Republican candidate for United States Senate from Missouri Todd Akin:
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh:
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, running against Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, told reporters Thursday night that there should be no abortion exception for the “life of the mother” because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would actually die, according to a radio station. Walsh, of course, is flat wrong.
Republican Rep. Steve King:
Iowa Congressman Steve King (R) pointedly refused to say whether he believes contraception should be sold legally in the United States. King, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the seminal Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state ban on the sale of contraception.
As to whether he was “personally against” the sale of contraception, King said “I’ve not taken a position on the sale of contraceptives at all.”
Republican candidate for United States Senate from Indiana Richard Mourdock:
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” Mourdock said.
Each of these statements, when viewed alone, strikes me as startling. None of them reflect well on the candidates or office-holders who spoke them. All of them indicate either profound ignorance, a perverted view of divine will, a distressing lack of respect for personal autonomy, or some combination thereof. By my lights, none of these men belong in Congress, most certainly not the ones who can’t be bothered to learn the basic facts about how women’s bodies work.
Viewed in aggregate, these statements are truly horrifying. They represent an immensely worrisome lurch to the hard right on the part of Congressional Republicans. For as long as I can remember, exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother were broadly accepted as reasons for abortions that few would question. (My co-blogger has already addressed the question of the particular stipulation regarding incest.) And yet we find ourselves faced with not one but several candidates who are on the record as thinking those exceptions are unnecessary canards or morally unacceptable. (Lest anyone claim these views are from the fringes of the party, there’s not a lot of daylight between some of what’s expressed above and the policy positions of a certain Vice-Presidential nominee.)
A few times during my residency I had the hard duty of caring for young women in the emergency department after they had been sexually assaulted. I strove to be as compassionate, respectful and supportive as possible, and to exercise tremendous care when collecting the forensic evidence necessary to prosecute the crime. One of the things I did for all of these patients was offer them emergency contraception to prevent them from getting pregnant as a result of being raped. It appalls me to think that men like these who would presume to set public policy about women’s reproductive rights would foreclose that option for rape victims, which is a perfectly plausible endpoint to consider when discussing what they’ve said.
Women can get pregnant when they are raped. Women can die of pregnancy-related complications. (I’m not even going to bother inserting links, because any halfway intelligent third-grader could find this information within seconds on the Internet.) Fools who dispute this should seek employment somewhere other than Capitol Hill. It boggles the mind that any answer other than “Of course!” would spring from the lips of a member of Congress when asked if women should have legal access to contraception. And telling rape victims they must carry their rapist’s child to term because that’s what you think God wants is one of the most nauseating example of fundamentalist extremism I’ve seen for a very long time, and offends not only my notion of civics but also my theology.
Yet here we are, America. When one moron from Missouri says something jaw-droppingly stupid, perhaps one could dismiss it as a fluke and watch as the GOP kisses its chance of an easy pick-up goodbye. (Sweet fancy Moses, please let the polls hold.) When numerous politicians from the Republican Party are inconveniently honest about their antediluvian views regarding women’s reproductive tracts, it’s time to think about what that party has come to represent. Especially when a politician of that ilk has been elevated to the national ticket.
It is no surprise at all that the gender gap in voting behaviors is at near-historic highs. As a gay man, I’ve noted the GOP’s views about what rights I should have and have come to the conclusion that I can’t possibly vote for one of them in the foreseeable future. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if many women had come to a similar conclusion.
The one that jawdropped me was when Romney, IN THE MIDDLE OF A DEBATE, started an answer with the phrase, “Well, if you’re going to have women in the workforce, then …”
IF?!?!?! This man’s worldview is so divorced from what I view as reality that it staggers me he can exist. Really? You’re going to go ON RECORD as saying that, on national TV?
Of course, later in the same debate he basically equated gun violence with single motherhood, in front of a man raised by a single mother (and later by grandparents), so.
While the attitude of dictating women’s health choices is pretty appalling, in some ways it’s the patronizing ‘these are things we allow women to have/do’ that really loses my vote.
Sometimes I have to wonder if these guys ever actually met a woman, because I simply cannot believe that no one in their lives – spouses, daughters, nieces, sisters, cousins, work colleagues – ever gives them insight into how women actually react to many of these issues. They cannot allow for any uncertainty in their pro-life principles so rape-created pregnancy cannot be a completely bad thing but must somehow be God’s will. He’s doing that mysterious-way thing again, obviously.
The divide between “Keep the government out of my healthcare!” and “Make the government force that rape victim to carry that entirely unwanted pregnancy to term!” makes my head hurt.
” Republican Rep. Joe Walsh…told reporters Thursday night that there should be no abortion exception for the “life of the mother.”
Frankly, I’ve been a little suspicious of him ever since he agreed to work on Hotel California.
Akin and Walsh are just wrong on the facts. and Steve King is extreme. But I can’t help but think that Mourdock does not belong with the other 3. Abortion is an extremely thorny issue. There is nothing obvious about the pro choice position. There isn’t even anything obviously all things considered wrong* about banning all abortion except when the mother’s life is threatened. The fact is that there is a a developing organism, which in due course if not actively interfered is in most cases likely to develop into the kind of being we owe positive duties (akin to duties of rescue) to. Of course, where implantation rate is low, the duty may be less weighty**, but as the natural survival rate of the embryo increases, our positive duties to it become weightier as well. Given that abortion is such a difficult topic, I am more forgiving when people get it wrong.
*That women should have control over their own medical decisions is a prima facie consideration against baning all abortion except when parent’s health is at stake, but it need not be an over-riding consideration. It is not obvious that it is over-riding even if it turns out that it is in fact over-riding.
**Assuming that killing persons is very but still finitely bad, is it less bad to shoot starving biafran kids who are likely to die in the next few years (without reaching their teenage years)than to shoot canadian kids who we can otherwise expect to live to adulthood (and thus be the kind of being who can fully exercise their rational capacities)?
1) I am deeply secularist, and find the notion of using one’s religious beliefs as a basis for telling someone else what they must do with their bodies odious. Telling them what to do with their bodies when they are in emotional extremis after having been raped is unthinkable.
2) The personhood of a developing fetus is an intensely fraught topic, in a way that the personhood of Biafran or Canadian or whatever kids is not. The personhood and autonomy of a woman who has been raped is undeniable. The rights of the latter supersede the former.
“The personhood of a developing fetus is an intensely fraught topic, in a way that the personhood of Biafran or Canadian or whatever kids is not. The personhood and autonomy of a woman who has been raped is undeniable. The rights of the latter supersede the former.”
Russell, If you are talking legalities, then you are correct. But morally speaking, you recognize that is a subjective opinion, correct?
I do recognize that, Mike. I accept that others may disagree. For those who do disagree, Mourdock’s comment will likely seem far more palatable.
For my part, when faced with conflicting interests between a woman who has just experienced a trauma I cannot even begin to imagine and that of a still-abstract person who lacks the apparatus to even form experiences, there is really no question about whose interests hold.
The fact-value distinction. As it turns out, few ‘facts” are value-free.
And telling rape victims they must carry their rapist’s child to term because that’s what you think God wants is one of the most nauseating example of fundamentalist extremism I’ve seen for a very long time, and offends not only my notion of civics but also my theology.
That someone else could be “offended” at killing the baby, that two wrongs don’t make a right, would be the other side of this argument, and just as valid.
Letting a rapist spread his genes throughout the populace, simply because he’s good at getting away with it, hardly seems like a policy that will bring good things…
But then again, I’m no pig.
I would assume he is which is why he called it a fraught topic.
) I am deeply secularist, and find the notion of using one’s religious beliefs as a basis for telling someone else what they must do with their bodies odious.
I’m with you here. I find invoking God (or for that matter any comprehensive doctirine) to justify coercive laws problematic. However, abortion is not something that is easily settled even if we stick to public reason.
Of course God talk is deeply problematic when justifying policy in a pluralistic society. However, when lots of republicans use so much God talk all the time, I have I believe started to filter out the fact that they use God talk.
The personhood of a developing fetus is an intensely fraught topic, in a way that the personhood of Biafran or Canadian or whatever kids is not.
I wasn’t comparing the two. I was just wondering whether the likelihood of a current being to develop into the kind of being who can possess rights matters.
The rights of the latter supersede the former.
Not obviously the case. This only does so if the foetus doesn’t count as a person. If the latter issue is confused and thorny, then so is the former issue. I don’t think we get to say that we don’t know whether the baby is a person or not so let;s just pretend it isn’t.
The personhood of the fetus is unknown and (in my view) unknowable, such that it becomes an article of faith. The personhood of the woman, and the reality of her pain, are simple matters of fact. When deciding which person’s interests should have primacy when there is a conflict, particularly in the extremes of human experience such as sexual assault, the known and knowable override the speculative.
When deciding which person’s interests should have primacy when there is a conflict, particularly in the extremes of human experience such as sexual assault, the known and knowable override the speculative.
I really don’t know whether this really obtains or not. When we don’t know what to do one way or another, I think we should just go with the status quo, but the status quo could have been otherwise.
I am chary of wading into abstractions too much, because the very last thing I’d want to appear is glib. I know that people hereabouts for whom I have the sincerest respect have different views, and I would never want to seem as though I don’t take those views seriously.
That said, I simply cannot understand valuing the abstract personhood of a blastocyst over the interests of a sentient human being. I concede that everyone has to drop the line somewhere, and that at later stages in fetal development when the capacity to feel pain may have been established other arguments come into play, but for a woman who has been raped I feel strongly that a policy that countermands her wishes requires an extremely high burden of proof, and the theoretical personhood of a developing fetus falls far short.
Murali,
unless those kids are below the age of two, it’s just as bad to shoot one as the next.
Below there, I’m willing to dicker, as the “human ness” of the entity hasn’t been well established (read: neural net still developing very rapidly)
Kim, I have adopted a policy of leaving most of your comments be. But I have to say the notion that the “humanness” of a child under two hasn’t been well-established, and that one could thus “dicker” about whether or not one could shoot them, makes me wonder a great deal about the quality of your own neural net.
I’m certain rose could cite the paper. It was certainly well covered in my medical ethics course in college.
Some might say that one can’t have ethical duties towards someone who can’t be expected to behave ethically. I choose not to take that view.
I do this as a mental exercise: asking myself where I’d draw the line. At which point are we obligated to keep the kid alive, even if it should cost enormously? (You’ll note that I’ve not put the age at “when the kid can be expected to usefully contribute” — that’s age 3).
I think at a certain age, one might be able to decide that a kid’s life is (and will continue to be) not worth living, and end it accordingly. (Most people would put the cut-off inside the womb, but I think many people have the concept).
After a certain point, I don’t believe that’s the case. I feel like we really have the duty to keep the kid alive, even if he’s going to be blind by the age of five, and 99% chance of being dead by the age of ten.
I’ve asked myself the question: “could I condone infanticide” — and I feel like, in the most extreme cases, the answer is yes.
I fear that whatever returns there may be in continuing this conversation have already diminished to a point sufficient for me to call it quits.
Well, it’s true that in many cultures over the course of human history, there was a tendency to treat the first birthday as a pretty big deal, bigger than the orginal birthday – and sometimes not to even give a child a name until then – due to high infant mortality.
Hansel and Gretle wasn’t exactly a made up story. At least a few cultures practiced child abandonment, during abnormally tough times.
The first three examples are pretty inexcusable. The last one I understand, though I would have phrased it differently. From a pro-life perspective, it is immoral to abort a child due to the circumstances of its birth. As a practical matter though, that’s not something I would ever consider making illegal. It’s a bridge too far and also represents a fraction of total abortions in the U.S.
