their genitals. So in strict legal terms, men have a tiny privilage over women here. On the other hand, your ‘man in a speedo’ had better not become visibly aroused, while the woman in a tank- or bikini-top can erect her nipples whenever she likes, at least in my part of the world. Let’s call that one a 1-1 draw, as far as legal rights are concerned.
Practical freedom is another matter. Where I live in Scotland, women are usually out and about in short skirts and tank-tops at the first sign of spring. It has to get very hot before men will typically (un)dress to a similar level of (un)coverage. Very rarely do you see a man topless in the street, and I have never seen a man in a speedo anywhere other than at the beach or swimming pool.
Public dress codes vary widely, of course, and I realise that women in other parts of the world are often highly restricted in what they may wear. However in the western world it appears the women have far more practical freedom than men to show skin if they want to, and the arseholery to which a woman might be subject after the frankly unlikely event that she is raped while showing skin in a public place does not in practice appear to significantly limit women’s freedom to do so.
Legally, men and women are equally entitled to a safe working environment. Effectively, “sexist occupational segregation leads to men being more likely to be injured or killed on the job”. Over ten times more likely, in fact, in the US and the situation is similar here in the UK. Furthermore, as Ampersand rather persuasively argues in that article, the men at risk are not being compensated for the dangers they face.
Now lets look at the society’s response to these facts. The male-female wage gap is a matter of considerable concern to the state. There are any number of statements, initiatives, surveys and other government responses intended to address the wage gap. Yet when was the last time you ever heard anyone in Government announce an initiative, or even express concern about risks of injury or death specificaly faced by men in the workplace?
The female privilage is this: that the state (which merely reflects society in general) is far more concerned about women being sent home with a light pay packet, than it is about men being sent to their graves.
Men have the legal right to bare their chests in public anywhere in the US, while women don’t. Can you name any other right “enumerated by law” in the US, the UK or under International law that men have, that women don’t?
In the US, women have the legal right not to serve in the military. Men don’t have that right. It’s true that there’s been no draft since the early 70’s if I recall correctly, but the legal power to draft still lies with the Government. In the UK there’s been no conscription since the 50’s, but it’s inconcievable that the government wouldn’t implement a draft exclusively of men if a national emergency demanded. Things would have to be grave indeed before they drafted women.
Under current international law, women have a general right not to be subject to forced labour, with certain limited exceptions. Men have no such right. You’ll want a cite. See article 11(1).
In general, with a few exceptions (which overwhelmingly favour women, the right to bare our chests notwithstanding) the rights “enumerated by law” of men and women are pretty equal in the US, the UK, most western countries, and under international law. Other country’s local laws are very often unequal, I agree, so that men have some rights that women don’t. But the claim that men have the “lion’s share” is supported by a feminist analysis which ignores the rights that women have which are denied to men.
I understand the “and otherwise” part of your assertion to mean that, regardless of whether there is theoretical equality under the law, in practice society is structured for the benefit of men in comparison to women. And you can point out many examples at home and abroad where men have an advantage over women. The pay-gap is one example. But equally I can point out examples where women have the advantage over men – the workplace death-gap for example. You can only sustain your claim of general male privilage, either by ignoring men’s disprivilages, or by finding pretexts to dismiss them.
I’m sorry to hear of your friend’s loss. I am, however, a little puzzled how even a total prohibition on abortion would count towards the “lion’s share” of legal rights allegedly enjoyed by men. Precisely what exclusive legal right would men have here?
This is not to suggest that I don’t agree that such a prohibition would not be an apalling injustice against both sexes, but overwhelming against women.
Legally yes, in most western countries. But that’s policy, not biology. In some countries the policy is different.
We agree that it is the right policy.
My argument is that the availability of abortion to women (i.e., practical availability, not merely the bare legal right) means that childbirth is the voluntary act of the mother, and not the inevitable consequence of sex or even pregnancy. I consider it unfair and unreasonable to make one person responsible for the voluntary actions of another.
In this case, she is the victim of at least negligence, and possibly deception on his part. If she can prove that this is what happened, then she should be able to claim from him damages up to the full cost of her medical treatment at the very least.
In this case, he is the victim of at least negligence, and possibly deception on her part. If he can prove that this is what happened, then he should be able to claim damages from her, (although his injury would necessarily be limited in comparison to the woman’s in the first scenario.)
In respect of the last scenario, you appear to stand for the grotesque proposition that the victim of a deception should be forced to pay his victimiser. I am most certainly not on that page.
Pingback: We’re not trying to punish you for having sex, just for fucking at Pandagon
Barbara:
Er, yes. I believe that’s essentially the argument I made.
Daran, it makes perfect sense that homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant women for a single reason: pregnant women tend to be young and healthy and unlikely to die of other causes than (a) accidental death; (b) the pregnancy itself; or (c) homicide.
No, but someone is saying that “Pregnancy can lead to … homicide “, which may well be the case, but hasn’t been supported.
Aggh… I’m always Johnny-come-lately on every single debate topic. Will ANYONE read what I’m about to say? Oh well.
For a little background, I’m a secular leftie who opposes sex for teens (though not legally, of course) because most teens who do it tend to do it either to fit in or to feel grown up. (As a teen, I feel most adults overlook the latter almost willfully.) Comparisons to pre-industrial village societies are not always apt; I admire the amount of sexual freedom practiced by Polynesian villagers, for example, but we’re comparing tropical oranges to our poisoned, pesticide-ridden apples here. Imagine if kids today wanted to start hard labour at 15. Throughout most of history, 15-year olds, including girls, have done hard labour. But kids in the West are not ready for the responsibility and grown-up mentality that comes with a day in, day out job, anymore than they are at having sexual relationships. (Those who practice “no strings” sex may be an exception. These kids tend to use sex as a means of social ostracization, but that’s another issue. In this case, “no strings” sex may be preferable, if those practicing are as really as carefree as they claim.) This is what annoys me somewhat about the rank-and-file liberals. Believe me, if it were up to me, teens my age would be given more rights – and responsibilities – and would live in a society where both teens and society at large would be ready to accept them picking up dates or one-nighters at night clubs. But kids who, like, go to Ginny’s house on Friday, cuz that’s where it’s going down, we’re all going to get wasted – these kids are STUPID, and while women may be moral agents, these kids are not. I’m not advocating any legal or even administrative action, just that at times I think the 200-channel cable, consumerist society that promotes teen promiscuity is even worse than the Religious Right. I don’t promote abstinence programs, but I do promote RESPONSIBILITY programs. Here’s a rule of thumb: if you haven’t worked, say, a 20 hour week before, you shouldn’t have sex.
