Sebastian Holsclaw’s new blog has a couple of entries on abortion; one addressing his own pro-life side in refreshingly reasonable terms, and one addressing the pro-choice side. The comments feature some passionate, but polite, debate. (The poster “Fredo” is doing an admirable job holding up the pro-choice side of the debate.)
Sebastian’s message to pro-choicers comes in two parts. First, Sebastian argues that the focus of the abortion debate should be about “the personhood of the fetus.” Fredo, in Sebastian’s comments, and Mithras at Fables of the Reconstruction do a good job responding to this point.
Second, Sebastian argues that the “health” exceptions to late-term abortion bans are abused.
NARAL puts the number of third trimester abortions at about 0.4% of all abortions. I suspect that NARAL is downplaying the statistics, but if you trust them that puts the number of third trimester abortions at about 6,000 per year. Even many liberal states theoretically restrict third trimester abortions except when a continued pregnancy threatens the ‘life or health’ of the mother. The health part of the clause has been so broadly interpreted as to allow ANY mental distress of ANY intensity to be a ‘threat to the health’ of the mother. As a result, despite intensive searching, I have not found a single case in the history of legal US abortions where the mother was not able to qualify under such a clause. That is not one case in about 6,000 abortions per year for 30 years. In fact I don’t even know of a method of a legal method where such decisions might be reviewed. The way these exceptions are implemented make a mockery even of Roe v. Wade. The practical effect of this is that abortion is completely legal all the way up to the very second of birth.
I suspect you know that the US public wouldn’t be thrilled about that, which is why you cling to the fiction of that abortions can be restricted in the third trimester, while in practice you make it impossible for any such restrictions to come into force.
I’m going to answer Sebastian in three parts. First, I’ll show why his argument is based on false premises, and doesn’t hold up. Second, I’ll explain the real-world politics of late-term abortion bans – and why “pro-life” legislators have actually been fighting against late-term abortion bans. Third, I’ll discuss the health exemption to abortion bans.
1. What’s wrong with Sebastian’s logic – bad premise in, bad conclusion out.
Sebastian seems to believe that there is currently a national ban in place on third-trimester abortions, with exceptions to spare the life or health of the mother. This is utterly untrue; there is no such national ban in place.
But what about state-level bans? Many states have some sort of ban on late-term abortions or on the fictional concept known as “partial-birth” abortions. However, nearly all of these bans were effectively rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Women needing late-term abortions in the few remaining states whose bans aren’t unconstitutional probably don’t sue to get abortions; it would be much simpler to simply obtain their abortion in another state, one without a ban.
So Sebastian?s argument – which is based on the premise that the US currently bans late-term abortions, and the health exemption to this ban is abused – is totally mistaken. There is no national ban. The few constitutional state-level bans are probably avoided by visiting a different state, not by abusing the health exemption.
2. Why Republicans oppose banning late-term abortions.
So why isn’t there a national ban on late-term abortions?
Because the Republicans don’t want one.
Now, I know you’re thinking I’m nuts. After all, didn’t the Republican-dominated congress just pass a ban on “partial birth” abortions, which the Republican president is expected to sign?
Yes, indeed. But – despite their rhetoric to the contrary – the Republicans in congress know that their ban will almost certainly be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And the funny thing is, the Republicans know perfectly well how to write a constitutional ban on late-term abortions – Sandra Day O’Connor, in her Carhart concurrence, explained very specifically what sort of ban would be constitutional.
O’Connor is the swing vote on this issue on the Court, so her opinion is effectively law. You want to write a constitutional ban on late-term D&X abortions? Sandy’s told you exactly how to do it.
And yet, the Republicans write a ban that does not limit itself to one procedure, and does not contain any health exception. They’ve written a ban, in other words, that’s specifically designed to be rejected by the Supreme Court. What’s up with that?
Here’s another piece of the puzzle. The Republicans in congress don’t want a real ban – but the Democrats do. The Democrats have proposed constitutional bans on late-term D&X abortions again and again, and have been voted down by Republicans every time. It doesn’t matter how the health ban is worded – the Republicans even rejected Dick Durbin’s bill, which would “ban all abortions after a fetus is viable unless two physicians certify that the abortion is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman or that she was at risk of grievous injury to her physical health.”
So what’s going on here?
What’s going on is, “partial-birth” abortion is a great issue for Republicans, and they don’t want it to go away. It lets Republican Congresscritters show their pro-life base that they’re fighting the good fight and trying to save babies. It lets them portray Democrats who favor banning late-term abortions, but who want a health exemption, as extremist baby-killers. And by concentrating their fire on “partial-birth” abortions, the Republicans get to avoid dealing with the controversial and electorially dangerous issue of first-trimester abortions.
You see, as long as the fight against “partial birth” abortion consumes pro-life attention, Republican politicians get a pass from proposing any serious legislation attacking first-trimester abortion rights in the states. And that’s very important to the GOP, because a serious fight against first-trimester abortions would be terrible for the Republicans; it would not only galvanize Democrats, it would create a serious split in the Republican party between pro-life and pro-choice Republicans.
The last thing the Republicans want is a multi-year legislative fight over first-trimester abortions. And as long as they can keep the “partial birth” abortion debate alive, they can avoid that fight – and as an added bonus, they get to look like heroes to pro-life voters.
That’s why the Republicans have never supported a constitutional late-term D&X ban – and that’s why the Democrats keep on proposing such bans, and would love to get one passed.
