Asymmetrical Information

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) You said:

We actually spoke specifically about abortion in reference to this, and he pointed out something I hadn't noticed up until then, but which now leaps out screaming at me from these posts and comments: people involved in a debate tend to assume that their opponents are disagreeing with them about the aspect of the debate they care most about.

I don't know why you're first seeing this in abortion: conventional debate about economic policies is replete with this: "Oh, opponents of the minimum wage just want the poor to suffer." and about a trillion more examples I can think of.

2) Why is it "fundamental attribution error" when it's often ... er, no error at all. Some people really don't give a damn about how their actions affect others.

Example: apartment unit next to mine decides that starting a band in the apartment is AOK. So, I made the FA "error" and responded the way one would respond to such animals -- banged on the wall until they "got it". Then a pretty girl from that unit came over and this exchange (approximately) ensued:

"What's the matter? Is the music bothering you?"
"I suspect you really don't care whether it bothers me."
"That's horrible! Look, I took the time to come over. Obviously, I do care!"
"If I told you it did bother me, would you stop?"
"Well ... no."
"Then don't tell me you care, if it makes no difference whatsoever in your actions. What if I called the cops?"
"Don't do that!"
"Oh, so for it to bother me isn't enough to make you stop, but the cops coming, is."
"..."

Let me know how to avoid such "errors" in the future.

For bonus points, provide a plausible scenario where someone would play a subwoofer loudly at a stoplight AND simultaneously care about the impact on others.

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to.

There is only one real solution to this problem. The invention of a device-drug-whatever that makes the user 100% infertile and that is 100% reversible. It would have to be used beginning at puberty by males and females. It couldn't be turned off accidentally. Then the only pregnancies would be ones mutually agreed to by both parties and abortions would only be needed for medical emergencies.

Best Take down on abortion I've seen lateley.

I think it fair to say that people who compare a fetus (foetus?) to a tumor are rejecting the notion that it has any rights out of hand rather than balancing it carefully with the rights of the mother. I do not know if this is the majority of pro-choice types, but it is probably the majority of Janegalt.net's pro-choice commenters.

And I also think it fair to say that most pro-lifers are perfectly pro-choice in the pre-intercourse period; abstain, use birth control, and accept the risk. There are very few people who would actually support the pro-choice hobbyhorse of "breeding machines for the state" if that is understood to mean that Dick Cheney gets to rape you and you have to carry the child.

I am a lifelong Roman Catholic, which I realize means I have no intellectual credibility on this issue. However, when our adopted son was 7 or 8, he began watching a PBS program on abortion. We realized very quickly what he was watching and monitored the program very carefully. He watched the entire program. When it was over, he came into the kitchen, looked at the two of us and said: "If my real mommy had had an abortion, I wouldn't be." Rather amazing for a child his age. To this day, he has no question regarding what he thinks about abortion. Neither do we.

Jane,

YES! When arguing with people about politics, it is often difficult to get people to understand that I understand what they consider important, I just consider other things more important, and neither of us is "right" or "wrong". In matters of law, I believe that this is where Federalism is the answer: You can choose to live in a place where the prevailing values match yours. Want a town with no porno shops and nice parks? Move to Utah! Want a noisy, crazy, crowded town where anything goes? Move to NYC! We don't need to let the federal government make every law, if we let the states do their jobs, we can have many interesting, diverse ways to live as Americans. Like it was intended.

My views on abortion changed when I had kids, because, as my life goal changed to protecting and nurturing children during difficult times, my priorities and values changed. Hell, I go to church now. BUT, I don't want my values to be enforced by law. I guess that makes me odd.

Just because something is right or good, does not mean it should be mandatory.

Donut,

I don't think you'll find many religious people who want church attendance to be mandatory. In fact that pretty much goes against most concepts of faith.

But what makes so many angry is the outright banishment of anything religious from the public sphere in the name of, "well if we do it for your religion which founded this country, we also have to do it for that latest group of chicken sacraficing sadist religions down the street". But hey, it's ok to promote porn and promiscuity everywhere...

Exceptionally well said, Jane. Abortion is one of those issues that I've often wanted to scream "A pox on both their houses", as any attempt to consider the debate in a fairminded or considered way usually degenerates within a couple of comments to the sort of presumed righteousness you're talking about.

Convergence: I just posted something broadly similar on my blog, about anger in general and the misattribution of motives that it often stems from.

Snippet:

The base logic is something like this:

1. I care about issue X.
2. Because of the way in which I care about issue X and my other beliefs, I think Y is the solution.
3. The only reason someone could not think Y is the solution is because they do not care.
4. In fact, while they claim to believe in solution Z, since they don't actually care the real explanation must be that they think Z will give them personal advantage, or they simply hate the group of people affected, or they must have some other ulterior motive.
5. Wow! People who don't agree with solution Y are evil! And we should treat them as evil!

The only problem I see with abortion is that it's too cheap for those who need it least and too expensive for those who need it most. Spend a month working in the criminal justice system and you'll find a plethora of living, breathing arguments for forced sterilization and state-sponsored eugenics. My personal favorite was a 24 year-old white woman who birthed no less than 5 children to an abusive boyfriend solely out of the belief that having more children would make him love her more. They were unmarried and habitually used methamphetamines. Four of the five children are now wards of the state; the fifth will be soon.

The flip side of the coin is the indirect social harm that occurs when wealthy, intelligent couples have abortions for unserious reasons. Call me an old-fashioned Victorian moralist (!), but if you're smart, well-off and can afford a child or three, then you have a responsibility to improve the human species by passing down your socio-genetic fortune into the next generation.

The main use of abortion is that it's a last resort to preventing the world from becoming the place it is in Mike Judge's Idiocracy. Who cares about the right to life if it means a society of criminal dumbasses and retards?

Rob, and others: The notion that everyone is pro-choice before conception flies in the face of EVERY SINGLE national (and state) pro-life organization. They are opposed to contraception, period. All kinds--hormonal/chemical and physical/barrier.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/index.html

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/20/anti_contraception/

www.amptoons.com/blog

and others

Connie, check your sources a little more carefully. Catholic organizations (explicitly pro-life and otherwise) are opposed to birth control for obvious reasons, but there are plenty of others (such as Feminists for Life) that don't take any particular stand on contraception.

I'm certainly going to watch my own arguments for that error, because I am well aware that the reason others don't agree with me is because they differ from me--which includes finding some part of the issue more important than the part I chose.

Connie,

I see no evidence to support your claim that "every single" pro-life organization is opposed to contraception. I did see a very slanted Salon article that confuses opposition to giving kids condoms (as well as legitimate questions about their efficacy in preventing disease) with support for banning condoms, which elides the question (important to pro-lifers) of whether or not birth-control pills are an abortofacient (sp?), and which deliberately confuses one woman who opposes birth control with the pro-life movement generally.

Overall, a not-terribly-convicing propaganda piece.

I also noticed that the National Right to Life Committee and Feminists for Life refused to be interviewed for the piece, for the explicit reason that they don't consider contraception to be within their purview. And yet the article concludes that these organizations are secretly plotting to ban it. WTH?

I have found that I argue most with women who are older than me (baby boomers) and see things from the prism of late 60s-early 70s women's lib. To them I want to turn the clock back to pre-Margaret Sanger days just because I think it's absurd that a 14 year-old girl can be expelled from public school for taking an Advil without all the proper paperwork and permission, but she can have an abortion without talking to her parents.

Women my age (20s) who have endured this incongruity don't have a hard time with this distinction at all.

I think that as reproductive science advances the pro-abortion crowd will lose a lot of ground. When everyone knows about and has easy access to cheap and reliable birth control, it's a lot harder to justify why an abortion is necessary. Also, as preemie care improves the label "viable" will have to adjust.

When everyone knows about and has easy access to cheap and reliable birth control,

You mean like condoms?

There was a post here some time back about this, as I recall. The issue isn't that people can't afford birth control, or that they don't know about it, or it fails, it's that they don't bother for one reason or another.

Hasn't changed the debate yet.

