August 3, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Julian has a good post on the eugenics debate:
But leaving that aside, it's important to recognize that the "eugenic" tag is supposed to constitute an independent reason to be hostile to abortion. If we all agree abortion is murder, then whether it has any eugenic aspects is almost ludicrously beside the point: The problem is it's murder. The point of invoking eugenics is to establish something else questionable about this practice, given moral disagreement about whether it constitutes murder. (Even for those who think it does, that it's "eugenic" is supposed to make it especially bad.) This is why Ross keeps linking things like this Michael Sandel essay, which attacks the goal of "perfecting" human beings, whether or not it entails any coercion.
I think, though, that part of the problem with these debates is that they're usually held by people like Ross and Julian, who embody fairly extreme opposite ends of the spectrum of beliefs about fetal life & rights. But they're warring for the hearts and minds of people like me, who are a lot fuzzier.
My thoughts are a little ragged here, but here goes: most people are against aborting healthy fetuses. Most people are in favour of aborting fetuses that have certain kinds of birth defects, primarily those that affect the head, nervous system and brain, or impose early fatality. That's because most people don't think of the cognitively disabled as fully human. Most people don't care as much about what happens to the retarded as they do about what happens to cognitively normal people.
Ross wants them to think of those people, or potential people, as fully human. That's the eugenics thing: there is a group of people who aren't really people, so it's okay to make them not happen.
This is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate as it happens on policy blogs, because Julian would happily let you abort a fetus because it might never learn to play the piano, while Ross wouldn't let you abort it if it were going to die three seconds after birth. I mean, if they were in charge, which they're not.
So Ross is having a debate with the pro-choice intellectual establishment, who aren't eugenicists; they've put all fetuses, healthy or no, into the class of "not people", so eugenics is beside the point. But it seems to me that he may really be aiming at the fuzzy, unintellectual people like me who make these decisions in a haze of half-explored intuitions. And who may be, in some large number, sharing an intuition that drove the eugenics movement, which is that some kind of disabilities render a creature with homo sapiens genes less than full "people". At least, until they are born, at which point evolutionary psychology and the cultural legacy of the Catholic Church's very successful crusade against infanticide keep us from getting rid of them.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 3, 2007 4:12 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"That's because most people don't think of the cognitively disabled as fully human." -Jane
er, Jane, you are certainly throwing those "most people" weasel words around without care...
I think you might find that nothing of the sort is true...
you could always take on the what is it to be human/when are we human question, maybe give us an opinion on that.
but don't use the "most people" I'd like to believe that fallacy is beneath you.
I'd just like to say I find your analysis of the points raised by either side of the debate to be quite refreshing. It's unusual to find such in this debate, although it likely makes you few friends.
(The ability to rationally analyze arguments in an emotionally charged argument often makes one disliked by either side. It seems an unspoken assumption that if you are not emotionally moved beyond rationality by one side or the other, you are devoid of humanity.)
The basic problem with Julian's "If abortion is murder, eugenics doesn't matter" tenent is that we don't even treat the murder of adults in that fashion. Intent and motivation do matter, and our laws are codified around that philosophy. If I plan out someone's untimely death over the course of the next week and execute, the jurisprudence of the land will hold me considerably more guilty for my actions than if, during a heated argument in the conservatory, I happen to grab and available candlestick and strike the person down. And if my negligence results in a death, the charge will probably be reduced to manslaughter. (And this doesn't even get into all of the peripheral factors that can enhance guilt, such as gross negligence, mallice, torture, etc.)
End result? Nominally the same; the person is dead. But the law says, and I dare say most people (sorry, "D", but sometimes it's a useful expression) would agree, that the premediated murder is the more guilty one and the negligent killing was the least guilty of the three.
An abortion performed because the mother will die, does not trigger the same reaction as an abortion performed for convenience; and an abortion performed because of superficial judgements on worth begin to stray perilously close to hate-crime territory.
Also interesting is that in all of our laws on murder, child killers tend to get the shortest end of any possible stick.
