New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 22, 2004

Jacob Sullum tries to figure out where Bush and Kerry stand on abortion.

Comments

|10.22.04 @ 2:24PM|#

Excellent post/article.

If a Roman Catholic legislator, who believes, based on his church's teachings, that abortion is morally wrong, is not allowed to impose his beliefs on the rest of us because that would violate the prohibited mixing of church and state, then could an atheist philosopher legislator, who is morally opposed to abortion because he believes the unborn fetus has moral status and a right to life, legislate his?

Just wondering.

|10.22.04 @ 2:42PM|#

What is the genesis of the idea that the federal government should not legislate morality? That we maintain any concept of individual rights at all, that we respect the sanctity of life, is an example of governing by a moral code. Now, it may not be a "religious" code, but it is a moral code nonetheless. Unless one were to defend the concept of individual rights from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we are limited in how we can act toward others because of this morality.

|10.22.04 @ 2:44PM|#

...as if pragmatism weren't it's own moral code.

|10.22.04 @ 2:59PM|#

'If "life does begin at conception," abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life, which is the sort of thing that even a completely secular government usually tries to prevent.'

Secular governments protect the lives of "people," not just any human entities. If it happened recently enough, a severed limb is both human (it has human DNA, just like an embryo) and alive (on the cellular level, it continues to carry out life functions for minutes or hours). But it has no rights to be reattached or saved, because it is not a person. The Church asserts the personhood of an embryo, but this is a matter of faith, of the sort that the government (according to Kerry) shouldn't be opinion about.

"And I guess my right to the free exercise of religion requires the government to pay my synagogue dues." No, but if the government were paying people's church dues, it would be a first amendment (and/or 14th) violation to deny that service because you are Jewish, because your church is Jewish, or because the money would go towards paying someone to chant the Torah (an activity that someone may oppose for religious reasons). The government pays for medical procedures for poor people, like it or not. It cannot discriminate in the provision of services based on religion.

"How does Kerry know that women have a constitutional right to abortion? Because the Supreme Court said so. Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, or that what it says about privacy cannot reasonably be interpreted as dictating which state restrictions on the practice are permissible." Whether or not Privacy is an unenumerated right under the Constitution is a debatable issue, but for this point to be legitimate, you would have to believe that there are NO unenumerated rights.

There is plenty for people of good conscience to disagree with in Kerry's position on abortion (I, surprise surprise, think he's got it just right). But it is not internally inconsistent, as the article suggests.

|10.22.04 @ 9:44PM|#

joe,

You said,
"a severed limb is both human (it has human DNA, just like an embryo) and alive (on the cellular level, it continues to carry out life functions for minutes or hours). But it has no rights to be reattached or saved, because it is not a person."

The only way this argument works is if you put a human embryo on the same level of organism as a severed limb. But they aren't. An embryo will, unless there are catastrophic problems or interventions (e.g. abortion), develop into a physically mature human living on the outside of the womb. A limb, on the other hand, will always just be a limb and can never turn into a human being. An embryo is a human being in a very early stage of development; a limb is a piece of a human being and cannot develop into anything else. Surely the potential to become what you call a "person" is reason enough to allow an embryo the right to live? Isn't this a big enough diffence to set embryos apart from limbs?

I was also going to ask how one can properly define what makes a person a "person". But maybe the more important - and more chilling - question is, which human beings get to decide what a "person" is? It seems to me that saying, and legislating, that life begins at conception - period - is the only way to prevent one group of people from deciding for all the rest of us the answer to that question.

|10.22.04 @ 9:51PM|#

brightMystery,

So 24 hours after conception this collection of cells if fully human and could survive outside of the womb. Yea right. Can I have some of what you are taking? It must be good to be causing those visions. And Jacob, am I missing something, or are you mad at Kerry for knowing the difference between something you believe and something you can prove?
You may have finally given me a reason to vote for him.

|10.22.04 @ 10:00PM|#

24 hours? No. Nine months? Yes.

|10.22.04 @ 11:02PM|#

But 9 months is not what we are talking about. No one is aborting viable 9 month old fetuses, no matter what your partial-birth abortion propaganda newsletters are telling you.

