It's almost unfair to people who disagree with him--if I truly believed that abortion was the murder of children, I don't think I'd be interested in trading "fair-minded words" with pro-choicers. It's murder, and I think I'd pursue it with exactly the sort of zeal as those who were booing Obama. But that's my perspective, and my outlook--obviously it isn't the outlook of all pro-lifers. I'm just saying, I can see why you might be an extremist on the issue.
Politics aside, I think you have to give Obama credit for stepping right into the issue. I've seen weaker politicians drowning in handlers, reading from a carefully prepared text which fails to acknowledge the elephants dancing in the room. Obama, like he did in his race speech, went right at it. It likely won't please a lot of folks on either side, but if your goal is to grow the base, and expand the party, you've got the best man for the job--even if it, at times, grates on people like me. But, hey. Expanding the party isn't my job--it's his.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
His enemies have been doing a pretty good job of making themselves look petty lately, too.
it's a totally new kind of political power.
Exactly. And when he does it a day or two after picking a popular, moderate Republican for an important post... he keeps on growing that base.
Conservatives have their work cut out for them.
That was my reaction as soon as I heard that speech, that it made the whole controversy that proceeded it seem overheated and dumb.
TNC,
I will give him that "makes his enemies look small-minded" bit. He does it better than most I've seen. He seems to be almost obstinate at doing what people publicly dare him not to do. Seriously though. How is it not ok to invite President Obama for his pro-choice views and yet it's ok and even celebrated that Notre Dame invited then-President George Bush, a man clearly in favor of and in practice of using the death penalty. Some things just don't add up... or maybe it's the racial prejudice stupid.
I think the argument there is that abortion takes an innocent life whereas the death penalty doesn't, etc. [I think that is deeply stupid given the number of not guilty people who have been execute but I can see what those people are getting at.]
Though it should be pointed out that the Church only means "innocent" in the legal sense, not an absolute sense. Fetuses are corrupted by original sin, same as every human being, according to them.
That's true but what interesting is that this is, in practice, a manifestly political (as opposed to religious) distinction.
The much-ballyhooed Bishop's statement doesn't (on its face) allow for honoring death penalty supporters anymore than it does abortion supporters.
Or for that matter supporters of the Iraq War which the Pope was dead set on opposing.
What that indicates is that this has far less to do with any firmly held religious conviction then religion cloaked political opposition.
Sure both religion and racial prejudice play a part in these protests but firs and for the most part this is just GOP team loyalty.
Ah, and of course the protests against Bush weren't as large or as coopted by political players.
"2001: Protests greeted newly-elected President George W. Bush. Valedictorian Carolyn Weir posed the question to the audience, and, indirectly to Bush: "Why do you play God, by executing the guilty?" During the roar of applause that followed, Bush leaned over and made a comment to [University President Edward] Malloy." From Chicago Sun-Times: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1573631,CST-NWS-notredame14web.article
Luuk,
In the case of President Obama, there were Catholic priests who declined attending the cermony. There might have been "protests" at the Notre Dame shindig, but nothing on the order of what we saw was done with President Obama. Applause for your point of view is democratic and makes a lot of sense if the views on life (including capital punishment) are as deeply held as the Catholic Church would have us believe. But disinviting oneself from your own ceremony is tantamount to biting your nose to spite your face, and doesn't nearly explain the amount of vitriol expressed at THIS President.
Gotcha, I thought your first post suggested that the students lauded the decision to invite Bush, and I distinctly remembered that not being the case. I had not taken the priests into consideration, so I stand corrected.
First up, let me admit that I am a total sucker, with tears in my eyes (I'm just watching this for the first time). But isn't it possible that this isn't just political strategy, that he actually means it?
TNC, I actually don't agree that a bed-rock belief that abortion is murder requires one to reject civility and fair-minded words. I don't think it's a contradiction to have absolute values/beliefs but to embrace more moderate strategies. That said, I do think there's a place for incivility and bombastic words -- I do think militancy can advance a cause and has a place in a movement -- I just don't believe that militancy is the only strategy that can flow with integrity from a deeply held and absolutist value or belief.
I think he does believe it--to an extent. Obama has actually flip-flopped on gay marriage, for instance. More accurately, I think he is, by nature, deliberative and thus not prone to hurling fireballs.
On abortion, it may not. I was just trying to myself in the shoes of a pro-lifer. If I really believed the rhetoric they put out there (baby-killing) I think I'd be a pretty extrene. Again, that's just me. I would have ran with John Brown too.
Cool.
I think the place for militants (like you ;-) is that they make moderate folks like me (strategically moderate, that is, not necessarily moderate in principles) look so very reasonable. So it pushes the center of the debate closer to the extremes in important ways. I'm too prone to anxiety to run with John Brown, but I'm ever-so-grateful to those of you who do/did.
Ditto. Movements need militants, they can make the job of the strategic folks possible/easier. Of course, they sometimes just blow shit up too, but you take the good with the bad.
As for these folks, the extreme pro-lifers. I can't quibble with them so long as their as virulently anti death penalty as they are anti abortion. Otherwise, they're pretending a political position that they've taken is actually a religious protest. The moral argument about the lives of innocents is a bunch of hog wash if you claim to be so devoutley Christian that you can't event listen to a pro choice person who happens to be president of the United States. Why? Because sccording to Christian doctrine all those who confess are forgiven and all souls are of equal worth be they inhabiting a cluster of fetal cells or the body of a convicted criminal.
Folks who try to get around that one set my temper afire. Particularly if they are members of the clergy.
Deva, it seems to me the real contradiction is when militant anti-abortion activists don't also oppose ALL war. Even accepting for the sake of argument the innocent/guilty distinction some pro-lifers make to reconcile their opposition to abortion and their support of capital punishment, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a war in which innocents are not killed. So once a pro-lifer accepts that there are principles in war that outweigh the value of innocent life, then they are no longer arguing from the principle that innocent life is ALWAYS of greater value than any other principle (something I don't believe). There are actually a few principled pro-lifers who take very very consistent pro-life stands -- against abortion, against capital punishment, against war, against poverty -- but they are few and far between. They are all, in my experience, also folks who would be very very happy to talk to President Obama, or you and me for that matter!
I think the important part of this is not simply that the president has the ability to make polar “pro-lifers” seem more petty, it also has the added effect of making polar “pro-choicers” seem less so.
Obama’s primary draw, for me, has always gone back to A: his intellect and B: the importance he places on exercising empathy when dealing with others. It’s a concept that’s completely misunderstood by Republicans who seem to mistake it for sympathy, as Michael Steele displayed on Meet the Press yesterday. Some view it as simple pragmatism, as a political maneuvering driven to avoid conflict. And maybe it is. But I also think he truly believes the “pro-life” belief to be absolutely valid. While he uses the language of “choice,” I get the distinct impression (and maybe I’m projecting) that he views this language to be insufficient and cold. I think he sees that the “pro-choice” position, for its historic lack of empathy, is in danger of undermining itself (as the “pro-life” position has). I think he sees a backlash coming if the movement is unable to change the trajectory it’s been on for decades. I think he recognizes that rejecting the humanity of the unborn is an argument that has worn out its usefulness; that, as an argument, it’s not only callous, but demonstrably untrue. So I think he’s of the belief that a new dialogue is needed, but that it has to be one that reflects the growing ambivalence of the American people on the topic. I think he sees the ambivalence of the American people with regard to abortion as a virtue. But I also think he sees the ability to recognize that ambivalence as the most powerful weapon in winning the greater argument. And I think he’s right.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think it’s pretty similar to his approach with regard to torture.
