Let's take the other side seriously for a moment and assume, strictly for the sake of this discussion, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and that it has the same rights as every other person has. You know that I think that's crap, but let's pretend it's not for now, okay?
An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.
Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.
Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.
Right.
When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)
If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?
Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?
Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.
If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.
Nothing else would be moral.
weirdly, the people who are strongly anti-abortion generally do not advocate prison for mothers seeking abortion. kind of takes the shine off of their celebration of motherhood and the sanctity of life.
ReplyDeletesome, as we know, do advocate death for abortion providers, and are personally willing to serve in place of the entire judicial system. if i'm understanding things correctly, much public sentiment runs against mothers who need welfare to get by and feed the family, and against their children. a great many who are so protective of the unborn have no problem imprisoning or even executing the already-born who were unwanted, neglected, abused, because sadly, the already-born had their chance and blew it.
Compelling an act (giving blood, giving a kidney, etc.) is intuited by most to be different from prohibiting an act (abortion, in this case). This is a central problem (that of positive and negative rights) in moral philosophy and there's a huge literature in it.
ReplyDeleteNote that your argument would follow exactly the same logic if we substituted "newborn baby" for "embryo." You probably would support the prosecution of a mother who starved her newborn baby to death. "If you believe a newborn baby is a person and that government must force a new mother to feed that baby, then roll up your sleeve!" Do you agree that there is no essential difference between the two versions? I feel this weakens your argument to the point that it is unconvincing.
You might want to read the work of Judith Jarvis Thomson ("A Defense of Abortion") as an entree into this area of thought.
To clarify my own position: I fully support, and have always (actively!) supported, a women's right to terminate a pregnancy, at least in the early stages. (I am less sure about late-stage abortion, but increased access to abortion services should obviate late-stage abortions anyway.) But for me this stems from a firm confidence that an embryo is not a person, innocent or otherwise.
Anonymous, thank you for joining the conversation!
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your analogy. A woman who doesn't want to or is unable to care for her newborn can give that newborn to someone else who can care for it. A woman who is pregnant and who doesn't want to be pregnant can't give the embryo or fetus to someone else to gestate - currently, that's not medically possible.
In the context of my post, she is being compelled to donate her entire body to save and maintain the life of another being. Her health, present and future, and her life, are being put at risk for the health and life of another against her will.
I don't agree, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of your post, "[c]ompelled to donate her entire body" could be read as a comparison either to kidney donation or blood donation. Let's consider both angles.
Drawing the analogy with organ donation (a kidney, once removed, doesn't grow back) would imply that a pregnant woman must pay the ultimate price -- her entire body, her life, forever -- to sustain the pregnancy. But that's obviously not true. The vast majority of pregnancies take a natural course and do not threaten a woman's life in the least. (And in cases where they do, there is far less controversy about the acceptability of abortion - only the most radical anti-abortionists would allow a mother to die or be seriously injured to save a pregnancy, and to do so would usually be a vain act, as in such cases the pregnancy is typically doomed in any case.) We'll dismiss the argument that an unwanted birth may destroy the economic future of the mother -- as you yourself point out, a newborn can always be given up permanently to someone else who will care for it.
In other words, hypothetically, prohibiting a woman from terminating a pregnancy is not equivalent to compelling her to give up her life.
So I will take it that when you speak of "donat[ing the] entire body," you are only comparing the donation with that of blood (which replenishes itself when withdrawn) -- that is, a temporary inconvenience or discomfort undertaken for the good of another. (Of course the inconvenience of blood donation is far more "temporary" than that of pregnancy.) May someone be compelled to donate blood, even to save the life of the innocent? In my moral world, the answer is no. (Whether one "should" do so of ones own will is a separate issue.) May a woman be compelled to "donate" her body to another in this way for nine months? A fortiori, the answer to this is "of course not," and I trust we are in complete agreement there. I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which it would be moral to force a woman to become pregnant. (That's called "rape.") And, as I mentioned before, I strongly and unshakably support a woman's right to the timely termination of a pregnancy (the right to choose, if you will), to avoid compulsion in cases where a pregnancy is the accidental result of a voluntary act, or where an initially desired pregnancy is no longer wanted. I have marched in support of this.
(continued in next post)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThe analogy breaks down in the late stages of pregnancy. For clarity, let's first consider the case of the newborn again. Yes, you may give it up for adoption. But suppose you have chosen not to do so, but rather brought it home with you. In fact (because this is a moral thought experiment) you have, rather ill-advisedly, brought it with you on a solo transatlantic trip, so you no longer have the option of giving it up. Also, you forgot the formula on the pier. But no problem -- you're lactating. Do you have a moral (and legal) compulsion to feed the baby at your breast, even though it turns out that it's by no means as pleasant as you thought it would be? If you arrive on the other shore, having thrown the baby overboard because you felt that you should not be compelled to "donate" your bodily fluids to this other living being, are the authorities there right to lock you up and treat you as a baby-killer? I lean towards a "yes" answer here, and the key reason is that you *chose* to make yourself responsible for the life of another. You were under no compulsion to make that choice -- you, the famous solo ocean-traveler, could and perhaps should have given the baby up for adoption at birth -- but you did choose, and from that point on you were, willy-nilly, subject to a moral compulsion to sustain and keep alive this other being, even to your own bodily detriment.
My problem with late-stage abortion is that no one suddenly becomes 4 months pregnant. In effect, a woman has (by knowing she is pregnant and not obtaining an abortion earlier) consciously chosen, if only by default, to sustain the fetus. At *some* point this becomes a compulsory obligation. Even you will no doubt agree with this if it's taken to an extreme -- surely, for example, you would not allow (I apologize profusely for the gruesome image that follows) a woman to have her fetus aborted with surgical tools once labor pains have begun, because they are far worse than she ever imagined and she no longer wishes to undergo the discomfort to her own body simply to give this other being life. (There's no doctor around to give an epidural or do a C-section.)
One can argue -- extensively -- over where the cutoff point should be, between the first missed period and the onset of labor. I do not pretend to know. I don't like the idea that it is a matter of legislation. To my mind, the way things *should be* is this: family planning, day-after pills, and early-stage abortion services must be freely available to everyone in society and completely normalized -- that is, there must be no stigma attached to utilizing them. That would head off the unfortunate situation, seen so often today, that a woman is afraid to take timely advantage of them, or dithers too long, turning an easy early-stage abortion into a traumatic and possibly morally-questionable late-stage one.
One more random thought: If a woman has chosen to bear out her pregnancy, is she then morally compelled to take certain drugs/supplements (iron supplements, say) that may cause her discomfort (example from personal experience!), abstain from certain habits (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.) even though to do so is uncomfortable (*not* personal experience!), and so on? Sharpening the edge a bit, again *given that she has chosen to have the baby*, is she then compelled to delay taking certain therapies that would relieve symptoms that are damaging her health, because they would endanger the fetus?
First, if abortion is murder (and I DO NOT THINK IT IS), then there can be no exception for rape.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the premise of the post is based, not on the individual's actions or inactions, but on the government's role in protecting life. If it is a moral action to require all pregnant citizens to continue their pregnancies, then it is a moral action to require that all citizens donate blood and make their spare kidneys (and bone marrow, and parts of their liver) available for donation as well.
anonymous, you bring up quite a lot of hypothetical questions -- some of which are not hypothetical at all in the real world.
