Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
To show you just how extreme the Republican platform is on abortion, McCain wants to change the plank on abortion to include an exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother and all hell is breaking loose. ABC News reports:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faces enormous pressure from social conservatives to ignore his repeated commitment to change the GOP's platform on abortion."If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, to ABC News. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble."
So crazed are they for making abortion illegal even when it could kill the mother that it would be "political suicide" to put such an exception in place? That's absolute lunacy. McCain blasted Bush in 2000 for not being willing to include those exceptions and the American people want those exceptions by an overwhelming majority. But if you include them, you lose the support of the hardcore right, which tells you just how extreme the base is. I agree with this analysis:
While leaving the platform untouched would please many in the GOP's socially conservative base, it could alienate some of the more moderate voters that McCain hopes to woo."If he doesn't change the platform, then he's being the same kind of hypocrite that he accused Bush of being in 2000," said Jennifer Blei Stockman, the co-chairwoman of Republican Majority for Choice. "To not accept abortion in cases of rape and incest, give me a break. That's sick. That's inhumane."
"And the life of the mother?" she added. "These are things that we can't even put our arms around because they are so inhumane."
Comments
As one who would like to see education change to where abortion is always a "last resort;" I applaud McCain for making this move. It is a step in the right direction for both sides on the issue.
And by education I mean teaching kids every possible method of birth control-from abstinence to condoms to the pill-stressing prevention of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. Make most abortions a thing of the past not by legislation but by education.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 15, 2008 9:56 AM
I've never really understood the "moderate" position here.
If the life of the mother is in danger, sure, I can see how an anti-abortion person could reasonably and consistently make an exception there: abortion is killing, but two lives are in jeopardy and saving one ends the other.
But if your opposition to abortion is on the basis that you believe it to be killing an innocent child, how does that killing become justifiable just because of the circumstances of the child's birth?
Is there a consistent moral argument here, or is it just a matter of otherwise hardline anti-abortionists balking at telling a victim of trauma that they have to spend months with a constant reminder of that trauma gestating within them and affecting their health?
Posted by: Morgan | May 15, 2008 9:58 AM
I think the morally inconsistent position that "abortion is murder" and "it's OK for cases of rape and incest" can be easily explained by the second leg of the anti-abortion argument: She spread her legs, so she deserves to have a baby. I think a lot of anti-abortion people actually believe that a fetus doesn't have full personhood. Take away the "she knew what she was getting into" aspect of the situation, and these people are uncomfortable imposing a pregnancy on the woman for the sake of preserving a life that is less-than a full-fledged person.
Frankly, I have a lot more respect and a lot less animus towards anti-abortion folks who are against the rape-incest exception. I think their position is more morally consistent and less misogynistic. I think anti-abortion people who support the rape-incest exception are either (a) muddled thinkers, (b) pandering politicians who really don't care one way or the other, or (c) more concerned with punishing and subordinating women than saving babies.
Posted by: AnneS | May 15, 2008 10:08 AM
Morgan,
I have always had the same issue with the "exceptions" argument. As you point out, when the life of the woman is at stake we have a self defense argument that most people would accept.
But the rape/incest exception seems to suggest that if person A rapes person B then that confers on person B the right to kill person C (the baby-to-be). That has always seemed to me to be a cop-out for political pandering purposes. It's a politician trying to stand in the middle. I don't really think that that middle exists.
The real crux of the decision seems to me to be the locus of decision. Should the decision get made by the body politic, or should it get made by the pregnant women?
I happen to side with the individual woman making the decision, but that's not really the point of my comment. My point is, the seeming vacuousness of the so-called middle ground.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | May 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Rev - I think your idea is a good one. However I still think that abortion is an indivual choice, if they choose this option, do we have a right to intervene? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2008 10:18 AM
I'm getting a bit sick of people bending over backwards to show respect for the most intolerant extremists, on the grounds that they're "consistent" and "consistency" is a virtue more important than balancing conflicting, but equally legitimate, needs and interests. The Nazis and Stalinist ganged up on decent liberals, socialists and social-democrats with the same self-serving accusation: "We're 'consistent,' you're not, therefore we're better than you."
"Consistency" is not a virtue if you're consistently wrong or evil. Remember all those halfwit Southern nationalists insisting that the Civil War couldn't have been about slavery because the North weren't "consistent" about their opposition to it?
Life is a lot more complex than anyone's black-and-white ideology (yes, even mine); and we can't make our values work in the real world without accepting a little "inconsistency." Furthermore, any sort of democracy absolutely requires compromise between different groups of people with different interests. If you reject moderation and compromise, then you reject democracy. And if you refuse to show any respect for people who are trying to get the right things done in the real world, then why should we respect you?
(And guess what -- getting rid of democracy won't make the need for compromise go away. Think there's no compromise or moderation in a dictatorship? Think again.)
I'm uneqivocally pro-choice, and I have no intention of voting for McCain or any Republican (the people who invaded the wrong country for the wrong reasons can't call themselves "pro-life" anyway). But I still stand by my opinion that an anti-abortion activist who shows respect for the suffering of victims of rape and incest deserves a lot more respect than one who doesn't. McCain's position here is an attempt to balance two very legitimate needs: to discourage abortion, and to keep women from being made into brood-mares for the benefit of rapists and other molesters. The legitimacy of these two needs does not diminish when they come into conflict.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2008 10:39 AM
The problem with an exception to protect the life of the mother may be because, taken to its logical conclusion, that exception must lead to abortion-on-demand, although I don't know if the typical pro-lifer gets that. Here's my thinking:
Most people agree that if a woman's life is in imminent danger from a pregnancy, abortion should be a legal option, but what about other levels of risk? I have told the story before, but my mother was denied a medically necessary abortion in 1971 because, although she was bleeding horribly, she was not "close enough to death" to qualify under the existing Massachusetts law. Most people I tell that story to are appalled.
