Senator David Vitter (R-LA), in Senate debate today, said in support of denying abortion coverage to women, “This should not be of any great controversy. abortion is a deeply divisive issue in this country, but taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortion is not.”
He is simply wrong on this point.
“There are no political answers,
only political questions.”
—Kent Pitman
(in a technical forum, 2001,
and Open Salon post “Rule of Law”)
It cannot be the case that a question exists such that one possible answer to the question is political and another possible answer is not political. If one answer to a question is political, then all are. And if all are, then the question is.
And so if it's political to spend money, it's political to withhold money.
Not divisive? We are divided regardless of how you frame the question. That's a fact.
Senators were sounding hot under the collar this morning about their tax dollars going to abortion. Well, I've written already explaining how this slicing up of the pie is wrong. It is not their tax dollars going to this, it is mine. I'm not getting pregnant, but my tax dollars still go willingly to the support of women who get pregnant. Many of us want that. The Republican Party already brought us an immoral war in Iraq, so let's have no further indignant talk about people's tax dollars being spent unfairly.
But beyond that, I want to make one more point of substance:
Opposition to abortion goes far beyond the mere issue of who pays for it. This issue of tax dollars is a tactic, not an end. Even if there were no tax dollars involved, these same people—people who allege to be all about personal liberty and small non-invasive government—are all about expansive government and removal of individual liberty in this case.
If they had their way, they would deny all access to abortion. And they think they have the moral high ground.
But to deny access to abortion is to force pregnancy.
Having sex is not consent to have a baby any more than driving is consent to be killed in a car accident. Whatever fiction the Religious Right may want to spin, there is more sex being had in the world than for the purpose of procreating—even by Christians.
Nor is getting pregant proof of lack of birth control. Even if it were, to suggest that the penalty for such a simple mistake should be months or years of servitude is disproportionate.
Birth control methods fail. Abstenance would avoid birth control, but again it's out of the bounds of appropriateness to be telling people they should abstain just because other birth control methods are not perfect. The Pope's proscription of the use of “artificial” birth control notwithstanding, it is essential that people be allowed and even encouraged use birth control. There's a population explosion ongoing, if you didn't know. Even married people need birth control to keep from having babies at a time they're not prepared for, to keep from bankrupting their families, and to keep our finite world from being overpopulated. But birth control fails and the penalty must not be slavery.
So let's sum up, shall we? Sex is a human need. Having sex, even with birth control, risks pregnancy but is not consent to have a child. And yet some would insist women carry even unwanted pregnancies againt their will.
Well, we can talk until the cows come home about whether a fetus is “a life” or “a person.” It is to some, it isn't to others. The fundamental morality underlying this differs person to person. To me, an abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person. But while we're wasting our breath pretending it's worth debating that issue, another argument goes overlooked:
Forced pregnancy is enslavement. We often speak of it in the polite terminology of “choice” but that apparently doesn't help the pro-Life community to understand the passion in reverse. ![[universal symbol for 'no coat hangers']](/files/no-coathangers-round-150x1501260298373.gif)
They seem only to be able to imagine some bloodthirsty passion for killing little babies and so they see the argument as one-sided. But there is another side, a side involving a very personal choice that is simply not the business of lawmakers to do anything other than unconditionally support in the name of personal liberty.
We speak sometimes in shorthand, referring to the time of back alley abortions, using coat hangers. We say we don't want to go back to that. Perhaps that possibility seems abstract and unlikely to some people. Perhaps they think not everyone will be driven to that. But so what? Does that make it ok? A woman was forced to consider whether to find a guy in a back alley and risk her life to stop a pregnancy, but she decided no, she'd rather be enslaved against her will. Is that really what we're saying is ok? No muss no fuss? As long as the coat hanger remains on the rack, there was no trauma involved?
Or are we saying maybe, like Patty Hearst, she'll get used to it—perhaps come to like it? Does that make it any less enslavement? That given time she comes to accept the choice that was made for her, the fate that was scripted out for her?
Forced pregnancy is brutal whether one goes along with it or not, just as sure as rape is brutal whether one goes along with it or not. And let's be frank: If you support removing the right of a woman to make this decision for herself, then you should understand that you support a policy that is nothing less than brutal to women. Forced pregnancy is not a kind loving act that you're thrusting upon a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. It is enslavement, nothing less. And to many women this choice has been seen to be so horrendous that they will risk their very life to get out of it. What right is it of yours to make such a decision for her?