"But what makes so many angry is the outright banishment of anything religious from the public sphere in the name of, "well if we do it for your religion which founded this country, we also have to do it for that latest group of chicken sacraficing sadist religions down the street"."

There is no outright banishment that I am aware of. And to some of us an imaginary friend is an imaginary friend regardless of the guise they visit you in.

Church v state: fundamental misattribution of the text of the Constitution to meet supposed change. Same as in the denial of an individual right to guns or the belief that the government has the power to control political speech, such as by the mechanism of McCain-Feingold.

Like so many of these debates, while I personally come down on the opposing side, I find myself supporting and defending social conservatives, especially their intellectual integrity. I'm not a fan of a theocratic state, but general prayer to "God" shouldn't have to be banned from all public events. On abortion, it all depends on how you weigh the rights of the parents to try and control the time and size of their families vs the rights of the child. I come down on first trimester only, but see how one could easily go for total restriction.

It would shock most pro-choice folks, but there's a fairly serious Libertarian anti-abortion movement. You don't have to be religious whatsoever to oppose abortion, though it helps.

This issue does raise questions about one major philosophical law. Jane/Meagan's First Law of Politics states that the majority party is arrogant/smug while the minority party is insane.

So Jane, could you illuminate us on the speed of conversion from insanity/ to insanity or on the required conditions. Is the affiliation of the President the only variable? Inquiring minds want to resolve this key question (I'm actually fairly serious about this).

It would shock most pro-choice folks, but there's a fairly serious Libertarian anti-abortion movement.

No, that wouldn't shock most pro-choice folks. Libertarians are in many contexts still viewed as glorified movementarians who happen to smoke pot.

I didn't realize I was against contraception just because some other organization I have never heard of is.

Now I am personally against pumping your body up with chemicals just because you don't want to get pregnant. I'm probably crazy, but I avoid taking aspirin if I have a headache. I just don't think its necessary. Just like my wife and I don't think its necessary she take chemical contraceptives. Its for her own health really, but it's certainly nothign I can prove. I just figure that injecting your body with chemicals every month or day on a regular basis probably can't be good for you at some level.

It's unfortunate our society has gone from parents who would do anything for their kids or unborn kids, vs. people wanting to destroy their children before they are born, most likely because it gets in the way of convienence.

Jane, I was with you up to this:

Conversely, the pro-life side notes that if you deny the obligation of a woman to carry her pregnancy to term, all sorts of other family obligations become harder to logically support, and therefore conclude that abortion must be wrong.

I find it really hard to believe that you can find an actual pro-lifer whose reasoning goes this way. Can you give an example?

In fairness I suppose I should ask you if you can really find a person who believes abortion is moral precisely because "it is of surpassing importance for women to take their place at the helm of half the world's institutions [and] this would be much more difficult in a world containing both frequent sex with people you don't intend to spawn with, and restricted access to abortion."

But somehow the existence of the latter person seems more plausible to me. Must be that fundamental attribution error.

I enjoy your pieces on abortion very much -- it's interesting to watch you grapple with it. Thanks for your honesty.

I'm on the pro-life side. Not because of my faith, but empirical observation.

For what it's worth, I think abortion will continue to be an issue for the next century, maybe longer.

Why?

The pro-choice side has never been able to convince a large majority of Americans (whose opinion are needed to bring the debate to a close) that abortion just gets rid of a meaningless blob of tissue.

I think continued improvements in ultrasound technology will trouble people's consciences over abortion. Anybody see the "In the Womb" programs with elephants, dolphins, dogs, and people recently on the Discovery Channel? Amazing.

At the same time, as long as abortion remains a cheap, convenient way to get rid of a problem, I think it will continue to lots of women and men.

Beyond the merits of whether abortion is right, wrong, or somewhere in between, do you think Roe was a mistake/bad law or an achievement compared with Brown v. Bd. of Education/good law? (I know Megan has said that she is reluctantly pro-choice, but has written abortion should be left to the states, which makes her anti-Roe.)

If you notice, abortion isn't really an issue in Europe. That's because the elected legislatures legalized abortion. (I understand the laws there are stricter.) They let both opposites and those in the middle influence policy. What Roe did was force everyone to accept one solution that was devised by seven unelected justices. (To give left-liberals an idea, imagine if the Court struck down every gun control law in the U.S. or minimum wage laws.)

What might have happened in this republic of ours without Roe? The liberal states would have probably legalized abortion anyway while the more conservatives ones would have kept most restrictions.

In my view, the debate would be less noisy if the issue were left to Congress and the states where it belongs.

(Don't you love typing a comment and wrapping up when Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" comes on the radio?)

I think it's more complicated than that. I was once pro-choice but have come to view abortion as hideously evil. Why? I had kids of my own.

When you are young, you tend to be selfish. Not because you are a bad person, because you aren't enmeshed into a web of family and career obligations that require you to sacrifice a great deal.

Young people are often genuinely idealistic, but the fact of the matter is that most do not enter the priesthood, the Peace Corps, or the Marine Corps, occupations which require tremendous self-sacrifice in the service of a higher goal.

Nope, most young people (me among them, before kids) go to college, grad school, get a job, and basically live life on their own terms until they get married and start a family. Sometimes a crisis, such as a dying relative, requires the young person to make a temporary sacrifice, but in the end the vast majority of young people spend most of their time in self-interested pursuits. This is normal.

When you lead the life of a young person, it's entirely reasonable to view a fetus as a clump of cells, a "potential" human being, and a terrifying responsibility that you want to avoid being saddled with. It's easy for you to be pro-choice, it's a view consistent with your lifestyle.

Then kids come along and you see them as they truly are -- living, breathing bundles of joy, gifts from God that are the most important thing that can ever be. They place enormous demands on you. Since they are helpless children, you acceed to their demands. In the beginning it is difficult. You just want them to stop crying, squriming, and pooping and leave you alone. Eventually, it gets easier. Ultimately, you learn to love the time you spend with them. Before you know it, self-sacrifice is a way of life.

Suddenly, abortion is abhorrent. It seems like murder. You can't imagine why anyone would do it save themselves the "inconvenience" attendant with raising children, or because they might hinder career advancement. Who cares about that stuff? These are children!

Incidentally, if one assumes that most people go through the sort of evolution described above, you can see how difficult it can be for a woman who had an abortion when she was young to feel her own views changing as she grows older. It probably seemed like an easy decision at the time, but age changes your perspective, and before long you begin to feel guilty. A lot of people will respond to the feelings of guilt by becoming ever more shrill and mentally and emotionally committed to pro-abortion views. Not everyone, obviously, but it happens.

D------- writes:
What might have happened in this republic of ours without Roe? The liberal states would have probably legalized abortion anyway while the more conservatives ones would have kept most restrictions.

In my view, the debate would be less noisy if the issue were left to Congress and the states where it belongs.

It's true that a legislative solution would have given the issue time to breath through the public consciousness in a less hysterical way, and also have had more public support than any court-mandated solution, but the real reason there isn't much conflict about this in Europe is because the demographic is different.

If it had been left to the states, what would happen is the hard-core pro-lifers would have started campaigns to move to pro-choice states, establish residency, and flip the vote. Jerrymandering by public vote, if you will. And I suspect the polemic Jane is so aptly describing would simply have narrowed its focus to the whole country watching just the pro-choice states.

What it would have done, though, is remove the red herring of federalism. Ask any pro-lifer who says the court overstepped and they will tell you that they would still be pro-life in those states that legalised abortion.

And it also would have given us a chance to see what the effects of legalised abortion actually are on families, education, jobs, women, depression rates, etc.

I also note that the same legislative-solutions-are-controversial reasoning applies for Brown v. Board of Education. It ultimately would have been better to have a legislative solution fueled by a changed public will, but few people will admit that Brown was bad jurisprudence, because they like the result. Mainly people (on both sides of the aisle) complain about judicial activism when they don't like the policy result, not for any real jurisdictional reason. People generally accept Brown even though practically speaking a legislative solution would have been much better because there's consensus that the result was just.