I'll note also that a number of pro-lifers--myself included--oppose the death penalty as well. As for those who are pro-life and pro-death penalty, I'm guessing their reasoning is that the state can execute someone who committed a heinous crime while abortion takes the life of an innocent.
I think, however, that civil discourse on this subject in particular is essential, since it's clear to any fair minded person that the opposing side isn't evil, but merely disagrees on the fundamental question of fact--where in the cycle from egg fertilization to birth do we draw a line and say we're dealing with a life that has a right to be brought to term. I doubt many pro-choicers actually think abortion is murder but is still okay, or that many pro-lifers think the infringement on the mother's rights is outweighed by the rights of something that is not a living being. It's refreshing to see people debate this intelligently rather than throw unfair accusations at one another.
I am pretty much in agreement with everything you wrote, except I think there are a fair amount of pro-choicers out there who think abortion is murder, or at a minimum, the ending of a living thing. I think it was Naomi Wolf years ago who admonished the pro-choice movement for not accepting that abortion results in an actual death. A lot of Catholics, including my Governor believe abortion is wrong, but they defer to the choice of the woman.
As for TNC's point about pro-lifers having a zeal for the cause, I think it is tempered by the fact that many ( and depending upon the issue, most) Americans don't see it as rising to the legal definition of murder so they are forced into a dialogue. If they remain militant to their cause, what can they gain? I would imagine the chances of a total abortion ban in all fifty states is near zero, so by toning it down, they can get late-term abortion bans on the table, as well as restrictions on minors and a waiting period. With excessive demonization, they might not get any of that.
Agreed, with regard to some "pro-choicers" recognizing (finally) the killing involved in the act (although many of them would most assuredly prefer your anticeptic, euphemistic "ending"). Not enough, though. Too many cling too tightly to this phony idea of the choice being reflective of a woman's control over her body alone. That the only reasonable moral question is whether a woman should be forced to carry a child to term. It's a perspective that relies entirely on denial of undeniable facts. And it's one the movement clings to at its own peril.
Really, in the end, the goal of the “pro-choice” movement should be, in my opinion, total ambivalence (i.e. a complete rejection of the polar positions). The longer this argument goes on, the less compelling the arguments robbing humanity from the unborn will become. Once the humanity of a fetus is generally accepted, it’s a very short walk to the land of ‘baby-killer’ or "murderer." From a strictly technical perspective, it’s true. And if that’s accepted as generally accurate, the position that embraces the argument that rejects the moral aspect (i.e. the immorality) of the act will ultimately fail. So it will fall on the “pro-choice” community to begin to more actively adopt the argument that abortion, while an immoral act, is also a moral necessity. It’s a difficult argument to make, to be sure. But it’s a lot closer, I think, to the belief of the great majority of the populace.
I think that a position that respects life, full stop, is entirely respectable. It's the inconsistency that makes me incredibly suspicious, especially when the reason cited is that of the innocence of one party, but the guilt of the other. Isn't the whole revolutionary thing about the Christian faith the fact that sins are forgiven and all sould are of equal worth. That seems to me to rob the pro-life, pro-death penalty folks of any moral high ground they are seeking.
"When his adversaries can't do the same, they just look small-minded."
The Repubs make me think of fish trying hard to get into the barrell.
The thing about the "abortion is murder" rhetoric is that most of the people who use it don't really act on it that way. They don't support criminal charges for the woman in question, for one thing. Just the doctor. And here's another: If a fetus is a living being, then by rights one should be able to get a tax deduction on the child from the moment of conception, right?
"Abortion is murder" is hyperbolic rhetoric, meant to shut down any reasoned debate. It's meant to foreclose any possibility of accommodation or compromise.
I'm not sure "Abortion is murder" is remotely hyperbolic. To the people who hold those signs and shout those words, abortion is the deliberate and premeditated killing of a human being. And, come to think of it, that's what it is whether you hold those signs and shout those words or not.
I'm not sure they're trying to shut down reasoned debate as much as they are saying exactly what they believe to be true.
I'm with breakerbreaker here- I think the people who say "abortion is murder" absolutely believe it. (I'm not one of them, at least with regard to early term abortions, because I'm of the opinion that up to a certain point, a fetus is a living thing but not yet a human being, so abortion always involves killing, but doesn't always involve murder.) But I know plenty of people who sincerely believe that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and they are deadly serious when they say they think abortion is murder. You really can't just brush that position aside as inflammatory rhetoric.
Not to get too deeply embroiled into the world of semantics, but fetuses are unquestionably human beings. If they are living, then they are beings. Human is an adjective which modifies their being-dom. They are genetically human. They are living beings. They are human beings. Their personhood is the real question. But, again, it becomes fairly difficult to make a cogent argument saying that fetuses are human beings, but that they do not qualify as persons. The argument becomes all the more difficult when you begin to accept the facts of development: a unique genetic code at conception, a beating heart within 6 or 7 weeks of conception, a head, a face, seemingly deliberate movement of arms, legs, fingers, and toes by 12 weeks (generally understood to be the end of the first trimester), and so on and so forth.
There's a natural progression once you begin to accept the undeniable fact that something, rather, somebody is being killed with each and every abortion. There is a reason people in favor of abortion rights have spent so much time and energy rejecting what is a simple and universally known truth.
It's super hard to make a moral argument in favor of an act after you've accepted that the act itself is immoral. Still, that's the argument people in favor of abortion rights must learn to embrace.
The man has been brilliant this weekend---with this speech and picking off Huntsman (the one sane GOP national figure) to be his China ambassador. How long before the shriveled, shruken GOP is small enough to drown in a bathtub?
Now if we can only get a Truth Commission going in this biatch...
As for Reagan, TNC, I don't think he ever had the style of direct confrontation on social issues. For instance, Reagan never, ever spoke about race in America substantively-- he never engaged liberal critiques on that issue. He played the bemused grandpa, which made his opponents look overwrought and snippy.
I, for one, don't find the "abortion is murder" viewpoint remotely hyperbolic. I actually agree with the view... BUT I understand and agree with the other end of the argument in terms of a woman's right and need to control her body (and not be the property of the man who impregnated her, her husband, or the state).
To me abortion should be legal in the same way that we provide legal "excuse" for some forms of homicide. My opinion is rooted in the difference between a legal "excuse" and a legal "justification." For example, insanity is a legal "excuse" to murder. If insantity is established, one cannot be held to have the legal mens rea (intent) to commit the crime. Infancy is also a legal excuse. In most places a 4 year old doesn't have the mens rea to kill even if she/he does take a life or cause death. On the other end of the spectrum, "self defense" is a legal justification that can be used at any time one's life is threatened with deadly force.
I cannot understand why both abortion arguments cannot simultaneously be correct... that an unborn child is life and that abortion is "taking" that life, but that the state provides a legal excuse for such taking of life because of the overwelming considerations of the mother's right to control her body.
