Comment Rescue ON ABORTION
Nov 12th, 2009 by Tennessee Walker
I commented early on Dave Anderson’s thread on social conservatism vis a vis Fiscal Conservatism and I thought that the question was one of political strategy. I like those kind of questions because political strategy and organization is where one wins elections on the margins. There is no secret to winning elections in Wilmington. Be a Democrat on the ballot and you win.
There is a spirited debate going on about abortion on Dave’s thread and I don’t want to distract from that. But I do want to put in my 2 cents and since I have the ability to initiate my own post I have decided to do so.
I came to a pro life position thanks to a woman (a Democrat) with whom I had an adult relationship. Prior to that I had been Pro Choice. She was non political or apolitical but her words as a mother changed my view. Her words were not political, nor were they theoretical, but they were moving none the less.
We have come to a point in the Republican Party where this issue, abortion, is an overriding concern.
Republicans tend to share a Libertarian bent on keeping the government out of our lives. We don’t want the Socialist solutions to get to the utopias of the Obamaites.
One area where we disagree is on abortion.
The disagreement is basic. It is based on when you think a human being is created.
If one believes that a baby in it’s mother is nothing more than a part of a woman’s body that can be disposed of like some fingernail clippings, then the question is simple, of course abortion should be legal. Abortion should be just as legal as a woman clipping her toe nails. It is her body. No government should interfere with so basic a right.
I recognize that there are Republicans and Libertarians who hold this position. In this they are being consistent to their ideals that the government should not impair the rights of the individual. Tyler Nixon totally has my respect in this area. He is consistent in his view that government should not interfere with a person’s control of their body.
At the same time some of these folks do not seem to respect the fact that others don’t share their view that life, and the protections of the government, should begin prior to the doctor slapping a baby.
If one believes that life begins before a baby traverses thru a Woman’s birth canal then the question is not so simple. And it seems many have already thought so.
Many States have already recognized that there is a penalty for killing a baby prior to traversing the birth canal. Aggravating circumstances are in fact applied to killers of pregnant women. I have yet to hear a pro choice candidate of any party publicly opposing these laws. Yet, If the baby inside of a pregnant woman is not truly a human, why should anyone serve additional jail time for their demise? Does anyone concern themselves with the unclipped toenails of a murdered woman????
Those who are pro life believe that a human being exists prior to the journey thru the birth canal. Those women who have felt the movements of their babies prior to birth are the most fervent pro life people I have met. They are not in favor of government intervention for anyone in a whole host of areas but they are in favor of the government protecting the lives of the most vulnerable.
The decision for Conservative/Libertarian folks is simple yet difficult. When do we extend the basic protections from murder to humans who have yet to crown their heads from their mother????
Is there room for discussion and compromise? I think so. But then again there were those in 1850 who thought compromise was possible on the slavery question and we all know how that turned out.
I’ll point out that there are a lot of anti-abortion libertarians who invoke the fetus’s own property rights.
That said, here’s what used to be my answer to the question: at the point at which the fetus could survive to come to term outside the mother’s womb.
The problem is that this used to be about 24 weeks, but now in about 10% of cases that can be extended back to 22 weeks–no further currently because of lung development. However, even for the ones that survive at that stage it is a cost of millions of dollars and the US possesses the advanced neo-natal facilities only to deal with a few dozen such children a year. So do we make policy based on that?
Then there is the problem that biologists have been working on artificial womb technology, and that day may not be far off. Put that together with the technology which was partly pioneered in Delaware by Dr Geoffrey Russell at Christiana, wherein an immature egg can be removed from the woman’s ovary, matured, and then fertilized in vitro. Then, theoretically within the next decade you would have the technological capability to remove sperm and an immature egg from donors and use the artificial womb to create a baby that had never been inside any woman.
How do we make policy then? I honestly don’t know.
But here’s my current position: the woman’s right to control her own body, to me, outweighs society’s claim to intervene. That you can get an extra homicide sentence for also killing a near-term fetus does not contradict this: the murderer took that away from the woman without her consent.
I realize that from a lot of standpoints–theological, social, and even ethical–this is difficult territory, but here is my deciding factor: society (which in this case generally means male authority figures) has for millennia used assertions of power over women’s reproductive lives to control and marginalize them. I think that shadow of asserting the State’s power to interfere with a woman’s body is so dangerous and so damaging (and also something that men never have to fear) that I decide the case in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion on demand that way.
