Asymmetrical Information

Small addendum to your excellent argument: the name is also a means of keeping the low-attention public from understanding precisely what they stand for, so that when they are quoted in the popular press, they can pose as being on the side of all women and right-thinking people.

I agree. Abortion is "not in the same category as packaging up radioactive garbage and trying to sell it to children." It's more like packaging cyanide and forcing it on defenseless children.

The Salon article interviews Al Ries, "who has written more than 40 books on marketing". I agree with Megan, he needs to get out more:

... I think the pro-choice people could dramatize their case better by taking case histories of individuals who didn't have abortions, which caused intense misery and suffering for themselves, their families and their offspring in their lifetime.

Am I missing something? He thinks women should go on TV and explain how their lives were miserable because they didn't abort their son Joey or daughter Mary? Are Joey and Mary also going to appear, and say they wish they'd been aborted?

I think that's really what he means, because towards the end he says, "Believe me, there are a lot of lives not worth living." (Granting the premise for the sake of argument, the problem, of course, is identifying these lives before they get out of the womb, and terminating them without the owner's permission.)

I'm hard put to think of a marketing campaign that would discourage abortion more; so, I'm all in favor of it.

I am absolutely pro-abortion, not pro-choice. I think it's pretty darn easy to "create a life" and therefore, there should be a certain period of time, say nine months or so, where you can change your mind and say, "whoopse! mistake here, never mind!"

More to the point, I know lots of people who are "pro-choice" who became pregnant accidently and "chose" to have the kid. I also know that they liked the fact that they had an option. I also know that, while their kid may be wonderful and terrific and they may love them, their lives probably would have been a lot better without them. Don't think that they, and their kid, don't know that, even though it's never discussed.

I know I'll probably get hate email for this sentiment on this site, but what the heck, if you have nothing better to do then send hate email to me, then it's not just the guy who wrote the book mentioned in the Salon Article who needs to get a life.

I do have to say though, while I suspect anyone with any interest in the issue of abortion rights -- both sides -- pretty much knows what "pro-choice" means (infavor of a woman's right to abort the kid -- note I did not say fetus)and it's pretty synonimus with abortion rights, NARAL never did roll off the tounge at the abortion rally (please note I did not say "pro-choice") and whatever they're changing it to has got to be an improvement. That and changing their colors. They were awful colors.

Interesting post, as usual.

For many pro-choice men (well, ok, for me), the issue is the extent of government involvement. Abortions are unquestionably the murder of a potential life. The women I know who have gotten them have taken the decisions very seriously, and each of them chose to have the abortion because she believed she could not provide adequate care during the pregnancy.

My question to the pro-life movement is this: millions of Americans, both men and women, fundamentally disagree, and will always disagree, with the position that the government may interfere with a woman's reproductive decision, before the fetus is viable. When will you let this issue go? There are plenty of laws I don't like, and plenty of laws I'd like to get passed. But I understand that since I'm in the minority on those issues, I have to live with that outcome.

Yes, Roe v. Wade was a weak decision. But are you really willing to return to the days of back-alley abortions? Do you really want to incapacitate those pregnant women who want to have abortions, as to physically prevent them from doing so? What kind of nation would we be if the fetus protection police of the state of Mississippi could lock a woman up in a padded cell for nine months, simply because she said she was going to California for an abortion?

What frustrates me terribly about the abortion debate is the unwillingness of the pro-life movement to discuss the implications of the imposition of their viewpoint.

From the moral perspective of believing an unborn child is a human life, which to my knowledge is the only active position in the pro-life movement, there is no compromise. There are of course, degrees to which that belief comes into play, but compromise on the core issue of belief in the sanctity of human life is self-contradictory.

FDL - There are pleanty of laws you don't like, but you accept them because you are in the minority? Bully. That's the way most things are supposed to work in a democracy.

Unfortunately, abortion does not work that way. The Supremes took abortion out of the public's hands when they handed down Roe v. Wade. So it doesn't matter what a majority thinks about the topic, does it? And that's the problem. Many of us could better tollerate the public policy of allowing abortions if we felt we had some say in setting that policy. We don't.

It's a conversation we, as a country, were just starting to have. Call it arrested development if you will, but we are having a hard time getting past this issue in large part because the Supremes butted in and stopped the conversation. It's galling to have those on your side of the argument telling the rest of us to be mature and just get over it. From our point of view, not only was the wrong policy adopted it was done so in an unfair manner. Telling us to grow up just rubs salt in a wound that will not heal.

I have 2 children, and I've also had an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but I do think that reasonable people should accept that at a certain point, the fetus becomes a baby. I'm a former Catholic, but I have never believed that conception = full human life. I would suggest that it is the development of the brain that makes a fetus a baby, and that should be the cut-off point for when an abortion should be acceptable. (Barring other issues, such as chromosonal deformities, in which case I think quality of life and the parental ability to care for the child need to be considered.)

Prior to this topic becoming spiritualized (taken up by the religious in this country), abortion was a non-issue - women who weren't "quick" with child could go ahead and have one if they could raise the money and reach someone who would actually do the deed.

I had an abortion because I became pregnant (while on birth control) when my husband and I were in a financially devastating situation*. It took us a decade to crawl our way out of poverty, and I still feel quite strongly that I made the right choice for our family.

*In order to pay for the abortion, I had to borrow money from my sister. We were essentially at a point where we had to choose whether to pay rent or eat.

Prior to having a child, I would have refused to accept any limitations on abortion. Having a child has made me feel differently, but I still feel the choice should be up to the mother, and not the courts.