ReplyDeletemy understanding is that most late-term abortions are sought either because the life of the mother is in serious jeopardy or because the fetus will be born so seriously disabled that it cannot survive, or will live a short life of suffering. those are the most hideous and personal kinds of decisions, and i think they should be legally protected.
obviously, there are laws against killing a newborn, either by action or by neglect. killing a viable fetus is repellant to most people; and that is why late-term abortions were designed to be hard to get when the US supreme court issued its opinion in roe v. wade. but they have lately become nearly impossible, even with strong medical justification (see my first comments, above).
states have experimented with using criminal law against expectant mothers who use drugs. many healthy-baby advocates oppose such measures, because they will keep mothers from obtaining any pre-natal care. the US supreme court ruled against the city of charleston, SC, when it began a policy of involuntarily drug-testing expectant mothers and then having the police charge them with various offenses. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_v._City_of_Charleston
regarding necessary therapies for the mother -- again, i think that has to be a personal matter decided between the mother and her physicians. going without anti-convulsant medications or putting off cancer therapy can be very serious indeed, far worse than an "inconvenience."
and i disagree that 9 months of pregnancy amounts only to an inconvenience. it might for you, but can be very debilitating or life-threatening for others. a woman in my lamaze class died at 7 months along, due to an amniotic fluid embolism. some other pregnancy-related conditions are potentially fatal to mother, child, or both.
even without such catastrophes, pregnancy is not just an inconvenience. we do not force people to give their blood or organs, procedures that take only minutes or weeks. we do not force people to sell their homes to finance a relative's needed medical care. we do not force people to do something that makes them nauseated for months on end, or to carry 20-30-40 lbs around on a 24/7 basis.
and i don't know if you've noticed, but every single pregnant woman endures the intrustions of every busybody around, all offering unwanted advice, predicting the sex of the baby, some touching the belly, etc. -- a woman who decides to carry to term and give the baby up has to endure all of that (at school, at work, on the bus, in the supermarket), AND either explain she isn't keeping it (which you just know will elicit more opinions) or bite her tongue until it falls off. your hypothetical "minorly inconvenienced" woman, you see, has a life she needs to go on with -- she lacks the power of invisibility.
to sum up, i think we are in agreement about the need for services, support, and education, particularly early on, but also throughout a pregnancy. i disagree that there is a huge amount of "dithering" until a pregnancy becomes late term -- people need options and need time to think them through, but they need options to be available and timely. and i do not think that those who stand outside the shoes of those making the most difficult choices are in a better position to make those decisions for others.
Anonymous, late-term abortions ESPECIALLY need to be kept safe and legal. Those are the ones that are generally a desperately wanted pregnancy that has gone horribly wrong.
ReplyDeleteLike, for example, my friend Cecily's twin pregnancy where one twin died, Cecily got horrible pre-eclampsia, and the choice was abort the other twin or Cecily would die too.
Like, for example, the pregnancy of the wife of another online connection, where the baby had mermaid syndrome.
Pregnancies can go horribly wrong. Even wanted ones.
As for unwanted ones, the only ones I've known of that went beyond the first trimester were because either
a) the woman didn't realize she was pregnant because her periods weren't regular anyway
b) she had difficulty getting the money together (average of $400, not allowed to be paid for out of government money)
c) she had difficulty getting parental notification/permission (can be very complicated if a teen has an absentee parent)
d) she had difficulty getting transport to the distant clinic. In Virginia, there are currently 21 clinics that offer abortion services. Not one of them is in Fairfax or Loudoun. If you lived in Fairfax and didn't have a car, how would you get to a clinic in Prince William?
And that's in a state where abortion is currently legal.
e) The person she was in a relationship with was abusive and was either forcing her to have an abortion or was forcing her to be pregnant and she was going against him to get the abortion. (Washington Post had a story on this recently, I'll find it later.)
Women who don't want to be pregnant don't "dither", they get an abortion as soon as possible. More than half of women choosing to get an abortion were using some form of birth control when they got pregnant.
I never brought up a rape exception; my use of the term "rape" above referred to the hypothetical situation of a women being compelled to *conceive* a pregnancy. For what it is worth, I do not think that the circumstances of conception affect the morality of a subsequent abortion. Again, regardless of whether a pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act, a mistake, or a rape, I believe that a timely abortion is morally an unambiguously permissible act and society has an interest in ensuring that this remains so.
ReplyDeleteI also framed my argument in terms of society's interest in compelling (through the institution of government) its pregnant citizens to bear to term. I loathe compulsion and, with you, I do not believe that society should be able to impinge upon by body or my freedom in order to compel me to "do what's right": even to donate blood (even if it costs me little and saves lives) or to sign the organ-donor line on my drivers license (that costs me *nothing* and saves lives!). (For the record, I have done both.). Far less should it be able to compel me to bear a pregnancy to term, or for that matter to risk my life in battle fo defend my country. (I oppose conscription, even in the case of a "just," defensive war.)
Society, however, also has an interest in protecting those that cannot protect themselves (note that I am *not* using the word "innocent" here!). Indeed, arguably that is the prime purpose of the institution of government -- to shield the weak from incursions on their rights by the strong. And that is why I raised the question of the newborn. I submit that it is possible, voluntarily, to take on an *obligation* that society may then enforce by compulsion. Choosing to be responsible for a child is one such obligation. Society will, and should, compel you to feed and shelter your children. Or, if you undertake voluntarily to donate one of your kidneys, you cannot change your mind when the recipient is already on the operating table with the diseased kidney out. Or, to continue my conscription example above - you should not be drafted into the army against your will, but if you join voluntarily, you *must* follow orders.
So the crux of my uneasiness with late-term abortion is that if you are many months pregnant, you have de facto undertaken responsibility for the health of your fetus (by not getting an early abortion). And society may *at that point* have an interest in compelling you to complete that responsibility, just as it would had you chosen to keep a newborn (or join the army).
Early abortion, on the other hand, presents no such dilemma to me. An embryo is a clump of cells, a potentiality at most. It does not, cannot, have rights. And you have not taken any responsibility merely by being impregnated, however it happened. Society thus has no interest in compelling you play host to this growth your womb.
I do not pretend to have a firm answer as to when one situation shades into the other, though. Only to believe that untrammeled, unimpeded access to non-stigmatized timely abortion services (and morning-after pills, and birth control) would ensure that the ethical conflict rarely arises.
Kathy, you will get few arguments from me on most of your points. If a mother's life is endangered I have no moral qualms whatsoever about terminating her pregnancy to remove that danger. Even if I were otherwise to regard late-term abortion as "murder" (and I hope it is clear from my previous comments that I am *not* taking any such definitive position), I would not consider it as such in your friend's case. Even if a late-term fetus has a hypothetical "right to life" (I am not taking a stance here either), the mother's right to life, to me, unambiguously outweighs the fetus' here.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, while blowing a man's head off with a shotgun is ordinarily considered murder, I am sure you would not consider it such if that man were involved in invading my bedroom with a machete (another very non-hypothetical situation). The home invader, as a human being, unquestionably has some right to life, but at that moment it is outweighed by my own.
I do not want to see late-term abortions as a medical procedure to save a mother's life outlawed any more than I want to see self-defense against home intruders outlawed as a way to save a mother's life. Politically, I would fight any attempt to curtail either right.