I'll say it again: Forced pregnancy is enslavement.
Forced pregnancy co-opts a woman's body against her will. Forced pregnancy subjugates a woman to a term of imprisonment within her own body, forced to do the bidding of others, creating a child she has not elected, in order to satisfy the morality of another. Forced pregnancy insists that a woman yield her basic right of self-determination to powers beyond her control.
Forced pregnancy means risk of medical harm with no input from the woman. There are conflicting claims as to whether a woman is safer having a baby or having an abortion. Naturally I have a belief about that, but let's not get side-tracked by that because it doesn't matter. Forced pregnancy means she doesn't get to make that decision, so she has no choice of how to navigate that risk.
Forced pregnancy reduces the status of a pregnant woman “autonomous adult citizen” to “lesser person.” It says she is not worthy of the full rights of an ordinary citizen.
Forced pregnancy is a verdict or judgment, but without due process of law. The crime is sex—it was done in a manner not authorized by some Church, in many cases not the Church that the woman herself attends. The judgment is automatically one of “guilty” Individual circumstances are not considered. Matters of personal individual faith are not considered. The lack of due process, on its face, is immoral.
Self-determination is about the woman electing her fate, and if she's forced to carry a pregnancy, her fate has not been elected.
Held to a fate against her will. Deprived of the right to get out of the situation. Unable to refuse the work involved. Receiving no compensation. That's the very essence of slavery.
Call it involuntary servitude if you prefer a more sanitized phrase. It makes no difference. It's still wrong. And it's not just wrong—it's unconstitutional and violates the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which the United States has signed).
I'll close by casting Senator Vitter's remarks quoted above into a point of view that reflects my own feelings on the matter: This should not be of any great controversy. We are indeed divided over how we would handle the very personal choice of abortion in this country, but withholding taxpayer dollars that might free women from slavery or involuntary servitude should not be something we are divided over. No one is requiring any given woman to to get an abortion, but denying those who choose one the means to make a difficult but responsible choice is not a morally neutral position. Denying access to safe and legal abortions amounts to leaving a woman trapped by circumstance into a life not of her own choosing—in short, in favor of slavery.
Stop asking your Senators if they are pro-choice. Ask if they are anti-slavery instead, and insist they vote that way.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
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
My question is this: SINCE IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL to spend taxpayer money on abortion except in specific circumstances WHY is Congress wasting time on this particular "red herring"? It's ALREADY ILLEGAL... this bill will do NOTHING to change that... it will take a separate bill specifically to repeal that particular law and they can't tuck it into the health-insurance-as-economic-recovery legislation somewhere and sneak it past so what's the point in all of the bluster OTHER than to obfuscate...
I wish more people thought like you do.
rated for value
And, though I didn't mention it here, abortions don't even cost net money. The cost of completing a pregnacy to term, in terms of health care, exceeds the cost of abortion. The honest lingo on the part of the pro-Life community would be “I want to pay extra for my morality.” or “I want to tax others to pay for my morality.” Because even if I were to agree that it was immoral to have an abortion, I could not agree that your taxpayer dollars were going to pay for it; rather, the taxpayer dollars of pro-choice people are being co-opted for these forced slavery births that are more expensive. So, in a very real sense, abortions cost negative money, regardless of what you think of the morality.
Spotted, thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed the read.
Unfortunately, you are using reason…and we all know where we end up when trying to be reasonable with the folks on the other side of this issue.
Keep fighting the good fight.
That is all any of us can do.
Frank, thanks. I don't know what to do other than at least try to make rational arguments. I figure if they're on file, people can quote (or even paraphrase) from them when they're stuck for a way to articulate their own ideas.
Rutilus, quite a brave approach. I think there's a place for that as well. I hear even vasectomies fail sometimes, by the way. But nonetheless, I'll just underscore that no matter what protection is done, it's still the right of the woman to control the destiny of her body.
people who have no qualms about driving a robot bomb into a crowd get excited about snuffing out a life with no more sense of self than a worm. amazing.
You are indeed the master.