I usually avoid this topic like the plague, since so many avoid the implications of their advocacy. The pro-life group tends to follow the narrow reasoning that FDL speaks of, and the pro-choice group tends to, as Jane mentions, edit the fetus out off the equation. Kate's position is admirably straight-forward, but also more disturbing and hideous; the forthright advocacy of life-ending violence with no better rationale than having the feeling of "Whoops! mistake here, never mind!" It is through such trivialization of violence that atrocities are committed.

Abortion, when practiced for reasons other than self-defense, or having not given consent to the act which created the life, is a failure by humans(overwhelmingly often by both parents) to fully accept their roles as moral agents. Violent killing is a helluva thing, and those that euphemize, or trivially justify such violent killing out of sense of "Whoops!, mistake here, never mind!" , are engaging in great moral atrocities. That said, the state simply is not well equipped to prevent all great moral wrongs, and when it attempts to do what it is poorly equipped for, greater harm is done. The examples are numerous; the War on Drugs, even if it accepted that execessive and habitual intoxication is a great moral failing, does more harm that what it wishes to prevent. Trying to forcibly regulate the procedures that millions of people have desired to have done to their bodies is in the same category, and pharmaceutical technology will only continue to make it more so. The state simply cannot forcibly regulate such desires without making matters worse. If slaves had been a few inches long and lived within the bodies of the slave-holders, attempts to end slavery would have been worse than the slavery itself. The best the the pro-life side can do is to use moral suasion, an often underrated tool, to convince people to not practice abortion, and too foster a sense of shame for those who practice abortion without moral justification. Will hypocrisy be a by-product? No doubt, but a hypocrite at least tacitly admits that humans are moral agents, and can be therefore held accountable for the hypocrisy; those that that assert that hypocrisy is the only or the worst human failing are often tacitly asserting that humans are not moral agents, or worse, are transforming morality into the will to power.

FDL - let me rephrase one of your paragraphs:

But are you really willing to return to the days of back-alley homocide? Do you really want to incapacitate those women who want to kill their children, as to physically prevent them from doing so? What kind of nation would we be if the child protection police of the state of Mississippi could lock a woman up in a padded cell for nine months, simply because she said she was going to California to kill her child?

This isn't, and never has been about control for me, and, I suspect, for a lot of people. I think that that fetus is a human being. Yes, women will be incovenienced by this. So what? If you think the fetus is a human being, the mother should be incovenienced if she wants to kill it.

I recognize that you don't see the fetus as human, and I understand that. Historically, you're on solid ground- for hundreds of years, Americans thought of slaves as 'sub-human', and felt that the owner had the right to kill them.

Of course, there were a number of people who disagreed with that concept, and felt that slaves should be considered human beings. I guess if we were blogging back then, an argument against emancipation would go something like this:

But are you really willing to return to the days of back-alley slave-beatin'? Do you really want to incapacitate those slaveowners who want to kill their slaves, as to physically prevent them from doing so? What kind of nation would we be if the slave protection police of the state of Mississippi could lock a woman up in a padded cell for nine months, simply because she said she was going to California to kill her slave?

Just a thought (I have a post about this at my blog).

Does this mean they're for school vouchers now?

As an adopted person, my experience with the abortion debate has always been surreal: like Megan, I insist on intellectual honesty in the debate, which means that I won't waste my time with people who try to insist that the fertilized embryo isn't a human being (sorry; once all of the chromosomes are there, it's a human being. The correct question to ask is at what point in the human being's development we grant it the rights that we accord to all human beings whom we consider to fall under the purview of our legal system). Even moreso, I won't waste my time with people who stick to the "it's my body" rant. It's not just your body; your fetus might not even have the same blood type as you do. And so on.

So that leaves us with folks like Kate and others who are honest about the domain of the discourse. They have my utmost respect for being honest and sincere. They also have my utmost revulsion for exactly the same reasons already ably articulated: insisting on the right to choose what they acknowledge is a killing on the basis of "whoops, I made a mistake." Thankfully my birth mother, whom I met a couple of months ago and finally got to properly thank, didn't think that way, and I grew up with one of the many terrific couples who desperately wanted children but couldn't have their own.

And that brings me to my final rant: why doesn't adoption feature more in the debate? Why is it all right for people to defend killing unborn human beings but so many of them become indignant at the suggestion that they carry to term and place their children for adoption? Why don't more on the anti-abortion side urge adoption placement?

Nameless One,

There are those of us in the pro-life camp with a less stark view. I don't believe the fetus is necessarily a full human life, but I do believe it has the *potential* to become a life and that trumps the desires of the parents.

Paul,

It's worse than that adoption is being dismissed from the debate, it's that it's being dismissed on such a dishonest pre-text.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard pro-choicers (including me when I was one) say that "if they put the child up for adoption it'll just continue to overcrowd our foster care system."

The foster care system isn't overloaded with babies that were put up for adoption, it's overloaded with children (totlers and older) that were forfeited by their parents. Newborn babies almost never end up in foster care, the waiting list for them is a mile long.

So one on hand we have countless parents waiting years to adopt a child and on the other we have unplanned fetuses being aborted, and yet many pro-choicers claim to be so on utilitarian grounds.

Paul,

It's worse than that adoption is being dismissed from the debate, it's that it's being dismissed on such a dishonest pre-text.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard pro-choicers (including me when I was one) say that "if they put the child up for adoption it'll just continue to overcrowd our foster care system."

The foster care system isn't overloaded with babies that were put up for adoption, it's overloaded with children (totlers and older) that were forfeited by their parents. Newborn babies almost never end up in foster care, the waiting list for them is a mile long.

So one on hand we have countless parents waiting years to adopt a child and on the other we have unplanned fetuses being aborted, and yet many pro-choicers claim to be so on utilitarian grounds.