The other argument for legislative over court-mandated solutions is consistency. For example, there will have to be a huge religious freedom exception if we have same-sex marriage (eg so that the Catholic Church can still be the Catholic Church and not have to condone homosexuality). If the courts legalise same-sex marriage, the law will be all over the place and it will be a mess. A legislative solution will provide the better balance of competing interests and rights.

Clarification:

In the above post, the sentence "In my view, the debate would be less noisy if the issue were left to Congress and the states where it belongs." was D-------'s, not mine. I was responding to it.

Pregnancy is a fundamentally unique situation in which there is no possibility of Coasean bargain

I love that sentence. Seriously. It's an example of why I read AI. (Would Tyler Cowen give it a "best sentence I read today"?)

I was once pro-choice but have come to view abortion as hideously evil. Why? I had kids of my own.

That doesn't work as an explanation for everyone. Many pro-choicers are also mothers. Whether or not they're likely to make the "clump of cells" argument varies.

Frankly, the argument over whether "a fetus is a clump of cells" is a pure mirage, thrown up by extremists on both sides and the entire reason it's not possible for many people to identify with either extreme. Pro-lifers can't refute the fundamental argument for choice by tilting at it, and pro-choicers don't bolster their position by appealing to it.

Sure, it doesn't work for everyone, but it works for a lot of people. When you are young, it is indeed "all about you." When you get older your responsibilities change, and quite often your perspective on abortion does too. This isn't always the case, but I still think it's a useful way of looking at the situation.

Responding to Joe Schmoe:

You make some interesting points that I had never considered before, but I am not sure they are truly generalizable.

I am a (childless) young person who has devoted 2 years of her life to teaching in inner city schools, a job that does require voluminous self-sacrifice. Yet, still pro-choice. I am not sure self-sacrifice = more likely to be pro-life.

Also, I know LOTS of mothers who are pro-choice for a variety of reasons, my own mother included. It certainly makes a lot of sense that after one has kids, one might change their feelings, but it seems that many people can hold a view that while it was good to have their own kids, other people may not be in a good place to do that. I doubt you could say that the pro-choice movement is devoid of caring parents.

On my own note, as a person who interacts with poverty stricken minority youths every day, the amount with children at age 17 scare the hell out of me. Its common and accepted, and in fact, my students are shocked that I don't have children at my age. I frequently wonder why on earth these girls don't have abortions, since they would almost be the poster children to use a vulgar term for why most pro-choicers say abortion should be legal. Then again, I would have no way of knowing how many of my other students have made that choice, as only 2 have ever told me about it.

"Pregnancy and parenthood are HUGE DEALS. So is not existing. That's why so many people are so frightened of doing either."

How did you come to the conclusion that not existing? Who knows, maybe not existing is better than existing. It's not like you can ask someone who has experienced both. In some instances, people with genuinely horrible lives (e.g., starving children in Africa just waiting patiently to die) probably would prefer if they never existed.

Thoughtful post, but it seems to convey too much hope that there is some way that both sides will eventually be able to talk to each other. As I see it, there's just no shared ground.

Haskin Ross,

I just want to insert in here that I just started reading here when Megan wrote about Jane's Law and have found it to be an excellent starting place for almost all conversations between people of different ideologies.

I love the fact that I'm not the only one who remembers it.

1) Great post. And I agree with Roger Sweeny :)

2) RE: Europe vs The States and the "demographic" differences Angela briefly notes. Abortion is less unpopular in Europe for several reasons, but I would say the two most important variables are 1) religion and 2) "established tradition".

As to 1), Europeans are in general far less religious than Americans, and religion and the pro-life view correlate. Also, at least the North European countries are far more secular than the US, meaning that even if some religious people hold strong views in these matters, it's considered a no go to mix politics and religion. You just don't do that. This also means that much of the abortion debate in these countries is of the moral philosophy sort that does not seem to interest the general public very much.
If I am to elaborate on 2), if for several decades abortion has been considered a mother's right on a societal level, then you are not very likely to question this right. Status-quo bias is important in most political matters and abortion is no exception.

@Otis: I'm PC, but that's not exactly a convincing argument. If you do not enjoy life, you're free to leave it anytime you want. Suicide is always an option and poor people in Africa have that option too. There's an obvious asymmetry here: People who have existed and have chosen afterwards that they prefer non-existence have been given the choice. People who have never existed have not been given the choice to exist.

Admittedly, there are some crazy people on both sides who really do cherish a vision in which [women leave the workforce and get back to having like, a zillion babies/men and women merge into a single androgenous species].

That's false even-handedness, if you think both those positions are equally far out on their respective edges. Rich Lowry caused a stir in a National Review column in 2001 (pre-online-archive, but see the rejoinder, also from NR, here) when he wrote "The fact is that working moms are at the very center of a variety of cultural ills," in a cover story, "Thanks Mom! The Case Against Working Mothers." A cover story in National Review is not fringe opinion. By contrast, "men and women merge into a single androgenous species" is, I presume, an outright joke.

Of course you self-centered unbelievers are certain that abortion is all about you. Everything is all about you. Because you are separated from Allah. You love your comforts and your sexual immorality more than life itself. So you kill your children, violating the wombs of women to do so.

We Muslims love our children. That is why we have many, because we love them. You do not love children, so you have few or none. As Allah wills, in time the Muslims will number more than you, and then this evil killing of children, and all other things Allah has wisely prohibited, will end. It will happen first in Europe, then in America.

When all the world has been brought under the will of Allah, then there will be only peace.

"Mohammed" wrote:

Of course you self-centered unbelievers are certain that abortion is all about you. Everything is all about you. Because you are separated from Allah. You love your comforts and your sexual immorality more than life itself. So you kill your children, violating the wombs of women to do so.

Okay, I'll play along, but you only get two sentences: I love life because living allows me to enjoy my comforts and sexual immorality. And I'd gladly give up my life for the privilege of living in a society which doesn't legally sanction me for bedding hot women, married or not.

Time's up! Anybody want to guess which website Mohammed wandered over from? I say either Redstate or Little Green Footballs.

Pregnancy and parenthood are HUGE DEALS. So is not existing. That's why so many people are so frightened of doing either.

The not existing argument is just silly. I know someone whose mother had an abortion before she met his father. If she hadn't, then he wouldn't exist now. Should we take this seriously as an argument for legalized abortion? Or forced abortion, even?

Or is it better simply to acknowledge that there are all kinds of seemingly insignificant choices we make every day that cause future people to pop in and out of existence at an cataclysmic rate?

Future people don't count, and from the premise that they do ensues all manner of absurdity. Either a fetus is a present person, in which case it has a right to life, and abortion is murder, or it's a future person, in which case it doesn't count. Or maybe it's a partial present person, in which case abortion is only partial murder. But only because of its partial present personhood-- Its future personhood, however far it may extend, is irrelevant.

People who have never existed have not been given the choice to exist.

This is probably the stupidest sentence I've read in a while.

But the really committed pro-choicers I've seen commenting act as if what pro-lifers were doing were considering the rights of the mother over her own body, and rejecting that principle, rather than curtailing it after weighing it against other principles; hence the accusations that pro-lifers hate women, or women with careers, or freedom, or whatever.

Allah will judge you, immoralist, not me. If you wish to take more than one woman, that is permitted but you must marry them. Allah will grant you up to four wives, but you must embrace the truth of Islam first. If you decide to give up your life rather than submit to Allah's will, then you will burn in Hell. Far better for you to accept the unchangeing will of Allah. Everyone will come to Allah in time, why resist that which is inevitable? You say you love life, then you should not want Hell. But that is what awaits those who scorn Allah.

What I cannot understand is why the abortion issue cannot be decided on the medical evidence. The medical community has come to consensus on what determines if a person is alive or dead for the purpose of organ donation.

Why can't apply the same standards on an unborn child and disallow abortions once the fetus reaches the medical definition of being alive and therefore subject to constitutional protection?

It isn't always a case of misattribution that cause people to attack eachother's motives in this debate. To a large extent, we recycle the arguments we've heard. Most of us do not research these topics aggressively and formulate our own arguments from scratch. Whether conciously or not, we repeat the dogma we've heard, and flatter ourselves that one personal detail makes it our argument.