As for the pro-lifers, I notice most of you are still ignoring the ways fetii can abort through methods unrelated to sex, and pro-lifers – including the moderates – don’t even talk about these. For example, chorionic villus sampling, or even good ol’ amniocentesis, carry small but very real risks of fetal abortion, which are why they are not performed unless doctors have some cause to believe it is necessary (i.e. a history of recessive genetic disorders in the family). Now, I admit I don’t frequent all the pro-lifer clubs and hangouts, but as I attend a liberal Catholic high school, and from what I’ve seen on this thread, I can say that pro-lifers do NOT consider these. They give it some thought, to be sure, but only if prodded for consistency by a pro-choicer. This is perfectly consistent with a position based on some sort of pent-up prurience – even if the moderate ones feel guilty about it – than one that actually, consistently believes the fetus to be a person.
I have a problem with taking pro-lifers at their word that they “really” believe that fetii are people, but gosh darn, silly them, all their actions and policy positions suggest something completely different. Reading the pro-life literature at my school, I see that nothing short of willful, humming-while-fingers-in-ears ignorance could account for astoundingly outdated and inaccurate information there could make them say what they say, everything from the discredited aboriton-breast cancer link, absurdly inflated condom failure rates* (to my knowledge, no reputable medical journal will put its name to anything higher than 3%), and the dishonest trope about latex having huge holes when visible with a microscope. (Yes, in the latex used for making GLOVES, not condoms.) And the reason why people who would punish women for having sex would not advocate prison terms for them? Simple. The extremists have political expediency to think about, and the moderates may not want to go that far. They may just want the law to punish minimally, or, maybe for a few of them, for the punishment not to be as visible (and thus not inviting open targets for reform). Everything about the pro-life movement suggests it’s just after sex. Everything about the conservative side on the culture wars suggests that it’s all about sex.
As for the one guy who said something about liberals who say that “capitalism is theft”? As an anarchist of the mutualist/communist variety, I can say that I believe that absentee property can amount to theft, which is similar to what Proudhon meant when he penned that famous line. Liberals do not believe that capitalism is theft. I disown both the terms liberal and social democrat because these people fundamentally believe in the current status quo while those I consider to be genu-wine, red-blooded, red-fisted Leftists do not. That’s part of that annoyance with the rank-and-file liberals I talked about earlier; they act as if Leftism is some status quo that has to be rescued from megachurches and George Dubya, when I think it is an individual ideal that has yet to be reached (think New Socialist Man, except with much more emphasis on individual liberation and expression), that really was no more alive during the 1970’s than the 1990’s. (Though I admit I’m intrigued by some of the stuff they had back then such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, of Stockholm Syndrome fame.) Anyways, back to my point. Though I believe the system of private property can be worse than armed robbery could be, I’d never use those terms, because though I can mince definitions with the mainstream public, we all know what is implied by the word “theft”. Yes, both those who think property is theft and those who think abortion is murder should be held to the same standards (and, incidentally, libertarians who believe taxation is theft), but in the opposite direction; all have to adopt positions to prove that they mean what they say. It’s even worse for conservatives, because unlike the anarchists of the Left, they are seeking to achieve goals through the LEGAL arena by abusing LEGAL terms, where the old Red trope is a merely a bit of political grandstanding. Even if conservatives change their language to “abortion is murder” to “abortion is killing”, the same applies. Killing what? Using paper is killing – killing trees. Brushing your teeth is killing – killing plaque. What they’d mean is killing “people”, which is murder.
Anyways, I realize it was more of an off-the-cuff remark, but the “let them eat cake” mentality of Righties who see modern capitalism as operating in a sort of vacuum irritates me no end. To them, the safety nets and government programs are corrections made in chalk to an otherwise blank slate. Doesn’t work that way. Our system is a construction of its own, with rules that are consciously made to be one way and not the another. How long until copyright claims sunset? What should be a corporation’s rights, if any? How should the Fed react to inflation (which often means preventing full employment, with Friedman’s “natural rate” changed on an ad hoc basis)? How much support should the government give to certain corporations? (Yes, I realize the Right Opposes Corporate Welfare Too, but not enough to overtake welfare to the poor in their list of priorities, even though corporate welfare by far outstrips welfare for the poor. And yes, I know that the amount on “social programs” can be greater than some of the more conservative estimates on corporate welfare, but those “social programs” always include old age pension, which takes up far more money than anti-poverty programs.) What should the central banks’ lending policies be? The economic jungle out there is not a natural jungle, one that may be harsh and unfair but is a sort of immutable constant or truth. It is a dynamic, human creation that must be accountable to people. We don’t want people to be “dependent on government’s generosity”, we want them not to be dependent on some immediate employer’s generosity, or lack thereof. We prefer government not be involved if possible – the invisible girders of strong community and family are the most effective, although it’s hard to get this without concomitant social conservatism. I’d personally accept a bit more social conservatism for this sort of social support, though it’d have to be invariably of the nagging mother kind and not criminalization of abortion. The leftist dream is of a democratic government benevolent and relevant enough to be a part of strong community and family relations, though this must necessarily be of the local kind, which is why I’m an anarchist. But we’d still prefer Big Federal Gubbermint to dependency on McEmployers. I have an idea. Government assistance shouldn’t be free. How about mandatory public service? (In essence, this would make government an employer of last resort, but not really.) Will Righties go for this? Not the institutional Righties that have the power, not the Grover Norquists. What they want is precisely this dependence on the first employer in sight. I’m sorry, I know this is off topic, but knocks on the poor get my goat, and not always in a good way. I don’t know why, I’m an upper middle class kid (though I proudly don’t live in the suburbs).