3. The truth about the health exemption in abortion bans.
Sebastian’s concerns about abuse of the health ban are nonsense; they’re the usual lies fed to gullible pro-lifers by cynical Republicans. For instance, Sebastian complains that the “health part of the clause has been so broadly interpreted as to allow ANY mental distress of ANY intensity to be a ‘threat to the health’ of the mother.” But if Sebastian had read the actual text of Democratic proposals like Dick Durbin’s, he would know that Republicans reject all health exemptions, no matter how tightly worded – even ones that specifically restrict the exemption to only physical health problems.
The truth is, there is no ban on “partial birth” abortions in the United States, and hence no health exemption to be abused. But if Republicans were sincere in their concerns, then the legitimate and responsible solution is to pass a constitutional ban on late-term D&X abortions, and then to pass further legislation to close inappropriate loopholes in the health exemption when (and if) they show up.
That?s the responsible way to deal with the loophole problem (if it even exists – I’ve seen no persuasive evidence that it does).
That’s what the Republican-controlled legislature and executive would do if they really wanted to ban late-term D&X abortions.
But of course, that’s not what they want. They want to keep the partial-birth issue alive forever; actually banning anything would be counter-productive.
* * *
A final note: it may be fair to oppose particular, badly worded health exemptions; but it is irresponsible and immoral to oppose all health exemptions, regardless of the wording.
Sebastian, face reality – not every health exemption claimed is bogus. In the real world, pregnancies sometimes go wrong and are dangerous. Please address this question directly: Are you seriously prepared to deny women with genuine health needs the medical help they need to avoid crippling pain, internal damage, and infertility? Because that’s what the legislation you favor would do to at least some women, if it were constitutional (which, fortunately, it probably is not).
Pro-lifers will never escape their reputation as woman-hating fanatics as long as they?d rather see a woman crippled and infertile than permit her to get the medical help she needs for health reasons. And that’s as it should be – opposing the health exemption for women who need it, on the grounds of speculative abuses, is barbaric..
GREAT post, especially 2.
I have to say, though, that I am both pro-life AND pro-choice. That is, I’m in favor of life; I like it! What I really mean, of course, is that I do not regard the so-called “pro-life” forces to be truly “pro-life.” They are against abortion, and they are opposed to any woman having the right or ability to choose abortion, for any reason. If they are willing to sacrifice the life of the mother–i.e., check out the refusal to allow health exceptions–then they are NOT pro-life. Many (but not all) typically also are uninterested in the “life” once it’s out of the womb. Many (but not all) are also opposed to contraception or to sex education for teens–though access to both is quite helpful in reducing the number of abortions–which I find to be reprehensible and hypocritical in the extreme.
So, as you can tell, I don’t really think that many/most of the people who oppose abortion are “pro-life.”
Hey, thanks! This is good stuff. I think I know this issue pretty well, but #2 was extremely enlightening.
Rachel (from the boards)
I think you’re exactly right in #2 about why the Republicans do what they do. About #3, I think that no matter what the legislature writes in as to what constitutes a health exception, the court is going to say “Sorry, Doe v. Bolton says ‘health’ includes all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Which you have to admit, does leave the door open a lot wider than “at risk of grievous injury to her physical health.” And unless there is a severability clause, getting struck down on the health exception means the whole law goes away. That said, I can’t imagine that leaving out the health exception at all is going to work any better.
I don’t know. I’d have voted for Durbin’s bill in a heartbeat, but I’m sure not celebrating the passage of this PBA law. I think it’s basically a piece of crap PR stunt. It’s still legal to do an abortion at 24 weeks because the baby has cleft palate(*) or for any other reason; you just have to do it by some other brutal method. Yay.
* “Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion procedure,” American Medical News, July 5, 1993. Dr. Martin Haskell said that about 80% of the D&X abortions he performed between 20 and 24 weeks were “purely elective” and the rest were for “genetic reasons” such as Down syndrome or cleft palate.
I usually hate being part of a circular firing squad, but as a pro-choice Democrat I must say that I have no patience at all for those Democratic politicians who support both Roe v. Wade and a ban on “partial-birth abortion” and think this proves that they’re cool and pragmatic and “Third Way” when, in fact, their belief that supporting both concepts at once makes any sense at all just shows they have no grasp of logic or medical facts.
Of course I’ve blogged about this in the past, thanks for asking; just click my name.
I really think you should submit this (specifically no. 2) to SEVERAL national newspapers. It’s brilliantly clever and beautifully written to boot.
ditto.
much applause
ditto.
much applause
Interesting. Amazing what you find when you’re not looking. Peace.
Daniel Jaffe
Arizona DUI Defense Lawyer
Studnicki, Jaffe & Woods, PLLC
Scottsdale, AZ
480-361-2444
Arizona DUI Law Website
Thank you
I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. I THINK ABBORTION IS WRONG. I NO I’M JUST 14 BUT I DON’T LIKE IT. IT MAKES ME SICK TO THINK THAT SOMEONE WOULD DO THAT TO A CHILD. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T SEE THEM DOESN’T MEAN THERE THEIR. YOU SHOULDNT BE GETTING PREGNAT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOUR NOT MARRIED BECAUSE 90% OF THE TIME YOU WILL END UP RAISING THAT CHILD BY YOURSELF.
SINCERELY,
CAITLIN
Abortion is wrong plain and simple… How can you justify the legal limit age to kill a person?
I see you still like the broad brush approach. Many republicans want to ban ALL late term abortions. Many want certain exceptions. But you are probably partially correct in that some republications just want the issue in the same way as the many democrats would never really want to solve the social security problem, or welfare. They would rather have voters who are dependent on them and the issue to instill the fear that the republicans want to kick their grandmothers out into the street or make them eat dogfood.
