Abortion in America

November 1, 2005 3:06 PM

Abortion in America is a blogger's thoughtful summary of a report (pdf) by the Third Way Institute about who is having abortions in America, how many they're having, and why. (via sully.)
posted by alms (77 comments total)

Nice summary. But how can we use this data to convince people to have more abortions?
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:20 PM on November 1, 2005

I don't know if their stats are reliable, but re: their conclusions, ie that now the GOP is winning big among "abortion grays" (those who think that it shouldn't be always legal nor it should be always illegal*), the pragmatic solution for Democrats is clear. Wait, and let Roberts & Alito have their way with Roe's comatose body (not that they can do much to stop them, mostly the game works this way -- _you_ win elections and then _you_ pick the judges), and when lower middle class women (nobody would care about the poor and, er, ethnic) start dying for backroom abortions or get indicted by Alabama grand jurys for murder in the first degree after getting caught having an abortion, well, the GOP will start losing elections, and losing bad, for years, because their fundy base will be very happy, but the rest of America (women especially) won't

politics is a coldhearted business. just ask the (now) very successful Republicans. appeasing their base will, in the end, kill them.

* a very unclear category if yoiu ask me because it could include almost everybody except NARAL activists and abortion-clinic firebombers)
posted by matteo at 3:25 PM on November 1, 2005

... and when lower middle class women (nobody would care about the poor and, er, ethnic) start dying for backroom abortions...

That works really well. Unless your, uh... a lower middle class woman.

Also, lower middle class these days is a step up for some 35% of Americans. These days, "lower middle class" is sounding pretty damn good.
posted by cedar at 3:43 PM on November 1, 2005

I wonder when the left is going to make jokes about the fact that the appointment of Alito ("breath" in Italian) can mean that the Supreme Court/American women are going to get a bad case of "halitosis". Yeah, stupid joke, I know...
posted by beguemot at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2005

I think the GOP is fairly shaky on philosophical grounds anyway.

I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’
I’m pro-choice for exactly that reason. Feel the same way about abortion as I do flag burning. Horrible. Tragic. But it is more important for the government not to be involved in it.
I suppose I’m with Ford on that - any goverment powerful enough to can give you what you want is powerful enough to take it away.
*pratfalls*


I think the heavyweight stat here (granting that it’s factual - I’m merely being skeptical, not taking a position either way) is that there is no correlation between out of wedlock births and abortion rates.
That seriously skewers that moral high ground b.s.


Being a conservative, I’d prefer a tradition where sex ed was taught at home. Given that many parents aren’t even feeding their kids properly, I’d have to cede that to schools. Since that die is cast - since that is the case now - we should support it more fully. In fact it should be expanded to it’s own health class with an emphasis on how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.


Too often sex and morality smothers the issue of reproductive health. While I’m all for local tradition defining matters like these, this is, ultimately, a health issue.


I suppose power is a factor as well. Jus prima noctis comes to mind as analogous for a government.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:54 PM on November 1, 2005

Whites are 69% of the national population and have 41% of the nation's abortions. Blacks are 12% of the population and have 32% of the abortions.

My impression was that it was mostly inner-city blacks who had the majority of abortions and I always thought it was strange that religious rual whites were always obsessing over the comings and goings of single black women in the city as if unwanted black babies are something that the white country folk really want.

The fact that hospitals in the city are overrun with "boarder babies" also shoots down that whole idea that upwardly mobile infertile couples are waiting to adopt would-be aboritons.
posted by wfrgms at 3:58 PM on November 1, 2005

Smedleyman writes "I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’"

They consider abortion to be the moral equivalent of murder. Get it now?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:59 PM on November 1, 2005

beguemot: Don't call him 'breezy,' neither. That's just crass.
posted by breath at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2005

I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’

Obviously. Government encroachment is only to be opposed when it affects your business, or offends your morals. Otherwise it's just dandy!

Or, put another way, allowing someone else to do as they please when it offends your morals -- that is what they conveniently define as "government encroachment". See DOMA.

Really, though, this is one of those things where teh GOP "Big Tent" strategy has paid off. It leaves the party in contradiction with itself, but it wins them elections. Ever notice how the GOP only actually does stuff for the religious right when they're in trouble? They're great at lip service.

Unfortunately, this time it won't be no lip service.
posted by dhartung at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2005

I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’

I don't understand how the alleged followers of a religion that began after an innocent man was unjustly put to death after a sham trial can be pro-death penalty. so what? electoral politics is not rational, live with it.


That works really well. Unless your, uh... a lower middle class woman.

exactly, that's the electoral beauty of it (if you think like a realist -- and, well, cynical -- politician, of course).
look, let's pretend you're a Democratic consultant (a Halloween proposition, I know). but what happens when Bush's and Reagan's SCOTUS guys overturn Roe? you only need one case of a white secretary or a white teacher killed by a backroom abortion, and you can turn her into the Democratic Willie Horton, if you're good enough. she'll scare so many other women that the GOP will sink like the Titanic. let's call her Jane X -- she could be you if you're a woman viter, or if you're a "abortion gray" man she could be your girlfriend, or your sister, or your best friend. the narrative is even stronger than Horton's -- she dies after the coat hanger operator makes a mistake because she couldn't afford a trip to Mexico or Canada and her (pig of a) boyfriend wasn't willing to pitch in, or she gets indicted for murder. the GOP shows that you can win based on fear, and perceived retribution. it works (well, have your supporters count the votes thanks to a federal mandate, and owning the SCOTUS helps, too, but I'm digressing).

that's much better than a black lame-ass bogeyman like Horton (the one that was enough to send Bush sr off to victory, by the way)

that is, if you want to win elections as much as your opponent does.
or, you can be polite and sensitive and have good intentions. President Dukakis and President Mondale are awfully nice man. President Humphrey is, too.


These days, "lower middle class" is sounding pretty damn good.

that's the emerging Democratic majority for you, in a very simple formula
posted by matteo at 4:14 PM on November 1, 2005

/long post. Several birds, one stone.