The people who do the research, and meticulously craft their arguments are not engaged in vanity squabbles on a blog (not that there's anything wrong with that). They are people who are trying to alter laws so as to have their way. There is no psychological flaw spawning false beliefs in their opponent's motives. There is political maneuvering. Politicians don't compromise because they believe their opponent's argument has value. They compromise because their opponent has power. The arguments posed are not attempts at philosophical truth marred by psychological bias; they are means to an end. They are to sway public opinion.

The principle protagonists in this conflict quite rightly recognize that their opponents will never embrace their concept of what the truth is, nor will they ever compromise. This is a PR fight for the middle, not a Socratic argument.

I read once there has never been a post-traumatic stress syndrome study on abortion.

The irony(?) about all of this is unless in rape or incest, if the woman actually controlled her body, she wouldn't get pregnant.

On the whole, the debate is over, except for the screaming, the American people have been pretty consistent over the past 30-odd years, don't like it, won't pay for it, but won't tell people what to do.

Medical tech has changed the view of what constitutes a "clump of cells."

And pro-lifers respond by calling pro-choicers baby killers. Nice.

Umm...what would you call someone who kills a baby in the womb? A baby killer perhaps? Maybe a baby in the womb killer. Oh wait, killer is too harsh, and baby is too close to home. It's a fetus terminator. Great play on words, but what you're doing is still the same.

Now, the pro "choice" people can call me a pig rant about how I like to trample women's sexual and body rights all they want. I'd rather be a pig who tramples one right of women than be responsible for killing babies, oops, terminating fetuses.

i think you're just identifying something that happens in almost all political "debates" or discussions -- very few of the participants have any interest in actually discussing the merits of the issue to test their positions, see if there might be a better position, etc. instead, most discussions (and blog comments) are a form of political theatre. people demonstrate their committment to the party/group whatever, by villifying the other side, people confirm/validate their identity by demonstrating fierce committment to their team or position, etc. i go to many dinners where a political discussion is not an attempt to analyze an interesting issue, but is instead a team building exercise, permitting/requiring people to demonstrate their committment to left or right or whatever. perhaps silly, perhaps sad, but seems fairly transparent once you look for it (not that all comments are like that -- for a blog, you have a fairly high proportion of commenters who seem actually to try to analyze issues in good faith). and just so we're clear, i think all sides do this, not just right or left.

'i think you're just identifying something that happens in almost all political "debates" or discussions -- very few of the participants have any interest in actually discussing the merits of the issue to test their positions, see if there might be a better position, etc. instead, most discussions (and blog comments) are a form of political theatre. '

But for some, maybe most, political questions there is a truth that could be arrived at by logical argument or rational analysis of data. I don't think that is the case in the abortion debate. While you can't arrive at the "right" answer for how progressive a tax code should be, you can arrive at the right answer for how much tax revenue is required to balance a budget. Abortion is the former type of question, not the latter. We're never going to determine that abortion is "right" up until the xth cell division, and wrong afterwards. We may decide that it is fine up until some point, but it will always be an arbitrary point.

"For bonus points, provide a plausible scenario where someone would play a subwoofer loudly at a stoplight AND simultaneously care about the impact on others."

Its for this problem I've always wanted one of these http://www.victorysiren.com/x/main.htm

None of the arguments made address my position, which is that abortion should be solely the woman's choice until the moment of live birth, because until that moment the woman is at risk of death from the consequences of pregnancy and birth.

I had an abortion when I was 16. When I was 25, I almost died on the table during and after the delivery of my very much planned and wanted child. That experience only solidified my position on abortion.

My position is the same regardless whether the fetus is considered a baby, or at what point, because the risk of death is not dependent on the status of the fetus. I am just as entitled to defend my life against another human being as I am against cancer or a crazed dog. It is morally and ethically wrong to impose an unconsenting risk of death on another person in order to preserve a third person's life.

I've never had a moment's regret, depression, or grief over my abortion. I'll have another if I suffer a birth control failure.

Ms Jane talks about balancing:
"the rights of the mother to things like control over her own body conflict directly and irreconcileably with the rights of the fetus-as-potential-human."

The interesting balance comes when the fetus
is no longer a "potential human".

At what point is the fetus a person? At conception?
When the heart beats? When there are brain waves?
At 3 months? 6? 8.5? As it moves down the birth
canal? After the umbilical cord is cut?
When it begins walking? After the age of reason?

When? THAT is when abortion proponents must
make a real decision. If the child is not
a person then what you do with it doesn't matter.
I don't care if you bake it in to pies and sell
them on e-bay. But when it is a person ...

For the pro choice advocates I have a question,
when does the fetus become a person?

It is possible that even after the fetus is a
person and still in the womb the mother should
have the choice for abortion - but certainly
the discussion is worthless if no one can agree
on whether or not the object in question is
a person.

Jay: Because the question is moral, not medical. Doctors can consider a fetus to be "a person" at any age they want, and the moral question won't be affected in either direction, and neither the pro-nor-anti sides will change their minds because of their pronouncement, either. (For at least the pro-choice side, the question is also political, and science has little effect on politics, in that way.)

Jane: You said The premise that the other side would agree with you if you could just use provocative images to call forth some emotion on the topic seems particularly odd in the case of abortion, which is true.

But it brings up the interesting point that pro-choice people seem to get very, and very predictably, upset when pro-lifers wave around placards with pictures of aborted fetuses/babies/whatever.

Evidently they must believe on some level that provocative images will cause some sort of agreement with the pro-lifers - otherwise, why bother to opposed the placards and posters?

(The long-term effectiveness of such images would seem at least plausibly dubious; and it's certainly an emotional rather than strictly logical argument.

But the oft-repeated reaction, and its strength, suggests that there's a consistent belief that the pictures can alter the beliefs of others.

Perhaps they merely think that "others" are weak-minded enough to "fall for" such tricks that won't work on the enlightened? But that still counts as thinking that pictures can convince, I suppose...)

Kai Jones
Addressed the question (When is it a person)
reasonably with - It doesn't matter.

Essentially, the person is a leach and the
mother is entitled to self protection.

It is like a sick person connected tubes to
you body in the middle of the night for
a blood transfusion. Once the patient has
been connected to you if he is disconnected
he will die, do you have a right to disconnect?

Absolutely, it is your body. They snuck up on
you and hooked themselves up - they are a leach.

But what if you volunteered first?
What if you volunteered to be connected to the
machine? Once you are connected, if you disconnect
the patient will die.

If you volunteered to put the leach on you,
if you accepted the payment and commited to
the transfussion can you morally disconnect
at any time for any reason?

It is morally and ethically wrong to impose an unconsenting risk of death on another person in order to preserve a third person's life.

But it isn't "unconsenting." If you don't want to risk death in childbirth, don't get pregnant in the first place. Now, there is some risk that birth control will fail, but life is full of inevitable risks in exchange for rewards. Why should a child die because you decided you wanted to have sex?

For my part, if I am ever forced to choose between my life and my son's, I hope I will be able to choose to die; I doubt I could live with the alternative.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that abortion should be illegal, just pointing out that this is a really bad argument unless 1) the pregnancy is genuinely life threatening, and 2) the reason for the life-threatening pregnancy is rape.

It is morally and ethically wrong to impose an unconsenting risk of death on another person in order to preserve a third person's life.

Bad premise and a bad argument.

Bad premise--there's a very good argument that if the sex was consensual, pregnancy and its associated risks were part of the consent.

And a bad argument, because we do allow people to pose risks to barely-consenting others all the time. Allowing people to drive poses a risk to pedestrians and to other drivers (by collision), to asthmatics (by emissions), etc.

I suppose that given the direction this discussion has turned (I'm talking about you, Mohammed, and you, Immoralist), I might be forgiven for weighing in before comments are closed. Also, I don't care for the common euphemisms used by either side, so I'm going to say "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Abortion." If abortion is abhorrent, you shouldn't have any bones about saying you're against it, and if it isn't, then you shouldn't have any bones about saying you're in favor of it.