I think you would agree that your rights are limited when they interfere with my rights and vice-versa. The central issue of abortion isn’t the woman’s choice, its when the baby is a “person” and protected by the constitution to life and liberty. If you disagree with this then do the time machine thought experiment:
Scenario 1: Healthy mother has just given birth to a perfectly healthy baby with the umbilical cord still attached.
I think it is perfectly legal to cut your own finger off if you choose. Since the baby is still attached to the mother couldn’t you make an argument that the baby is still part of the mother no different than a finger? So lets suppose for what ever reason the mother decides to have a post birth abortion should she be allowed? Should the mother have ANY CHOICE as to whether the baby lives or dies at this point?
If you answer “yes” then in my opinion you are such a far extremist that you are on a completely different planet morally.
If you answer “no” then what happened to the central role of the woman’s “choice”?
Now lets turn the time machine dial back 5 minutes to Scenario 2: The perfectly healthy baby is halfway out of the perfectly healthy mother.
If you believe that what ever is inside the mother is the part of the mother then should she, for what ever reason, have the right to stop the birth and have an abortion on the part that is still inside her? Or should she be able to make the doctor separate that which she considers part of her and that which is the baby’s own (in other words, cut the baby in half)? (Yes its a gruesome thought, but so are all late term abortions.)
Again, If you answer “no” then what happened to the central role of the woman’s “choice”? Could it be that “choice” really isn’t the main issue here?
Larry, I like your hypothetical situations because they so accurately reflect what happens in real life. (No, I’m not being sarcastic, I always talk this way) And nothing convinces me to make broad sweeping strokes regarding abortion in general like blatantly ridiculous situations.
Here’s another question, let’s say the baby’s born, but the doctor is a mad scientist, and fuses the baby onto the mother’s back. Would you say the baby is part of the mother’s body and therefore she has the right to kill it. Let’s say the mad scientist then fused a parakeet to the baby. Would the parakeet now have the right to kill the baby as well? Would the resulting creation be called womanbabykeet?
I await your response.
Raznor elicits my first giggle of the day. Thanks.
“Larry, I like your hypothetical situations because they so accurately reflect what happens in real life. (No, I’m not being sarcastic, I always talk this way) And nothing convinces me to make broad sweeping strokes regarding abortion in general like blatantly ridiculous situations.”
This isn’t about broad sweeping strokes, this is about THE central issue of the abortion debate.
I realize it is easier on those that say they are completely “pro choice” to muddy the waters on the central issue. Was the mother raped? Is the mother’s health in any way endangered? Is the baby healthy and wanted? Etc. But if you strip all that away, then people must face the rational of their own positions. Don’t hide in the muck, just be honest with yourself. Are you afraid of your answers Raznors?
This is simply a hypothetical situation that removes the fuzzy areas in order to find out the core issue. If both sides were intellectually honest rather than clinging to bumper sticker slogans then they could at least share some small common ground.
The central issue of the abortion debate is whether or not women are to be allowed to control what goes on inside their own bodies.
“The central issue of the abortion debate is whether or not women are to be allowed to control what goes on inside their own bodies.”
Your answer to scenario 2 is “YES” then. Gruesome, but at least you are honest.
Larry,
Before we discuss late-term abortions as in any way relevant to the pro/anti choice debate:
Please provide me with the number of late term abortions performed in 2002. Along with those numbers, please provide the reasons given by the performing physicians for doing such a drastic & unusual procedure.
Once we have that info here we can proceed to debate late-term abortions in a real, factual & serious manner.
I think that the onus is on you to provide the statistics for LT abortion since that is the only facet of the debate that you wish to discuss & most others here are trying to discuss it as a whole.
Also, if you can provide an example of either of your scenarios ever actually happening I’ll happily give my answers. Until then, they are as absurd as Raznor’s scenario.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. I’m so tired of “If you believe X, you must believe absolutely everything that could ever be associated with X in any possible way.”
Larry: As a pro-lifer, you believe in God, yes? Well, we can’t prove the existence of the Easter Bunny, either, so you must believe in that, too, right? And I’m sure you think that Elvis is alive somewhere. And gnomes? You totally have to believe in gnomes.
If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, then you’re a little short of sane. But if you answer “no,” well, then you can’t possibly believe in God, either.
“Larry: As a pro-lifer, you believe in God, yes?”
BZZZT! Wrong on both accounts. First I am not strictly “Pro-life” as the bumper sticker slogan implies. Secondly I am agnostic.
“I’m so tired of “If you believe X, you must believe absolutely everything that could ever be associated with X in any possible way.””
An excellent attempt to construct a straw man. As I said before, point of the scenario is to strip away the muck, not to deny muck exists in some instances. Both scenarios are plausible. Some women would even throw her newborn into a dumpsters after its born (read the news lately?). Is it that much of a stretch that a woman could decide she doesn’t want the baby after its born but before umbilical cord is cut. A woman could have a change of heart half way through the birthing process.
Larry,
How about a response w/ facts to a question about facts? Instead of going on w/ your extreme & unlikely scenarios.
Okay then, to address your most recent post:
How many women, in 2002, threw their babies into dumpsters? What percentage of total live births was that? What percentage of those women had access to abortion providers? How many men threw babies into dumpsters in 2002? How many OB/Gyns would agree to abort a baby in the middle of a normal birth? What percentage of OB/Gyns is that?
When you answer these & my earlier questions I’ll be happy to interact w/ you. Until then, I must just comment on what a raving mysoginst you sound like when you write, “Some women would even throw her newborn into a dumpsters after its born (read the news lately?). Is it that much of a stretch….” Some women? Which women? Is that all women? Or some identifiable subset? You make it sound like any woman could do this at any time. Because that’s what women are like. You accuse others of straw man creation, but you respond to nothing asking you to provide substantive evidence relating to your wildly imaginative claims/scenarios.