“They consider abortion to be the moral equivalent of murder. Get it now?”
posted by mr_roboto at 3:59 PM PST on November 1 [!]

I get the moral equivalent of murder. But I didn’t say ‘moral.’


I am not arguing moral grounds. I argued the position of the GOP is weak as a matter of philosophy.
I can kill someone in self-defense. This does not require government intervention. I can kill someone who breaks into my home. In Florida I can kill someone who threatens me.
I argue that the government does not have the power to prevent me from exercising my right to use this force in this manner. The power of life and death in matters concerning only myself are absolute. Not subject to government control.
I cannot then cede to the government a decision which would subvert my will in those matters, even if it is the killing of another human being.


On moral grounds I happen to stand with the GOP on this issue. I would do everything in my power to convice someone not to do it. To give the baby up for adoption or whatever possible alternative they had. I would not attempt to physically stop them.
On the flip side of that coin, in order to save children’s lives work should be done to remove the social stigma to having a baby out of wedlock. Calling women ‘whores’ and such outside the abortion clinic really doesn’t help save a child’s life.

And I would certainly not use the government to enforce morality on any subject. Particularly in matters concerning procreation. China enforces strict rules on procreation for example. I wouldn’t want my government to have similar power.



“I don't understand how the alleged followers of a religion that began after an innocent man was unjustly put to death after a sham trial can be pro-death penalty. so what? electoral politics is not rational, live with it.”
posted by matteo at 4:14 PM PST on November 1 [!]


I agree with the first part (I’m anti-death penalty - again for the same reasons I’m pro-choice and pro-gun). But electoral politics don’t have to be rational, but the laws that result from them have to be consistent.


This consistency is what makes government sufferable.
It’s one of the differences between a conservative vs. a liberal outlook.
Reason is great. But thinking changes over time and place and circumstance. So I prefer - in matters concerning large swaths of the population - to take it slow.
If laws are not consistent they are not fair. I wouldn’t live with that and I wouldn’t want anyone else to either.


I’d be in favor for Roe V Wade standing anyway. It’s been there for long enough that anyone it would affect would have grown up with it. The ruling was based on the observation that a marked change had occured, and swept through enough of the country to ensure it was a lasting change.
It is now, lacking a better word, a tradition.


And I think my droit du seigneur analogy holds. Extension of government powers over these matters is akin to the granting of privilege (private law).
posted by Smedleyman at 4:57 PM on November 1, 2005

Third Way develops policy and communications products to help senators and other progressive leaders better advance their values in red states and counties where progressive ideas have lost resonance.

I'm not sure how this report does that.

I mostly agree with matteo. I think if it becomes suddenly constitutional to outlaw or restrict abortions, the pro-life crowd is in for years of legislative whoopings. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.

The *huge* reason to root against that scenario is the very serious but hopefully short-term injustice for women in about 10 states (optimistic guess?) who would be totally screwed.

On the other hand, there should be enough wealthy pro-choice supporters who should help these poor women get out of their pro-life state and into a clinic elsewhere.

I’d be in favor for Roe V Wade standing anyway. It’s been there for long enough that anyone it would affect would have grown up with it. The ruling was based on the observation that a marked change had occured, and swept through enough of the country to ensure it was a lasting change.
It is now, lacking a better word, a tradition.

You sound a bit like Justice Breyer. Another rational "conservative" (in my book.)
posted by mrgrimm at 5:09 PM on November 1, 2005

Smedleyman writes "The power of life and death in matters concerning only myself are absolute. Not subject to government control.
"I cannot then cede to the government a decision which would subvert my will in those matters, even if it is the killing of another human being. "

This doesn't even make any sense. How could any matter in which you kill another human being concern only yourself? Such a matter necessarily concerns at least yourself and the human being whose life you're threatening.

Smedleyman writes "And I would certainly not use the government to enforce morality on any subject."

No subject? Murder? Theft? Rape? Assault?
posted by mr_roboto at 5:20 PM on November 1, 2005

If this administration overturns Roe v. Wade and declares abortions illegal, the rich will just go out of the country to have their abortions. The poor will be the ones who will suffer. The poor always get shit on in this country, and I am sick of it.
posted by banished at 5:32 PM on November 1, 2005

Sex education should be free and required in all schools (private and parochial too). Starting in 5th grade kids should be fully informed about how to avoid conception and how to do "safer sex" (with frigging pr0n videos if need be). Contraception should be free and encouraged, and abortion should also be free, legal, and available on demand. And abortion should be mandatory when the girl is under 16, unless her parents or other responsible adults sign a binding contract to raise and support the resulting infant till it turns 18. (If you've got to have a government make it work for you.)
posted by davy at 5:48 PM on November 1, 2005

I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’

As other posters have said, the issue is the pro-lifers believe that abortion is the murder of a living human being whose right to be alive is no less significant than yours or mine.

You can agree with that or disagree with it, but pro-life opposition to abortion flows directly from that belief. It's no less internally inconsistent than the belief that rape or murder should be illegal.
posted by verb at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2005

There's a significant portion of conservatives who would also ban the pill because they think it actually causes abortions. Until the mainstream Republicans thoroughly disclaim that extreme, there's not going to be a Third Way in this debate.
posted by footnote at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2005

This thread has remained surprisingly civil and thoughtful.

I respect the pro-lifer more who wants abortion banned completely than one who thinks it's okay in the case of rape or incest. If you really believe that a fetus is another life and killing this life is murder, why would rape or incest mean it's suddenly okay to murder? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

I think abortions should be legal, but I think other pro-choicers should step back and realize that the crux of the issue is whether the fetus is a separate entity (surviving on its mother notwithstanding). If it is not, it's part of mother's body and you're doing what you want with your own body. If it is a separate entity, it's murder. When you claim that pro-lifers don't women to do what they want with their own body, you're misunderstanding their definition of her body and the position they give the fetus.
posted by null terminated at 6:08 PM on November 1, 2005

...that could have been written much more clearly.
posted by null terminated at 6:09 PM on November 1, 2005

If it is a separate entity, it's murder.