Okay, so what do we call the vocal political faction that supports parents' rights to homeschool, trans-enroll a dependent from one public school to a different (presumbably better) public school, or rely on the funding that the state and localty is providing for education ANYWAY to be directed to the parents' "choice" of private school?

Note that only one of the options involved in granting parents' rights to help direct their kids' education involves any kind of "voucher".

Where the formal NARAL comes out in favor of
school choice, then I will agree the rebranding exercise is justified.

Hmmm... Seems my "whoopse" (I think it looks better with the "e") comment was misconstrued. Every single rant against my comments are the "it's a human life" arguments. Again, this implies that there is something "special" about human life. If I don't think there is, then I why would I have any problem with abortion. I don't have any problems eating meat or wearing leather or the death penalty or euthanasia.

Therefore, "whoopse" is completely appropriate. If there is no moral wrong (and I don't think there is) there there is no problem with a cavalier attitude to abortion. I don't think it's "murder" and just because you THINK your right, doesn't make you right (on as similar note, it doesn't make me right either, but it's between me and whatever powers that be to determine that, and not you, nor the Government)
Why is Human Life better than any other type of life? Perhaps you have an argument, but you won't convince me.

NARAL livery and abortion-on-demand for the sake of adjusting bad decisions. Kate, did you ever think that people might not hate you nor send you mail based on the premise, but would merely be revolted by your admissions to a flippant regard for life? As for the ease of conception, I'd argue that life is just as quick to extinguish.

I also know that, while their kid may be wonderful and terrific and they may love them, their lives probably would have been a lot better without them.

And therefore "decrease the surplus population"? The sick, infirmed, senile, mentally retarded, maimed, physically handicapped, adopted and accidentally conceived would like to have a word with you.

Re: the slavery comparison. This doesn't work, because it fails to take into account the duelling liberty rights at issue in the abortion matter. When slaves were freed, the landowners had to hire them or live without. Their property rights were violated, but not their liberty rights. If fetuses were to be "freed", then pregnant women who wanted an abortion would lose their liberty rights.

3 questions: what would happen among the states if Roe v. Wade were overturned? what is the philosphical position for dealing with cases of rape? (why incest has been included next to rape can be the subject of another discussion.) what about birth control?

On 1. Presumably, women could be convicted for murder for having an abortion, in certain states. But if states get to decide what their respective laws should be, then California will not pass a law illegalizing abortion. So NARAL then assembles "freedom" buses, bringing women from no-abortion states to abortion states. Could the no-abortion states impose preventive detention on these women?

2. Life, according to some of these posters, begins at conception. I've read Stuart Buck's posts on justifying abortion in cases of rape and they make no sense. If that life is inviolate, then the rape victim must bring the life to term. Otherwise its murder. If the life is not inviolate, then you have conceded the case; abortion is permissible.

3. Presumably, pro-life groups would continue to support the use of condoms. But other methods of birth control are more problematic. When does life begin? Why is a fertiled egg "life"? If it is "life", why don't we hear as much of an outcry from the pro-life groups about all the in vitro fertilization procedures which create unused fertilized eggs? there is no constitutional right to IVF. Why aren't the pro-life groups doing more to stop that?

But returning to my first post, I still want to see more answers from the pro-lifers about how society would be constructed in your world. What do you see would be the consequences of having the law your way?

Again, this implies that there is something "special" about human life. If I don't think there is,

CoaC. I don't even think the abortion topic can debated with that statement in play. As The Onion would say:

HOLY F*CKING SH*T

Jane, this is not a matter of trying to "brand" garbage, as if to make something of value out of something worthless.

NARAL rebranding itself will have no effect on those who oppose abortion and would use the state to force women and doctors to comply. And neither will it have an effect on those who are adamantly for a woman's right to abort.

It is a fight for the lethal center. The muddled multitudes who don't have strong political opinions, and often who don't have the mental aptitude or ability to form them. The people who are generally for "choice" in things, and also who are against "killing", and who honestly wonder why can't we all get along. They don't like abortion but they also worry about rape, and they know a woman who got an abortion and she is a nice person who is sortof my friend, so I'm not really sure.

I guarantee you that if you run a poll asking Americans "do you think that women should have the right to abort their babies" and "do you think that women should have the right to choose an abortion" you will get a statistically significant difference between the responses. Stupid, perhaps, but a real aspect of the political center in American life. These are the same 10-20% whose votes swing elections.

(Not that any responsible poller would use "babies", as you did. The Language Police in me say: bad doggie, no bone.)

That's what I like to see, a little moral outrage with nothing to back it up.

That's what I like to see, a little moral outrage with nothing to back it up.

You don't think human life carries value beyond an undefinied threshold, Kate, be it chimps or protein clumps. That is probably the closest to antithesis to my credo as I could imagine. Where to start, really? Even if the world adheres to your relativist snapshot of "you believe your bit, I believe mine, nary proof for either" the ideological gap is obviously so infinite that we'd only exacerbate the shouting match (I began, guilty) going on now.

I still want to see more answers from the pro-lifers about how society would be constructed in your world. What do you see would be the consequences of having the law your way? -- FDL

Simply shutting off the abortion switch in one legislative breaker is not viable, no. Many conservative voices on the matter recognize that the issue through the last century is wholly cultural and ethical; less legal. Culture must move one way or the other, and more gradual than severe. That's fairly easy to agree upon. I don't know if I subscribe to the idea of a backalley argmageddon; I don't think abortion is as desirable a right as that to, say, liquor. Nor is the public awareness absent, wherein a woman could find no solace or counsel.