Jane, I love you, but I take issue with a couple of your points. Like the person up there noticed, "most people don't think of the cognitively disabled as fully human" seems fishy. Maybe you'd talked to a bunch of people about this, and most of them had that sentiment, and I should shut my big mouth. But in my case, it's not true. I think the cognitively disabled are fully human; just not fully capable of enjoying life like a normal person.
And your next sentence, "Most people don't care as much about what happens to the retarded as they do about what happens to cognitively normal people," raised my hackles, too. Again, maybe most people you've talked to about this have those feelings, and I'd never argue that I should be lumped into a category with a name like "most people," but I disagree. I do care about what happens to the cognitively disabled. I want them to be happy and enjoy life as best they can. I care if they don't enjoy life, and I care if they're mistreated. I think about it a lot whenever I'm in the presence of people with disabilities. It brings me down. That's why I'm in favor of aborting them.
Sorry, Jane, but that "most people" was an overly broad statement. I, for one, commend you one stating your feelings so forthrightly. I think if we were to limit the "not a person" argument to severe cases like the "Pillow Angel" or other near-vegetables, you might have something. But walking, talking downs people tend to be regarded as people, in my observation.
anony-mouse tries to draw an analogy between the shades of homicide and rationales for abortion, but it's not particularly apt to my eyes because there's a difference between intent and motive.
Once you believe that terminating a pregnancy constitutes the taking of a life, then there's really no place you can go: it's premeditated murder. You can't have an abortion in the heat of the moment. I suppose you can kill a fetus negligently, but not at a PP clinic.
Once the charge is murder, the law generally doesn't care what the motive is. He's sleeping with your wife, you want the insurance money, she ran over your dog, it doesn't matter. You can try to convince a judge to be more lenient, but it doesn't change the actual charge. There are some exceptions (murder for hire, hate crimes*) but by and large, murder is murder isn't it?
* I would argue that the equal protection clause should kick in here and void those exceptions, but what do I know.
I think the "Catholic church" ascription is a little off: the early Christian church distinguished itself from its pagan neighbors by, inter alia, its opposition to infanticide, but this battle was fought and won long before 1054, much less 1517. You should really substitute "Christianity" for "the Catholic church."
Most of the people I know have very fuzzy feelings about this subject, few of them particularly warm. The true believers on either side are convinced, of course, that most people agree with them and so they strenuously object when anyone dares to say that this is not a black-and-white issue to most people but one with infinite shades of gray. I tend to beieve that the truth is most people don't really want to think about it at all, wishing it would go away. Soon.
I must admit I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the point of this "debate." People tell me I have some problem relating to forests and trees.
I think it started out as whether or not selective abortion constitutes eugenics. But it seems to have morphed into a discussion of whether or not selective abortion is worse than other kinds. My conclusion is that it may be "worse" or "better" to some people but in the end it doesn't matter at all because there's nothing you can do about it. Seems to me that there are the following possible opinions:
1) All abortion is murder but selective abortion is worse. Really? What's worse than murder? See post above for discussion. I don't buy it.
2) Abortion is murder, period. Perfectly self-consistent. I disagree, but that's not the battle at hand.
3) Convenience / birth control abortions are bad, but if abortions to spare a lifetime of disability of a child then it's less bad. Has anyone stepped forward to explicitly make this argument? Q: How does one distinguish between doing it for the child and doing it for the parents? Does it make a difference? See above for intent vs. motive discussion.
4) Abortion is generally OK, but selective abortions are bad. I'm pretty sure nobody has made this argument, but I can never tell. I'd *really* like to hear an unambiguous voicing of this one. Q: could a law preventing this be enforcible in any way? The only way I see to do it is to ban screening. But I don't see how any law restricting knowledge of one's own person could possibly be constitutional.
5) Abortion is generally OK, and selective abortion is not an exception. This happens to be my position. Once you've concluded that an N-week fetus is not a person, then the means are the same and the ends are the same, so what difference does it make? I think it's the position of people making the "selective abortion is not eugenics" argument, which confuses me because I can never tell if they're trying to counter the first part of argument (3) [which is beside the point] or the second part of argument (4) [which doesn't seem to actually have been made by anyone]. Or is it just a proxy war with (1) and (2)? I also think it's a losing game to do battle against position (2) because that will be a stalemate or (1) because that's just (2) but with even more loaded emotional content.