I would rather trust American women to make their own decisions about their bodies than to give the government back that power.
That’s as serious and substantive an answer, without any evasions, as I can give.
Let the states regulate it and put it to the ballot box.
Real simple,
Mike Protack
Steve, I really appreciate your reply. Obviously, you have done more than cursory research in to this area and you have given me additional information that can cause me more time to ponder.
Your original position is that state protection of the life a fetus began at viablilty (which you defined as around 6 months.) Would you still favor legislation that outlaws late term abortions? (6-9months)
Again thank you for your reasoned reply.
T.W., thank you for this post . Steve Newton, I’m not sure what you whole discussion about when a fetus can survive outside the womb has to do with a discussion about whether a woman has the right to kill another human being. You talk of the country not having enough advanced neo-natal care facilities. Steve a womans womb is an advanced neo-natal care facility.Leave the child there and it has its greatest chance of survival.
Your view of allowing a woman to decide life and death for the child that in most cases resulted from another choice she made, to have sex, so to allow her to choose to end the life of the child somehow raises pregnant women to god status, at least over their own child. So I ask , when does this end ? At birth ? Why ? Why not allow mothers a one or two month period after birth to decide whether motherhood is really something they want to do? I mean technocally a month old baby is still just a mass of tissue, and why should any poor women be made to carry some mass of tissue around on her hip , and to be forced to feed and change its diapers? Really is it fair to women to expect them to be mothers at all ?
Also, too mant times we completely ignore a fathers rights. What if a father who had an equal part in the creation of the baby would want to raise the child in a loving home ? Why are not his rights important ?
This whole “body ” thing is a smoke screen . The real issue is the life of the child.
I seriously doubt this is worth it, but Tennessee’s response has convinced me to take a shot. Here, therefore, is a detailed response to Frank’s comment:
I’m not sure what you whole discussion about when a fetus can survive outside the womb has to do with a discussion about whether a woman has the right to kill another human being.
It has to do with the fact that I suggested that one standard to be used to declare personhood might be external viability.
You talk of the country not having enough advanced neo-natal care facilities. Steve a womans womb is an advanced neo-natal care facility.Leave the child there and it has its greatest chance of survival.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Such facilities exist because of massive medical problems that make the woman’s womb deadly for the fetus. They are an attempt to save the fetus when biology has gone horribly wrong. And in any case I was suggesting that such might be used as a benchmark, not a requirement.
Your view of allowing a woman to decide life and death for the child that in most cases resulted from another choice she made, to have sex, so to allow her to choose to end the life of the child somehow raises pregnant women to god status, at least over their own child.
You assume that I agree with you that personhood begins at the moment of conception. I don’t. I would argue that the embryo is not a human being, only a potential human being, and that a fetus does not qualify for personhood until such point as it is viable in the external world. As for your point about women being able to “kill” children after birth, some cultures’ religious beliefs allow that. In some Indonesian cultures they do not believe the soul enters the baby’s body until two months after birth, which is about the time that most babies are able to imprint long-term memories. I’m not advocating that, but you are presuming that you somehow have the right to elevate a specific religious belief about the moment of conception to public policy. You don’t–not in a pluralistic society that has religious freedom.
Also, too mant times we completely ignore a fathers rights. What if a father who had an equal part in the creation of the baby would want to raise the child in a loving home ? Why are not his rights important ?
I am not convinced a father has the “equal” rights that you mention. First, in a very real biological sense, he is not an equal partner in the creation of the baby. He physically contributed one sperm cell; he acquires no physical limitations over the next nine months and runs no physical risks. Within a marriage I would agree with you that there should be communication and agreement, but I am not willing for the State to mandate its forms. Further, how do you quantify his promise to “raise the child in a loving home”? Will you require him to post a bond? What if he has a history of abuse or neglect, or lacks the financial ability to do so? Should his judgment outweigh the woman’s in all cases?
You formulation also has an aspect you do not consider: suppose the man and woman both agree that now would be a bad time to have a child, and therefore both DO support the idea of abortion? Are you willing to stipulate that, or do you insist on the intrusive power of the State to demand that they have a child they do not want? [And raising the old “they can adopt the child out” argument is not a satisfactory answer, especially if the pregnancy can cause the woman health-related problems.