Abortions in the case where the fetus has a serious problem are much, much, much more difficult morally, as I'm sure you can see. How serious does the problem have to be? How late can you go? Suppose the mother never got an ultrasound or other tests, so the defect wasn't detected. Can you euthanize a newborn baby born with mermaid syndrome? Merely withhold life support? Neither? The vast majority of sirenomelia cases die after birth anyway, even with life support. I do not have easy answers in my head for any of these questions. Suppose the defect were, say, cystic fibrosis? Is a late abortion acceptable? How late? Is post-partum euthanasia acceptable? Is witholding life support from a premature baby born with cystic fibrosis acceptable? Down syndrome? Autism can't be detected in utero or even in a baby. Must a mother continue to raise a child who turns out to have severe autism? If you wanted a boy is it OK to have a late-term abortion because the baby is a girl? What about after birth? Et cetera, et cetera.
One can generate such dilemmas endlessly. Most people will tend to have unambiguous "yes" or "no" answers for some and struggle mightily with others. I personally would not countenance slaughtering autistic toddlers, but I don't think I would have any qualms about someone with a sirenomelic fetus getting a last-minute abortion. Between those points lies a vast landscape of difficult questions, and I certainly have no easy answers.
I can merely restate what I've said already: I find early abortion morally uncomplicated (as painful a decision as it may be). One is terminating a growth, a bunch of cells, and there is no need to justify it to anyone. But at a certain point during a pregnancy, I feel that a mother has taken on a responsibility to see a fetus to term, and that responsibility cannot be abandoned *arbitrarily*.
No argument about the rest of your points. Abortions, morning-after pills, family planning -- and all other forms of health care -- are a social good and we as a society should be willing to help pay for them. I do not support the current restriction of federal funds. Abortion services should be freely and readily accessible to all. And abusive/coercive relationships should be eliminated from the face of the earth.
So because you feel uncomfortable about late term abortions, you think the government has the responsibility to value the life and health of the pregnant person below the life of the fetus she is carrying?
ReplyDeleteWhat day does it go from being okay to have an abortion to not being okay?
What hour?
What minute?
Is organ damage reason enough to get a late term abortion, or does it need to be imminent death? And how close does death have to be to consider it imminent?
And who gets to decide?
For me, the answer is easy. The pregnant woman gets to decide. It is her body being donated to the support of the pregnancy. It is she who is risking her life and her health.
And just in case you think I'm being overblown about the life and health part, the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any other industrialized nation. Carrying a baby to term is still quite dangerous in this country, whereas legal abortion is quite safe for the pregnant woman.
Sorry, Liz, obviously my last comment was directed at your post, not Kathy's. Kathy, on a few of your points:
ReplyDelete* I think you can probably predict my stance on involuntary drug testing of expectant mothers! More generally, I didn't bring up the examples of prenatal healthy behavior, or dangerous therapies, to make a concrete point -- just to throw into the mix some of the complex issues that come up when you consider how much right a woman has not to be negatively affected by a pregnancy.
* Believe me, I know that pregnancy is not always merely an "inconvenience." My comments above indicate where I stand on endangered/endangering pregnancies. But I reiterate: I am strongly against forcing women to become pregnant (i.e. rape), or to stay pregnant (i.e. denying timely abortion).
* Yes, I have indeed noticed that a *lot* of jerks and busybodies come out of the woodwork when you are pregnant!
Whoops. It looks like my last, very long comment (the one to which I referred when I wrote "Sorry, Liz" above) got deleted -- perhaps for being too long? I will repost in two parts later tonight.
ReplyDeleteanonymous, i think your long comment got through, even if it didn't show when you looked.
ReplyDeletei just think that you are arguing points about late-term abortion that aren't really disagreements, for the most part. most people who cannot for whatever reason bear a child choose an abortion early, if they can -- and access to advice and care are key here. most late-term abortions are sought for strong medical reasons, not whims.
but i think we do have a crisis in access to reproductive care. we have problems when women become pregnant without wishing to -- whether by forcible rape, a partner sabotaging birth control, lack of access to birth control, birth control accident, or simply not knowing what can result in a pregnancy. those abstinance-only sex ed programs are really, really deficient, you know? and once someone has unprotected sex, or realizes she is pregnant -- there have been strong forces over the last couple of decades to deny that woman access to advice, care, and services.
Kathy,
ReplyDeleteActually, there was another long comment that got dropped somehow - it's still in my editor, so for completeness' sake I will copy it below. But I am with you 100%. You, I, and Liz probably do not disagree on any of the important points. Late-term abortion is unfortunately necessary in some cases. And there is absolutely, positively, a "crisis in access to reproductive care." I could not agree more. Abstinence-only "sex ed" is a farce, access to crucial advice and care is being cut off by an insidiously illiberal strain of moral thought, U.S. infant mortality (especially among the poor) is a Godforsaken scandal, and all right-thinking people have a moral responsibility to get out and do something about it.
---
First part of my earlier comment:
[Liz], you will get few arguments from me on most of your points. If a mother's life is endangered I have no moral qualms whatsoever about terminating her pregnancy to remove that danger. Even if I were otherwise to regard late-term abortion as "murder" (and I hope it is clear from my previous comments that I am *not* taking any such definitive position), I would not consider it as such in your friend's case. Even if a late-term fetus has a hypothetical "right to life" (I am not taking a stance here either), the mother's right to life, to me, unambiguously outweighs the fetus' here.
Similarly, while blowing a man's head off with a shotgun is ordinarily considered murder, I am sure you would not consider it such if that man were involved in invading my bedroom with a machete (another very non-hypothetical situation). The home invader, as a human being, unquestionably has some right to life, but at that moment it is outweighed by my own.
(continued)
I do not want to see late-term abortions as a medical procedure to save a mother's life outlawed any more than I want to see self-defense against home intruders outlawed as a way to save a mother's life. Politically, I would fight any atte
ReplyDeletempt to curtail either right.
Abortions in the case where the fetus has a serious problem are much, much, much more difficult morally, as I'm sure you can see. How serious does the problem have to be? How late can you go? Suppose the mother never got an ultrasound or other tests, so the defect wasn't detected. Can you euthanize a newborn baby born with mermaid syndrome? Merely withhold life support? Neither? The vast majority of sirenomelia cases die after birth anyway, even with life support. I do not have easy answers in my head for any of these questions. Suppose the defect were, say, cystic fibrosis? Is a late abortion acceptable? How late? Is post-partum euthanasia acceptable? Is witholding life support from a premature baby born with cystic fibrosis acceptable? Down syndrome? Autism can't be detected in utero or even in a baby. Must a mother continue to raise a child who turns out to have severe autism? If you wanted a boy is it OK to have a late-term abortion because the baby is a girl? What about after birth? Et cetera, et cetera.
One can generate such dilemmas endlessly. Most people will tend to have unambiguous "yes" or "no" answers for some and struggle mightily with others. I personally would not countenance slaughtering autistic toddlers, but I don't think I would have any qualms about someone with a sirenomelic fetus getting a last-minute abortion. Between those points lies a vast landscape of difficult questions, and I certainly have no easy answers.