As for what this all says about the GOP…I just don’t know. When I look at the people we actually have in office at the national level, I think these kinds of voices are in the minority. Likewise, you can hear some crazy rhetoric from the Left regarding other issues (just check out quotes from the Bush years, especially regarding the Iraq war) but they are also a small % of all elected officials. So I guess I am not quite ready to tar and feather the entire party over the remarks of two elected officials and two candidates.
Lastly, EVERYONE says dumb and inappropriate things. Ever listen to the LBJ Whitehouse tapes? There are parts that will make you cringe. For instance, try the first few minutes of this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR7vOcWKRiE
Not EVERYONE says dumb and inappropriate things.
(and some people know when to censor them).
I can contend that “dumb and inappropriate” are also context dependent.
Kim,
“Not EVERYONE says dumb and inappropriate things.”
See this:
https://ordinary-times.com/russellsaunders/2012/10/womens-bodies-and-the-gop/#comment-32742
*snort* I am not a good example of people who don’t say stupid things. Some might say this is intentional.
From a pro-life perspective, it is immoral to abort a child due to the circumstances of its birth. As a practical matter though, that’s not something I would ever consider making illegal. It’s a bridge too far and also represents a fraction of total abortions in the U.S.
I’m going to try, for a minute or so, to get into the mindframe of zealous pro-life GOP partisan.
Dr. Russell says in his post:“For as long as I can remember, exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother were broadly accepted as reasons for abortions that few would question.”
For as long as I can remember, pro-choice advocates have used the rape/incest exception as a rhetorical and dialectical tool to attack pro-life arguments; something along the lines of, “If you really care about protecting the unborn, as you say, then why are you OK with an exception for cases of rape and incest? Your position is logically inconsistent.” The middle cannot hold.
When someone points out that exceptions B and C to position A are logically inconsistent, the advocate of position A has two choices: (1) abandon position A; or (2) double-down on position A, simply discarding exceptions B and C.
An important component of today’s GOP leadership has embraced option (2).
This is probably giving the Akins and Mourdocks of the world too much credit, since they don’t seem especially concerned about logical consistency on other matters.
(OK, going to go scrub my brain now. Alcohol should do it. Or maybe bleach.)
Pub Editor,
Any time someone equates logic with public morality policy, it’s a losing proposition. There is always going to be a subjective component. However, you make a good point. There IS a logical contradiction between a pro-life position and allowing for abortion exceptions, however I think the moral question is less problematic than you imply. It really comes down to the same argument we use towards war. We ask if killing one to save a thousand is a fair moral trade and most people will say yes. If granting those three exceptions would be the basis for more broad restrictions on abortion, the pro-life sees it as a fair moral trade.
The problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges here. Pro-life folks giving ground to get an overall policy win does not mean the moral position has been undermined. The two are not necessarily linked.
To draw a clumsy anaology, there are a lot of SSM supporters willing to trade away any future discussion of legalizing polygamy if it will get monogamous same-sex marriage passed, even when they themselves don’t really have a problem with polygamy themselves. It’s a a policy position, not a moral stance.
Pub Editor:
You saved me from typing almost the exact same comment.
Let the GOPers honestly own the implications, loud and proud, of their belief that person=embryo=fetus=infant=toddler. Those implications extend to things like in-vitro fertilization (people not successfully implanted and given birth to wind up dying) and medical research funding (wouldn’t it be more moral to direct our medical research dollars toward the 25-50% of womb-occupying people that suffer spontaneous death?).
Mouse,
I’m sure the Left would prefer if conservatives walked into that trap, but what would that serve towards our goals? The goal is to stop as many abortions as possible. If we allowed for those three exceptions that’s roughly 13.5% of all abortions according to Guttmacher. Using the round number of 1 million U.S. abortions per year, if we eliminated all abortions except for those reasons then you would have 865,000 children not aborted every year. I’m willing to take that trade.
Furthermore, when you talk about extending the implications of the pro-life position, isn’t that a two-way street? Doesn’t that mean the pro-choice crowd should support euthanasia, selective abortions, third trimester abortions, etc? A ‘pro-choice’ agenda should be just that…right?
“The goal is to stop as many abortions as possible.”
Bull-pucky. Were that the case, conservatives would be promoting sex-ed classes (and not just abstinence) and handing out condoms and birth-control pills like crazy. That they are not completely undermines this assertion.
Yeah – I hear that. But that would sort of be like saying that liberals don’t really care about the environment because they don’t have a recycling bin on every corner. An incomplete solution doesn’t prove insincerity.
Um, no. It would be like liberals actively fighting to REMOVE recycling bins.
I’m from Texas. The pro-lifers here are bang alongside the “absitence only” policy, which also known as “close your eyes and hope real hard”.
The sum total of things they want to tell kids is “don’t have sex, kids!” which is a lot like telling the tide not to come in. Which I could probably handle, if they were also teaching kids how to swim.
Which, of course, they aren’t. They don’t call it “abstinence only” because it’s part of comprehensive sex-ed.
Mike:
In addition to what Morat20 said above, San Francisco is aiming to have zero (0) solid trash — no land fill at all — within a few years. Liberals do have recycling bins everywhere there are trash cans.
The goal is to stop as many abortions as possible.
I think the goal is to get everyone to mind their own business and stick to their own morality without getting all involved in everyone else’s. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is probably the toughest moral decision a woman can ever make and she doesn’t need politicians poking their noses into that decision. Rape is assault, not sex, and those who’ve experienced it deserve support and compassion, not condemnation and interference.
DRS,
I guarantee you want the government to ‘stick their noses’ into moral decisions when it suits you. Perhaps you have a daughter who is not quite 18 and you want age-of-consent laws enforced. Perhaps you have a relative that was murdered and you want justice. Perhaps you support capital punishment. Maybe you think the people that planned 9/11 should be hunted down and killed.
It’s really just about where we draw the line. Don’t pretend that you believe in a government without morals.
Mike,
Don’t pretend you voted for Carter. A government that tries to behave morally swiftly becomes a trainwreck.
/foreign policy realist and dove.
Mike D – yeah, and I’m in favour of government regulating appropriate levels of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and water we drink. Also speed limits.
But these issues are not the same as abortion. Remember, I live in a country where we pretty much have abortion on demand and things seem to be moving along all right. There aren’t piles of dead babies in landfills and the Children’s Aid Society still runs adoption services. So I find it a little hard to understand why Americans just can’t accept that women can handle the personal private decision of abortion without political interference. Maybe Americans just aren’t as advanced as Canadians.
Mike:
Pro-life folks giving ground to get an overall policy win does not mean the moral position has been undermined. The two are not necessarily linked.
But the catch is that voters aren’t voting on referenda or on positions in a contract negotiation; they are voting for candidates, and for whatever reason voters want to know what Candidate X really thinks–or “really believes in his heart.” (I suppose the unspoken assumption here is that a candidate might be willing to vote for Compromise Position 1; but if he got the chance, he would vote for Position 2.)
I may be mistaken, but I think that most of the PR train-wrecks described here have come up the the context of a Congressional candidate being asked, “What do you personally believe regarding…”
Everyone says dumb and inappropriate things occasionally.
It’s the consistency with which Republicans keep saying these particular dumb and inappropriate things that raises concern. The one left off the list was the guy running in PA, who defended his belief that there shouldn’t be any exception for rape saying he’d had personal experience with the situation.
How, you ask?
His daughter chose to not to abort after she became pregnant through consensual sex. But it was premarital sex, so ‘from a father’s perspective’ it was basically the same.
Oh, yes. How remiss of me to leave GOP Senate hopeful Tom Smith off the list:
Smith said Monday at the Pennsylvania Press Club that although he condemns Akin’s comment, he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims. Pressed by a reporter on how he would handle a daughter or granddaughter becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Smith said he had already “lived something similar to that” in his family.
“She chose life, and I commend her for that,” he said. “She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to … she chose the way I thought. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.”
When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from rape, the candidate responded, “Having a baby out of wedlock.”
” Likewise, you can hear some crazy rhetoric from the Left regarding other issues (just check out quotes from the Bush years, especially regarding the Iraq war)”
Cite, please? I’m leaning toward False Equivalence, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, too, the quote must be from someone in or running for Congress or President.
Jeff – this seems like a good place to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpQ2MNaSDo
False Equivalency it is then!
How so Jeff?
Because One Democrat saying something silly = The Actual Republican Policy on Abortion (which is no exceptions).
Mourdock’s phrasing was callous, and I understand the push back he’s received, but, for what it’s worth, he was echoing two beliefs widely held among Christians: 1) All human life is a gift from God and 2) God can and does bring good out of evil. Presumably, though, Mourdock thinks these beliefs should dictate abortion policy, a position that does put him at odds with secularism, religious freedom, and arguably your typical Christian voter.
For my part, I cannot possibly comprehend or understand the horrible experience of becoming pregnant as a result of rape–I feel inconsiderate evening talking about it–and I lack the insight into the mind of God to know with certainty what God intends and doesn’t intend concerning the terrible things that happen in this life; so while I find Mourdock’s statement understandable, I don’t find it especially defensible.
Your views reflect an admirable humility, sadly lacking in any of the aforementioned gentlemen.
Historically, the widely practiced view among Christians is that all human life is a gift from God, except for that of Jews, Muslims, non-believers, heretics, and members of rival denominations, all of whom can be killed to the greater glory of God.
But what about witches?
The protocol is clear.
I am not sure it is fair to call these statements as “hard right,” maybe in the sense of an intrusive central government involving itself in the most personal of medical decisions. I think these decisions are more reflective of a very hard form of anti-intellectual, willfully ignorant, hyper-religiosity. Mix this with neo-racism, you have the whirl wind ready for reaping that Nixon left to his heirs in the GOP.
You can call them past-leaning reactionaries, if you want, as these are the type of people who want to get science and facts out of the debate.
Why else are they for abstinence education? (well, there is the Alternate View, but more on that later)
Only ‘hard right’ in being the sort of extremely reactionary position that regards women as being somewhat childlike and therefore incapable of making difficult moral or ethical choices without the guidance of ‘right-thinking’ men.
Bookdragon – that’s the second time you have implied that certain pro-life positions are about men telling women what to do. That assumes that women themselves don’t also hold those views which seems incorrect considering recent polling:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru
46% of women identify as pro-life while only 44% identify as pro-choice. I think women are doing just find representing themselves.
How many of these women feel it’s their obligation to bear a rapist’s child?
Mike – Did Mourdock say that?
I can’t find any other way to interpret it.
Mike D.,
Do you think Mourdock believes it’s ok to go against God’s will?
Mike,
I have heard women openly advocate that men should tell them what to do. What bookdragon is saying is not an exaggeration, except to the extent that people are trying to extend religious doctrine into the legal sphere. Which, as we all can see, they are.
And that means what in terms of male politicians standing up and saying the sort of things quoted here?
I know several women who are pro-life. I also know that not one of them would try to force her daughter to bear a rapist’s child. Persuade, offer support to make choosing to bear the child a more viable option, maybe. Force, no.
That’s what this comes down to. People – almost always men – talking about using force of law to impose their beliefs (the consequences of which they will never have to personally face) on women who they obviously don’t trust to be able to make the ‘right’ decision on their own.
Look, the one time a college friend was afraid she might pregnant, I pointed out that the campus paper had ads from couples hoping to adopt and if she decided to go that route, I’d help in whatever way I could. She was surprised at that responses because I’m pro-choice, but I pointed out that what that meant was that I believed no one should impose their choice on her. Suggesting a reasonable alternative (esp. in a non-judgmental way) is perfectly okay.
A better way of putting it is this.
Bookdragon,
“People – almost always men – talking about using force of law to impose their beliefs (the consequences of which they will never have to personally face) on women who they obviously don’t trust to be able to make the ‘right’ decision on their own.”