Sorry for boring anyone with my arboreal taxonomy.
Once you believe that terminating a pregnancy constitutes the taking of a life, then there's really no place you can go: it's premeditated murder. You can't have an abortion in the heat of the moment. I suppose you can kill a fetus negligently, but not at a PP clinic.
Striking a woman such that she miscarries can be, and AFAIK has been, prosecuted as manslaughter.
Where the legal aspects of this get utterly confused is that the woman can, up until the moment of birth, induce the same effect voluntarily and it's purely a choice issue.
The last time Gallup issued polling on abortion a few years ago, the results tallied up at something like four-fifths of the population supporting some level of abortion and one-fifth utterly opposed, but only one-fifth of the supporters agreeing with the any-time-any-reason formulation we presently have under Roe precedent. The other three-fifths were amneable to restrictions by degrees; life-of-mother and some extenuating health reasons were widely support while third-trimester abortion rights lost most of the audience.
This suggests to me that the majority of opinions on the matter do recognize some human life component to the unborn, just not the full rights associated with a born child. So, it's not entirely surprising that the eugenics argument -- "you have no right to exist because I judge you to be an imperfect individual" -- tends to raise a fair bit of revulsion. Only about 1/5 of the population believes in an unconditional individual right to make the decision.
Dave B., it ain't often you hear someone say that they favor aborting fetuses with defects because the speaker has his mellow harshed when in the presence of people born with such defects, so I'll acknowledge your honesty. If you were willing to just step into the next room, however, and thus not observe people whose existence brings you down, would you find it less objectionable that they have been born?
Also, if I'm ever standing next to you on a subway platform, and you find something about me, or how others interact with me, to be even mildly disconcerting, just lemme know, 'kay? I'm quite willing to go streetside, and wait for the next train!
>Striking a woman such that she miscarries can be, and AFAIK has been, prosecuted as manslaughter.
Of course, but I was speaking from the mother's POV in the context of abortion. The point is that there is no possible way that a medical abortion can be construed as negligent (vis-a-vis intent). Once you've decided that a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder, not some lesser charge.
>only one-fifth of the supporters agreeing with the any-time-any-reason formulation we presently have under Roe precedent.
Roe only recognizes a right to abortion until viability (7 mos or so). And even 2nd trimester abortions are subject to state regulation, aren't they?
Ms. Galt, is your problem that you are not sure on where to draw the line for aborting defective fetuses? You imply that aborting because the child might never play the piano is wrong, but aborting because the child won't live more than 3 seconds after birth is OK. You are wondering where to draw the line in between those two cases? In your terms, where is the line between "full people" and not-"full people"?
While it may be possible to analyze each situation on a case-by-case basis, and decide which group you think a fetus falls in, you might want to consider other questions as well, such as:
1. Are all people with the same birth defect the same? Will some people with the birth defect fall above your line, and be "full people", and others with the same defect fall below the line and not be "full people"? Would it be right to abort every fetus with the birth defect even though some of them might pass the threshold and be a "full person"?
2. What if the fetus has a genetic defect that would make them a not-"full person", but medical intervention can, after birth, cure the effects of the defect? Is it still OK to abort?
3. What if the fetus has a genetic defect that lowers its IQ enough that it is a not-"full person", but additional education and training can raise the child's IQ enough to become a "full person"? Is it still OK to abort?
4. If a person starts out above the line, and is born a "full person", but, through accident or aging falls below the line and becomes a not-"full person", will that person's parents or children have the right to terminate the person's life? I am talking about cases where the person is alive and does not require medical intervention to stay alive, but requires increased assistance to perform the routine tasks of life.
I understand why people worry about bringing children with certain genetic defects into the world. Sometimes, they are worried that the problems raising that child will be so overwhelming, that they, as parents, will not be up to the task. Sometimes, they are worried that their child's quality of life will be low. I know that I had that fears. If those are the reasons you would think it is OK to abort a fetus with a genetic defect, then let me tell you, based on my personal experience, that those fears are worse than the reality.