I can merely restate what I've said already: I find early abortion morally uncomplicated (as painful a decision as it may be). One is terminating a growth, a bunch of cells, and there is no need to justify it to anyone. But at a certain point during a pregnancy, I feel that a mother has taken on a responsibility to see a fetus to term, and that responsibility cannot be abandoned *arbitrarily*.
No argument about the rest of your points. Abortions, morning-after pills, family planning -- and all other forms of health care -- are a social good and we as a society should be willing to help pay for them. I do not support the current restriction of federal funds. Abortion services should be freely and easily accessible to all.
Sorry.. something is definitely deleting my comments. They appear, then disappear. The above was the second half of the following:
ReplyDeleteKathy,
Actually, there was another long comment that got dropped somehow - it's still in my editor, so for completeness' sake I will copy it below. But I am with you 100%. You, I, and Liz probably do not disagree on any of the important points. Late-term abortion is unfortunately necessary in some cases. And there is absolutely, positively, a "crisis in access to reproductive care." I could not agree more. Abstinence-only "sex ed" is a farce, access to crucial advice and care is being cut off by an insidiously illiberal strain of moral thought, U.S. infant mortality (especially among the poor) is a Godforsaken scandal, and all right-thinking people have a moral responsibility to get out and do something about it.
---
First part of my earlier comment:
[Liz], you will get few arguments from me on most of your points. If a mother's life is endangered I have no moral qualms whatsoever about terminating her pregnancy to remove that danger. Even if I were otherwise to regard late-term abortion as "murder" (and I hope it is clear from my previous comments that I am *not* taking any such definitive position), I would not consider it as such in your friend's case. Even if a late-term fetus has a hypothetical "right to life" (I am not taking a stance here either), the mother's right to life, to me, unambiguously outweighs the fetus' here.
Similarly, while blowing a man's head off with a shotgun is ordinarily considered murder, I am sure you would not consider it such if that man were involved in invading my bedroom with a machete (another very non-hypothetical situation). The home invader, as a human being, unquestionably has some right to life, but at that moment it is outweighed by my own.
(continued)
First part of my earlier comment (the one that continues "I do not want to see late-term abortions..."):
ReplyDelete[Liz], you will get few arguments from me on most of your points. If a mother's life is endangered I have no moral qualms whatsoever about terminating her pregnancy to remove that danger. Even if I were otherwise to regard late-term abortion as "murder" (and I hope it is clear from my previous comments that I am *not* taking any such definitive position), I would not consider it as such in your friend's case. Even if a late-term fetus has a hypothetical "right to life" (I am not taking a stance here either), the mother's right to life, to me, unambiguously outweighs the fetus' here.
Similarly, while blowing a man's head off with a shotgun is ordinarily considered murder, I am sure you would not consider it such if that man were involved in invading my bedroom with a machete (another very non-hypothetical situation). The home invader, as a human being, unquestionably has some right to life, but at that moment it is outweighed by my own.
(continued *above*)
Sorry, Anonymous, your comments went to spam. I have rescued them.
ReplyDeleteI've been enjoying the discussion!
Ack! Many apologies for the repetition. Everything suddenly reappeared. Please feel free to delete the superfluous copies. I'll shut up now. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (and, fergawdsake, pick a screen-name, willya???) said, "at a certain point during a pregnancy, I feel that a mother has taken on a responsibility to see a fetus to term."
ReplyDeleteAt what point?
At what certain point?
Be specific.
You said it. Now define it.
At exactly what "certain" point must a woman undergo childbirth?
You said it was "certain." Share your certainty with the rest of us?
When?
Just a reminder, anonymous posting is fine. I prefer signed comments, but anonymity is perfectly okay here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Blogger does tend to dump anonymous comments into the spam folder, so be patient if your comment doesn't appear right away. I check the spam folder daily.
If you want to have a unique screen name, but still want to be anonymous, you can set up a blogger account using an anonymous gmail account.
I love that you have joined the discussion, and I'm really enjoying reading and reacting to your comments.
Welcome, Anonymous and NLI! I now return you to the discussion already in progress.
NLI,
ReplyDeleteSorry - as I have already emphasized, I do not pretend to know what that point is; I merely suggest there must be such a point. The reasoning is analogous to a non-constructive proof in mathematics, except that there is no actual "proof" here, just opinion. I already gave the argument: if we stipulate that an early embryo, being just a clump of cells, can (morally) be terminated arbitrarily, but a fetus at term cannot (morally) be chopped up in utero with surgical instruments at the first sign of labor to (say) avoid the pain of childbirth, then there must be a certain point in the interval between those two extrema where the prohibition on arbitrary abortion begins; where we would say, in other words, that a mother (whose life is not seriously threatened by the pregnancy) has a responsibility to "finish what she started" and have the baby.
*What* the point is, I don't know. But if you disagree that the point *exists* within that interval then you are, in effect, saying either that (1) arbitrary abortion should be prohibited even immediately after conception (the radical anti-abortionist view), or (2) arbitrary abortion should be permitted even once labor has begun (a radially pro-abortionist view that I suspect few would be willing to adopt).
(I specify "arbitrary" abortion here to exclude medically necessary cases. We aren't talking about such cases, even though they make up the vast majority of late-term abortions, because there is far less argument there. I believe all present would agree that a fetus may have to be sacrificed to save the mother's life during a delivery gone tragically wrong.)
Call me "Cat." I don't know how to set up a profile on this site and I'm a bit afraid to find out! Surely you don't want to encourage more long-winded posting from me! :-)
cat/anon -- i just can't think that a doctor would find an "arbitrary abortion" medically justified at the point where labor has begun. really, at that point, delivery is the only option -- medical complications may mean measures are taken to preserve the life of the mother and/or the fetus, but nobody's going to call that abortion. and i can't believe anyone would seek an "abortion" at that point.
ReplyDeletethat end of your hypotheticals really becomes a set of straw man arguments -- some things that do not happen in real life. i think your concept of "arbitrary abortion" -- whatever that means -- probably has traction with anti-abortion people, but they are looking for the straw man to remove abortion rights for everyone.
every woman i know who has had an abortion did not take that step lightly.
p.s. -- i think you can sign in under the "name/url" option and choose your pseudonym.
Cat/Anon, you invoked mathematics, so let's go for the full ride: It is an assumption that the fetus is either in, or not in, the set of beings with a right to life. Consider fuzzy set theory, where the degree to which something is (or is not) in a set is on a continuum, rather than being discrete. The fetus gains more presence in that set as it develops. It doesn't necessarily pop into the set one day, having not been in it at all the day before.
ReplyDeleteKathy - thanks for the hint. I'm signing this as "Cat." I'll address your comment first, leaving NLI's fuzzy set theory for my next comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I fervently hope that no one would ever seek an abortion on the delivery table, and that no doctor would consider such a request medically justifiable. This over-the-top hypothetical was meant not at all as a "straw man" but rather as a purely formal method for *bracketing* the acceptability of an abortion (undertaken for reasons other than a medical emergency, which I was calling "arbitrary" for short).
I'm afraid that the argument probably comes across as rather tiresome, as a kind of harangue. Why I am I positing a ridiculous situation like this, a woman requesting an abortion just as she begins labor? I apologize for the tediousness of the argument; please bear with me.