Well, what about a diabetic woman who might lose her kidney function during a pregnancy (a la Steel Magnolias - which was based on a true story)? She might not die immediately, but is highly likely to die within 10 - 20 years of the pregnancy, because neither diaysis nor a transplant are guaranteed to provide the same life expectancy as one's own kidneys. Is that risk enough to allow for an abortion?
What about a woman diagnosed with cancer during a pregnancy? Delay in treatment will allow the cancer to continue and become more lethal, but chemo will kill the fetus - is that sufficient risk?
When you get into these kinds of examples, you realize the "to save the life of the mother" exception is pretty ill-defined. There has to be an assessment of the relative risk of any specific medical condition to a woman's health/life and a line drawn somewhere to allow only some medically therapeutic abortions. Many of us are uncomfortable drawing that line, particularly when you realize that every woman has some measurable risk of death from every pregnancy - it may be very small, but it is real, and the doctors can only make educated guesses about the level of risk any one woman has.
So if you allow for future risk of death to allow for abortion, you basically remove all restrictions on the procedure.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 15, 2008 10:42 AM
Raging Bee, it's nice that the "moderate" anti-abortion folks have compassion for victims of rape and inceest. I stand in awe of a compassion that they are unable to extend to the bad girls who spread their legs willingly and get pregnant with babies they can't afford or can't take care of. Either they are more interested in punishing bad girls than saving a person's life, or they are, in fact, muddle-headed idiots who haven't actually thought through their position. I can't respect either type of person at all.
Hardliners, by contrast, actually believe that the fetus is a person and, as such, that being the victim of rape doesn't entitle their mother to kill them. Their position has no convenient benefit of serving to "punish" bad girls while "protecting" good girls. Are they wrong? Yes. Are they less demeaning and hateful towards women than the others? Also, yes. I maintain that someone whose positions are consistent with their stated premise that a fetus is a human life with full rights of personhood is more worthy of my respect than someone who either (a) can't think or (b) is dishonest about their stated premise.
(I don't know who is against abortion to save the mother's life - even the Catholic Church supports that).
Posted by: AnneS | May 15, 2008 10:53 AM
"...and the Republican brand is already in trouble."
It's nice that Tony has some good news, at least.
Posted by: Coragyps | May 15, 2008 10:57 AM
I maintain that someone whose positions are consistent with their stated premise that a fetus is a human life with full rights of personhood is more worthy of my respect than someone who either (a) can't think or (b) is dishonest about their stated premise.
Funny how you completely ignore option (c) "is willing to give a little on one principle for the sake of another in order to maximize the overall common good in a complex world" after I explicitly mention it. Or do you automatically consider all acts of compromise to be stupid or dishonest, even when they result in a better policy than we would have otherwise got?
What if I vote for one guy, and his opponent wins? If I accept that result, rather than resort to terrorism to get my way, then, in your opinion, am I (a) unable to think, or (b) dishonest?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2008 11:15 AM
The question is how seriously one values the sanctity of human life.
The right-wing has some problems and some baggage that goes along with their avowed stance that every life is sacred, especially since their morality always comes from the Bible, and it always protects those of the proper tribe.
First, of course, is that the only life the Right actually considers sacred is that of an unborn fetus (generally held in the womb of someone of another political persuasion and economic status. Proper women never question each other about that sort of thing), or is the life of someone in-tribe. "In-tribe" means WASP's in general. Blacks and Muslims are decidedly not In-Tribe.
Outside of the womb, life doesn't have quite the same cachet of the sacred for the Right. Collateral damages in the noble effort to bring democracy to Iraq, are not sacred. They are just egg shells sacrificed to make a Freedom Omelet. The lives of an enemy people are not in-tribe, and are therefore not sacred.
The Biblical baggage the Right carries seems to influence their decision tree when it comes to these proposed exceptions to the moratorium on abortion.
The mental and physical suffering of a woman impregnated through rape or incest, even her likely death through a dangerous pregnancy are concerns likely not to trouble those with a Biblical mindset.
In the Biblical worldview, women are unclean creatures and their wombs are the source of their filthiness. They are also chattel - fit to be shared like a rag, and discarded when dirty.
I don't think I overstate the case here. Our so-called modern cultural archetypes are direct descendants of this Judeo-Christian heritage. Women, according to the Right, still have a proper place and it is decidedly not as an equal beside their husband.
The life of a (Biblical) woman is therefore worth less than that of the fetus she carries - because the fetus might be that of a male. Hence the seeming indifference to the plight of the pregnant woman contemplating abortion.
Frankly, I am perplexed by the notion that human life is sacred, especially by those who believe in an afterlife, to say nothing of the fact that they also believe in capital punishment and unilateral war.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 11:22 AM
The Republicans had six full years in which they controlled all three branches of government, and they chose to do absolutely squat about abortion. And they are the side that will be running campaign commercials on the subject, Obama won't want to touch it.
So the Republican position is already nothing but pandering to the religious right. The only reason McCain is bringing it up now (same with global warming last week) is to plant the idea in moderates' minds that once in power he will govern as a moderate. It's classic Dick Morris triangulation. He'll concede on both issues prior to the convention, of course, the same way he has always conceded to Bush on torture.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 15, 2008 11:25 AM
Raging Bee,
You make good points and I agree that democracy requires compromise, even with things that we might think quite wrong. And although you and I agree more or less on a pro-choice position I think it is worth noting that in your discussion the baby-to-be (or fetus or child if you prefer) seems to play little role. From a pro-life perspective this argument seems to overlook the most essential issue. From their perspective the life of the child is of primary importance. I don't think we can get away from the question- When does the baby get rights? When do we extend to the baby our protection, regardless of what A may have done to B?