However, the response could be that such funding is limited to 2/3rds the total funding for public assistance, minus 1 dollar. That tracks public opinion fairly well. Because abortion would account for far less than that total, there would effectively be no ban.
Political games aside, banning abortion could be considered to place a woman in a form of slavery, but that wouldn't be the best legal argument, in my opinion.
I see it as a straight forward question of rights and practicality. Law shouldn't grant a blastocyst or fetus rights superior to the woman's. Even if this were violated, the state, having accepted the fetus as a ward of the state, should then accept responsibility for that life through the legal theory of in loco parentis. Food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc, until age of majority.(They can hash out the custody details with the woman's lawyers.)
However, there is a point where an elective abortion would violate what a "reasonable observer" might see as moral. Though I doubt there are many, if any elective 3rd tri abortions, I can see government imposing there. (Roe allows that) But government should never interfere with a medical decision.
So, a total ban is impractical, and cannot be had within the bounds of a free society. Police state spying and enforcement would have to be introduced.
That's why abortion is the perfect carrot and stick political game. If it were banned, there would be no carrot to keep the faithful running to the polling booth to vote on one issue while ignoring the ones that have far more impact on our country.
It seems it's a moral question with no practical resolution, and a motivation to keep it that way so it runs on an endless loop. I do wish it wasn't the distraction it has become.
As usual a great piece of research, well expounded.
The UN International Declaration of Human Rights is not signed by any one but was a proclamation of the general assemby that the US voted for in 1948. It is conventions (Rights of the Child, etc) which are singly signed and ratified (often with exceptions) . The US has signed no major rights conventions at all.
However, your point is well taken that we did vote for it, and we have spoken often enough about human rights to uphold them.
I understand that they voted down the anti-abortion foes amendment today. It is always so close...
Thank you for this thoughtful piece.
In this case I don't see that the woman is being denied access to abortion. She can get an abortion. It's just that public funds won't pay for it.
Kent: "So let's sum up, shall we? Sex is a human need. Having sex, even with birth control, risks pregnancy but is not consent to have a child."
I'm not sure in what way sex is a human need. People seem to be able to go for a long time without it. Even if sex is a need vaginal sex is not. There are other ways in which both parties can have all the orgasms they want without risk of pregnancy.
Vaginal sex for fertile women includes the risk of pregnancy. Is it unreasonable to expect a woman or her partner to cover the expenses of their own decisions?
Your post goes on and on talking about the horrors of what happens if a woman can't get an abortion. Slavery, involuntary servitude, denial of free will, no due process, etc., etc. Well, maybe before having sex the woman should consider setting aside a little money so she can get an abortion in case the condom breaks. And if she can't be bothered to do that, why do the rest of us suddenly have an obligation to fund that?
Kent: "To me, an abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person."
Not much of anything, as far as I can tell. Developing humans are barely even a footnote in your post, in your moral calculus not even worth considering. Not part of the equation.
In think this is where you and I disagree: is sex fundamentally about adult pleasure, or about the creation of new human lives?
At one point you wrote "Opposition to abortion goes far beyond the mere issue of who pays for it. This issue of tax dollars is a tactic, not an end. Even if there were no tax dollars involved, these same people—people who allege to be all about personal liberty and small non-invasive government—are all about expansive government and removal of individual liberty in this case. " I think this goes to the heart of it. It is not rational and therefore a rational response never seems to change anything.
Good post. Enjoyable read.
To clarify: Sex is fundamentally an adult pleasure that sometimes has the useful side-effect of making children. I don't think it's reasonable to think about it the other way around because if people intended to have babies even a tenth of the times they have sex, we'd be (and this is no exaggeration) knee-deep in babies.
But importantly, this argument is intended to not address the fetus is life/person issue. See Rob's excellent cross-reference to Judith Javis Thomson's “The Violinist” scenario for a better-expressed variant of the same argument I was making.
Quite honestly, I want to underscore that my point here is not to tell you that a fetus is or is not a life. Rather, my point is to say that even if you think it is a life, not everyone does. And further my point is that your belief that it is a life (however legitimate such a belief is for you in a pluralistic society that is not required to subscribe to your morality in order to be a first-class member) is insufficient to justify the enslavement of a woman.