It's nuanced, but it's probably the most intellectually honest argument on the abortion issue.
Exmun, I would agree that that is the most intellectually honest pro-choice argument.
I like to imagine what the abortion debate would look like if everyone agreed on the following principles: the embryo/fetus is a human person; a pregnant women does not lose all right to bodily integrity by virtue of being pregnant; contraception and comprehensive, factual sex education should be available to everyone; and the social factors which cause women to feel that they have no choice but abortion or adoption (including but not limited to poverty, discrimination, and fear of violence) should be ended.
The problem emerges because the rights of a woman to control her own body, while something I believe most everyone can agree on, are generally beside the point when we begin to accept that more than one life, more than one body are tied up in the predicament of pregnancy.
BTW: you and I generally agree.
No, I don't think they're beside the point at all. There's a very real question of how to balance the rights of the woman with the needs and claims of the child -- you can't just say that either one makes the other moot.
Perhaps I was unclear with respect to my meaning. My intention was to say that the perspective that says a woman's right to control her body, while something everyone can agree on, is an intentionally incomplete assessment of the situation at hand, seeing as there is more than one body involved.
I apologise for the callosness of my original wording.
The fact that anyone can right that a woman's right to control her own body becomes "beside the point" once they are pregnant, is exactly why this debate has been so stalled for so long. The welfare of fetus and child are tied together -- at no point is one or the other's beside the point. To privledge the well-being of the fetus (only while it's a fetus) over the rights of the adult woman is to treat the woman as an object, property, breeder, sinner, etc. A being irrelevant to the process of gestation taking place inside her -- a vessle and no more.
That kind of perspective is exactly why Pro Choice people are wary of accepting any of the terms of Pro-lifer's characterization of gestation, pregnancy, personhood and birth.
How on earth does one look a pregnant woman in the face and say, "I understand that your concerns, but your fetus is a human being and therefore your well-being is beside the point." What kind of sense does that make? Ah, yes. None.
I apologised above for what could clearly be read as too callous a representation. I did not intend to suggest the right of the fetus to be born was greater than the right of the woman to live. I do not privledge the well-being of the fetus over that of the mother. I simply value and acknowledge the life and body of the fetus.
Mind you, I believe in the moral necessity of abortion rights. This is not to say I am not torn. I have never told a pregnant woman that her rights were beside the point. I do think it's important to remember that this isn't simply the right over her own body she's exercising. It's a right over somebody elses.
I absolutely agree with TNC on this and I was thinking yesterday about this myself.
First, their opponents have it very very hard. It is very difficult not to like the man with that composure and that smile the mofo has. (I found myself smiling when I see him) It is also very difficult not to admire his huge, huge talent as a politician. He didn't concede almost anything and he appeared to be oh so moderate. Man, he is really really good.
As TNC said, if I were someone who believe that all abortion is murder I wouldn't buy the let's trade fair-minded words thing.
Another thing with Obama: he throws his very strong punches in such a way that only the receivers got them. Someone who is not directly involved wouldn't get them. Ask Hillary and Bill and McCain. I knew he did that already but it wasn't funny when he did it to the gays re: to the Rick Warren controversy. I am not talking about the invitation itself but his answer in the press conference. If you are not gay and you are not paying too much attention you wouldn't get it.
Obama is dynamite, really. There are no more references to Obambi, uh?
Glad someone mentioned Rick Warren...how's the old fool doing? I remember when people on this blog freaked the eff out over him. Well..."Obambi" played him like a fiddle, as he did with Mccain, Billary and hopefully Tricky Dicky the sequel...
also...he uses a telepromphfter (TM)!!
Have to disagree with you on Rick Warren. He didn't have a problem with Obama and Obama didn't have a problem with him. Their relationship was totally symbiotic. The problem was that the gays felt that inviting such a prominent anti-gay crusader just after Prop 8 to do the invocation at the inauguration wasn't such a nice thing to do. And Obama answered our critique with a very well done: shut up, this is how it is going to be done and BTW, I am a fierce advocate of gay rights. If you are not gay, and not following the whole drama closely you may think that a) Obama is a fierce advocate of gay rights and b) the gays are being unreasonable --or ...how did you put it?, oh yes, the gays are freaking out!
How fierce has been so far the President on gay rights? Uhmm, not so fierce
Which proves my point. He is pretty good. Sometimes --most of the time and that's why I support him so much-- is the other side who is in the receiving end. Sometimes it will be yours. When it is your time, you will get it.
...i wasn't arguing obama's gay credentials...he's c- at best right now. And i definitly wasn't arguing that "gays are freaking out"...your getting ahead of yourself.
he needs to get it right on this issue, as he does with torture, states secrets, gitmo etc. He's promised change on all of them and delivered on little, policy wise. But, to me Warren isn't the problem...it's the actual policy..
Well, Bruce, I know you weren't arguing Obama's gay credentials, but re-reading your previous post I can't help but thinking that you saw the Rick Warren thing as an Obama v. Warren match. It wasn't.
As for the gays freaking out, I concede you this: it wasn't the gays per se the ones that were "freaking out" but many of the people that were really hurt by the Obama's move were gays and people for which gay rights are a high priority. Some of them freaked out because they saw it as a harbinger of things to come. But some people were hurt and not freaked out, and some gays were meh about the whole thing, thinking that the whole thing was just symbolic and that as long as Obama delivered on gay rights, that was just OK. So, yes, sloppy witting on my side. Hope that know what I meant is more clear.
The basic point that I try to make stands: Obama has an uncanny ability to punch without appearing to be punching --except to those who are in the receiving end. This is a formidable weapon and I admire that on him.
I didn't see it as much as a match as i saw it as two people who drew advantage from each other. And people on both sides thought that was a bad thing...for me it was a "meh" moment...small win for warrens side maybe...i wanted to look at the "big" picture.
now, if you're arguing that obama is a savvy politician...well yes...i think he's sometimes too savvy for his supporters best. I think if people are too kind to him, and don't criticise him when he get's it wrong, he won't change, because that's the type of political animal he is. As you put it, he punches seemlessly and without notice. Now, i must apologize for my poor choice of words, it wasn't intended to be demeaning, and i think it's best for the discourse if such language is left out.
That's exactly what I was arguing, I mentioned Rick Warren just as an example. I think they are other better examples like when he "commended" McCain for working across the aisle just to mention almost meaningless things knowing full well that McCain a) had really crossed the aisle in way more important subjects b) had flip-flopped on those and couldn't defend himself against the back handed compliment. McCain lost it right there and his performance from that moment on went down.
We are good, Bruce.
Reagan told people they didn't have to pay taxes and everything was hunky dory in the USA. After the civil rights and Viet Nam years, cities--LA, Chicago, Detroit, NYC--in flames, Watergate, and the double digit inflation created by the catastrophic first real rise in gas prices, he said it was morning in America, take a nap, and the country, tuckered out from the past decade and a half and used to the post WW2 economic highlife, was more than willing to turn a blind eye to his indicted and convicted administration. As the Soviet Union was collapsing within, a combination of decades of repressive politics, economic incompetence, and costly, ridiculous military adventurism, we were willing to turn a blind eye on our own perfidy. Reagan put everything on the credit card, took credit for events in the USSR that were inevitable, and dismissed those who remained awake in our own nation; he did not engage us, and the band played on.