The compromise position (or middle ground) seems to me to try and whistle past that cruxal issue even though it is at the root of the pro-life position. Interestingly, it is only pro-life people who take this middle ground.
Pro-choice people tend to take the "middle" ground of Roe v Wade in which viability in the third trimester is seen as the point at which the state has a compelling interest in the life of the baby and thereafter states may regulate.
Certainly that middle ground has some inconsistency in as much as it shows how hard it is to draw the line when we take the individual decision position.
Perhaps it isn't so, but it seems to me that the pro-life position has less difficulty in drawing the line.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | May 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Perhaps it isn't so, but it seems to me that the pro-life position has less difficulty in drawing the line.
Of course -- they're taking the easiest position, which is to draw a clear line, based on an extremely simple and easily-understood distinction, that being between fertilized and non-fertilized eggs. Then they insist that their way is right because it's the simplest. But that doesn't make it right, nor does it make them more moral -- just more simplistic.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2008 11:34 AM
CPT DOOM said:
"When you get into these kinds of examples, you realize the "to save the life of the mother" exception is pretty ill-defined.......
So if you allow for future risk of death to allow for abortion, you basically remove all restrictions on the procedure.
I don't think that follows, CPT.
That the law is vaguely defined is merely to allow discretion by those folks in the best position to evaluate the risks involved - the physicians who specialize in childbirth.
The physicians are bound by the Hippocratic oath NOT to remove all restrictions on the procedure, as they are responsible for the welfare of both of the patients involved.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 11:37 AM
Saying the exception is about punishing loose women is a bit myopic. The flip side of the argument is that it's about not forcing rape/incest victims to endure the horrific punishment of having to bear that kind of deep reminder of what happened to them for nine painful months.
If I could, I'd spare any woman having to carry a child to term that she didn't want without killing the child. I have no desire to punish her. However, this is not technologically feasible at this time. It's about looking for the way to do the most good or least harm.
Sadly, the world frequently lacks good options.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | May 15, 2008 11:40 AM
I agree with AnneS.
"Funny how you completely ignore option (c) "is willing to give a little on one principle for the sake of another in order to maximize the overall common good in a complex world" after I explicitly mention it[.]"
But, Raging Bee, the pro-life rape/incest exemption is not a compromise. Does this person:
sound like she sees the exception as a compromise with the pro-choice movement? Hardly. She's speaking from her own principles, and one of those principles is, in fact, that pregnancy is a punishment for having the dirty, dirty sex, and that it's unjust for someone who did not consent to sex to be punished for it - the necessity of mens rea and all.
I, too, respect the people who genuinely believe that human life begins at conception, and should be protected from that moment, more than I do the people who believe that an unborn fetus is a tool to punish women for having sex.
Posted by: Tyrant King Porn Dragon | May 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Jim51 said:
"Pro-choice people tend to take the "middle" ground of Roe v Wade in which viability in the third trimester is seen as the point at which the state has a compelling interest in the life of the baby and thereafter states may regulate."
I think it is perhaps more accurate to say that the State starts exerting is influence for the interest of the fetus even within the first trimester. Federally-funded clinics (and the others as well) do not just allow first-trimester carte blanche abortion services - patient counseling re adoption, birthing resources, good decision-making, etc is mandatory.
When the second semester starts, the law demands criteria be met before abortion can even be offered. So the State is definitely involved in the business in representing the interests of the fetus at this point in every sense.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 11:49 AM
"Raging Bee, it's nice that the "moderate" anti-abortion folks have compassion for victims of rape and inceest. I stand in awe of a compassion that they are unable to extend to the bad girls who spread their legs willingly and get pregnant with babies they can't afford or can't take care of."
Or, in some cases, they do actually have some compassion for women who've been brutally traumatized by rape, so much so, that they compromise a principle to avoid further traumatizeation to the victim. What you're calling the muddle-headed alternative, is what I call having a heart. Sometimes compassion reveals the moral monstrousness of a position before logical persuasion can achieve the same end.
While I'm sure you're right that punishment figures into how some of these people think, I'm just as sure that, in other cases, it is the muddle-headedness of the heart that inspires people to overcome the pigheadedness of heartless ideology.
Over time, I've come to admire and feel grateful for the latter more than the former. This was not always the case for me. Not coincidentally, I think I'm a far more decent and kind human being now than I was before my mind became muddled by the inconsistencies of irrational compassion. I think it's important to continue to make the rational arguments, but I'm grateful, in the interim, for the occasional triumph of decency over pigheaded consistency.
Posted by: Dr X | May 15, 2008 11:49 AM
While some people may respect the supposed consistency of the extreme anti-abortion position--that all abortion is murder--there are actually very few pro-lifers with the fortitude to follow through with the consequences of their position.
There is a famous YouTube clip from some documentary a few years ago where anti-abortion demonstrators were first asked to confirm that they believe abortion is murder and then were asked what should happen to the perpetrators of that capital crime -- including the woman having the abortion. While there was no quarter given to the abortion doctor, they were decidedly squeamish about the idea of giving the woman involved anything more than a slap on the wrist, usually coming up with weak excuses like saying the mother would be traumatized enough by going through the ordeal.