If it were sufficient, we might still have slaves tending farms in the South. An argument could be constructed that although it was, yes, a bad thing, on balance there are a lot of people—to include small children—who need to eat, and so we must enslave those workers to make sure those small children do not die. It is insufficient even to claim that the people who will die are the woman's own children because she has not chosen those children. The only way you can say she has is to require that she not have sex unless she accepts the contract that any accidental pregnancy implies her willingness to a lifetime of servitude. That is not an acceptable requirement, and it comes back to the issue of the purpose of sex.
Perhaps our point of disagreement is what people can and cannot, or even should or should not be allowed to control in others' sex habits. I certainly find your claim that it is acceptable to tell someone that vaginal sex is not an option to be unreasonable all by itself. And the rest of your argument seems to follow from that.
No, vaginal sex is definitely an option, but an option that comes with potential consequences. Absolutely an option, as far as law and public policy goes. I just don't think that the rest of us are obligated to fund the consequences of that option, with respect to abortion.
That said, if the woman becomes pregnant and has a baby and doesn't want to rear the child, then public funds can be used. But at that point, the public funds are being used in behalf of the child, not the mother.
Kent: "To clarify: Sex is fundamentally an adult pleasure that sometimes has the useful side-effect of making children."
But even from a strictly secular, evolutionary point of view -- why is sex pleasurable? Because it's fundamentally about making children, about making more people. You want to radically separate sex from procreation, in which children are literally a "side-effect" of sex. I find that position totally unsupportable, either from a secular or religious point of view.
Certainly it has consequences. But any societal choice to require a woman to take a particular action is not one of those consequences, it is a choice made by society. The only biological consequence of being pregnant is that you're pregnant. Either abortion or birth is a derived consequence that follows from a decision by one or more humans. You seem to be asserting a right to decide that. I'm asserting that exactly because multiple views of morality apply, it's unreasonable to assert on the basis of morality that you can decide. If you want to claim based on a “might makes right” argument, you can do that, and you might win. But that's a pretty feeble theory of governance.
And I'm not sure why the reason we care about sex matters. To me it matters only that we do.
I disagree with your analysis. Society doesn't require anything. It's just that public funds don't pay for abortions. Public funds don't pay for you to buy cigarettes, but it doesn't mean that society is forcing you to quit smoking. It just means that society isn't paying for your smokes.
A woman can have sex all she wants -- protected, unprotected, passionate, boring, whatever. She can have as many abortions as she wants, for any reason at all, at least in the first trimester.
She can go to the abortion clinic more often than to the dentist, and that's fine. It's just that public funds won't pay for that. But she's free to spend her own money for that.
If she has a car she can choose not to change the oil in the car. And if the engine croaks, she's free to buy a new engine -- or not. Just because we don't pay for the engine doesn't mean that we're forcing her to take the bus. She's free to get an ugly tattoo, and free to pay to have it removed. Just because we don't pay for tattoo removal doesn't mean that we're forcing her to wear an ugly tattoo.
It seems to me that you look at women as children, who have to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions. I don't. And if a woman makes an unfortunate decision, it's not clear to me how that gives her a claim to a piece of the public wallet.
Since you're being so free in suggesting that it's ok to require that sex be accompanied by extreme care, how would it be if I suggested that the phrase “she can put her child up for adoption” be construed as a legally binding request to adopt the child in question. Then you (or anyone) could still make this statement but only at the cost that if you did, you might find yourself being a father without your consent...? Why would this be so unreasonable, given that it's not that structurally different than what you're saying we can just vote into law to perturb the lives of young women with other plans.
Mishima, if women are getting pregnant unexpectedly, they didn't get that way on their own- why is paying for an abortion solely their look to?
Being privy to you and mishma debate ANYTHING is worth the price of admission --- the care and thought you both put into your points is really inspring. But to your piece:
First, the fact that every single point was backed up with solid research was impressive. This essay is why I usually find "rants" boring.
Second--The implicit message here is that abortion is everyones business. The way that sentence is usually interpreted is by old conservative white men trying to control woman's bodies. But there is a second way to look at our common interst in abortion; which is in the horrible effects that ripple through society when this fundamental, personal control is denied by the government.
Finally, we who call outselves "pro choice" lost a rhetorical battle a long time ago. I always have to stop and think---am I pro choice or pro life. I forget the difference because using just the meanings of the words, I am both.