Everyone (here) agrees that an abortion immediately after conception, undertaken because the woman does not want to go through with the painful process of delivering a baby, is permissible. Everyone also agrees that the abortion on the delivery table of a healthy fetus about to be born, because the woman does not want to go through with the painful process of delivering the baby, would be impermissible (not that any sane doctor would agree to such a thing, or any sane woman would request it). But the point is, everyone agrees that there are
*at least in theory* two categories: permissible and impermissible; and further, they are non-empty categories; you can imagine an impermissible abortion (as an over-the-top hypothetical) and you can of course imagine a permissible one. But the only difference is the stage of the pregnancy (since we have excluded medical emergencies -- the "reason" for the abortion in both cases is simply the desire not to go through with delivery) is the maturity of the fetus. We have *bracketed* the permissibility of abortions.
Now let's consider a slightly more plausible case. A horribly frightened young woman is requesting an abortion at 9 months, before labor has begun. We're on a ship, say, with limited medical facilities. The doctor does not have the means to do a C-section or an epidural, so the baby will needs be delivered through the painful process of natural labor. The woman does not want to go through with it. No matter how hard the doctor pleads with her, she demands the gruesome abortion procedure. Is it permissible? I'm guessing you'll say "no." The doctor must deliver the baby, even restraining the woman against her will if
necessary.
So then, what if the request came at 8 months? Seven? Six? and so on, and so on. Sooner or later we arrive at scenarios that are unfortunately quite realistic.
You can see what I'm getting at. Almost everyone will agree, if pressed, that there is such a thing as an impermissible abortion. But almost no one (in our camp) wants to be pressed to think about it. There's a palpable fear, almost a superstition, that if we talk about such things we will be aiding the anti-abortionists.
Why then do I, a strong advocate of abortion rights, think it is necessary to consider impermissible abortions?
Because I think that only by defining the boundaries as best we can, can we build a strong bulwark for legal, socially acceptable abortion. It is the anti-abortionists who want to muddy the waters, to confuse timely, safe abortions with the gruesome reality of late-stage procedures. It is they who win when the undecided voter hears "abortion" and, willy-nilly, thinks "partial birth."
I do not pretend to know where the boundaries should be placed. But I think the debate must take place openly, and some consensus must be reached, precisely so that timely abortion does remain safe, legal, and accessible for everyone.
I have never heard, not once, NEVER heard of a woman requesting an abortion at nine months because she's afraid of giving birth.
ReplyDeleteC-sections? Yes. Abortions? No.
Let's accept the fact that if a fetus can survive outside the womb, and there isn't a medical emergency, then if it can be safely delivered, it usually is.
But I'm all for your last paragraph there. I truly am.
NLI - Fuzzy set theory belongs more to applied math and engineering (e.g. that of control systems) than it does to mathematics. But if we want to continue the analogy, consider that fuzzy control systems require a "defuzzification" procedure (it's really called that!) to produce a useful output - a "do this/do that" decision. I feel that the same can be said of the law, and it is the law, after all, that we are really debating: what is to be permissible, and what isn't?
ReplyDeleteWe all want timely abortion to be legal. As I argued above, we also probably all agree that there is such a thing as an impermissible abortion. I am quite willing to stipulate that hypothetical abortions lose "presence" in the permissible category and "gain presence" in the impermissible -- to use your terminology -- as we move down the timeline of pregnancy.
Should we be happy with a situation where the later a woman gets her abortion, the more she is a member of the fuzzy "guilty" set? The higher is the probability that she will be prosecuted? I say no. As abortion advocates, we do not wish women (or their doctors) to be open to prosecution *at all* when they get abortions. But the only way we can avoid this is to defuzzify legally - set a dividing line somewhere: before this point, abortion is legally permissible; after it, except in cases of medical necessity, it is not.
That really is the crux of my argument. Permissibility needs to be sharply defined legally (despite the biological nonsensicality of setting a sharp boundary between such concepts as "embryo" and "fetus"), because if it isn't, we are opening the entire spectrum of abortion to legal scrutiny. Do we really want every abortion to be weighed in court on its own merits - did or did not the fetus' right to life in this case outweigh the mother's reason for getting an abortion?
Liz - at nine months, no. You're right, it probably never happens. So I assume you will have no problem whatsoever with a proposed law that says "abortions are illegal at nine months," right? They never happen anyway, so what harm would such a law do? If anyone were ever crazy enough to do such a thing, we'd have a law to cover it.
ReplyDeleteNow, of course, no one ever gets a medically unnecessary abortion at eight months either. That'd be pretty crazy. Lots of perfectly healthy babies are born a few weeks early. So we might as well write the law to say "abortions are illegal at or after eight months," no? I mean, no objections, right - if it never happens anyway, there is no reason not to make it against the law, just in case someone tries it some day?
Well, seven months... surely it's happened, but that's just insane if it's not medically necessary. I mean a premature baby born 8 weeks early can generally still survive. So our law should probably say "illegal after seven months," right?
...
Cat, if you can cite reliable statistics from a reputable source that show that women are seeking out abortions for non-medical reasons at 7 months, I'll debate whether elective abortion at 7 months should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteLiz, if you google "abortion at 7 months," you will find quite a few desperate-sounding women posting to Yahoo Answers and similar sites asking whether they can get an abortion that late. ("Im sorry if this question offends anyone but i really need help. I was cheated on by my former boyfriend so we broke up but I didnt know until a few weeks ago that the baby isn't my current boyfriends. I don't want to have a cheater's baby so how can i abort without causing the baby any pain") The question "can i get an abortion at 7 months" is being typed into Google often enough that it autocompletes.
ReplyDeleteDo I think there are many women who would carry a baby for 7 months and then abort? No. But the actual statistics are not really important here. I am not an anti-abortionist trying to inflame sensibilities by suggesting that there is a rash of late-term abortions. (There isn't.) Rather, I am making a formal logical point. There are *some* women that seek abortions as late as 7 months. It could be, probably is, a tiny, tiny fraction. (Surely none among the well-off, educated middle class like you and me. But, say, the desperate, frightened inner-city teen who, overweight to begin with, has successfully covered it up, denied it, for far too long...) The question *does* come up. And if society, if government says to a desperate young mother-to-be "no, you may not get an abortion this late," then, in your terms, it is compelling that woman to "donate her body" for another two months, is it not? Do you feel that she should not be compelled?
If 7 months still seems too outré, then repeat the thought experiment at 6 months. Et cetera. The point is, if you force yourself to think about it, you will probably find *some* point along the time line of pregnancy where you are terminally uncomfortable with the idea of elective (better word than arbitrary, thanks!) abortions, where you may even be willing to stipulate that society has an interest in enforcing a prohibition against such abortions.
Most folks in our camp are *not* forcing themselves to think about it -- not hard, as it is an unpleasant thought. Instead, they just dismiss late-term elective abortions as a straw man: they never happen, so I'll willfully avoid debating them. As I argued before, I think we *have* to come to terms with the idea of classifying abortions as permissible or impermissible, precisely so that we can protect the permissible class as an unassailable right. Otherwise, with a fuzzy, shifting boundary, all abortions are at risk.
Cat: Sorry, when you used mathematics to avoid answering the question implied by your assertion that abortion was impermissible after what you called a "certain" point, I didn't realize you were going to limit the discussion to "certain" branches of mathematics to avoid answering questions. (Although I am almost ROTFLMAO over your dismissal of the applicability of fuzzy set theory to this issue on the basis that it is relevant to "control systems." Think it through and you'll see why.)