I hereby rescind my entire last post and hand the game off to Jake and Raznor, as I have better ways to waste my time.
“Until then, I must just comment on what a raving mysoginst you sound like when you write, “Some women would even throw her newborn into a dumpsters after its born (read the news lately?). Is it that much of a stretch….” Some women? Which women? Is that all women? Or some identifiable subset? You make it sound like any woman could do this at any time. Because that’s what women are like. You accuse others of straw man creation, but you respond to nothing asking you to provide substantive evidence relating to your wildly imaginative claims/scenarios.”
Some women? Which Women? How many women?
I don’t know, lets say one woman and lets call her Melissa Drexler.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/29/prom.mom.01/
Or I guess we could call her Kelly Angell if you want.
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/06-24-00/cover_1.asp
The point is it doesn’t matter who, or how many. Rape and murder are illegal and immoral whether there is one victim a year or a million. But we could, for instance, discuss various scenarios for murder that may or may not be justified without having to use actual documented cases. Its not hard to do, really. Just apply yourself a little, I know you can do it.
“Sebastian’s concerns about abuse of the health ban are nonsense”
Well, having represented at least two abortionists, I would disagree with you. Both felt that “any mental stress” was enough to fit requirements of health or safety.
But then I’m talking real life experience.
Larry do you believe in freedom of religion? Well some religions practice ritualistic human sacrifice. So you’re saying murder is okay.
Hey, this isn’t my argument. I’m just making sure we’re honest and consistent in our beliefs. Excuse me as I bang my head against the wall until this all makes sense.
Meanwhile lawyeer wins the topical non-sequitur award. Tell me Lawyeer, what the hell are you talking about? What’s an abortionist? An abortion doctor, or are you just referring to the pro-life anti-abortion anti-choice smear here?
Larry,
Thanks so much for responding w/ relevant facts regarding late-term abortion. Oh, what’s that? You didn’t? You only responded to the part where you were told you sound like a misogynist?
Well, now that we know what you are….. why don’t you just squat off back where you came from you troll?
I tried to engage you in a discussion on late-term abortion and you are now getting gung-ho on infanticide. Without any evidence supporting your seeming assertion that both women were not mentally disturbed.
Return to your hole & bother us no more, you disingenuous creep.
Oh and also, you’re talking plausibility of your situations, Larry, so you’d imagine this would happen.
Doctor: Okay, push!!!
Woman: GREAAAAGHHH!!!
Doctor: Okay, I see the head, you’re doing great. Keep pushing.
Woman: Nah, I’m bored. Let’s just lop the baby in half and call it a day.
Doctor: Wait, wha . . ?
Woman: Can we hurry it up? I’m meeting womanbabykeet at 2:00 for coffee.
“I tried to engage you in a discussion on late-term abortion and you are now getting gung-ho on infanticide. Without any evidence supporting your seeming assertion that both women were not mentally disturbed.”
Huh? Wow, read much? There was no gung-ho speech about infanticide. And I made no such assertion regarding the mental health of the women involved.
Apparently you lack the imagination to speak about things that you don’t have documentary evidence to support.
Scenario: If you could go back in time and kill Hilter before his rise to power would you be justified in doing so?
“Hey man, you can’t ask that. So me evidence where someone went back in time!”
Congratulations! You win the “Completely missing the point” award.
“Larry do you believe in freedom of religion? Well some religions practice ritualistic human sacrifice. So you’re saying murder is okay.”
Nice example. Your rights end when they encroach on my rights. I have freedom of speech, but I can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. I can’t slander someone. And so on.
If murder was part of my religion I couldn’t deny someone else’s right to life, and liberty in pursuit of my own religion. In other words, I would have no right to murder someone in order to practice my religion.
Larry, it’s actually more like:
Scenario: You pro-choice people are all goddamn heartless baby-killers without the moral sense God gave the hyena. For example, if you could go back in time and kill Hilter as a baby, before his rise to power I’ll bet you would Go on! Deny it! YOU CAN’T! You would totally kill that baby!
“What? That’s crazy. You’re literally talking utter nonsense. How about we stick to talking about actual abortions and actual situations people face, huh? Could we maybe do that? Confine ourselves to reality? Please?”
“Psshh. You pro-lifers are all the same. You all believe in infanticide. If you were honest, you would see the truth in my logically unassailable time-travel-Hitler-as-a-baby-killing-abortionist argument. I mean, duh.”
Congratulations, Larry! You win the “crazy as a jaybird” award.
—JRC
Goddammit Raznor! You have me in tears. I can’t stop giggling. Would you stop it already. Please. Hahahhahaahahahaha.
Yeah, I rock.
Okay, Larry. I know I’m making a mistake taking your bizarre hypotheticals seriously, even for a minute, especially considering how utterly unwilling you are to discuss anything real, but okay. I’ll bite.
The two things I believe in in regards to abortion:
1) Any woman, at any point during a pregnancy, has the right to say “I want this thing growing inside me removed, and I want the connection between us severed.” If that’s at a point in the pregnancy where removing it would mean death, then that’s what it means. If it’s a week before birth, then perhaps induced labor or a c-secton. If it’s 5 minutes before birth, I would imagine the ob/gyn would suggest kindly that she hold her horses. If it’s right after birth, you snip the umbilical cord. There’s no contradiction here.