But by ratcheting up the rhetoric to slavery---you do a service. Put it on a different level. And I like that a lot.
I’m curious where you draw the line on people taking responsibility for their own actions.
Does the inexperienced knife juggler have to pay for his own stitches? Does the vegetarian pay for their anemia treatments? Does the family who could only afford a very nice apartment if it is next to the three mile island nuclear facility have to pay for their cancer treatments? Does the Jewish family have to pay the medical costs for an infected penis due to a botched circumcision?
What sort of morality police squad are you proposing to enforce this mess?
Kent,
A thoughtful and well articulated post. R.
Until they do all of that, fund all those programs at the necessary levels.... then how dare they talk about this?
I could go on and on, but I'll hush. Trying to meditate a little on the snow outside...
ok, now I really will hush.
ChicGuy, I appreciate the thoughts and for your generalization of my remarks (in your point 2). You're right I was speaking mostly about the individual, not society, and yet it's applicable to both. The pro-Life community often remarks about the societal effects of abortion, and I think it's properly symmetric to talk about the societal effects of enslavement.
Waking, thanks for offering your thoughts. No need to hush. I've been working on writing a number of pieces on this topic from different points of view, since it's such a big topic. I did somewhat address the cost issue in Challenging the Abortion Exclusion a few weeks ago, but only obliquely. There's room for a post directly on the topic of the cost trade-off. I hope to get to such a post at some point as part of what seems to be a continuing series on this topic.
.—people who allege to be all about personal liberty and small non-invasive government—are all about expansive government and removal of individual liberty in this case.....
Forced pregnancy reduces the status of a pregnant woman “autonomous adult citizen” to “lesser person.” It says she is not worthy of the full rights of an ordinary citizen.
Excellent post, and excellent points, Kent. I've quoted my favorites above. The last is the most powerful. My being against this kind of slavery is not that abortions are wonderful and that every woman should experience one, but that abortion is a way out of a situation the woman did not choose. I further believe women should be able to expect competent care in a medically safe and sterile environment if she should ever need to go through this. I would be thrilled if more reliable contraceptives could be developed that prevented unwanted pregnancies altogether. Less controversy and physical and emotional stress for everyone involved. While I can in some situations understand an opposition to abortion, the people who REALLY burn my bacon are those who would even deny women access to legal and prescribed contraceptives. Folks, if you don't like abortion, taking contraception away is the fastest way to increase demand for abortions!
I don't feel government should be involved in reproductive decisions of individual women whether to forbid a woman to end a pregnancy she didn't choose in this country, or as has been the case in Romania and China, forcing a woman to abort a child she DOES want. Nor am I going to browbeat any woman to have an abortion if she truly can't reconcile that act with her conscience. But the best reason to become a parent is because you very much want children. The life of an unwanted child is no picnic, but we never hear about that from Republicans, do we? I do feel that something as complicated and expensive as parenthood SHOULD be planned for best results, and it definitely beats the unplanned variety.
One would think with the periodic sex scandals of the past four or five years that Republicans would have figured out that sex is sometimes a purely recreational activity with no thought of reproduction. Let's face it, Mark Foley was definitely not thinking in "reproductive" terms, was he?
Good work, Rated.
Actually, that's an excellent way of putting it. But poor people have to be more careful with all sorts of things. They have to watch their budgets closer. They can't "gamble" as much, either in the literal or metaphorical senses. Let me put it this way: if a woman would be unable to pay for an abortion, and would be unwilling to carry a baby to term, then she should seriously consider not engaging in an activity that would cause pregnancy. That's just common sense, isn't it? Likewise, if she can't afford to pay for a speeding ticket, and she can't afford not to drive, then she shouldn't speed -- unless you expect taxpayers to bail her out of that one too.
Kent: "Moreover, I don't think it serves society to have its economically weakest be statistically favored to produce offspring simply because they can't afford not to."
We don't exactly have an epidemic of poor woman bearing unwanted children. With close to a million abortions a year, obviously women are finding some way to pay for them -- personal funds, family, friends, the "boyfriend," or whatever.
Kent: " . . . how would it be if I suggested that the phrase “she can put her child up for adoption” be construed as a legally binding request to adopt the child in question. Then you (or anyone) could still make this statement but only at the cost that if you did, you might find yourself being a father without your consent...?"
