Thinking About Abortion…

Two recent bits revolving around abortion. Last week, the Wash Times ran a provocative story about Jimmy Carter in which the erstwhile Baptist--he's the guy who mainstreamed "born-again Christianity" in '70s political culture--condemned abortion. From the Times account:

"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," [Carter] told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-CarltonHotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion.

"These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."

Whole account here. Among other things, Carter's comments take us back to a pre-Reagan, post-Roe America in which the abortion issue was not a particularly strong indicator of partisan party loyalty. You had Republicans like Sen. Bob "Tonsil Hockey" Packwood pushing for liberalized abortion laws, and folks like New York Gov. and later Vice President Nelson Rockefeller in the same boat. On the Dem side, a lot of Southerners, especially religious types like Carter, were never that comfortable with it. And even someone like Jesse Jackson was ardently against abortion--he likened it to "genocide" in '77--until he ran for the Dem presidential nomination in '84. It was really only with the Reaganite embrace of the Moral Majority, etc., that the anti-abortion position took on its rigidly Republican cast.

Apart from consideration of abortion itself, it's useful to remember that even the hottest of hot-button culture war issues are rarely set in stone. Rather, they exist as a means to an end--and the end is to define yourself as the antithesis of your opponent. This helps explain why Dems and Reps, or liberals and conservatives, can flop on issues ranging from federalism to overseas intervention without missing a beat. The point for partisans is not to maintain allegiance to particular ideals; it's to identify in opposition to your enemy.

Back to abortion: Today's Wash Post carries a story about new genetic screening tests that allow women to know if their fetus carries Down syndrome at 11 weeks after conception. The Post correctly notes that this gives women more options, whether you're talking about having an abortion or getting emotionally and pragmatically ready to care for a special needs child.

I take it as an axiom that more choice and more knowledge is a good thing. But this sort of screening should (rightly) start a conversation about how increasingly better genetic and other tests will effect the sorts of children that are born: If you knew, for instance, that a fetus carries Down syndrome or some other condition that can't be remedied in utero, would you abort? What about syndromes, ailments, etc., that are not as severe--what is the threshold individuals are willing to cross in pursuit of "normal" or better than normal offspring? What happens as these detection technologies become better and better, allowing women (and their partners) to know eye color, hair color, likely height, etc? Will/should those be factors that go into a decision to terminate a pregnancy? Something similar is already happening with pre-implantation screening of embryos created for IVF procedures. These are incredibly personal decisions--and they should remain with the individual, I think--but there are also profoundly social and deserve a wide and rich discussion.

Comments

[Dave W.]

What Would Jimmy Carter Do? that's the question a comic strip asked. A funny one whose name escapes me. Some Internet strip from England or something . . .

[Dave W.]

Oh, btw, this fine H'n'R post is a great example of how not to shoot fish in a barrel.

[joe]

"It was really only with the Reaganite embrace of the Moral Majority, etc., that the anti-abortion position took on its rigidly Republican cast."

I disagree. Even in the 1970s, the trend was already happening. The partisans of the patriarchal system that came out of the plantation system were already moving away from the Dems and towards the Reps, as the former's wholehearted embrace of civil rights in the 60s, and the latter's denunciation of same, made it clear where each stood on the question of whether the rich man in the big house should tell everyone what to do. The smoochiness between the patriarchs at the Moral Majority and the party of law-and-order and big business was a consequence of this shift, not its cause.

[Jennifer]

As I've said before, what the abortion issue really boils down to isn't even "Should it be the woman's choice" but "when does the embryo acquire the status of a human being, as opposed to a potential human being?" And I see no reason why one political party should be more inclined than the other to view the cut off at the three-month mark, or the five-month mark, or seconds after conception.

(Well, actually, the idea that a seconds-old fetus is fully alive sounds kind of faith-based to me, so maybe that is a more Republican way of looking at the world. I don't know.)

[Sphynx]

Last week on NPR's Fresh Air show, Terry Gross interviewed President Carter, as part of his book tour for "Our Endagered Values". Carter spoke candidly that during his presidency that he was always aware of the difference between his personal moral/religious views, and his public power/governance limitations. While personally opposed, on religious grounds, to abortion, he readly admitted that he does'nt think that government has the authority to ban it.

NOTE: This is an approximation of what I remember Carter saying. I don't have a transcript to reference.

[thoreau]

A friend of mine from England tells me that they have things called "issues of conscience": Basically, hot button social issues where minds are made up. MPs are not required to toe the party line on those issues, and parties make little or no mention of them in official platforms.

Wouldn't it be nice if we did this for abortion? I'm tired of being able to predict a candidate's stance on abortion based on his stance on taxes. There should be zero correlation, dammit!

[Jennifer]

But Thoreau, if the government is going to use its full force and authority to inflict these issues of conscience on people who disagree, then they SHOULD be discussed.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

They should be discussed, yes, and candidates should take stances, but they shouldn't be included as part of the pre-defined molds.

See, I've met people who've said that they'd love to vote for one side, but there's the abortion issue, so they have to vote for the other side. And I've heard this in reference to both parties. As a libertarian I know people of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal mold, and as a Catholic I know people of the fiscally liberal/socially conservative mold.

Leave it on the table for candidates, but take it off the table for parties, that's what I'm saying. Make more room for dissent in both parties. Voters who want to pick candidates based on that issue can still do so, but if it were an "issue of conscience" they could also find pro-life Dems and pro-choice Repubs. Yeah, I know, there are some of each, but I think there'd be more if it weren't treated as a party line issue.

[ralphus]

If at 11 weeks the tadpole shows signs of any serious condition that would place an undue burden on it's life or to be perfectly honest, ours - then my wife and I would probably choose to abort.

If at 11-weeks the tadpole shows signs of any minor, correctable condition then we would have the kid.

As the technology advances we might use it to select for certain traits. If you have the opportunity to give your offspring a leg up on it's competition, or a better chance at a disease free life wouldn't you? Heck if you could just give a kid a life without your stupid jug ears or massive schnozz wouldn't you? That being said, my wife and I wouldn't abort if for whatever reasons our pre-selections didn't take but the tadpole was otherwise healthy.