But to not usher in an environment of understanding in the case of accidental pregancies, particularly those by the young or the unwed, is to repeat the frigidity ("back in the day, a knocked-up girl would disappear") that most likely drives women to seek an expedient solution to a terrifying dilemma.

So I would desire a culture that did not fear children or their "burdens," accommodating of their arrival and needed responsibility. Dreamer, I suppose. :-)

Are you telling me the horrid acryonym "NARAL" was better than the new one?

they advocate for an absolute right to abort your babies right up to the time they're born

Are you sure about this? (excepting the ongoing mess of a debate on "partial-birth").

For example, on their "10 facts about abortion" page:

Roe v. Wade does not give women an unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy.
In Roe, the Supreme Court legalized abortion until viability, the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman's body. After viability, Roe allows states to ban abortion except when necessary to protect the woman's life or health.

Doesn't sound unapproving to me. I wasn't able to find anything talking about how they favor legalizing post-viability abortions, either, so I think it's an unfair accusation.

Most people have come to the pretty reasonable conclusion that forbidding aborting blastocysts is pretty stupid. Most people have come tot he pretty reasonable conclusion that *not* forbidding the abortion of a 9 month baby is also pretty stupid. Viability seems like the best place to draw the line. Nothing to see here, move along.

Oh, a bit I forgot: I see the "people who have abortions for birth control are disgusting" canard is in here; subtle implications everyone has abortions just because they're too morally lazy to bother with contraception, blah blah, etc.

The problem with this is that it logically implies abortions are good or bad based on intent. Seeing how this is coming from the "the government can't fucking tie its shoelaces correctly" crowd, why are you so confident of the government's capablities of discerning intent in this, the messiest of cases?

Being a anti-abortion male leaves me open to the 'It's a womans issue' arguement. However, not being noticeably astute has always been one of my failings. I am personaly anti, but feel that this is an issue that 'should' be one of persoal choice, but when the pro-choicers argue that parental notifcation is wrong, when partial-birth abortion is just a choice, when those who for moral reasons MUST pay for others abortions, then I don't feel that NOW, NARAL, and others leave me any choice but to get involved. Kate, you make me get involved. Whoopse??

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then realistically, the overwhelming majority of state legislatures would soon draft legislation legalizing abortion in their state. There would be a few holdout states in which abortion would be illegalized. Those who felt particularly strongly one way or the other could then relocate appropriately.

More importantly from the standpoint of legal philosophy in America, the issue would, as an earlier poster pointed out, return to the representative legislative process to which it properly belongs, the U.S. Constitution using the words "abortion" and "privacy" (the right to which was found in the "penumbra" of the 14th amendment in Roe v. Wade) exactly zero times each. The discussion and various conclusions reached would become decentralized and would more accurately reflect local legal and moral standards throughout the country. Those in favor of a legal right to abortion would have plenty of places to go to be assured of that legal right; those opposed would no doubt have some enclaves as well.

Importantly, it would NOT usher in a new era of the dreaded "back-alley abortion," because overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT, at a stroke, make abortion illegal throughout the U.S.

So, Kate, is it OK with you if I just say "Oops!" and rub you out? That seems to be where you're headed with your "nothing special about human life" assertion. Or maybe they'll put me in jail for a short little time, like they do now for cruelty to animals or failing to pay my property taxes.

I thought I'd share my case of grenades...

1. Why should a woman get to abort a fetus in the case of rape but not in other cases? It's not like the fetus raped her. If abortion is not okay because the fetus is human, then the child of a rapist is just as human.

2. The only problem with "viability" is that it's a moving target. Eventually, we'll be able to bring a fetus to term in an artificial womb. Different fetuses (feti? fetii) are viable at different times. While possibly a pragmatic solution, "viability" is not necessarily an easy standard.

3. I also am a bit confused about the lack of references to "abortion" in the Constitution. The Decleration of Independence certainly says we should have the right to pursue happines, but it does not say we have the right to happiness...

4. I have a child (and another on the way). While they cost a lot of money and have certainly limited my lifestyle quite a bit, I would not say my life is "worse". I love having my children. I know that I chose to have them, but I was prepared, in the past, to live with the consequences of my actions (and had several close calls). If I weren't, I wouldn't have been having sex.

5. While I am personally pro-life and anti-abortion, I recognize the impracticality of outlawing all abortions and would not like the government to do so. The law should be enforceable and practical and should make life better. A total ban on abortion would not do that.

6. Abortion discussions always make me uncomfortably because most of the pro-abortion arguments are eerily applicable to the folks who live in nursing homes, coma wards, and "special schools." I don't think I'll ever want to have my parents put down because they're old. Why allow the abortion of a fetus who will possibly have a bad life with an unhappy mother who is not equipped to raise him while not allowing the termination of a senile old person who is going to have a bad life with an unhappy child who is not equipped to take care of him in the end of their life? Arguably, the fetus has a lot more potential than the old person who is at the end of their life.

Bolie IV

Kirk Parker ---

I was waiting for someone to give me that argument! Here is the difference. If we didn't make things like murder of people who actually live OUTSIDE their mothers womb illigal, it would make it very difficult to walk down the street (what with all the bullits flying and everything).

Life's not precious, but the prevention of anarchy is.

Please note: easy to make life
hard to prevent anarchy

Easy = not valuable
difficult or rare = VERY valuable.

Hmm, attempting to tamp down this partial-birth stuff.

First off, its been abused in some cases, such as its elective use when there was no risk to the mother by a NJ doctor.
Secondally, for third-trimester abortions (which are extremely rare), whatever the reason they're being done (good reasons, such as "baby is dead", and various unseemly and illegal reasons), it's the only option other than a procedure equivalent to a caesarian section, a hysterotomy, which carries a higher risk of death for the mother.