The truth is that the anti-abortion crowd knows that imposing a life sentence or death--the current penalties for first degree murder--on women who have an abortion, simply would not fly with the vast majority of the American public. Hence cries of "abortion is murder" is merely bluster. While they claim to have logic on their side, in the end they cannot follow through to where that logic takes them.
(Note: surveys in the UK of women who have had abortions show that they are no more traumatized than those women who have given birth. Hence the "women are punished enough" is nothing more than a convenient myth likely propagated by the anecdotes of a few anti-abortion activists who had abortion themselves.)
Posted by: tacitus | May 15, 2008 11:52 AM
Two things. I don't know if either of them have been said somewhere in the gigantic paragraphs above, but if they haven't I hope they're found helpful.
AnnaS wrote: (I don't know who is against abortion to save the mother's life - even the Catholic Church supports that).
There is precisely one exception in Canon Law for abortion. I can't remember the name of the medical condition, but my understanding is it is the one case in which the mother is all but certain to die and the baby is all but certain to die.
On consistency and the life of the mother, incest, rape exceptions:
I'm not completely worked out on the issue but I lean towards being pro-life (or anti-abortion if you insist) the life of the mother exception--why? I don't really think it's inconsistent and I take umbrage to the notion that someone who holds that exception is trying to "punish the bad girls." It's qualitatively different in my mind than the rape/incest cases because with the life of the mother you're considering one human life against another, and that makes all the difference.
Posted by: KKairos | May 15, 2008 12:20 PM
There is a lot more to consider in cases of rape and incest than what person A did to person B, and person C. pregnancy is a long, demanding, health threatening sacrifice of a health situation for a woman to be in the the best of circumstances. There is no person C yet, there is a pregnancy that would produce a person C. This potential person's chance of being born does not outweigh the emotional and mental pain and anguish that would be visited on women who have been a victim of rape and incest to have to carry a pregnancy to term that would remind them of what happened to them daily.
I am also sick of the abortion argument always being framed around the extremes. Not allowing for women to get abortions in cases of her health being threatened or in cases of rape and incest is extreme. Real live adult women die internationally in alarming numbers because of these types of laws. Complications from illegal abortions due to these kinds of laws account for 1/3 of all maternal mortality in the world.
According to my reproductive physiology professor, only 10% of fertilized eggs even implant, and then after that, up to 30% or more are miscarried in the first trimester. Those are not murders or the deaths of children. It is all part of the gray area that is fertility. I would rather have more medically supported embryonic losses than millions of real live women, more than half of them already mothers to living children, dead every year, due to some philosophic support of "life".
Posted by: Hilary | May 15, 2008 12:34 PM
Anne,
I would add that I'm well aware of the undercurrents of contempt for both female and male sexuality in various parts of our culture. For example, when an unplanned pregnancy occurs, even though the male has no say in the matter of whether to allow the pregnancy to come to term, I frequently hear as an argument for 18 years of child support (for what might have been a very brief sexual encounter with a relative stranger) words to the effect of "You played, now you pay." That sounds like an argument based on punishment to me. How is that so different from the anti-abortionist who says to a woman you played now you have to pay? You had voluntary sex, knowing that pregnancy could result. Pregnancy is the natural consequence. You must have that baby and pay for at least the next nine months.
I'm not arguing against mandatory child support and I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm suggesting that people operate with a mixture of conscious and unconscious motives, conflicts, uncertainties, foolish consistencies and unsettling inconsistencies that aren't that difficult to to expose. The internal compromises we rely upon to function day-to-day are quite leaky and appear airtight only to the rigid, narrowly defensive person who is blind to the tentativeness of their private compromises. Frequently, ideology abets this process and, in those cases, ideological consistency might merely be the full-flowering of defensiveness. Seen in this light, an ideological inconsistency could be regarded as a crack in the defensive armor -- not necessarily a bad thing. It could signal that a person is moving in the right direction. The rape exception for abortion might be the first step toward reconsideration of abortion, overall.
And, as a society, each of us brings our somewhat tenuous internal arrangement to the construction of social mores and the law. Faced with a choice between law built on the application of undiluted defensive ideology or a tempered compromise with undergirding inconsistencies that more accurately reflect the uncertainty of inner life, the fidelity of the latter to human reality has an integrity that one could argue is lacking from the defensive constructions of the ideologically consistent person.
Posted by: Dr X | May 15, 2008 12:43 PM
"There is precisely one exception in Canon Law for abortion. I can't remember the name of the medical condition,"
The exception is an ectopic pregnancy.
Posted by: Dr X | May 15, 2008 12:48 PM
I agree that the "No Exceptions" crowd has a more self-consistent position. However, the fact that it leads to such inhumane consequence just serves to illustrate how wrong it is.
The reality is that the life of a fetus just isn't worth the same as the life of an adult woman. We all know this intuitively (the burning IVF clinic thought problem comes to mind), and while we may be repulsed by that intuition it remains fact.
The abortion "moderates" know this too. They just can't bring themselves to admit it, because then the whole anti-abortion argument falls apart.
Posted by: Kevin Klein | May 15, 2008 12:48 PM
Does this person...sound like she sees the exception as a compromise with the pro-choice movement?
She sounds like she sees an exception as just one more step toward a more decent world. You got a problem with that?
She's speaking from her own principles, and one of those principles is, in fact, that pregnancy is a punishment for having the dirty, dirty sex, and that it's unjust for someone who did not consent to sex to be punished for it - the necessity of mens rea and all.
Does she actually believe that? Has she said so herself? Or are you just imputing evil motives in those you disagree with? And how does that make it wrong for her to advocate an exception we all agree is perfectly just and reasonable?
I, too, respect the people who genuinely believe that human life begins at conception, and should be protected from that moment, more than I do the people who believe that an unborn fetus is a tool to punish women for having sex.