Also, for purposes of easy categorization, I'm a Roman Catholic. As such, I believe that human life (yes, even poor, inner-city minority life) is sacred. I know, you've already written me off, but hear me out. Barring the one or two people who may well be bona fide nihilists, I would guess that even the self-described "non-religious" out there care about human life (or lives, if you prefer) besides their own to some extent, and probably to a great extent. The main problem with the debate as I see it is that, as Jane noted, we aren't exactly arguing about the same thing.

As far as I can tell, Anti-Abortion advocates are primarily interested in debating the humanity (or lack thereof) of the Fetus. Pro-Abortion advocates, it seems, are interested in debating the rights of the Mother (or, if you prefer, "Potential Mother," or even "Womyn") over her own reproductive system.

While I understand the limits of personal experience (I have never been to Malaysia, yet know it is there), I have never encountered a compelling argument that a Fetus is not in some way a Human Being. Truth be told, I'm beginning to think that the "lump of cells" line is something of a straw man, as I have never met a Pro-Abortion activist willing to address the humanity of the Fetus one way or the other. All I get when the discussion comes up is the bumper sticker one-liners (unfortunately common to both sides) such as "keep your laws off my body," and the discussion continues as if aborting a Fetus is no different than having one's appendix removed, ignoring the fact that one's appendix, if allowed to stay in one's body, has an exactly 0% chance of ever learning to speak, walk, and comment on a blog.

Frankly, I'm interested in hearing someone address the humanity of the Fetus. I'm even more interested in hearing why, if the Fetus is indeed (if only for the sake of argument) a human being, a Womyn's rights to enjoy consequence-free recreational use of her reproductive system supercede another human being's right to exist. If I walked into your bedroom holding a baby and told you that if you have sex, there's a chance (not even a very great one) that I'll stick you with this baby for the next 18 years, would you shoot me? The answer may well be a resounding "yes," but I'd at least be interested in hearing you say it.

You say you love life, then you should not want Hell. But that is what awaits those who scorn Allah.

That's okay. Hell is going to be so full of my friends and family I'll be too busy saying hello to people to notice that I'm there.

More seriously, what pleasure could there be for me in heaven if I knew that many of my friends and family were suffering in Hell?

"...the rights of the mother are more important; the pro-life think that the rights of the baby that will be here in nine months are more important. Neither of these positions is obviously wrong, as far as I can see. As I say, it's a toughy."

Right of fetus not to be killed.
Right of mother not to suffer pain and inconvenience of unwanted child.

So the scale of rights implicated are different.

Also, excepting rape and incest, fetus had no choice in where he or she would be germinating, mother by engaging in action which entails risk of pregnancy assumed that risk knowingly.

So, scale of culpability implicated is different.

But, your larger point is correct. No one changes their mind on this. Or a trivilly small number do. This question implicates fundamental values. People do not change those.

That is why it is the perfect issue to be resolved by democratic voting instead of the pretense that there is a Constitutional right involved. An unprincipled compromise is the best way to preserve civil peace. That is what democracy is for. That unprincipled compromise that emerges will make pro-Choicers unhappy, and pro-Lifers like me unhappy. That's democracy. We have 300 million people in this country. We can't all get what we want. The problem is the Roe decision. We'd have resolved this by now if it weren't for that mistake.

'Also, I don't care for the common euphemisms used by either side, so I'm going to say "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Abortion." '

That's ridiculous. No one that I've ever met is pro-abortion. Really, please point out anyone who believes that all pregnencies should be aborted. That is what pro-abortion means.

For the record, let it be known that I am in favor of a woman's right to not have an abortion. I suppose that makes me anti-pro-abortion.

Or better yet, let's stick with pro-life and pro-choice. It's what the groups involved would prefer to be called, and it is understood by anyone who cares to talk about the issue.

"very few of the participants have any interest in actually discussing the merits of the issue to test their positions, see if there might be a better position, etc. instead, most discussions (and blog comments) are a form of political theatre"

If Roe v. Wade had not taken this debate out of the political realm, you'd see a lot more serious testing of positions in search of a politically workable compromise. But if your legislators have no authority to make a compromise even if you could come up with one, there's no incentive to do anything *but* political theatre.

njorl,
And the murders out there should label themselves as pro-choice too. Since it was their choice to murder someone and all these laws against murder are designed to deny them their god given choice. Oh wait, you mean they are to protect the right of everyone else not to be murdered? Much like we should protect the right of unborn children not to be born. It's a child. Not a fetus. I've never heard anyone who wasn't totally politically compromised refer to the child in their stomach or their wife's stomach as a fetus. The fetus just kicked me. We have an active little fetus in there.

It's a damn baby. And people are killing them in the name of "choice".

It's a damn baby. And people are killing them in the name of "choice".

And there is no way you can stop them. With a reliable and effective abortion pill the arguement is moot.

Brandon Berg,

Future people don't count, and from the premise that they do ensues all manner of absurdity.

Wow. The Stern report argues that the discount rrate should be zero. Are you really saying it should be infinite?

Jay,

What I cannot understand is why the abortion issue cannot be decided on the medical evidence. The medical community has come to consensus on what determines if a person is alive or dead for the purpose of organ donation.

Why can't apply the same standards on an unborn child and disallow abortions once the fetus reaches the medical definition of being alive and therefore subject to constitutional protection?

As I understand it, the medical definition of death is irreversable loss of higher mental function. If you're in a coma but you might come out, it is not proper to "pull the plug." The possibility of living in the future as a conscious being is what distinguishes someone from Terry Schiavo, who had lost so much brain that she could never come back.

But most all fetuses will indeed "come out" of their "no higher brain function" state. To apply the same rules would pretty much prohibit abortion.

So it ain't gonna happen.

"njorl,
And the murders out there should label themselves as pro-choice too. "

No. That would be confusing. We have a word for murderers already - "murderers". This would be particularly confusing for the people who consider themselves to be pro-life and yet commit murder anyway.

US,

You are obviously a person of great taste and understanding :)

So perhaps you can help me understand something. There is one issue on which Eurpoeans are vociferously pro-life, and that is capital punishment.

I gather that most Europeans don't make a bloodless policy argument about the death penalty--there is always a possibility that an innocent person will be executed, there's no clear and convincing proof that it deters murder, etc. Rather, there is a great deal of emotion: capital punishment is BARBARIC!

Any idea why the difference in attitude/feeling between the two?

The same difference occurs in the USA and I have often gotten the feeling that one reason people who favor, or have had, abortions so strongly oppose the public killing of criminals is that it helps prove to themselves that they are caring, moral people.

For those who believe that a fertilized egg is a human with full rights, what are you doing to save that 50-75% of humanity that tragically dies before the first cell division. Yes, most fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus even in perfectly healthy women, who are taking no measures to cause it. That's over 5,000,000 deaths per year that no one is lifting a finger to prevent. Where are the zygote wards in our hospitals? Where are the laws mandating that every woman who has sex spend the next 8 hours with her feet in the air, just in case. Why aren't you insisting that tampons be scanned for human remains so that they can be disposed with proper dignity that human remains deserve.

If you want to be accepted as believing that a fertilized egg is indeed a human, you are going to have to start acting significantly more crazy, or we will not believe you. Then again, if you start having funerals for tampons, we still might not take you seriously.

Aw, the true lunatic emerges. It's a sad thing when you realize that the otherside of the debate is ultimately insane and has just been covering it up with false pretense. Yes, I know you may think the same of those pro life loonies who want to keep unborn babies from being killed. Sad because even though they are nuts they still manage to make it legally permissible to destroy babies before they are born. I think most people can see the difference between an egg and a baby just like most people can see the difference between a newborn baby and a one year old. Can you?

I wouldn't like it, but if abortion was made legal in the first 6 weeks or so at least then your not killing something looks so clearly like a baby. It's disgusting for you to compare a child that can move, push, kick, to an egg that is rejected by your body just for the purpose of scoring some politcal points.