So:

A partial-birth ban will have no effect on the number of third-trimester abortions; they'll just move to hysterotomies.

A partial-birth ban will result in an increased number of deaths for pregnant women, as hysterotomies, the only other alternative, are risker.

Clarification of the regulations and enforcement procedures for third-trimester abortions would have a much more beneficial effect for all sides.

I sincerely doubt that pro-lifers want to kill pregnant women, and pro-choicers do not support things like the NJ doctor's elective use of this procedure when there's no medical reason. Both sides are being pretty unreasonable here, but the pro-lifers are being throughly batshit insane (Dobson saying D&X uses the sucked-out brains of a viable fetus for medical experiments comes to mind).

The only problem with "viability" is that it's a moving target. Eventually, we'll be able to bring a fetus to term in an artificial womb. Different fetuses (feti? fetii) are viable at different times. While possibly a pragmatic solution, "viability" is not necessarily an easy standard.

Fetal lungs can't inflate before the third trimester. And "viability" is defined as "can live outside the womb"; how would the creation of artifical wombs change that? It may not be an easy standard, but I certainly haven't seen a better one.

Importantly, it would NOT usher in a new era of the dreaded "back-alley abortion," because overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT, at a stroke, make abortion illegal throughout the U.S.

Right; it'd just result in a new era of some states trying to legally restrain or confine pregnant women, lest they leave the state for an abortion. I'm explicitly not suggesting any sort of moral equivalence here, but the legal mess back when slavery was legal in some states and not in others comes to mind.

Bolie, if the time comes where I have no "me" left due to my brain degenerating in old age, I do hope that whoever has the decisionmaking capability at that point will follow my wish, and have them turn my body off. I don't want my undead body clogging up valuable machinery that could be saving or succouring people that can yet experience something, anything, of life. And I also don't want it sapping out the savings of my hypothetical family of the time. Or, if the socialists have succeeded, sapping "society" - though I am certain that if "society" got in charge of medicine here, they certainly would mandate turning off unviable old people (and also slightly viable ones, and even pretty durn viable ones who are just too expensive).

How would I know whether or not there is any me left, or any hope of life-experience? I wouldn't if I was in that situation. It's a judgement call, and that's exactly why I want it left to be done by someone near and dear to me. Of course, having been sapient before any such decision can be made, I can choose my executor(s).

How does a potential child - a fetus with no brain or a the brain-equivalent of a chicken - know if its life would be something it would want to live; if its parent(s) could give it what it needs? It can't - no adequate brain for it. It's a judgement call, and that's exactly why I want it left to be done by someone near and dear to that fetus. But a fetus has never been sapient and cannot choose its executor. For reasons of self-ownership, it is obvious that the executor must be the potential mother.

"Why is Human Life better than any other type of life? Perhaps you have an argument, but you won't convince me."

Kirk touched on this, but I have a question, Kate: if this is what you really believe, then what is the point of all the laws against murder, et al, that are on the books? If killing a human is of no more moral consequence than killing, say, a flea, then should we not repeal laws against murder? If not, why not? And if your answer is that it should be illegal to kill animals, not just humans, then I ask what is different about a fetus that excepts them from this rule?

No, I don't expect to change your mind. But I must point out that your beliefs, when pursued logically, lead to some unpleasant outcomes.

Oops, I see Kate already responded to Kirk. But her response leads to another question: If life isn't precious, but the prevention of anarchy is, then I suppose any law that doesn't lead to anarchy is OK regardless of the cost to human life? For example, the Nazi's "Final Solution" was morally neutral? After all, it didn't lead to anarchy. The war led to anarchy, but not the Holocaust.

Bottom line, why is the prevention of anarchy precious if life is not precious?

Oops, I see Kate already responded to Kirk. But her response leads to another question: If life isn't precious, but the prevention of anarchy is, then I suppose any law that doesn't lead to anarchy is OK regardless of the cost to human life? For example, the Nazi's "Final Solution" was morally neutral? After all, it didn't lead to anarchy. The war led to anarchy, but not the Holocaust.

Bottom line, why is the prevention of anarchy precious if life is not precious?

What's the point in even arguing with someone who says human life is nothing special? A successful rebuttal succeeds by showing that the opposing argument leads to a preposterous conclusion. In the case before us, the rebutter's job is already done for him, and the only response worth making would be something along the lines of "Thanks for the warning."

Well, as I suspected, and as much as I hate to use such loaded terms, it is essentially correct to describe Kate's philosophy as fascist, in that the exercise of power, even the power to violently kill, is self-legitimating an end unto itself, since it produces a non-anarchic society. Order is maintained, so the purposeful killing of those deemed targets (by the state) for killing is automatically legitimate. In Kate's world, the slaughter of several hundred thousand Tutsis in Rawanda is more morally offensive than the slaughter of several million kulaks in the Ukraine because the Tutsis were slaughtered by a nearly anarchic band of murderers, while the kulaks were slaughtered through the actions of a recognized state. In fact, since the slaughter of the kulaks helped consolidate the power of the state which ruled the Ukraine, it logically follows that their slaughter was a positive good, according to Kate's philosophy. Rarely is the philosophical underpinnings of mass slaughter by the state so frankly acknowledged. When you sit down for dinner tonight, in the comfort of your home, reflect upon the good fortune that such a philosophy was dealt large setbacks in the past century, but don't think for a moment that it is gone. This Beast will be with us always, all notions of the End of History aside.