This touches on subject matter covered over at the main site before but the jist of what I would say is that as a pro-life individual I don’t believe women have complete control over the lives of their unborn children anymore than they do over the life of a child that was five years old. For a pro-lifer those children are equal. And if they are equal then male legislators have just as much right to dictate policy towards the unborn as they would towards a toddler. Surely even if you don’t agree with it you can understand that moral position?
Furthermore, there are 400+ members of Congress. Two dummies do not equal a representative sample of ‘men telling women what to do’. Also, just as an aside, try being a single father in family court with a female judge and then tell me that there aren’t women out there that are happy to tell men what’s best for them and their children. It’s a two-way street.
Excuse me, a two-way street?
Are you seriously comparing the difficulties of a father in family court with what a woman who has become pregnant through rape faces? You think these are in any way equivalent? Seriously?
No – I’m comparing the nerve of two elected officials thinking they know what is best for the other gender. The level of severity doesn’t change the basic premise. We live in a soceity where elected officials make all sorts of choices for us.
Uh-huh. So forcing a woman to bear a rapist’s child is just another decision we let elected officials make for us?
Sorry. No.
If elected officials passed a law requiring whoever was the best match to donate a kidney to any person who needed one (because after all the person needing the donation has a right to life!), I imagine a number of people would object. Rather loudly.
In fact, if the govt only forced bone marrow donation or even blood donation, I’d expect a hue and cry.
And you know what? All the arguments against would run alone the lines of how those laws violated personal autonomy, interfered with an individual’s right to make that kind of choice for himself. And I bet most of it would come from the same side of the aisle as those now claiming that their stand on abortion is based on their deep conviction that all life is precious.
First of all, from what I can tell Mourdock didn’t advocate forcing women to carry the child to term. He was speaking about his own personal morality which is that even those pregnancies represent a life and choosing to terminate is still immoral. As I mentioned above, many of us on the pro-life side are willing to put aside some of our morals if it would mean more bans on abortion for other reasons.
The government requires all sorts of preventive safety measures like seat belts, vaccinations, etc. That is forcing certain things on our person. And keep in mind, you keep talking about women’s bodies…but that ignores the pro-life position that the fetus is an independent life.
I think you are mistaken, Mike. (I may, of course, also be wrong.) It is my understanding that Mourdock was explaining why he does not believe that abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape should be legal.
Russell,
If that is correct then I don’t agree with Mourdock. I would never suggest that those types of abortions not be allowed. As I have said, my moral position would not trump my policy position in that situation.
Mike,
Here’s the video from the Indiana Senate debate. Mourdock’s own words. He says he’d only allow an exception to save the life of the mother, and not for rape because “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Certain pro-life positions are about men telling women what to do. That’s what all the “citing God” stuff is about – moral back-up, as it were. Straight from the source. I hear enough about it from the (all-male) Catholic Church hierarchy all the time. Then someone makes a snark about how the priests just want new recruits as altar boys (*ahem*) and it’s food-fight time in the rectory.
I made a joke a few weeks back about how Republicans, when asked about women’s issues, need to start saying “I don’t think about women’s issues” and then ask for the next question.
I don’t remember why I thought it was funny.
It was kind of funny the way Colbert did it last night.
The biggest issue facing women today is that their husbands need jobs.
All abortion policy discussions are just rife with complete and willful disconnect from what opposing viewpoints might be hand have been for at least a generation now. When we talk about abortion allowances for rape and incest, the Pro Choice talk about the woman’s body and her rights and if anyone ~dares~ say anything but “yes yes, abort away”, they are accused of engaging in a War on Women and wanting to “put women back in the kitchen where they belong.” But, on the other hand, if someone is Pro Life and “fact” remains: A life is a life. Why is it okay to kill one person just because of accident of conception?
And that disconnect will always make these emotional messes and fury generators of the highest orders. “How dare you vote for those horrible Republicans? Don’t you know they hate women?”
I’ll be the first to admit that some policies designed to create informed consent go to far. They are clearly poorly thought out. And the Republican party has totally failed to control this message. It does seem like they can’t find a single person with two braincells to rub together to put the dialogue on what it should be: Life. Babies. Children.
The think about all of this talk is that Neither Side agrees on where life starts and where it should be protected. As so when someone says “Life is life, regardless of how it’s made”, the “other guys” jump and scream and demand that it’s one more data point in the war on women.
You know what? I just can’t believe that any of these guys give a rat’s ass about that. I think the vast majority either believe or want to represent people who believe, that life is life, and you protect a fetus like you do a newborn.
Life. Babies. Children. Women.
There, fixed that for you. The women actually are part of the equation and the fact that the discussion always cycles back to an underlying concept that women can’t actually be trusted with personal autonomy does in fact make the dialog feel kinda hostile to them.
Thank you for making my case for me.
Try to make the conversation about life above all else, and you get accused of misogyny.
Oh, yes, lets speak of life above all else, shall we?
Let’s speak of the man who persuades a ten year old girl to have sex with him.
Whose dream it is to keep her pregnant or nursing so she’ll never bleed?
Oh, yes, sir, let’s speak of life above all else.
Or weren’t we supposed to speak of Rabbits?
After all, we know it’s not “rape rape” unless she’s broken and bleeding. and even if it is rape-rape, she should still have to bear with letting him win, and spending nine months bearing a child.
The conversation can never be “life above all else” unless and until a man can take over the pregnancy of a woman.
even then… you really need artificial wombs, otherwise you’re compelling Someone to sacrifice their liberty to bear a child. (I treat sacrificing money as a lesser moral quandrary)
Where is the “right” for a doctor to perform abortions? Where his/her morality trumps that of society’s as a whole? The question remains backwards. Society legislates morality all the time: You can’t torture your dog, you can’t screw on the sidewalk.
Furthermore, Mr. B, where is it written it’s only men who want restrictions on abortion? As we see elsewhere on this thread, the gender split on the question is not men vs. women atall; that’s an oversimplification.
“…you can’t screw on the sidewalk.”
Is that really a moral issue? Or an aesthetic one?
Regarding the doctor, I’m curious about looking at this a different way (bear with me, as this is far from a fully fledged argument)…
Suppose an abortion was being settled in a civil court. The mother wanted the abortion. As did the father. As did all living grandparents. The doctor was on board. As was the nurse and everyone else involved in the procedure.
Who would have standing to bring a case?
Civil court, Kazzy? No, Criminal Court. The law.
The law, Kazzy: The doctor unlawfully took human life, if the law were to read that way. The rest of the “people” involved are only “people.”
My point is that the abortionist has no right to take human life unless the law says it’s OK, and even then…
Yes, I called him/her an abortionist. Ugly word, but neither unfair nor inaccurate. Let’s not hide behind words. “A woman’s body” and “choice” hide behind words. We would not legalize doctors cutting off women’s arms if that was their “choice,” to cut off part of “their body.”
We remain moral imbeciles, hiding behind our words, convincing each other of what we know isn’t true.
Tom,
This is a fair cop. I thought about clarifying, but I needed to be quick as I was nearing the end of my break.
As for the right of a doctor to perform an abortion, that’s twisting things. There is no right to perform medical procedures on anyone (allow that the procedure is medical for the mother, though not for the fetus). There isn’t really even a solid right to healthcare; all we really can expect is a right to equity under our mutually constituted government. It’s that right to equity that can’t really be fully reached by the “conversation” unless men become as capable of carrying a baby to term as women are; everyone’s options would be enhanced, I think, recognizing that if a man could carry to term, a woman who chose to carry another person’s baby probably could also. (I’m switching between “fetus” and “baby” not to be confusing, but to avoid “hiding behind words,” which you correctly point out fogs more than clarifies.)
My comment was only meant to point out that A Teacher was failing to recognize the inherent inequity of legal restrictions on abortion, which is an explanation for his observation that talking about “life above all else” is often equated to misogyny. I wouldn’t equate it to misogyny, but to the extent that some would equate arrogance about the unequal burden of procreation on the female sex to misogyny, I can understand why the charge is laid.
Cyanide. Arsenic. Tansy. Half a dozen radioactive elements.
Am I an abortionist yet, TVD?
How about turpentine?
TVD, a government has NO right to force a woman to have a pregnancy, just as it has NO right to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, or prevent one from happening.
I do not support paternalism in Health Care, let alone from my thrice-damned government.
Thank you Mr. B, and to kim as well: The government cannot “force” a woman to carry a baby to term. it can however, ban doctors [or others] from performing abortions, just as it can ban other mutilations of a “woman’s body.’ This is not in dispute.
Therefore the only constitutional way for abortionists to do their, um, work is for it to be declared a “right,” rights trumping legislation.
This was exactly the state of things before Roe, which is bad law*.
States could ban or permit doctors to perform abortions: both are constitutional.
___________
Pls read: just a collection of quotes from pro-choice legal scholars [incl Justice Ginsburg] on Roe.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661
[Government] can however, ban doctors [or others] from performing abortions, just as it can ban other mutilations of a “woman’s body.’ This is not in dispute.
Abortion is a medical procedure and there are a variety of ways that it can be performed. Some of these methods (such as the dilation and curettage or D&C) have other purposes such as removing potentially infectious material from the uterus following a delivery or a miscarriage. I doubt that the government has an interest in women risking potentially life-threatening infections from foregoing a D&C.
Medical personnel have no “right” to perform appendectomies or heart surgery either, so I’m not sure TVD has come up with the powerful argument he thinks he has.
We gonna ban tattoos as well, TVD?
Do you ban women from performing abortions on themselves?
Abortifacients are a dime a dozen, and if you ban abortions,
I start distributing… (after I leave the country, naturally)
Mutilating a women’s body?
So now you’ll make it illegal to not be pregnant?
because, folks, we all make our laws based on what is “gross” rather than what is moral.
The gov’t may permit or restrict or ban any medical procedure–absent Roe, which is bad law. [See above link.]
This is the argument.
Tom,
I’m certainly not suggesting that we handle abortions in civil courts. I was only attempting to get at “standing”. Who has “standing”? In a criminal case, it tends to be the state in the interests of the victim. That begs several questions… A) that a victim exists and B) that the state has interests in it or, at least, interests that trump all the other parties.
Those aren’t impossible hurdles to clear. But they are questions that need to be answered.
True, Kazzy, but we ban dogfighting. the dogs have no standing but the state stands in anyway.
What’s interesting here is that I’m only describing the pre-Roe state of constitutionalism, and one we may return to at some point, returning the question to the states to, um, legislate morality, if you will. But no different than how we legislate morality in other areas.
That selling dogmeat or horsemeat is illegal seems weird if you get all abstract about it, but we do make it illegal. There is no “right” to sell dogmeat, and absent Roe, no involuable right to perform abortions.
[Few are in favor of prosecuting the women involved; neither is the state able to “force” a pregnancy be carried to term. I suppose there’s no law against eating dogmeat, just purveying it. Likewise with abortions–it’s the purveyors whom the law restricts.]
“True, Kazzy, but we ban dogfighting. the dogs have no standing but the state stands in anyway.”
Is this when I get on my soapbox about how I *don’t* think we should ban dogfighting and, turnovers be damned, Mike Vick got a raw deal?
No? It’s somewhere else? WHAT?!?!? That soapbox doesn’t even exist? I have to do what? TURN IN MY LIBERAL CARD?!?!
Shit. Shit.
Kazzy, me bro—this is where you go libertarian on us!
Write it out with passion and clarity.
Then read it back in a day or two.
Personally, my issue is less that a ban on dogfighting is some sort of immoral restriction on the freedoms of folks who’d like to dogfight. It is more that I think our broader views on animal “rights” are so arbitrary and so steeped in idiocies like class/racial privilege, “cuteness”, and a functional inability to connect with our fellow man* that appeals to dog fighting don’t go far with me.