Insofar as the abortion debate goes on: really it, at heart, has two deeply moral considerations: first, as the pro lifers aver, when does human life begin. Second, less clearly articulated, but no less moral for it--the longest standing issue of slavery on earth; the day that one male plus 50% of men are the primary care givers in the raising of children on earth, perhaps the debate on abortion will change. Pro-choice guarantees that one can bring a child to term if one so desires, but one is not enslaved to do so. That is why when pro-lifers take a self-righteous stand they are on rocky ground.
He did make them look petty -which is fine by me.
I believe in a woman's right to choose. Period. I do not believe that a woman that has an abortion does so lightly.
I always find this construction puzzling. Obama said the other day (I'm going from memory, but this is pretty close), "I am pro-choice because I do not believe that women take this decision lightly."
I don't think women generally take it lightly either, but are you (or Obama) implying that if they did, you would not be pro-choice?
I don't mean to speak for Rikyrah but my reading on this point is that sometimes pro-lifers act as if being pro-choice means regarding abortions as casual inconveniences. I've had an abortion and I didn't walk away from the clinic thinking, "Damn, I can't wait to have another one of those." Instead, I went home and asked the universe for forgiveness and understanding. Thirty years later I still know that was the right decision for me to make at the time.
I think the most vocal folks on both sides of this issue are constantly oversimplifying the other side, with the goal of demonizing them. That said, it's a really big world. Some women no doubt *do* have casual, serial abortions without a moral twinge. Some opponents of abortion surely want to shove women back into nineteenth century sex roles. But by all accounts and all evidence I've seen, both of those are tiny, tiny groups.
It seems to me that there's a large majority of Americans who agree that abortion is almost always a bad thing, even though some think it's a necessary evil. What I wish we had more of is some explicit policies directed toward decreasing the number of abortions happening. For example, making sure birth control is easy to get, and making sure that pregnant women in various situations (in high school, in college, unemployed, poor) can get the support needed to have their baby and maybe give it up for adoption without wrecking their lives, might decrease the number of abortions by quite a bit.
The thing is, if you're going to advocate for a woman's right to choose, then it has to be for all women. Most do not take it lightly, but a small percentage do. Depends on how you define "lightly" I guess. Personally, I think someone using abortion as birth control with multiple abortions over the span of a decade may be taking it "lightly." On the other hand, I support her right to choose even though I find it personally distasteful, because I support it for all women. Obama's doing that thing he does so well trying to illustrate for us both sides of the argument and find a center of civil agreement, and that's one of the reasons I voted for him. On the other hand, not just the women who go home from their abortion and pray for forgiveness should be protected here. The freedom to choose should be for all women, regardless of what I or the government think of their "moral" character and considerations before and after the act.
The 'abortion is murder' philosophy highlights a fundamental problem in how people view issues.
I'm pro-choice, because I see that the status of a fetus as a human life is not 'yes' or 'no' but somewhere in between -- getting closer and closer to 'yes' with the passage of time. As such, I think abortion is a reasonable choice when done early enough, but the longer you wait to do it, the more wrong it becomes.
Pro-life people don't see the gray. Someone (God, their pastor, or their parents) told them life begins at conception, and they accept that. Given that assumption, their position is entirely reasonable.
The problem I see is the binary thinking. Religion strongly encourages it. Bush was a strong proponent of this thinking (For us or against us, countries are evil, terrorist must all be killed -- why worry about why they became terrorists).
Obama is so refreshing because he embraces the gray. His speech on race during the primaries was classic gray -- acknowledging complex and sometimes apparently contradicting realities and people (such as referring to his white grandmother as typical, despite the heat it drew).
For those who beleive life starts at conception, I find it amazing that a clump of cells can be seen as equivalent to a person, even as it has the capacity to become one. The only way to do that is to add God to the mix, which seems like a very bad idea given how our society has thrived on trying to mostly keep religion out of our policy decisions and often gotten into trouble when it didn't keep religion separate.
I'd have to disagree about pro-lifers not seeing the gray--many are pro-life not because they think life begins at conception, but because life begins at some point early enough in the pregnancy that after that point abortions shouldn't be performed (except under certain circumstances). Of course, whether abortions should be completely illegal after said time (as opposed to simply discouraged or restricted), what the conditions to allow for later abortions may be, etc.--that will run the gamut in the pro-life camp (as I'm sure the pro-choice camp contains a range of opinions on the matter). Also, while religion may be a motivating factor for many pro-lifers, I wouldn't assume that's always the case--for many it's simply a moral issue separate from religion.
I think that's exacly it...pro-lifers often don't see the gray...precisely because they think they can pinpoint an abstract idea of "life". If life only equals syncronization of cellular activity, mechanical movement and heart-beat...then yes...that is indeed life. But in reality, life, in all it's frailty, is so much more. A human is not fully a human if not for they're cognitive abilities, actual thinking, the full representation of their "personhood". As it pertains to "potential" life, well, if god intended for us to cherish "potential" life, then women wouldn't menstruate, and sexual activity wouldn't feel so good would it?
The “where does life begin?” question is such a false construct. There is life prior to conception! Two unique living cells combine to create an entirely new living organism. From that point on, even if the zygote never becomes implanted in the uterus, a unique life has been created. That point is not open for debate. Of course, people arguing against the idea that life begins at conception are not making a scientific argument. They are making a philosophical argument to support a rationalization which essentially says that, while, yes, the organism is technically alive and technically a human being, it is still okay to kill that organism since it doesn’t quite look or act that much like a person…yet.
The beauty of the “pro-life” argument is that it’s simply more compelling from a scientific and moral perspective. They don’t have to change. They have a moral clarity that is actually (for once!) supported by science. Meanwhile, “pro-choicers” have to argue in favor of something far less concrete. They have to argue in favor of allowing the complexity life outside the womb to overrule the simplicity of life and existence inside. That’s a tough one.
I concede that "that's a though one"...however...you're completely missing the point of the argument...i wasn't discussing "where does life begin"...of course it begins prior to conception, who would argue otherwise?! My problem is that people think that they can pinpoint when intelligent life is created...in contrast to the puddle of mudd that we call a zygote. Again, for clarification, i wasn't arguing when life begins...i was only arguing that since human beings dont evolve instantaneously, then it isn't clear cut to say "life" or "death". Technically, a human being is born brain dead. It only developes and gains the higher brain functions as the process progresses...to argue that the value of a zygote is equivalent to that of a human being is dubious at best.
I don't actually think it is--and given the state of the debate, I think pro-choicers are doing just fine. At this point, Americans have basically accepted that you can kill an entirely living new organism, within certain boundaries. They've, essentially, accepted that the life is a zygote is not the same as the life of a three-year old.
Pro-choicers have their problems, and have their hamfisted dogma, but I don't think there's much debate over who's winning this one. It's no longer a question of whether abortion will be legal in this country--call me crazy, but that's been settled for decades now. It's a question of parameters.
The "tough" case isn't arguing a women's right to choose--it's arguing that the government should dictate what can happen inside a woman's body.
