It seems to be the case that much of the pro-Life camp regards Roe v. Wade as a kind of left liberal “pro-abortion” plot of some sort. It is not.
Although I can see how if you live at the extreme end of the spectrum, anything toward the center might be regarded as a plot, or perhaps a capitulation, I don't think it's politically useful to think this way.
Let me begin by identifying that my personal position is pro-choice. That is, I think the question of whether to have an abortion or not must be chosen by the woman who is pregnant. That isn't to say that I think one should always have abortions or always not have abortions. I think these are things anyone can hold individual opinions on, and yet I also think the ultimate choice at any time during pregnancy in the sense of legally authorizing an action and in the sense of being immune from legal prosecution should be with the woman who is pregnant. That's what I think is right and just. But it's not a position I will argue for here as an outcome.
My analysis here is not for the purpose of advocating my personal preference. If it were, other people would just express their personal preference and there would be a lot of “Oh, yeah, so who put you in charge?” or “What makes your position any more valid than mine?” While I don't agree with the positions others take on this, I think that in a pluralistic society, one has to regard the positions of others, especially large numbers of others, with a degree of respect at least to the extent of hearing them out and seeing if they can be accommodated. I expect the same of those on the other side, of course.
I begin with the assumption that this debate will not be won by everyone on one side changing the mind of everyone on the other side. Therefore, I think that, absent genocide (which I'm going to assume most rational people do not want), the right answer will not be at one end of the spectrum or the other. So we can line out “no abortion” and we can line out “unconditional abortion any time for any reason.” I can see the pro-Life camp wincing because already it's as if their mission has failed. But what you should understand is that I may have already pissed off a great many pro-choice women by this remark. Even people I agree with on principle.
I don't make this first observation out of some desire for a particular outcome, however. I am merely observing that these are not legitimate hopes for anyone with any understanding of politics. They will not, as a practical reality, happen. Or, if they do, it will be a period of time in American history that is as unstable as Prohibition was. Whatever your feeling about alcohol, there's simply no question that outlawing it was not a good plan. The same will be true with either a law that allows no abortion or a law that allows utterly unfettered abortions.
It's hard to summarize a whole movement in concise form, so I won't attempt to. I'll assume anyone reading this has read and discussed the matter extensively before and I will appeal to shorthand descriptions that others have used before me. For simplicity of discussion, let's assume this comes down to a question of whether personhood begins at conception or at birth. The entire argument seems to revolve around this. If you believe that a group of a few cells is “a person” that's going to lead you to a certain line of thinking whereas if you think it's not, it will lead you to a different line of thinking. And that's how the discussion ends up breaking down. So where is the middle ground?
Well, speaking in my role as neutral arbitrator, and leaving my personal preference aside, it's pretty clear that there's a continuum between these points of view. The pro-Life group is quick to point out that if something is a person at the moment of birth, then it's hard to argue that it's a not a person just a moment before. But let's be careful. This implies a certain transitivity that may apply locally in a kind of ad hoc way, but that clearly doesn't apply as you get farther away in time, away from birth and toward conception.
For example, by the same fuzzy argument, Boston is close to San Francisco. How do I know this? Well, ten feet away from anything is close to something. And so if I'm only ten feet away from something that's close to something, surely I must be close. And if ten feet away from Boston is close, then so is ten feet away from ten feet away. And so on. Until ten feet turns into three thousand miles. Clearly, at some point I'm far away. But where? Does the fact that I cannot articulate that precise point at which I am far rather than close mean that I am never far away? Or is the precise point simply elusive? There may not even be a single point in the sense of working for all purposes. Philadelphia may be close to Boston for some purposes and far for others. In fact, western Massachusetts may be close to Boston for some purposes and far for others.
And so one possible analysis (not my personal way of analyzing this, incidentally—I'll write about that another day) is to say that at one end of the pregnancy, there is personhood, and at the other end there is not, and so presumably in the middle it gets a little fuzzy, with properties of each.
And so along comes Roe v. Wade, which I will argue reached the most politically optimal and correct conclusion, even if for the wrong reasons. The rationale offered in Roe was based on viability, which seems to me an objective quality that is irrelevant. Moreover, it is a messy quantity because viability clearly has no uniquely determined sense. Relying on such a definition puts the debate into the hands of those in control of dictionaries rather than leaving it in the control of public discourse between aggrieved parties. So I don't like the rationale for the reasons that the terminology has been possible to co-opt and manipulate. What I do like, not in my personal point of view but in my role as neutral arbitrator, is structure of the decision. That is, it's a good decision for reasons independent of its stated rationale.