Regarding the specific rights of doctors to perform abortions, I think we get into an issue of positive and negative rights. I don’t think it is necessarily that doctors have an affirmative right to perform abortions. I wonder if the government ought to have the power to prevent doctors from performing abortions. I do believe that the government can put reasonable bounds on freedom. I don’t know if I consider just such a bound “reasonable”. But it all gets us back to the fundamental questions surrounding how we think of fetuses. To this end, and maybe this makes me some sort of horrible monster, Zazzy being pregnant hasn’t really changed this for me… maybe when I feel it start to kick.
* I would love if we could develop all the necessary medications we need efficiently and effectively without harming a single animal. But if we can’t and if animal experimentation can save lives… not just a few, but thousands or millions of lives, I say go for it and look back. Folks who put the lives of animals ahead of the lives of humans, to me, are engaging in a bizarre form of misanthropy.
…go for it and *DON’T* look back…
Try to make the conversation about life above all else, and you get accused of misogyny.
Well … of course! For anyone who thinks women have a right to determine what happens in their own bodies, denying that right is very close to misogyny. I mean, your pro-life argument only goes thru by rejecting the moral standing, and status, of women.
Now, if you want to concede that women have the basic rights that choicers believe they do, and still argue that abortion ought to be illegal in every case (or whatever), then you’ve bi-passed the misogyny charge. But personally, I don’t think that case can be made. So the pro-life position only goes thru, it seems to me, by denying that women have a basic right to biological autonomy. Wrt this issue, you’ve essentially reduced them to baby incubators. And that sounds sort of misogynistic, doesn’t it?
For anyone who thinks women have a right to determine what happens in their own bodies, denying that right is very close to misogyny.
It certainly is once you’ve begged away the real question, which is the personhood of the fetus.
oy…the nature of the fetus and a woman’s control over what happens in her own body are both “real” issues. What makes this a thorny topic is there are two valid “real” issues that conflict. If there was only one issue then it wouldn’t be much of a conflict.
“For anyone who thinks women have a right to determine what happens in their own bodies, denying that right is very close to misogyny.”
It certainly is once you’ve begged away the real question, which is the personhood of the fetus.
+10000
ken:
There is nothing question begging about asserting (I could argue it too, if you’d like) the rights of women. That’s a separate issue from whatever rights, if there are any, which attach to a zygote, and when those rights clearly attach to the baby/infant. It seems to me, however, that your assertion that the fetus has moral properties worth considering and potentially protecting is only an argument for banning abortion if you’ve begged the question of whether women have rights to choose what happens in their bodies.
greginak: you’re right that it’s a thorny issue for those of us who believe women have rights to choose. For someone who thinks that women don’t have that basic right, then it’s not thorny at all. Women don’t have a right to choose, a fetus has a right to life, so abortion ought to be illegal. That’s a simple argument, one which skips right past the actual dispute, and does so by rejecting without argument the premise justifying choice.
Murali and Ken: I’ve made the argument that the right of a women to choose what happens in her body is sufficient to justify abortion even if the fetus is attributed personhood at the time of conception and granted the full suite of rights adults receive. Personally, I think you’re both wrong to think that the right to life of the fetus is determinative of the abortion debate. I’m also a bit puzzled why you think I’m begging any questions about the rights of the fetus or the legality of abortion by asserting (I could argue it, I suppose) the rights of women to choose.
The primary issue is personhood — if we were all convinced that the fetus was due the same status as an infant, then few people would argue that the mother would still have a right to kill it absent a threat to her own life. (I know that some people do in fact argue that, but I suspect only a small minority would find it convincing given the fetus=infant prior). Conversely, if we all agreed that a fetus was due the same status as a clump of skin cells, then few people would argue that the mother couldn’t do with it whatever she liked.
I’m not saying that the fact that the physical burden of pregnancy falls on the woman is not important, but it’s not the fundamental issue until you’ve already decided at the very least that a fetus is not a 100% person.
Having seen your second comment, see my parenthetical — I suspect that if you really believed fetus=baby you wouldn’t be saying that, but if you did, I’m pretty sure most of the populace wouldn’t agree with you.
Personhood of the fetus of course creates all sorts of subsidiary problems like say criminalizing IVF, or even making miscarriage a sort of manslaughter if it could be proven a woman was acting negligently and endangering her pregnancy (by drinking or smoking while pregnant, perhaps)…
I don’t think that’s a can of worms society is willing to open, which is perhaps why viability still remains a crutch for most.
But I take it from your comment that you’d allow abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth?
Ken,
but it’s not the fundamental issue until you’ve already decided at the very least that a fetus is not a 100% person.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that a fetus isn’t a 100% person. They share some properties with humans, of course, for example the right kind of DNA, certain potentialities, human parents, etc. But they lack – and I think this is pretty obvious – all the relevant properties for being considered a “person” (as that term is conventionally understood).
But look, I personally don’t think that’s the issue here. For me, the issue is whether women have the right to choose what happens in their own bodies. And I’m of a mind that they do (I’ve never seen an argument that defeats that prima facie plausible view, fwiw). If so, then how do we resolve the conflict of rights between a fetus and a women who is willing and able to exercise her right to biological self-determnation? That’s the abortion debate. I think it tilts in favor of the woman very clearly early in the pregnancy, since I don’t think an early term fetus has any rights that could potentially trump the rights of the mother (it gets murkier thru the second trimester and become pretty clear again in the third). But even if the fetus is attributed rights, the conflict still requires a resolution, yes? And I don’t think that merely asserting that the rights of the fetus are trumpers is a very good argument. In fact, it’s not an argument, it seems to me.
(obviously that last was meant for Stillwater…)
But I take it from your comment that you’d allow abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth?
No. I’m actually very reluctant to permit that, except in cases of medical emergency to the mother. The abortion debate is as murky for me as for anyone, I suppose, but I think I’m pretty comfortable saying that the woman ought to be able to legally exercise her right to choose for a pretty restrictive time frame, and after that it ought to be prohibited. For various reasons, I think the first trimester would constitute a sufficient time frame. But I’m persuadable in different directions to some degree.
Stillwater, very nice.
I actually like the pre-modern medicine view of this: a woman was ‘pregnant,’ when quickening happened — when fetal movement could be felt, sometime between the 4th and 5th month.
I’d also like to point out the large numbers of herbs and plants listed in herbals (including herbals prepared by Catholic monks) for ‘bringing on the menses.’ In other words, for inducing a period.
Things are much better for most modern women. We survive childbirth most of the time now; something my grandmother couldn’t take for granted. But those charming old takings on when pregnancy was ‘real,’ and the menses could use some reviving.
Zic-
You are not alone- there is a reason why support for abortion rights is in the majority in the first trimester, and falls off in the last trimester.
Most people, myself included, are unwilling to look at a fertilized egg and declare it to be a baby. Few people are willing to look at a 8 month old fetus and say it is a blob of cells.
We don’t have a strong political or theological leadership to champion this viewpoint, so the argument is left to the triumphalists.
I guess I’ll be the guy who says, yes, I trust women and OB/Gyn’s not to be sociopaths and not end pregnancies in the eight month for oddball reasons. So yes, I’m against any restrictions on abortion.
Jesse, what would be a compelling reason for terminating a pregnancy in the eighth month?
Most likely, the health of the mother and/or complications leading to a situation where you’d be giving birth to a stillborn fetus. But, I’m not a doctor. I’m sure there are other reasons, as horrible as they may be, so I’m not going to say, “you can only have an abortion for reason a, b, and c because that’s all I know.”
“It certainly is once you’ve begged away the real question, which is the personhood of the fetus.”
Not at all. Assume that the fetus has a right.
Read the famous Thomson paper: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Or wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
In the simplest terms, Thomson argues that if an adult (even someone who was innocent of all crimes) was using your body without your consent and risking your health, your life (even in small ways), and limiting the quality of your life, then you have a right to escape from that use of your body, even if it means that the person using your body will die as a result of your escape. This is the whole point of the Violinist analogy: You have the right to abortion even if the fetus is a person.
—
Also: “But I take it from your comment that you’d allow abortion for any reason right up to the point of birth?”
At a certain point, a c-section and early birth are easier on both parties than an abortion. This is why women don’t get abortions this late. Sort of obvious.
—
Also, the claim that the fetus, in the first trimester and a half or so, is a person is insane. It’s just not. You can say it is a potential-person and you can try to argue that potential people have rights, but a fetus in the first trimester meets virtually none of the criteria for personhood: sentience, consciousness, intelligence (of some degree), etc.
I think the claim that potential people have rights is a very, very thorny issue, and that is why abortion is complex.
Try to make the conversation about life above all else, and you get accused of misogyny.
At the very least you’ll be accused of not recognizing that there are in fact competing values.
Nobody seriously believes in life above all else. Anyone who supports the death penalty, even for murder, does not believe in life above all else. Our response to terrorism has taken far more lives than the terrorists have, so anyone who supports our response cannot claim to put life above all else. Anyone who thinks that some things are worth dying for does not put life above all else. Anyone who writes a living will and doesn’t insist upon all resuscitation measures no matter how small the hope of recovery does not put life above all else.
And yet on this one issue you complain that we don’t do what we don’t do on any other issue?
Sure seems like you deserve to be accused of something.
As long as we’re engaging in plus inflation, I’m gonna give this plus a ho-jillion.
“women can’t actually be trusted with personal autonomy”
Women haven’t been trusted with personal autonomy since the nanny state made white wine spritzers illegal for anyone under 21 and pot illegal for everyone. (and now 20+ oz pop).
The difference is that effects all people. Abortion legislation only effects women, since ya’ know, there the only ones that can get pregnant.
Some of us women would like those things to be legal, too.
Even if “secondary smoke” from pot makes me sick…
And sex.
Free sex. Women can’t be trusted to have sex of their own free will. But we’re granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cannot think of much that’s happier. And that’s the problem at the root of all this nonsense.
Some women like the freedom to have sex. Men like this freedom, too. When he has sex, we say he ‘got lucky.’ When she does, often we shame her. It’s the double standard. He’s supposed to think about his prowess. When was the last time you heard a male get chastised for having out-of-wedlock sex? But she’s supposed to think about her reputation. The comments on Hannah Rosen’s Atlantic article on hook-up culture are enlightening; two-thousand plus, mostly on the lines of, “but who will marry these women?’ WTF?
Have you seen John Scalzi’s piece on it?
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
(Warning: the letter and a lot of the discussion following can be triggery for anyone who has been raped).
That’s discomforting; mostly because it’s a view of rapists that they don’t hold of themselves.
I was raped. I doubt my rapist felt he raped me; my ‘no’ was, to his ears, more a ‘maybe you’re not drunk enough yet.’ He sure as hell he didn’t want any progeny from it; and he had the gall to check in and make sure that this was the case.
And even at 16, I knew that my drunken condition meant I stood no chance of having the crime taken as a crime by the legal system; that filing a legal complaint would be another, long and drawn out rape of my own psyche.
But this constitutes the antipode of my suggestion: women (not all, but many of them) like being able to have sex; they enjoy sex, and they don’t necessarily want a marriage or monogamous relationship confining that sex. Sadly, we fear women’s joy of sex; it’s as if, over centuries, the realization that sex leads to the magic of pregnancy has made men want to control that magic by controlling women. So a woman who’s sexuality is active and joyful is, socially, a sinful thing, not a joyful thing. And that’s a shame.
I was actually proud of Sandra Fluke for getting up on the stage at the Democratic Convention, and talking about contraception as if it were the most normal thing in the world, as if women’s sexuality were normal and natural and something to be proud of. Because it is.
zic,
*hugs* Thank you for coming forward and speaking about this. I know it can be difficult.
My very good friend was almost raped by his best friend (they were both about falling down drunk at the time) — they weren’t friends from that moment on.