I have a better idea. People who believe that all women should have unrestricted access to abortion at no personal cost should contribute to a fund of money in order to pay for that. Such support could even include out of town travel expenses, hotel, meals, and so on. That way all women could enjoy as much sex as they want, with no risk of any personal financial expense in the case of pregnancy. For such women and their financial supporters it would be a win-win situation, yes?
peppermint writes: "Mishima, if women are getting pregnant unexpectedly, they didn't get that way on their own- why is paying for an abortion solely their look to?"
Sure, boyfriends should also help to pay. I have no problem with that.
Mark writes: "I’m curious where you draw the line on people taking responsibility for their own actions.Does the inexperienced knife juggler have to pay for his own stitches?" & etc.
In the examples you mention the people suffer actual injuries. But pregnancy after sex is not an injury; it is not a disease. It is a normal consequence of sex, and something that that is likely to happen with healthy sexual partners. The pregnancy may have been brought about through a failure of contraception, but there's nothing wrong with the body itself. And the pregnancy is not necessarily unwanted. This is why we call them "elective" abortions. The pregnancy itself is a normal and predictable consequence of having sex. Contraception is an attempt to interfere with the normal workings of the body, and sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't.
Kent says that sex is fundamentally about adult pleasure, and that pregnancy is a side-effect of that. Personally, I think it's the other way around. But his argument is ultimately not with me, but with the body. The human body very much thinks that sex is about pregnancy, and it makes sex pleasurable in order to achieve pregnancy. Kent could just as easily argue that sex is fundamentally about selling consumer products through sexy advertising, but the human body would disagree with him on that point as well.
Humans used to have to live with all sorts of parasites before modern medicine figured out ways to free us of things that would suck us dry from the inside.
Nobody argued that the tapeworms had a right to be there...
Once again you’ve presented a thoughtful argument and made many salient points to support it.
From my own vantage point I see the issue hinging on the problem of poverty. As long as abortion is legal, to withhold funding for the poorest to avail themselves of it is clearly done so based on a moral argument rather than a legal one.
The larger issue here has always seemed to be what form of morality are we willing to allow our laws to be influenced by.
Those who argue for a Judeo-Christian based morality to guide our laws would do well to read the Old Testament. If they are willing to stone their own kid to death for stubborn rebellion, drunkenness and gluttony then I suppose they can be satisfied with a system based on that form of morality.
The rest of us however may desire system that respects personal choice which is benign to neighbors, is inclusive of all faiths, and defends individual liberties despite the times that such liberty may conflict with our own private beliefs.
Rated and appreciated.
The examples I gave to you were all of people who made unfortunate decisions and only half of them involved injuries. The outcomes were all within the realm of expected possible results and yet you seem have no issue with these people having “a claim to a piece of the public wallet”.
I would posit that the only difference in these scenarios is YOUR take on the morality of the causal actions.
I would challenge you to think of any medical condition that in some way cannot be linked to unfortunate decisions.
Cancer? Diet, lack of exercise, exposure to poor environments.
Coronary disease? Diet and lack of exercise.
Cirrhosis? Drink up.
If your point is about cause and effect and personal responsibility, then you need to expand it beyond unwanted pregnancy and abortions.
If your point is about money then counter Kent’s valid argument that abortion is the most cost effective solution for unwanted pregnancies and ultimately will save money.
If your point is about morality then a) admit it and stop trying to hide behind your wallet b) convince everyone else why your morality is best
Rated
Mishima, you suggest people should have as much sex as they want and then bill me (or us). In fact, I think the issue of how much sex they have isn't relevant. What's relevant is that we haven't restricted their having of sex at all—they're still having it. I don't know of any decent study that says birth rates go down if the cost of child rearing goes up. The actual choice is between paying a little for abortion this year or many years for health care and schooling of unwanted children. So regardless of what you think about the goodness of the pregnancy, it's always cheaper for us to pay for the abortion. At least admit if you want to stand by the immorality argument that it's you, not me, that's imposing an expense on someone. We are going to pay for all kinds of services for those kids you want to be born, unless you're also proposing cutting back on social programs for the not-well-off.