Not really -- pro-choice thinkers do acknowledge that the fetus is a separate entity; what matters is the relationship between the two entities: The fetus's rights are completely subordinated to the woman's rights up until a certain point, which is why it's not murder.
posted by footnote at 6:15 PM on November 1, 2005

...that could have used a few more full stops. But hey, I managed to use almost every punctuation mark there.
posted by footnote at 6:16 PM on November 1, 2005

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life. ~ Planned Parenthood "Plan Your Children" pamphlet in 1963.

There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. ~ Dr. Arnold Halpern former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime
posted by bevets at 6:19 PM on November 1, 2005

Until an organism can breathe on its own it's not independent. This is the difference between a "preemie" and a "parasite".
posted by davy at 6:29 PM on November 1, 2005

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

So twins don't count?
posted by thedward at 6:30 PM on November 1, 2005

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder thedward

So twins don't count?

The chromosomes are different than the mothers. Unique in that there was never an exact copy before conception
The definition is accurate but can not be exhaustive.

e.g. Moral Person: Cigarettes kill people

Tobacco Executive: It is impossible to stab someone to death with a cigarette.

Moral Person: Inhaling cigarette smoke causes cancer which kills people.

Tobacco Executive: I know someone who smoked a pack of cigarettes in 1982 and they never got cancer.

Moral Person: Inhaling cigarette smoke on a regular basis tends to cause cancer which kills people.

Tobacco Executive: That hasnt been proven.
posted by bevets at 6:36 PM on November 1, 2005

Until an organism can breathe on its own it's not independent. This is the difference between a "preemie" and a "parasite".

I understand the idea you're getting at, but that sort of statement has its own built-in quagmires. If I need a respirator does that make me non-independent and thus killable? I know that's not what you're saying but these sorts of questions are the ones that most pro-lifers immediately worry about.

If you mean that a fetus is not 'independent' until it is able to survive on its own without assistance, that's murky as well. A sort of medical-ethics God Of The Gaps theory.
posted by verb at 6:39 PM on November 1, 2005

bevets writes "person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people. "

I'm going to take this opportunity to property use the phrase "begging the question". Thank you.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:46 PM on November 1, 2005

"How could any matter in which you kill another human being concern only yourself? Such a matter necessarily concerns at least yourself and the human being whose life you're threatening."
posted by mr_roboto at 5:20 PM PST on November 1 [!]


I phrased that poorly. I don't believe the government has an apriori right to take away from me the right to make life and death decisons concerning me. That extends to self-defense, but also defense of my liberties and my right to die in the manner I choose.


Obviously I'm not advocating murder.


Murder, theft, rape and assualt are issues concerning safety and violation of others' rights as well as morality.
I would argue that the government exists to protect those rights not the moral aspects of them.
I can for example contemplate murder or theft or rape as long as I don't act on them.
While it is immoral to want to rape someone, there is no law against it.

Perhaps we need a definition in terms. Could be we're looking at "moral" in different ways.

We can dance around whether the government should protect the rights of the unborn, but I prefer to settle the question as a matter of killing in self-defense when it comes to government intervention.




"It's no less internally inconsistent than the belief that rape or murder should be illegal."
posted by verb at 5:50 PM PST on November 1 [!]


I agree with that. I'm not talking about internal consistency.
I disagree with holding opposing values at the same time. You either think the government should have the right to override your personal decision making when it comes to defending your life and liberty or you don't. I don't buy the "in some cases" crap.

I can see being pro-life, anti-gun and pro-death penalty, because you then favor state control. I disagree with that position, but I get it.

The Catholic Church is pro-life, anti-gun, anti-death penalty. I see the consistency of values there (church control).
I disagree with it, but I see why they are doing what they do.

I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-death penalty. I believe in the least possible amount of government control.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:51 PM on November 1, 2005

i don't think abortion will be outlawed completely. the overlords will continue to chip away at abortion rights, slowly but surely, over time, making them more and more difficult to obtain, more rules, more restrictions. it's very similar to what's happening with cigarette smoking right now. choice is going up in smoke!
posted by brandz at 7:00 PM on November 1, 2005

You know I was just thinking about that debate question posed to John Kerry today, the second debate with citizen questioners.

The question was

"For those of us who think abortion is murder, what do you have to say about tax-payer funded abortion

Kerry didn't have much to say. There was a case in Texas a bit ago about a guy who was charged with the new fetal-murder law. His girlfriend was, apparently, unable to get an abortion, in part because her doctor lied to her about what she could do. She did everything she could think of to end the pregnancy, including throwing herself down the stairs a couple of times and asking her boyfriend to step on her stomach. He did, and he was changed with murder because of it, and sent to prison for life.

It seems to me that if the goal is to prevent these tragedies, then abortion must not only be legal but available. While a lot of people seem to 'agree' that the best thing to do is reduce the number of abortions, it should not be done in a way that makes it more difficult for girls to have abortions, rather makes it easier to give the baby away after birth, or not get pregnant in the first place.

I don’t understand how someone can be opposed to government encroachment on their lives and yet be pro-‘life.’

First of all republicans are not libertarians. A lot of these new-wave republicans have no interest in libertarianism anyway, and want the government to get all up in everyone's business.

I don't understand how the alleged followers of a religion that began after an innocent man was unjustly put to death after a sham trial can be pro-death penalty. so what? electoral politics is not rational, live with it.

If Jesus hadn't died for their sins, they'd all be fucked. If the next Jesus got a fair trial and life in prison, why, we'd all be going to hell!

And abortion should be mandatory when the girl is under 16, unless her parents or other responsible adults sign a binding contract to raise and support the resulting infant till it turns 18.

So much for 'reproductive freedom'...

Also, people please ignore bevets. Thanks.
posted by delmoi at 7:02 PM on November 1, 2005

Smedleyman writes "We can dance around whether the government should protect the rights of the unborn, but I prefer to settle the question as a matter of killing in self-defense when it comes to government intervention."