I suppose it’s worse if the rapist was younger than you, or if you didn’t say no, even though you weren’t consenting. or, if you didn’t realize you had been raped until afterward.
There are a lot of nonconsensual things that I’d want to call rape (including a woman being tortured before “consenting” under duress).
{{{{{zic}}}}} = zic hugs.
Why is it okay to kill one person just because of accident of conception?
Rape is not an “accident of conception”. Good lord! It’s an act of violence and no one should have to suffer the unwanted results of an act of violence. Teacher, you lost me at that sentence.
If I may attempt to regain the middle ground then:
I put a two babies in front of you. One of them was conceived by a loving couple, the other was conceived during a rape. Is it permissible, then, to kill one of them?
IF you believe that life begins at conception, that a fetus is the same as a newborn, then to allow for abortion of one, is the same as to permit the murder of a child who has committed no crime of their own.
From a moral-ethics problem, the “big three exceptions” to abortion are incredibly tricky to navigate for that very reason, but it requires agreement as to what a “person” is.
IF you believe that life begins at conception, that a fetus is the same as a newborn…
See, there’s your problem. Life does begin at conception but the fetus is not the same as a newborn. That’s what’s tripping you up. You need to rethink this.
Can I just say, as a non-religious person, that the “will of God” boggles me no matter WHAT Mourdock was intending to say? Even if you give the man the benefit of the doubt – if you assume that he meant God intended for pregnancy to happen, not for rape to happen – you’re still considering a God who designed a world in which rape leads to pregnancy and in which the innocent are burdened and the guilty are not?
I get it; I’m not religious. I don’t understand the Bible’s subtleties on what God does and doesn’t do. But good grief. I’m trying here and I still can’t help thinking that God’s a bit of a dickhead either way.
And you’re essentially saying that a rapist whose goal is to sire children is “doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons.”
I started to make this a post on the FP but it seems better placed here. The main complaint I would have about this whole kerfuffle is two-fold:
– It takes eyes off of the main problem with abortion
– It allows the pro-life side to be painted as out-of-touch whackos.
Of course, my partisan response is that liberals love this stuff for the very reason that it IS a distraction from the main debate. And the crux of that is that roughly 865,000 pregnancies are aborted every year mostly for reasons of inc0nvience. Not rape, not incest, not the health of the mother. Simply, “I got pregnant and this just isn’t a good time for me to have a kid.” THAT is really what we should focus on because as a country there is majority support for restricting abortions under those circumstances.
And most of us on the pro-life side make allowances for the so-called ‘big three’ exceptions. So these conversations, while intellectually interesting, are very much about arguing over minority views.
So these conversations, while intellectually interesting, are very much about arguing over minority views.
Mike, this is a pretty weak argument. You seem to be saying that since a majority of people believe that abortions out of “convenience” (what the hell are those???) ought to be prohibited, it’s already a settled issue and continued discussion about it is just pointless academic nonsense. Is that really what you’re arguing here?
Stillwater,
You misread me. What I am saying is that arguing about the big three exceptions is arguing over a minority view in the sense that I think the number of pro-lifers that wouldn’t allow for those is a relatively small group. I think a discussion over broad level abortions of convience is more productive and also more mainstream.
And abortions of convienence are basically everything else. They are abortions where having the child makes life harder for the parent (or there is a perception it will be harder for the child itself i.e. a disability).
Ahh. OK. That makes much more sense.
A recent study showed that giving women access to free contraception significantly reduced the numbers of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.
Now I agree with you, abortion is not a good thing; I just don’t agree that it should be against the law, I’d give women the right to control their reproduction. But in reducing the numbers of abortions, it seems like the good fight is in providing contraception and good sex education. Both women and men should understand their reproductive systems and how using those systems ties into their overall well being.
But that’s not the fight we get; we get morality of sex, we get slut shaming, we get folk like you, casting stones at women who get pregnant when it’s inconvenient and seek an abortion. We get major religions saying contraception is immoral; essentially saying sex outside certain parameters is immoral. That dog don’t hunt. Women like sex, too.
Yet the same folk I hear denouncing abortion also denounce good sex education, they slut shame, and say contraception is immoral. This is not about morality, it’s about morality for women; it’s about control.
Well let me tell you about the ‘control’ issues I’ve experienced.
I’m the child of a woman who had her first child two months after turning 16. I’m the victim of a pedophile who molested and stalked me for five years. I’m the victim of rape. I was beat, frequently, by my older brother. I’ve been paid less then men working for me. I’ve consistently seen men ignore my opinion, and then spout it back as if it were their own.
I know full well the misery men are able to met out to women. But I’m also the luckiest woman alive, I’ve been with a wonderful, caring, and loving man for 35 years — in a faithful and trusting relationship. We have two children together. He’s the light and joy in my life. Because of him, I know full well how caring, kind, gentle, and thoughtful men can be to women.
But women, they get both sides of the coin. And until I hear men standing up and calling out other men for their bad behavior consistently, I have very little tolerance for men’s judgment of the ‘sanctity’ of life. Walk in my shoes first, baby. Because nearly all the misery in my life came at men’s hands.
It’s my life, let me live it, let me grasp the tools to control it — contraception, education, health care, child care, economic security — and spend some time controlling your own life. That’s all most women want. They don’t want abortions, they don’t want to be raped, they don’t want to be beaten, they don’t want surprise pregnancies, they don’t want to be paid less for their work.
But honey, like it or not, no matter how good you personally may be, your brothers aren’t all as kind. Give us women the dignity of our bodies, and go heckle your not-so-good brothers for a few decades. These misogynistic discussions of abortion without the balancing discussions of men’s disgusting behavior sicken.
Zic,
Wouldn’t a more balanced discussion be a discussion of the ‘disgusting behavior’ of both men and women, rather than balancing an abortion discussion with pointing out that yes, some men are terrible people? I don’t see how the latter two are linked. What you are saying here (and you have said before) is that men don’t get to talk about abortion until we clean up our own backyard. Also, how exactly do you make people stop being douchebags through policy?
Women’s ‘disgusting behavior’ get’s talked about all the time.
The onus on sexual morality nearly always falls on women. We’re blamed for violence on our bodies because of how we dress, where we go, how we get intoxicated, who we spend time with. I do not hear the same on-going never ending litany of avoid unpleasantness heaped upon men.
That’s the whole point; that’s the misogyny of it. When I hear a massive social outreach to teach men how to stand up to other men’s bad behavior, I’ll see something of equality here. But we’ve a very, very long way to go.
The discussion is already imbalanced, has been for centuries.
Zic,
Obviously you are a bit ahead of me generationally, but I can speak for 30-somethings here and say I am fairly sure few of us blame women for being raped just because they were drunk or dressed a certain way. And if I am completely misreading my age group I stand ready to be corected.
What I told my daughter when she started college was to dress like a lady and to stay sober…because she is responsbile for her safety and some teenage boys are pigs. I expect her to protect herself but I would never blame her if the worst thing happened. That’s just bananas.
Actually yes, there is still a whole hell of a lot of victim blaming and patriarchy around the issue of rape, even among twenty and thirtysomethings. I see it almost every time rape, abortion, or even really, any issue that involves womnen’s sexuality in any way.
For example, instead of teaching young woman to “dress like a lady” (which btw, is patriarchal in of itself, since some of the kindest people I’ve met in life have dressed in way you probably wouldn’t approve of and some of the worst people I’ve dealt with dressed all proper like), we teach men to stop being rapists?
Mike, Let me give you some examples. Let’s say some woman goes round the bend, murders her children. It will be in the headlines for days, weeks, maybe even months or years. (Andrea Yates?)
Now lets say some man does the same thing — goes round the bend and murders his children. Maybe his wife, too. It will, at best be a local sensation.
Say a woman teacher commits statutory rape on one of her students. Same story holds — national news for months/years; men? Only a local story.
But the truth is that if you get a group of women together and talking on the subject, usually one in four will admit to having been raped. Nearly 100% will have been sexually harassed or molested, hit upon, and otherwise been victime of inappropriate sexual advances.
Now lets examine the sexual abuse of children. Most pedophiles have lots of victims, not just a victim. And often, those victims are little girls. Some of the victims of Catholic Priests were girls; I watched as the NYT ran front-page stories about boys, and buried the same abuse stories about girls in the middle of section A. So even in victimhood, we’re appalled at the abuse of little boys, and the abuse of girls is meh.
So what I’m describing is epidemic. And yes, women behave badly too. But I really disagree with you that a balance discussion is needed because the abuse is not balanced, the bad behavior is not balanced, and all your doing is wheedling out of it by saying ‘ain’t me,’ while you go on and on and on about women who seek abortions of convenience. That’s a huge double standard.
I’m not blaming you for the actions of 30 years ago, I’m blaming you for buying into the social mores that blame women without holding men accountable still; for saying because women do slutty things today, because they might do drugs or drink or steal or abandon their children today, that excuses you from holding men accountable to a standard as high, if not higher, then you hold women. I’m blaming you for thinking that women are supposed to be better then men, and using that as an excuse to make decisions for them instead of addressing the perfidy of men.
And you seemed to have missed the part where I also mentioned good experience of men. You seem to think I’m biased because of my bad experiences, and so you don’t have to listen to what I’ve got to say. That’s also an example of the misogyny women have to put up with. Perhaps reality is that I know more about what men are capable of then you do.
Mike,
dressing like a lady and staying sober isn’t much of a help for protecting her from Pigs.
Maybe protecting her from boys who aren’t so good at non-consensual sex…
What’s good for protecting her from predators who prey on instinctual responses?
Letting her have some safe places to get niiice and comfortable with her instincts.
‘sfunny thing, ya know. Sluts don’t get pregnant, mostly.
You’re saying that a child, who you appear to have failed to give proper instruction to, is “responsible” when you toss the lamb to the wolves.
Of course, you’ve been doing that for years, so what the hell.
Zic,
“I’m not blaming you for the actions of 30 years ago, I’m blaming you for buying into the social mores that blame women without holding men accountable still…for saying because women do slutty things today, because they might do drugs or drink or steal or abandon their children today, that excuses you from holding men accountable to a standard as high, if not higher, then you hold women.
I have no idea where you would get the idea that I hold men and women to different standards. That’s complete nonsense. I hold them to the EXACT SAME standard. No more, no less. But it seems clear that you don’t hold them equal when you say:
“…the bad behavior is not balanced.” Because I think it is. Both sides can behave terribly, it just looks different.
Also, this:
“I’m blaming you for thinking that women are supposed to be better then men, and using that as an excuse to make decisions for them instead of addressing the perfidy of men.”
I’m not making excuses for men that behave badly. I’m saying that you can’t use it as an excuse to keep abortion legal.
MIKE!
HOW AND WHERE do women systematize and institutionalize and PRAISE the revokation of consent of men? Particularly in sexual matters?
If that’s not the instance you’re thinking of, feel free to say what you DO mean.
But i for one do not find “women not telling their potentially-abusive boyfriend/daddy that they’re getting an abortion” to be in the same league.
Mike, you’re the one who’s thinking it’s an excuse.
I’m not suggesting men behaving badly is an excuse to keep abortion legal, I’m saying men behaving badly is a reason for men to focus on men’s behavior. What I’m suggesting has nothing to do with anything women might or might not do; it’s that men have no business plying morality on others when their own morality is in question.
You want it to be ‘both.’ And I’m telling you there’s a morality deficit on behalf of men that’s got to be dealt with before we can even begin the ‘both’ discussion. Because we’re not anywhere close to a morally level playing field; the assumption are too out of kilter for the ‘both’ discussion to make any sort of sense.
Zic,
“I’m not suggesting men behaving badly is an excuse to keep abortion legal, I’m saying men behaving badly is a reason for men to focus on men’s behavior.”