But if at 11-months we discover our child could be a creepy soulless Ginger Kid - then consider that abomination aborted with extreme prejudice.

[Mike Laursen]

re: Rather, they exist as a means to an end--and the end is to define yourself as the antithesis of your opponent.

So, we just need to get one major party to adopt a consistently anti-freedom platform and the other side will define itself with a libertarian platform? The Republicans seem well on their way to taking on the freedom-squishing role.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."

Ignoring the question of whether Jesus ever existed at all, I'm sure he, like most people of his age, wouldn't approve of--much less understand--a lot of things we have today, like vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery, electricity, computers, television, automobiles, daily hygiene, etc. I'm sure to him it would be all magic and evil sorcery.

Jesus' alleged teaching have no relevance in the modern world where we have learned far more about science and humanity than humans ever knew then Why should we care what Jesus would or wouldn't approve of?

.Carter's ilk constantly query "What would Jesus do?" My response is "I don't give a crap. The more important question is 'What would a rational person do?'"

[quasibill]

While interesting in an abstract, sci-fi kind of way, I don't see the issue of selecting a child on the basis of trivial features playing itself out much in reality. First, I think most people will have the same "icky" reaction to such actions, and won't do it for that reason - people don't like to see themselves as monsters. Second, there are the cost considerations. yes, as the technology becomes more standard, prices will decrease some, but I think it will always be somewhat expensive for such screening and subsequent abortions. Finally, you'll have the issue of delayed gratification - does the fact that you want your child to be a blue-eyed blond haired boy outweigh your desire to have a child now? Tack on the risk that your next ten tries won't work out either (unless you're willing to spend even more money on IVF which will always be fairly expensive).

Like I said, there will be some who pursue this, but I doubt it will be anything like a major theme of the future.

[Wilson]

The fetus is definetely a human being; that's not up for debate. It's simply a human being at a different stage of development (calling it a tadpole doesn't make it any less a member of this species). . .

The question of whether or not a human being at that level of development is deserving of what we've termed 'human rights' seems like it is up for debate, and I instinctively feel as though it's probably not.

I do wish people wouldn't try to avoid facing the hard fact that it's most definetely a homo sapien at an early stage of development.

[Cliff]

Maybe ID will give us the answer.

[linguist]

As the technology advances we might use it to select for certain traits. If you have the opportunity to give your offspring a leg up on it's competition, or a better chance at a disease free life wouldn't you? Heck if you could just give a kid a life without your stupid jug ears or massive schnozz wouldn't you? That being said, my wife and I wouldn't abort if for whatever reasons our pre-selections didn't take but the tadpole was otherwise healthy.

My thoughts exactly. Aren't the worries about eugenicist parents a bit overblown? Sure, there will be a few oddballs who do abort children because their eyes are grey instead of green...but I doubt it would be that many of them. Especially when you consider that the people likely to be able to afford these tests are going to be affluent (read, older and probably more educated)...the same group that usually has to struggle a bit more to even HAVE a baby.

[Ruthless]

Eugenics: Good or evil?
Discuss.

[R C Dean]

moving away from the Dems and towards the Reps, as the former's wholehearted embrace of civil rights in the 60s, and the latter's denunciation of same

Would those be the same Dems who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and the same Republicans who supported it? I could have sworn more Republicans than Democrats voted for it.

Down the memory hole, I guess.

[M1EK]

'As I've said before, what the abortion issue really boils down to isn't even "Should it be the woman's choice" but "when does the embryo acquire the status of a human being, as opposed to a potential human being?"'

It doesn't even have to boil down to that. If a pro-life candidate ever wants my vote, they have to explain to me how they would enforce abortion laws in such a way that wouldn't be worse than simply allowing the abortions in the first place (since they obviously believe that abortions are all bad).

IE, what are you going to do about the back-alley abortions? What about the coat hangers? Are you going to swoop in unannounced at ob/gyn clinics to check up on them? Do women have to register pregnancies (and prove miscarriages)? Etc.

See, you can believe abortion is "always wrong" and STILL not want to do anything about it. (Not that I do anyways; I think a hell of a lot of abortions are in fact the right thing to do, but still).

[Susan]

I do wish people wouldn't try to avoid facing the hard fact that it's most definetely a homo sapien at an early stage of development.

I agree, equally absurd is the arguement over whether it 'alive'. Of course it is living.

[Grant Gould]

"there are also profoundly social and deserve a wide and rich discussion."

People keep saying this (albeit with better grammar) and I keep not getting it.

What makes one person's choice to bear a child with or without characteristic X more "profoundly social" or deserving of wide and rich discussion than that person's decision to go into one career or another, to live in one state or another, to choose to marry this person rather than that one, to say or read a provocative or inflammatory thing? Any of these things, in aggregate, can change the future direction of society -- indeed, are more likely to do so than a few bits of genetic data gone one way or the other. And yet, we do all these things without first having profound social rich discussions or what-have-you.

Is it just that technology plus children equals social in some uniquely fundamental way? Or is it simply a re-emergence of the human desire to regulate anything that smells like change?

[Akira MacKenzie]

...or getting emotionally and pragmatically ready to care for a special needs child.

Over the years I had my share of contact with mentally handicapped children of one degree or another. While it is true that many of them can, with help, lead productive lives, the ones who are severely handicapped will not be so lucky. Yes, they have their families now, but eventually the parents will die and this unfortunate will have no one to take care of them. Who is going to pay the the bills for this individuals upkeep?

I would never, ever, force a family to produce a child that they didn't think they could take care of or could take care of itself in the future. There are some lives that are not worth living and it would be better for everyone if they had not been born.

If I were ever in the situation where a fetus I help conceived was diagnosed with an incurable or unmanageable physical or mental impediment, I would unflinchingly advocate for an abortion no matter which term we were in. We can always try again. Of course,I would also make sure that my partner shared my views on abortion and contraception before ever I considered a pregnancy with her.

If I'm the source of the genetic trouble, I'll go in for the vasectomy. If it's her, I'd hope she gets her fallopian tubes tied. If we really wanted a kid so badly, we could adopt, go to the sperm/ova bank, or I'd allow the male friend of her choosing to have the honor.

