June 9, 2009
-
thoughts on abortion
I hesitate generally to put my thoughts on the subject of abortion on paper not because I don’t have strong opinions on the matter but because in it more than most other subjects that split liberals and conservatives I can understand both sides to some extent.
The trouble with abortion is the way the debate is generally framed it hinges upon an unknown: namely when exactly does human life begin to gain its intrinsic value? Since the concept on intrinsic value of life itself is a matter under serious debate as is the question of when something can even be considered to a “human” life it’s rather obvious that this should be and is a thorny issue. It becomes even thornier when you factor in that this unknown or undetermined value is often directly pitted against the life and well being of functioning non-controversial human lives that are generally deemed to have value.
As a result it really should entail some deep debate and serious thought to determine how civilized societies ought to deal with abortion. I submit that I don’t think it is at all obvious was is or ought to be the law no matter how often proponents and opponents want to claim it is.
How would this serious debate proceed? I think the parameters are not particularly hard to draw up. We might start by describing two meaningful scenarios as follows:
Scenario A:
Imagine there’s a woman in her early 30′s who has a good high paying job, and is married with two children. Suppose she’s perfectly healthy and carries a child to full term fully aware that she is pregnant the entire time and then the day before she’s due to deliver decides to have an abortion. Let’s say not only that but she’s had six abortions in the past. In all cases she refuses to explain the reasons and she has a Doctor who willingly agrees and complies with her request no questions asked performing the abortion even after determining that the fetus is fully viable and healthy and having no known genetic diseases or abnormalities. Based on all the science that is known at the time, that fetus would become a baby that would live a perfectly healthy life if delivered on the day it is aborted. Likewise the Doctor can see no risk to the woman or anyone else if she delivers the baby.Scenario B:
Imagine there’s a 9 year old rape victim from a poor family whose parents are devoutly opposed to abortion. So she sees a Doctor and begs the doctor to perform an abortion without telling her parents. The doctor determines that the child has been pregnant for less than a week. To make the example all the more extreme, let’s suppose the doctor is able to analyze the embryo at this stage and determines immediately that the embryo poses an extreme risk to the life of the girl if she continues to carry it even for a few more days. Further, the doctor can determine that even if the child were able to carry the embryo to term it also has a very low less than 1% probability of survival and if it does survive it will have a high probability of being both physically and mentally handicapped. So the doctor performs the legal abortion in a safe and controlled manner allowing the child to live a normal healthy life.Now I think, almost everyone would agree on the moral judgments we should apply to these two scenarios. In my mind at least a scenario like Scenario B is a justified abortion and a scenario like Scenario A is an unjustified abortion.
To claim that scenario A is justified would require you to make a distinction that a fully developed, completely functional fetus inside a woman’s body one day prior to its removal is somehow of intrinsically less worth than it is the very next day after it has been delivered. That seems intellectually dishonest. Or else to be honest you’d have to accept the convenience based elimination of 1 day old babies or 5 day old babies as well and develop some other standard through which human beings suddenly start to be considered to have intrinsic worth sufficient to allow them the protections of the State against arbitrary elimination. When will that be? When they can pass an I.Q. test?
Likewise to claim that Scenario B is unjustified you’d have to believe that conception imparts in some cells some kind of magical mystical power of “significance” that excludes it from any form of justified human intervention no matter who might be helped or harmed and no matter the conditions. You would basically be saying that rather than kill those cells you should condemn that child to take her chances and most probably die. Should the Doctor or the child decide to act in the interest of the child to destroy the embryo they should be treated exactly as you would any person who decides to kill another human being and be subject to the same punishments under the legal code.
If being Pro-Choice means I’d have to accept and acknowledge no moral critique of the woman or doctor in scenario A then I am NOT Pro-Choice. And if being Pro-Life means I have to condemn the girl or the doctor in Scenario B then I’m definitely NOT Pro-Life. And by those definitions, I should hope that nobody else is either.
A nuanced conversation would be built upon these agreeable parameters and carefully and intellectually examine all the myriad scenarios between these extremes. We would focus on minimizing the occurrences of abortion altogether and making as many of the abortions that do take place look much closer to Scenario B than to Scenario A. Whatever tools that enable us to do that be they legal punishments, incentives, educational programs, increased contraceptive availability, more family planning, increasing or decreasing availability of clinics that provide abortions, parental notification programs or confidentiality programs, or whatever else we can think of would be on the table. Each option would be analyzed in turn to think about what the likely effect would be and how best to encourage the best possible results. As we implement policies we’d examine the results and modify our strategies as necessary.