And that leads me to my conclusion (at last). I find the whole notion of "full people" and not-"full people" distasteful. As far as I am concerned, if both of your parents were people, you are a "full person", regardless of what genetic defects you may have.
I'd take a modified, ambiguous version of Matt B.'s #4: abortion generally okay, but I get really squeamish when it comes to selective abortion because I want to live in a world where people with very severe disabilities are still seen as fully human; and because one of the clearest reasons for tolerance of diversity is that "you can't help how you're born," (as you can see by how people on both sides of the gay rights issue try to prove whether homosexuality is inborn or not)--and I think that's undermined if your parents actually can help how you're born.
But I agree that enforcing my personal preference would be absolutely impossible, and it's hard to see a difference between "I don't have the resources to deal with any baby right now" and "I don't have the resources to deal with a baby with Down syndrome."
I seem to recall that some pro-life people are fond of pointing out that they reproduce at a faster, greater rate than pro-choice people. Wouldn't that make _them_ the eugenicists?
Most people are in favour of aborting fetuses that have certain kinds of birth defects, primarily those that affect the head, nervous system and brain, or impose early fatality. That's because most people don't think of the cognitively disabled as fully human. Most people don't care as much about what happens to the retarded as they do about what happens to cognitively normal people.
I think there's probably evidence which would indicate that yes, no matter how much they may say they don't, the median person actually does care less. Even so, I predict that you're going to get some serious blow-back for stating it so casually.
It is a shame we can't measure IQ "in utero". What a screening tool that would be!
Matt B: Once you've decided that a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder, not some lesser charge.
Unless it's self defense. Not all deaths are murder.
I do care about what happens to the cognitively disabled. I want them to be happy and enjoy life as best they can. I care if they don't enjoy life, and I care if they're mistreated. I think about it a lot whenever I'm in the presence of people with disabilities. It brings me down. That's why I'm in favor of aborting them.
Have you considered asking those people if they'd rather not have been born? I'd love to see a survey of handicapped and disabled people asking them if they'd rather have been aborted. I realize that with the seriously mentally impaired, it might be hard to get a valid answer, but it might be worth a shot since we are talking about life and death.
I have a general problem with the trends towards accepting abortion and euthenasia. I believe that the more we accept such things as routine and/or good, the more we will, as a society, value human life less in general. I can't prove this, but I feel strongly that the overall effect of easy abortions/common euthenasia/etc... will be a bad one on society.
Gay people make me feel squeamish. I wish I didn't have to be squeamish around them and they were just aborted to save themseves the trouble and despair of going through life.
The same with black people.
The same with anyone who will grow up "under priviledged" and have to live through their teenage years. After all, it's just so discomforting to be a teenager. And think of the reduction in crime rates?
I really hate being reduced to absolute statements on this, but the way you blatantly tinker with life issues shows how foolish some of you people are. Life should be respected and protected. That we are having this discussion and others relating to life clearly shows the very nature of the slippery slope at work. The more I hear the selfish arguments surrounding abortions and reasons for it the more its clear to me that juts because you become an adult doesn't mean you've "grown up".
I don't expect to convince anyone...I guess I'm just feeling very bitter at the extremely cavalier attitude that so many take toward a infant's life in the name of personal choice.
Kai Jones: Correct, of course. But if I'm not mistaken, some states are moving to remove life-of-the-mother exceptions. So in their eyes a fetus should have more rights than an adult?
Matt B,
If you check, I believe you will find that "some states" are seeking to end the "health of the mother" exceptions, not the "life of the mother" exceptions. In too many cases, the "health of the mother" exception ceased to be an "exception" and became the "rule".
Re: "In too many cases, the "health of the mother" exception ceased to be an "exception" and became the "rule"."
To be more specific, it included the "mental health" of the mother, and wasn't limited to cases of a diagnosable mental disorder resulting from continuing the pregnancy, which over time amounted to anyone wanting an abortion being able to claim that their mental health was endangered.
Even if "mental health" was dropped by the health of the mother exception remained, there is the fact that pregnancy is not without risk to the mother and presumably any woman wanting an abortion could point to these risks and say her health was endangered.
Comments are Closed.