So it’s okay for the 46% of pro-life women to talk about abortion, just not the 53% of pro-life men? And we lost that privelage because men behaved badly in the ways you outlined above? Am I understanding you correctly?
As a follow-up that rape threats and patriarchy ain’t just for old white guys as Mike implies,
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html
Jesse – try again. What I said is that I don’t think very many men my age (30-something) blame women when they are raped. I’m open to being proven wrong, but the article you cited refers to the author being trolled on her YouTube page. I wouldn’t call that an accurate representation of what we are talking about.
Mike,
1. Go to Jezebel.com.
2. Type “rape” into the search bar.
3. Read the articles on the first page of search results.
In what world do you think that rape is taken seriously, that victims aren’t blamed, that society cracks down? Here, for example, are police officers getting away with rape: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/05/protest-rape-cops-acquittal-planned-new-york/38224/
MIKE,
I’ve had people on this very blog say that a woman who consents to sex after a lengthy period of torture is not rape.
I’ve had people say that emotional abuse that leads to a woman not-saying-no even if she doesn’t want it isn’t rape.
It’s heard often enough that “If she doesn’t say no” it must be okay…
That marital rape doesn’t exist.
That its perfectly okay to cater to a growing boy’s instincts with regards to sex (by buying him porn), but that a girl’s proper place is ignorance.
Have you ever heard of victimware? It’s a mode of dressing girls to be vulnerable to men (and, by the way, looks very very different from “sexy”). “Dressing like a lady”…. indeed. Have you ever thought like a predator? Like someone who might take advantage of your child’s ignorance?
Mike, obviously you are not understanding me.
Abortion is already legal.
Rape is not legal. Beating your wife is not legal. Molesting children is not legal.
You say men’s bad behavior cannot be fixed by policy. But you want policy to fix women’s bad behavior through law? So that’s like, men can’t be controlled, but women can or what?
(And I’ve asked before, I’ll ask again: what the consequence for a woman who has an illegal abortion?)
You said: Also, how exactly do you make people stop being douchebags through policy?
So either your all about the appearances of morality but not the substance, or you’re avoiding the substance that too many men violate public policy every day and strike their wives, rape, and otherwise commit great harm to women, with little consequence; let alone any sort of justice. This happens a whole lot more then abortion; again: I don’t know a woman who doesn’t have a story about man’s inappropriate sexual behavior toward her.
It’s not about %’s of people who believe this or that; we both know that polls on this topic are biased by the way the questions are framed. It’s about the policy of morality that already exists, that doesn’t get enforced, that men often witness amongst their friends and ignore; while also trying to demand policy for women in an area where men’s immoral behavior often sets the stage for women’s decisions.
I’ve been through some bad shit. If I’d found myself pregnant from it; I’d have 100% had an abortion. And until you’ve gone out and tilted at the windmills of men’s behavior, I find what you’re claiming as moral to be immoral. You’ve no right challenging my morality and not holding men accountable for theirs; that’s the double standard. Women having abortion is on this blog frequently.
Where are the posts about confronting the buddy, neighbor, brother, or guy sitting down the bar hitting on women about their behavior? Did I miss them? Or do we not do that because then we’re not really welcome to hang out?
Zic,
I’ve said this every way I can so this is going to be my last try. The morality of abortion and the morality of men’s behavior are two separate issues. You keep linking them but I simply don’t see the connection other than it gives you an angle from which you can basically tell men to shut up about abortion until some imagined time in the future when we reform male behavior (which seems convienent when you’re pro-choice).
On your latter point, I can’t tell you exactly why there aren’t a bunch of posts slamming male behavior, Abortion is a popular blogging topic in general. It’s not surprising we would have posts on the subject from time to time. If you want to see some posts with people slaming male behavior, that’s where a guest post from you would be valuable because you would be filling a void you see as lacking. That’s what we look for in a guest post.
Mike,
There is no disgusting behavior by women in what Zic is saying. Yes, maybe some women are contemptuous; maybe they steal for the fun of it, or they revel in breaking hearts, etc. Some women even rape, statutorily or otherwise. But having sex for the enjoyment of sex outside of marriage is not immoral behavior, and the only way someone can be pro-life and anti-birth control/abstinence-only education is if they believe premarital sex by women IS immoral. They may say they believe it’s immoral for men, too, but the society at large and abortion legislation in particular create a wide disparity in the effects of that judgment of immorality on the sexes.
Boegiboe,
My point was that Zic has unfortunately had a bunch of men who treated her badly either directly or in some ancillary way and in general she seems to have a fairly poor view of the male gender. So what she is saying here is that men are not allowed to create policies that directly affect women until they first spend years cleaning up our horrible male culture with some kind of national campaign. Only then, when all men behave like princes, are we allowed to talk about why we think legal abortion is bad.
I am merely suggesting that if she wants a balanced discussion regarding men’s piggish behavior, it would make the most sense to me to discuss the piggish behavior of women because I am of the mind that in 2012 there is a lack of pleasant behavior on both sides of the gender line.
“pleasant” behavior…
No, see, what are you doing there?
What we’re talking about is an intentional campaign
to remove autonomy from a person. Where men
get praised for “scoring” (even on a drunk and non-
consensual girl). And then, when the vulnerable
and untrained child succumbs, we are willing to
force her to be “responsible” for something that
she had no say in.
What, if any behavior, from women comes
even close to this systematized mysogyny?
Mike, are you going to rehash all your arguments from your FP post on abortion? Again with the men-aren’t-allowed-to-talk complaints? (As if.) Again with the abortion-because-of-carelessness-with-birth-control argument? Are you going to accuse zic of wanting extra points because she’s a woman or have you managed to get past that?
I just don’t get why you think you get to set the parameters of the debate and anyone else trying to reshape that is somehow trying to shut you down rather than explore the subject further. And there’s no need to be patronizing in your assumptions about zic – whatever her background was, it’s given her the experience to make some heavy statements that deserve consideration and should be addressed directly.
You seem to want to stop women from being douchebags towards their get through policy, hmmmm?
Mike,
as far as I’m concerned, most women who do not get an abortion/ru486, etc during first trimester either
1) were involuntarily/unknowningly impregnanted
2) Had such a bad time of the whole thing, that they blocked it out of their memory (this means nonconsensual sex, a lot of the time).
quoting wiki:
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks’ gestation”),[46] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:
71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other.
Mike;
The morality of abortion and the morality of men’s behavior are two separate issues.
Are they? Sometimes, yes. But much of the time, no. See Kim’s list of why’s. Those simple reasons hold a world of hurt.
I can’t tell you exactly why there aren’t a bunch of posts slamming male behavior, Abortion is a popular blogging topic in general.
I’d suggest that it’s a ‘popular’ blogging topic because of the male-norm; and that men’s behavior isn’t.
I won’t write the post storming about men’s behavior. Zic, if you want to, fine. Maybe it’s because if I write a post on a guy who holds classes on how to legally rape women, I’m afraid some of our gentle commentariat might take his advice. I haven’t met all the lurkers, after all.
The main problem with abortion is that the “pro-lifers” are hypocritical at best, liars at worst. The say “It’s all about the baybeeeeees!!!!!” but point out
[a] That conservatives are opposed to sex ed and easily available birth control
and
[b] that between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow [*]
they change the subject (“How about that recycling, huh?”) or otherwise deflect the question.
So once we have sewttled that this is NOT about the “personhood of the fetus”, what else is left?
The irony of the Right lecturing the Left on “morality” is staggering. I do not believe that word means what you think it means.
[*] They should be focusing their attention on this vastly larger problem. Heck, a miscarriage is a devastating occurrence for a woman — where is the “pro-life” cry to find and treat the causes of miscarriages (the one voice in this thread derided Gubmint for trying to REDUCE miscarriages).
Jeff,
As a pro-choicer, I assume you are also advocating for euthanasia, selective abortions, third trimester abortions, etc? Because it seems hypcritical to say you support abortion but you don’t support abortion being used more often and also to support euthanasia, which is very similar morally speaking.
Yup! I’m in favor of every single one of those things.
And I’ll go further than that, under extreme duress. (I quoted two years old. take quite a lot to get me to stamp “okay, moral.” on killing a one year old, I’ll admit. But I could do it.)
[sidenote: I’ve been reading a book about people eating dead human flesh…amazing what people will do to survive.]
Euthanaisa == assisted suicide? For it.
“Selective” abortion? For it in many cases
Third trimester abortion, as was practiced by Dr Heller? VERY MUCH for it.
Happy?
Good to know. You’re consistently pro-death. Fortunately, there’s some nuance in other camps.
Also — deflection instead of answering.
So, are you going to address the points I made?
I think you can be morally okay with sex selective abortion in some cases, and pro-choice in general, but also believe in some sort of ban on sex selection in general for prudential, utilitarian reasons. It’s unclear how to make a ban like that work without it becoming a violation of womens’ fundamental rights and bodily autonomy, but we could try to figure something out. Maybe a large (income relative) fine after the abortion if it is discovered that the abortion was sex-selective. The trouble is, that proving it really was done for gender selection will be nearly impossible.
I mean, even if abortion is 100% morally acceptable, as someone like Mary Anne Warren argues, it would turn out badly for us if, say, 65% of the population of the future was one gender and 35% was the other.
So, I’m ardently pro-choice, but vaguely worried about the moral and legal confusions if gender selection becomes more common.
IF it matters I am rather in favor of:
Contraception.
Age appropriate Sex Ed
Accurate Information in Sex Ed
I am also, generally, pro-life.
The main complaint I would have about this whole kerfuffle is two-fold:
– It takes eyes off of the main problem with abortion.
– It allows the pro-life side to be painted as out-of-touch whackos.
Well, the whole kerfuffle generated within the pro-life side, and so must be dealt with from within your own ranks.
And it seems quite apparent to me that, if you make exception for the “big three” and feel it is just to do so, then you must also agree that the “out-of-touch whacko” faction within the pro-life movement is ascendant. It’s very easy to wave away the people I quoted above as unrepresentative of the movement as a whole, but three of them are members of Congress, and two of them are candidates for the Senate. These are people with power. Furthermore, as I mention in the main post, these views are shared by the man picked to get the VP nod. He may have had to subjugate his views to those of the presidential nominee, but that doesn’t mean he changed them.
I am a relatively reluctant advocate for the pro-choice position. I would love to see as close to zero abortions performed as possible. And the farther along in the pregnancy, the more ambivalent I get about abortion access. I happen to think late-term abortions should be illegal except when the life of the mother is threatened or other extreme circumstances, and thus should be fleetingly rare. But it’s not the pro-choice side that’s taken the focus from those areas where their case is weakest and support shakiest and put it on the areas where the pro-life argument is least tenable, it’s the likes of Akin and Mourdock and Walsh.
Russell,
The problem, as I’m sure you know, with policy in general is that public opinion matches up with what our elected officials advocate less and less. That applies to dozens of issues. Maybe I am not the best person to assess this anymore but it seems that it is more true on the Right for social issues. Extreme positions on abortion, contraception, gay marriage. On the other side of the aisle you have the rise of a more hawkish Left, a drug policy that doesn’t make sense, etc. So while I agree that these kinds of elected officials are problematic, I am at a loss for how to deal with it other than to vote them out and people seem unwilling to do so.
Well, it seems that we find ourselves at nearly the same point, then. We agree that these men shouldn’t be voted in, and that the GOP would be well-served to nominate candidates whose views, if not “pro-choice,” are at least closer to what the majority of Americans support and include at least an acknowledgement of the need for the “big three” exceptions and legal access to contraception.
“public opinion matches up with what our elected officials advocate less and less”
Really?
I’m not sure that I agree, but I find this statement to be compelling. What makes you say this?
Tod,
Just look at drug policy and gay marriage as two examples.