Speaking of "spiritualizing" the debate on abortion - one of the difficulties pro-life advocates, many of whom are not explicitly religious, have is that any efforts to teach alternatives to unwanted pregnancies and abortion are labeled as pushing religious views on people, which in turn is labeled as violating the church/state divide. There's nothing religious about teaching abstinence to teens as an option except that a lot of people include sexual abstinence outside marriage as part of their religious belief system. They also include helping the poor as a part of their religious responsibility, but that doesn't mean that everyone who helps the poor is engaging in a religious act. I think part of the anger on the pro-life side is the fact that the most vociferous pro-abortion types (and I use that purposely as distinct from pro-choice) actively work to prevent programs from giving women information on their full range of options, or presenting abstinence as a valid option to teens. The pro-choice majority in the movement would help defuse some of the anger on the other side if they would concede that explaining all options in a neutral manner is not advancing religion, and would support that happening. If you're truly pro-choice, and not pro-abortion, how can you justify not presenting abstinence or adoption as valid options? Shouldn't a woman who comes for pregnancy counseling receive brochures from groups willing to support her during her pregnancy and find good parents for her baby when its born as well as brochures about abortion clinics?

To Jason McCullough,

A couple points. Re third-trimester abortions, they are, as you say, "extremely rare" in percentage terms, but in the context of a million or so abortions a year in the US, a really small percentage is still a lot of cases. I don't know the actual percentage — a quick Google led me to a CDC chart that gave a fairly consistent figure of 1.5% of abortions being "post-20-weeks" over several years, but of course 20 weeks is not viability, and it seems safe to assume that most of those 1.5% are early in the post-20-week period, and of those that aren't, some fraction must involve genuinely fatal defects like anencephaly. (Not "the baby's dead" — removal of a fetus that has already died is not abortion — but "the baby has no chance of survival whatever we do.")

So maybe we're talking a tenth of a percent of abortions taking place post-viability and involving fetuses that had a chance of actual survival. (That's a guess.) That would be, um, a thousand a year. I suppose it depends what you mean by "rare."

I think post-viability abortions raise some awkward questions. What is the woman's right, exactly? A right not to be pregnant, or a right not to have a child? You say a hysterotomy is more or less a Caesarean section. Well, if there is a viable fetus, and (to be crude) you're in there anyway, can you justify not taking it out alive? How?

The same question comes up with the hypothetical "artificial womb." If it's possible to "terminate the pregnancy" without actually killing the fetus, does the woman nonetheless have the right to kill the fetus?

"Viability" is a tricky enough question even without artificial wombs to worry about. Is it "viable" if it has a ten-percent chance of survival that will demand months in intensive care? If it will almost certainly be brain-damaged even if it survives? Babies born in the sixth month have survived, but it's rare.

Finally, on what states would do if Roe were overturned: I think it's extremely unlikely that any state would outlaw abortion in the first two months of pregnancy, even Louisiana. A great many states (including several of the most populous ones) would basically enact Roe as state law; a bunch more would restrict second-trimester abortion somewhat, though I doubt any would ban it outright (meaning "no exceptions").

If you're truly pro-choice, and not pro-abortion, how can you justify not presenting abstinence or adoption as valid options?

Because the actual implementation of this always seems to work out as, say, GOP insistence on abstinence-only sex education?

Well, if there is a viable fetus, and (to be crude) you're in there anyway, can you justify not taking it out alive? How?

The problem is that in the relevant cases (I'm specifically not talking about ones that aren't medically necessary in the third trimester, as no one supports that. Although the argument over whether "mental health" leads to "medically necessary" is pretty heated, but that's a fraction of a fraction.) this viable, or possibly viable, fetus has been determined to have a significant chance of killing the mother during childbirth or the remainder of the pregnancy. The "taking it out alive" method (hysteromy) is also more dangerous than the one where you don't take it out alive, D&X. It's an explicit tradeoff: potentially kill the mother, or definitely kill the child (which in many of these cases, has a low chance of survival).

I think the individual women should choose to make that tradeoff, not society. Obviously, I don't support the caricature of "I have a .01% increased chance of dying by giving birth, so I demand a 35th week abortion," but that doesn't change that there's a reasonable middle ground mostly already in place - the "medically necessary" definition.

If the mother wants to carry a abnormal pregnancy to term in spite of increased risks to her life, fine, but I see no reason to mandate that they do so.

I think it's extremely unlikely that any state would outlaw abortion in the first two months of pregnancy, even Louisiana.

I think you're underestimating the intensity of feeling in some areas about this; I lived in Oklahoma for a few years, for example, and I'm quite sure they'd outlaw it entirely overnight. The only question would be on rape, incest, and outright kill the mother exceptions.

Jason,

I wonder whether you're correct about most third-trimester abortions being necessary to protect the woman's physical health. I have no statistics to hand (and have to dash in a few minutes, or I'd try to find some now), but I would guess that a large fraction, maybe a majority, of post-viability abortions happen because a genetic defect is discovered in the fetus late in pregnancy — Down Syndrome or the like — and the woman's mental state is (under Roe) the formal grounds for allowing abortion.

Reading these posts I kept reminding myself "fools rush in where angels dare to tread."

Call me a fool . . .

Of all eggs that are actually fertilized, only about half actually implant in the uterine wall. The rest are unknowingly flushed down the toilet. Of all those that manage to implant in the uterine wall, about half spontaneously abort - usually very early, in which case they are unknowingly flushed down the toilet.

(Ladies - has your period ever been about a week late, even though you're usually pretty regular? If so, there's a fairly good chance you were pregnant for three weeks or so and then had a miscarriage)

My question is specifically for those of you who think "human life" begins with fertilization, and more specifically for those of you who hold this belief on religious grounds: Why does God allow 75% of all human lives get flushed down the toilet?