[Viking Moose]

Linguist:

south park was about that last night. the first episode was about Christopher Reeve breaking open fetuses and sucking the insides out to regenerate himself (while Timmy and Jimmy were upset that they stopped getting attention and joined the "Crips")

the second was about "gingers" - redheads with fair complexions and freckles. cartman had some sort of hate speech against them, so the boys turned him into one (gave him gingervitis).

how about: 1) life begins at 40?
2) when the critter has an independent, autonomous metabolism (or have that one at least as a component)?
or
3) when it's born and god reaches down and puts a soul in it. (ha ha)
or
4) when it discovers that the cure is really a pop band
or
5) when it engages in its first hostile take over.

yew bet. this is reeeeeel komplex. 🙂

[eric mattingly]

I tend to think the eugenics thing is a little overblown too. I personally find it very difficult to believe that people aborting their fetuses because of minor things like eye color would become popular. The chronic disease thing is a lot more disconcerting and I cannot say I know what I would do myself. Like the decision to have children in the first place, I believe it pretty much impossible to make that kind of choice independent of the other person involved. In other words, I would never want to make a judgement like that before seriously discussing it with my partner.

[Phil]

And, once again a Republican -- R C Dean, in this case -- pretends that history stopped in early 1964.

[crimethink]

Jesus' alleged teaching have no relevance in the modern world where we have learned far more about science and humanity than humans ever knew then Why should we care what Jesus would or wouldn't approve of?

If that's the case, the Bill of Rights must not apply to any activities involving telephones, radio and TV broadcasts, let alone the Internet, since the Founders knew nothing of these technologies.

Give me a fucking break. Moral principles, just like the text of the Constitution, can be extrapolated to cover new technologies and scientific discoveries. That our level of technology allows us to kill innocents in many new, "scientific" ways does not invalidate the commandment not to kill.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Eugenics: Good or evil?

It depends on what you mean by "eugenics."

If you are trying to breed "ze MASTER RACE!" (TM) through coercive means (e.g. forced breeding programs, sterilization of undesirables", genocide, etc.), then it's 100% "evil." On the other hand, if you're using reproductive technologies with non-coercive means to make sure that future generations are defect and disease free, then it's 100% good.

Now, I just have to sit back and relax while the so-called "bio-ethicists" lecture me on how there is no difference.

After all, it's their genetic code.

[Viking Moose]

Linguist:

south park was about that last night. the first episode was about Christopher Reeve breaking open fetuses and sucking the insides out to regenerate himself (while Timmy and Jimmy were upset that they stopped getting attention and joined the "Crips")

the second was about "gingers" - redheads with fair complexions and freckles. cartman had some sort of hate speech against them, so the boys turned him into one (gave him gingervitis).

how about: 1) life begins at 40?
2) when the critter has an independent, autonomous metabolism (or have that one at least as a component)?
or
3) when it's born and god reaches down and puts a soul in it. (ha ha)
or
4) when it discovers that the cure is really a pop band
or
5) when it engages in its first hostile take over.

yew bet. this is reeeeeel komplex. 🙂

[mediageek]

You know what I'd like to see?

I'd like to see all of the back-pedalling done by the right if it turned out you could screen for political or sexual orientation.

[Phil]

If that's the case, the Bill of Rights must not apply to any activities involving telephones, radio and TV broadcasts, let alone the Internet, since the Founders knew nothing of these technologies.

Well, how's this: Jesus's opinions don't matter because he didn't contribute to the writing of our Constitution?

[KaeZoo]

Personally, I think the opportunity to test for Down syndrome earlier may result in fewer abortions, not more. With current testing methods, it's possible to detect a Down syndrome fetus while the option to terminate is still available, but the decision has to be made very quickly; days instead of weeks. It's a very traumatic experience to learn that one's unborn child has Down syndrome; it's possible that with more time to consider and fully study the options, many women may choose not to terminate the pregnancy after all. There are actually waiting lists of people who would like to adopt a Down baby.

The article calls the current testing method a "quadruple test"; it was a "triple test" for our children, most recently in 2002. The triple test gave us less than a 10% possibility that our child had Down syndrome; in our case the pregnancy was too far advanced for termination to be an option. Our next choice would have been to undergo an amniocentesis. This is an invasive procedure, and in a small percentage of cases, it results in a miscarriage. We elected not to undergo the amniocentesis, and we probably would have made the same decision even if termination had still been an option. Our daughter was born with Down syndrome in Jan 2003.

[crimethink]

(Well, actually, the idea that a seconds-old fetus is fully alive sounds kind of faith-based to me, so maybe that is a more Republican way of looking at the world. I don't know.)

It is no more faith-based than the idea that a fetus with functioning brain and beating heart is not a human being at all, or that the act of passing through a vagina transforms one from a rights-less lump of tissue into a fully-protected human being, which is the current viewpoint of the law.

Indeed, given the discoveries made by embryologists since Roe, it is pro-choicers who must increasingly fall back on faith in the face of scientific discovery.

[crimethink]

Phil,

If that had anything to do with the post I was responding to, it would be a great comeback.

[Akira MacKenzie]

If that's the case, the Bill of Rights must not apply to any activities involving telephones, radio and TV broadcasts, let alone the Internet, since the Founders knew nothing of these technologies.

At least the Constitution was written broadly enough to allow for such changes. Where it says "freedom of the press," you can easily interpret that to include broadcast and electronic media. Only a dullard (or a Republican) could think it could just mean a Ben Franklin-style printing press. I'll also be first to admit that the document isn't amended nearly often enough to match what we've learned about humanity over the last 200 years. How long did it take for our country to allow anyone but a property-owning white male over the age of 21 to vote? For all their genius and foresight, the Founders were hardly perfect.

Besides, at least I know that the Founders existed, and I won't be threatened with hellfire if I ever dare to question their views. I can't say the same for Jesus, much less his "God."

[crimethink]

Akira, I'm going to follow my own advice to Hakluyt and let your response speak for itself.

[Phil]

Oh, but it does, crimethink. You rejected Akira's initial reasoning for why Jesus's opinion was irrelevant, so I offered you a more cogent one.