2) Any woman whose health is threatened by bearing or giving live birth to her child has the right to choose her life over that of her child . . . at any point whatsoever in the pregnancy. If, at 6 months, the doctors say, “If you attempt to complete this pregnancy, there’s a 50% chance you won’t survive, and a 75% chance that if you do, you’ll be unable to concieve again,” the woman has the right to abort that child to protect her own well-being. Period. This holds true at 7, 8, and 9 months as well, although the odds of a child growing to full term without anyone noticing potentially deadly complications are pretty damn remote. There’s no contradiction here.
In your silly mental game where the child is “halfway out” and the mother “decides on an abortion,” applying these two rules, we see that if the birth is no threat to her health and well being, we apply rule 1. Rule 1 says that she has the right to have the child removed from her body, and he’s on his way out already, so okay, it’s all good. If the birth IS a threat to her health and well being, we apply rule 2. When there’s some sort of potentially deadly complication during birth, where one must choose the life of the child or the life of the mother, the mother has the right to choose her own life. She is not to be FORCED to sacrifice herself for her child.
There’s no contradiction in this worldview. It’s slander and idiocy to claim that all pro-choice folks logically must support post-birth infanticide, just as it’s slander and idiocy to claim that all pro-life folks must support the murder of abortion doctors.
The world has nuance, Larry. Figure that out, and it will make you a smarter person.
So, now that I’ve seriously addressed your little sideshow, are you prepared to start discussing real-world situations, or would you prefer to continue to add ever-more-ornate complications in order to muddy what’s actually a pretty clear-cut and simple moral distinction?
—JRC
I think womanbabykeet would be a swell band name. Also, while I think we could be justified in murdering Joe’s posting privileges, I don’t think we should. An abortion thread without his lovingly detailed, Raimi-esque descriptions of aborted fetuses would be like a day without sunshine… or a grilled cheese sandwich without a nail-paring in it, or… uhhh… something.
Or a nuclear explosion without the horrible grisly death. Just so incomplete.
“Okay, Larry. I know I’m making a mistake taking your bizarre hypotheticals seriously, even for a minute, especially considering how utterly unwilling you are to discuss anything real, but okay. I’ll bite.”
Hey, one of the class clowns decided to make a point rather than hide in the back and heckle. Good for you!
“1) Any woman, at any point during a pregnancy, has the right to say “I want this thing growing inside me removed, and I want the connection between us severed.” If that’s at a point in the pregnancy where removing it would mean death, then that’s what it means. If it’s a week before birth, then perhaps induced labor or a c-secton. If it’s 5 minutes before birth, I would imagine the ob/gyn would suggest kindly that she hold her horses. If it’s right after birth, you snip the umbilical cord. There’s no contradiction here.”
I Agree
“2) Any woman whose health is threatened by bearing or giving live birth to her child has the right to choose her life over that of her child . . . at any point whatsoever in the pregnancy. If, at 6 months, the doctors say, “If you attempt to complete this pregnancy, there’s a 50% chance you won’t survive, and a 75% chance that if you do, you’ll be unable to concieve again,” the woman has the right to abort that child to protect her own well-being. Period. This holds true at 7, 8, and 9 months as well, although the odds of a child growing to full term without anyone noticing potentially deadly complications are pretty damn remote. There’s no contradiction here.”
I Agree
“In your silly mental game where the child is “halfway out” and the mother “decides on an abortion,” applying these two rules, we see that if the birth is no threat to her health and well being, we apply rule 1. Rule 1 says that she has the right to have the child removed from her body, and he’s on his way out already, so okay, it’s all good. If the birth IS a threat to her health and well being, we apply rule 2. When there’s some sort of potentially deadly complication during birth, where one must choose the life of the child or the life of the mother, the mother has the right to choose her own life. She is not to be FORCED to sacrifice herself for her child.”
Here is the problem and one of the purposes of the “silly mental game”. Rule #1 is not the law of the land. I think most women are probably thoughtful, responsible, and caring. But I also believe that NOT ALL women are so. (This has nothing to do with the gender. Many men are “bad apples” also) Infanticide does happen. As demonstrated by the scenarios, to be entirely “pro-choice” is to give the mother complete control as to whether the child lives or dies. The child lives or dies at the mother’s whim. Even if 99.9% of the time the mother is reasonable, we still need to protect the .1%.
What I was hoping to do with the scenarios is have people actually THINK from a distant and objective point of view about the underlying principles involved in late term abortions: Does the child have any rights? Should the mother have direct control as to whether the child dies? Or should she just control what is inside her? Or should she only have control WHETHER something is inside her? (Hence the particular wording of the questions).
But instead of willingness to discuss some general principles, people would rather get mired in details and lose the attempt of a distant view. I know there are gray areas, perceptions, special circumstances, and the stuff you call “any thing real”, but discussing those would probably be a huge waste of time. I doubt anyone could convince anyone else of anything.
I thought most reasonable people might reach an agreement that we shouldn’t let the mother have the DIRECT choice of life or death of the baby. You stated my exact position on abortion that the fetus / baby should be removed, not destroyed (unless the serious health of the mother is endangered of course).
Larry, if that was your view why not just up and say it instead of offering a hypothetical situation that is so ridiculous as to be laughable then mocking us for treating it as a ridiculous situation instead of a modern day Socratic discussion? The fact is whether or not women are allowed to have abortions seriously affects women in the here and now, and that’s what I will focus on. I don’t have time to worry about hypothetical what-ifs.
A woman should have the right to choose.
Men shouldn’t have the right to say that abbortion is wrong and it should be banned when it is only for women. Men don’t even undertand anything about abbortion.