R. Alex,

You're right, that is indeed a subtle variation which I hadn't picked up on.

Zarathustra2101,

100% of all life is flushed down the toilet from God's perspective. Guess that means we humans shouldn't assign any moral value it whatsoever, right?

"Back-alley homicide" is not just a rhetorical flourish; it's real. That's what the suicide bombers are up to. They don't have a rebellion that's "safe, legal, and rare" so they are forced to use back-alley methods.

Leonard and others...

What about the rights of the potential father? Assuming that the fetus in question is the result of consensual sex, it seems to me that a father who is willing to take the child and raise it on his own should not be automatically denied his rights just because the mother is the one who happens to be pregnant (by accident of biology). I know that if I had gotten any woman pregnant, I would have been furious if she'd terminated without consulting me. The fetus would have been half mine.

It's unfortunate that women have to be pregnant, but that's no reason to ignore the father.

On the flip side, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, does she have a right to demand child support if the father wanted her to terminate?

Bolie IV

Just call the two sides "anti-choice" and "pro-death" and make 'em both even madder at ya.

It's unfortunate that women have to be pregnant, but that's no reason to ignore the father.

On the flip side, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, does she have a right to demand child support if the father wanted her to terminate?

The legal status of both of these is pretty clear (fathers don't have any rights), but why on earth *should* they? I can't think of any legal parallels at all.

On third trimester abortions, the only thing I could find was this CDC bit on Georgia in 1979-80. During the period third trimester abortions were .12% (120 of 100,000) of the total. They looked at about 2/3rds of those abortions and removed reporting errors, dead fetuses, anencephalic fetuses, and so on, and decided on an a adjusted occurence rate of .043% (43 of 100,000).

In other words, the possibly objectional third-trimester ones (mental health, bad doctors, what have you) were extremely (to put it mildly) rare in this period.

I can't find any further numbers than that study. And this is before Casey, which adding the possible viability test for third-tremester abortions along with some other possible restrictions, so I look at it as something of a vague upper bound. Can anyone find other numbers?

From a biological perspective, I don't think men have anything in question with abortion (although I tend to think in many cases men have a large role in persuading women to have abortions, a woman wanting an abortion is unlikely to be swayed by the man's objections).
Legally, however, and I have no idea how appropriate this objection is, once a man has conceived the child, if the mother chooses to bring it to term and raise it, he is legally bound to pay child support for the next 18 years and has practically no right to see the child whatsoever. To me, if a woman can be conceived of having the right to kill her child, which itself is inherently more problematic when we consider the legal status of the child, then men should similarly be able to abrogate their personal responsibility in the matter by declaring that the child is legally dead to them and immunizing themselves to claims for child support. As it is right now, we have women having abortions who are feminist icons for being "strong, independent women" and men who are considered criminal "deadbeat dads" if they fail to pay child support (even though in many of these cases the fathers themselves are so impoverished they cannot conceivably pay).

Jason,

Why on earth should fathers have any rights? I am not sure how to answer this. As a father and as someone who had sex with women without producing offspring, I can't imagine NOT having some say in the fate of my children. I don't understand why the mother should have all the say in the matter just because biology has dictated she has to bear the child. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to bear a child, but once the child is born, I can raise it just as well as a woman could.

Bolie IV

"100% of all life is flushed down the toilet from God's perspective. Guess that means we humans shouldn't assign any moral value it whatsoever, right?"

You might want to read my post a little more closely. I was specifically challenging the view that life begins with fertilization, and in particular the notion that "God" has any particular fondness for such life. The conclusion you reach, that "humans shouldn't assign any moral value to [life] whatsoever," is one logical conclusion that could be drawn if you believe a) that a fertilized egg or undifferentiated embryo is human life, and b) God values all life equally. If both those conditions are true, then people who hold these reliegious beliefs should follow God's example and discount the value of all human life by about 75%.

Of course, some of us don't rely on God (or his self-anointed spokesmen) to supply us with morals. For us, the value of human life must come from somewhere else. While we don't claim to have the answers, we're certainly not content with the false assumptions and ludicrous conclusions that occur once superstition is introduced into the debate.

My wife and I just had a peek at our 8-week old "fetus". It was amazing - you could see the heart beating quickly and the beginning formations of arms and legs. How people can dumb this down to a "choice" is beyond me. I think your "choice" was made when you slipped out of those pants.

Women should at least have to see what they are killing before they have an abortion. And why not? Why not a "before" viewing and then why not view the baby pieces after it's ripped apart? Not a good "marketing" technique I suppose.

How is what we do in this country much different from regular Germans pretending "not to know" while Jews were being tossed into ovens? We criticize those German citizens, yet we cloak our own murder fest in a glitzy package we like to call choice. If you can't see it, guess it's okay....

We're such a spineless country - that even "pro-lifers" are sometimes afraid to say what they really think about this - or tone down their language so as to not offend. Gosh - we better not hurt any feelings....nothing could be worse than that.

Call me a "fanatic", but I would be as "fanatic" with my criticism of the morons who kill clinic workers and abortion doctors.

As a father and as someone who had sex with women without producing offspring, I can't imagine NOT having some say in the fate of my children. I don't understand why the mother should have all the say in the matter just because biology has dictated she has to bear the child.

You answered you own question: when the baby is born, you share responsibility. Before that, it's entirely up to the woman because its in her body, not yours. Can you think of a legal parallel where you're given control over a single person's body (implicitly) against their wishes? The only stuff I can think of is non-illustrative cases like minors, invalids, and so on.