[Ethan]

what the abortion issue really boils down to isn't even "Should it be the woman's choice" but "when does the embryo acquire the status of a human being, as opposed to a potential human being?"

By "boils down to" do you mean "if we could answer this question, we would resolve the abortion debate"? If so, I am not sure I agree: it seems that even if we were to determine to everyone's satisfaction that an embyro was a human being in some relevant and meaningful sense, it would not follow that abortion should be illegal--or even that abortion is immoral--and it certainly wouldn't end the debate. We allow the killing of fully fledged human beings in lots of situations; people generally agree that murderers, foreign soldiers, the terminally ill, etc. all are human beings, but we still debate whether or not they should be killed or not.

[crimethink]

Phil,

Akira's original statement was not directed merely at his relevance to the Constitution, but to his having any relevance whatsoever in the modern world. Which, I would say, is quite a silly statement.

Of course, I would agree with you that just because Jesus said something, or in this case, would say something, does not make it the law of the land. Thus I oppose laws against such activities as prostitution and drug use, even though I consider those activities immoral. Also, I have always framed my argument for illegalizing abortion on secular grounds, as a human rights issue rather than a religious one.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Akira, I'm going to follow my own advice to Hakluyt and let your response speak for itself.

Translation: I don't have the argumentative skills to debate you, so I'll just side-step the issue by claiming my arguments are morally above answering.

[Jennifer]

Ethan--

By the "human being" issue I was (though I didn't make it clear) referring to the fact that even people who are pro-choice, like me, generally agree that "killing babies is wrong;" we simply disagree with anti-abortionists like Crimethink on when one reaches "babyhood." It's already illegal to get abortions in the eighth or ninth month unless it's a life-or-death scenario, and I pretty much agree with that.

Me, I don't think full baby status is achieved until the fetus is capable of a biologically independent existence outside of the mother--breathe with its own lungs, digest with its own stomach, pump blood with its own heart and regulate body systems with its own brain. I don't claim to know the exact second this status is achieved, but I DO know it's not when the fetus is only a couple of weeks, let alone seconds, old.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Edit: You don't have...

[crimethink]

Akira,

If that's the case, the intelligent readers of this forum won't need the translation.

[Ruthless]

This discussion about eugenics reminds me of the debate over the evils vs. the beneficial effects of alcohol back when Congress was considering Prohibition.

[ChicagoTom]

Personally, I think that the as the genetic testing gets more advanced, not only will there be a discussion of the ethics and morals and the choices people make with that information, there will also need to be a conversation about privacy and the limitation of how that information could be used.

I remember about a year ago seeing a PBS round-table discussion called (i believe) "Our Genes, Our Choices". One of topics of discussion that struck a chord with me were along the lines of, once you do these tests they become part of your medical record and who has access to them.

What happens in cases where genetic testing shows a predisposition to certain types of disease, and insurance companies refuse to cover you or make the premiums shy high because of the genetic predisposition.

Or what if employers start mandating genetic tests prior to offereing employment in order to filter out individuals who could potentially make their group insurance costs go up. Or not want to hire someone who could potentially get sick and and have to leave his/her job (or die) after they have invested time in developing this employee.

It was quite an interesting discussion that seemed to open more questions than it answered.

[Vynnie]

I think the movie Gattica constructed a much more realistic eugenics process than the serial-abortions-until-we-get-one-we-like method. The genetics consultant extracted several thousand eggs from the wife, and fertilized them all with the husband's DNA. Then he read the genomes and selected a few of the best for the couple to choose from. Quick & painless, with far more determinative power than a lifetime of serial abortions.

I assume the remaining embryos would be "kept on file" in case the couple decided on another child. So it doesn't even involve the question of murder, at least not immediately ... and for a low monthly fee, your consultant can keep the freezer going indefinitely, so you never have to cross that moral bridge ... (Would a law defining fertilized-egg disposal as murder be the ultimate giveaway to the genetics/cryo industry?)

With more technology, perhaps you could custom-sequence the genome of the baby by selecting each gene from the parents' full genomes, then insert the result into the empty nucleus of an egg cell and set it to replicating. Which extends our abortion debate even further ... is a fully sequenced DNA set a human being, or does it have to be inserted into the egg? Or is it not a human being until the egg is given the chemical trigger to replicate? How about a DNA-less egg that was given the trigger by mistake?

[Akira MacKenzie]

For the record: I don't buy crimethink's notions of fetal rights anymore than I buy PeTA's notions of animal rights. It's heart beats, it has "brainwaves," and it feels pain. So what? The same can be said for my cat. Yet I don't think that Victor has any more rights than a first, second, or even third trimester fetus. I would even go as far as to say that a newborn has no more "right to life" than a diary cow.

What's the dividing line between human and fetus/animal? Sapience. Self awareness. Self sufficiency. Problem solving and critical thinking skills. Once you have those, then you claim to have "rights." Without them, you're just another animal.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: The fetus-fetishists and the animal rights kooks are peas in a pod. Given they have so much in common (i.e. irrational philosophy, obnoxious and even violent tactics), I can't see why they don't combine their forces.

[crimethink]

Ruthless,

It could also resemble the debate over the evils vs beneficial effects of sneak&peek searches when Congress was considering the Patriot Act. Well, if such debate had actually taken place...

[Vynnie]

Given they have so much in common (i.e. irrational philosophy, obnoxious and even violent tactics), I can't see why they don't combine their forces.

The answer would be Nick's original point - that it's not about the issues, just about distinguishing yourself from that *&^*(&^ other party.

[crimethink]

Akira,

That is a logically sound position, but you do realize that it would leave open the possibility of infanticide (ie, killing already-born babies), do you not? It may also justify killing people in comas (against their wishes expressed before the coma), and possibly even killing temporarily-unconscious (ie, sleeping) people.

[Akira MacKenzie]

If that's the case, the intelligent readers of this forum won't need the translation.

Given your predisposition toward self-delusion, the translation was more for your benefit than anyone else's.

[ralphus]

The fetus is definetely a human being; that's not up for debate. It's simply a human being at a different stage of development (calling it a tadpole doesn't make it any less a member of this species). . .

You're right. I was being flip. But at that stage I have about the same emotional attachment to it as I would to a tadpole.