I think what saves Roe is that it creates a staged transition between opposing communities unlikely to agree. A trimester in which those who claim that a fetus is not a lot like a person have a strong case to make, a trimester at the other end in which those who claim a fetus is a lot like a person have a strong case to make, and a trimester in between when there are interests on both sides, and where some negotiation seems possible.
Structurally, as a political compromise, this is not ideal for either side. And this is what makes it a good political compromise.
I think the pro-Choice community already sees Roe v. Wade, as a compromise, and there are those who seek for greater autonomy. I personally think they are right. What they say is compatible with my personal theory of how the world operates. But they ask for anything beyond this compromise at some peril in a world where the opposing side seems committed to pushing back.
By contrast, I think the pro-Life community mostly does not see Roe v. Wade as a compromise. I think they view it as a victory for what they call the “pro-abortion” side. I think this is a political mistake because I think they can't do better than this middle point without risking backlash.
The two sides should recognize this impasse and agree to terms. I think pushing this forward risks eternal strife and to no good end.
I also doubt the pro-Life camp will take my advice. They will continue to push, and so this notion of compromise will have no purpose. In that world, expect me to simply champion the pro-Choice position right up to birth. Adopting this middle ground is only useful in exchange for a promise of cessation of conflict, and I think would be well worth that price.
Then again, in the coming years, as population increases further on a crowded planet of finite size, this issue may become moot.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
Personally I wish it wouldn't happen but it isn't for me to decide.
The government has a full plate as it is and they can't handle what they have already. They should stay the hell out of telling a woman what to do with her body, period. The alternatives to legal abortions are much, much worse and if people don't remember or realize it than they are just fools blinded by their beliefs.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense to anyone other than me but you asked my opinion and this is it.
After a woman is pregnant, she has to choose whether she'll be willing to be responsible for raising a child, and caring for that child up until the time either she or he/she dies. That's a pretty big decision to make. And if she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world (who will probably grow up to have more problems than the norm because of being unwanted), then there shouldn't be any restrictions on her ability to get an abortion.
To the right to life crowd, my advice to anyone who is opposed to having an abortion is, don't have one. It's not your place to impose value or morality judgments on other people, just because they have a different outlook on life than you. Otherwise, why don't we convert all the Afghanis to Christianity? And too many right to lifers think that the death penalty is swell, so I say, so much for that sanctity of life crap.
I can respect a right to lifers opposition to the death penalty. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.
And the argument could be made that if the Jehovah's Witnesses had political power, blood transfusions would be outlawed. Same difference.
As you point out, one side of this debate understands this dilemma, while the other side of the debate does not. And, of course, this does boil down to the kind of certainty that religion breeds, despite the fact that religion is based on uncertainty.
And this points out why compromise with people such as religious fundamentalists is a detriment to humanity, and why the abortion exclusion in the recently passed healthcare bill in the House is a travesty, not a “compromise”.
I do not make the distinction that at some point (viability) she loses that right.
In my opinion, if the fetus is in HER BODY and she wants it out…that should be her right without qualification.
All that being said, however, I am interested in seeing legislation passed that will allow many people who are not covered by health insurance to become covered…and if getting the necessary votes to get that legislation requires that concessions be made in this area…I say, “make ‘em.”
We can right these wrongs later. Right now…compromise is the correct course in my opinion…and if there are people who want to consider the compromise to be “a travesty”…so be it.
The hard, inflexible American conservative agenda does more damage to our country than does the Taliban or Al Queda. The hard, inflexible American liberal agenda is almost at that point also.
Still defending the spinelessness of today’s Democrats. To deny women needed medical care just to appease some religious fanatics is not a "compromise", it is a travesty. The exemption has nothing to do with anything pertinent to the bill whatsoever. Those who are not willing to sell out represent the only thing standing between what we have now and a theocracy.
Should we ignore climate change, as well, simply because religious fanatics say God will take care of it?
Should we not resist war in the Middle East because religious fanatics think such war will lead to the Rapture?
-- Mary Meehan, quoted in (atheist) Nat Hentoff's essay "The Indivisible Fight for Life"
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/indivisible.html
For anyone who believes that opposition to abortion only comes from the religious right, I invite you to read the essay by Hentoff, a liberal and atheist.
Kent writes: "Structurally, as a political compromise, this is not ideal for either side. And this is what makes it a good political compromise."