Well, fine. So you would argue that abortion is justified homicide. Pro-lifers argue that it's unjustified homicide, or murder. I don't see how that makes their position internally inconsistent. They just class abortion with other forms of homicide that the government is well within its powers to ban.

I don't want to argue the pro-life position, but if you're doing your calculation on the basis of preserving the rights of individuals, a strong argument can be made that the right of the fetus to live outweighs the right of the mother to not be pregnant. Such an argument can be based entirely in your conservative worldview, with the government acting only as an enforcer of individual rights.

bevets writes "person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection."

I just want to point out one other thing about this definition: it classes any number of tumors, polyps, and cancerous lesions as "people". Whoops.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:03 PM on November 1, 2005

I would argue the zygotes are actually in a state of mental vegetation, and the umbilical cord represents a form of nonconsensual life support. As such, the mother, as legal guardian, (also strangely as hospital administration since her womb functions as ICU), can determine if it best to remove life support.

Ah I'm going to hell now.
posted by nervousfritz at 7:18 PM on November 1, 2005

murder: killing an innocent person when you have the ability not to kill that person.

person: someone with unique human chromosomes that will continue to grow if provided with nutrition and protection. The only reason to suggest ANY other definition is to justify killing other people.

child: a person with 2 parents

abortion = child murder

thedward

So twins don't count?

The chromosomes are different than the mothers. Unique in that there was never an exact copy before conception. The definition is accurate but can not be exhaustive.

e.g. Moral Person: Cigarettes kill people

Tobacco Executive: It is impossible to stab someone to death with a cigarette.

Moral Person: Inhaling cigarette smoke causes cancer which kills people.

Tobacco Executive: I know someone who smoked a pack of cigarettes in 1982 and they never got cancer.

Moral Person: Inhaling cigarette smoke on a regular basis tends to cause cancer which kills people.

Tobacco Executive: That hasnt been proven.

mr_roboto

I just want to point out one other thing about this definition: it classes any number of tumors, polyps, and cancerous lesions as "people". Whoops.

Most people acknowledge the difference between 'a child' and 'a tumor' (unless they intend to murder the child). No one has ever grieved the loss of a tumor.
posted by bevets at 7:29 PM on November 1, 2005

So grief is the standard?

You're a moron. It's not difficult to make an argument against legal abortion, and there are plenty of places online that you could crib from. The swill you're spewing doesn't even pass a laugh test, though. It's junior-high level. You're about 15 mental years below everyone else in this discussion. I'm going to ignore you, now.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:35 PM on November 1, 2005

I don't get it. What's wrong with child murder?
posted by cillit bang at 7:35 PM on November 1, 2005

banished

the rich will just go out of the country to have their abortions

They won't have to do that. The rich have family doctors who will do it for them with no one else knowing about it. It has always been that way.
posted by MillMan at 7:50 PM on November 1, 2005

Wow, We've got Bevets.

On a side note, It's interesting how powerful a vocal, unified, focused minority can be.
posted by Freen at 8:23 PM on November 1, 2005

Being a conservative, I’d prefer a tradition where sex ed was taught at home. Given that many parents aren’t even feeding their kids properly, I’d have to cede that to schools. Since that die is cast - since that is the case now - we should support it more fully. In fact it should be expanded to it’s own health class with an emphasis on how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.

You know, reading the report, my overwhelming conclusion was that this is all very compelling evidence for sex education and easily accesible birth control. The hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is highlighted by their approach to sex education. All reasonable, thinking people have to agree that national consensus on the moral issue of abortion is unlikely for decades. Yet (and this is supported not just by this report, but countless other studies) the number of "murdered babies" could be dramatically, dramatically reduced in a short period of time by simply making birth control more available to teenagers.

But murdering babies is clearly not as morally reprehensible as admitting that teenagers have sex.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 8:38 PM on November 1, 2005

"Ever notice how the GOP only actually does stuff for the religious right when they're in trouble? They're great at lip service.

Unfortunately, this time it won't be no lip service."

Unsurprisingly, when I first entered this forum I immediately clashed with dhartung. It's likely a male thing.

Now, I generally agree - and especially with this.

Tom Frank ? - Oh, please. He's a superb writer but.......
posted by troutfishing at 8:52 PM on November 1, 2005

Freen -- it's pretty asymmetric, as far as care-levels go; I can empathize with pro-lifers and respect their arguments to a great extent.

I just don't see the tragedy in terminating an unwanted pregnancy, up until at least viability. I don't believe in "souls", so it's just a matter of practicality, spill-over effects, and reducing suffering, but if one does believe in souls then I can understand the focus.

Sorry little dude -- we don't want you. The earlier in the pregnancy this decision is effected, the less the spill-over effect (respect for human life) and suffering. It's mostly evangelical Christians that have a problem with abortions:


posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:53 PM on November 1, 2005

"I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-death penalty. I believe in the least possible amount of government control." - I'm voting for smedleyman
posted by troutfishing at 8:55 PM on November 1, 2005

Heywood Mogroot - well, those stats are useful up to a point. But they don't appoint judges. Ground level politics do that.

Meaning - a willful minority can easily control a passive majority.
posted by troutfishing at 8:59 PM on November 1, 2005

What nervousfritz said. Except the part about going to a non-existent Negative-Value Afterdeath.

By the way, people usually quit arguing with me when I smilingly confess that I'm pro-death. For instance, if it were me I'd favor the death penalty over a life of hell in prison, that abortion is kinder all around than another unwanted kid (think Charlie Manson), that suicide is a positive civil right and in many cases a social service, and that there are just too damn many people anyway. I'm opposed to suffering but not to death, which is by definition the end of suffering. In fact, as I've said before, if there were a fair and random way to instantaneously kill 9/10 of the world's population -- like 9/10 of the German Lutherans, 9/10 of the Separdic Jews, and 9/10 of Taiwanese Muslims, etc., not singling out any particular group instead of another -- I'd be all for it; I'd hope to be in the first batch too so I won't have to listen to people complain that I'm not dead yet.