I'm not in denial about what abortion is. Abortion is killing a human fetus. But as far as I'm concerned you don't count as human being until you can exist outside of the womb.

I think some fetuses should be killed. If it is unwanted or sick - abort it.

Every time I see a story about a kid locked in the closet of some trailer and neglected for years all I can think is that I would have paid for that woman's abortion. Or whenever I see some kid with a horrible, disfiguring, life-crippling condition surrounded by doctors so proud of keeping them alive all I can think is that the kid?s mother should have gone to the abortion clinic first.

Of course this policy would severely affect the casting of Extreme Make Over: Home Edition.

Correction: I meant to say that we would abort our Ginger Kid at 11-weeks, not 11-months. At 11-months we would put it in a burlap sack and drown it in a retention pond.

[Akira MacKenzie]

If that's the case, the intelligent readers of this forum won't need the translation.

Given your predisposition toward self-delusion, the translation was more for your benefit than anyone else's.

[raymond]

Apparently the gene for breast cancer has been found, and a test for the gene in a foetus has been (or is about to be) developed.

The question is, should women with the breast-cancer gene be allowed to exist.

If they should not be, would it not be wiser, perhaps, not to conceive them in the first place?

More importantly...

What always amuses me (in a bitter, cynical, disdainful sort of way) is the right-to-lifer who supports capital punishment.

[Native NYer]

Eugenics is rational, but not ethical.

I think Jennifer stated the most reasonable solution to whether or not something is a fetus/baby.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Maybe

[Ruthless]

Nick said in the set-up:
"These are incredibly personal decisions--and they should remain with the individual, I think--but there are also profoundly social and deserve a wide and rich discussion."

Here's a selling point for anarchism:
We can debate our asses off without feeling any pressure to come to a consensus so government can take some action.

And this anarchist would disagree with Nick, and make family sovereign rather than the individual.

[Herrick and his balls]

Yeah, in general, I'm pretty much against aborting fetuses for trivial things like height or physical characteristics or really anything other than the mother's health being at stake or the child facing really severe development disorders, although I suppose it would be reasonable for first trimester abortion on demand to be legal since a woman is the master of her own domain. It's one thing for adults to go about getting plastic surgery or being fitted with whatever nanotechnology or genetic treatment that will come about in the future, but doing it to the unborn seems shiesty

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Ray,

What always amuses me (in a bitter, cynical, disdainful sort of way) is the right-to-lifer who supports capital punishment.

It isn't nearly the hypocrisy that it appears to be. Those right-to-lifers support cap punishment because they believe that a murderer has forfeited his right to life by the taking of another life, which is completely different than supporting the right of a perceived innocent unborn child to his or her life.

Plus, as the other side often does, you can simply flip your comment around and it would look like this:

What always amuses me (in a bitter, cynical, disdainful sort of way) is the people who oppose capital punishment for murder but don't think twice about aborting babies.

Same coin, just tails instead of heads.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Ruthless, speaking of family, I met your daughter in Las Vegas although I didn't know at the time she was your daughter. Talked to her briefly in the bar with Nick. I think she talked to Mrs TWC a bit more than I. Exchanged a few smiles here and there but never really got to spend any quality time. I like her website and I find her art appealing. Not that I'm a critic, but I don't like most of the things that pass for art, so at least from my perspective, enjoying her art is really positive thing. Now please don't tell me I've got the wrong chick. 🙂

[Ken Shultz]

Amen to TWC's comment.

I'd add that people oppose the practice on more than just preciousness of life grounds. The reasons people support pro-life policies, to whatever extent, are more complicated than advertised. ...I suspect that's true of the reasons people support pro-choice policies too.

P.S. I oppose the death penalty in all cases save treason.

[Timothy]

Let me state first that I am pro-abortion because I hate children. Fewer kids, less annoyance in restaurants, I'm down with that.

To be less glib for a moment:

what the abortion issue really boils down to isn't even "Should it be the woman's choice" but "when does the embryo acquire the status of a human being, as opposed to a potential human being?"

I think this has a pretty easy answer: when the fetus has human brainwaves. That generally starts between four and five months into the pregnancy, and this is an argument I first saw in Demon Haunted World. As a practical matter, I think outside-the-womb viability is probably all right, and that's circa six or seven months.

I am therefore in favor of completely unrestricted abortion in the first trimester because, frankly, it's just a collection of cells. I'm all right, more out of pragmatism than anything else, with abortion during the second trimester: because the little parasite can't even breathe on its own...although I will admit that second trimester abortions give me the willies.

[Eric the .5b]

the act of passing through a vagina transforms one from a rights-less lump of tissue into a fully-protected human being, which is the current viewpoint of the law.

Fortunately, no one knows I was delivered via c-section.

*blinks, looks around, realizes*

Aw, shit.

[Phil]

RC, anyone who trots out your tired old talking point without bringing up the fact that many Democrats, upon passage of the Civil Rights Act, quit the party in a fit of pique and joined the Republicans, giving us the Southern Strategy we all know and love, is doing for a reason. So, if you're not a Republican, you're acting as a reasonable facsimile or a willing mouthpiece.

Has a segregationist ever run on a Republican ticket?

Um, David Duke?

Have the Republicans ever passed or sponsored a bill that would roll back color-blind legal equality?

This one takes so much unpacking I'm not even going to bother, except to note that the passage of the Civil Rights Act did not make everyone "legally equal" in any meaningful sense. If you think it did, ask yourself why there are still cities in the US under consent decrees from the USDOJ for redlining blacks out of their neighborhoods.

[joe]

RC, "Would those be the same Dems who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and the same Republicans who supported it?"

Did you miss the phrase "in the 60s?" Or does your brain, like most high school history classes, end immediately after World War II?

[Wintermute]

I did a post at my place early in the month, "Catholic v. Fundamentalist," that included a news story about the "social sex selection" experiment underway at Baylor in in vitro fertilization cases and concluded that the benefits outweighed the natural squeamishness amplified by fundamentalists and "ethicists," which is attentuated in the in vitro, choose one from many situation.