24 hours to somewhere around 20-22 weeks is what we are talking about.

On its own, outside the womb, the fetus will not develop into a human being before 22-24 weeks.

It's a good thing if women choose to support the fetuses inside their bodies until those fetuses are at the point when they can survive on their own outside the womb. But that's a choice the women get to make -- it can't be something someone else forces those women to do, no more than someone else can force you to support another human being with your own blood, or donate your own kidney, or whatever.

|10.22.04 @ 11:43PM|#

brightmystery,

An embryo will, unless there are catastrophic problems or interventions (e.g. abortion), develop into a physically mature human living on the outside of the womb.

It doesn't take catastrophic problems for an embryo to be rejected from a woman's body; hell, even marginally poor nutrition can be a factor, or a minor bacteriological or viral incident.

Surely the potential to become what you call a "person" is reason enough to allow an embryo the right to live?

Not really, no. Indeed, given your reductionist reasoning we will soon on ourselves on the path to the "every sperm is sacred" line of reasoning. Mere potential to become a human being is not enough; if it were, than anything with some level of mere potential would be worth "protecting" - which forces us back to the issue of line-drawing, which is what we are stuck with in the abortion debate to begin with.

|10.23.04 @ 1:20AM|#

First of all, excellent article Jacob.


joe,

You're being obtuse, probably intentionally. A person is not merely a body or a collection of cells -- which is why a severed limb is not a person -- but a person needs a body in order to exist. When you blow your nose, or your skin cells fall off in the shower, some of your cells die, but you still have a body to keep you in existence.

When an embryo is dismembered or otherwise destroyed, its "personhood" cannot continue to exist. It's really quite simple -- destroying a part of a body is not the same as destroying the entire thing.

|10.23.04 @ 1:25AM|#

There is plenty for people of good conscience to disagree with in Kerry's position on abortion (I, surprise surprise, think he's got it just right).

lol. Just curious, joe: is there any position of Kerry's that you disagree with?

|10.23.04 @ 1:38AM|#

A few points:

(1) The language is: zygote -> embryo -> fetus -> baby

(2) Until a certain critical point, a single embryo can develop into any number of indivudal humans (e.g. twins), casting doubt on a straight-forward connection between embryo and baby.

(3) If an embryo is never introduced into a womb (re: embryonic stem cell extration technique), it has no chance to become a baby. How does that square with arguments about potential personhood?

(4) Even if a fetus were a person, would you not have the right to disconnect that person from your body if you so choose?

|10.23.04 @ 1:56AM|#

Rikhurzen,

1) agreed -- not sure if that's directed at me, but I'm just trying to keep the discussion simple. Feel free to substitute the appropriate term if I err.

2) True, but not particularly relevant -- an embryo which is about to "twin" is still depended upon by at least one person, and thus its destruction is still the destruction of a person.

3) I don't use the "potential" argument, but one could also say that a fetus in the womb of a woman in a falling elevator has no chance to become a baby. I think the idea of the argument is that, given certain common conditions, the zygote/embryo/fetus will develop into a baby.

4) That's a thorny issue when the only way to disconnect the person is to kill them. If you go out to sea, and 10 miles out, you discover that a homeless man has stowed away in your boat, do you have a right to throw him overboard? Assuming he does not threaten to do you harm, no -- you can prosecute him for trespass after returning to shore, or passing him off to a police boat, etc, but you cannot just off and kill him.

|10.23.04 @ 2:03AM|#

crimethink:

I won't stake my life on (2), but the general idea is that personhood is a property of an individual, embryos do not map one-to-one to indivduals, and therefore an embryo is not a person.

Similar to (2) is the problem that ~70% of zygotes/embryos die, but they are not mourned as persons.