This whole “body ” thing is a smoke screen . The real issue is the life of the child.
A smoke-screen for what, exactly? For my bloodthirsty lust to kill unborn babies? We will actually have a real dialogue when you finally realize that the terms of the discussion have to be negotiated, and that you cannot simply impose your religious and intellectual beliefs on everyone else for purposes of the discussion.
As for Tennessee’s question about late-term abortions, let’s actually take a look at the statistics. Very very few abortions are ever performed in the last trimester, and few (I am tempted to say “any”) of the fetuses so aborted are actually completely viable outside the womb. In many cases there is a legitimate threat to the life and health of the woman in question. I realize that most of you think that “mental health” in such formulations is a smokescreen for saying, “I will kill all the babies I want,” but it is not. Is it acceptable to require the sacrifice of the woman in favor of the child? Really? Who makes the decision? I see that as a medical decision, not a political decision.
Frank’s assertion that considering the woman’s body is a “smokescreen” speaks volumes about how he considers and values women. At the moment of conception, in Frank’s universe, there are no other relevant considerations that the protection of the embryo/fetus. The woman’s right to control her own body ceases to exist, or is rendered completely secondary to her partner’s decisions. Frank does not consider this a “tough” moral question at all, and his inablity to acknowledge that other people have different but equally valid moral concerns is the reason why the only people listening to him are those who already agree.
Viability is a start. It is better than the insane standard we have now. It would at least get us up to the level of the liberal European countries.
I believe that viablity is an artificial standard. If a person becomes injured and needs temporary help to live on his own, does he become less of a human? Humanity begins at conception and the attempt at viability is at implantation.
Once you decide to create a life, you do not have a right to destroy it because it is hard or expensive, or inconvienent. Give someone else a chance to love and raise the child if you must, but know that it is a child who deserves that chance.
Frank and I do not consider that a tough question. We are made to reproduce. We make a choice to do so. It is not like we are trees that are minding our own business and some pollen blows by and we are pregnant. What part of living up to your responsibilty for insuring the well being of your fellow human is hard for libertarians to understand?
Frank and I do not consider that a tough question.
No shit. But you at least have to admit it is a tough political question in a society wherein a lot of people disagree with you.
What part of living up to your responsibilty for insuring the well being of your fellow human is hard for libertarians to understand?
Again you presume the right to define the terms of the discussion. Until we come to an agreement regarding what constitutes a human being, your question is meaningless. Moreover, don’t take a shot at libertarians per se because there are a lot of libertarians who are anti-abortion; neither Tyler nor I happen to be among them.
Humanity begins at conception and the attempt at viability is at implantation.
Again: you do not have the power to define the terms for people who disagree with you. You are not interested in either discussing or attempting to understand the positions of people who disagree with you. This may give you good warm moral fuzzies, but it explains why you continually lose in the political process: millions of Americans think you are wrong, and you have yet to offer any new insight to convince them. You merely keep repeating the same phrases.
I know, I know: you will argue that you have God’s truth and therefore are no obligated to go any further to convince those (including lots of Christians) whom you consider ungodly.
How’s that been working out for you, politically, on the issue of abortion since Roe v Wade?
Steve – thanks for offering your thoughts here, where I would not be baited into a pointless back-and-forth with Frank or David, who are pretty much trenchant in self-righteousness over the terms of any discussion of the issue as well as the issue itself, as you pointed out.
That said, perhaps it is splitting hairs but I would not say I am not “anti-abortion” but rather that I am not “anti-choice”. In my perfect world, there would be no abortion either in practice or of necessity. But this would require removing the mother from the equation completely, which is impossible at least with current medical science.
To put a finer point on it, were it to become reality that a fetus could be developed to viability outside of the body of a female human being (such as in an artificial womb) I would support outlawing its termination, with few if any exceptions.
Steve thanks for getting to my question about late term abortions. Your answer to me appears to be that there are but a few of late term abortions statistically. Personally, I would be very much in favor of saving those very few bits of statistics. I feel the same way about partial birth abortions as do 99% of my pro choice friends. I know that there are statistically few of these procedures but that in my view is one of the reasons we should try and not abort these babies. Steve has also cited mental health concerns for the mother. This is one of the areas where the devil is in the details. The mental Health exception was used fraudlently in States such as Delaware and New York prior to the Roe v.Wade decision. Many in the pro life movment are acutely aware of this past historic practice and one can’t be surprised when they say “We Won’t be fooled again.”