[joe]

Let's define some terms here: my clipped toenail is a being. And, since it has my genetic code, it is human. It is, therefore, a human being. Those arguing for blasto-American rights are using the phrase "human being" to blur the distinction between my toenail and the legally-significant concept of a "person."

A egg is a human being the moment it is fertilized. Hell, the sperm and ovum are human beings before they fertilize. So no, qualifying as a human being, as in, a being that is human, does not entitle you to legal protection.

When does personhood begin is an important question, but the womb police are trying to steal a base by insisting on the term "human being."

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Tim, Fewer kids, less annoyance in restaurants, I'm down with that.

LOL, My kids have extracted my revenge for all those people whose kids annoyed for 15 years by screaming in restaurants.

David Duke: in all fairness the GOP rebuked him and offered zero support, so that is hardly representative. Strom Thurmond might have been a better example.

Then again there is Robert Byrd, whose hands are still a little bit sticky with pitch from the Southern White Pine he used to hammer makeshift crosses together and the gasoline he doused them with. Here's a guy who was a practicing Grand Wizard of the KKK, but people mostly yawn when that comes up.

[Lincoln]

What's the dividing line between human and fetus/animal? Sapience. Self awareness. Self sufficiency. Problem solving and critical thinking skills. Once you have those, then you claim to have "rights." Without them, you're just another animal.

Akira, how did you come to this conclusion? I'm curious as to how you can so vigorously and definitively believe it. Your philosophy assigns no rights to the newly born, eldery, mentally retarded and coma inflicted. It grants rights to elephants, dolphins, your cat Victor's feral relatives and certainly chimpanzees. Even poor Priest Holmes, knocked silly by a concussion, lost his rights for a while.

[William]

Ugh! Is it a human being? Who the hell care? The "personhood" of a fetus isn't really the issue, its just a bit of moral obfuscation. When you boil it down, abortion is about one thing, the right of one individual to exist at the potential expense of another. Disagree, consider this hypothetical:

Dick and Jane get drunk, have a one night stand, and Jane ends up pregnant. Nine months and a paternity test later, Dick finds out he is a father and starts paying his court ordered child support payments. Happens every day. Now, the kid gets sick, and it turns out he needs a kidney transplant. Dick is a match, Jane isn't. Dick says no. Can anyone here make a legal argument that Dick has to go under the knife? Sure, he has every moral obligation to, if he doesn't hes a schmuck and (if theres any cosmic justic) he'll burn in a very special circle of hell, but there is no legal way to force him to give up a kidney.

Thats the abortion debate in a nutshell. It isn't about when someone is human, when someone can feel pain, who should be notified, or anything else. Even if you concede every argument about a fetus being a human with rights under the 14th ammendment, theres no justification for forcing someone else to undergo a pregnancy. It's about choice. Women STILL die in childbirth, a pregnancy is both an inconveniance and a danger.

And before anyone starts whining about who should have thought of what before they let someone stick their naughty bits wherever, think about what parents can do after they have a child. A parent can dump a child at ANY point in life, legally. You just send them off to DCFS and request your parental rights be terminated. Sure,, its an evil thing to do, but it is within the framework of our laws.

[Comment Cow]

[...] no more "right to life" than a diary cow

That we should suck flat the skulls of the denizens of livejournal.com seems like something we can all agree upon.

Let's stop all this fussin' and a-feudin' and pick a theme song.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Your philosophy assigns no rights to the newly born, eldery, mentally retarded and coma inflicted.

FYI: I support infanticide and euthanasia. Thanks to the irrationality of religion, we've lost the ability to be able to human being down. Sickeningly, we give our household pets more dignity than we do sick, dying, and handicapped humans, and, as I pointed out, pets don't have rights.

It grants rights to elephants, dolphins, your cat Victor's feral relatives and certainly chimpanzees.

No it doesn't. None of these creatures are sapiant, ergo, they have no rights. Until a dolphin, an elephant or my cat passes the Turing Test, then it doesn't have rights. Ditto zygotes and newborns.

Even poor Priest Holmes, knocked silly by a concussion, lost his rights for a while.

That has got to be among the stupidist arguments against abortion I have ever heard. Sleep or unconsciousness does not render one non-sapiant. When the brain is physically no longer capable of sustaining that state, then we can talk about terminiating it.

[joe]

"Then again there is Robert Byrd, whose hands are still a little bit sticky with pitch from the Southern White Pine he used to hammer makeshift crosses together and the gasoline he doused them with."

Actually, Byrd has pubicly and repeatedly apologized for ever consorting with the Klan, calling it "the biggest mistake of my life."

This stands in marked contrast to Democrats who left the party over race, like, Thurmond, who never recanted his segregationist views.

[Akira MacKenzie]

I used to be anti-abortion myself, mainly because it was expected in my in my ultra-Catholic family,I was too young to know better, and being otherwise would have gotten me knocked around by my father. Then, through long and painful experience, I learned something:

Despite what the priests, bishops, and "das Panzer Pope" say, life isn't really all that special. It's merely a prolonged series of chemical reactions, that's all, nothing else. The only reason we have laws against murder and theft is merely for the utilitarian purpose of keeping a level of comfort in society. That's all. Nothing else.

In the grand cosmic scheme of things, human life really has no value, much less equal value. In the end, all you can really value is your own life, and that is illusionary in this godless universe. My own concern is staying alive for as long as I can. If that means obeying the law, so be it. If that means aborting the occasional fetus, or euthanizing the occasional old fart. So be it.

Religion reads far more into this life than anyone rationally should. It's time humanity learned that lesson and move on.

[Lincoln]

That has got to be among the stupidist arguments against abortion I have ever heard. Sleep or unconsciousness does not render one non-sapiant.

Am I not having any kind of argument. You are only arguing with the ego inside in your head. I have no idea whether or not abortion is moral. I'm trying to have a discussion about where life begins and how to define exactly what a human being is. Because as others have pointed out, if we know the answer then it will add a little clarity to the abortion debate. I'm also curious because 2000 years of philosphy and religion have only inched most closer to the answer and you have it all figured out. Evidently it's as simple as:

When the brain is physically no longer capable of sustaining that state, then we can talk about terminiating it.