Um, among people who actually vote, gay marriage and legalization of even medical marijuana are 50-50 propositions at best. Among all adults, they may be winners, buy among likely voter’s, it’s a wash.
” public opinion matches up with what our elected officials advocate less and less.”
So you say, yes a**holes like Akin keep getting elected and the Pennsylvania[??] legislature had ZERO implications from demanding that doctors sexually assault pregnant women. After all, you say, “vote them out and people seem unwilling to do so”. Doesn’t that belie the assertion that, at least in certain parts of the country, public opinion matches the extreme view?
“865,000 pregnancies are aborted every year mostly for reasons of inc0nvience.”
Getting pregnant is always more than a mere inconvenience. It is the risk of your life and health and, in many cases, is the sacrifice of the life-goals of the mother to bring a potential person to term (i.e. to being an actual person.)
For instance. Post partum depression is not an inconvenience. PPD ” is a type of clinical depression which can affect women, and less frequently men, typically after childbirth. Studies report prevalence rates among women from 5% to 25%” (My Dad’s first wife committed suicide during post partum. Not an inconvenience.”
Obviously, a potential person doesn’t have the same rights as an actual person. But lets assume the fetus is a person.
Would you risk depression and the possibility of suicide to save the life of a person? Would you say it should be illegal and is immorally selfish not to take that risk?
If so, would you sacrifice $5000 a year or years of your time to save starving and sick people in Africa? Are you currently giving away your income and giving up on your life interests to save lives? Notice giving up all of your income and time is “just an inconvenience” and could save lives. But you don’t do it. Is this wrong? Should we make it illegal?
No. But that is what the pro-life crowd wants for women. They want women to be required to risk their health, their lives, and sacrifice their life goals. And the pro-life crowd doesn’t want women to sacrifice for actual persons, they want the sacrifice for potential persons.
I believe the pro-life position is sexist. But that is harder to prove as the goal-posts of sexism can be moved around and its hard to agree on where they should be placed.
Shazbot,
Here’s a list of reasons women gave for getting abortions in 2004. The number is the % that cited that as a reason. You’ll notice “Thought I might get PPD” isn’t on the list.
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74
Would interfere with education 38
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38
Have other children or dependents 32
Can’t afford a baby now 73
Unmarried 42
Student or planning to study 34
Can’t afford a baby and child care 28
Can’t afford the basic needs of life 23
Unemployed 22
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby 21
Would have to find a new place to live 19
Not enough support from husband or partner 14
Husband or partner is unemployed 12
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48
Not sure about relationship 19
Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married 12
Not in a relationship right now 11
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2
Have completed my childbearing 38
Not ready for a(nother) child† 3
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13
Physical problem with my health 12
Parents want me to have an abortion 6
Was a victim of rape 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5
Having a baby would dramatically change my life
Oh, yes, having to drop out of medical school to take care of a baby? Not likely to cause PPD.
Having to reduce your fun quotient, and spend time taking care of an unwanted member of your family? Not likely to cause PPD.
Having to face the fact that you’ve given up a child into a potentially dangerous situation (I.E. Adoption?)? Not likely to cause PPD.
Seriously, seriously, seriously.
You totally know that they gave people a list here, and that people checked off boxes!
I’m curious what your source on that is, Mike. (Sincerely, no snark and I’m not questioning your source as a passive-aggressive way of questioning the legitimacy of what you’re saying. I really just want to know.)
Russell,
That comes from Guttmacher. I go to them for all of my abortion stats. On my mobile right now but I can provide a link later if you’d like to check it out. They’d have an amazing amount of data on their site and IMO they are completely non-partisan.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
I don’t see it on here, those specific stats but it might be a good starting point for more searching.
This is a pretty silly response.
1. People are not good at reporting their reasons for acting in general. My guess is that people are really not good at responding to questions about their reasons for an abortion, before or after the fact.
2. These are, it seems to me, primary reasons. As you know people don’t act for a single reason, but as a result of a concert of pro and con reasons. If you had followed up with the people who said, for example “can’t afford baby” and asked “Why not bring it to term and give it up for adoption” they’d likely respond “Want to have children that I raise, eventually, but don’t want too many pregnancies out of fear of complications, PPD, etc.) That is to say, the decision to not keep the baby and abort is a result of a concert of reasons, and some of them involve fears about PPD.
My guess the primary reason in many abortions is “I am scared” of having a baby and giving it up for adoption. And that fear is justified because of things like PPD, regardless of whether people are aware of that danger in specific. Another reason might be “I want to pursue my life goals over the next 9 months and pregnancy will prevent that.”
—
Again, you could save lives by selling your rifles, and your tv, and your laptop, and foregoing all niceties like restaurants and football games, and donating that money and all other money to life-saving charities. You could also abandon your career path and join the Red Cross or some such. You don’t. (My guess is that you, like me and many men, give very little as a a percentage of your time and money. Almost no man gives as much to another as a woman gives and risks giving to a fetus.) Because giving away almost of your money (for even just a period of, oh, say 9 months) and giving up your time is too inconvenient for you.
Should we consider your failure to save innocent people (actual children in many cases, not just potential persons) an immoral act? Should we ban your selfish placing of your life goals above others? Should we fine or imprison you?
No because you are a man and you are only failing to save actual persons. But woman who fail to bring potential persons to a state of actual personhood are somehow worse from your point of view.
Why is that?
My grammar and spelling are off the rails. My apologies.
Is it so profound that the disconnect is in your adamant assertion that they are “only partial persons”?
If you accept that a fetus is an unborn ~person~, changes a good number of moral requirements.
Shazbot,
Lot to unpack here:
1) I presented good data from a very well respected organization. Your response? “People are not good at explaining their actions.” That seems like a cop out.
2) The study clearly allows for multiple answers which is why the percentages don’t add up neatly to 100%. There is overlap. And believe me, most of the people getting abortions are not thinking about things like PPD and potential complications. You already gave the correct answer, “I want to pursue my life goals over the next 9 months and pregnancy will prevent that.”
Keep in mind that 50% of the women having abortions have already had one previously. There’s a high degree of irresponsibility there (and I say this as someone who was irresponsible regarding pregnancy once myself).
The rest) This thing about saving innocents is a weird angle that I don’t quite follow. regardless of the fact that I do give both my time and money to causes, the key difference is that my actions did not lead to those people being in that situation. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy the woman was usually a willing participant. IMO that means moral responsibility.
Mike,
Can you explain what “high degree of irresponsibility” means? It doesn’t automatically follow that a woman who has had an abortion has been irresponsible. That’s frankly an ugly accusation to make.
Sam,
One unwanted pregnancy, shit happens.
Second unwanted pregnancy, somebody is being highly irresponsible.
I want more of a description please. What does “highly irresponsible” mean to you?
The study you sort of cited (without citation) is hard to draw any conclusions from because people are not good at knowing and describing their reasons for acting. My guess is almost all of the women would have gone through with the pregnancy if they did not believe pregnancy to be 1.) dangerous and frightening (the existence of PPD alone justifies this fear, as do other potential health problems and the 9 months of intense changes to the body). Many wouldn’t cite fear of the dangers and difficulties as a reason for having an abortion simply because it is so obvious. I suspect they think they are answering the question “Why don’t you want a baby?” Anyway, show me a peer reviewed publication in a respectable social science journal that uses your data to make your conclusion and we’ll talk.
The point about innocent people is simple. You do not consider spending your time on your pursuit of your life goals to be highly irresponsible, even though you could be spending your money and time on saving lives. Either you are a hypocrite, then, or you think women bear a duty to save the lives of children (risking PPD, sacrificing their health, time, and life goals) and you do not bear a similar duty to save the lives of innocent children. The latter would be a kind of sexism, I think. You demand saintliness from women in terms of the sacrifices you require, but you do not offer saintly sacrifices of your own time and money to save innocent children from, say, starvation around the world.
I suspect you are not a hypocrite, but are influenced by a subtle form of sexism on this issue.
A Teacher,
The term”potential person” (not “partial person”) is common term in the abortion debate.
A two celled zygote or fetus is clearly not, at that moment it is two cells, an actual person. (It is biologically human, but not a person.) It will be a person, or is likely to become a person, if it remains healthy, etc. Thus it is a “potential person.”
Don Marquis, a staunch pro-lifer, accepts that fetuses in the first trimester are not persons, but it is still wrong to kill them, because they are potential or future persons, with a future like ours. http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
Mike’s apparently unaware of why people get pregnant, and why people get pregnant when they aren’t in a committed relationship.
Noah Millman has an (in my opinion) excellent comment on this topic: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/every-sparrows-fall/
Damn that is good.
It is good. I like the “gift” part of the argument quite a bit. I was less persuaded by his conclusion: that abortion absolutism is view that deserves respect even as he concedes that there is no argument which could defend that view, and that it almost definitionally dismisses the central moral issues confronting women who are pregnant due to rape.
Stillwater,
Probably a good point about the “abortion absolutism” claim. I think I read the piece, saw what he said, and just didn’t really think about it. I’ll have to think more on it.
As for the “gift” argument, by which I mean his claim that the non-living by definition cannot be given the gift of life (I hope I’m representing his argument accurately), that is another point I read and didn’t really think about. But a commenter there disputed it, and I think he/she had a point. I as a living person have no problem with the claim that my life might be a gift, to me, from god (I’m agnostic/apothatic, so that complicates matters). So I don’t, speaking as a matter of logic only (i.e., not invoking any prerogative for the state to outlaw abortion), reject that the non-born can be gifted life. However, I might be misconstruing or misunderstanding his argument.
Better than good, I’d say. That was the best thing I’ve seen written on this whole mess.
Thanks for the link, PC.
Indeed. Truly a fantastic piece.
one Public Religion Research Institute poll, seven in ten Americans described themselves as “pro-choice” while almost two-thirds described themselves as “pro-life.”
wiki is fascinating.
sources are good.
Self-identification doesn’t tell you all that much (it covers a wide range of opinions in both camps), but a large majority of Americans support more restrictions on abortion than currently exist, especially in the second and third trimesters.
It’s strange that people focus on “pro-life extremism” when there’s zero chance of a blanket ban on abortion, and ignore the fact that the pro-choice camp actually in office favour unrestricted abortion up until and during labour. If we look at the policies actually in place, it’s neither pro-life nor moderate opinion which is prevailing.
I’m going to cede the bulk of my future comments to Katherine. Brilliantly said.
I think the pro-choice argument is what I cited above:
That people don’t (often) willingly put off abortion until the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
If you’re willing to give free access to first-trimester abortion (& birth control), I might think about some level of red-tape on third trimester abortions. [How does: thou must go to classes on contraception, and do some level of community service, sound? — concerns obviously waived in the event of rape/nonconsensual sex.]
Just to be clear, I favor restrictions on late-term abortions, but discussion of abortions “up until and during labor” is something of a red herring. It creates the impression that there is a cadre of abortionists who are happy to terminate a perfectly healthy infant as it descends into the birth canal full-term. I do not think this ghoulish cabal exists.
The overwhelming majority of late-term abortions occur because of a catastrophic medical condition, either with the mother or the fetus. Abortions after 21 weeks gestation make up less than 2% of all abortions in this country, and ones that occur late in the last trimester a tiny fraction of that small number. Just because there is some laxity in the degree to which these late-term abortions are legally restricted does not mean that women seek them or doctors are willing to perform them.
It creates the impression that there is a cadre of abortionists who are happy to terminate a perfectly healthy infant as it descends into the birth canal full-term. I do not think this ghoulish cabal exists.
But if a doctor was willing to do so, they legally could. I see no reason why this should be legal, or why someone should object to a law that states outright that these are only legal if the mother’s life is in danger.
Abortions after 21 weeks gestation make up less than 2% of all abortions in this country, and ones that occur late in the last trimester a tiny fraction of that small number.