Instead of broad based language that leaves the doors wide open for anything to be called a mental illness as occurred in the past I would like to see some specific definitions that adress those areas where pregnancy can seriously impact a woman’s mental health. I don’t find it hard to believe that with the hormone cocktail mix that women go through in pregnancy (I have been on the receiving end of this, for the record) that vulnerable women could be seriously impacted by that. We know that post partum depression is a real condition. I confess that I am not as up to speed on the specific typical mental conditions that might reasonably qualify for such a diagnosis. I am not even sure that enough research has been done to see what the impact of pregnancy is on a woman whose mental condition is susceptible to hormone infusion that comes with pregnancy.
As for my Friends Frank and Dave, you have pointed out that you don’t agree with their view that life begins at conception. You disagree with that and we all get that. My problem with many in the pro choice movement is that they tend to ascribe motives of “controlling women” to those in the pro life movement. This attempt to demean sincerely held positions I find offensive. Dave and Frank do not need me to defend them but the idea that they support pro life positions based on a need to be “Lords of the manor” is bogus and offensive and sadly all to typical of the way the left attacks Conservatives in general.
I do appreciate your candor and your willingness to wade into a debate that just may be one of the bigger political morasses one can find.
“To put a finer point on it, were it to become reality that a fetus could be developed to viability outside of the body of a female human being (such as in an artificial womb) I would support outlawing its termination, with few if any exceptions.”
Tyler, you have gotten about 3 steps ahead of me and i was going to pose this potential option. I appreciate your raising this possibility. I don’t expect such an option scientifically anytime soon. Of course such an option may raise its own ‘Brave New World’ unforeseen consequences.
Tennessee
The problem with the “Brave New World” scenario [which is why I am not looking forward to it] is that part and parcel of that whole technology I described will also come the potential for genetic engineering on a scale heretofore undreamt of. Which is worse: abortion on demand or the ability to genetically modify a fetus in vitro or in womb?
You may find my position on abortion being used to control women offensive. Two thoughts: I find it no less offensive that David and Frank would insist that their Judeo-Christian interpretations of when human life begins must be accepted by everyone as the basis of public policy. Moreover, I think David and Frank’s view of marriage is pretty clear, and traditional marriage has generally throughout history been an institution in which a father essentially engages in an economic transaction to sell his daughter to another man. That’s still “traditional marriage” in most parts of history and the world, and that’s very much part of the world view which suggests that men have “equal rights” to impose on a woman’s body.
As for late-term abortions. The devil is always in the percentage points, and any standard can be violated. That said, I would not resist a requirement for medical review by disinterested (not the best word but I think you understand) physicians prior to such a procedure and a codifying of what constitutes a legitimate mental health concern.
Here’s my thing: entrusting the government rather than the people themselves with these decisions always leads to worse consequences. Both choices will lead to some tragedies because human beings are both fallible and capable of being venal. But to place the power in the hands of a government that has (a) within the past forty years ordered the forced sterilization of over 3,000 American Indian women; or which (b) allowed a whole cadre of African-American males to die of diagnosed but untreated syphillis is not, to me, satisfactory answer.
I’m still waiting for all the people who want to take away women’s right to abortion to each step up and adopt one special needs or mixed race child, and to guarantee that they personally (not the State) will take complete responsibility for those children. Don’t try the “there are thousands of couples who want babies” line; those couples want perfect children–very few will step up and take a crack-addicted mixed-race child with poor vision and learning disabilities. In that regard, for the work he has done, David Anderson had my admiration; but people who will actually live those beliefs are few and far between.
Steve, I have known people who have adopted special needs kids out of a desire to be parents. These are special people and they have a special calling. Unpublicized, are the efforts of the Catholic Church where certain parishes sponsor homes for young women that have chosen not to abort. These projects not only put a roof over the head of the young women but also finance ongoing education and/or training. There are in fact many people putting there money where there mouth is.
Like you I distrust much of what the government does but the technology advances that Tyler originally referenced will eventually occur and the advancement of the “artificial womb” will not be due to a desire to solve the political aspects of the abortion argument. It will initially be laid out for those women who can produce eggs but cannot successfully bear children. The research is being done with the most of noble motivations and I think it will proceed regardless of yours and my ‘Brave new World’ concerns.