There are scientists who believe sapience is present in dolphins and elephants. The word sapient is still being debated to this day in philosphy classes around the world. If sapience is going to be the final arbiter of life or death I'd like to know what it means. I got the impression from your response that determining sapience is an easy task: apply the turing test. The turing test is useful, but is not by any means a universal test of sapience. In fact, primates have passed the test and mentally aware humans have failed it. Given that I'm just an IT worker bee and only an amateur philospher I'd just like to know how you figured it all out. Guide me oh great one.

[ChrisO]

I think William has stated things on this topic about as well as they can be stated.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Joe, Byrd apologized, but it doesn't pass the smell test and it reeks of some of my best friends are black you know, which is why, many people chortle at the very idea that Byrd regrets anything at all.

No I cannot know for sure, but the epiphany came at a very politcally opportune time in Byrd's career. IOW, he saw the writing on the wall and made the conversion in the same way that Bill Clinton became enlightened and observed that the era of big government is over. Think Bill meant it?

[Iguana]

Strom Thurmond was a segregationist who never donned white sheets and lit up black neighborhoods with burning crosses. There is a world of difference there.

[Dave W.]

And you are stealing a base with the term "womb police." I decree that both runners give back their bases by giving up their respective pet phrases.

[Lincoln]

the right of one individual to exist at the potential expense of another. Disagree, consider this hypothetical:

You realize you just said don't worry about whether or not something is a human being and then said "right of one individual." How do I know the fetus is an "individual"? If the fetus isn't an individual then the abortion is a non-issue. You have to answer the question of whether or not the fetus is an individual with rights before you can get into whether or not it's rights take precedent over the pregnant womans' rights. I understand that you think it's irrelevant when the fetus becomes a human because the mother still has more rights to her body regardless of the fetus' state. I certainly sympathize with your position. But since I don't necessarily agree with the position it should be a priority to answer the question. It's also helpful in euthanazia and animal rights discussions.

Even if you concede every argument about a fetus being a human with rights under the 14th ammendment, theres no justification for forcing someone else to undergo a pregnancy. It's about choice. Women STILL die in childbirth, a pregnancy is both an inconveniance and a danger.

An "incoveniance"?!?!? While I'm not sure whether abortion is right or not, I know incoveniance is not a factor. We assumed in your example that the fetus is a person. You do not get to murder or even just kill a human because something is inconvenient to you. As for the mother's health, I (and even George Bush and most pro-lifers) believe the pregnancy can be aborted if the mother's life is definetly in danger. But what if it's not?

think about what parents can do after they have a child

If a parent refuses to feed a kid or beats him or her then they go to jail and lose custody. Any kid out of the womb has certain powers over adults. They have a smaller set of rights but still have rights. I would think most of us would agree on that even though a 3yr old cannot pass Akira's Turing Test. The fact is there are circumstances where a child's rights superceeds that of his or her parents. Your right to smoke pot stops at the point you stop feeding your kid. So why does the fetus, which you have taken for granted is a human, get to be killed exactly?

[raymond]

Those right-to-lifers support cap punishment because they believe that a murderer has forfeited his right to life...

There you go. My problem is, I have this weird notion that my fundamental rights are inalienable. Strange, I admit. And not very 21st-century American. But there you go.

[crimethink]

Let's define some terms here: my clipped toenail is a being. And, since it has my genetic code, it is human. It is, therefore, a human being. Those arguing for blasto-American rights are using the phrase "human being" to blur the distinction between my toenail and the legally-significant concept of a "person."

The difference between a blastocyst and your toenail is that when your toenail is destroyed, the being it was a part of continues to exist. The being to which the individual cells of the blastocyst belong cannot survive if the blastocyst is destroyed.

A egg is a human being the moment it is fertilized. Hell, the sperm and ovum are human beings before they fertilize. So no, qualifying as a human being, as in, a being that is human, does not entitle you to legal protection

More precisely, when an egg is fertilized, it ceases to be an egg and becomes a zygote; in other words, fertilization turns it into a totally different type of entity, which I would agree is human. Sperms at ova are not full human cells, since they have only one set of chromosomes instead of two.

[crimethink's proofreader]

...Sperms and ova are not...

[joe]

TWC,

There is no doubt in my mind that Robert Byrd, in his heart, continues to hold the bass-ackward ideas about black people that were universal among people of his generation and cultural background. Even if you have an epiphany as an adult, something socialized as early, deeply, and regularly as white supremacy was in early 20th century, rural West Virginia doesn't just drip away because you want it to.

But that is not the same thing as saying his recognition of wrongness of that philosophy was made in bad faith. And as far as "opportune" goes, the most oppotune thing for someone with his political base to do would have been to follow Helms and Thurmond into the loving embrace of the GOP in the 70s or 80s.

And as for Bill Clinton, yes, I believe he made a genuine repudiation of Great Society liberalism - he campaigned on welfare reform in the primaries, you know. While he didn't drink the minarchist Kool Aid as deeply as you might have liked, I don't see any wisdom in the sentiment that a political shift cannot be genuine if it does not bring one to your own preferred position.

[Jim Walsh]

Regarding Republican segregationists: Jesse Helms was a segregationist in the sixties until the Civil Rights Bill passed and Helms, to his credit, urged his constituency to respect the law of the land and get on with their lives...

[vabs]

Wilson:

>I do wish people wouldn't try to avoid facing the hard fact that it's most definetely a homo sapien at an early stage of development.

I'm with you. If you can't see that a fetus is undeniably human I don't see how you can take full responsibility for your decision in whether abortion is morally acceptable or not.

[JDM]

1) Those who opposed the Civil Rights Act split among the parties, as has been discussed before here ad naseum.

2) A toenail is not a human being.

3) Asserting that infants and cows should have the same rights is a mark of insanity.

[Brendan Perez]

As the tests get better and people discover that their 'bun in the oven' may end up with Downs' Syndrome or another permanently disabling disorder, and it possibly becomes common to abort, will we still allow parents to force their teenage daughters to forgo abortion, will the exclusive power to decide whether or not to abort still belong to the parents of the pregnant girl or to the girl herself?