ReplyDeleteRegardless, you continue to insist that an abortion either is, or is not, permissible. Were I to invoke quantum physics, I would be able to argue that it is both at the same time. But, you would probably lecture that some models of quantum mechanics are now considered classical, and others are modern, so what would be the point?
Liz's original point is, nonetheless, both valid and unobscured: when government prohibits abortion, it is compelling pregnancy, which moots your entire positive/negative rights distinction. (Note: the philosophical issue is not the question of the ethics of abortion; it is the metaquestion of the ethics of government control over a woman's body.)
NLI - If you reread my response carefully, you will see that I did not either dismiss the applicability of fuzzy set theory or avoid answering your question. Indeed, I continued the analogy by explicitly comparing the defuzzification step of control systems (= the point at which fuzzy logic is collapsed into a go/no go decision) to the need in for a well-defined boundary between permissible and impermissible.
ReplyDeleteEngineering (unlike mathematics) and law (unlike philosophy) are practical disciplines and demand explicit definitions. They do not tolerate much uncertainty. You want to be sure that the bridge you build will not collapse under any conceivable circumstance. You want to be sure that no person may with impunity infringe unjustifiably on another's right to life.
Fuzzy logic is a red herring here. It is, as I said, properly a branch of engineering rather than mathematics (that's the only point I was making in the first sentence of my response; I was not trying to "limit" the discussion here). But even more significantly, it *always* generates a well-defined non-fuzzy result. That is the whole point of the method.
And this is exactly analogous to what I am arguing with respect to abortion. Philosophy can posit fuzzy membership in the class of permissibility. The law cannot. From the point of view of law, an act needs to be permissible or not, else chaos reigns in the courts, with some being punished for acts that others carry out with impunity. Or do you actually want law to work like quantum physics, with a given abortion being both permissible and impermissible, and the verdict collapsing like a wave function into the "guilty" or "not guilty" state with a given probability?!
I'll reiterate my own position as clearly as I can *in terms of Liz's original point.* As an a committed advocate of abortion rights, I believe that there is nevertheless an interval of pregnancy during which society (through the tool of government) has an interest in compelling the continuation of a pregnancy in the lack of extenuating medical circumstances. Yes, I do mean by this: exercising control over a woman's body to prevent imminent harm to a fetus. I don't know where the lower boundary of the interval should be placed, but I am damn sure it is somewhere before labor begins and I am equally sure that it is (long) after conception. From a philosophical point of view I am perfectly happy to posit a continuum from "completely permissible" to "completely impermissible" over the course of the gestation period. From a practical point of view I believe we as a society must define a legal boundary by consensus and then *stick to it.*
Not to do so puts all abortion rights at risk.
And look. For anyone who is horrified by my stance that the government should be able to compel a woman to remain pregnant after a certain point: Consider the very real case of the 17-year-old girl in Utah who, seven months pregnant in May 2009, sought an abortion (so Liz, it does indeed happen), was denied one, then paid an acquaintance $150 to beat her up in order to induce an abortion (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html). (The fetus survived; the girl was arrested but not prosecuted; the acquaintance was.)
ReplyDeleteThis is a concrete, real case. Not an over-the-top hypothetical. So, turn back the clock. The girl is still pregnant, and her case has been referred to the courts. What would you have the government do, assuming that (even after counseling) the girl insisted on an abortion and seriously threatened to take care of it herself if she was not given one?
(1) Perform the procedure
(2) Deny her the procedure, but not attempt to prevent her from self-abortion by coat-hanger, poison, or hired thug
(3) Deny her the procedure and, knowing that she is planning self-abortion, keep her under observation and restrain her if necessary to prevent her from carrying out the feticide.
I can't see any other alternatives to the above three.
If you choose (1), then fine. You believe elective abortion should be permissible at 7 months. (So now ask yourself if your answer would be different at 8 months? At 9 months? After labor has begun?)
If you choose (3), then you agree with me that there is such a thing as an impermissible abortion, and a woman may under some circumstances be compelled to continue a pregnancy.
And if you choose (2) -- well, I'm not sure I'd want to know anyone who would choose (2). But I doubt anyone here would do so.
No equivocation here. And no saying "that would never happen," because it did. I'd love to know from each of you -- which would you choose?
Cat, I won't be able to give you a full answer until the end of the day, because I'm swamped at work, but my short answer is: It's the woman's body and she should get to choose.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I'll post this link that I haven't gotten a chance to read yet. It's from Ms.
ReplyDeletecat, i think one of the problems is that circumstances vary -- and there are some instances in which late abortions are medically justified.
ReplyDeletethat is extremely sad about the 17 year old in utah. those are the kinds of measures that women took when abortion was illegal. i have to wonder if she had the information and access she needed earlier. but i'll also point out that there is not a flood of people doing this at 7 months along. one example out of all the pregnancies in the nation does not a trend make.
i do not think that people asking questions about later pregnancies in a relatively anonymous and safe forum says anything about *what they do next*. it only demonstrates that some people reach 7 months and panic.
your arguments about where a strict cut-off should be really ignore the reasoning of roe v. wade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade they also ignore the reality that even in the third trimester, situations arise where the mother's health outweighs the interest of the fetus.
the analysis really is case by case. and the actions taken really need to be decided by the mother in consultation with her physicians. period. the most extreme examples you can think of do not good law make.
also, cat -- in your turn the clock back hypothetical re the 17 year old -- how exactly do you propose her "case" be "referred to the courts?"
ReplyDeleteseeking a medical procedure that turns out not to be medically justified is not a criminal act, and should not be. your hypothetical suggests some extremely big-brother intrusiveness -- acting outside the law, invading medical privacy, taking coercive measures against a law-abiding citizen, just in case that person decides to commit a crime later.
once you decide someone doing something lawful "might" become a criminal, where do you stop? every one of us "might" commit a criminal act sometime, but that certainly is NO justification for putting us under surveillance, putting our private medical matters under police scrutiny, or imposing invasive or punitive measures. truly, this idea is sickening, and abhorrant to the idea of a free society.
Kathy, before I answer the above -- and I do have an answer! -- please imagine that the case nevertheless *has* wound up in your courtroom. Never mind *for now* how, or whether it should have. But it has, and you're the judge, and you're in the hot seat. No waffling.
ReplyDeletePlease, tell me which of the three alternatives I outlined above you would choose, or if you feel there is another alternative, tell me exactly what it is.
The alternatives again are:
(1) permit the abortion to occur
(2) deny the abortion even though the woman has made it clear that she will seek to damage the fetus (and likely herself as well) if it is not granted; or
(3) deny the abortion and restrain the woman if necessary to prevent her from attempting self-abortion.
cat, no. i will not play this game.
ReplyDeleteKathy,
ReplyDeleteFine. I respect that. I think I have adequately made my point, which I'll recap simply by quoting myself from above:
"Most folks in our camp are *not* forcing themselves to think about it -- not hard, as it is an unpleasant thought. Instead, they just dismiss late-term elective abortions as a straw man: they never happen, so I'll willfully avoid debating them. As I argued before, I think we *have* to come to terms with the idea of classifying abortions as permissible or impermissible, precisely so that we can protect the permissible class as an unassailable right. Otherwise, with a fuzzy, shifting boundary, all abortions are at risk."
you have said that several times. i disagree for reasons explained above. you have declined to respond to numerous points -- for example, the *fact* that late-term abortions are only available for medical necessity. you said you had a response to the illegality of imposing coercive police and/or court action on a pregnant woman, but you have not told us about that.