“Larry, if that was your view why not just up and say it instead of offering a hypothetical situation that is so ridiculous as to be laughable then mocking us for treating it as a ridiculous situation instead of a modern day Socratic discussion? The fact is whether or not women are allowed to have abortions seriously affects women in the here and now, and that’s what I will focus on. I don’t have time to worry about hypothetical what-ifs.”
I see someone dug up this old thread. OK, I’ll play.
Raznor I don’t understand why you see this as a “hypothetical situation that is so ridiculous as to be laughable”.
Women give birth all the time. No really! How else would you explain all the other young, small people around? Now granted I have never actually witnessed a birth of a child, but I am pretty sure they don’t just magically appear in the doctors arms a Pico second after the doctor walks into the delivery room. But assuming I haven’t been mislead by the media, natural birthing is a process that takes time. So nothings odd so far. And since the woman in the scenario gave birth to a human child rather than a parakeet, surely that part of the scenario isn’t “ridiculous”.
Maybe you lack the imagination and intellectual curiosity to think about certain hypothetical situations as discrete instances of a process. Really, its not that hard to do. It works kind of like this: You toss a projectile from point A to point C at a certain velocity. B is the distance from the projectile centroid to point A at time T?
At this point I know what your thinking. “Hey man, that’s crazy! The projectile would just keep going not stopping in mid air! What the hell is up with that ridiculous scenario?”
The answer is Yes the projectile keeps going, but at time T it was at point B. Thus discussing point B is as valid as point A or C.
Lets try a less mathematical scenario to show the same principles still apply. Lets say we are looking at a video of an arrest. Lets also say we are discussing if and when the cops had cause pull out his night-stick and hit the suspect. From the start of the video we could pause the video at the point where the suspect spit at the cop and ask “Does the cop have sufficient reason to hit the suspect at this point in time?” Once everyone weighed in with their answers we could then start the video playing again and stop it at the point where the suspect reached into his pocket pulled out what looked like a knife and ask “Does did the cop have sufficient reason to hit the suspect at this point in time?” and so on. At any point in the video and we can ask that question and hopefully some joker in the back won’t yell “Hey, that’s ridiculous. I mean who ever heard of spit stopping in mid air like that!”
Hopefully you can see by now that discussing specific instances within a longer span of time can be a completely valid approach.
Or, if it was the whole “time machine” thing in the scenario confused you, you could instead think of viewing a DVD of the birthing process with your finger over the PAUSE button.
Larry, don’t you dare insult my intelligence. Your situation involved a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy mid-birth. This has nothing to do with a physics problem set. And don’t you dare patronize me with talking about mathematical situations that when you talk about a situation that is not mathematical in the least. The math situations I deal with are discussing the characteristic of the ring of p-adic integers, or undergoing a proof that all recursive functions are representable in former number theory. So don’t you dare talk down to me.
Also, the hypothetical situations you deal with are completely non-parallel to what you proposed, a woman terminating a pregnancy halfway through birth. You intended to base a political ideology on a situation that does not occur. Ever. Even in theory. You posit bullshit, quasi-philisophical mental ejaculation and are offended we don’t treat you like an intellectual god.
Well, I had to use this line with someone else, but it applies equally to you, fuck you right in the ear.
* “Larry, don’t you dare insult my intelligence. …The math situations I deal with are discussing the characteristic of the ring of p-adic integers, or undergoing a proof that all recursive functions are representable in former number theory. So don’t you dare talk down to me.”
Righteous indignation? A noble being chastised by a commoner? Ahh, so you were just playing dumb? It’s hard to tell sometimes through this medium.
* “Also, the hypothetical situations you deal with are completely non-parallel to what you proposed, a woman terminating a pregnancy halfway through birth. You intended to base a political ideology on a situation that does not occur. Ever. Even in theory”
What political ideology are you talking about? To quote a great move: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Look, although the original post was slightly more complicated, when you get right down to it I asked one simple question at two different points in time (i.e., example scenario two with the cop and suspect): “Should the mother have any choice as to whether the baby lives or dies at this point in time?” Simple. It is enough that its possible. No laws of physics would be violated if a mother decided to cut a baby in half half-way through birth. Whether it has or hasn’t happened is irrelevant. Completely… utterly… irrelevant. That’s why they are called “hypotheticals”.
* “You posit bullshit, quasi-philisophical mental ejaculation and are offended we don’t treat you like an intellectual god.”
Heh? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else; I don’t care how you view me. I really was only hoping for an interesting discussion and maybe some common ground. Besides ejaculation is fun, “quasi-philosophical mental” or otherwise.
Larry,
Okay, maybe I misinterpreted you. But if you read through other comment sections on this blog, you’ll notice that there were parallel comments to your original post here, using similar hypothetical situations with the ulterior motive of proving that abortion is infanticide. Thus your hypothetical situations post was met here by myself and others with anger and annoyance. We had seen this used elsewhere, and the wording was too similar for us not to notice. Especially with lines like “(Yes its a gruesome thought, but so are all late term abortions.)” And this is a political post. If you wanted to simply engage in a metamoral discussion, you should have said so. Metamorality is interesting and has it place, but there was no indication in your first post that this was your purpose.
And if I and others are guilty of overreacting, you are still guilty of arrogance. Saying things like, If both sides were intellectually honest rather than clinging to bumper sticker slogans then they could at least share some small common ground. Implying that those of us who took offense at your comments are intellectually dishonest and cling to bumper sticker slogans.
Plus you’ve ignored that this isn’t just an academic issue for many many people. This is an issue that affects how women can view their bodies, and how much say they have in making decisions relating to their bodies. So forgive us if we don’t have the patience to examine the what-ifs that don’t have a bearing on the very real and very concrete issues that deal with the right to choose.