I agree completely. But what bothers me is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be in the business of crafting compromises. That is a task for the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. And in my reading of the Constitution I find nothing about trimesters. Yes, as you say, the structure of the decision is impressive, but I don't find much in the Constitution that supports the specific details of the structure.
Inasmuch as Roe v. Wade is a compromise, it is a compromise that permits almost a million abortions annually, most of which are done out of convenience, even as literally millions of potential adoptive parents go through incredible expense and hassle just for the chance of being able to adopt. When I hear about "unwanted" children, I have to ask "unwanted by whom?"
Old new Lefty writes: "And if she doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world (who will probably grow up to have more problems than the norm because of being unwanted), then there shouldn't be any restrictions on her ability to get an abortion."
For the sake of argument, let's say that all of these unwanted children were not aborted and would have grown up having more problems than the norm, whatever that means. Who among us would tell one of these children that "it would be better if you had never been born." Because in effect that's what is being asserted -- it would have been better had the child never been born. To me, that seems like a very arrogant thing to say. Having "more problems than the norm" is deserving of a preemptive death sentence?
Lefty, the reason I wrote this wasn't really to say “this is the way I would decide things personally” but rather to say “I don't know why either side is all that uncomfortable with this position, which seems quite neutral.” Speaking as objectively as I can, the pro-Life community seems to be bending way less than the pro-Choice community. I don't think the pro-Life community really sees how much ground Roe v. Wade gives up. The only reason the pro-Choice community ever accepted Roe v. Wade at all was that it was a step up from coat hangers. It wasn't because it was really their goal state. And yet, the pro-Life community seems to treat it as if it were a total win. I think that's basically an unfair analysis.
Rick, I'm trying to stay as neutral as I can here, mostly just explaining my position here but not going out of my way to advocate, so I'll let your position stand. I think it's clear enough.
Frank, the question of whether there's a short-term compromise based not on finding the mid-point between two value systems but rather on a willingness to simply prioritize some third thing is not one I'd really intended to address, but it's fine that you made a point of it. I'm just curious to hear how things strike people, and I appreciate your giving your opinion.
Karin, my comments above notwithstanding, I do appreciate very much your showing up and highlighting your position. This is an extremely tricky topic for me to treat exactly because as a male I'm detached from it in certain ways. (On another day, I'll treat the issue of how males relate to it. But that's a very different business.) Your position is clearly stated and appreciated.
On the right, why is conception the magic point? A fertilized egg is merely potential ... but so is a bunch of separated sperm and eggs. Perhaps some religious folks think that fertilization is when the "soul" arrives; but even so, if you procreate more, you get more souls, right? So the extreme right position is not only no abortions, but also have as many kids as you can. (This seems to match Catholic and Mormon teachings, for example.)
As for the other side, abortion on demand isn't enough either. You can eventually get to a China-like one-child policy of forced (or at least highly encouraged) abortions. Or, perhaps, a eugenics kind of thing, with forced sterilizations and abortions for the out-of-favor groups. A mere, "it's the woman's neutral choice" is a step back from these extremes. (And how about the dads? They are financially liable, but have no say in the abortion decision? Surely they ought to at least have a choice of either forcing the woman to have an abortion, or being released from all financial liability.)
Anyway, just wanted to add some more grist for the thought experiments...
A bundle of cells without a nervous system isn't a person, period. Nor is a bundle of cells with a nervous system no more developed than that of a flatworm. And if it were a person, then it would be a person equivalent to someone brain-dead. The government has no business coming between the families of brain-dead patients and their doctors, period. The right, of course, see this as an opportunity to make political hay from other people's suffering.
No matter how developed a fetus may be, if it's already in the womb suffering from a congenital defect that would give it only a short, nasty and/or brutish existence, then the government has no business coming between the mother and her doctors, period. The right would rather impose suffering on innocent children than give an inch on their "right-to-life"-in-name-only dogma.
The right adamantly oppose the government ensuring healthcare, scientific education, basic nutritional needs, a clean environment, safety from firearms and a host of other reasonable contributions to the general welfare for children from the moment they take their first breath, but want to secure all the benefits of citizenship for zygotes and even for gametes, and make the merely living into second-class citizens
You've got to be careful about this line of reasoning, though. Just in terms of current abilities, a newborn human is less capable than a newborn deer, certainly than an adult dolphin or chimp.
The Greeks used to practice infanticide. I assume you don't approve, but the arguments against it generally relate to future potential of the infant. (Or just gut reaction: it feels yucky to watch a parent deliberately kill a kid.)