Regarding some sort of “objective” or “disinterested” type of decision maker I do think that can be done provided there is some type of additional research on the impact of pregnancy on possible underlying mental conditions. We really probably need some of that type of research anyway to help relieve those who suffer from these ailments.
Regarding Dave and his ‘traditional’ marriage views, I know Dave and Jeanne personally and I can assure you that Dave will not be selling his daughter to anyone and if he had such a desire Jeanne would clean his clock. Dave’s wife Jeanne is no shrinking violet and she is not afraid to tell you what is on her mind. (In a very nice way mind you.) I don’t know Frank personally but I doubt that his marital views are quite as extreme as you may think.
At any rate Steve, I enjoyed this discussion but I have to run. I do understand yours and Tyler’s points and we have discovered some areas of agreement although I don’t think we will agree on everything since we are coming from a very different premise on the beginning of life. I have a very busy weekend scheduled and some articles that will be upcoming so while I welcome your comments I will not necessarily be available to respond in a timely manner.
First let me say this again, I said it over on David’s post that turned into this same discussion. This is a question of right and wrong, it is a moral question. My belief that life begins at conception is not based souly on my “Judeo-Christian” faith, because only Judeo-Christians are against abortion in Steve Newtons world.I’m not sure how I went from wanting to protect a childs life , to selling my daughter into marriage ?
It is a convienent arguement to say that people like myself and David are attempting to take away the rights of the mother. It is also convienent to ignore the fact that I have stated that my concern is protecting the life of the child.
Of course those who argue in favor of abortion will not even identify it as being a child, they prefer to call it a fetus, I guess that lessons their guilt.
Now as for the whole artificial womb thing , well here I will say that I feel that this would be a very dangerous path. Once we believe ourselves to be God , it will become even easier to play God. You would see more babies created and then destroyed if they didn’t meat certain standards, just think, if a genectic test had been done on the fetus that became Stephen Hawking and had been destroyed because it showed the potential for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ? Think how the world of physics would have suffered.
Now concider how many Stephen Hawkings have been destroyed over the years because a mother decides that it wasn’t the right time in her selfish life to have a child.
I’ll say it again , a woman in most cases has the right to choose to not have sex, if she chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant she then should take resposibility for her choice. To say that her right to choose to kill her child is of more benefit to society , than is the childs right to live is bazaar in my view.
As for how this topic effects party politics, well I don’t really care. If we are making a decission that effects the lives of million of children a year , and we are weighing how it will affect our party’s standing , then we have just become as selfish as the aborting mother.
Abortion is evil because it takes a human life. Thank GOD for people willing to look out for others. If they didn’t, we would still have slavery. The world would have looked the other way and allowed the final solution. Communism would still be killing millions and enslaving billions. That is just the last 150 years. Abortion is just another in a long list of evils justified by those who would rather value raw power over morality.
I am glad that TW took on the foolishness that pro-life people should put their money were their mouth is. There is much more that goes on than he mentioned. What I do not get is how someone could even say that right after my appeal to help save Delmarva Rural Ministries prenatal program. I am to the point where I consider that line of argument so insincere that I do not even address it. Maybe I should because it could give resources to people who are looking.
Now let’s address the issue of rather I have a right to ask
Steve to define when life begins. All of us not only have the right but the duty to find that answer. It is not a side issue. It is the issue. It is the issue that Tyler and Steve insist on it avoiding. Tyler even to the point of name calling to distract from his unwillingness to address the issue.
We can not even move to other issues until that is addressed. I consider late term abortions to be the visible tip to the dangerous iceberg of dreadful choices.
TW made a valid point when he asked where does life begin if it is not the birth canal? We know that the child is viable earlier and earlier. A child is viable in the middle of the second trimester now. The truth is that the embryonic stem cell research has shown that the child can survive outside of the womb in stasis for years. If we had the technology, we could allow the child to develop in an artificial womb. This can not happen before fertilization. I do not need a religious person to tell me that life begins at conception. Logic, reason, science, and yes the Christian tradition (Islam and Buddism also oppose Abortion as well as Conservative Judaism which is a rare concensus that should be considered.) say that life begins at fertilization. You could argue at the first division of cells, but the point is very simple.
It has nothing to do with imposing morality. It has everything to do with asking people to have the moral courage to respect the most innocent and vulnerable among us.