The "unique life" of a zygote only eventually becomes a person with a staggering amount of processes (i.e. gestation). The "unique" zygote only exists because of the combination of a sperm and an egg that come together. But can't it be argued that 1 second before conception, the sperm the egg also define a "unique" life, just as 500 million other sperm and that egg also define 500 million other "unique" lives. The only difference between the 500 million "unique" lives is that the winning sperm has engaged in the process of conception. This process defines a unique thing, but the sperm and the egg defined a unique combination 1 second before as well -- it's just that now the physical material is grouped in a way that starts a process which will eventually result in a life (given the support system of the mother). This may sound absurd to you, but it is a way of looking at it.
Your idea that people are using this to "rationalize" is way off base and assumes a kind of nefarious motive for thinking.
You say pro-choice people believe that "yes, the organism is technically alive and technically a human being,", but this is just not true. I don't agree that the organism is "alive and human" because I reject the binary answer at this point in life.
Do you agree that a brain dead person with a DNR is the same as you or I? Or should we spend a million dollars a year keeping them alive when that money could be better spent helping other people? Isn't it possible that all "living" things with human DNA are not equally human?
TNC,
Call me crazy, but I think it's considerably more precarious than you do. I also think the life of a zygote is not the same as that of a three year old. Take my son, who is nearly three. He began as a zygote. He did not begin as either sperm or egg. He literally began at the moment of conception. He was already a he when he was a zygote. He was later an embryo. Then he was a fetus. During all that time, he was a human being. That's a matter that is not open for debate, but people still debate it. Why do you think that is?
I tend to think it's because it's a lot harder for people to reconcile that perspective with the perspective that argues in favor of drastically limiting restrictions on abortion rights. I tend to think it's because the argument of a woman having control over her own body becomes a bit more complicated when we accept that a fetus is a body unto itself, rather than a part a woman's body.
Why do people continue to insist that it's unclear when life begins, when what they mean is that it's unclear at what point life acquires value? Why do we need euphemisms if our argument is so strong? If we're winning, why is it still part of our MO to deny simple truths?
Bruce,
I'm sorry to have implied that the "where life begins" argument was directed at you. In fact, it was a topic brought up by BD (to whom you were replying). However, a zygote is a human being.
steve,
actually no, neither sperm nor egg are unique. A sperm is a cell. Like a skin cell. Or a brain cell. Even though one survives in the end, the winner is not unique except for the fact that it succeeds. The same goes for egg cells. Every egg a woman will ever have is developed in the womb. They are identical. They serve only one purpose, and with the creation of the zygote, that purpose is fulfilled.
I don't think people are being nefarious. Although I am a bit surprised that somebody who would liken a zygote going through cellular mitosis to a sex cell would in the same post object to the notion that they may be rationalizing a bit. Let me be clear, I favor abortion rights, and I believe people are genuinely struggling with an attempt to justify something they know to be unjust. It's very difficult, under those circumstances, to come up with any argument that doesn't involve a rationalization of some shape or form.
You, for instance, reject the quality of life. Neither human nor alive? But it's unquestionably both of those things! Oh, no, you say that it's simply a question of small thinking on my part that prevents me from seeing beyond what is verifiable and what is simply hypothetical. That's very convenient. You can try to hypothesize that a moment occurs prior to birth, at birth, or even months after the fact (the first several months of life are called, by many, the fourth trimester), but all of that is rationalization.
I, for one, never said the quality of life of a zygote was equal to that of a child. If given the option between a child dying a zygote dying, I would unquestionably choose the zygote. Likewise if there are complications with a pregnancy or with a woman's basic health that could indanger her should she carry the pregnancy to term, I don't think the moral choice is all that difficult to determine. But there's a hell of a big difference between granting that point and arguing that fetus is essentially no different than an appendix (Or at least more similar to an appendix than it is a baby). That a woman can have her appendix out. Why shouldn't she be able to have her fetus out?
Breaker-baker,
I don't think you an win an argument by just keep stating that your answer is correct. When you say "Neither human nor alive? But it's unquestionably both of those things!", it's Unquestionable to you, but not to me or some other people.
You keeping using this word "rationalization" which implies that pro-choice people agree with you but are afraid to admit it. That's just not the case.
"You can try to hypothesize that a moment occurs prior to birth, at birth, or even months after the fact (the first several months of life are called, by many, the fourth trimester), but all of that is rationalization."
This misses my point completely. I don't see human life as a 0 or a 1. At conception, I wouldn't even give it a zero, I'd give it a slight positive number. As the fetus grows, the value grows to 1. This isn't something I do to hide some agenda, it is how I conceive of the issue and objective reality gives me some support.
You say I rationalize because I "know that abortion is unjust". I'm not even sure what "justice" means here. But ok, I'll bite. Sure it's unjust because the rights of two potential lives are being pitted against each other. If the abortion happens, the mom wins and the fetus loses. That is very unjust for the fetus. If the mom is forced to bear the child, the fetus wins and the mom loses. That's unjust for the mom. The whole point is not that some 'unjustice' exists (as it always will), but rather what is the proper weighting between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Do you disagree with that?
@BreakerBaker...ok, we've now gone into the magical world of he say she say...i say a zygote is not a human being, and you say it is...i'm not going to discuss this further with you for the simple reason that i won't give in, and i guess you won't...so i hope you'll understand that it's still just an opinion you're holding!
@ steve (and Bruce)
I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, I don't mean to tell you what to believe. But human is an adjective. A zygote created when two sex cells of two Homo sapiens merged is, by definition human. Living is a simple state of being. You are either living or not. Are there and can there be different classifications of what it means to be alive? Sure. But when something is living is it also technically alive? Unquestionably, yes. Is a zygote, which is a unique individual that is both human and alive a human being? By definition, yes. That is not a point that can be honestly debated.
Again this isn't to say that a zygote is equal to a two year old. If I believed that, I couldn't very well be remotely in favor of abortion rights. Which I am.
And again, I don't believe you have some secret agenda. I believe you maintain your position through a number of necessary rationalizations (I believe all of our perspectives are the result of rationalization, really such is life). It's not part of an agenda unless you consider living with your opinion to be an agenda. Your increasing scale of humanity (and indeed, I think we all have some kind of scale in our minds) while it serves to answer the question of why you think it's okay to terminate a pregnancy during certain stages, it does very little to mark a threshold for when (except in extreme cases) is it no longer okay. Presumably such a threshold exists. Where do we mark it? How do we justify the mark? People used to talk about viability, but that is a moving target.
Why do I assume people know abortion is unjust? Because I take for granted that there exists a somewhat common sense that it is wrong to kill your child, even if that child has not been born. I don't believe we need the government or religion to tell us it's wrong. I think we know it. The question is how do we live with that knowledge. The answer invariably is suppression and rationalization.
You are either living or not. Are there and can there be different classifications of what it means to be alive?
For the purpose of this discussion, we may have gotten off track with the living/non-living distinction, I thought we were mainly focused on "human" living.
Is a zygote, which is a unique individual that is both human and alive a human being? By definition, yes. That is not a point that can be honestly debated.
And yet we are debating it, because the value of a life as a human life is NOT agreed upon here. You seem to base your argument on a kind of biological classification which would lead us to classify a skin cell (or an appendix) as a human as well (which you've already rejected).