Anyway, I don't think there are any clear (scientific) lines here, and so your discussion about a human fetus vs. a flatworm isn't really helpful. It's not a convincing point, nor should it be.
Unfortunately, if we don't push back, we'll get run over. Oops, we already did.
Mishi - Inasmuch as Roe v. Wade is a compromise, it is a compromise that permits almost a million abortions annually, most of which are done out of convenience, even as literally millions of potential adoptive parents go through incredible expense and hassle just for the chance of being able to adopt. When I hear about "unwanted" children, I have to ask "unwanted by whom?"
Don't you think that's a pretty sweeping generalization. There are no facts here - "most". Most are done out of convenience? What are you even talking about? Is that the leg you're standing on?
Your analogy of the chicken/egg sandwich is one of the best I've ever heard - how someone argue with that?
My daughter was induced 10 days over due. You're essentially saying that instead of giving birth to a healthy baby, I could have aborted her (a process that would have as its goal, a dead baby).
To use your example of Boston to SF, the issue isn't whether Illinois, Kansas or Utah is "far". The real point is to make sure that Connecticut, New York and New Hampshire aren't "far".
If life begins at conception, either the Gov't has an excuse to pry into the body of every fertile woman, or, for all practical purposes, life begins at perception, a fundamentally unsound principle.
If life begins at birth, then the byproducts of third trimester abortions are going to look an awful lot like murdered babies. A significant portion of medical personnel is going to be morally offended, not limited to the religious.
Legally, you need a line. It doesn't matter if you draw it in Kansas or Colorado, as long as it's far away from either coast.
My real point here was not to argue that there are many forms of pro-life or many forms of pro-choice. There are. My point was to say that regardless, there is a mid-point between them, and Roe v. Wade is it. I point this out because the spin from the pro-Life camp is that Roe v. Wade is simply a win for the pro-Choice camp. It's not. It's not a loss either. Nor, if the pro-Life folks were being fair would they say Roe v. Wade is a total loss for them, since it gives them substantial control over the final trimester that makes you so queasy.
But since you raise the issue, let me just clarify that saying women should control what happens up to birth doesn't imply that I think women are going to really do the things you say. In nearly all cases I've ever heard of where abortion was done late-stage, it was because the baby was going to be born grossly ill anyway and either not survive or live a life of torment. Sometimes these facts don't become known until late. Sometimes a woman takes a while to come to grips with it. But your remarks give a bit of a sense that you're the sole possessor of ethics, morals, and a sense of caring and you're trying hard not to turn over the control to savages. People reserving the right to themselves doesn't mean they are going to always use it, it just means when they do they should not be questioned. It's intensely personal. The same is true of dying decisions. No one wants to see older people just killed of randomly, but the idea that what keeps them safe is that the government has final say of when they may die is offensive to many.
And that's my whole point about this piece. I'm simply tired of listening to the pro-life community call Roe somehow a slamdunk win for the pro-choicers and then demanding a position that is even more draconian. Roe is already draconian in many regards.
One thing that bothers me is the pro-lifers unyielding push to have the issue forced into so many debates on Capitol Hill where it doesn't belong. Yes, I'm talking the Stupidpak Amendment. I know that this is a different issue than you're discussing here, but it was a slick political move by pro-lifers and could become THE wedge issue that brings the whole healthcare package to a screeching halt. The Hyde Amendment covered the government funding of abortion issue. Stupak goes far beyond that and once again will punish the poor and lead to back alleys and coat hangers. Of course the right don't seem to care much about the health of the mothers or anyone else once the leave the womb. Everyone is on their own from that point on.
So, this takes away abortion coverage from a lot of people but provides others the option to actually have maternity care. An abortion, at least, is a lot easier to scrape together money for than a full-fledged birth. The women that are mostly likely to not have any way to raise the money (no savings, nothing of value to take to the pawn shop) are probably either uninsured currently or on Medicaid and don't have abortion coverage anyway due to the Hyde Amendment.
I'm certainly not happy that women are getting thrown under the bus to try and (unsuccessfully) appease the conservative wing of the party, but I rather the healthcare bill pass than not. And in practical terms, I'm more concerned about local restrictions that reduce access to abortion than I am about Stupak.