Njorl,

Arguments like that are the reason I can't call myself pro-choice anymore.

How the ^*$# is anyone supposed to prevent a natural process over which nobody has any control? What is the point of a "zygote ward"? I think you are a human being, yet I do nothing to prevent you from aging and eventually dying. I must be a hypocrite! Ignore everything I say!

And furthermore, why should anyone care if you "believe" in their sincerity? Debate teams are often forced to argue positions they don't believe--should we start judging their performace based on whether we think they wanted to get assigned to that side?

That's okay. Hell is going to be so full of my friends and family I'll be too busy saying hello to people to notice that I'm there.

That is, unless Hell is more like solitary confinement at a federal pennitentiary, in which case the fact that friends and family members are locked up in the same place is an extraordinarily weak comfort -- you cannot see or talk to them or have any tangible evidence of their existence, and sooner or later, your thoughts will have to come around to what YOU did (or didn't) do in order to justly earn such an extraordinary penalty.

More seriously, what pleasure could there be for me in heaven if I knew that many of my friends and family were suffering in Hell?

Well, let's see: Suppose your kid/sibling/whatever, though you him or her very much, did something that proved (regardless of whatever kind of person he or she had seemed to be outwardly) that he or she was inwardly very evil. And now s/he is locked up in that solitary confinement cell, while you walk about free.

You may be saddened by what has taken place, but would you prefer to have that person wandering around on the streets, giving no account whatsoever for the just penalty for his/her actions, and perfectly capable of committing them again?

Carry the analogy further. Supposing it was YOU that had made that proof of fundamental evil, and aftter hearing the worst possible sentence pronounced against you, the judge steps off the bench, removes all vestments of authority, takes you by the hand and says, "You deserve every word I have decreed against you, but because I want you to see better days than these, I will now go pay your price. I will pay it whether you accept or not; but if you accept, then walk free on my behalf. And someday, I want you to rejoin me so we can talk more about this."

Of course, you could still turn down the offer, and go take your place in solitary. But that would be a silly decision, wouldn't it?

i'm not just talking about the abortion debate, rather using it as an example. and even issues that can't be analyzed to reach a correct result still can benefit from good faith discussion (e.g., someone's emotional appeal may make sense to you and cause you to shift how you view something). as for the harm the court did by deciding roe, i agree, but abortion isn't the only issue on which people seem more concerned with proving their lefty or right bona fides than actually engaging their opposite in meaningful, good faith discussion. to be fair, on emotional issues, people get emotional, and thus more likely to debase themselves by attacking people rather than positions, etc.

can you really debate this after some of the comments in this thread?

just so we're clear, by "the harm the court did in deciding roe," i mean taking the issue out of the political sphere, so that politician's could take all sorts of extreme positions without much real accountability.

hat's okay. Hell is going to be so full of my friends and family I'll be too busy saying hello to people to notice that I'm there.

That is, unless Hell is more like solitary confinement at a federal pennitentiary, in which case the fact that friends and family members are locked up in the same place is an extraordinarily weak comfort -- you cannot see or talk to them or have any tangible evidence of their existence, and sooner or later, your thoughts will have to come around to what YOU did (or didn't) do in order to justly earn such an extraordinary penalty.

Or alternatively, I might think I didn't justly earn it. I don't see how failing to submit to Allah justly earns an eternity in Hell.

And I might spend a great deal of my time worrying and sympathising with my friends and family even though I have no tangible proof of their existance.

Do you think Shawn Hornbeck's parents stopped caring about him just because they had no tangible proof of his existance for four years?

More seriously, what pleasure could there be for me in heaven if I knew that many of my friends and family were suffering in Hell?

Well, let's see: Suppose your kid/sibling/whatever, though you him or her very much, did something that proved (regardless of whatever kind of person he or she had seemed to be outwardly) that he or she was inwardly very evil. And now s/he is locked up in that solitary confinement cell, while you walk about free.

You may be saddened by what has taken place, but would you prefer to have that person wandering around on the streets, giving no account whatsoever for the just penalty for his/her actions, and perfectly capable of committing them again?

Well the difficulty here is that I don't believe that failing to submit to Allah is a crime that deserves eternal punishment and burning in hell. So I'm not at all bothered by the fact that my country is swarming with other non-believers in Allah, giving no account whatsoever for the just penalty for their actions and perfectly capable of continuing to fail to submit to Allah. Are you bothered by the thought that there are people wandering the streets who can find the North Star in the night sky?

To apply the analogy to you - imagine that your kid/sibling/whatever is locked up in solitary confinement for all eternity, on the basis that they failed to pay due homage to some person you don't actually think they owed any homage to in the first place. Would you be made a little bit unhappy by the knowledge they were suffering for what appeared to you to be no good reason?

And how is failing to submit to Allah committing some terrible crime? Does Allah change depending on how many people submit to Allah? Is there some utilitarian argument going on here?

Carry the analogy further. Supposing it was YOU that had made that proof of fundamental evil, and aftter hearing the worst possible sentence pronounced against you, the judge steps off the bench, removes all vestments of authority, takes you by the hand and says, "You deserve every word I have decreed against you, but because I want you to see better days than these, I will now go pay your price. I will pay it whether you accept or not; but if you accept, then walk free on my behalf. And someday, I want you to rejoin me so we can talk more about this."

Of course, you could still turn down the offer, and go take your place in solitary. But that would be a silly decision, wouldn't it?

So because I disagree with the judge about whether I've committed a terrible sin in failing to submit to Allah, I get sent to solitary for eternity? Gee thanks, Mr Judge, you didn't exactly pay my price for me did you? Especially since you're offering to have a talk to me some day so therefore you're obviously not spending eternity in solitary confinement.

Oh, and it's not just me who winds up with the punishment. It's most of the people I love and care about. For eternity. Not much mercy there. And many of them are already stuck there if what you claim is true.

If you were ruler of the planet, and for some reason had to have full power (you couldn't give it away to a democratically-elected government or something like that), and I disagreed with you on how much respect you were due, would you really throw me into solitary confinement? And if you did, would you think that was just?

If Allah does send people to hell who fail to submit to him, he strikes me as a nasty sadistic horrible person. I see no reason why I should submit to someone who is apparently torturing many people I love and intends to do the same to me.

nice,

Wow! Was that irony intended to support Jane's point?

Is umm posting from the same URL as nice? It seems like more of the same irony to underscore Jane's point.

If Allah does send people to hell who fail to submit to him, he strikes me as a nasty sadistic horrible person.

I do belive my 2-year-old son thinks exactly the same of me when I enforce his bedtime or insist he eat something other than ice cream for dinner.

I certainly won't try to change your religious beliefs (I don't care what they are or aren't), but the notion that a hypothetical Supreme Being who created the universe and rules it to this day has to make sense to you, or conform to your notion of morality and goodness is just weird. Yet lots of atheists say things like "I don't believe in God because the Bible says he's mean."

Nor, of course, is it a great idea to defy this hypothetical Allah on the grounds that you don't like his rules. My son gets time-outs as required (I'm sure he considers them arbitrary and cruel), and I don't think they're nearly as bad as eternity in hell.

One of our society's current fascinations is the question: "What would Jesus do?" I don;t believe I have ever seen that question asked with regard to abortion. I wonder why. Perhaps the answer is too painfuly obvious.

Roger Sweeny,

Let me jump in and help you, but from a different direction.

There is one issue on which Eurpoeans are vociferously pro-life, and that is capital punishment.

Ed Reid,

Would I be terribly out of line if I guessed, being a man, not get pregnant?

Nor, of course, is it a great idea to defy this hypothetical Allah on the grounds that you don't like his rules. My son gets time-outs as required (I'm sure he considers them arbitrary and cruel), and I don't think they're nearly as bad as eternity in hell.

The problem for me is that if I submit to Allah, according to the poster Mohammed's argument, I don't actually gain anything.

The argument is that if I don't submit to Allah I will be sent to hell for all eternity. This will make me miserable.