Your increasing scale of humanity (and indeed, I think we all have some kind of scale in our minds) while it serves to answer the question of why you think it's okay to terminate a pregnancy during certain stages, it does very little to mark a threshold for when (except in extreme cases) is it no longer okay. Presumably such a threshold exists. Where do we mark it? How do we justify the mark? People used to talk about viability, but that is a moving target.
yes, I agree that my fuzzy definitions make setting policy more difficult as the equation of weighing the rights of the fetus and the mom is not an easy one, but that does not mean it can't be set. I stick to my position that early abortions are acceptable because I believe that the weights of the mom outweigh the rights of the fetus at that point. You're absolutely right that I do have to draw a line (e.g. first trimester) and that line is based upon a fuzzy equation in my head, but just because I cannot describe exactly how that equation is created doesn't mean it's not a decent line to draw.
I agree it's very difficult to justify where the line should be, but sometimes we do have to draw fuzzy lines based upon fuzzy calculations. Just because my position creates a difficult problem of drawing a line doesn't change my fundamental belief that it is a tough question -- should I abdicate reason whenever it leads me to a place where there are no easy answers? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Why do I assume people know abortion is unjust? Because I take for granted that there exists a somewhat common sense that it is wrong to kill your child, even if that child has not been born.
Yes, you take it for granted, but that's a mistake. I don't assume that pro-life people agree with my conception of human life as a continuous variable, in fact, the whole point of my post is to say how their assumptions are different from mine. Yet you keep on telling me that it is "common sense" that destroying an embryo is "wrong" -- which can only imply that I am some kind of idiot or liar for not believing this "obvious" fact.
I don't believe we need the government or religion to tell us it's wrong. I think we know it.
I agree with the first part -- religion so often does tell people how to think and is the main reason why we haven't had as much stem-cell research in the past eight years as we should have -- what a ridiculous tragedy demonstrating my point -- binary, simple minded thinking that has delayed progess on curing diseases -- talk about immoral.
As for the second part, you said "I don't mean to tell you what to believe", but your actually telling me what I DO believe, which is pretty silly. I actually think it's okay to tell people what they SHOULD believe, because that is how we try and make the world a better place -- by convincing people that our positions are better.
@steve
As per skin cells being human, they are. Human is an adjective. When placed in front of a noun, it modifies the noun. We’re not talking about just any skin cell, we’re talking about a human skin cell. The real question crux about the debate is not whether or not a zygote or a fetus are human, they are quite literally individual members of the species Homo sapien. The key question is whether or not a zygote or fetus qualify as a being. Not all things that have life are an organism unto themselves. A skin cell (or a finger or whatever), though it has life, is not an organism. Instead, a skin cell is part of a multi-celled organism. Seeing as a skin cell is merely a component of a greater whole, a skin cell is not a being unto itself. A zygote is different, but you know that. A zygote is a profoundly unique organism, unlike anything that has ever been or will ever be. That is an important distinction. A zygote, unlike a skin cell or an appendix is not simply a component; it is instead a body and a being unto itself. Once we accept that, and I’m hard pressed to come up with a reasonable refusal to accept it, we move on (as you have) to the idea of the scale that classifies the quality of life.
If we are to accept that the life of the unborn (at any stage of development) is not equal to the life of the mother (and I believe we should accept that), then we have already established some rudimentary hierarchy. Further, if we are going to allow for pregnancies to be terminated when the life of the mother is not at stake (as I believe there is still a need), then we obviously need some kind of scale that considers a zygote different from an embryo, an embryo different from a fetus, a fetus different from a baby. In the end, I argue that the scale is necessary. It is rational. But it is not good. And it is not true. The scale asks that we value these things differently, but it should not obscure the simple fact that these things we value differently are not different things. They are the same thing in different stages of development. I was once a fetus. You were once an embryo. There was not this one thing that became us. We were that thing. And there is an importance to that which I believe the pro-choice community seek to marginalize.
I don’t believe the motives are nefarious (not usually, anyway). I believe people act out of a perceived necessity. There is a sense within many that because abortion is a necessity (which I believe it to be), that it cannot be treated as a de facto tragedy. That we cannot accept the full gravity of what has occurred with each procedure lest we cause some to question its necessity. These people, tend to try to push the darkness of the procedure out of sight. That while it’s not unusual for a woman to feel sorrow, guilt, or clinical depression following an abortion, there’s really no reason for the kind of reaction. Mind you, I do not think these are the opinions of the majority of people who are favor abortion rights. I simply believe these are the loudest voices. And I do believe they have an impact. They persuade some. They repel others. Really, all I meant to be addressing with any of this is that I believe the president’s tone on this, (which expresses empathy and sympathy) to be spot on. I’m sorry if my own tone wasn’t. Posting at work can limit my ability to focus on the argument in as clear a way as I should have.
Breaker:
A zygote, unlike a skin cell or an appendix is not simply a component; it is instead a body and a being unto itself. Once we accept that, and I’m hard pressed to come up with a reasonable refusal to accept it, we move on (as you have) to the idea of the scale that classifies the quality of life.
There's the rub. The zygote does not have many of the qualities that we consider when we value a human life. It has nothing like "consciousness" -- you can argue that we really don't know that it doesn't but I would guess that you would agree with that statement since you have a good science background. Fetuses likely don't feel pain until the 3rd trimester (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166555,00.html). From another standpoint, one can easily argue that almost any living animal has a much higher degree of sentience than any fetus younger than 6 months. So one has to fall back on the 'potentiality' of being human to value the human zygote/embryo/fetus above the life of an animal(which most people do).
Thus we can't argue that a fetus has it's value for what it is , but rather for what it's potential is -- a full human being. Agree or disagree? If you agree then we can go back to a sperm and an egg that sit in a petri dish next to each other but have not gotten together yet. Isn't this a potential human life, with the process of conception plus gestation in a womb? So why isn't this also a potential human, but with some more processes than your definition of a human life (which includes this exact same matter, but after the matter has been mixed to become a zygote). I agree that a zygote is MORE life-like than the sperm and the egg that have not undergone fertilization, but I don't think it's fair to say they contain that much difference in POTENTIAL human life, which seems to be a crux of your argument.
I argue that the scale is necessary. It is rational. But it is not good. And it is not true. The scale asks that we value these things differently, but it should not obscure the simple fact that these things we value differently are not different things.
Again - I have to disagree. They are different things just as a brain dead person is different from a brain-alive person. Most people are comfortable with the idea of letting a brain dead person die despite the fact that letting a brain-alive person die is impossible to conceive. What's the difference between the two? The brain dead person has the same physical makeup, but has different processes that define it's value. In the same way, it's not the physical make-up of a zygote/embryo/fetus that define it's value as a human, but it's processes (i.e. thought, experience, perception). As development continues, the PROCESSES that develop make the embryo/fetus increase its' value as a human.
They are the same thing in different stages of development. I was once a fetus. You were once an embryo. There was not this one thing that became us. We were that thing. And there is an importance to that which I believe the pro-choice community seek to marginalize.