I mean to take (4) literally -- but this is not my original argument. A fetus is attached to a woman by a placenta. If you wake up one day with a person attached to you via a plaenta, and that person's life is dependent on that attachment. Do you not have the right to refuse that person and detach them? This is an argument from analogy, and you might say that women don't just wake up pregnant, but I think that doesn't matter much. At least that are some cases -- rape for example -- where this would be an argument for allowing abortion of people-fetuses.

|10.23.04 @ 2:34AM|#

Rikurzen,

100% of homeless people die, but few if any are mourned by the general public. Does the lack of concern on the part of others make them non-persons?

Before we consider your analogy, what do you think of mine? Can you throw the stowaway off your boat, knowing that he will die?

|10.23.04 @ 2:42AM|#

crimethink,

...given certain common conditions, the zygote/embryo/fetus will develop into a baby.

That still requires line-drawing and hunches based on some probability factors.

crimethink,

100% of homeless people die, but few if any are mourned by the general public.

What sort of ugly sophistry is this? You are comparing a full grown individual to an embryo when the purpose of this discussion is to discern whether embryos are really comparable? You are assuming something which has not been proven; you are getting the cart before the horse in other words. Prove that they are comparable first, then we can take up your analogy.

|10.23.04 @ 2:49AM|#

crimethink,

Before we consider your analogy, what do you think of mine?

That's just fucking lame. The order should based on who proferred which analogy first. Purposely avoiding Rikurzhen's analogy while brandishing your flawed one just sucks.

|10.23.04 @ 2:49AM|#

Homeless vs spontaneous abortions: but when we learn about spontaneous abortions, we still don't care; whereas if you tell me that homeless people are dieing, we do care.

Adrift at sea: I agree that you can't cast him back into the ocean without a good excuse, but only because you pulled him out of the ocean in the first place. You could have just let him drown. On the other hand, if he were a threat to you, then of course you could defend yourself.

|10.23.04 @ 2:51AM|#

Jason,

First, as I said, I'm not fond of the "potential" argument. I was merely pointing out that it's not invalidated by the fact that sometimes conception occurs outside a woman's body.

Second, re: ugly sophistry, no, that's not what I was doing. Had you read the posts, you would have seen that we were not discussing whether embryos were comparable to homeless people. Rather, Rikurzhen noted that we don't mourn dead zygotes, so how can we consider them persons? To which my analogy is a perfectly appropriate response.

|10.23.04 @ 2:56AM|#

Rikurzhen,

You're assuming a lot about "we" there. There are a lot of people who mourn miscarriages, and a lot of people who don't give a shit about dead homeless. Which goes to show that the level of grief at someone's death is no measure of their personhood.

In regard to my example -- you didn't pull him out of the water. Unbeknownst to you, he stowed away on your boat before you left shore, but you didn't discover him until you were out at sea. You did not consent to him being on board, and the only way to get him off your boat is to kill him (or let him die, to be precise).

|10.23.04 @ 3:08AM|#

crimethink,

First, as I said, I'm not fond of the "potential" argument.

Whether it was your intention or not, you are in fact doing it.

Second, re: ugly sophistry, no, that's not what I was doing.

Sure it was. You were sneakily trying to slip around the basis of the argument by comparing objects in the womb to full grown persons and implying that this assessment is accurate, when in fact, its that comparison which is at the heart of this discussion.

Had you read the posts, you would have seen that we were not discussing whether embryos were comparable to homeless people.

I did read it, and my statements are spot; you
are trying to avoid the issue at hand.

Rather, Rikurzhen noted that we don't mourn dead zygotes, so how can we consider them persons? To which my analogy is a perfectly appropriate response.

No it isn't. Again, you are trying to get the cart before the horse.

|10.23.04 @ 3:11AM|#

crimethink,

(1) The problem with comparing homeless and embryos is that people don't mourn for people they don't know. A closer comparison would be that people don't mourn for the loss of their own embryos but they do mourn for the loss of a child.

(2) Instead of creeping into your boat, say he creeped into your home. Then I think the common law agreement is that you can kill him. Certainly you don't have to suffer him as a boarder. Now what if he crawed into your body? Then I think you'd be permitted to remove him, even if the removal was lethal.

|10.23.04 @ 3:17AM|#

wellfellow,

What is the genesis of the idea that the federal government should not legislate morality?