Sorry, my post was woefully unclear in some respects.
First of all, that whole last paragraph was in reference to one comment about how “liberals” want “welfare moms” to be “coddled”, or something to that effect, while saying that they want kids to be on their own, when really one could more accurately say that Law and Order Conservative’s Tuff on Crime policies are coddling of the worst sort and that conservatives want kids to be on their own by gutting public education and youth programs.
To clarify on my analogy in the first paragraph, it should also say that there is no crap culture fueled by crap music channels and crap idol magazines that dangerously push hard labour on kids before they are ready, within the context of this culture, like there is for sex. I don’t want other lefties to think I’m a social conservative. I just think too many defend even the principle of teenage sex (and not just the legality of it) just because conservatives are so against it.
“Imagine if kids today wanted to start hard labour at 15.”
This analogy, while instructive, doesn’t really prove anything. Sex isn’t necessarily as exclusive to the adult world as a full-time job is, and neither does it (necessarily) require the same amount of maturity or knowledge of what have you to be practiced safely as do jobs.
Plus, the reasons we restrict the two are different. We frown upon minor labor because we’re concerned about educational opportunities and exploitation by employers. We frown upon teen sex because we’re worried about our teens’ morality and emotional health, and STDs and pregnancy to a lesser extent. Minor labor isn’t really about the emotional maturity of minors.
Your point about sex culture is a good one, though.
What would the jusitifcation be for allowing (requiring for school attendance) the Hepatitis B vaccine, which is a sexually and blood-borne transmitted disease, and is routinely given to infants the day they are born and twice more in the first 6 months of life, and not allowing (requiring) the HPV vaccine in kids? Seems pretty clear to me. Boys can get Hep B too, but only girls get cervical cancer. More punishment for girls and women for having sex.
It’s striking to me that no one has yet seriously addressed the point raised earlier and here regarding the public health implications of the belief that fetuses are people. If you really believe this, then the fact that huge numbers of fertilized eggs fail to implant — in other words, die — should seem to be the absolute most pressing public health issue on the planet. The number of abortions is trivial compared to the number of spontaneous early miscarriages.
My suspicion is that most opponents of abortion rights would answer that those miscarriages are natural, and, of course, they would be right. But the fact that so-called pro-life activists are not concentrating their efforts on advocating research to prevent early miscarriages shows that they are not motivated by a desire to protect fetuses from death tout court. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to protect them from intentionally inflicted death. The determining factor in qualifies a fetus for protection is someone else’s intention, not the supposed personhood of the fetus itself. It’s the intentional action of the mother that calls pro-lifers into active opposition, not the sheer vulnerability of the fetus.
To return to the original post’s logic, it’s as if you believed it was OK to let a two-year-old child freeze or starve — that would be natural and hence morally neutral. The situation would only start to make morally significant demands on you if someone else came along and sought intentionally to destroy the child. It’s the killing, not the death, that’s a problem for abortion opponents — thus it’s punishing the killer, not protecting the victim, that ultimately matters in this scheme of things. Otherwise they would be ignoring the comparatively tiny problem of abortion and focusing on medical prevention of spontaneous miscarriages.
People generally seem to dismiss this aspect of the problem, but why?
I am not sure about the freezing and starving part, but take a real life example of accidental death: SIDS Alot of effort has gone into studying and trying to prevent SIDS. There are efforts to study miscarriage, especially repeat miscarriage, but they are very modest compared to SIDS, which affects many fewer lives. It’s just more evidence that the pro-life position that seems so satisfying in the abstract (“life begins at conception; a fetus is equivalent to a baby”) just isn’t very consistent with our actual moral internalization of the concepts of personhood, life and death.
The problem with this chart is that it assumes that the main and only goal is to prevent abortions. It’s not.
The main goal is to prevent all premarital and extramarital sex, and encourage the production of babies from within the marriage. It also assumes that making allowances for a difference from the ideal will encourage deviation from the ideal.
If you believe this, then it all falls into line, it is all consistent. I don’t agree with it, myself, but it isn’t inconsistent.
Coming from the anti-abortion, conservative Christian right (or squishy middle in some folks opinion), I would agree esentially with JoAnne’s statement. Finally someone who has stated it in a way that doesn’t set my alarms off. Of course we are against extra-marital sex and of course we think babies should only be had and raised in Cleaveresque homes.
This phrase in particular very accutely points out the dilema conservatiev Christians face when considering any compromise on public policy that goes against thier personal principles:
It also assumes that making allowances for a difference from the ideal will encourage deviation from the ideal.
Well put. Can I use that?
Interesting format. I think it’s noteworthy that many “pro-lifers” support the death penalty.
Pingback: Blog of the Moderate Left » Blog Archive » It’s All About Sex
I believe abortion should not be illegal.
I believe that there should be sex education, contraception available to all, and any vaccination against sexual diseases should definitely be made use of.
I also believe that late term abortions are murder.
I believe that when a baby is capable of *possibly surviving* outside of the womb (I think that is at about 20/21 weeks now?) and you have an abortion then that is murdering a child. That is ending the life of a being which is developed enough to survive ‘on the outside’. Even if it IS with life support etc. The fact is, if they were removed from the womb intact doctors would then be responsible for trying their very best to help the child to live. Some may not live, but some WOULD. A large majority of them will probably have severe physical and mental difficulties. Fact is – they are alive.
Is it legal to kill a person because they have physical or mental difficulties? Not last time I checked.
So that is where I stand on this issue. I believe every woman has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. But call it what it IS. Aborting a lump of tissue from a woman is a heck of a lot different from aborting a baby which would actually have a chance of survival if it wasn’t mutilated inside the womb.