That should be what we ought to be debating about. Is this particular strategy or that particular strategy a good one? Does it provide women with a reasonable amount of freedom? Does it protect the interests of the unborn to a reasonable extent? Is it consistent with our values? Will it lead to reduction in the number of abortions or unplanned pregnancies. Will it cause more abortions to occur earlier in pregnancies when it is safer and more likely to occur on an nonviable fetus or embryo? How expensive is it to implement? Will it encourage people to use unsafe means to perform their own abortions or go to the black market to receive medical treatment? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking and talking about. Analyzing case by case. Studying strategy by strategy.
Of course the big problem that I find is that the debate we are actually having is not anywhere near that deep. It’s not nuanced. It isn’t even particularly interesting. And much of this distortion of the debate has resulted from the extreme hard line position that many of the Pro-Life advocates have espoused to the exclusion of all other possibilities and the exclusion of any form of nuanced analysis.
And yet even that position I have some empathy for. Many of these people have convinced themselves that EVERY. SINGLE. ABORTION. is the death or even murder of a baby. Namely they see the impregnated egg as having the exact same value of human life as any newborn baby. They are judging the value of life by the potential a grouping of cells has to become a full grown human being. In other words they see Scenario B as not a reasonable necessity but a terrible tragedy.
And under such a logic is it any wonder that the rhetoric becomes so charged? They call it a “world wide abortion holocaust”. And they speak in terms of millions of deaths per year. If such a holocaust were really happening then there’s all kinds of behaviors that could be justified in order to prevent it. Lone gunman shooting abortion doctors would not be problematic morally, just strategically, in that they don’t effectively further the cause of eliminating abortion. And you can actually hear that if you read the statements of many anti-abortion groups after the Tiller killing. They argue not that the murderer was unjustified because killing doctors who are just following the law is morally reprehensible, but that the murder was unjustified because it won’t lead to saving more babies lives. As if absolutely everything morally reduces to a question of what can be done to save these millions of innocents who are being brutally murdered.
But IS every single abortion a murder? I find that position unsustainable and it’s actually pretty easy to argue against. Not only is it legally false on the surface it also just doesn’t make much sense morally. Some abortions are done on fetuses that are already dead. In those cases it’s clearly not a murder. In other cases abortions are done when both the mother and the child are at risk of dying but the probability of the fetus surviving post birth is very slim. In these cases the abortion is done in order to save the life of the mother. In such cases as that we can say that this is a scenario much akin to medical triage on a battle field or the scene of an accident. The doctor chooses to save the life most likely to survive. I don’t think anyone can rationally call a situation like that a murder either.
But IS every single abortion done on a live fetus or embryo even a baby-death? Surely we can all see that that is not a particularly nuanced position. It’s a blanket statement not based on any characteristic elements of any particular abortion or abortion in general except for the fact that certain cells might grow into a baby and a human being without inordinate human intervention. It’s a position that Scenario B may be necessary but still is a horrible tragedy that should be mourned. So it becomes hard to argue against. Opponents can’t bring up details and facts that would dissuade them because their very basic premise excludes all factual analysis. When does something become alive? Does it have to have a head? A brain? Does it have to respond to stimuli? Does it have to move? Have a heart beat? Are our skin cells alive? Is sperm alive?
But you can’t argue with someone who believes without a doubt that impregnating an egg really does initiate life and significance. There’s no reals grounds to argue. It’s just a basic difference of opinion. At best you can do is try to show to catch them in hypocrisy as in to claim that pro-life people who espouse this view don’t engage in behavior that would be consistent with that view. (if there is a holocaust, seriously why aren’t you rebelling in the streets?) But that kind of argument doesn’t invalidate the view in itself and could have the adverse effect of causing the proponents to engage in even more irrational or dangerous behavior in pursuit of consistency.
Fortunately though I believe that not all or even most of the people who proclaim themselves as pro-life have such a hard line view of the nature of human life. Though perhaps this is me just being too optimistic, but I’m pretty sure the majority of people who are pro-life either feel that current laws are too lenient or that abortions occur too frequently or too late in a pregnancy or all of the above. In other words they think too many abortions are like Scenario A and more if they are going to happen at all need to be like Scenario B. That’s a position I think we can understand and work with and reach a common ground.