I think its more of an issue that the government should not legislate certain aspects of morality, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, drug use, pre-marital sex, adultery, aspects of various religions (e.g., how many sacraments there are, etc.), etc. Of course the government does legislate morality in many fields that we may not consider proper; for example, take something that falls out of the examples above, such as the minimum wage. Some people this as an issue of morality, and are willing to dictate what a "moral" minimum wage is. Where the lines are drawn on specific issues is a tough question and depends significantly on value judgments.

crimethink,

Are you a Christian Reconstructionist?

|10.23.04 @ 3:20AM|#

More on the point about mourning embryos:

If embryos were people, then the process of trying to have a baby would be a very grave endeavor. On average many people would be created and lost in the process. We would certainly take more care in the matter. Perhaps we would require medication assistance to minimize the loss of human life.

We don't do these things. I believe we don't because people don't truly believe that embryos are persons.

|10.23.04 @ 3:38AM|#

I guess I'll finish the analogy argument.

Even if a fetus were a person, a woman would not necessarily be obliged to carry it. Now perhaps under normal circumstance a women owes something to a fetus that she doesn't to a stranger attached via a placenta. Certainly parents have responsibilties to their children. But at the very least there are two exceptions even if you feel that women owe it to their fetuses: (1) rape and (2) situations that endager the life of a woman. Regarding (1), how can a mother owe an obligation to a fetus that was forced on her? Regarding (2), we have a right to defend our lives against threat of death even from our children.

|10.23.04 @ 1:52PM|#

Bright Mystery asks:

"Surely the potential to become what you call a "person" is reason enough to allow an embryo the right to live? Isn't this a big enough diffence to set embryos apart from limbs?"

My answer is, this potential is enough for me to recognize that an embryo has some moral standing. It is enough to make me think that adoption is better than abortion, and to want to reduce abortions, and to lay a big "potential human life" guilt trip on my daughter when she reaches the right age to scare her away from boys.

But I do not believe this potentiality provides an embryo with the same moral standing as a person, and thus I do not believe that the embryo needs to be legally considered, and protected as a person. The government has the right and obligation to be pretty damn intrusive in defending the lives of persons, less so of those with less moral standing.

Now, according to Catholic dogma, full personhood adheres to a human being at the moment of conception, even before the first cell division. This is an article of faith, along the lines of "There is not god by God, and Mohammed is his prophet." Stirring stuff, but not the stuff that justifies kicking in people's doors and putting them in jail, at least not in our republic.

|10.23.04 @ 3:48PM|#

Jason,

I'm finished arguing with you. I'll leave it to the reading public to determine what my argument was.

|10.23.04 @ 4:00PM|#

Rikurzhen,

(1) Again, you're incorrect. My sister has had three miscarriages and I can assure you that they were mourned. Also, a homeless man in the neighborhood in which I work, who would periodically harass our customers for money, died a month ago -- and I doubt anyone mourned him. That does not mean he ain't a person.

(2) That's not an analogous situation. If he creeps into your home, it's possible to get him out without killing him -- not true of a developing embryo/fetus. Another problem with these analogies (mine as well as yours) is that a stowaway/intruder is morally culpable for his actions, whereas an embryo is hardly responsible for being conceived unwantedly.

|10.23.04 @ 4:06PM|#

The problem with comparing homeless and embryos is that people don't mourn for people they don't know.

Rikurzhen, if I were Gary Gun-- I mean Jason Bourne -- I might declare myself victorious because you referred to embryos as "people". But I know what you meant... ;)

|10.23.04 @ 7:33PM|#

crimethink,

to the best of my knowledge, the death of an embryo is not called a miscarriage; that's the death of a fetus. i'm talking about failure of an embryo to implant or failure to survive gastrulation, etc. those events can go unnoticed -- women may never know they are pregant -- but we have evidence for their happening. if we thought *embryos* were persons then we would mourn their loss, or at least recognize their passing, and perhaps try to minimize their loss.

but allow me to go out on a limb and argue that the grief experienced over the loss of a fetus is less than the loss of a child. as a society we do not issue death certificates for lost pregnancies, etc.

so my first point was that common sense alone argues against treating a embryo as a person, and against treating a fetus as a true person.

my second point was that even if all were persons, there would still be legitimate justifications for abortion.

|10.23.04 @ 8:00PM|#

Rikurzhen,

I'll agree with you that saying an embryo is a person is counterintuitive, since the naked eye could easily mistake it for a blood clot or such. That is one of the main difficulties for the pro-life movement. But common sense is quite often wrong.