Again, I think it's more rational position to define a thing by what it does and not what it's physical make-up is. Thought experiment: if your brain lived in a jar, but you still had all the same sensations even though all of your limbs and organs were mechanical, would you have the same value as everyone else? I think you'd argue yes, because the brain is where our value as humans comes from. Given the way in which brains develop in embryos and fetuses, I think you have a weak position for arguing they are the same THING as we are, given the very very primitive state of their brains at that time (especially early in pregnancy).
I don’t believe the motives are nefarious (not usually, anyway). I believe people act out of a perceived necessity. There is a sense within many that because abortion is a necessity (which I believe it to be), that it cannot be treated as a de facto tragedy. That we cannot accept the full gravity of what has occurred with each procedure lest we cause some to question its necessity.
the size of the "tragedy" is in the eye of the beholder. I'll certainly agree that the termination of a 24 month old is a fetus because I think that being is pretty close to a baby and the end of that "life" is not a good thing. The end of an embryo's life is a much much smaller tragedy.
Your point about the regret woman feel from abortion is true, but misses the bigger picture. I completely agree that woman might feel a host of bad feelings after an abortion, and I also agree that many woman ignore this when they decide to abort. That said, what about the incredible burden created by carrying a baby to term and then either putting it up for adoption or raising it? -- that is a much larger badness for the woman than the negative feelings associated with abortion, and this must be considered when making the decision.
We can definitely agree on our evaluation of Obama's tone -- the contrast with Bush's simplicity is unbelievable.
I will say that I think the points you raise are among the most intelligent advocating the pro-life argument (even though you favor abortion rights), and that's because you actually think about it. Which gets back to my original point that many people on both sides do not think about it, but there is more non-thought on the right, especially given that the right is so often anti-science along with being pro-religion. Look at global arming and hot the right and left have responded to the science on that subject. I agree that it is healthy to be a skeptic, but the arguments from some people on the right are truly laughable.
steve,
While I get the feeling we’re beating a dead horse here, I do think this is a good conversation to have. I think it’s healthy to express a bit more of a spectrum of belief. As to your most recent points, as we are so deep into this, I will try, likely unsuccessfully, to keep this brief.
1: I don’t think I’ve argued that a zygote has a sense of self, or consciousness, in the way you and I understand it. That being said, I’m not sure our understanding of what it means to have a sense of self or consciousness is a fair metric by which we can authoritatively and ethically ascribe value to life. It is the very argument used to defend (often needless) animal testing, the brutal raising and slaughtering of commercial livestock, as well as just about any form of animal cruelty imaginable, so it’s certainly not beyond any of our imaginations how such a rationale could be (and is, in fact, regularly) misused.
2: I am not moved by arguments that seek to rationalize abortion based around the idea that the fetus does not feel pain; although the condition is extremely rare, Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis is an affliction in which children are born and (if they’re lucky, grow up) unable to feel pain or differentiate between extreme temperature shifts. They never develop a real concept for pain and are therefore forced to live extremely sheltered lives so as to not do harm to themselves. We protect them from their inability to feel pain. We do not exploit their disability to serve our own purposes or convenience. Granted, they are not fetuses, but to carry on from the point you make about defining something by the way it functions, the logical ends of that argument would suggest that we should treat people with various physical disabilities and certainly those with cognitive disabilities as if they belonged to a different class of being.
3: I am not remotely convinced that “almost any living animal” (a category that includes far more species of insect than mammal) have a greater sense of sentience than a fetus of three or four months. And I do have to restate that it is far better to say “person” than human if we’re going to throw the potentiality rationale about. Let me restate, though, that I don’t dispute the need for lines to be drawn. I simply dispute that there are any good options when it comes to when we draw these lines. Which is not to say there are not rational ones.
4: Speaking of rational arguments, your statement that an individual sex cell has essentially carries the same level of potential for what you describe as “human life” is anything but. That’s like saying a guy who holds a lottery ticket for tonight’s drawing has just as much potential for collecting millions as the guy who won the lottery on Tuesday. Actually, the odds are far worse than that. A single sperm has to overcome those kinds of odds just to make it to the egg. The odds against being the single sperm (out of the billions a man will generate throughout his life) that actually fertilizes the egg are astronomical! But even the single sperm that beats those obscene odds will never be what you call a “human being.” Ever. Upon fertilization, a sperm and an egg cease to be. They literally become something else. They go from two different things, to a new third thing which carries an entirely unique (as in never seen before or ever again) genetic code. This new thing will do an incredible feat: over the next 38-42 weeks, it will grow from a two cell organism to one that literally has billions of cells. Try as it may, your sperm will never do that. ;)
5: To your comparison of brain dead vs. brain alive. Again, it all feels like rationalization to me. We treat them differently, yes. As we should. But they are not different things. Let’s come up with a more apt comparison. At thirty, I am different today than I was in 1979, when I was born. Starkly. In many ways, being a newborn is very unlike most any stage of development that follows, so when I was a newborn I was as unlike me as I ever hope to be again. But I think that you and I both agree that I was still me. Sure, change what came next, and I could have become a different kind of person than I am today, but I would still be the same person. I was as much me, I think you and I would agree, the day I came out as I was me the day before I came out. In fact, though it has never breathed air before, a fetus of 30 weeks is not all that different from a newborn. It is certainly more like a newborn than a newborn is like an adult. It’s kind of like (although there are obvious limitations to this analogy) comparing different species of great ape. A chimp looks more like a gorilla, but it is genetically far more closely related to Homo sapiens. A bonobo is more closely related to us than it is to a regular chimpanzee! Of course, unlike a fetus, a bonobo is not us, so there, the analogy falls apart. Yet, we’d still rather kill a fetus than a bonobo, yes?
6: As an aside, brain alive people are allowed to die every day as anybody who’s ever had to endure watching a loved one die in hospice care can attest.
7: You say: “I'll certainly agree that the termination of a 24 month old is a fetus because I think that being is pretty close to a baby and the end of that ‘life’ is not a good thing.” First, I’m not sure where the 24 weeks (as I think you mean) comes from. My guess is this is where you pinpoint the end of the second trimester and the beginning of the third, that is to say that you would be counting a month as four weeks and a trimester as three months. Given that math, though, the gestational period would last only 36 weeks. In fact, it lasts 40 weeks. The first trimester lasts from 0-14 weeks. You can see and hear the beating hear (via ultrasound) at seven weeks. Toward the end of the first trimester (between weeks 10 and 13), a woman goes an ultrasound to measure the nuchal sack, which will help doctors to gauge the likelihood of genetic/chromosomal abnormalities. It is at this point that a woman is able to get the first look at her fetus as a visibly living, moving humanoid complete with arms, legs, fingers and toes. That’s a week 12. Not even a third of the way there. At week 20, you go in for an anatomy scan. The fetus is very close to being anatomically, a baby, and is now large enough that a woman may be feeling the fluttering movements inside. By 24 weeks, less than a month past the halfway point (and your example threshold), a fetus has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb with intensive medical care, a fact that makes it kind of absurd to continue referring to it as a fetus after that point, so while I whole-heartedly agree that the ending of a pregnancy at that point is not, as you put it, “a good thing,” I’m at a loss as to how one would go about pinpointing a moment in the weeks and months prior to that point in which we can safely refer to such an act as an unequivocally “good” thing.