If I submitted to Allah I would therefore know that some people I dearly love are suffering in hell for all eternity, and for an incredibly unjust reason to me (yes, this may make sense to a Supreme Being, but I only have my human brain to work with). This would make me miserable.

So either way I'm miserable. Why should I bother following Allah's rules?

I think we have one of these fundamental disconnects Megan was talking about.

Well Tracy, I can't speak for Allah or any of that, but I know in my Christian faith, ultimate you will have to acknowledge that Jesus is indeed the Christ. This isn't to say that you'll be punished because Jesus will get angry if you don't believe in him or something. But rather you've been committing various faults and mistakes your entire life and if you want to have your imperfections covered by his atonement and have eternal life, then you'll have confess and believe in him. It's a very simple process. Just read the Bible with an earnest desire to know if its true (ie, not just one time or a passage or something, but for an ongoing period) Offer sincere prayer before and after doing so, a and see how you feel about things.

Millions of people have done this and their lives are better for it.

Jane/Meagan,

The thing that really annoys me about your abortion posts is that you seem to argue that the primary reason that women want to abort is to prevent interference with their career. Here's your statement on the pro-choice side:

" It is fair to say that there is quite a lot of reasoning from the result to the premise on both sides: people who think that it is of surpassing importance for women to take their place at the helm of half the world's institutions notice that this would be much more difficult in a world containing both frequent sex with people you don't intend to spawn with., and restricted access to abortion; they therefore reason that abortion must be moral. "

I must admit that I don't know a huge number of woman that have had an abortion. But for those few that I've had a discussion with, their future career prospects were never part of the equation. The woman I've known who have grappled with it have dealt with issues of whether they can care for a child (or just the pregnancy) adequately or not. Carrying a baby to term is no light matter. (Unlike you, I've had two kids - I have much greater respect for pregnancy than I did previously).

Furthermore, the numbers I've seen seem to suggest that it's the poor and underclass who take most use of abortion, not those seeking to become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Pregnancy is a grueling experience. You tend not to give you kid up easily afterward. Although adoption is always an option, it seems that few women go through delivery and are happy to give their kids up. Is society better off mandating that women who can barely support themselves bring an accidental pregnancy to term and, most likely, raise a child. Women with resources are just far less likely to be in this situation.

But my point is that I really don't think abortion is a "career convenience" debate, as you seem to imply.

(As an aside, the comment also seems to suggest that for women to succeeed, they must be willing to have promiscuous sex. I find this extremely offensive and I don't personally know any smart, educated gals seeking to take this route to success. And I doubt that you do either.)

Just read the Bible with an earnest desire to know if its true (ie, not just one time or a passage or something, but for an ongoing period) Offer sincere prayer before and after doing so, a and see how you feel about things.

I did. That's why I stopped being a Christian.

I know you're now going to claim I therefore wasn't actually sincere in my prayers. As I said, this is one of those fundamental disconnects Megan's talking about.

@Roger Sweeny

1) I don't know the exact statistics, but Kirk Parker has a point. I don't remember the actual wording, but ie. a recent Danish poll shoved that a majority of the Danes were not against the hanging of Saddam Hussein. I am quite sure that on a general level there's some level of disagreement between the public and the elected officials on these matters - however as these matters are rarely matters of public discussion, it is very difficult to conclude anything more specific.

2) To the degree that there might be a difference: History and culture probably has a lot to do with it. Hitler killed a lot of people, and I think many Germans still for this reason consider it a very bad idea to give the government the power to kill people, no matter what they might have done. The Hitler-link is an important part of the view that the death penalty is barbaric, as might be the link to DDR later on. You perhaps even want to go further back; the execution of Plato might also play some role here as well.

3) Even if many Americans consider the questions of abortion and capital punishment to be somewhat equivalent - and I can see now why one might hold such a view - I doubt many Europeans think that way. Most of them see the two problems as different problems with different answers. They associate the death penalty with the distant past of Hitler and totalitarian regimes in general, and they associate legal abortion with the emancipation of women and the 60'es and 70'es.

Of course, a somewhat simpler explanation could be put forth when considering some people on the left: They just associate the death penalty and the pro-life view relating to abortion with Bush and America in general, then not much else is needed to justify the pro-abortion, against DP position.

Carry the analogy further. Supposing it was YOU that had made that proof of fundamental evil, and aftter hearing the worst possible sentence pronounced against you, the judge steps off the bench, removes all vestments of authority, takes you by the hand and says, "You deserve every word I have decreed against you, but because I want you to see better days than these, I will now go pay your price. I will pay it whether you accept or not; but if you accept, then walk free on my behalf. And someday, I want you to rejoin me so we can talk more about this."

"Njorl,

Arguments like that are the reason I can't call myself pro-choice anymore.

"

Well that is the worst reason for changing one's position on anything that I have ever heard.

The point of the "zygote ward" comment was to illustrate that the "human life begins at conception" argument is fraudulent. Nobody mourns the 5-10 million zygotes per year that fail to implant. Ridiculing me for comparing a zygote to something that looks like a baby is ironic, as the point I was making is that at some time during pregnency, the entity in question stops being a clump of cells without rights and becomes a baby with rights.

We must draw a line somewhere. That line is NOT at conception. It isn't at implantation, or after a few cell divisions either. But merely looking like a baby is not a goood enough qualification either. It could have been possible that the fetus would be a thinking and feeling entity before it looks like a baby, in which case it would be immoral to abort it then. As it is, it does not become so until long after that. What something looks like is not a basis for deciding moral questions.

Nobody mourns the 5-10 million zygotes per year that fail to implant.

Few people mourn the passing of people they don't know.

But watch your "nobody" there --- infertile couples often do mourn the few zygotes per year that might fail to implant *for them,* for whatever reason.

Anyway, this isn't a rational argument for the innate okayness of abortion. Children die of cancer too. And people of all ages die unmourned every day.

About pro-lifers for the death penalty: Liberals miss the key distinction here. Pro-lifers are against killing the innocent. That's a huge difference from being unwilling to execute Saddam Hussein.

OTOH, it's remarkable how many pro-life conservatives will refuse to look at the evidence of a very badly flawed judicial system and consider that with all the mistakes that have been proven, we're bound to be executing some innocents where the real murderer wasn't so cooperative as to leave DNA or the cops didn't preserve it. Until you face up to that, calling yourself "pro-choice" is a lie.

(I'm all for executing those who are unquestionably guilty of many murders, e.g. Saddam Hussein, but we've got to fix the system before we can justifiably conduct executions in more typical cases. I don't consider a lump of cells with no higher brain functions to be a person, regardless of whether it carries human DNA. Early term abortions are therefore just fine with me; late term abortions are a different matter, but there are sometimes valid medical reasons, and I'd rather leave it up to women's individual consciences than to have government bureaucrats poking into medical decisions - but this should have been a legislative decision, not the Supreme Court's.)

I've already commented about "pro-choice", but for balance I'll repeat it: Pro-choicers are mostly liberals, and liberals want to tell me what kind of toilet I can put in my bathroom (one that saves water even though there's no shortage whatsoever around here), what kind of car I can drive(no SUVs), where I can smoke (even if the property owner wants to allow smoking), and what foods I eat (ten years ago trans-fats were good, now they're bad). It seems like abortion is the only choice left to me - except I don't have that either, since I'm the wrong gender.

Well that is the worst reason for changing one's position on anything that I have ever heard.

The fact that 1) I can't think of really good arguments in favor of my old position and 2) the ones others make are logically falicious (like yours) or morally reprehensible ("It's just a tumor") seems to me an excellent reason for changing my position.

The fact that someone does not "mourn" a completely unpreventable and natural occurrance is not an argument that they are wrong to consider an embryo human life, or to oppose the preventable and unnatural interference with it. At most you can show that such people do not rigidly adhere to their principles (and that's quite a stretch); that does not mean they are wrong so much as human themselves.

(As an aside, I don't consider an unimplanted embryo "life," and I don't oppose Plan B or in vitro fertilization.)

There's a typo in my last post. 2nd paragraph should read:

OTOH, it's remarkable how many pro-life conservatives will refuse to look at the evidence of a very badly flawed judicial system and consider that with all the mistakes that have been proven, we're bound to be executing some innocents where the real murderer wasn't so cooperative as to leave DNA or the cops didn't preserve it. Until you face up to that, calling yourself "pro-life" is a lie.

--Is society better off mandating that women who can barely support themselves bring an accidental pregnancy to term --

If it was "an" accidental pregnancy, that's 1 thing, it's those who have 4-5-6 "accidental" pregnancies which concern me.

"(As an aside, I don't consider an unimplanted embryo "life," and I don't oppose Plan B or in vitro fertilization.)"

So you're saying that your arbitrary decision as to when an entity is endowed with rights is OK, but that others' arbitrary decisions on that topic are not OK.

OTOH, it's remarkable how many pro-life conservatives will refuse to look at the evidence of a very badly flawed judicial system and consider that with all the mistakes that have been proven, we're bound to be executing some innocents where the real murderer wasn't so cooperative as to leave DNA or the cops didn't preserve it. Until you face up to that, calling yourself "pro-life" is a lie.

We lock up innocent people every day. Does that mean everyone who supports a legal system that occassionally makes mistakes is lying when they claim to support the right to liberty?

So you're saying that your arbitrary decision as to when an entity is endowed with rights is OK, but that others' arbitrary decisions on that topic are not OK.

Excellent point, but I believe that it strengthens the pro-life position. It is the only non-arbitrary position available. You can always include or exclude more people from the social contract, Peter Singer can debate other utilitarians about whether cows have enough consciousness to deserve ethical protections, but an unalienable right to life for all human beings is non-arbitrary. It reduces to a scientific criteria: is it (a) alive, and (b) a disctinct organism of the species Homo sapiens.

So you're saying that your arbitrary decision as to when an entity is endowed with rights is OK, but that others' arbitrary decisions on that topic are not OK.

This gets stranger and stranger. I have said nothing of the sort and I am at a loss to see how you get that out of my posts. Indeed, I have implied the opposite by defending those who believe life begins at conception--a view with which I disagree. Draw the line wherever you wish; it will be arbitrary at some level no matter what.

But please don't tell someone he's wrong because, in your view, he is logically inconsistent. You might well be mistaken about the alleged inconsistency, and even if it is proven, it doesn't prove that the belief is wrong.

"It is the only non-arbitrary position available. "

No actually, it is not. For most of history we accepted birth as the beginning of life. That would not be an arbitrary point to grant rights.

However, neither I nor most prochoice people want to draw the line there either. I see no reason why we can not be arbitrary.

The only workable situation is an arbitrary decision as to when the developing fetus has rights, followed by legal arguments as to whose rights will be honored when they are mutually exclusive.

Bill Dalasio,

You are a master of the obvious. Kudos. However, you don't win anything as a result of your brilliant observation. Your self satisfaction will have to be sufficient. Bask in it at your leisure.

"But please don't tell someone he's wrong because, in your view, he is logically inconsistent. You might well be mistaken about the alleged inconsistency, and even if it is proven, it doesn't prove that the belief is wrong."

You might as well just say, "Shut up!"

If I believe there is a logical inconsistancy in someone's argument, and that they may be reaching a wrong conclusion because of it, it is perfectly reasonable for me to attempt to make my case to show it. The fact that I might be wrong should be born out in the process of discussion, it should not intimidate me from entering said discussion.

If their conclusion will be the same regardless of the logical consistancy of their arguments, it shows their belief for what it is.

Njorl,

You didn't point out a logical inconsistency in the argument. You pointed out an alleged logical inconsistency in behavior. It's a very different thing.

Many people don't do what their principles seem to suggest they should. That doesn't make their principles wrong.

Justin: "Does that mean everyone who supports a legal system that occassionally makes mistakes is lying when they claim to support the right to liberty?"

That depends: Are you trying to do something about it? Or are you with the crowd that practically has to see a videotape to believe that a cop or a prosecutor has done wrong?

"Many people don't do what their principles seem to suggest they should. That doesn't make their principles wrong. "

It makes them not their principles. It's just that they don't know it.

Or it makes them not perfect with high ideals. I've got nothing wrong with someone striving to live up to high ideals and not making it as long as they recognize that and continually aim for the goal.

This is the real world we're talking about not theory.

It's pretty damn easy to live down to "if it feels good do it as long as you're not physically beating someone in the head with a sledgehammer". The problem with the if it feels good crowd is they are hurting themselves and those they are close to in ways they don't even realize.

"Pro-choice" people (i.e., those who "choose" to kill living human beings in the womb) will simply breed themselves out of the human gene pool. It is a symptom of gross but self-annihilating social decadance.

Nature will curtail this wanton evil in time.

The abortion debate is too complicated for my puny brain to handle so I've decided to support whichever side that wins (i.e. the most popular)!

"Pro-choice" people (i.e., those who "choose" to kill living human beings in the womb)

Assuming that everyone who is "pro-choice" has actually gotten an abortion is a little like assuming that everyone who supported the Iraq war is not only over there serving, but also enthusiastically in favor of the civil war.

If you mean 'people who have gotten an abortion' then say 'people who have gotten an aboriton.' Though I'm not convinced that such people have fewer children over their lifetimes on average.

Njorl, I'd venture that even waaaaay back in time, people were aware that the thing moving around inside a mother's uterus was alive, and I'd further conjecture that they assumed it was human, from the time of quickening. They just couldn't do much about it, pro- or con-. Furthermore, there've been (and still are, I understand) societies in which it was (is) acceptable to "abort" an unequivocally actual - that is, born and unconnected to the mother's body - child because it's the wrong gender, it has an obvious birth defect, etc.

We're not those societies, and we're not pre-scientific either. I have to say I agree with Justin that the only non-arbitrary point at which to decide when a zygote is "human" is at conception. It's not a satisfactory point for a lot of people, myself included; I have an IUD, which makes me choose my point-of-humanity at implantation rather than conception. But my principles dictate that if a fertilized egg in my body manages to overcome the odds against it and implant, out comes the IUD and we have Child #4. Because of the potential for birth control failure and the potential consequences of making all abortions illegal, I reluctantly support first-trimester abortions - but I will not have one. Am I untrue to my principles? Is it required that I judge everyone by my own yardstick? An actual legislative process would make it a lot easier for me to live with the compromise we tacitly have.

"Zygote?" "Principles?" "Point-of-Humanity?" "IUD?" Damn. Big words too many. Me confused. How about: if it don't look human, it ain't human? Simple and to the point.

mr.SoftyHead,

Simple, but unacceptable if the converse were also true. Too restrictive of late-term abortions and beyond the pale regarding partial birth abortions. Get with the pogram (sp.).

(Haha, at first I thought you meant "pogrom." Silly me.)

But... the converse isn't true.

I miss your point. Please clarify more.

Damn it. You confused me. Of course the converse is true. "If it ain't human, chances are it won't look human." Who disagrees with that?

And what's unacceptable about it? I miss your point. Please clarify more.

But Jane, the world IS all about me.

"How about: if it don't look human, it ain't human? Simple and to the point."

The converse: if it does looks human, it is human.

Try to sell that "simple" concept to the staunch advocates of late term and partial birth abortions. Should be fun to watch!

Christina Page, 'How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America',wrote that book about how anti-abortion protesters were really antisex protesters and did everything they could to sabotage birth control access, cervical cancer vaccines, welfare for teenage mothers, etc.
I know these people. Mom is one of them, which is one reason I have four brothers and five sisters.
I wonder if that's why it took me eighteen months to get my health insurance provider to give me the vasectomy I asked for, that was covered by my insurance? I mean, I'm fifty, right? If I think my DNA has degraded over time and I shouldn't have children, why should it be so difficult to schedule a half hour outpatient procedure?

Ed, that's not the "converse." The converse of IF P->Q is IF Q->P.

My point is that the whole abortion debate is a giant intellectual mess that grows in ever-increasing circles of stupidity. So F*%& it all. We should just go by our gut instincts because that's the most "honest" thing we can go by.

Comments are Closed.