Dennis (Knight), thanks for visiting and offering your viewpoint. Quite a contrast between your position and Mishima's on the matter of treating poor people. I do think there's an economic issue here, but I think the administration of it that Mishima suggests doesn't work for me. It has a very “let them eat cake” sense to it. The last paragraph, about liberty and private beliefs requires a lot of courage for people to do but I think is right in its intent. Thanks.
Robin, thanks for visiting. Yes, the issue of force has a lot of dimensions. I think they have to be addressed one by one, though. It's a little hard to comment on your second remark without context.
Mark, thanks for returning to carry on the debate. Some good questions. I appreciate the help.
Hi, Karin, glad you got through and that the post resonated. The issue of the commitment that parenthood implies is definitely key to my desire for it not to happen in a sloppy way. People who commit need to know when they're doing it, be aware they are doing it. It has to be informed consent, in other words.
junk1 (are there more of you?), I'm glad it hit the mark for you. Thanks for registering your support.
I am rating this now, because I think you make a forceful argument that is your normal, well reasoned approach. But I dont have the time this evening to really think this through - something about the cast of your argument seems wrong to me. I will spend some time and try to get back to this by this weekend.
In the meantime, thanks for bringing my attention to this post.
Does that statement ever make a lot of sense.
Very interesting angle that I haven't heard before. Your argument certainly seems to fit the parameters of slavery. I would love to hear the"yeah buts" on the other side of this debate after they read this.
I don't have a problem at all with tax payer dollars used to fund abortion. I wonder how many children have been brought into this world when the woman had no money to abort a fetus, thus having a child with no financial means to raise the child properly? How does that make us a better people or a better country? It seems that it would only exacerbate so many of the problems that we have.
I also wonder how many abortions are performed for women on the "right" side of this argument? We will never know, but I would bet that their numbers aren't that much lower than women on the pro-choice side of the table.
As far as railing against spending taxpayer dollars, 42% of my property taxes go to the school board each year. I don't have any children, so why should I pay? I should pay because it is for the betterment of the people and the nation.
This issue is no different in my mind. The long term costs of raising a child and the strain on the system, vs the cost of an abortion were mentioned in one of your earlier posts on the subject. Restricting a woman's choice in the matter is harmful for the entire populace.
A bit off subject, but Tom Cordle's argument of, "is a fertilized embryo the same as a child" is solved in my mind by his conclusion that, if your house was on fire and you could rescue your child or your embryo in a petri dish, which would you rescue? I think that would have to be a very easy choice and also settles that in my mind.
You should send all of these, and especially this post, to Planned Parenthood. I'd love to see what they think about them.
I hope you do send this to other groups (ie Planned Parenthood). For far too long our side in this debate has pulled our punches and ceded the moral high ground to the women-hating patriarchs. This is not about fetuses, this is about women, and ending thousands of years of women's oppression! Why shouldn't we be up-front about it?
The Republican Party already brought us an immoral war in Iraq, so let's have no further indignant talk about people's tax dollars being spent unfairly.
Yeah, funny how "moral" Republicans brought us the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war (to say nothing of what that war has done to the Iraquis themselves and to our national prestige) while the godless, lying adulterer Bill Clinton gave us the biggest surplus we've had since the Woodstock era (he also gave us welfare "reform" and NAFTA but that's for another time). David Vitter in particular should talk!
The idea of punishing women for being sexual (with men) is uncivilized enough by itself, but worst thing about forcing accidental pregnancy on women is that the unwanted children are the ones who get the bulk of the punishment. It was a generation of such children-by-chance that overthrew Romania's egomaniacal Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who outlawed abortion or contraception for any reason. If you want to know the real meaning of the word "nausea", check out films or photos of the neglected, undernourished children in Soviet-era Romanian state orphanages.
If these oh, so moral and oh, so (un-)Christian people had their way, not only would we lose access to abortion, you wouldn't even be able to buy a box of condoms without a letter of permission from Pat Robertson. And everyone who ever downloaded porn or visited a bar or club where unattached single people were known to congregate would be shipped off posthaste to re-education camps. OK, so I'm exaggerating. But by how much?
First, the ability to terminate pregnancy has existed since the first pregnancy. It’s not just a matter of available government funds, it can be done with a number of herbal mixtures or surgical procedures. None of these are perfect; they all carry some risk. As you rightly point out, so does pregnancy itself. So the question also carries within it an additional question – if we are speaking about government benefits for it’s citizens, is there a line beyond which we are will to provide? And, if we are unwilling to provide a certain benefit, does a person not receiving that benefit actually exist in a state of slavery?