8: While, as a father of two who would have been happy to go on living and working in Brooklyn for the next twenty years, but who now lives outside of Atlanta, I can certainly agree that children can be burdensome, I don’t believe this alone can act to justify an abortion. I understand the fear of the burden. I know that a pregnancy can feel like a punishment or a curse. It is neither of those things. Parenthood is a life sentence, though. A consequence. An opportunity. And a demanding call for responsibility. An abortion, by anybody’s definition, is a way of shirking that responsibility. It is not a way of dealing with the consequences as much as it is an effective way of running away from them. I know that sounds callous.
9: I praise Obama for his tone, not simply in comparison with Bush’s (that’s a low bar to set). I praise Obama’s tone on this whether I compare it to Bush or any other public figure or loud voice on the matter (regardless of his or her perspective).
Again, I enjoyed this back and forth. I do think it’s important for thinking people. Honest people. To speak up and debate this matters. For those of us who generally agree on most areas, but have specific differences to air and understand those differences. Thanks.
Pro-life people don't see the gray. Someone (God, their pastor, or their parents) told them life begins at conception, and they accept that.
One could just as easily say, "Pro-choice people don't see the gray. Someone told them that the fetus is just a part of the mother's body and that abortion opponents are religious fanatics who want to control women, and they accept that."
And, just as your statement is true of some people, so is mine. It's not terribly illuminating to stop there, though.
I agree that people who believe that "the fetus is just a part of the mother's body and that abortion opponents are religious fanatics who want to control women" are morons.
I think it's fair to say that the number of people who believe this is a minority of pro-choice people.
On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the majority of pro-life people do see things in a black-white way because many (but not all) base their world view on the binary thinking that religion encourages.
I think we can all agree that the fetus is a part of the mother physically.
Some days, I would like to send the entire country to Biology 101.
Except that the fetus is a part of the mother's body, so pro-choicers have an objective fact on their side.
I was objecting to the second part as it related to the first -- I think we can all agree that the fetus is a part of the mother physically. I saw my wife's ultrasound and the fetus looked pretty connected to me.
For example, it is moronic to say "the sky is blue and that's because blue is god's favorite color".
If abortion is banned, that law will have to be enforced. How do you do that without exerting draconian control over women? The problem with the pro-life argument is that it refuses to take it's own view to it's logical conclusion. Presuming abortion is murder, you're going to wind up nearly doubling the prison population.
The pro-choice movement is not arguing abstracts based on questionable religious doctrine, arguing law and it's enforcement based on the stated goals of the pro-life movement.
Yeah, I skipped a pronoun in that second paragraph.
Steve -
It is far from moronic to assert that for many people, and particularly for elements of the conservative christian authorities, the issue boils down to one of control.
If these people were truly interested in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, they would support the use of birth control.
But that is not their goal. Controlling when and how people have sex is their goal.
There’s a clear difference between being a part of and being connected to. Your finger is a part of you. The individual cells of your finger (bone, muscle, skin, blood, etc.) all carry, within their nucleus, your genetic code. If we had the technology, we could clone you based on the genetic material contained within your finger.
A fetus, though it is connected by an umbilical cord to a placenta that is attached to the uterine wall is still an individual organism unto itself. It has a unique genetic code. It is attached and utterly dependent on the mother. But it is not part of the mother.
Perhaps we should define the "We" and then we can define the goals. The "We" that I belong to, simply believes that, on balance, a woman is a better judge of whether to terminate her pregnancy than the state, and that she should have that right. By that simple standard, in the long view of history, that "We" is winning. I don't think there's much more it.
People can continue to debate over the ethics of abortion--I think that's healthy. I don't believe that abortion is "a moral good." I believe that choice is a societal necessity. My goal isn't to make people think aborting a baby is like tossing a dresser into the trash. It's to convince them the best answer--not the perfect answer--is to leave these matters in the hands of mothers.
That argument has never, in history, carried more power and had more endorsers than it does right now. I call that winning.
Indeed, we belong to the same “we” and to different “we’s. ” The We I was addressing before was the general We who oppose the criminalization of abortion. Likewise, We belong to the subgroup (within the initial WE) that believes if abortion is legal, the person to make the judgment as to whether or not a woman has an abortion is the woman herself. This is not to say that I belong to a We that says the woman’s judgment on the matter is always and necessarily sound. Simply, that if anybody is going to make the decision, it has to be her. I don’t know if on that, we belong to the same We. But I also ascribe to the societal necessity perspective, although I believe that could change.
As to whether or not We are winning. I personally believe there’s a bit more fluidity of thought. Generally, I think the nation is more ambivalent. I think they believe abortion should be legal, but I think they're also turned off by the argument that denies the humanity of a fetus, this is the perspective that likens a fetus to an organ, nothing more than a part of the woman’s body or, worse, a parasite, an intruder that can be justifiably expelled as a matter of fact. Given that I believe there to be a fluidity of thought on the matter, I believe such rampant intellectual dishonesty, which once fueled the cause could one day undermine it.
This basically sums up my position, also.
I don't so much disagree with your critique of the pro-choice argument as I (with all due respect, no sarcasm) think it's irrelevant. I think pro-choicers have helped make the point--but I don't think some of the more obnoxious arguments are the reason why Americans continue to protect abortion.
It's because the issue is so personal. If you're a woman, the idea of the state dictating such a decision to you is often horrifying. If you're a father/brother/husband/son the idea of the state dictating the decision for your loved is often horrifying.
Obviously not everyone believes this--but a lot of people do, enough that abortion is still legal.
Again, I understand your point about obnoxious arguments--but I don't think those arguments are what motivate every day people.
It's like the Schiavo thing. There is a particularly callous way of looking at end of life issues. But that's not what motivated so many people. It was the idea of the government telling them how to care for their loved one in their last days that scared them. And understandably so, I might add.
I'm not here about the abortion debate, but about the ND debate.
The overwhelming majority of ND students supported the invitation (including many who are pro-life). The batshit craziness came from Randall Terry and his extremist ilk who basically decided to invade South Bend for the duration. Talk to the vast majority of the ND community, and they are almost to a person supremely pissed at the clusterfuck these yahoos turned commencement into.
The situation wasn't helped by the media. An ND student told of a fellow undergrad who was asked his opinion by a CNN reporter - when he began to express support of the university giving Obama an honorary degree, the reporter cut him off in the middle of his response with a curt "Thanks" and went off to find some nutjob holding a fetus in formaldehyde.
As I said above, the moral issue for pro life appears to be quite clear. However, the moral issue for abortion--the issue of defacto since the beginning of humanity slavery--is always glossed over--just look at the thread so far. Not only is there the issue of what goes on within a woman's body, which goes to the heart of the legal decision, but who is responsible for the labor of child raising. Because there is choice, one can choose to bring a baby to term if one wishes to do so, but unless there were laws enacted and enforced, and abortion outlawed, women would remain the responsible work force for raising children--a two decade commitment. To the men advocating for life, I ask you are you willing to work for legislation that demands men be not only responsible for at least one half of the costs but the whole responsibility for raising each and every child born in the world?
I for one do not think this is simply a social necessity issue. I am a son, brother, father, and grandfather to women and a girl. However, that does not mean that I don't see the pro-life's moral (stronger than just ethical) position, only that at this point in history, it does not hold precedence for me.