* “Okay, maybe I misinterpreted you. But if you read through other comment sections on this blog, you’ll notice that there were parallel comments to your original post here, using similar hypothetical situations with the ulterior motive of proving that abortion is infanticide. Thus your hypothetical situations post was met here by myself and others with anger and annoyance. We had seen this used elsewhere, and the wording was too similar for us not to notice. Especially with lines like “(Yes its a gruesome thought, but so are all late term abortions.)” And this is a political post. If you wanted to simply engage in a metamoral discussion, you should have said so. Metamorality is interesting and has it place, but there was no indication in your first post that this was your purpose.”
OK, Fair enough. I am a new here, so I could easily be viewed as just another troll. But honestly, is there anyone here that thinks late term abortions are not gruesome? Whether your pro or con, I thought that would be a given.
* “And if I and others are guilty of overreacting, you are still guilty of arrogance. Saying things like, If both sides were intellectually honest rather than clinging to bumper sticker slogans then they could at least share some small common ground. Implying that those of us who took offense at your comments are intellectually dishonest and cling to bumper sticker slogans.”
Probably another fair point. I have been told before that my writing style can be arrogant and overly aggressive. Sometimes its intentional in order to get people to respond, but most of the time its not.
* “Plus you’ve ignored that this isn’t just an academic issue for many many people. This is an issue that affects how women can view their bodies, and how much say they have in making decisions relating to their bodies. So forgive us if we don’t have the patience to examine the what-ifs that don’t have a bearing on the very real and very concrete issues that deal with the right to choose.”
I know this is a real issue to many people. But like discussing say the death penalty, or war, hopefully we can still debate the underlying issues and general principles from a distant perspective even though many peoples lives are directly effected by it. Maybe I am a little wacky, but I like debating the deeper sides of some issues. I also am interested in the underlying reasons people think the way they do, and what they base their opinion on. Some might think its merely mental masturbation, but to quote the movie Patton: “God help me, I do love it so.”
Yeah, late-term abortions are gruesome, but then so are open heart surgery and amputations. I don’t see how pointing out the gruesomeness is particularly important.
The rest of your post is entirely satisfying, though. I’m glad we can come to an understanding.
It’s impossible to write a law that can cover every single possible but EXTREMELY UNLIKELY circumstance. (That’s why we have the court system.) Likewise, there’s no way to have an absolute belief that applies in every situation.
I’m firmly pro-choice; abortion should be safe and legal (and, in some cases, funded by the government), and women should have total control over their bodies.
But if it came to either of those two hypothetical situations, the umbilical cord should be cut and the woman should finish giving birth, because all it requires is waiting a very brief period of time–much shorter than the time it would take to have an abortion, and with much less effort–and thus doesn’t compromise the woman’s rights.
These are not contradictory opinions; they’re just complex. In the case of abortion, there are no simple, one-size-fits-all answers. Anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest.
EXTREMELY UNLIKELY possibilities must be taken on a case-by-case basis.
(Although if I had to generalize, I guess I’d say, “Abortion should be legal unless there’s an alternative that would take substantially less time, effort, and expense.”)
Regarding the differentiation of abortion from infanticide, there are those (some members of Congress, NARAL, etc.) who have asserted that it is interfering with a woman’s right-to-choose to require that a newborn child who unintendedly survives an abortion procedure be extended life-saving measures.
Furthermore, there are those (Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton University) who argue that killing a newborn is not philosophically different than aborting a late-term fetus.
There is no empirical way to resolve the issue of when a fetus/child should receive legal protections. One solution is to wrestle the issue from the courts, have a national dialog, come to a consensus, and implement that into law. Perhaps legal protections begin with the onset of brain waves, perhaps at viability, perhaps at birth, or perhaps 28 days after birth (the Singer school of thought). But in the absence of an empirical standard, how can we possibly decide this issue other than by a societal consensus?
(copy pasting, since LMA did it too)
Don’t wave those Peter Singer vibes at me, I have no truck with that man and resent the implication.
And I think there is a very good place to draw the empirical line. Full emergence from the womb immediately begins the process of self-creation, as the infant now has light (possibly even sight), significant sound, relevant tactile experience, significant spatial relations, the reference framework of differentiated entities, and direct and measurable evidence of other living entities. By those criterions I have no trouble at all granting personhood at birth.
And most important of all, the fetus is now no longer a dependent burden on the mother. This is the line I would draw, but I doubt a “national dialogue” would yield such a reasonable and fair consensus given the high and influential presence of manipulative agenda pushers in the population.
Of course, now you’re going to start cooking up all kinds of strange and unlikely scenarios…
I’m sorry.. I’m confused by the followign hypothetical. (Especially since no one seems to pointing out something…)
Scenario 1: Healthy mother has just given birth to a perfectly healthy baby with the umbilical cord still attached.
I think it is perfectly legal to cut your own finger off if you choose. Since the baby is still attached to the mother couldn’t you make an argument that the baby is still part of the mother no different than a finger?
Uhmmm…. ok… the baby is to the umbillical chord which is attached the plancenta right? And the placenta (aka “the after birth” ) is no longer attached to the mother, right? So, one might equally well argue that the baby is no longer connected to the mother? At least not physically.
Warning… those who have low “ick thresholds.. don’t click this link to a page that shows you how to commerate your kid’s birth with plancenta prints.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Lucia.
Ok.. I was soooo puzzled by that “umbillical chord” thing.. I should have continued.
Now lets turn the time machine dial back 5 minutes to Scenario 2: The perfectly healthy baby is halfway out of the perfectly healthy mother.