(One thing that galls me is that "the privileged" die at far less than their natural rate because they effectively condemn everybody else to do their suffering, killing and dying for them. I want to ask things like "How many third-world kids went blind this year so you could have your quadruple bypass?" But this is an off-topic digression.)

As for abortion, well, suppose we use unwanted infants and "boarder babies" as food? Then I'll oppose abortion. Dig it?
posted by davy at 9:03 PM on November 1, 2005

trout: yeah, I know. I couldn't care less about abortion, personally. My fundie mom, on the other hand, has this as her #1 issue, so she votes (R) and then bitches to me when they raise her medicare co-pays.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:06 PM on November 1, 2005

davy - you can bust up arguments on this at my parties any day ( or night ).

Heywood Mogroot - I guess I care about abortion, but then I care about non-foetal humans, animals, and plants quite a bit too.

What do you think your mom would say about Brazilian street kids in Rio machine gunned to make the streets safe for business ?
posted by troutfishing at 9:18 PM on November 1, 2005

trout: I care in the sense that I think criminalizing it will prove to be a public policy mistake. I also feel that states don't have the right to criminalize since it should be a protected right under the {9th+14th} bundle (the Griswold, Lawrence cases) But I don't care in the sense that it doesn't effect me at all. Very little the SCOTUS does affects me directly, the main decision was th medical marijuana thing, and the "liberal" judges all voted on the wrong side, while Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas voted my side.

As for Brazilian street crime, My mom thinks this is an evil world sliding towards the End Times (ooh! an earthquake in BFEistan!), so little fazes her these days.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:43 PM on November 1, 2005

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

Smedleyman: And I would certainly not use the government to enforce morality on any subject.

mr_roboto: No subject? Murder? Theft? Rape? Assault?

It's my understanding that laws are not supposed to be about morality. It's a phenomenon of the recent past that morality has been moved into the governmental sphere. Laws were originally conceived in the US to protect us from one another, NOT to control our behavior, or to impose another's standard of behavior (morality)--as long as one's behavior neither "picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" it should be OK.

That's why it's OK for me to BE drunk (assuming I'm an adult), but not DRIVE drunk (as I would endanger others without their consent). Murder, theft, rape, and assault are illegal not because they're immoral: they're illegal because they harm someone against that person's will.

(Of course, this raises the question of whether or not a fetus is a person in its own right. I'm not sure we're arguing that one here.)

FWIW, the only statistically provable cause for the decline in violent crime through the 1990s is the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade. Fewer unwanted babies = fewer criminals 20 years later. Duh. (See here for explanation.)

Also, I'd like to bitch about the religious right's extreme stupidity in the mutually undermining stance of opposing both abortion AND comprehensive sex education. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, just teach kids how not to get pregnant. And let go of the incredible fiction that, somehow, despite the evidence of biology and all of history, teenagers will at some point stop having sex. I mean, really.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:19 PM on November 1, 2005

Back to something matteo said in the antediluvian past, considering that the majority of abortions performed in the United States take place before the pre-19th century de facto legal standard of the quickening (and that the majority of those not are related anti-abortion obstructionism) and taking a look at this, could someone please explain to me why it is rational for the majority of us that are pro-choice to defend Roe? What's wrong with Plan B:

Let Scalito* cast the deciding vote against, watch the Republicans attempt to enact federal legislation and fail either because a. prohibition of abortion is unpopular enough to turn over legislative seats or b. because a federal ban on abortion isn't constitutionally tenable. Then take the fight to the states, where it will be lost in places that are lost to the twenty-first century anyway (yeah, Utah, I'm looking at you; you're about to become the control group in a Freakonomics experiment) but won most everywhere else. Then we can all put our checkbooks away and send are RTLC and NARAL contributions somewhere useful.

* Don't get me wrong, there are other reasons I'm not quite yet sure I want Alito on the bench. I've not yet cut through the noise to form an opinion.
posted by Vetinari at 11:09 PM on November 1, 2005

I disagree with holding opposing values at the same time. You either think the government should have the right to override your personal decision making when it comes to defending your life and liberty or you don't. I don't buy the "in some cases" crap.

Sure you do. Once you accept the basic pro-life presupposition that abortion is the killing of a living human being with rights like you and me, preventing abortion is no different than preventing any other act of murder. (If you believe that the government should not prohibit and punish murder, then I stand corrected.) The fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother IS a complicating factor that most pro-lifers try to dismiss with the two-pronged 'Private Charity' and 'Personal Responsibility' arguments.

In the eyes of many MANY pro-lifers, abortion is ultimately an issue of 'personal convenience.' Personal convenience, when stacked up against another person's life, does not trump all.

Mind you, a number of other good points have been raised in this thread. The rank hypocrisy of opposition to sex ed and contraception reveals a deeper set of convictions that trump even abortion.
posted by verb at 11:13 PM on November 1, 2005

Birth Control, or your head is in the sand.
posted by HTuttle at 11:39 PM on November 1, 2005

Freen:
On a side note, It's interesting how powerful a vocal, unified, focused minority can be.

It only takes a few active predators to control a huge herd of inactive, feckless prey.
posted by PsychoKick at 12:03 AM on November 2, 2005

And let go of the incredible fiction that, somehow, despite the evidence of biology and all of history, teenagers will at some point stop having sex. I mean, really.

A recent study [PDF] by the National Center for Health Statistics showed that teenagers are having more oral sex and more anal sex "as a safer alternative than (vaginal) sex with men," and more young women are experimenting with bisexuality.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:50 AM on November 2, 2005

Simplified GOP political strategy:

Out of the boardroom, into the bedroom.