600 years ago, it was common sense that the world was flat. 200 years ago, it was common sense that blacks were not persons. And 100 years ago, it was common sense that women could not compete with men in the workforce.

100 years from now, it's quite possible that many things we now consider common sense will be just as laughable.

|10.24.04 @ 9:01AM|#

More interesting to me (and perhaps more in line wiht the original article) is not whether embryos are people (I would say they may well be, but that's just a guess), but the fact that Kerry seems to agree that they are. So the question of whether Kerry is being at all consistent doesn't depend on whether you or I think that an embryo is a person, but on the fact that he seems to think so; in this case, his argument that the government shouldn't regulate abortion seems decidedly shady, because it would (from his perspective) imply that certain persons have the right to end the lives of certain other persons. Being wrong about a matter of fact wouldn't make the ethical claim any more screwed up.

In interests of full disclosure, I was strongly anti-abortion for years, but now think that it should be allowed in the first two trimesters or so, basically because of arguments like the boat analogy. If a random guy turns up in my house without my permission, I have the right to tell him to leave (for that matter, if I invite him over for a while, I still have the right to change my mind and make him leave; the fact that I let him visit doesn't give him a right to take up permanent residence). If the fetus is viable outside the womb, that means it's possible to make it (the fetus) leave without 'killing' it, so we should do that (if it's safe, etc...if the guy's also threatening my life, I can shoot him regardless, in self-defense. In that case it's not even really relevant that it's my house). But if the woman can't make it leave without killing it, she still doesn't have an obligation (a legal obligation, at least) to support it, and should have the legal right to make it leave--effectively an abortion.

|10.24.04 @ 12:13PM|#

jadagul-

I'm not saying I'm convinced of this, but one might try to argue that Kerry's ethical stance is acceptable by examining the question of just how certain he is. If he said "I'm 100% certain that this is murder, and I still think it should be legal", well, that's pretty messed up. On the other hand, if he says "I'm pretty sure that this is murder, but not sure enough to throw people behind bars for it" that's arguably different.

"Pretty sure, but not sure enough" is a plausible reason one might take a position such as "safe, legal, and rare."

|10.24.04 @ 7:17PM|#

a position such as "safe, legal, and rare."

While the pro-choice side has done much to make it safe and legal, the rare part hasn't really been pursued as much. If Bush wanted to push the issue, he could propose a national TV/radio/print anti-abortion campaign, similar to the anti-tobacco campaign. Abortion would remain legal, as tobacco is, but it would be clear that the govt's position is that it's not a good thing.

Democrats who oppose this program would thereby show that they're not really committed to making abortion "rare", while those who support it would anger their base on the left and financial supporters like Planned Parenthood. Either way, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. But Bush has shown that, beyond the WoT, he's not willing to push the issue on pretty much anything.

|10.25.04 @ 9:48AM|#

situations that endager the life of a woman

There are not 1,000,000+ such situations a year in the US. There may not even be any, in the modern world.

Thus, this is just a rhetorical device. No pro-abortion politician like Kerry would ever support legislation that would truly restrict abortion to such edge cases anyway.

|10.25.04 @ 2:36PM|#

situations that endager the life of a woman

who is to make the judgment about which situations truly do? if a woman claims that pregnancy will drive her to suicide is that enough?

|10.25.04 @ 4:27PM|#

crimethink,

I'm finished arguing with you.

I know you are; because I'm right and you are wrong.

100 years from now, it's quite possible that many things we now consider common sense will be just as laughable.

This is really not a particularly convincing argument. We have to base our judgments on the knowledge we have at present, and not on some conjectured future world that you perfer.