It's silly to ask whether you can think of a single legal parallel. There is no legal parallel to reproduction; it's entirely unique in human existance. We are not going to come up with a system to make it fair, because it is inherently, biologically asymmetric. That said, it's pretty hypocritical to demand the choice to make a fetus not be born, and then tell the man he's got no choice at all about assuming financial responsibility for the baby for eighteen years.

Zarathustra2101:
"Daddy, why does God let bad things happen?"
Hmm, good point son. You got me. I guess there is no God.

Fortunately, not everyone is quite so easily convinced. Not that it's really relevant to this discussion. It is possible to hold moral viewpoints for other than religious reasons you know, even if they're different from yours.

Sean E,

Duh!

Why don't you go back and read my original post again. My challenge was directed at those who hold the fertilized egg sacrosanct on a particular set of religious grounds. If you are not a member of this group, feel free to disregard my comments.

As for your theosophical caricature – first, I never said there is no God; you read that into my comments. Second, if I do believe in God, then I am not so foolish as to believe He never lets bad things happen. Experience tells me otherwise. I simply made the narrow point that the "facts of life" seem to contradict the idea that God has a special fondness for fertilized eggs.

There are many "pro-life" people whose beliefs are not based on religious tenets but merely believe that abortion is wrong without having to ascribe the belief to some "God". Attempts to associate the pro-life ethic with religion merely to be able to sneer at it as religion are quite offensive IMO.

Bolie: the mother owns herself, and that, to me, seems pretty much the bottom line. To force her to carry a fetus is a form of slavery. She decides, and not dad, 'cause it's her body.

When tech advances to the point that men can be pregnant, then they will decide on possible abortions.

If the fetus has no sentient brain, then there is not even a moral issue. Killing a nonsentient is morally equivalent to killing an animal. After a fetus is sentient (assuming that happens in utero), then I still think the mother's right trumps. But that I can see rethinking. Maybe.

As for the rights of potential fathers: they should be allowed to formally disclaim the child as theirs. Then potential mom can decide whether to abort with full information. If Dad formally accepts paternity, or knowingly fails to disclaim, he's on the hook for N years. If Mom wants an abortion anyway, she must pay for it. If Dad disclaims, he should be on the hook only for half the price of the abortion. If Mom persists in pregnancy, the responsibility to provide for the child is hers alone.

There is no God, but as usual, that's not particularly relevant to this or any other moral debate. The Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League (http://www.godlessprolifers.org) has some pretty good secular arguments for non-believers like me who are anti-abortion but don't like the idea of linking to some Catholic site to back up our posts about the matter. For the most reprehensible and irresponsible religious analysis on the abortion issue, go to the site of the Religous Coalition for Reproductive Choice (www.rcrc.org). And go to the essay "Abortion: Finding Your Own Truth" (http://www.rcrc.org/religion/pamphlets/truth.html) on that site if you want a real laugh.

Zarathustra;

You were too quick in dismissing the fact that "100% of all life is flushed down the toilet from God's perspective."

The fact is, from no moral point of view whatsoever does the fact of natural/random/act of God events bear of intentional, human actions. Morality deals with human choices. Death does not justify murder, accidental fire does not justify arson, and miscarriage does not justify abortion.

It's silly to ask whether you can think of a single legal parallel. There is no legal parallel to reproduction; it's entirely unique in human existance.

Well excuse me for asking; I was thinking maybe you could look at it as joint property or something.

That said, it's pretty hypocritical to demand the choice to make a fetus not be born, and then tell the man he's got no choice at all about assuming financial responsibility for the baby for eighteen years.

Um, [url=http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=hypocrisy*1+0]why?[/url] What's hypocritical about it? The man did have the choice of having (potentially) child-producing sex.

Oh, I forgot:

My disdain is for the euphemism. If what you are advocating is so distasteful to you or others that it will not stand the cold light of plain words, you should rethink your advocacy.

Using this, can we demand that pro-lifers explicitly talk about how they'd like to imprison women who have, or want to have, abortions?

But so did the woman, Jason. How come he's the only one who's legally mandated to step up to the plate?

Oh. Don't courts assume that the two parents should provide roughly equal contributions to the child's upbringing? I know it's not's the bad old days of "stay at home for 18 years while the man pays for raising the child," but what's the burden disributed like now?

Actually, it probably wouldn't be proportional, since she's providing all the child care, but the point is, how come the man is assumed to have assumed responsibility for raising a child once he drops his pants, but the woman is allowed to change her mind? Should men have to be *more* responsible for sex than women -- and isn't that hte sort of double standard we marched to get rid of?

I think the hassle of carrying the child is a loss that cancels out the (gain? not the right words) of the woman having the option to end the pregnancy. This is a crass summary, but still:

Responsibilites in reproduction:
Women: have sex, raise the child, carry the child.
Men: have sex, raise the child.

Rights in reproduction::
Women: end pregnancies, rights of control on the child.
Men: rights of control on the child.

In other words, rights in reproduction are linearly proportional to responsibilites in the process. Or something like that. I think giving men either the right to opt out of support or veto abortions would break that proportionality.

But she chose to carry the child. And having half your paycheck taken for the next 18 years is a pretty big hassle.

So what's the framework you're using here?

Choices:
Men: Have sex
Women: Have sex, end the pregnancy

Responsibilites:
Men: Raise the child
Women: Raise the child, carry the child.

Costs:
Men: x% of raising the child
Women: non-financial costs of carrying and giving birth, y% of raising the child

Benefits:
Men: the kid
Women: the kid

If you just look at "choices per person" in a vacuum of course its "unfair", but that's becuase you're consciously eliminating all other factors (responsibilites) from discussion.

all you mother fuckers are gay and yuos eat my shit!

Comments are Closed.