[MJ]

"Those arguing for blasto-American rights are using the phrase "human being" to blur the distinction between my toenail and the legally-significant concept of a "person.""-joe

Your toenail clipping is human, but it is not a "being". It was a piece of you, but it was not a complete individual unto itself. Heck, it does not even meet the minimal criterion of being alive, as the exposed of the nails and hair are comprised of dead cells. The fertilized ovum is a complete living human organism.

It is fascinating to what lengths some pro-abortion rights people go to torture logic, language, science and ethics in order to rationalize their beliefs. Look at Akira, he does not do what your doing. Of course, his position is pure evil, but what are you going to do?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Ray, I am intrigued. So you wouldn't lock 'em up either?

Joe, a thoughtful enough reply and I admittedly wasn't a Fan of Bill....but, it's okay that he didn't drink all that much of the minarchist Kool Aid.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Of course, his position is pure evil, but what are you going to do?

Oh yes, "evil." Another myth to throw on ash heap of history next to "God", "soul" and "right to life."

Spare me the mystical bullshit.

[raymond]

I am intrigued. So you wouldn't lock 'em up either?

1. Society has the valid power to require restitution and to ostracise.

2. The right to Liberty is the ability to choose. It is "free will". When I sign a contract, I do not give up that right. The murderer does not forfeit that right, either.

3. The exercise of the right to Liberty may justly be limited by the State in order to obtain restitution and to protect the rights of individuals.

4. American prisons - with their rape, torture, degradation, enslavement, murder - violate fundamental individual rights. Their raison d'?tre is revenge. The exaction of revenge is not a valid power of the State. Nor is punishment.

If you want to "lock 'em up", make a different kind of prison.

---0---
Here is a table with the top ten highest prison population rates

Rank Country Prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants

1 Russia 730
2 United States 680
3 Belarus 575
4 Kazakhstan 495
5 Bahamas 485
6 Belize 460
7 Kyrgystan 440
8 Suriname 435
9 Ukraine 430
10 Dominica 420

ps - If Texas were a country, it would rank second in the above table. In 1997, there were 726 federal and state prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants.

[MJ]

Akira,

There is no other word adequate to describe what you posted at here at 3:03pm and the logical implications of it. One gathers that you only have respect for other people's rights because you fear the consequences of reprisal. I hope their sake's your neighbors have strong locks and adequate weaponry.

[Dave W.]

Just because your father hit you doesn't mean you have to spite him with your metaphysics, Akira. He's not worth that.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Mr Mond,

The exercise of the right to Liberty may justly be limited by the State in order to obtain restitution and to protect the rights of individuals.

I conclude from this (and other parts of your comment) that you would be okay with locking up a murderer to prevent further crimes against individuals but not for revenge or punishment.

I'm okay with revenge or punishment but not excited when the state is seeking it. I'd rather shoot you myself for molesting my kid.

I agree with you on the state of prisons in the US.

I'm pretty sure there are some lengthy discussions and writings concerning the issue of rights and forfeiture of same for certain criminal behaviors in the archives of this BB and many other places so I'll skip that part and go to the part where I have difficulty.

Going back to your original post where you state (more or less) that rights are inalienable (period).

I honestly don't see the difference between forced restitution by the state or incarceration. The taxes argument applies to restitution to the victim in that the state is taking part of your life without your consent when they extract taxes or restitution and that implies an abridgement of rights (if I read your argument correctly).

I'm fine with restitution and find it infinitely preferable to lock-up, particuarly for lesser crimes. But I just can't see the moral difference as it applies to inalienable rights with respect to the criminal. By your definition, any way you slice the cake the state is infringing the inalienable rights of the criminal whether they toss him in the clink or require restitution are sentece him to five years of indentured servitude.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Akira, no offense man, but that was a scary post.

[raymond]

I conclude from this (and other parts of your comment) that you would be okay with locking up a murderer to prevent further crimes against individuals but not for revenge or punishment.

I'll try to clarify.

A criminal owes reparation to his victim. Eye-for-eye is not reparation. It doesn't begin to make the victim whole. Horse-for-horse _is_ reparation. Or rather, horse+pain&suffering-for-horse is.

A murder victim can never be made whole. But the murderer can and must make some (ok, inadequate. I'll admit that) reparation to the victim's family and community.

(Elsewhere I've suggested guidelines similar to the school insurance we used to get when we were kids: $50 for a big toe, $30 for a little toe, $100 for a thumb, etc.)

I'd get rid of criminal courts entirely. Civil courts all the way. (Of course, we couldn't have the kind of stupid juries talked about in the latest Reason.)

We recognise that the State has the valid power to enforce contracts. It gets this power from the people, who have put their individual power (imperfectly realisable) into Locke's common pot. It is not a great leap to accept that the State has the valid power to compel restitution.

Murderers and thieves and rapists not being known for their regard for contracts, the State may rightly use force (in this case, confiscation of property and/or incarceration and obligatory work) to see that restitution is made.

We have a right to self-defense. That right includes the obligation to use the minimum force necessary to achieve our ends. The State, as our agent, may justly use (minimum) force to protect the people, whose agent it is. Ideally, this minimum force takes the form of ostracism.

Since we live in a world where the old get-out-of-the-city kind of ostracism doesn't work, we are obliged to "ostracise" in a different way: through incarceration. (When Mars is open for colonisation, I'll be willing to rethink this.)

So. In my opinion, the State may justly incarcerate in order to insure restitution and protect the people.

However, the State must see to it that the fundamental rights of the incarcerated are not violated and that they will not be a threat when they're released.

I don't believe I have a right to punish. I don't believe that revenge is a right, either. Since I do not have those rights, then my agent cannot rightly do them. I do believe I have an inalienable right to Dignity.

And finally, incarceration per se does not violate the right to Liberty (unless rape, torture, drugs, degradation are part of it), but rather limits the exercise of the right.

I am not not free because I can't fly, after all.

I hope that's clearer. (It has nothing to do with taxes.)

[mediageek]

What's the dividing line between human and fetus/animal? Sapience. Self awareness. Self sufficiency. Problem solving and critical thinking skills. Once you have those, then you claim to have "rights." Without them, you're just another animal.

Color me cynical, but I'd submit that even a large portion of the adult population wouldn't be able to meet this criteria.