Likewise I like to think that most Pro-Choice advocates are those who fear moral condemnation and illegality being placed upon abortions that are at all close to Scenario B, that in the zeal to outlaw Scenario A far too many women who have legitimate reasonable reasons to have an abortion will be denied that right. That too I think is a reasonable position that can be worked with to reach a common ground.
And I think that is very possible. Abortion need not be a divisive topic in the future. We can move beyond it if we stop, take a deep breathe and start to talk about the fundamental issues in a serious and honest manner. We’d need to stop with the oh so prevalent “murder” talk though and the “slavery” talk is probably no more useful. Certainly the childish picketing and obstructionism of people engaging in services that are currently legal is even less helpful.
We need to stop condemning one another for our differences in opinion and start trying to find a way to work together. It isn’t really that hard just as long as we don’t reduce the debate down to catch phrases and childish labeling. We need to move beyond “pro-choice” and “pro-life”.
Or barring that I guess we can yell at each other and kill one another all the while waiting for the development of some perfect 100% accuracy, dirt cheap contraceptive and distribute it throughout the world to every human being currently living and every new human being at birth. Thus making unplanned pregnancy a virtual impossibility.
That’s fine too I guess. Good luck with that.
Comments (15)
Holy cats, someone’s been feeling like blogging lately.
Anyway… I used to be in the “life begins at conception” group. These days I’m much more on the fence.
On the other hand… yeah, third trimester abortions on demand are a bit much for me.
I’m gonna quit commenting before I actually say something controversial.
abortion is a wide spectra.
some people abuse it, some people make a lucrative business out of it.
same thing with basically anything, welfare, health care, therapy, grants…..
I would like to see the time limit for abortions lowered to around 20 weeks into the pregnancy. And to keep records of how many abortions a woman has had, and at abortion number 3 it’s about time to consider sterilization.
@ModernBunny - you mean I should read before I rec?
@relaxolgy - Haha, I was just careful while leaving a comment on the abortion post… ^.^ It’s still a hot potato of an issue. Never know who’s going to see my comment and try to start a fight. I basically agree with Kellen’s entry here, though.
Great post! I love the amount of thought you put into it.
That’s definitely a very well written blog about the very wide spectrum. Good work and excellent points for both sides.
You know how I feel about this topic, and that it’s pretty damn similar to how you feel. Not much to say here except that was wonderfully well-written.
I think you make an interesting argument, but it does still beg the question of when does human life begin? Perhaps i didn’t see it, but it is an essential question if you are not taking the conception as the beginning.
@JadedJanissary - Actually I think that question is wholly irrelevant. It’s ridiculously overstated. When “life” begins is nothing but a social definition. We can define it whatever, or we can not even bother to define it. Over time based on how we act and think as a people, the definition of what counts as “alive” will shift and evolve as all language does.
What really lies at the heart of the question is not when “life” begins but when a collection of cells is given that special status that we consider it valuable enough to be protected. We can call that “life” if you want.
Even in that, there need not be a strict zero or nothing proposition. We can deem a collection of cells to have more value than a single cell and a collection of cells that form organs to have more value still, and if those organs form into a body then assert even more value to them, and likewise if that body is in the shape of a human beings, and if that body is capable of thinking or aware of its environment or becomes self aware. At each level you might as a society ascribe different levels of protection in accordance with relevance. And logically society should ascribe some minimum level of development that establishes equal valuation under the law, else we get into a kind of dangerous eugenics system.
The Pro-Life person wants to say as soon as the sperm combines with the egg it has ALL the same value and should be valued exactly the same as the baby on the day of its birth. I DON’T accept that. Something that has yet to develop either a brain nor heart nor lungs or any other organs is not by any objective feature the same as a human being. And the elimination of such a collection of cells I would not call murder and I would not even call a death.
@relaxolgy - I tried to stay away from actual policy recommendations in this post but if I had to make one it would be a little different than what you suggest. I think I’d try to split abortions into three categories.