I think this is where I have a problem with your argument. Is it necessary for the government to pay for a procedure in order to not be accused of creating a situation that is akin to slavery? Now, just for the record, let me say that I am firmly pro-choice. I cannot see how anyone willing to call themselves a lover of liberty could be anything else. We have no business making laws that regulate what consenting adults do that does not impact others. Period. I understand that this argument breaks down in the face of the “life begins at conception” argument and therefore abortion is murder, but I don’t buy that one (which is a matter of choice on my part, based upon the fact that a collection of cells with potential but an inability to exist outside of a host is more properly described as a parasite that a fellow citizen).
Do we as a society decide how money we pay in taxes gets spent? Sure, that’s the idea behind a representative democracy. We hire people to make these decisions and if they consistently disagree with us we have the opportunity to remove them. Therefore, the real argument about pregnancy and abortion is one of “Should there be any governmental ban on a medical procedure entered into between a willing person and their willing health care provider?” Of course to this question the answer has to be no. Not in a society based on personal liberty being its highest value. Therefore, we still come back to who pays, and if not the government, which we hope should provide for the most vulnerable amongst us, then who? Vitters statement is correct ~ abortion is deeply divisive but payment for it isn’t. Of course, this only applies to those who cannot pay for a procedure themselves, because we don’t have a public health policy in this country (and no, I’m not going to get into the current debate on health care policy here).
The answer? Recognize that this is no issue for the government to make laws banning anything other that risky, unproven medications or procedures. There is no good reason for a government based on personal liberty for its citizens to be proscribing anything those citizens do that does not limit the freedoms of another citizen. If this were the standard, then we could have a substantive discussion regarding covering the cost of a requested medical procedure without conflating it with all the other crap, including whether or not the availability of the procedure equates to slavery for the person who cannot pay for it themselves.
My apologies for the long answer. I thought perhaps this should be its own post, but I didnt want to co-opt yours and I decided your readers should have the chance to blow holes in my thinking too.
Great post. I am skipping much about it as many have already responded. Regarding the economics, many are crying about public funds being spent on abortion being the issue when the real issue is whether they mitigate a specific 'legal' medical procedure from the bill while they do that with no other medical procedure. Where this draws an issue is of course around abortion and the federal subsidies for having mandatory insurance. This is a singular attack on the rights of women. If Mimisha can not see this for what it is, then he misses the point. Who is going to track down these women's rapists? Who is going to prove it is rape? What if the woman is addicted to crack? What happens to this child? Where is the man's responsibility when the child is not growing within him (in his view, it naturally falls on the woman)? I think his view is rigidly philisophical and coming from the cheap seats. From a practical point of view, which is where I see your argument falling, a majority of abortions will help women who are young and impoverished. Regardless, we are heading into a new era of history with health care and a woman's reproductive rights deserve no less sensitivity than a mans - pure and simple. Otherwise, we need all men to quit fucking, too, for Mimisha's viewpoint to hold up.
To add to the economics discussion of unwanted pregnancies from the lower income bracket, the amazing economist Steven D. Levitt (blog WSJ) drew an amazing conclusion about the significant decrease in crime rates in the mid 1990s.
From Freakonomics, begin p.138
"By 1980, the number of abortions reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off. This is one abortion for every 140 Americans" In comparison, in war-torn, poverty stricken Romania, there was one abortion for every twenty-two Romanians.
"Before Roe v. Wade, it was predominantly the daughters of middle or upper-class families who could arrange and afford a sale illegal abortion...One study has shown that the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortion would have been 50 percent more likely than average to live in poverty; he would have also been 60 percent more likely to grow up with just one parent. These tow factors - childhood poverty and a single parent household - are among the strongest predictors that a home roughly doubles a child's propensity to commit crime...In the early 1990s, the years during which young men enter their criminal prime, the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals."
"Murder rates in early legalizing states fell 23% more than those of the other states."
"What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion; she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in a position to raise the baby well. If she decides she can't, she often chooses the abortion."
Besides all the costs previously mentioned, let's now consider the cost of an unwanted child who brings the added burden of a criminal mentality into the world. Some costs simply can not be tallied.