ReplyDeletethe discussion of reproductive rights and related moral questions does not begin or end with your hypotheticals. this has been a long discussion over many decades, with intense personal considerations on one side and legal parameters on the other. you seek to simply that, or something, by forcing a strict cut-off -- a one-size-fits-all-occasions solution. and i think that ignores the legal parameters as well as the personal circumstances of individuals.
i have actually thought issues through for a number of decades, and although this is not my area of law, i have a strong interest in the issues -- and additional issues that arise from your suggestion of coercive governmental intervention.
in the next-to-last paragraph, i meant "simplify," not simply.
ReplyDeleteCat, if you want to talk anecdotes, I've got plenty. There are several news reports just from the last few years of a woman having her baby taken away when she refused to have a c-section, women being court-ordered to have c-sections (and studies of doctors and lawyers who think that's a great idea), and a women being court-ordered to stay in a hospital on bed-rest and have a c-section (they found that the pregnancy had already miscarried) because she asked for a second opinion...
ReplyDeleteThese are real things that happen in the world. So yes, I say that it should always, always, always, be the woman's choice. No matter what. Because it's her body. It is the idea that fetuses have more rights than the women carrying them that led to the judges in these cases over-riding the judgment of the pregnant women.
Women are second class citizens, especially so when they are pregnant. I trust women. Even if women don't always choose what I wish they would, it should always, always, always be up to the woman to decide what is done to her body.
It just doesn't matter to me how close to the end of her pregnancy a woman is, she should be able to choose what is done to her body. And if you think that it's okay for doctors to get court orders for c-sections over the pregnant women's objections, then I don't really see what problem you have with my original premise. Court mandated surgery risking the life of one person for the purported benefit of another? That's my premise.
And it wouldn't be possible for courts to mandate such surgery if the government did not already have purview over women's bodies through anti-abortion laws.
So that's the long version of my short answer, Cat.
Cat,
ReplyDeleteYou reiterate (and re-reiterate, and re-re-reiterate) your false trichotomy. And liz has you nailed: the option you're ingnoring is to leave the decision as to whether or not to deliver up to the woman who must endure the consequences of the choice.
And I cannot help but notice that your lengthy attempt to say that fuzzy theory is (or is not; just what _did_ you say about it?) applicable ignores your own initial point: that ethics subdivides along the lines of that which is compelled, and that which is prohibited. As I pointed out, _prohibiting_ a pregnant woman from aborting is _compelling_ her to deliver.
Liz pointed that out too, a couple of times.
Why won't you address it?
Kathy - you wish me to respond to the "fact" (I shall take no stance right now on its accuracy) that late-term abortions (generally defined legally as 20+ weeks) are only available in cases of medical necessity -- not electively. OK, if this is true, and if you are comfortable with this state of affairs, then *we may well have absolutely nothing to argue about*.
ReplyDeleteTo wit, I myself am quite comfortable with elective (medically unnecessary) abortions being legal before 20 weeks, and illegal after 20 weeks. As they are, for example, in Utah. (NB. I might also be comfortable with the cutoff being higher than 20 weeks - I don't really know - but the point is, 20 is certainly within my personal comfort zone, because, as a biologist, I feel very confident that a 20-week-old fetus is not a conscious being in any sense of the word.)
So, there you go. That is *my* response to the "fact" (asserted by you) that late-term abortions are not legally available except in the case of medical necessity. I think it is reasonable for me to ask what *your* response to this fact is. Do you think this "fact" reflects the way things should be, or should it be changed -- that is, should late-term abortions be legally available even in the absence of medical necessity?
I did promise a response about imposing police/court action on a pregnant woman, but I asked you to answer my hypothetical first, and you declined to do so. I'd prefer not to answer your question without hearing your answer to mine (mainly because the two answers form part and counterpart of the argument I've been trying to frame). I do respect your decision not to answer the hypothetical, but I hope you see that it is absolutely not an arbitrary, outlandish "game." We are talking about a very, very real situation. I don't think the 17-year-old Utahn actually appeared in court *before* her attempted self-abortion, but she almost certainly would have had she let on to her doctors that she was planning self-injury. You apparently do not want to tell me what you would have done in this case, but I cannot believe that you do not have at least some idea yourself.
NLI - Oh my gosh. This discussion *long ago* left behind my original comment about positive and negative rights. Hell, I merely brought that up as an reference to an important area of moral philosophy, the first thing that came to mind when I read Liz's blog post. I by no means wish to suggest that the question of prohibition vs. compulsion is relevant to what we are arguing right now, which is: where should the line (if any) be drawn between impermissible and permissible abortions?
ReplyDelete(Furthermore, in case you haven't been reading so closely, I too have been framing my arguments throughout the discussion *both* in terms of compelling a pregnant woman to deliver and in terms of prohibiting abortion.)
You are right that the fuzzy-logic analogy got a bit muddled in my response. I apologize. I shuffled some sentences around in my editor and didn't reread carefully enough. What I was saying was basically: fuzzy logic is a branch of engineering rather than mathematics, and furthermore, in engineering, a fuzzy control system does indeed work with variables that represent partial set membership, but it *always* includes a defuzzification step that creates a certain quantifiable output. In that sense there is a nice analogy here: mathematics:engineering::philosophy:law. Mathematics and philosophy can deal with continua and uncertain categories; engineering and law require discrete decisions to be made. So, in summary, when you raised fuzzy logic as a counter to my original mathematical analogy (a "non-constructive proof") to the moral-philosophical point I was trying to make ("there must be a point at which abortion is prohibited, even if we can't define where it is from first principles"), I saw tjat as rather a red herring, because fuzzy logic is not properly a branch of mathematics. But, serendipitously, the fact that fuzzy logic as actually used in engineering always involves a defuzzification step turns out to be a rather good analogy for the *legal* application of the philosophy, which requires us to set an actual, sharp cutoff point.
As to your first point: No, Liz does not have me "nailed." She has bravely done precisely what you and Kathy have not yet done: given a straight, honest answer to my hypothetical, one that I respect immensely, and one that fits just fine into my "trichotomy," Her answer, as you yourself point out, was: we leave the decision up to the woman. In other words, she has unambiguously chosen option (1) of the trichotomy - permit the abortion. (Remember, the way I framed the hypothetical, the woman had already made her decision: she was insisting on an abortion.)
Liz's answer does not waffle; it is fully consistent with everything else she has written, and furthermore makes it clear right away that she would choose to permit the abortion even if the woman were 8 months or 9 months pregnant, even just before labor began *if that is what the woman chose.* (I quote her: "It just doesn't matter to me how close to the end of her pregnancy a woman is.") I am fairly certain I personally would not have the courage to answer this way if I were the judge facing a woman requesting an elective abortion at 9 months of pregnancy, but again, I immensely respect Liz for sticking to her principles here and giving a clear, unambiguous answer.