If you believe that what ever is inside the mother is the part of the mother then should she, for what ever reason, have the right to stop the birth and have an abortion on the part that is still inside her? ….
and later This is simply a hypothetical situation that removes the fuzzy areas in order to find out the core issue.
This hypothetical removes the fuzzy area?
On can answer that she cannot order the doctor to cut the etus/baby in half without even considering the life or rights of half born fetus/baby! )
In this scenario the doctor already is already separating the woman from the fetus/baby. In fact, once birth is underway, the entire fetus/baby must be delivered — otherwise the mothers life and health are in danger.
To cut the baby in half would slow down the extraction process jeapordizing the mother’s health significantly.
We are allowed to make laws to regulate medical procedures to protectt maternal health, so no, cutting the baby in half is not permitted.
Heck, I doubt my dentist would let me leave during the middle of a tooth extraction– and that has nothing to do with the rights of my wisdom teeth.
Posted by DRA:
And I think there is a very good place to draw the empirical line. Full emergence from the womb immediately begins the process of self-creation, as the infant now has light (possibly even sight), significant sound, relevant tactile experience, significant spatial relations, the reference framework of differentiated entities, and direct and measurable evidence of other living entities. By those criterions I have no trouble at all granting personhood at birth.
And most important of all, the fetus is now no longer a dependent burden on the mother. This is the line I would draw, but I doubt a “national dialogue” would yield such a reasonable and fair consensus given the high and influential presence of manipulative agenda pushers in the population.
A question based on your posting: You cite physical dependence on the mother. At 24 weeks or so, the fetus would no longer have a dependency on its mother if extracted from the uterus. In your thinking, should its legal standing change as a result of its ability to live outside the mother, assuming no threat to her physical or mental well-being?
Posted by Deep River Appartments
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Lucia.
I should have quoted more and commented more. I read scenario 1:
The “scenario” seems to suggest that a baby still attached to the umbilical chord it is attached to its mother. I think that is incorrect. (Although.. I haven’t given birth personally….)
I thought the umbilical chord was attached to the plancenta, which is also expelled from the uterus.
I don’t think the umbillical just retracts back into the mother like an elastic band. Of course, maybe my understanding of this whole umbillical chord thing is wrong
You can click the link and see the really icky pictures of women making “plancenta prints” to commemerate the birth. The pictres show the placenta with umbillical chord attached– although the baby has been removed from the whole bundle.
So.. scenario was defective in so far as it claimed the baby was attached to the mother after birth. (Of course, it’s also a very weird absurde scenario, and I think no one would kill the baby even if the umbillical chord acted like a rubber band that retracted back into the mother.)
LMA sez:
“A question based on your posting: You cite physical dependence on the mother. At 24 weeks or so, the fetus would no longer have a dependency on its mother if extracted from the uterus. In your thinking, should its legal standing change as a result of its ability to live outside the mother, assuming no threat to her physical or mental well-being?”
I’m aware of O’Connor’s well founded ambivalence about using viability as a measure of humanity, since viability depends on variable levels of medical technology. I cite independence as one of many necessary factors, mostly to counter the absurd reasoning that a child who somehow “survives” an abortion procedure and achieves birth should then be killed anyway. Though there is something to be said for being able to decide whether our genetic material should be propagated against our will, I find that the burden of motherhood argument has more traction at this point in history.
Of course the “child who somehow survives an abortion procedure and achieves birth should then be killed anyway” scenario is the purest sort of boogeyman story anyway.
Lucia:
Are you talking about LMA’s scenario? I don’t recall any discussion of umbilical cords in this thread.
Response to DRA:
The “…very good place to draw the empirical line. Full emergence from the womb…” (your words) might actually be acceptable to some pro-life advocates as a “compromise”, if we could be sure that the line couldn’t be moved at some point in the future.
At the time of Roe, we thought that the line had been drawn at viability. Needless to say…
Some of us are fearful that the line might move yet again. After all, thirty years ago, who would have thought partial-birth abortion a future possibility? Thirty years from now, who knows what assertions will be made in the name of “reproductive rights”.
Some pro-lifers may be willing to accept the status quo, if it could be declared so in perpuity. The only mechanism that would suffice: an ironclad human life amendment declaring full protection at birth.
It remains to be seen whether such an amendment would be supported by the other side.
Deep river.. I should have looked at the dates as I was reading down. The quote is from Larry wayyyyy back in January! (I didn’t realize how old this thread was. I thought it was relatively fresh. )
The baby halfway out scenario seemed to be introduced at the same time, and it seemed to be being discussed now.
Sorry for the confusion. (As rozana-rozana-danna would say “never mind”!)
At the time of Roe, we thought that the line had been drawn at viability. Needless to say.
You can find the full text of Roe V. Wadeat findlaw.
Roe does balance lots of stuff, but does say in section X
I don’t know how this has or might change in new cases, but yet, the court considers viability important.
Pingback: weather head
Pingback: En Banc
Pingback: Appalachia Alumni Association
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: Lean Left
Pingback: Say Uncle
Pingback: Lean Left
Pingback: fling93 loves fishies
Pingback: Unlearned Hand
Pingback: culturekitchen | fresh dissent served daily
hey i am bible believing christian i am middle ground on abortion
i don’t believe in forcing religion down peoples throat that not bible
i don’t believe in a religious monarky telling people how to live or else
that’s to me is against what this country is founded on on plymouth rock
of freedom of religion.
free to choose.
if i choose abort a baby by GOD’S GRACE it won’t come to that i choose my
wife to live and take the baby
and AIN’T NO RELIGIOUS DEVIL’S BUSINESS.
THANK YOU
JOEL
Pingback: Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith