Asymmetrical Information

Or one could blame Roe v. Wade, a fairly comprehensive destruction of the right of the states and the people to make their own individual decisions on these matters. Polarization, it seems to me, is greatest in the place where the rules are farthest removed from the people affected by them. Left to themselves, the states would do all sorts of things, some of them very different from current standards, but then, that used to be the idea.

It has to be pointed out that if Roe v. Wade was struck down, it is for all practical purposes impossible that any state could enact abortion laws FARTHER to the pro-choice position than currently exists. On what other issue have things been decided so incredibly far to one side, and imposed on everyone everywhere simultaneously and without recourse? Think this might have something to do with the polarization of the issue?

The founder of the American Birth Control League, which became Planned Parenthood, was Margaret Sanger. Among other things, Sanger was a noted eugenics advocate.

Lesson? First, one should look both ways before crossing the opponents of a current position. At the same time, the alleged slippery slope the "pro-life groups...want to shove us all down" is highly Escheresque -- to traverse it the other direction is to find a land where a human life no longer has any intrinsic value or rights.

Maybe we should label everyone pro-abortion and anti-abortion, since that's what the debate is really about.

Or one could blame Roe v. Wade, a fairly comprehensive destruction of the right of the ... people to make their own individual decisions on these matters."

substitute "creation" for "destruction" and this would be correct.

(This is my first-ever post to a blog. I find it ironic that I'm losing my "maidenhood" on an abortion topic). Anyway ...
I found #3: ..."moderate pro-life group..." not quite the oxymoron it appears. I recall reading someone whose perspective on abortion focused on the other end of life -- generally conceded as when the heart stops and there is no brain activity.

To my mind, then, the burden of proof is on the "pro-lifers" prior to brain-activity and heartbeat ... and the burden on the "pro-choice" after brain activity and heart beat occurs. Personally, I think the "pro-choicers" deserve more wiggle room than that. But I think this starts to move towards a "moderate" position, don't you?

Francis,

Roe v. Wade took from the states the ability to regulate abortion before viability. In that sense, it "destroyed" the right of the states to make choices about how it will regard pre-birth human life. Your claim is that it simultaneously "created" a right for women. That's very clever, but there is no reason that Roe v. Wade cannot be (or should not be) understood to do both at once.

Also, your glib rejoinder probably isn't going to help with the problem that Megan's talking about regarding the perception an advocate has of the "other side."

But "pro-life" is a nasty bit of question-begging, designed to imply that those who are for choice on abortion are "anti-life."

I'm very pro-choice and I can't get over how ridiculous that seems. This is an old point that I've seen many times, but even if that statement were irrefutable then the same logic implies "pro-choice" is also a nasty bit of question-begging, designed to imply that those who are for life on abortion are "anti-choice". His claim that the pro-life label is reactionary is pretty debatable, but even if it's true then the pro-choice label is equally so.

I was also pretty surprised by: our traditional form of government (with the Congress having primacy among three branches of government including an independent judiciary). Here I'd always thought our traditional form of government was with three coequal branches of government, each having primacy in the areas assigned to them by the constitution. If believing Congress has no more or less power than the Executive or Judiciary makes someone a radical reactionary then Civics class is wingnut propaganda.

Maybe we should label everyone pro-abortion and anti-abortion, since that's what the debate is really about.

Maybe we should label everyone pro-abortion and anti-abortion, since that's what the debate is really about.

I'm not sure that's any better. I'm pro-choice, but I sure wouldn't charactarize my position as pro-abortion. Pro-right-to make-your-own-medical-decisions-even-if-they-may-be-regrettable or anti-government-imposing-one-religious-viewpoint-on-everyone would be pretty awkward though.

"More to the point, many pro-choice leaders are, at least from the moderate position, equally awful"

OK, Let's trade awfulness stories. I'll go first.

Here's a blurb posted on http://www.armyofgod.com/

"Paul Hill-American Hero"

As you'll recall, Hill is the guy who was executed for the murder of an abortion provider and his bodyguard.

Your turn.

I know this may seem odd, but I'm completely disgusted by abortion. Particularly any kind of abortion that occurs once the baby has a heart beat. I had my first baby a 10 months ago, and this cemented my belief even more so. If I think too much about abortion and the wide scale of its practice, I'm on the verge of breaking down into tears.

That being said, my teary eyes aren't a reason for us to make policy decisions.

I think people who would murder an abortion doctor are wrong. But at the same time I can see in a strange way where they are coming from. If some guy across the street was hacking little kids with a machete, you can be certain I would put that guy down as fast as it would take me to grab my shotgun from under the bed and load in a few shells. I would not care if the law said I was wrong. If I was protecting some kid from being killed I'd do it, even though the thought of taking another life is very terrible to me.

It may be uncomfortable for me to admit, but I can see where someone could be driven to kill a doctor who aborts infants solely because the mother didn't want to be inconvienced. I don't agree with them and I think they are wrong for doing so, but what they are doing comes close to the situation I described above with my fictious neighbor. Thoughts?

As you'll recall, Hill is the guy who was executed for the murder of an abortion provider and his bodyguard. Your turn.

Antonio: as someone indicated above, Margaret Sanger was a well-known proponent of eugenics. That's pretty awful, but is not inconsistent with abortion's frequent association with various types of population control (e.g. China).

Gabriel: well yes, my comment was glib. but the comment I was commenting on was not only dumb but wrong. If Roe had gone the other way and upheld the power of states to regulate pregnancy, that ruling would have necessarily interfered with INDIVIDUAL decision making.

Jane: pro-choice is accurate shorthand for my position. but until the pro-life movement shows a fraction of the interest in IVF as it does to preventing women from terminating pregnancies, "pro-life" is not accurate.

Your turn.

OK. Meet Dr. Egherman who had a patient who changed her mind about getting an abortion while she was being dilated in preparation for the procedure. Dr. Egherman called in assistants and had them restrain the woman while he finished dilating her and then began the abortion all while she continually demanded to be released and screamed at him to stop the abortion. Dr. Egherman then botched the procedure and tore out a piece of the woman's intestine. Finally, Dr. Egherman instructed the ambulace bringing the woman to the ER to drive slowly without lights and sirens so the other patients wouldn't be disturbed.

Megan's right. There's awfulness galore on both sides.

Jane: pro-choice is accurate shorthand for my position. but until the pro-life movement shows a fraction of the interest in IVF as it does to preventing women from terminating pregnancies, "pro-life" is not accurate.

Until the pro-choice movement comes out against any taxpayer funding of abortion, “pro-choice” is not accurate.

Until the pro-choice movement comes out against any taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, “pro-choice” is not accurate.

Until the pro-choice movement comes out against any laws forcing pharmacists to provide birth control, “pro-choice” is not accurate.

Well that was fun.

Jane - maternal rights is too broad

No pun intended?

Maybe we should label everyone pro-abortion and anti-abortion, since that's what the debate is really about.

I am pro choice. I am anti-abortion (except in cases of rape or incest.) "Pro-abortion" has come to describe folks who actively advocate the procedure.

I can see where someone could be driven to kill a doctor who aborts infants solely because the mother didn't want to be inconvienced.

How would a person go about getting reliable evidence on why someone got an abortion? I've had an acquaintence get harrassed for getting a pap-smear at planned parenthood. Some folks seem to think the place is just a code word for "Abortions-R-Us" and are willing to act on that information.

Jane - maternal rights is too broad

No pun intended?

Maybe we should label everyone pro-abortion and anti-abortion, since that's what the debate is really about.

I am pro choice. I am anti-abortion (except in cases of rape or incest.) "Pro-abortion" has come to describe folks who actively advocate the procedure.

I can see where someone could be driven to kill a doctor who aborts infants solely because the mother didn't want to be inconvienced.

How would a person go about getting reliable evidence on why someone got an abortion? I've had an acquaintence get harrassed for getting a pap-smear at planned parenthood. Some folks seem to think the place is just a code word for "Abortions-R-Us" and are willing to act on that information.

I think it's pretty certain that in the absence of abortion "rights" created ex nihilo by the Supremes, most states would more or less have abortion laws that read "prohibited after the first trimester except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is threatened". This is where all the polling data puts the majority of the population. It is the point closest to "you choose to have sex, you're not going to be able to kill an embryonic person to escape the consequences - but if you DIDN'T choose (you were coerced), you retain the choice even if you get pregnant."

What we have instead is "abortion is okay all the time, with some restrictions in the third trimester in a couple of states". How could this NOT cause conflict? If a pro-lifer wants to argue that in his opinion God forbids the taking of any life, he can do this about the death penalty, where we have all sorts of different laws in different states, but not about abortion, because we have one, sweeping, towering (and apparently sacred) law made by nine unelected lawyers.

So we have a 1-0 equation where everyone is driven to defend an absolute because shades of opinion are irrelevant and consensus is absolutely impossible. And will be until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

CDub, I also have sympathy for murderers- in my case, I have sympathy for murderous crack addicts. Most of them were born in the ghetto, never had two parents, had no good role models, got addicted to crack, and then murdered somebody for it. A very unfortunate and sad story. With the right environment and a bit of luck they might have done something with their life.

But that doesn't change the fact that they MURDERED somebody. People who murder belong in jail. Simple as that.

"But that doesn't change the fact that they MURDERED somebody. People who murder belong in jail. Simple as that."

Except that what you're forgetting is that if pro-lifers consider a fetus a person, abortion is basically infanticide--i.e. murder.

I'm pro-life, but I fully agree with Hill's execution. I think that abortion is a moral horror that future generations will look at the way we look at slavery, but I *don't* think that killing people in the streets is the way to solve the problem.

(Yes, I'm leaving out a whole lot of detail. I guess I'm willing to acquiesce in the first trimester, and maybe could be convinced about the second trimester about a fetus' "personhood." And no, I don't think that people who currently perform abortions should be in jail. It's legal when they do it now (unfortunately)--ex post facto and all that)

"Pro-choice" is an inaccurate label because it's too vague. Yeah, I'm pro-choice -- I believe that we should generally be able to make autonomous decisions about our lives as part of living in a democratic rather than totalitarian society. But "choice" ends where it harms other people. How about: instead of "I'm pro-choice", "I support abortion rights." It's not any more cumbersome, is it?

"Anti-abortion" vs. "pro-life" is trickier. Many people would dispute the "anti-abortion" label because they are concerned about other related issues such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, etc.. National Right to Life was very active in the whole Terri Schiavo thing, which was hardly an abortion issue. But "pro-life" is too vague; "right to life" is a label that makes more sense because it's clear that it's not a warm-and-fuzzy feeling but a question of legal rights, and these issues all fall into the same general category of whether human life is sacrosant or disposible in some circumstances.

"Pro-choice" is an inaccurate label because it's too vague. Yeah, I'm pro-choice -- I believe that we should generally be able to make autonomous decisions about our lives as part of living in a democratic rather than totalitarian society. But "choice" ends where it harms other people. How about: instead of "I'm pro-choice", "I support abortion rights." It's not any more cumbersome, is it?

"Anti-abortion" vs. "pro-life" is trickier. Many people would dispute the "anti-abortion" label because they are concerned about other related issues such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, etc.. National Right to Life was very active in the whole Terri Schiavo thing, which was hardly an abortion issue. But "pro-life" is too vague; "right to life" is a label that makes more sense because it's clear that it's not a warm-and-fuzzy feeling but a question of legal rights, and these issues all fall into the same general category of whether human life is sacrosant or disposible in some circumstances.

Mark Kleiman is quick to assign labels, usually nasty ones, to people he disagrees with.

I am a reluctant supporter of allowing abortion. I think Roe-Wade was a disgraceful decision. It doesn't matter what I think because I am a foreigner. Come to think of it, it doesn't matter what you think either because the Supreme Court has decided to rule you on this matter according to its whims.

I don't think Kleinman has the right to call himself a liberal because he "mixes liberalism on some issues with" coercion and unequal treatment under the law on others, doesn't really respect property rights, or the right of people to trade with whom they wish.

Wow, that was a lot of fun.

My puzzlement is devoted to Kleiman's assertion that Congress has, up until the current "radical reactionaries" (the hell?) been the "primary" branch of government.

The idea that the Legislative branch is necessarily the primary in a republican system is uncontested (Federalist 51 etc.); I just don't see that that's actually changed, and done so since 2000 and not earlier, if it has.

(Also, I'm tempted to be shocked that people read Kleiman, precisely because he's so weird and un-supported in his assertions, but that's just me.)

The problem with the label "pro-choice" is that many (most?) "pro-lifers" agree that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to risk getting pregnant (i.e. they support access to birth control and do not support rape). What they do not support is the woman's right to change her mind after having created what very well might be a human life.

Thus, the issue isn't about choice, it's about living with one's choices.

I always say I'm pro-legalized-abortion. That way it's clear that I think abortion should be allowed even if I may dislike the practice.

Simply put, I don't believe it's possible to scientifically or rationally pinpoint an exact moment inside the womb when the entitiy has the most basic right of life. Therefore the federal government, of all things, should not be making wide-sweeping laws either way from an essentially emotional judgement call.

Personally, once you get into the third trimester and the point of possible viability I become very uncomfortable with abortion except in extremely rare circumstances. Of course, these abortions happen so infrequently as to really make it a non-issue in any practical sense. I'm also uncomfortable with equating a newly fertilized egg to a real, human life.

So I guess I'm about as moderate as one can get on this subject. Consequently, I try to avoid discussing it in public, lest I have the rabid pro-lifers and pro-choicers screeching at me.

Stretch,

I find it intersting how abortion supports so frequently state, "Abortion in 3rd trimester is bad..." and then go on to say it practically never happens anyway, and THEN go on to argue and fight and claw and weep and gnash whenever someone tries to pass a law curtailing the so-called "right" to an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

If you're against it and it rarely, almost never happens, why not ban it? Or at least make it only possibile to get one when a doctor says the mother and/or child will die if the baby is brought to term.

Destroying an infant in the womb because: it's expensive, not conducive to your lifestyle, may cause physical or future discomfort, maye have some slight chance of damaging your body; is absolutely reprehensible. Why? Because presumibly in the case of non-rape, you made the choice to have sex, which carries the risk of: disease, death, emotional distress and depression, and a variety of other potential downfalls (plus plenty of positives too). You made the choice. Accept the consequence and stop destroying life to get around the consequences of your actions.

Do most people who consider themselves pro-life think that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape? This always struck me as a strange argument.

If a woman who did not choose to have sex has a fetus inside her, its ok to abort the fetus.

But if a woman who chooses to have sex gets pregnant, its not ok to abort that same fetus.

If one truly honestly believes that an embryo/fetus is life, then it is never ok to kill it, no matter how it got there. It's either life always, or its not. Otherwise, we are saying its ok to end life in certain circumstances. If its ok to kill a fetus after a rape, then there could conceivably be other circumstances where it is ok.
To me, this makes it seem like pro-life folks are more against sex. Legal abortion allows people to have all kinds of consequence-less pre-marital sex while making abortion illegal would presumably discourage this.

I am not trying to make generalizations (though I suppose I am) but it just seems like being anti-sex-outside-of-marriage and being pro-life are very much linked.

hmmm,

You want to ban abortion in the 3rd trimester? I've really got no problem with that. From a moral standpoint, I think it's the right thing to do and you won't hear me fight against it.

I'd say the vast majority of pro-choicers believe that there is a great difference between a fetus in the last stages of gestation and an embryo in the very first. They fight so hard against it because they think it's a slippery slope. From a pro-life perspective it seems to me that the only reason to argue so vehemently against abortion specifically in the 3rd trimester is to create a deadline that they can then continue to push back to zero and a total ban. After all, if from the moment of conception a zygote has the same right-to-life as a new-born infant, then why else would they waste their time trying to ban just %.01 of all unborn murders? And if the pro-choicers didn't think that banning late-term abortions wouldn't lead to a total ban, why else would they waste their time trying to prevent a ban on %.01 of all feminine choices?

I bring up the infrequency of such cases because I believe that this precise debate inflames the illogical all-or-nothing mentality on both sides. Of course, both sides will tell me there's nothing illogical in their positions. At least the pro-life side has the godstopper to fall back on.

I simply don't think that there is a moral or logical equivalency between a 3 week embryo and a 30 week fetus. I don't think there's any equivalency between a day old zygote and a day old infant. And I certainly don't beleive that the degree of difference or sameness can be adequately decided by the federal government.

In all honesty, would this debate be anywhere near as furious if it weren't for Roe v Wade? Or for that matter, if it wasn't such a neat split to show the "difference" between our one and a half parties?

Now you see why I don't like to talk about the subject.

The government has to draw the line somewhere every single day. Speed limit. Why not 80 instead of 75?

Taxes, why not 26% instead of 25%?

Firearms, this one is ok, this one is not.

I'm sure the gov. does the same with certain health issues (you can have this drug for this reason, not for this reason).

So I see no problem with them drawing a line. If someone wants to use that line to push it back, that's their choice, but you can also push back. Just like people use any kind of regulation on firearms to bring about more regulations. I'm not saying that's ideal, but that's life. People have agendas.

The difference is one agenda is killing life that looks very much like a baby at certain stages. Babys that move, and poke and kick, and even appear to show fear (moving to one side of the stomach if a loud noise is heard).

And Meredith, as far as I'm concerned if someone is raped and actually comes to terms with it and brings that child into the world I have an astounding amount of respect for them. I would generally encourage that route if possible, but I could see where it would be unbearable. At the least I would like to see the child put up for adoption. Most rape exemptions I see usually comes from people not wanting to be portraited as complete monsters by "other side" who will claim that big bad George Bush wants people to get raped and then have to raise a child or endure a pregnancy as further punishment.

I will say that we make exceptions all the time. It's ok for a police offer or soldier to kill sometimes. Many times, we allow that soldier to kill based solely on our desire to protect our national interests...ie jobs and money. Unfortunatley life sometimes requires that. Just like sometimes you can make an exception and allow a person who was just had a terrible act committed against them make another terrible decision. I still think its a terrible decision and I'd suggest they not make it, but that's the way it is sometimes.

Meredith -

"Otherwise, we are saying its ok to end life in certain circumstances."

We say that about murder - bad in general, but accepted in self-defense. I don't think that it's inconsistent to argue that:

1) we're not sure when life begins;

2) thus, it might begin at conception;

3) if a woman knowingly and deliberately chooses to engage in an activity that might lead to creating a human life, she accepts a certain obligation;

4) if something was done to her, without her consent, then the obligation is not as great.

It's not that such a pro-lifer would be excited or happy about abortion even after a rape, just as hopefully people generally aren't happy to see someone murdered even in self-defense. But, if we're not sure whether abortion is murder or not, and if the woman had no choice in the matter, then we're weighing the possible damage to the fetus against the damage that has been done to the woman against her will. Whereas if she chose to put herself in that position, one might feel that she has less right later to inflict possible harm on another person in order to get out of a situation that she created.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think. I don't see how anyone can be sure, one way or another, about when life begins. Thus for me, the question is one of weighing potential harms, and the person who chose the situation should bear more responsibility than an innocent bystander. When there are two innocent bystanders (the fetus and the raped woman), what can we do?

It's not a common word, but how about "anamaternal rights"?

The difference is one agenda is killing life that looks very much like a baby at certain stages. Babys that move, and poke and kick, and even appear to show fear (moving to one side of the stomach if a loud noise is heard).

To use your words, yes, "at certain stages" a late stage embryo or, really, a fetus shows those signs. Maybe I misread you, hmmm, but a zygote or a blastocyst never shows such actions. Even embryos only show it somewhat late into their developement/transformation. I won't call for policy on it, but I'm even amenable (though not totally persuaded by) to the heart+brain argument which occurs at pretty much at that division between embryo and fetus.

I think a more potent argument revolves around viability, which is fortunately nebulous enough to satisfy both sides.

And Ann, your bullet point logic is impeccable except that you offer no logic as to why life begins at conception. To use your logic:

Thus it might begin at week 0, 10, or 20.

Sorry, but that's not a recipe for good government. Ultimately either the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/infant are equivalent or they're not. If they are the same, then even rape can't change the fact that an innocent life hangs in the balance. If they aren't the same then maybe you could draw a line somewhere. The question is where do you draw the line?

And, hmmm, I agree with you that the gov draws lines in a lot of grey areas. That doesn't make it right or even accurate.

It's not about choice and it's not about life, it's about responsibility. The real question is: what responsibility does a woman have to collection-of-cells/potential-baby-to-be?

Again, the government can never answer that dichotomy...even though they already have.

There really isn't any sizable opposition to laws banning late-term abortion in most states. They are already on the books. Where the controversy comes in is when pro-life groups start sniping at the exceptions. Most states offer exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. Recently, groups in some states sought to change the laws to eliminate some of those protections. Most common are attempts to eliminate exceptions protecting the health of the mother.

While some advocates of these measures are likely sincere, I'm sure quite a few are not. These attempts are grist for the political mill. They allow those who defend the rights of women to guard their own health to be painted as supporting unrestricted rights to late term abortions.

Comments are Closed.