Satisfies both the pharisaical religious nuts and the corporate fascists.
posted by nofundy at 7:30 AM on November 2, 2005

Dear pro-life,

Can you please answer this: Would you agree that in order for a fetus to survive you must take away personal liberty from the mother? If I grant you the fetus is a full human (I am not, just supposing for now), it's a one for one swap--take this from the mother, give it to the fetus. Under that reasoning, should we not be legally obliged to give organs, blood, etc. (as long it does not kill us) to save a life? Shouldn't organ donation (in case of death) be a no brainer of a law? If a person is dying for lack of financial resources (needed for a rare operation, let's say), shouldn't it be legislated that someone with money (starting with next of kin and working out) give him/her the money?

If not, please explain why not.
posted by a_day_late at 7:44 AM on November 2, 2005

People will fuck. It feels good and it is free, so they will fuck even if they don't have the money to buy contraceptives, visit the doctor, or raise kids. Sometimes, in fact, they fuck more because they don't have the money to spend on other ways to make themselves happy.

This is what those opposing abortion and/or contraceptives need to understand.

It would make as much sense if the Religious Right decided tomorrow that anyone outside the healthy range of weight could not eat.

We can't outlaw eating, we can't outlaw fucking. We can try and make laws curtailing these activities for certain segments of the population-- but such laws are bound to fail (see: Laws against Sodomy, adultery, Homosexuality.)

So what is left? Acknowledging that people will fuck and therefore we should do everything we can to ensure that they can fuck without making unwanted babies.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:04 AM on November 2, 2005

a_day_late: I really like what you wrote. Kudos.
posted by beth at 9:55 AM on November 2, 2005

Can you please answer this: Would you agree that in order for a fetus to survive you must take away personal liberty from the mother?
...
Under that reasoning, should we not be legally obliged to give organs, blood, etc. (as long it does not kill us) to save a life?

I'm not pro-life by any stretch, but I think that pro-life people would readily agree to the first part of that. However, a rational argument can be made that, by placing oneself in a position where you could reasonably expect to become responsible for another, you therefore are responsible for that other. Having sex can result in pregnancy, while simply being related to someone else doesn't make you responsible for them.

Personally, I feel that the right of self-determination over one's own body trumps everything else, but I can see that reasonable people may disagree.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:58 AM on November 2, 2005

Part of this is the really sticky problem of deciding when people become human. What is the central quiddity of humanity? I don't think it begins at conception, and my own personal beliefs tend toward consciousness. And, frankly, I don't believe that an argument for life beginning at conception can be put forth without relying on the "extrajurisdictional" power of God and faith. Since faith is at its heart irrational, it's not a valid support for a rational argument.
I can also see an argument for preventing suffering as the prime motivator of morality, and from that I can still come to a pro-choice view. But hey, I'm also vegetarian, so I've got my pinko leanings exposed...
posted by klangklangston at 11:00 AM on November 2, 2005

Would you agree that in order for a fetus to survive you must take away personal liberty from the mother?

Since I vote for pro-choice candidates, I don't know if I count, but I can say that I don't agree to that statement. Perhaps it'd help to know what you mean by "liberty," but I don't think that it's ever used in a legal sense to mean "free from the natural consequences of one's actions." Now, I can see how in the case, of say, rape or situations where the mother's life is endangered, making a women complete that pregnancy could be seen as a loss of personal liberty, but when we're talking about your average pregnancy that's the result of consensual sex, I think it rather strange to define a resulting pregnancy as a loss of liberty. I'm sure some women may feel like they're losing their liberty when they get pregnant, especially with the way our society treats pregnant women and mothers, but how one feels is a thing apart from the legal state of things.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:29 PM on November 2, 2005

However, a rational argument can be made that, by placing oneself in a position where you could reasonably expect to become responsible for another, you therefore are responsible for that other. Having sex can result in pregnancy, while simply being related to someone else doesn't make you responsible for them.

me & my monkey, I was hoping some die-hard, pro-life advocates would take that position and we could debate it some but it looks like the thread is dead.

Beth, thanks for the Kudos.

I am *genuinely* interested in knowing how rational right to lifers (not the nut cases) square taking away woman's right to her body in favor of the rights of the fetus. It's as if the woman can take a mulligan on the pregnancy, delivery, and any side effects (including death). It's mind boggling and I want to understand it.
posted by a_day_late at 12:30 PM on November 2, 2005

eustacescrubb, I was on preview just as you posted. I know we had a run in before. To get off on the right foot here, please read my comments with no snark intended--just trying to make points succinctly.

Taking of liberty as in we will tell you to remain pregnant for 9 months. Taking of liberty as in you must deliver a baby at the end of that term. You do realize, I am sure, that there are consequences to this. Women's bodies, undergo quite a trauma during pregnancy and delivery. It's not as common nowadays, but women do die during delivery.
posted by a_day_late at 12:39 PM on November 2, 2005

eustacescrubb, you also say: but when we're talking about your average pregnancy that's the result of consensual sex, I think it rather strange to define a resulting pregnancy as a loss of liberty

It's not the pregnancy that is the loss of liberty but the ability/inability to terminate it. Are you saying personal liberties (in this case a woman's desire to have a medical procedure and make lifelong decisions about her body and her life) should be tested for moral conduct before dispensed?
posted by a_day_late at 12:51 PM on November 2, 2005

That's why it's OK for me to BE drunk (assuming I'm an adult), but not DRIVE drunk (as I would endanger others without their consent).

I know that was just an analyogy, but as a cautionary PSA, I must report that you can be arrested for BEING drunk outside of your home. It's called public intoxication, and most states/municipalities enforce it, especially on the lower class.

I am *genuinely* interested in knowing how rational right to lifers (not the nut cases) square taking away woman's right to her body in favor of the rights of the fetus.

I don't think it's that complicated for most people. The right to life of the "unborn child" is paramount.

I do wish your "loss of liberty" argument was the one that established abortion as the law of the land (rather than the difficult-to-understand "privacy" ruling).

Of course, I don't think the Constitution guarantees that liberty that you describe (freedom from pregnancy). I sure wish it did.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:57 PM on November 2, 2005

Of course, I don't think the Constitution guarantees that liberty that you describe (freedom from pregnancy). I sure wish it did.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:57 PM EST on November 2 [!]