Liz - you have my response to your answer in my reply to NLI, above. Thank you very much for giving a clear, honest answer to my hypothetical. In return, I believe I should make my own answer clear. It does not totally agree with yours, but I don't think we differ that much in the principles - just perhaps in how far we are willing to take them.
ReplyDeleteI am horrified by some of the anecdotes (forced C-sections, etc.) that you reference. I passionately believe in the inviolability of a woman's body. In fact I passionately believe in the inviolability of anyone's body. I am against many other forms of violation - drug testing, for example, or forced medical treatment of a non-consenting adult, or forced HIV testing, or genetic testing, ... the list of horrors is increasing daily.
So far as pregnancy is concerned I am with you 100% for the early to middle stages of gestation -- the period in which I am convinced that a fetus (or, a fortiori, an embryo) has no status as a conscious being. Where we seem to differ is in the late stages. Inside my head, I am reasoning more or less as follows:
* I am certain that a newborn baby is a (somewhat) conscious being. I would never allow a newborn baby to be killed, and despite my hatred of compulsion and coercion, were I to encounter a woman who was attempting to kill her newborn (it happens, unfortunately!) I would if I could step in and compel her to stop doing this, even to the extent of violently subduing her.
* But how much difference does the mere fact of birth make? There does not seem to be much difference in the cognitive development of an infant a day before birth and a day after birth. So, if I encountered a woman who was just about to give birth and trying (insanely) to kill the baby in her womb, I would still step in and compel her to stop, even subduing her if necessary.
* But how much difference can there be between 9 months and 8 months of pregnancy? Many completely normal babies are born a few weeks early. An 8-month-old fetus is basically still a baby. Thus I would still prevent a woman from trying to abort her 8-month-old fetus.
* But how much difference can there be between 8 months and 7 months...
For me, this chain of reasoning has to stop somewhere. I have already stated that, for example, I have no real qualms about elective abortion at 20 weeks (a common although by no means universal legal limit these days). So somewhere between, say, 4 and 7 months, I myself would want to see a legal limit placed on elective abortions. Not that I think there is a sharp delimiter - the fetus merely becomes more and more conscious as time goes on. But the limit has to go somewhere (to avoid arbitrary and inequitable prosecution).
(continued...)
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteYes, I feel that if a mother has chosen to carry a pregnancy longer than X months (for some larger value of X), then she is morally compelled to go through with it, because she has *voluntarily* accepted responsibility for a conscious being that cannot survive without her. I would compel her to go through, and even forcibly prevent her from terminating the pregnancy, in the same way that I would compel a woman to take care of a baby that she has *voluntarily* accepted responsibility for, and even forcibly prevent her from endangering the baby.
To my mind, then, the late-term pregnancy is no different from any other situation in which someone voluntarily accepts a responsibility and society can then compel that person to carry out what he or she has undertaken. If you take responsibility, even temporarily, for a being that is truly dependent on the care you agree to provide -- a baby, a child, a kitten, an invalid, or yes, a fetus -- then abdicate that responsibility in such a way that you endanger that being, then I think society has a right to step in, even at the cost of violating some of your own sovereignty, to protect the safety of the other.
Please note (I've already made this clear, but I should reiterate, because it is so important): all of this goes completely out the window when the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. Yes, the 8-month fetus has some right to life, in my opinion. That right may outweigh the mother's right to not have to carry around 40 pounds for the next few months, but it does *not* outweigh the mother's right to stay alive and healthy. This is a non-issue for me. Medically necessary abortions are medically necessary, period.
So you believe in a woman's body is inviolable except when it isn't. Shades of Ken Buck. I'll send the blood mobile around tomorrow. What's your blood type? If you're AB positive, like me, they'll want platelets instead of whole blood.
ReplyDeleteNo need to send the blood mobile. I already donate. Voluntarily. And "voluntarily" is kind of key to my whole argument.
ReplyDeleteYes, a woman's body is inviolable except when isn't. Why is this a surprise? "Inviolable" does not mean "cannot be violated," unless you are talking about the laws of physics. It means "may not be violated.". And in a society of laws, "may" is universally understood to be a relative concept. Do I have the right not to have my body violated by a chunk of lead? Absolutely. Can my body be violated in this way? Sure - just aim and pull the trigger. May my body be violated in this way? No. Except, that is, when it may. For example, if I invade your bedroom in the middle of the night. Or take a kid hostage and threaten to kill him. Or if I voluntarily shoot myself - I have the right to do that too, don't I?
The point is, my rights can be superseded as the result of a voluntary act on my part, superseded either by another's rights that I would trespass upon, or by my own greater right to self-determination.
In the case of the pregnant woman compelled to deliver her baby, the voluntary act was to *stay* pregnant beyond a certain point. And her right not to suffer a temporary inconvenience for a couple more months is, in my opinion, superseded by her responsibility to protect a conscious being that she has voluntarily taken charge of. I understand that for you, the scale tips at a different place, and I respect that.
I know you may think it's an unrealistic game, but I still think that my thought experiment of the new mother and solo ocean sailor is valuable. Would you be willing to humor me and give me an answer to that one, too? Remember, there is no formula on the boat. The mother must breastfeed, or her baby (whom she chose to bring along rather than giving up to foster parents) will die. Breastfeeding hurts and is a violation of her body, and she isn't feeling the maternal love here. Is she compelled to keep feeding the baby, or may she throw the little parasite overboard?
Cat, this is my blog and no, I'm not playing your thought experiment here, I'm playing mine.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to play the "are you allowed to throw the baby overboard if you don't want to breastfeed it" on your own blog, you're welcome to, and you can leave the link in comments here.
We've hit three days after the post was published, so comments are now going to moderation first. If you don't see yours appear right away, that's why.
What an interesting discussion! I tend to agree with Cat, but in the hope that there was primarily miscommunication or Cat's hypothetical was just too weird, I thought another perspective might help.
ReplyDeleteFirst let's stipulate that Roe v. Wade is correct: abortion should be lawful in the first two trimesters and unlawful in the third trimester except when the health of the mother is at risk. The logic being that a fetus eventually grows to deserve protection as a sentient human being, and the third trimester represents that point.
Liz's question is: how is forcing continued pregnancy in the third trimester different from forcing blood transfer to save a life?
The major difference is the decisions leading up to those events which cause responsibility for the life.
In the case of blood transfer, she made no commitment to the dying person, so she bears no responsibility for his life.
In the case of pregnancy, she made a decision when she had sex that she might create a fetus, and she continually made a decision to support the fetus by not terminating it prior to the third trimester. Those decisions have made her responsible for the creation and life of the fetus to that point.
Now, the blood scenario would be more similar to pregnancy if she first agreed to transfer her blood to save someone's life but then changed her mind two thirds through the transfer and said, "Stop -- it is my body, and I don't want to give any more blood". Of course, she is right, but her past decisions have created obligations for her future behavior.
Does that help the discussion at all?
Kevin, that argument has been used to blame women for rapes because the woman decided to have a single drink. Or to consent to kissing. Or consented to one kind of sex, but not another.
ReplyDeleteAimee Thorne-Thompsen quotes Lynn Paltrow in her latest post and asks, "“At what point during pregnancy do women forgo their human rights and dignity?”
And please read my response above regarding the argument of "well, you should have gotten your abortion earlier." Abortion is not easy to access, especially for women of limited means or in rural areas.