First, how can you differentiate, when they're both pretty much the same crowd? And second, their dishonest motives or hidden agendas do not change the fact that making certain exceptions to an anti-abortion position does indeed make for a somewhat more just policy. IF someone wants to make an exception for victims of rape or incest, that's better than not making an exception, and is more deserving of respect, regerdless of that person's motives WRT other women. Do you really believe that a hateful little shit who makes an exception or two is WORSE than a hateful little shit who doesn't?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM
McCain is bringing it up now (same with global warming last week)
Okay, I must have missed it. What did he say about global warming?
Posted by: Josh | May 15, 2008 1:32 PM
AnneS:
Try the Orwellian-monikered Feminists for Life.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 1:56 PM
(I don't know who is against abortion to save the mother's life - even the Catholic Church supports that). -- AnneS
With the exception of Cuba, abortions are practically impossible to obtain in most Latin American countries. Three countries ban abortion with no exceptions. (Nicaragua is one, I don't know the other two.) This WaPo article talks specifically about the total ban on abortion in Nicaragua enacted last year. Needless to say, maternal mortality rates are unconscionably high.
Posted by: lonelyShoes | May 15, 2008 2:07 PM
Sadie - have you checked the link? I can't get it to work. Thanks DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2008 2:08 PM
In Chile, El Salvador & Nicaragua abortions are strictly illegal. Just one more reason to avoid these countries - at least until they drag themselves into the late 20th Century. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2008 2:16 PM
Sorry--try this:
www.feministsforlife.org
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 2:23 PM
Raging Bee, you remembered how I once commented (quite inappropriately) that I was surprised at you holding such a reasonable position on something-or-other? That impression has done a complete 180, and your comments in this thread have reinforced that thoroughly.
Also, I've seen this in previous comments on this blog, but the vast characterization of pro-lifers as (perhaps closeted) misogynists is amazing to me. I've heard the arguments, and none of them are convincing to me; I also think the rampant psychoanalyzing that goes hand in hand with these arguments is more than a little absurd.
I personally think a moderate position is perfectly understandable under the assumption that a fetus merits protection, given that rape, incest, and potentially fatal risk to mother are some pretty extreme circumstances. I think a mother's choice not to abort under circumstances like these would be considered (at least for me) a supererogatory action: not necessarily immoral if the mother chose otherwise (i.e. to abort) but clearly above and beyond what the average person is obliged to do. As such, a woman should obviously be able to obtain a legal abortion under such circumstances because they are drastic, and we all know the saying about drastic times. (I also think the fact that there is a lack of consent that tends to pop up in these scenarios contributes to their extreme nature, making them quite distinguishable from other cases where consent isn't really an issue.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 15, 2008 2:27 PM
CC, I agree that it is inaccurate to label all pro-lifers as necessarily misogynistic, but as far as I'm concerned many (if not most) of them are basing their opinions on notions about women that are, at the very least, troublesome. See the "Feminists for Life" link that I provided--these people call themselves feminists, but at heart they are basically advocating that all women have a maternal instinct to be cultivated, and that abortion violates their "feminine nature" as nurturers. Is that misogynistic? In my opinion it is. It certainly isn't "feminist."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 2:34 PM
The other ones are Chile, and I believe Equador (not sure about the second one).
And I can't believe the arguments made above. Certainly, the no exceptions for rape/incest position is more consistent. No argument there.
But less misogynistic? That's one hell of a twisted logic to spin. How could someone who actually has a speck of respect for a woman force her to bear a child from rape? Life may be sacred (or so we claim) but I don't see us forcing rich people (or countries) to feed people starving in the rest of the world. Clearly in other cases when we have to force people, other then pregnant women, to do something against their will to save other people we... don't. Since we do believe in autonomy to a degree.
Without a misogynistic outlook we can clearly see the double standard applied in claiming that an unborn fetus is a sacred life and we should do something about it, and yet a kid starving in Africa either doesn't have a sacred life or we have no obligation to help him/her.
So please, yes more consistent. No, certainly not worthy of more respect.
Posted by: Coriolis | May 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Agreed. I consider both positions to be more or less misogynistic, the rape/incest-exception view because it denigrates female sexuality and the no-exceptions view because it regards the fetus as more valuable than the woman's autonomy.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 2:58 PM
Rape and incest certainly are unfortunate, but I find it even more unfortunate that the innocent child has to lose it's life as a result.
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Sadie:
Fair enough; although I didn't look at the Feminists for Life site, I wouldn't be surprised that their logic is a little ill-conceived.
Honestly, from my experience, the primary difference between those who support abortion as a choice and those who abhor it as an unnecessary institution is that the former focus on arguments pertaining to the woman (autonomy, bodily rights, etc.) and the latter focus on the fetus (protecting the innocent, life at conception, right not to be deprived of a future, etc.). This is partially why I think the uproar about "inconsistency" is so strange: it's an example of people who normally focus on the fetus talking about the mother and relevant situations where it might be permissible to focus on her in such extreme situations. Why should anyone be upset about this? I would guess that the objection is that it's a reasonable step from people who they consider largely unreasonable, and it's so much easier to denigrate one's opponent when they take the most extreme position.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 15, 2008 3:19 PM
But most pro-lifers ARE misogynistic, because they demand that their claim, that fetuses must be saved because human life is sacred, supercedes the wishes of the pregnant woman.
And, at the same time, most prolifers do not actually believe that all human life is sacred, do they? When is the last time you met someone strictly anti abortion, who was also strictly anti war, strictly anti death penalty, willing to spend whatever monies necessary to eliminate global starvation. I have never met such a person.
At the same time, I think it is fair to say that anyone who is prochoice does not truly believe in the sanctity of human life. Once that fertilized egg is implanted, it is an ineluctable arc that delivers a newborn child. To argue that a happily growing fetus is not truly fully human is to be somewhat disingenuous.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 3:56 PM
RagingBee said:
But they don't. They pointedly avoid the issue of birth control methods like the Pill and IUDs that prevent a pregnancy *after* an ovum is fertilized. They avoid it to prevent alienating further alienating people for birth control, both inside and outside their base.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Political suicide? Are you kidding me?
Conservatives of all stripes are goint to vote for McCain, even if they have to hold their noses and make the sign of the cross while they do.
What's their alternative? Obama? Never happen.
Posted by: bullet | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM
That is certainly not true for all abortion opponents -- some do indeed oppose any contraception method that works post-fertilization. (And that is largely what the attack on RU-486 was all about.)
Of course, even those folks don't seem to worry about all those deaths caused by fertilized eggs that fail to implant naturally. Given that the numbers here are far greater than the deaths from abortion, you'd think they'd want a massive research program into preventing implantation failures.
Posted by: Tulse | May 15, 2008 4:32 PM
I would agree with you Ginger, except you'd have to specify sanctity of "potential human life" at the end. I.e. including any and all fertilized eggs (which gets you into a hell of alot of trouble with fertilized eggs that fail to implant, etc.). I think you can claim that life is important (sacred if you want), without including it's initial stage. At what point you choose to say that it's far enough along that it's important is arbitrary to some degree.
The Roe vs. Wade essentially says that potential human life is not real human life until it can survive on it's own. That's not a very satisfying conclusion to me personally, but at least there is a principle behind it.
I mean if you wanted, you could go off the deep end on the other side as well. Technically, a man and a woman together have what, several million potential human lives - you just have to put the eggs and sperm together right? It's another arbitrary cutoff to say that we won't count them as potential human beings before you stick them together but we will right after. Nobody says that since it's.. ridiculous ;).
Posted by: Coriolis | May 15, 2008 5:34 PM
To argue that a happily growing fetus is not truly fully human is to be somewhat disingenuous.
There's nothing "disingenuous" about pointing out that a fetus is, indeed, NOT fully human; it's a part of the woman's tissue that can become human, but that's not the same thing as actually BEING human. It is certainly not "human" enough -- yet -- to be given rights that supercede the rights and interests of the woman carrying it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM
Another part of the equation that is always left out is that women who have abortions usually go on to have other children. I don't know the stats, but I would wager that a teenage mother saddled with a baby they didn't expect or particularly want is less likely to go on and have a more children in a stable family environment than one who had an abortion. So forcing a young woman to carry her pregnancy to term is likely depriving other kids of a chance of being conceived in the first place.
While it is obvious to me that life begins at conception, the current abortion laws have it just about right. Early in a pregnancy the fetus is still an unfeeling, unthinking entity devoid of anything resembling a personality. It may technically be a human being, but very few people would accord it the same priorities as a human baby (i.e. the fire in a fertility clinic example thought experiment). At some point, currently defined as the point at which a fetus becomes viable, the balance changes, and all but the most virulently pro-choice people would agree that the baby now has a stake in the game.
What is clear is that abortion as a political issue will probably never die (until all women have access to 100% effective birth control, at least). I was back in the UK last weekend and they are embroiled in yet another attempt to bring forward the last date an elective abortion can be legally obtained--from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Feelings are very high on both sides.
So even in a country where the debate over the legality of abortion is essentially over and done with, there is still a bitter and rancorous debate going on which doesn't look as though it will end any time soon.
Posted by: tacitus | May 15, 2008 5:47 PM
Raging Bee:
"It is certainly not "human" enough -- yet -- to be given rights that supercede the rights and interests of the woman carrying it."
I agree with you on this completely.
But I think that to say a fetus is not fully "human" is a bit tricky. It is certainly not part platypus, :D and it is not viable on its own, yes.
But the difference between implantation and birth is a mere instant, metaphysically speaking. It is a matter of time inevitable only, not a real, qualitative difference. It has no choice but to be born a child, everything being equal.
So, Roe vs Wade seems to me to be a really interesting compromise. It protects the fetus in all three trimesters to varying degree, and uses trimesters which seems reasonable according to what we know about fetal development. And it also allows legal abortion.
I am fervently pro choice. But I do not think that ending a first semester fetus through abortion means ending the potential life of a nonhuman. (Although, I think there is some validity to thinking that a first semester fetus (blastula?) during that period of development resembles a common ancestor more than a human). I really do feel that we are prematurely ending what will in all likelihood be a fully functional baby in a short amount of time.
How can I feel this way? Because I don't believe in the "sanctity of human life". And I feel that the right of the mother to make the decision about this is just as valid as the rights of those who object on ethical grounds.
I also think Roe vs Wade was based upon the equal validity of argument of both sides. I don't understand why many consider it "bad" law, but then again, I'm no lawyer.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 6:25 PM
There are only four fundamental differences between a grown person and an unborn one, and none of them are justification for abortion. This is from bioethicist Scott Klusendorf:
1) SIZE. Size has nothing to do with personhood. People come in all different sizes and we would not think smaller people more worth of being killed than bigger people.
2) LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. There are a lot of people walking around today that are less "developed" than others. Children certainly have not attained the level of physical development of adults yet they are not considered less than people and more worthy of killing. The same with disabled people in many cases. It would be unthinkable to subject them to death just because they have yet to attain full development.
3) ENVIRONMENT. The fact that a child is in the womb has as much bearing on personhood as your location has on yours. Just because a person is in a different location does not make them less of a person.
4) DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY. So the unborn child is absolutely dependent on the mother's body to survive. So what. Disabled people are dependent on others for their survival as are young children. The issue of viability - the ability to survive without some degree of dependence - has ZERO relevance to personhood.
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 6:28 PM
justification for abortion -
how about cause the mother wants one?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2008 6:55 PM
mroberts-
Or, looked at another way, an unborn human has none of the qualities relevant to personhood. Consciousness, intentions, preferences, ability to reason. Can you explain how your four qualities might differentiate a person from a fish?
Posted by: nicole | May 15, 2008 6:57 PM
Want to try an original thought yourself because you're not going to impress anyone by cutting and pasting four strawmen from the anti-abortion playbook.
The only one of the four which has even the semblance of relevance in the abortion debate is "level of development" but even that one is a gross caricature of the real debating point. It's been an interesting debate up till this point, on both sides, but I guess it was always going to devolve into regurgitating talking points eventually.
Posted by: tacitus | May 15, 2008 6:58 PM
I am not saying that the right should be taken away from women. What I am advocating for is preventing pregnancy so that abortion becomes more of a non-issue. I would love to see a world in which fewer and fewer women have to make a choice.
Gingerbaker, Even when I was extremely pro-life I never held those views. At the time I was also very pro-death penalty; and never saw the conflict in those two views. I do feel that human life is sacred. However I also understand more the complex world in which we live. Ideally would I want there to be no more abortions? Of course. But do we live in an ideal world? No. When did these views start to change for me? When a friend of mine had to choose to have an abortion because she was diabetic. It was an unplanned pregnancy, so her health went out of control from the get-go.
My sister-in-law is RC and had to make this choice for that very reason. What helped her was finally realizing that if she kept the pregnancy going, both she and her baby would die.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 15, 2008 7:02 PM
I suppose that was inevitable once mroberts stepped up to bat in this thread. I have yet to see this individual write anything even remotely original. He's like that ABSTSAM guy (or whatever the hell his name is) in that he throws around standard right-wing talking points and sound bites seemingly without any thought behind them.
In all actuality I'm kind of surprised Ed wrote about this. I thought he usually shied away from topics relating to abortion. Not that I'm complaining, but the topic at hand was unexpected.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 7:06 PM
Off topic, somewhat. I put this forward, for my own interest. I worked as a junior doctor in the local Obstetric unit about ten years ago, and knew midwives who did late abortions. This has to be done in a hospital, by labour, and the process was supervised by a registered midwife. These were usually older midwives, who had worked before the Abortion Act, and they had all seen plenty of septic abortions. (A condition which is no longer seen in Britain now that abortion is available- it is now presumed that almost all septic abortions were the result of amateur attempts to terminate a pregnancy). These midwives felt that some women will always seek abortion, whatever the risks, and that they as professionals had to help provide safe abortion, as their part in safeguarding women's health, and they did this as well as their usual work. (Most of the younger midwives opted out on conscience grounds)
Essentially, in Britain the demand for abortion is regarded as a necessary evil to be dealt with as little danger as can be arranged. Contrary views exist, but have little practical support.
The current system is not designed as abortion-on-demand though it has evolved into it over the years-most are granted on the grounds of risk to the mental health of the mother. Not perfect but less risk to women, than a ban.
The arguments here seem to be based on conflicting theories, ideologies rather. Nothing wrong with starting there, until (I imagine) you have to look a patient in the eye and say that you can't help her because of such-and-such a principle. Is there any constituency in the US which says on abortion:"This is what is out there, and we must deal with it,practically, and on the principle of causing the least harm."?
Posted by: UKGP | May 15, 2008 7:11 PM
Wow, there are a lot of interesting insights here. I do have a few thoughts about something Gingerbaker wrote:
"But most pro-lifers ARE misogynistic, because they demand that their claim, that fetuses must be saved because human life is sacred, supercedes the wishes of the pregnant woman."
Just to take a pro-lifer's perspective for a moment, they could say that you're a baby-hater since the lives of mother and fetus are of equal "sacred" value, yet you accord one the right to kill the other. Clearly, if anyone is preferentially hated, it's the "baby." So I think they would say that preventing a woman from aborting isn't misogynistic, it's merely a matter of respect for the sacredness of both human lives.
I think that RagingBee gets at the underlying issue which is that the pro-life argument fails substantially because both lives are not equivalent. I'll go further, though, from a religious perspective. As a Christian, I reject the idea that a code-containing clump of cells is "sacred." It strikes me as an idolatrous perversion of love -- a latter 20th century religious fetish that grossly warps the Christian ideal of love for one's sisters and brothers. It's an evisceration of the underlying spirit that I also see in the literalist's fetishized bible or the obsession with ten commandment displays on public property.
Posted by: Dr X | May 15, 2008 7:14 PM
>> The only one of the four which has even the semblance of relevance in the abortion debate is "level of development" but even that one is a gross caricature of the real debating point. It's been an interesting debate up till this point, on both sides, but I guess it was always going to devolve into regurgitating talking points eventually. >>
Tacitus, if I am regurging talking points, than what are you doing by presenting the same old arguments that have gone around and around for decades now? At least I gave credit to the source from where I got that. It's funny how you accuse me of making making "straw men" arguments and "gross caricatures" and "regurgitating" and causing the argument to "devolve" and yet you offer no rebuttals to what I said. How about addressing the issues presented instead of attacking me personally? Or do you have nothing with which to argue? How about you tell me WHY those three points are irrelevant and why I am wrong on the other one?
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 7:16 PM
Thanks! That was precisely my viewpoint when I was pro-life at all costs.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 15, 2008 7:23 PM
The interesting thing, though, is that many pro-lifers do give one of the lives preferential treatment--that of the fetus. Anyone who believes that abortion should not be allowed even in the event that it would save the woman's life clearly values the fetus over the life of the woman.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 7:25 PM
>> The interesting thing, though, is that many pro-lifers do give one of the lives preferential treatment--that of the fetus. Anyone who believes that abortion should not be allowed even in the event that it would save the woman's life clearly values the fetus over the life of the woman. >>
This argument is disingenuous at best because the pro-abortion crowd often presents it as justification for any form of abortion. Situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy are RARE. I would favor an exception for the life of the mother but would leave the decision to the parents and doctors. Extreme examples happen and it is hard to tailor law to address them every possible situation, but citing an extreme situation to justify the legalization of abortion in general is ridiculous.
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 7:32 PM
mroberts, when was the last time you heard anyone with an ounce of sense arguing for legal abortions because the fetus is too small to count as a living thing, or that the only difference is that it's in the womb or totally dependent? As I said before, these are all arguments against strawmen that nobody seriously uses in the debate over abortion.
There are plenty of pro-choice comments to choose from above -- care to point out which ones argue for abortion based on size of the fetus or the stage of its dependency?
Posted by: tacitus | May 15, 2008 7:44 PM
I am amazed that any group could cling so desperately to a stance which does not take anyone or anything into consideration except their own "rightness". Is their being right and absolute more important than the health of mother or child? Is it right to always be right even when you may be wrong? There is viewpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number of elements involved and that involves an individual taking responsibility and sometimes hard choices have to be made. But it is never right to force a decision on anyone in a case like abortion. How can a law sitting on a page know what is right for that individual??? My opinion is humbly submitted.
Posted by: Mary | May 15, 2008 7:47 PM
Mary, all I can say is...huh?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2008 7:50 PM
Dr. X, I actually agree with your point as far as what should be the position of someone who as a matter of principle does believe that all human life, potential or otherwise is sacred, and that saving life is a priority that is flat out above any consideration of personal freedom and choice of other people.
However, someone who holds that position should also have absolutely no problem at all imposing taxes or directly seizing money so as to feed all the people starving in this world, providing basic healthcare, etc. There are millions of people dying to starvation (about 9 million a year according to wiki), lack of healthcare, etc. - and we certainly are technologically capable of fixing all that.
When the day comes when I hear of a single so called pro-life person who is actually willing to do that, at that point I would agree that infact their position would have nothing misogynistic about it.
I've yet to see that happen. And of course even at that point the debate over whether it's the appropriate position to have would remain - but at least it would consistently be a point of view that places life above everything else, instead of just restricting women's rights.
On a separate note the issues of capital punishment/war are a bit more tricky since you can argue that not defending yourself/punishing criminals would lead to more loss of life overall (personally I don't really agree but at least it's an argument). On the flip side, providing food to starving people and some basic healthcare would be just an inconvenience to us in the developed world - and a rather minor one compared to having a baby (I assume - being a male I'm happy I won't know that for sure). We'd just have to cramp our style a bit and produce some extra food instead of toys/guns or whatever else we do.
Oh and frankly your childish "points" mroberts are appropriate for a discussion by moderately intelligent 14 year olds interested in the issue (my apologies to more mature 14 year olds). Hence why I doubt most people here would be much interested in specifically refuting them.
Posted by: Coriolis | May 15, 2008 7:53 PM
>> There are plenty of pro-choice comments to choose from above -- care to point out which ones argue for abortion based on size of the fetus or the stage of its dependency? >>
tacitus, I don't understand how you are missing my point here. Let me sum things up this way: there are only four things that are different between an adult and a fetus - as I summarized - and none of those differences are relevant to the issue of personhood. Therefore, you cannot say a fetus is not a person because none of the differences between it and an adult would render it a nonperson. If you cannot say it is not a person, then there is no justification for killing it. To do so would be MURDER. Pretty simple point, sorry you somehow missed it.
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 7:56 PM
Coriolis wrote:
However, someone who holds that position should also have absolutely no problem at all imposing taxes or directly seizing money so as to feed all the people starving in this world, providing basic healthcare, etc.
I don't think I suggested anything to the contrary. I think there is merit to your observation.
Posted by: Dr X | May 15, 2008 8:13 PM
mroberts, sorry you missed my post entirely, because none of your four points is relevant to personhood. Please explain how you would differentiate a person from a fish, and explain why a fetus is more like a person than it is like a fish, at any given moment.
Not to mention, if you don't think degree of dependence matters, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the length of the kidney transplant waiting list and the fact that no one is forced against his will to use his organs to support another human.
Posted by: nicole | May 15, 2008 8:14 PM
>> mroberts, sorry you missed my post entirely, because none of your four points is relevant to personhood. Please explain how you would differentiate a person from a fish>>
Say what ? You lost me on that one. Uh, I think the relevant differences are those between a fetus and an adult, because the central argument of abortion is around personhood. If there is nothing we can point to that would disqualify a fetus from being a person, then abortion is morally wrong. That is all I am saying. I don't know what fish has to do with it.
Posted by: mroberts | May 15, 2008 8:23 PM
I will point to the four things I pointed to above: Consciousness, intentions, preferences, ability to reason. Capacity for suffering. Since I don't believe there is a special sanctity to human life, or a "soul," these are the things that would make me think twice about harming another being. A fetus without a nervous system doesn't really measure up.
Posted by: nicole | May 15, 2008 8:28 PM