As stated in another post, it is not freedom from pregnancy but freedom over your body, health, career, future, etc. Pregnancy affects all these things. However, I cannot say how the constitution views this issue, as I am not a constitutional scholar.
posted by a_day_late at 1:08 PM on November 2, 2005

It's not the pregnancy that is the loss of liberty but the ability/inability to terminate it.

Ah.

Are you saying personal liberties (in this case a woman's desire to have a medical procedure and make lifelong decisions about her body and her life) should be tested for moral conduct before

No.

The problem with this issue is that the players on both sides rely heavily on having the issues framed in just the right way for thier arguments to have any persuasive power. I can certainly see how in some cases, women might have their civil rights violated by anti-abortion laws that were too strict. But where you lose me is the idea that a woman who has consensual sex and just doesn't want to be pregnant because (to borrow one of your examples) her body will undergo changes during the pregnancy. That still doesn't sound like a loss of liberty -- it sounds like a difficult choice, one made more difficult by the many social forces arrayed against women (like the thin-obsessed media, who help create negative self-images of women with post-pregnancy bodies, for example).
Part of this stems from the fact that I don't think anyone is entirely a free agent -- none of us has complete control or complete freedom of choice, and few of us have much at all over certain things -- even over our bodies. Do you mind that your local municipality medicates you every time you drink water? Do you mind that all children must be medicated before attending mandatory schooling? Do you mind that you're not free to dispose of your remains any way you like, but must limit yourself to a short list of options, all of which are expensive?
So when I read rhetoric that demands complete freedom from consequences, and complete freedom of choice regardless of the context, that worries me, even (as is the case with pro-choice rhetoric) I am inclined to agree with the speaker's general politics and goals.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:25 PM on November 2, 2005

"Once you accept the basic pro-life presupposition that abortion is the killing of a living human being with rights like you and me, preventing abortion is no different than preventing any other act of murder.” posted by verb at 11:13 PM PST on November 1 [!]


Killing in self-defense is not murder. Again - my argument is relative only to government action. One is free to believe this is the moral equivalent of murder. That does not make it imperative for the government to take action though.


I agree adoption would be a far more viable option if there was less social stigma attached to getting pregnant.
Most people are more afraid of speaking publicly than they are of death. It lends understanding to the weight of that social stigma. And I believe it would be a far more effective way to avoid abortions.
Here society can do so much more than the government. Yet, it isn’t.

If that’s not a big red flag indicator that the issue is used for oppression, I don’t know what is. The laws against - say - black people riding wherever they wanted on buses were still in place in areas where society had already gotten past that.

Society should take the inititive here. Not the government. It’s too easy a tool to abuse. As on many things.


“...a strong argument can be made that the right of the fetus to live outweighs the right of the mother to not be pregnant.”
posted by mr_roboto at 7:03 PM PST on November 1 [!]


Could be. But I don’t think the state is anyone’s parent nor can the state force me to bring life into the world. The state cannot force me to risk or endanger or even burden myself to save another life.
If someone is drowning a cop cannot order me to jump in and save him/her whether I’m a fantastic swimmer or not (I am).

The state does not - should not - have the automatic power of death as in executions. Neither should it have the power of life.
The state should not force me to live if I wish to die.

The state does have war powers, but those are not automatic. They are voted upon in each case at the time. Doing something similar on an individual basis is the rough eqivalent of what was I was aiming at with my allusion to droit du seigneur.
What holds for one must hold for all otherwise it’s private law.

In the case of abortion it’s a very very fine point, by a hairs breadth am I pro-choice. But I cannot see any government involvement in any situation that would not lead to abuse and disparity.
That’s reason enough.



+ what a_day_late asked




“I don't see how that makes their position internally inconsistent.”
posted by mr_roboto at 7:03 PM PST on November 1 [!]

I don’t see why I should continue to respond if folks refuse to read something I’ve clarified twice.




"I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-death penalty. I believe in the least possible amount of government control." - I'm voting for smedleyman
posted by troutfishing at 8:55 PM PST on November 1 [!]

YEEAAARGHH!!! *Howard Dean scream*
Say, that is exhilarating.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:25 PM on November 2, 2005

I don't think the Constitution guarantees that liberty that you describe

The Constitution guarantees all liberties by enumerating the powers of government. Frankly, I don't the "constitution in exile" movement is that crackers. If the Congress loses power to legislate stuff, the separate states can pick up the slack. Commerce clause then becomes a backstop not frontline Federal power. Federal court intervention via the 14th Amendment keeps people from losing their rights.

That would be a pretty sweet system, but it would require reversing the state and federal tax burdens to work.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:51 PM on November 2, 2005

eustacescrubb,
That still doesn't sound like a loss of liberty -- it sounds like a difficult choice
Who's choice? What are the parameters for making the decision? How did you/anyone arrive at them? What are they based on? Please be specific.


Do you mind that your local municipality medicates you every time you drink water?
That is a decision for the community, by the community. Even if you are against it, you can buy bottled water, move to another community, dig a well, collect your water from a stream, etc.


Do you mind that all children must be medicated before attending mandatory schooling?
I don't know what you mean by this.


Do you mind that you're not free to dispose of your remains any way you like, but must limit yourself to a short list of options, all of which are expensive?
Yes, but I'd be dead, so it would not bother me much.
posted by a_day_late at 2:01 PM on November 2, 2005

So when I read rhetoric that demands complete freedom from consequences, and complete freedom of choice regardless of the context

I'm quasi-libertarian but don't see a problem with less-than-complete individual freedom, eg. seatbelt laws. It's all about undue burdens on the individual vs. the social good.

Forcing a woman to carry her child to term is arguably an undue burden on her that I'm not comfortable laying on her.