Then it shouldn’t be a problem to have some legislation restricting them. But there can’t be any political moderation on this issue so long as the dominant pro-choice political position is “no restriction on any abortions, ever, for any reason”. If every one 2% of abortions are for serious health reasons, then at worst the restrictions would have no effect but make a lot of us feel more confident in the morality of the law on this matter.
Would you mind if we also had an exemption for “kid won’t last a day” (or kid otherwise has severe birth defects that weren’t seen earlier — and I don’t mean just cleft palate!)? I don’t see why we should (necessarily) put a woman through the trauma that is giving birth, for absolutely no benefit.
I was against the last set of third-trimester regs (“partial birth abortions”) because they were not taking into account the health of the mother (and removing tools from the inventory seems probably a bad move — strategically speaking).
I personally find the urge to ban things that aren’t happening to be…weird.
Either you have an agenda of some other sort, and that “ban” is merely cover — or you think law is symbolic.
Passing laws to just make yourself feel better, or to somehow make something more or less ‘moral’ without changing any facts on the ground is beyond pointless — it’s a perversion of law.
“I personally find the urge to ban things that aren’t happening to be…weird.”
Indeed. Why insert yourself into the physician-patient relationship when simple ethical probity prevents the action that would be banned? It’s odd to me that the same political movement that wants the business community to have the freedom to regulate itself apparently doesn’t feel that medical providers should be given the same courtesy.
Russel – as I am nowise part of that political movement, I have no contradiction there. When my choice is between a law protecting the vulnerable in a serious moral situation, and dependence upon the ethical probity of people I know nothing about, I often incline towards the former – for doctors and corporations alike.
We don’t know that it never happens, just that you consider it unlikely. If it isn’t happening, the law hurts no one. If it is happening, the law does some good.
For late-term abortions in general, 2% of abortions is still 20,000 people. That’s easily sufficient to warrant some regulation.
I’m inclined to agree with Katherine here. Liberals are generally prety big fans of pro-active regulation. I don’t see how this gets waved off as, “…unlikely to happen so why get Uncle Sam involved?”
I’m actually kind of playing devil’s advocate here. I have no objection to late-term abortions being restricted to severe, life-threatening medical conditions. And I certainly concede (and have witnessed myself from within) that the most strident factions within the pro-choice community are adamantly opposed to any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, which puts them as out of the mainstream as people like Mourdock.
Right –
So the Left’s version of that is people like Jeff No Last Name below who admits he wants no restrictions on abortions. I’m curious though why the Right is painted as being without nuance on abortion policy (or worse, mocked as illogical when we DO advocate nuance), but a nuanced pro-choice position seems to be completely assumed for the Left (and celebrated).
Mike, et al.
I don’t mind the regulation here. We put all sorts of regulations on “not possessing guns/switchblades illegally” — which are mostly used as “cop discretion” to take bad people off the streets.
I think I’d rather see it go through an “ethical board” rather than just blanket use of laws… but that’s arguing semantics (I’m essentially saying “don’t legislate, judiciate”)
I guess my best answer would be that there are places in the United States where it really is incredibly difficult to get any abortions and where lawmakers want to make it even harder, whereas there really aren’t abortionists [or many… there is always the possibility of a random monster here or there] out there terminating perfectly healthy full-term babies in the birth canal. Hardly anyone at all, even the most hardcore pro-choicers, really want to see healthy babies aborted late term. But plenty of people want to restrict all abortions, even including rape victims.
“So the Left’s version of that is people like Jeff No Last Name below who admits he wants no restrictions on abortions. ”
I said no such thing. I believe there should be some restrictions, but very few. And the restrictions should come from the medical community, not from the “Christians” wishing to impose their views on the rest of us. Especially when said “Christians” have exposed themselves as hypocrites or liars.
No restrictions, few restrictions… seems pretty minor.
And if there is hypocrisy on the Right because most of us grant exceptions, doesn’t the same hypocrisy exist on the Left for those that don’t believe in full access?
Jeff –
The Bible actually doesn’t say much about abortion, outside of the implications of some psalms (which are poetry, not developmental biology). I don’t oppose abortion because of some verse saying “abortion is bad”. It’s not as simple as “Christians want to impose their beliefs on everyone”.
My conviction that a fetus constitutes a distinct life comes from my understanding of developmental biology. After the first week or so of pregnancy, the probability that the fetus will complete its development and be born and then be a baby is very high. (For the first few days, about half of pregnancies don’t implant, naturally; this is why I have little objection to the morning-after pill.) The difference between those two states is time. This position is not a matter of faith, so I can’t be imposing my faith on anyone by advocating we base policy on it.
My faith tells me that every human life is valuable and precious to God; this is at the heart of all my strongest political beliefs. There are people of other religious beliefs, and people of no religious belief, who hold the same principle. Because of this belief, I oppose war in almost all circumstances; because of this belief, I cannot regard civilian casualties as “collateral damage” and an acceptable cost of war; because of this belief, I recognize torture, the deliberate breaking and destruction of a person, as an atrocity; because of this belief, I oppose the death penalty; because of this belief, it is unacceptable to me for people to die because of poverty; because of this belief, my economic views are informed by the conviction that the life and well-being of the poor has equal value to that of the rich; because of this belief, I oppose abortion.
Every political position a person can hold will be informed by their beliefs. The fact that people have different beliefs does not somehow make those political positions illegitimate – elsewise, the only political system we could accept would be anarchy, as all others involve the imposition of policies on people based on convictions they may not share.
And I certainly concede (and have witnessed myself from within) that the most strident factions within the pro-choice community are adamantly opposed to any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, which puts them as out of the mainstream as people like Mourdock.
Russel – those most strident factions in the pro-choice movements are the ones whose policy is currently reflected in federal law. There aren’t any restrictions on abortion. This differentiates them from people like Mourdock, who have zero chance of getting their positions implemented. So it seems obvious that the former are the ones who should be receiving more attention and pushback.
Katherine,
There are restrictions on partial birth abortions.
There are defacto restrictions on abortions in many states, due to the near-impossibility of getting to a doctor (particularly for those under 16).
I feel so strongly about not having mandatory “tell the parents” laws (which also I’m certain prevent abortions — parents forcing their kid to have their baby.) because this is such a sensitive issue.
Katherine – if you have any interest in joining a future Leaguecast (requires video chat capability) please email me at progress.conservative(at)gmail(dot)com.
Well AFAIK the primary resistance to these kinds of restrictions on the pro-choice side stems from a practical rather than principled position. Giving and granting these restrictions pro-life forces provides them with another tool to use to roll back abortion access in general. Its’ a classic “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” strategy. While certainly the may be a small minority contingent within the pro-choice ranks who honestly feel that any restriction on abortion at all is indefensible the majority take a more pragmatic view: will conceding this issue resolve the conflict (the answer is very obviously no, no quid pro quos is offered by pro-lifers on this) then why concede it? So they don’t.
I’d note that in countries where the overall access to abortion is not in question pro-choicers have quite amiably accepted numerous and extensive restrictions on abortion. The pro-choice side is perfectly willing to accept a compromise in return for a resolution of the conflict but they won’t countenance a compromise in return for merely more conflict.
This, then, is merely a product of the overall abortion fight. If your stated goal is to outlaw abortion entirely in every circumstance by any means available then you shouldn’t be surprised that your incrimental steps are recognized and rejected for being what they are: incrimental steps on a road to blanket abortion bans.
“a large majority of Americans support more restrictions on abortion than currently exist, especially in the second and third trimesters.”
They would not support these laws once they passed, if they passed.
For better or for worse, Americans (and all people, really) are fickle. They say (or think) they support things they do not support, and vice versa.
The first few stories on the news about the pretty young white girl who couldn’t get an abortion and was forced to carry the baby to term would change public opinion in a heartbeat.
People wanted universal healthcare and voted for Obama, Then they didn’t want it. Now they will want it. People want to fight the Iraqis. Then it was a dumb idea. Soon it will be a noble effort that should’ve worked.
I don’t think you can conclude much of anything about what people want in this country about controversial matters. They’ll tell you if they like it after it happens, but they won’t know if they’ll like it before hand. They’ll think they know, but they don’t.
Here’s another post worth reading on the topic: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
I also remain baffled that men would demand of women something that they would never imagine demanding of themselves.
I don’t know how anyone can read the stories of those women who experienced rape and not want to do whatever is necessary not to add to their torment by forcing them to give birth to their attacker’s child.
Want to add this piece on coerced mating by Garance Franke-Ruta at The Atlantic.
For this discussion, the whole piece is worth a read, but I want to bring up this graf:
Because therein lies the breakdown in the discussion. The notion that women should be treated the same, be equal, with their physical autonomy is new. But the presumptions built into the way we deal with women’ are subject to and shaped by those hundreds of years of tradition. Like Romney’s line that if women are going to be in the workforce, too often, we women hear ourselves qualified with ifs. We women don’t deserve equal pay, in Romney’s world, we deserve an economy that’s so successful even we would be wanted in the workplace and get paid well. The jokes about women driving, the presumption the woman waiting for the elevator is a secretary instead of a boss, that the woman seeking an abortion was a careless slut.
I’ve said that men who want to lesen the demand for abortion need to confront the behavior of men. Women are not property. They own themselves. But if it were your wife, pregnant from a rape, I find it very difficult to imagine even the most pro-life man would be against her having an abortion. Franke-Ruta explains why:
This is actually a pretty safe place for a woman on the internet; the men here are gentlemen, and far from ordinary. You mostly seem to recognize women as fully human; even in disagreeing about our lady parts.
But you know this is far from common. I came here with a gender-neutral name, fearing misogyny. And I’m not the only woman who’s done that. There’s a whole lot of hard work for men to do with other men in making the sexual objectification of women unacceptable. That doesn’t mean you won’t look, won’t lust. It doesn’t mean women won’t want you to look, either. But it does mean that the difference between looking and acting are obvious, bounded by respect. Because there’s an eon’s worth of social tradition, hundreds of years of habit, pushing sexual roles, including coercive mating, woman as property, and woman as incapable of deciding for themselves.
I’ve lived through what this means. It’s been hard work for me to be honest here and still be perceived as a whole and healthy person. Speaking exposes you as damaged goods — damaged property. Despite a rape, regular beatings, and a pedophile (molested twice at 11, stalked for five very long years), I remain my own, and strong. But that very history makes me suspect, I may be broken, so I’m not necessarily trustworthy. Because I was raped. I was beaten. I was molested.
Did you wonder, ‘is she broken, is she trustworthy?’ If so, I urge you to question why, re-read that last quote above. Because the kinds of abuses I lived through often do lead to unwanted pregnancy; it often leads to damaged psyches seeking love, wholeness and healing in all the wrong places; in drug addiction, alcoholism, irresponsible sex, and rape. It may not be a direct line from rape to pregnancy, but a different life path, where physical and sexual abuse increase the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy. It’s a wonder I didn’t find myself there.
But I’ll say this again: virtually every woman I know has been molested in some way; has been the victim of inappropriate sexual advance or worse. So if I’m broken, perhaps all women are broken in some way.
But we get the endless discussions of what women should or should not do. Yet women are only part of the problem of abortion.
More {{{{{{zic}}}}}}} hugs.
What makes me most annoyed is the mechanical, materialistic “solutions” – teach women to use birth control better, artificial wombs (ye gods!), more aggressive adoption opportunities. And no indication – absolutely none – that the woman should have most of the say in what happens to her body, including what might be in her body. It’s maddening.
Zic,
This would be good on the front page. With your permission I will post.
Be my guest. Please copy edit first, I am really dyslexic, and storm front moving in makes it worse.
There aren’t enough {{}} to give, nor enough applause, and +infinity is too small a number.