One would be for abortions that are basically guaranteed by science that the fetus or embryo has not developed into anything really remotely resembling a human being. These would be legal, VERY easy to get, and hopefully non-controversial. Maybe prior to 18 or 20 weeks would fit into this category. It’s very important that these early abortions be readily available, because the more often people avail of them, the less likely the second or third category are ever going to come into play.
After that there’d be a middle ground category where although it’s still legal, doctors and patients consult before coming up with a decision. The doctor woudl be required to provide the patient with certain amounts of information about the curent state of development of the fetus but ultimately it would be the woman’s decision, though of course doctors who feel a consciencious objection can refuse to perform the procedure. Counseling would be highly promoted for women in this group though not required. This might be 18-27 weeks or so in the pregnancy.
Thirdly there’d be a category where abortion is illegal except in extreme circumstances to protect the life of the woman. In those cases of course it’s optional. These scenarios though have to be transparent and an abortion performed under such a circumstance should be able to be challenged in court and medical record provided. If evidence is found that an abortion is performed frivolously in the third category, both the doctor AND the woman could potential be brought up on charges. Also the doctor would risk losing his license to practice medicine. I think most juries would be lenient especially to the woman though in such situations, still I think the law should be strict. It could even be that the Doctor might be required to get an exemption authorization from the courts or if that’s too slow from some sort of leading medical counsel or something before performing the abortion unless it’s a time critical situation where the doctor cannot afford to wait.
Of course I’m just guessing at the week numbers. Scientific testimony combined with some sort of democractic process would be needed to figure out exactly where to make the cutoffs. But I think this is the only reasonable kind of comrpomise that gives women the appropriate freedoms. Actually the laws in a LOT of states I think somewhat mimic this sort of three way distinction. The controversy comes of course that some people don’t want category 1 abortions to be easily available and think that category 2 and 3 abortions under all circumstances are murder and should be treated as such. That’s a different sort of categorization and I think it would be an immoral one. Too many women will be 18 weeks and 1 day pregnant and just be shit out of luck. That strikes me as cruel.
Frequency of abortion would not enter into my system overtly. Rather it would be a matter of doctor/patient consultation. But if a doctor considers his or her patient to be psychologically unstable or a risk to herself he or she can I think have legal mechanisms to compel therapy or other psychological evaluation. Doctors can always refuse to perform abortions, and I think there could even be a legal mechanism set up to determine that a women loses the right to self-determination over her own body as far as reproductive rights are concerned, much like we take away kids from abusive families. I think that should be EXTREMELY rare, and you have to be exceedingly careful. Sterilization as you suggest might be the way to handle such a situation. The power to do that however could easily be abused.
Frequency I think could also be handled through general population control laws which we need anyway. I don’t think strict limits make sense, but a system that increases the cost to women per pregnancy might discourage both unplanned pregnancies and having more chidlren.
However, all of this would all be entirely separate from the general nationwide push to promote family planning, contraceptive availability, eduction and counselling to prevent abortion from ever becoming an issue in the first place. That should be the core focus of the federal government.
@nephyo -
I like how you make it so obvious that all abortions are not equal, I am all for your first category, and see the need of the second category but I have recently come to a point where I no longer feel that the third kind of abortion to be justifiable.
Well said. don’t have much time, so… JadedJanissary hit the nail on the head (in a way). People argue about philosophical aspect, which is something we will never discover, maybe after death, maybe in few thousand years (like in Babylon 5
). Mankind strove for many similar answers, but… we can think something, but it isn’t a basis for law. Killing living people is immoral, but in reality…
Also, I’m not sure why is it such a hot topic there in the USA, probably your special sort of religious people (different state, different sort of people, though same religion).
So to the point, it’s a matter of various circumstances, also matters word of the father, since baby might be a “trick” how to “fix broken” relationship.
Murder is murder, thanks to that, you can’t be legally killed, because someone considered you a evil person. We can’t base law on morals, because they are subjective. Hence abortion isn’t a matter of general good/evil opinion.
And finally, as it’s yours right to create life, it should be your right to state reason to abort such process (early enough). It’s yours and your partners to choose, it’s not something people shout vote about. As said in Firefly, pregnancy isn’t a running town hall. Society can have a word in it, but in most cases, it’s parrents right to decide. As that simple it is and people must realize there is big difference between philisophical and practical aspect of this matter, therefore it needs to be discussed separately.