Interestingly, men and women are split evenly on this (~40% pro-life) but if you control for the fundie factor I think support is more like 25%. People making pro-life laws based on their spiritual beliefs are creating a theocracy.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:06 PM on November 2, 2005

Interestingly, men and women are split evenly on this (~40% pro-life) but if you control for the fundie factor I think support is more like 25%. People making pro-life laws based on their spiritual beliefs are creating a theocracy.

So, if I were to introduce legislation requiring that corporations be acountable to the public for the externalities their wage structures create, and I did that because of my religious convictions, I would be creating a theocracy?
posted by verb at 2:22 PM on November 2, 2005

Who's choice? What are the parameters for making the decision? How did you/anyone arrive at them? What are they based on? Please be specific.

Hmm. Perhaps I didn't phrase that well. I meant that while I recognize that the choice between using contracpetion or not may result in a pregnancy that will alter a woman's body means that the woman has what may be for her a difficult choice, the fact that the choice is difficult doesn't make it a loss of liberty.

I think, a_day_late, that you and I are having trouble communicating in this medium -- I seem to be misunderstanding your points here, and I'm fairly certain mine aren't getting across to you. I don't want to hound you, so I'm not going to continue this part of the discussion -- perhaps if we were to meet in person, it'd be easier to communicate, but hypertext doesn't seem to be working for us. I'd rather not create emnity if I can help it.


Heywood Mogroot:

Forcing a woman to carry her child to term is arguably an undue burden on her that I'm not comfortable laying on her.

And I would agree that sometimes that is the case, and that even less often, it is because the pregnancy/childbirth/child-rearing itself is at fault -- most often it is social or political or economic forces that create the burden, and in such cases, it is better to relieve/change/eradicate those forces than it is to kill something.
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:40 PM on November 2, 2005

I think it rather strange to define a resulting pregnancy as a loss of liberty.

And I think you have never been pregnant. Here are a few things you give up during a normal pregnancy:

Caffeine
Alcohol
Recreational Drugs
Most Over the Counter Drugs
Most sports (the last two or three months)
Sex (the last two or three months)
Dieting to fit into your clothes
The ability to fit into your clothes
The ability to drive yourself at some point (last two months?)
Being able to fly on commercial airlines (after the 5th month or so)
Time (Doctor's office visits monthly, weekly, and finally daily)
Three months of work (unless you put your baby up for adoption)
Attraction to the opposite sex
Energy (nap time is mandatory for most)
Agility, balance, mental acuity

And if you are unlucky enough to have complications, your liberties can be vastly curtailed including up to 6 months of bed rest.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:55 PM on November 2, 2005

it is better to relieve/change/eradicate those forces than it is to kill something

I don't see the loss to society by killing that "something"; it looks to me that society comes out ahead when an unwanted pregnancy is aborted. But that is not terribly important, since liberty can only be rightfully lost to serve very important societal needs.

And, IMV, by your logic if a woman has the right to prevent pregnancy, she also has the right to terminate it, since you are talking potentials (a 10-day blastocyte is a growth, not an individual).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:46 PM on November 2, 2005

eustacescrubb:I think, a_day_late, that you and I are having trouble communicating in this medium -- I seem to be misunderstanding your points here, and I'm fairly certain mine aren't getting across to you. I don't want to hound you, so I'm not going to continue this part of the discussion -- perhaps if we were to meet in person, it'd be easier to communicate, but hypertext doesn't seem to be working for us. I'd rather not create emnity if I can help it.

I agree that we seem to be posting past each other and don't want to create enmity either. I am happy to let the matter stand as is. Peace
posted by a_day_late at 4:44 PM on November 2, 2005

It is not illegal to kill animals which have far higher cognitive capacities than those of a first-trimester fetus. Clearly, the fetus is "alive" as soon as the sperm & egg join. For that matter, the sperm & egg are alive before they ever get together. The question is not when life begins; the question is when does the biological entity of a developing embryo become entitled to the same rights as a fully-developed human being?

I would argue that sentient conciousness should be the dividing line between human beings & lower life forms. The debate should be about when a sufficiently sophisticated conciousness develops, and it's not at the union of a sperm & egg.
posted by designbot at 6:06 PM on November 2, 2005

designbot: this is where I stand, too, as far as the morality of abortion goes. No brain, no foul. And Roe v. Wade, too, essentially came down this way, IIRC (or were they going for a viability test??).

As far as the debate, privacy advocates can argue that until the growth/fetus/baby/child/person is removed from their plumbing it's their body/choice/liberty wrt what happens to it, and I don't have much a moral or pragmatic argument against that.

I love contrasting my positions on requiring seatbelts vs. not criminalizing abortions. In the former the individual burden is light while the societal good is great, while criminalizing abortions is an immense individual burden and dubious societal good (unless you believe in human souls {boo!}).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:13 PM on November 2, 2005

Secret Life Of Gravy

And I think you have never been pregnant. Here are a few things you give up during a normal pregnancy ... etc.

Firstly, I'm well aware of what women have to give up when they're pregnant, but thanks for bieng condescending all the same. It's been a while since I've been condescended to, and it's like a nice brisk blast of winter air. Clears the head.

This list makes me realize that apart from disagreeing on whether the unborn are persons deserving of legal protection, the majority of the folks arguing for abortion here and I have very, very different understandings of what "liberty" means. I don't think caffinated drinks or fashionable clothing are "liberties." Freedom from the natural consequences of something one freely chooses*, freedom from discomfort, freedom from inconvenicene, freedom from having one's plans disrupted -- none of these things are "liberties."
Now, I am well aware that in our sexist society, men often stand a better chance of being free from discomfort, inconvenience, or having their plans disrupted, and I think that's wrong, and that it should change. But I am not willing to support violence against unborn babies to do that. I believe there are other, better ways to do that.

Heywood Mogroot:

No brain, no foul.

The problem with deciding someone is only deserving of legal protection if they meet a minimum number of requirements for body parts or functioning body parts is that this runs the risk of setting us up to discriminate against the disabled or the elderly. Embryos start developing brains in the third week. How much brain is "no brain" for you?
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:23 PM on November 3, 2005