Yesterday, I wrote that “government-mandated childbirth is the essence of the pro-life position; if you don’t favor using state force to make pregnant woman give birth against their will, you’re not pro-life.”
Obeah, in the comments, wittily objected to this:
Well, no doubt some pro-lifers are interested in “the injustices that often lead women to seek abortion” and so on, but that’s not the defining trait of the movement. You don’t have to be interested in that stuff to qualify as pro-life.
The abortion debate is about one question: “Should the government force childbirth on pregnant women?” The answer to that question is what classifies someone as pro-life or pro-choice.
Everything else is extra; add-ons. An individual pro-choicer might be, like you, someone who dislikes abortion and wishes to reduce its incidence as much as possible (to make it “safe, legal and rare,” as the expression goes); she might be libertarian, or feminist, or anarchist, or vegitative activist, or whatever. The point is, it doesn’t matter which of these things she is; knowing that she’s a vegan or a libertarian or whatnot won’t tell us she’s pro-choice. Knowing that she’s against state-mandated childbirth tells us she’s pro-choice.
Similarly, some pro-lifers are Catholics, some are atheists, some care about women’s well-being, some are pro-death-penalty, some oppose the death penalty, some are republicans, some are libertarians, some are democrats, and so on. Because one can be any or none of these things and still be pro-life, none of these things can be said to be part of the core pro-life position.
So with due respect to Obeah, I’ll stand by what I said. The essence of the pro-life position is advocating laws that force childbirth on unwilling pregnant women. All the rest is optional add-ons.
PRO-LIFE ALL THE WAY!
My goodness, what a clever rebuttal.
Amp, you have clearly been bested. When dealt such a sound rhetorical drubbing, I think it’s best to just concede graciously.
Well done, Linda. Well done indeed.
—Myca
OK, here I go getting myself in trouble again.
While the definition of the pro-life position could indeed be boiled down to a question of “Should the government force childbirth on pregnant women?”, many pro-lifers would feel that that wording of the question is designed to make pro-lifers look cold-hearted.
“Does a fetus have a right to life that the government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s desires?” Same question, different focus.
Of course, everyone has a right to frame the question whichever way they feel it.
Some people have posted about the possibility of future technologies that would allow a fetus to be removed from the mother’s uterus and gestated elsewhere. If anything like that ever became a reality, these two questions would no longer have identical meanings. But right now they do.
And again, for anyone who doesn’t know me by now, I’ll mention that I don’t believe pursuing legislation is the best way to prevent abortions. I’ve talked about that in other forums.
Well, you’ve got a point.
On the other hand, one thing that bothers me about pro-lifers is that they seem to rely on euphanism to deny the ugly reality of what they’re proposing (something many pro-lifers have accused pro-choicers of too, of course!). My question isn’t designed to make pro-lifers look cold-hearted; it’s designed to take away the euphanism and describe the reality of pro-life policy.
However, a more fair-minded, neutral question wouldn’t be designed to take away the euphanism. So you’re right, my wording was, while literally accurate, nonetheless biased.
But it’s not the same question. What about someone who thinks the government should defend fetal rights through income transfer programs to support single mothers and through free medical care, but who’s still pro-choice in the sense of thinking abortion should be legal?
Probably the best, simplist way to put it is “do you favor outlawing abortion in nearly all cases?” People who answer “yes” to that question are pro-life. That’s reasonably neutral-sounding but gets at the real policy distinction. What do you think?
Amp wrote: “What about someone who thinks the government should defend fetal rights through income transfer programs to support single mothers and through free medical care, but who’s still pro-choice in the sense of thinking abortion should be legal?”
I’d say if they still think abortion should be legal, then they think the government should defend the fetus’s right only to a certain point. I guess you would need to add an adjective: “Does a fetus have an inalienable right to life . . .”
But you’re right, the simplest question would be, “do you favor outlawing abortion in nearly all cases?”. People can answer that with a simple yes or no. If asked why they feel that way, then they can expain their beliefs about forced childbirth and fetal rights.
Does a fetus have an inalienable right to life that the government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s”
I think perhaps that modified statement removes a lot of the bias on both sides. “desires” is designed to make the pro-choicers look frivilous.
Would this be more accurate:
“Does a fetal US citizan have an inalienable right to life that the US government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s”
From wookie: ” ‘Does a fetus have an inalienable right to life that the government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s’
I think perhaps that modified statement removes a lot of the bias on both sides. ‘desires’ is designed to make the pro-choicers look frivilous.”
Actually, I did fret about that word “desires” for that very reason. I was trying to think of a better one, but didn’t have any good ideas.
When you took off the word desires, do you then mean “even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s right to life?” I was using the phrase “right to life” to mean specifically the right to not die.
Maybe something like “even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s right to self-determination?”
I think either ‘pregnant woman’s right to life” and “pregnant woman’s right to self-determination” are both better choices than “desires”… neither are perfect, but better than “desires”.
to me the essence of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the abortion debate rests on the nature of the pregnancy. to require a rape victim to carry to term and give birth against her will is indeed forced pregnancy and a form of sexual violation all on its own. on the other hand, if a woman consents to sex she consents to at least the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy and therefore has more of a moral olbigation to the fetus. it is tempting for people to want complex issues to be solved using catch phrases but things are rarely that simple.
I doesn’t quite work that way Leia. Why is a women aborting because of a rape valid, but my aborting due to mental and physical health concerns not? I don’t want children, and will not have them, by any means necessary. I do not consent to the possibility of pregnancy and have no moral obligation to something that I feel would destroy my life.
If I get into a car accident do I have an obligation to not get medical help because I consented to the possibility of a car crash every time I get into my car? What if the accident is at least partially my fault and someone else is injured and it just so happens I’m their blood type and they need a transfusion right now or they die? I still have a legal right to refuse, no matter how uncomfortable that makes you.
ETA: The whole reason I (and most people, I’m sure) use birth control is precisely because we do NOT “consent to the possibility of pregnancy”.
I disagree with what I think is Amp’s basic premise. The majority of both pro-choice and anti-choice people are not at the polar extremes.
If you call yourself “pro-choice”, does choice extend to ten minutes before normal term labor starts? If you’re “anti-choice”, does choice extend to the life of the mother?
If you look at the rhetoric, there are some serious problems with the rhetoric on both sides. One thing that was learned from all these home pregnancy tests is just how many pregnancies are lost very early on. Likewise, if one looks at the history of abortion and abortificants, under Common Law “abortion” of various forms was permitted up until “quickening”, and the same concept applied in religious laws — a woman who miscarried due to some injury prior to the point of quickening was not due damages, whereas a woman who miscarried after was due damages. The boundary has always been fuzzy and the main distinction hasn’t been this or that, it’s been “when”, and it still is “when” for many.