I might consider having a very early term abortion if I fell pregnant accidentally and there was no way I could bring up the child.
In this situation I would also consider whether or not I was able to continue with the pregnancy doing my very best to ensure the health of the child throughout, give birth, and then put the baby up for adoption.
I believe have sex carries with it a responsibility. Even WITH birth control you can still fall pregnant. So anybody having sex even ONCE is running the risk of getting pregnant. That needs to be kept in mind.
By having sex I believe you are doing so with the knowledge you could possibly end up pregnant – therefore you do have a certain amount of responsibility!
If you fall pregnant accidentally – fine. You don’t want to go through with the pregnancy? Have an abortion as soon as possible.
If, due to extenuating circumstances, you found yourself later on in the pregnancy and didn’t want the baby and didn’t want to continue with the pregnancy — that is YOUR CHOICE to have an abortion.
But don’t deny what it is. It is ending the life of a child.
The fact is the woman’s body is her own and the child is inside that body. So yes, the woman has the right to decide whether or not to house the child. I don’t think that should be changed.
I think late-term abortions are tragic and I wish there was some way that the woman could have the child out of her body without harming the child. I suppose a doctor would refuse to do a caeserian section that early because it is obviously endangering to the child. So, abortion is the only option left if the woman wants the child out RIGHT NOW.
Maybe women *should* be given the option of caeserian sections on 20+ week feotuses.
I’m a nurse who worked newborn nursery 12 years before I returned to school to become a nurse practitioner. I now take care of kids from birth to college age. The biggest problem I have with abortion is that I have yet to meet a woman who TRULY had counseling before deciding to have the procedure. I have seen hundreds of women who had an abortion when they were young, and when they are older (and usually married) have a baby ““ when you place their baby in their arms for the first time they have a very distinct look on their face. At first its awe and wonder and love and then they look devastated when they realize what their abortion actually accomplished. No one prepares them for that!
As for partial birth abortion — No doc can control a birth 100% — if there is a problem
and the baby is born alive, or injured — who has custody and what do you do with it?
Your table makes some good points, but is short sighted.
Pingback: style over content
Pingback: Creative Destruction » My Blacklog
The majority of Christians are pro life. That’s ironic. They worry more about the physical life instead of eternal. Christians believes: Abortion is killing, Jesus is the only way, there is a heaven and hell, if you don’t believe in Jesus you will go to hell. Now lets take 100 young women who wanted to have an abortion but end up giving birth. Now out of those 100 kids, lets say 50 become Christians, live, die and go to heaven. What happen to the 50 others non believers: they go to hell after they die. Now if they were aborted they wouldn’t have to perish in eternal hell. So in realty the pro life are also pro hell.
The fallacy is to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone. Most people’s most motivations are odd and immature – whether pro-life or pro-choice.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » It’s Time To Nominate Blogs for The 2006 Koufax Awards!
“The majority of Christians are pro life. That’s ironic. They worry more about the physical life instead of eternal. Christians believes: Abortion is killing, Jesus is the only way, there is a heaven and hell, if you don’t believe in Jesus you will go to hell. Now lets take 100 young women who wanted to have an abortion but end up giving birth. Now out of those 100 kids, lets say 50 become Christians, live, die and go to heaven. What happen to the 50 others non believers: they go to hell after they die. Now if they were aborted they wouldn’t have to perish in eternal hell. So in realty the pro life are also pro hell.”
Very good point, and I’ve seen it raised elsewhere, but that’s assuming they’ve thought through the theological and moral consequences of hell and bioethics and informed consent and the like. Since they aren’t sincere, they haven’t. They’ve thought it just enough for them to apply it for their political power games in the here and now. But I’m sure we already knew that.
1/13/07 “Specifically, they should have the right to be timely informed of the foetus’s existence, and the right to express a view to the mother on the matter. ”
*sigh* Why is it that men can’t understand that rights go hand in hand with responsibilities?
Allow me to elaborate. Women have a right to reproductive choice because they alone are responsible for their health. People have a right to vote in a democracy because they are responsible for the government under which they live. I have a right to timely notification of any fines I may owe because I have a responsibility to pay them.
On the other hand, negative freedoms place the onus of responsibility on others. For example, people have a right to freedom from assault because other people have a responsibility to keep their hands to themselves. Citizens have a right to freedom from slander/libel because other people have a responsibility not to lie. See how that works? One could really do this all day.
Now, what responsibility goes with a man’s ostensible right to know about a pregnancy in a timely fashion? Notice that we’re not talking about a man’s freedom from anything, so the corresponding responsibility, if there is one, should fall on his shoulders.
Does he have any obligation to provide the pregnant woman’s prenatal care, any responsibility to ensure her well-being in any way during her pregnancy? No. He doesn’t even have a responsibility to be present when the child is born.
What he does have is a responsibility to support the child once it’s here, which I imagine corresponds to a right to know that the child exists. The child. Not the pregnancy. It really is simple.
And I apologize if I’ve repeated something someone else has already said. That argument really burns me up.
Does he have any obligation to provide the pregnant woman’s prenatal care, any responsibility to ensure her well-being in any way during her pregnancy?
Legally? I don’t know. That might be a very interesting civil case to bring on behalf of a pregnant indigent woman against a man who a) was the father of her child-to-be and 2) had the money to do just that. How can you be so sure that he’s not?
Morally? Yes, absolutely, a man who was in such a position has every moral obligation to do all of that.
If he’s unmarried, I don’t know of any state that requires him to support the pregnant mother. (Oregon, I believe, states that an unmarried father who has no involvement in the pregnancy loses his right to suddenly insist on daddy rights after the birth.)
A “civil case” requires some basis for liability. I suppose that if the woman agreed to continue the pregnancy in return for financial support, she might be able to sue for breach of contract. Otherwise, not so much.
Yes, legally. Rights are a legal, not moral, matter.
I don’t know of any states that require any participation whatsoever from sires during gestation. It’s certainly news to me that Oregon has the sensibility to deny absentee sires paternal rights. That’s good to know.
Pingback: Blog of the Moderate Left » Why I Am Pro-Choice
I think that’s a nice, easy way to demonize all objections to abortion. It’s nothing to do with a tiny human being with tiny little hands and tiny little feet (but being careful to forget the tiny little gills and tiny tail and other tiny little remnants of our developmental process :), it’s all about those evil women off having carefree sex.
My (former) rabbi gave a sermon once about intractable disagreements, such as the abortion issue. His comment was that in disagreements such as these, the two sides aren’t even arguing the same issues. And because there isn’t even common ground as to what the argument is about, there’s no chance for a resolution. Same sex marriage supporters primarily talk about the legal rights, privileges and obligations of marriage, and opposite sex marriage only supporters talk about the “sanctity” of marriage and “historical” definitions of marriage. Anti-choice people talk about killing human life, and pro-choice people talk about women having personal autonomy.
Pingback: the procrastinators handbook
Pingback: Blogging for Choice II « The Lady Speaks
Pingback: Balls and Walnuts - more than you ever wanted to know » Opposition to embryonic stem cell research: how is it not hypocrisy?
Pingback: Ezra Klein: You Punish Doctors, You Punish Women
Pingback: Hullabaloo
Pingback: Democratic Underground - A very interesting blog/table that compares anti-choicers talking points
Pingback: Bitch Ph.D.
I came across your blog when I was researching the death of Tamiia Russell (Topic for April 13-16, 2004). At that time, there was a lot of discussion about whether abortion was safer than childbirth and the accuracy of the statistics on abortion-related deaths. For the record, Ms. Russell’s death does not count as abortion-related according to the Michigan Dept. of Community Health even though cause of death for Russell was listed as, “Uterine infarction with sepsis, due to status post second trimester abortion”. I have been told that the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder. Any how, take care and try to keep an open mind about abortion-related topics.
Pingback: Plunderbund - » Jesus, Mary & Joseph!
Pingback: Blog of the Moderate Left » The Nameless Rabble
Pingback: DancingSamurai.ca - » Ugly religious fanaticism
Yes.
The question posed is far to simplistic a shaping of the question. Abortion certainly can be murder, but it is not so in all cases.
A clear exception is for spontaneous abortions. Somewhere around thirty one percent of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. The term spontaneous abortion is defined in the “Management of Spontaneous Abortion” by Dr. Greibel, Dr Halvorsen, Dr Golemon, and Dr. Day.
Source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051001/1243.html
They later go on to say that the incidence of spontaneous abortions is 31%. The 20% rate incident rate is for recognized pregnancies. The higher incident rate comes from women who had not yet recognized that they were pregnant.
More than 75% of all spontaneous abortions occur within the first trimester. Most of the miscarried babies had chromosomal or genetic problems. (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscarriage&printable=yes) The bulk of the remaining spontaneous miscarriages (15%) occur in the second trimester.
The very high incidence of spontaneous miscarriages indicates that most women will experience one in their lifetimes. It would be abhorrent to bring criminal charges against these women. If the abortion laws are improperly formed, this would be the end result. These are cases where the fetus was simply not viable.
The loss of a pregnancy via spontaneous miscarriage is known to have psychological effects on the mother. Quoting from the first source on the treatment for the mother after such an event.
On the other hand, the intentional taking of an unborn child’s life has been clearly defined as murder in many locations. For example, in 1997, the Pennsylvania legislature, through Senate Bill 45, clearly defined crimes against an unborn child. In this bill, the right to life groups clearly establish that the penalty (death or life imprisonment) for the murder of an unborn child is the same as for any other murder.
This law was recently upheld in the Wilcott case in 2003.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1997/vp970105/01050072.htm
Also, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Keats, Mark Twain, Napoleon, Renoir, Churchill, Stevie Wonder, Hobbes, Hugo, Voltair, Rousseau, and Anna Pavlova.
http://www.kerri.thomas.btinternet.co.uk/famous.htm
Only a bitter heart would deny a young child the right to have a life even though their own mother does not want them.
Nick, you didn’t really address what Amp posted. In fact, your post seems to be a simple assertion, without any sort of logical argument.
Amp’s post was about whether or not Pro-Lifers really believe that ‘abortion is murder’, and whether or not their proposed policies are consistent with that belief. As Amp has pointed out, the policies seem to be far more consistent with the idea that women who have sex ought to be penalized in some way.
You think abortion is murder. We get that. It’s also not the point of the discussion.
Thus, when you post:
I say the answer is no, and there seems to be a lot of evidence for my position. Is there any for yours?
—Myca
No, I said that it can be murder.
The reason abortion gets treated differently from the murder of an child is because of the natural high rate of spontaneous abortions, particularly in the first trimester but still continuing into the second trimester at high rates.
My daughter decided that she wanted to be born four months early. Fortunately due to the miracles of modern science {magnesium sulfate; breathine; home tocolytic services; etc.} they were able to stop her repeated attempts to be born extremely early. In the end, she was born only three weeks preamature, and exactly 1.5 days after they stopped the medical interventions.
Should my daughters’ mother have been tried for attempted murder? No.
The high rate of spontaneous abortions is why Amp’s argument does not hold up. The pro-life people only oppose the deliberate taking of the life.
Ah, I see where you’re coming from. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t hold true.
Let’s look at each of Amp’s points, and see whether or not taking spontaneous abortions into account would make a difference.
1) Abortion bans which don’t criminalize the mother: Nope, spontaneous abortion or not, a woman who deliberately aborts her fetus is ostensibly a murderer, right?
2) Opposition to contraception: Nope, spontaneous abortion makes no difference here whatsoever, except possibly strengthening the case FOR contraception.
3) Supporting keeping abortion available for victims of rape and incest – Nope this has nothing to do with spontaneous abortion.
4) Support for the partial birth abortion ban – Nope this has nothing to do with spontaneous abortion.
5) Advocacy for cutting welfare to poor mothers – Nope.
6) Opposition to the HPV vaccine – Nope
7) Public opposition to clinic bombings – Nope
8) Opposing government funding for the UN Population Fund- Nope, although in fact, keeping their funding low probably leads to more spontaneous abortions and deliberate abortions.
So now, which of these do you believe your argument is relevant to?
—Myca
The reason abortion gets treated differently from the murder of an child is because of the natural high rate of spontaneous abortions
Sorry, not following you. Murder is a deliberate act. If you believe a fertilized egg is just like a baby, a spontaneous abortion (aka, miscarriage) is like SIDS. We don’t bring criminal charges against women whose babies spontaneously die through no fault of the mother.
So could you try again without the red herring?
Nick, the operative question is whether the foetus is a human being. If the foetus is a human being, the spontaneous miscarriage would actually be the leading cause of human death in the world. Pro-lifers should start some sort of coloured ribbon campaign – I think puce isn’t taken yet – and put the millions and chabrillions of dollars of their own money into it, commensurate with it being a killer worse than cancer and heart disease combined. It’s about saving those sick babies dying in the millions on an annual basis, after all. Once that’s done, then I’ll take you with a smidgeleeny of seriousness.
Or are you saying that we should do something about human beings being killed, but nothing whatsoever when they’re just dying?
Or at least to mount an effort comparable to that which would prevent crib death.
I wonder if the fact that you can’t drag women’s sex lives into the discussion has something to do with why they don’t care about spontaneous miscarriage?
Pingback: fraught with emotional consequence | Jessie Rauch
Aside: That is being done. One of those organizations is the “March of Dimes”.
Indeed, that is the question.
Sometimes the foetus is a human being. Currently the line is drawn when the foetus can survive outside of the womb – about 22 to 24 weeks. The line will move to earlier times as medical technology develops.
If a woman is healthy and she has already carried a child for say 20 weeks, why should that foetus not be given an additional two weeks of time in her womb coupled with a deliver method that gives the child a chance to live. This is the problem with all late term abortions when the health of the mother is not at issue. Why should a foetus not be given the opportunity to have a great life like the rest of us.
This is why that one form of PBA’s was banned. A viable child was being partially born and then having sissors stuck into its skull. The child is literally millimeters from the most conservative (live birth) definition of a child.
The rigid birthing policies in China where couples are allowed only one child has resulted in the termination of millions of future feminists resulting in a large male/female imbalance in their population {aside: such imbalances tend to lead to war}.
Nick, you owe me a kidney.
Many of the policies you are attributing to conservatives are simply compromises.
Imagine a person (living in the year 1700) opposed to all slavery. She might advocate a law against white slavery, simply on the grounds that it is likely to be passed. Such a law will save some, but not all, from slavery. Once such a law is passed, people are also more likely to realize that non-white slavery is also wrong, and perhaps extend this law to cover all people.
I’d be very happy to ban killing all babies, even if they are the product of rape or incest. Since that is politically unlikely, I’m willing to settle for a law protecting babies who are not the product of rape and incest.
If there were other politically palatable half-measures (e.g., an abortion ban for women with red hair only), I’d accept and advocate them also.
I finished reading your article. I think you clump all pro-lifers into the same set of positions. I am in favor of birth control (that which prevents the egg and sperm from joining up, not as much the day after pill). I am in favor of sex education. I’m in favor of the HPV vaccination. I am not in favor of bombing abortion clinics when we can and should use legal methods (however I can understand that someone might believe killing an abortion doctor to save more than one human life is a morally valid trade off). I’m not aware of the specifics regarding your welfare policy to comment either way. My experience with welfare mothers has been two women that were baby making machines from different fathers, one who commented “it’s okay, the state pays for it”. If I were to punish her it’s not for having sex, it’s for having irresponsible sex. I don’t punish a person for driving, but I will punish them for doing it irresponsibly.
That is all. Please stop clumping thinking all pro-lifers are religious nuts (I’m atheist) and that we all have the same opinions and logical (and not so logical for some) reasonings on the subject.
First, that chart is filled with many many many spurious arguments. If I had a nickle for every logical fallacy there, I’d be a rich man. To address only a few: If someone consciously believes abortion to be murder, they would take every legal remedy to protect the life of children. In a pro-choice society, that includes protections against the mother.
Exceptions for rape, incest and mother’s health are all for the purpose of recognizing the mother’s health and psychological well-being have a value to be considered against the life of the foetus. Objections to sex-ed and
birth control are largely on moral grounds in that many perceive it to promote promiscuity. Banning of late term abortions has to do with individual sensibilities that it is a cruel and degrading procedure instead on top of murder, as well as an attempt to erode the Roe vs Wade
decision. Opposition to HPV is largely due people mandating the vaccine instead of letting them have a choice in it, as the vaccine is not 100% safe. Morally condemning abortion clinic terrorists is consistent with pacifists who value human life. Opposition to the U.N., while short-sighted in my opinion, is certainly philosophically consistent with those who believe in national and state sovereignty as well as non-promotion of abortion. Just because you can come up with 1 explanation for people’s behavior doesn’t make it true.
Second, legislating against abortion is shortsighted and
counter-productive as banning abortions doesn’t necessarily make them less common. If someone really cared about stopping abortion, they should promote after-school sports programs and teen mentoring to provide positive activities and alternatives.
Third, Abortion is very common worldwide, and is primarily used as a form of birth control.
Only 5% of abortions are for medical reasons (mothers health, rape/incest, fetal abnormality). There are 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. each year for 4 million live births. That’s about 20% of non-miscarriage pregnancies, and about on-par for a developed nation.
Minority abortions are especially high, with black women 3x more likely to have an abortion and hispanic women 2.5 times as likely than white women.
My concern about abortion is from a sociological perspective. Especially in the case of minorities, high abortion rates are a strong indicator of poverty and the disintegration of marriages.
Abortion should be legal and available, esp. for mother’s life, but why is it so common? What are we doing as a country to solve the problems of poverty? Why do our social support systems like welfare punish those who are married?
Source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
No matter how much politics you mix in here, the fact is that a few weeks after conception the baby has a beating heart, it’s own immune system separate from the mother, it’s own blood type separate from the mother, arms, legs… etc…
I have an ultrasound of my son when he was 8 weeks old. He was kicking and flailing around in there like he was alive… because he was alive. He was a person.
You can’t say that just because a person isn’t self-aware, or capable of normal behaviour, that he is not a person.
Abortion stops a beating heart.
Abortion is murder.
The link above examines the issue from a pure legal perspective:
Do you support the death penalty for women who have abortions?
just an aside, the layout of your page is great, great colors, type. The header is really done well, it gives it more the feel of a printed magazine article than a webpage
Too bad I can’t read your argument because your table is an image.
Thanks, Asthetic. That’s nice to hear.
For regular “Alas” readers who are wondering where all the new guests on this thread are coming from, I believe they’re coming from this discussion.
Nick writes:
People have been saying this for decades; but “the line” hasn’t moved at all in that time. Maybe “the line” will move in the future, but maybe it won’t. There are things medical technology can’t achieve.
I think you underestimate the importance of the woman’s body to building and developing the fetus; before a certain point, the woman’s contribution seems to be irreplaceable by artificial means.
The rest of us don’t have the right to have a great life at the expense of someone else’s bodily autonomy. As Mandolin pointed out, if I need a kidney to live, and you have two kidneys and are a compatible donor, it doesn’t follow that I have the right to use one of your kidneys. My right to life doesn’t supersede your right to bodily autonomy. And neither does a fetus’ right to life — if it exists at all — supersede the mother’s right to bodily autonomy.
Continuing to respond to Nick:
Actually, the vast majority of so-called “partial birth” abortions, as defined in the ban Congress passed, take place well before viability.
That aside, why do you think it’s superior to kill the exact same fetus inside the womb by ripping it limb from limb, before drawing it out of the fetus? From the point of view of the fetus’ “rights,” why does it have a right to be killed in one way but not another, in your view? Because that’s all the PBA ban does.
If anything, the form of abortion Congress banned is far more respectful of the fetus than the type Congress mandated. Here’s a real-life case of a woman who had a late-term “partial-birth” abortion:
Now that partial-birth abortions are banned, a couple like the Stellas would be forbidden from aborting their fetus in a way that would keep the fetus’ body as intact as possible, for mourning and for burial. Instead, they will probably have to use a procedure which will rip the fetal child into several separate pieces. In what way is that more respectful of the fetus’ life than a PBA would have been?
Furthermore, a PBA is simply safer for the woman; it involves many fewer passes of the instruments into the woman, which means many fewer chances for an instrument to accidentally perforate her. It improves her odds of having successful future pregnancies. Doesn’t that matter to you? Why not?
Amp, the line hasn’t moved insofar as a very early infant could survive, but the line of what number of infants survive has moved a fair bit, I believe. Which is similar though not exactly the same thing.
And why make such a line about bodily autonomy? As a lot of people here have been noting in the UHC thread, for example, money isn’t equal to life, liberty, or bodily autonomy, but it can sure end up being sort of equivalent. We already do so many things that affect your body–requiring people to work, to pay taxes (or go to jail); to have (or not) health care, etc etc. Child support may be the best example: it’s obviously a pretty serious infringement on liberty to force someone to pay support for 18-21 years, and/or to go to jail for years if they don’t, esp. with what we know about need to earn income and how that might affect your life.
[shrug]. i’m not sure that we shouldn’t be forced to donate our kidneys to our minor children, and/or our spouses. Why not? Doesn’t seem so much of an impositino compared with other parental stuff. (then again, i think we should also be able to sell them, and I know not many folks agree with that.) I’m also unsure, say, that being in jail is so much less of a violation of bodily autonomy than being pregnant that it’s not even considered comparable
I remain fully supportive of abortion for other reasons, mind you. I doubt that
t will ever change. But i think too many people act as if the body is some sort of inviolate temple, and I don’t think there’s any particular reason to believe that’s the case.
Someconservative writes:
And yet, whenever I point out that the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world achieve those rates by reducing demand, rather than trying to cut off supply, I am told that trying to reduce abortion through noncoercive means that actually work is unacceptable because it is a compromise with murder.
It seems to me that either compromising with murder is acceptable in the name of political viability, or it is not. If it is acceptable — and you seem to be saying that it is — then why doesn’t the pro-life leadership pursue generous welfare policies for poor parents, combined with pushing birth control on teenagers as if condoms were oxygen? I realize that’s a compromise of values — but it’s a compromise that would prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions.
If the pro-life movement formed an alliance with the pro-choice movement — “we’ll agree to stop trying to ban abortion, in exchange for you agreeing that reducing abortion prevalence should be a major policy goal” — the result would be a huge reduction in abortion rates. Would you accept and advocate for that? Maybe you would; but the pro-life leadership would not, from what I’ve seen.
Why are pro-lifers so uninterested in asking “in the real world, what policies are associated with the world’s lowest abortion rates?” You’d think this would be an essential question for anyone who thinks abortion is a terrible moral wrong. Yet I’ve almost never seen a pro-lifer consider the question seriously.
I’ve said this before. It deserves being said again. Without exception, every country in the world with a very low abortion rate has either legal abortion, or bans so toothless that abortion is effectively legal. But what those countries (Belgium, West Germany, The Netherlands, etc) also have are cultures that strongly promote effective use of birth control, and that have strong social support programs that support poor parents – not just before birth and in the first year of infancy, but for life.
The abortion debate in the US can go on forever. We could argue for the zillionth time about how to define personhood. But that will never get us anywhere. I will never, ever convince some pro-lifers to admit that there is a fundamental moral difference between three-year-olds and seven-day-old embryos; pro-lifers will never convince me that it is sane, when running into a burning building and having a choice between saving a single three-year-old child or a petri dish containing 10 seven-day-old embryos, to even remotely consider rescuing the petri dish instead of the child.