Moreover, in your zeal to think that this is all about humanity and compassion, it is necessary to ask you to stop and take a breath and at least understand that there is a tyranny on women tantamount to rape or enslavement from the idea that you should decide what is possible to have happen to their bodies. This si not a simple matter of compassion, it is a matter of trading off various kinds of compassions under various very complicated and very different theories of religion and ethics. It is far from simple unless you're of the mind to think that only your personal opinion matters and that no one else's does.
I have really gone out of my way to be respectful of the pro-Life position as other than zealotry here, and I would ask at this point that you show similar courtesy by acknowledging the legitimate needs of the women who say they need abortions. If you don't find yourself able to do this, expect as a consequence that no one will treat your position with respect either.
I'm saying that most abortions are not done because of any medical necessity, such as severe fetal deformity or the mother having serious medical problems due to the pregnancy. Most abortions are also not done because of rape or incest.
I think that's too weak a statement. You make it sound like it's a matter of opinion, like whether someone prefers chocolate or vanilla. Yes, of course, some people do find the flatworm analogy compelling; I'm suggesting that nobody should.
Here's the problem: the argument basically says: a human embryo is a less complex entity than a flatworm (which is true, aside from future potential). Therefore, we ought to give it no more rights or respect than we do a flatworm.
That sounds compelling, but then you need to explain to me how the exact same structural argument doesn't also hold for newborn human infants, vs. dolphins and chimps. In every measurable way (aside from from potential), adult dolphins and chimps are more complex, interesting, and capable entities than human newborns. Yet we allow slaughter of dolphins in fishing, but we don't allow the killing of newborns.
Can you tell me the difference between the arguments? I assume you don't find the second one compelling, but that ought to mean that you shouldn't find the first one compelling either.
Your blog is a place I love to visit. You host a forum here which encourages both civil and thoughtful debate. That’s a fairly precious combination in a time when incite-ful often trumps insightful and light is obscured by incendiary rhetoric.
What is deeply grievous to me in the debate over Roe v Wade is the utter hypocrisy of the abortion issue being revived each election cycle. The pro-life and pro-choice positions have become such blatant red herrings and tools used to acquire votes rather than to genuinely defend and address a woman’s right to choose.
Elections live and die by misleading sound bites and catch phrases. The phrase “pro-life,” for example, is a misnomer. There are those who claim to be pro-life and yet support the death penalty as well as a proactive position in regard to war. That is hardly “pro-life” by any reasonable definition of the words.
The phrase is an example of a culture that has overtaken politics and media where wars have logos on the nightly news and politicians drop phrases that focus groups have told them will most easily manipulate voters.
Operation Rescue’s founder Randall Terry’s vociferous speeches are a classic example of how an issue can be used and is used to stir action and reaction by playing upon the worst in us.
Politicians all too often have the moral compass of a hand glider. They go which ever way the wind blows. Using phrases and issues like Roe v. Wade are a means to an end of sweeping others up in their wake.
Rated and appreciated.
"Convenience" makes it sound like pregnancy is equivalent to being stuck in traffic. It's not-under the best of circumstances, it's a major strain on a woman's body. Under the worst of circumstances, it can make her very sick or even kill her. If she's not prepared for the financial consequences, it can put her underwater financially.
You want to judge/shame women for choosing abortion instead of "heroically" moving forward with having the baby, fine. The First Amendment gives you the right be judgmental like that. Enjoy sitting on your pedestal, I hope it makes you happy.
But ultimately, your desire to tell other people what they "should" do has nothing to do with appropriate public policy. You should not be able to make that decision FOR the woman. Nor should the government. Nobody should except her, because it's a major decision that affects her health and her life.
And as far as adoption goes...plenty of infants/toddlers/children languish in foster care. You want a child that bad? Pick one.
Assuming someone does not buy the Constitutional argument that Mishima makes, there is a practical argument that ties back to a point in your post. The legislature gets the benefit of applying new information when it becomes available. So, new science can allow legislatures to adjust the law.
Also, using the legislative process allows for people to be able to persuade each other and express their changed opinions through changed votes for representatives.
And, if at some time, society achives such a consensus that the people want to remove abortion from the sphere of the legislature (just as free speech is), then a Constiutional Amendment can be passed. But, even then, it is the people who choose to remove the issues from majority rule instead of the courts removing it.
Remember, Roe v. Wade is a ruling, one that has determined law, or set precedent. The ruling is not the same as being pro-life or pro-choice. In its ruling, the Supreme Court had no idea that the ruling would set such an incredibly strong precedent. I doubt the SC will ever make such a blanket ruling in the future, which is why I commented how I did on your last post.
Good job. Keep writing!