@relaxolgy - the purpose of the third category is exactly that. It’s to define the range of abortions that are not generally justifiable. I just wouldn’t declare them to be ALWAYS unjustifiable. Under certain circumstances killing someone, even a fully functional adult, is considered justified. Self defense, being the obvious case. Military killings being another. There are also accidents. All kinds of things really. The legal code is complex and we’re always dealing with new situations.
And with abortion it gets even more complex. Certainly a fetus that is killing the mother doesn’t have intent so it’s not a situation of self defense. But not all abortions are a matter of directly killing the fetus. Some are simply allowing the fetus to die, ie not intervening to save it. And I do think the quality of life that that baby if born is likely to have should be a consideration. If you know for example a fetus has a genetic disease that will result in its only living a few weeks, should that mother be required to carry that baby to term? I can see arguments on both sides so I don’t think it’s obvious and so I wouldn’t want the law to absolutely dictate that it has to be one way or another for all category three abortions.
However, generally you’re right, the third category is the range of abortions in which the burden of proof should lie on the side of the Mother and the Doctor. They have to have a GOOD reason. One that they can defend if necessary in a court of law. They have to be able to justify it to the extent that a reasonable jury of the peers can accept it. What constitutes an acceptable category 3 abortion might even change over time, as our society’s opinions about what constitutes life changes. Likewise how harshly it should be punished will change over time. In the early stages of the law I expect more leniency as individuals aren’t aware of the law or might not be knowledgible of the options available, but over time that will be less of an acceptable excuse and the punishment would grow greater. And I think that’s entirely fine. I just don’t feel the government should make it absolute that category 3 abortions are always treated as 1st degree murder to start. That doesn’t accept possible nuanced scenarios that nobody can have predicted.
Still I strongly suspect all of this is going to be rangling over a very tiny percentage of all abortions. Probably category 2 and 3 put together will be under 5% of all abortions performed. Right NOW only 1.4% of all abortions in the United States happen at or after 21 weeks. And I’m sure percentages will get that low or lower throughout the world as knowledge and availability of abortion and contraception increases and education and wealth of third world states improves.
@Zax - I agree with you, especially the last part. Abortion certainly really ISN’T and OUGHT NOT be a Townhall. It’s the personal decision of the woman and the family involved. MOST of the time. The problem is that distinction breaks down more and more the closer it gets to birth. SOMETIMES the State and the society does need to get involved. To give a simple and contrived example imagine a situation where an abusive husband beats a woman who is 9 months pregnant, *purposefully* in order to end the life of the baby. If we were to consider it *only* an internal personal matter of that family then we could only charge that husband with domestic violence. IE for beating the wife. But ending the babies life was just the personal decision of the family to which the faster has some say. But I think that’s ridiculous.
And if that’s ridiculous, well what abotu if something very much like that happens much earlier in a pregnancy? What if it’s a woman doing it to herself? I don’t claim that I know the answers to all of these, I think it’s really hard to say. The people really do have to come together and come up with some basic guidelines that ensure that people do have a right to decide on their own under a vast majority of normal circumstances but in certain, unusual, unlikely circumstances such as abortions that occur very late in a pregnancy, it becomes a legal matter where justification must be provided.
But except for such unusual circumstances, I think women should have a right to decide whatever they want and should not have to explain OR defend their decisions. It is a matter of right.
That’s why I think a three category system makes sense, see my responses to relaxology for an explanation.
I think the personal choice (and no other reason) abortions should be limited to early on. It shouldn’t take long to decide to terminate a pregnancy. Some serious birth defects, or other possible health problems for the mother or fetus may not be discovered until after the 20 week mark and should still have the option in those extreme cases. Best written compilation on abortion I have ever read, and I would hope any reasonable person could say that they agree with you as well. The goal is less unwanted pregnancies, more simple early term abortions available, leading to less late term and less overall need for abortions.
There was a shot down law in the 2008 election in Colorado called the “Definition of a Person Act” that tried to define a person as an egg and sperm conception. It had the implications to make not only abortions illegal, but some forms of birth control that are effective by preventing implantation more than preventing conception (thus some fertalized eggs occur but pregnancy is prevented because the egg cannot attach). Of course it didn’t pass, but the Pro-life movement would really benefit from trying to reduce abortions and pregnancies in a realistic way (ie compromise) rather than spending their energy on laws that have no way of passing and thus do nothing for their movement.