Rather than rehash those questions, I’d like to ask you: Will there ever be an abortion ban in the United States that vastly lowers our abortion rate?
Are pro-choicers going away? Are we going to give up, give in? Ever?
Can you point to a single case, anywhere in the world, where banning abortion has turned a country with a high abortion rate into an abortion rate comparable to Belgium’s?
If the primary purpose of the pro-life movement is to make sure women who have sex have to “face the consequences,” then the pro-life strategy we’ve seen in this country makes sense. But if the primary purpose is to make the US abortion rate as low as possible, then it would make a lot more sense to look instead at strategies that have actually produced low abortion rates in the real world. And pro-lifers, by and large, have shown no interest in that.
The truth is, feminists and Democrats aren’t the people standing between the USA and a low abortion rate. Banning abortion does not, in practice, lower abortion rates all that much (because banning supply without lowering demand is always ineffective policy). What would lower abortion rates to a large degree would be free birth control, high-quality, high-quantity education about birth control, and generous state support of single and poor parents. And what’s standing between the US and these steps to a much lower abortion rate is the conservative political leadership, including the pro-life political leadership. Judging by the policies they advocate, most of those folks rather have a high abortion rate than take the steps that, in the real world, have actually brought about low abortion rates.
i’m not sure that we shouldn’t be forced to donate our kidneys to our minor children, and/or our spouses. Why not?
Because if you’re an acceptable HLA match for your spouse then we need to have a long talk about your mating selection…Sorry, couldn’t resist the cheap joke.
“Me” writes:
I finished reading your article. I think you clump all pro-lifers into the same set of positions.[…]
Please stop clumping thinking all pro-lifers are religious nuts (I’m atheist) and that we all have the same opinions and logical (and not so logical for some) reasonings on the subject.
1.) If you’re going to continue participating here, please pick and use a handle other than “me.” “Me” is too generic; handles that are more distinctive facilitate better discussions.
2) My post specifically discussed “the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement,” not all pro-lifers. I think it’s unfair of you to say I “clumped all pro-lifers into the same set of positions,” when I specified that I was focusing on a subgroup.
I also pointed out that most pro-lifers seem to support the pro-life leadership. I stand by that; there is very little politically viable challenge to the pro-life leadership from within the pro-life movement, that I can see. For instance, there’s no large grassroots movement of pro-lifers to elect anti-abortion, pro-welfare legislators.
3) Please don’t use unprovable, anecdotal stories — “I knew two welfare mothers who were baby machines” — in your arguments. They don’t prove anything, because you don’t provide any evidence that your characterization of these two women is accurate, nor that they are representative of the whole.
More importantly, in our culture there is frankly a hell of a lot of disgusting bigotry against poor mothers, especially poor mothers who are on welfare. Language like “baby machine” supports hatred and bigotry; you should therefore, if you are not a hater or a bigot, resolve to avoid such language in the future.
I realize you were joking, Dianne, so don’t take this comment as a criticism of you at all.
But since the subject has been brought up, I’ll mention that my mother donated one of her kidneys to my father. (Both my sister and I volunteered to donate a kidney, but he turned us both down.) New medical innovations made it possible for my mother’s kidney to be taken out of her body, given a “transfusion” of new blood, and then put into my father’s body. My father has to stay on immunosuppressants (drugs that suppress his immune system) the rest of his life to prevent his body from rejecting the new kidney, which has some bad side effects; but the negatives are more than repaid by the many extra years of life my father has gained.
(And my mother’s donation was, she says, easy on her; she recovered quickly and fully.)
Medical technology is sometimes really cool. :-)
I realize I haven’t responded to everyone’s recent criticisms, but I’m afraid that I have to spend some time on other matters. I hope to get to more responses later, but I can’t make promises. Sorry!
Handi wrote:
This is a really good point; thanks for pointing it out. I made it an image because I wanted to make it easy for other bloggers to “swipe” it; it takes less technical skill with html to swipe an image than it does to swipe a table.
However, it was thoughtless, and ableist, of me to not think about how visually disabled readers would read the post. Sometime in the next few days I’ll repost it as a text table.
Sometime in the next few days I’ll repost it as a text table.
Don’t replace it; augment it. Add the text table to the image, so that everyone can use it to the maximum extent. Don’t equalize; optimize.
When y0u say “add the text table to the image, so that everyone can use it to the maximum extent” do you mean that there’s some way of putting it in as a text table that people in non-visual browsers could see, but folks in other browsers would just see the image? I know you can do alternate text for images, but I didn’t think you could do an alternate text as complex as a table.
Or did you just mean I should have both the image and the text, one after the other, visible in this post?
“Dianne Writes:
July 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Because if you’re an acceptable HLA match for your spouse then we need to have a long talk about your mating selection…Sorry, couldn’t resist the cheap joke.”
heh. that’s damn funny. :)
I’d like to present an opposing point of view. I’m about as left-wing as they come, and so is my family, stretching all the way back, both sides have always been very liberal. My mother even had an abortion when she was young, before I was born. When I first heard of abortion, long before I was old enough to care about politics, I immediately knew it was wrong. I’ve always know that it was wrong, and I still do. My views, though, are quite simple. I have no desire to punish women for having sex. I only have the desire to preserve life. I believe that a person is a person, no matter how small, even if it’s just a newly fertilized egg, just starting to separate. I think that abortion is evil and selfish, even in an instance where the mother has been raped, even when having the baby might kill the mother. In other words, I do not believe that there is any instance when having an abortion is acceptable. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear a woman say that it’s “her body” because it isn’t just your body once your pregnant and it certainly isn’t your life anymore. Your sole responsibility is to that child. Adoption is always an option, there are always so many families out there who would love to raise your child. Adoption is one of the most beautiful things there is, I can’t imagine why you’d want to do something as horrible as sticking a hose in you and ripping out bloody pieces of baby that someone would have been all too happy to take care of and love. There is only one reason for abortion as far as I’m concerned: selfishness. And that’s coming from someone who wouldn’t even be here if his older sibling hadn’t been aborted.