You will recall that when Paul Ryan became the GOP vice presidential nominee presumptive, I noted the rejoicing of Serious Journalists (SJs) that the country would now embark on a Serious Adult Discussion (SAD) entitlement reform. And as a SJ myself, I too rejoiced, though not without some skepticism that such a SAD would actually occur. (And I rather think that my skepticism has been borne out pretty well thus far.)
Anyway, now that Todd Akin has declined the imprecations of his Republican colleagues to remove his hat from the Missouri senatorial ring, I'm hoping that SJs everywhere will join me in calling for a SAD about abortion. To start the discussion off, here are four questions for those who would like to change current law and take the country back to the days when abortions were illegal.
1. If you believe life as a person begins at conception, what are the grounds, if any, for justifying exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
2. If abortion is murder, on what grounds should a woman who obtains an abortion not be charged with murder?
3. If abortion becomes illegal again, would you be willing to grant a religious liberty exception for those (e.g. Orthodox Jews) who believe that the life and health of the mother should take precedence over the life of the fetus?
4. If you had your druthers, what would you really like abortion law to say?
I confess I'm even more skeptical that an abortion SAD will take place than an entitlement SAD. Because the pro-life community is even more disingenuous than the pro-entitlement-reform community.
Michael | Aug 22, 2012 | 12:23pm
It’s not that they’re “disingenuous,” which, unless I am unfairly inserting a critical connotation you did not intend… so much as they, as a movement, are so monomaniacally focused on their single goal (overturning Roe) that they have not paused to think through the practical political implications of their agenda.
You are right to ask them these questions, the most pressing of which, to my view, is the, “Okay, so say you get what you want… What next?” But I do not think it is fair to deride them as disingenuous. They’re plenty sincere. In fact, if anything, it’s that they’re frequently blinded to larger political realities by an all-consuming, visceral sincerity that precludes them from exploring the questions you have included above.
James Davis | Aug 22, 2012 | 12:46pm
The four questions are good ones, but they’re one-sided. Here are four for the other side:
1. When does human life begin? If not at conception, when? And on what scientific grounds, and by whose authority, do you make that determination?
2. At whatever threshold you choose, what justifies taking a life a minute or so after that threshold?
3. Rape and incest are heinous crimes and must be stopped. But does killing a defenseless human fetus balance the scales of justice?
4. Saving the mother’s life has been a solid criterion for decades. However, it was gradually stretched to cover emotional, vocational, financial and other factors as well. If it is reaffirmed this time around, how to prevent another slippery slope?
ctd | Aug 22, 2012 | 1:17pm
It’s hard to take Silk seriously when he himself is disingenuous about these questions.
Steven | Aug 22, 2012 | 6:07pm
Mr. Davis,
1) Considering the vast majority of fertilized eggs (conception) pass as menses, failing to implant in the uterus, on what basis can you claim that human life has become viable at fertilization? And on what scientific grounds, and by whose authority, do you make that determination?
2) If an embryo is a human life, what rights does it have to claim residency within another human life?
3) Is rape and incest are heinous crimes, is not 10 months of torture even more heinous? Are not mental and physical abuse also heinous crimes?
4) Why are you so obsessed over what happens with a few cells living within another human being? Are you likewise upset with animal abuse to the microbes within humans who use antibiotics?
5) If a fetus or embryo shares special rights to a woman’s womb, is the woman prohibited from receiving medical care which may put the fetus at risk? Who has the right to make these medical decisions?
Anselm | Aug 22, 2012 | 7:44pm
So, everyone has staked out one of the fairly usual positions on the topic via a rif on Silk’s 4 questions….
I think the level of talking past one another points out both:
1) how difficult it is to have a ‘serious adult discussion’ on this topic, and
2) how difficult it is to reach any shared vocabulary and ethical framework for deciding these sorts of fundamental matters.
As someone who feels that more than one side in this debate has weight to its position (when genuinely articulated, which is rare), what do we think of the following propositions as starters in a SAD:
A) abortion is not ideal (this would seem to be granted by both pro-life folks and pro-choice folks).
B) there is empirical evidence as to societal factors (that can be put into policy) that reduce the need/desirability of abortion. We should look at ways of implementing such policies.
C) There should be genuine education available for women/couples choosing an abortion as to other options that exist and the likely benefits and costs (financial, emotional, physical, etc…) of the decision. It would be hard, but this information should be presented non-ideologically and be genuinely aimed at making the decision informed (and possibly reducing the need for abortion as alternatives are considered).
D) It is at least morally questionable (though not necessarly forbidden) to base abortion decisions on factors we would abhor when applied in any other arena (gender discrimination, disability discrimination, etc…).
E) Let’s agree to bracket, for the foreseeable future, arguments based on non-verifiable criteria as politically useless (ie, we might actually make progress everyone would value if we spent our energy on issues we might actually be able to reach some degree of agreement on implemented policies accordingly). We agree to not go for the ULTIMATE win so as to all gain some tangible results we value, recognizing we just don’t agree on many of the fundamental issues.
Well, probalby not perfect, but don’t we do things like this in most areas that we have serious adult discussions on?
Kevin M. Schultz | Aug 23, 2012 | 10:12am
Well, let’s all agree with Anselm, that all parties agree “abortion is not ideal.”
If we do, I was struck but a recent report (as reported in Slate) that showed that—forget about sex ed—levels of unwanted pregnancies were decreased considerably (and therefore abortions) when women were given access to free contraception. One of the interesting findings is that most women in the study chose not to take The Pill (which requires a daily reminder, and isn’t always successful), but instead IUDs, which are now safe and last between 3-5 years. I know we’re supposed to hate “intrusive government,” but if the government offered (but didn’t require!) women access to free contraception, including IUDs, recent studies show a remarkable decrease in unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, unwanted abortions. And that, we all agree (I hope), Is Good.
The interesting write-up is here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/07/preventing_unwanted_pregnancies_forget_sex_ed_and_compare_the_pill_to_iuds_.html
Nanabedokw'môlsem | Aug 23, 2012 | 12:03pm
Well said, Anselm. Too much of the conversation revolves around use of the “stick” to stop abortion. Too little focuses on use of the “carrot.”
I sometimes think that certain of us object to the ‘carrot’ approaches because the cost of litigation about the legality of various ‘sticks’ and the costs of prosecution if legality is established, are together lower than the costs of ‘carrot’ programs to assist the pregnant and the resulting young. If one considers the Founder of our Church, one would have to say He would rather prefer helping mother and children, than prosecuting mother.
Arno | Aug 29, 2012 | 11:07am
Are embryos persons? SINCE, as Steve notes above about 50 % of embryos never implant in the uterus but are swept away by a woman’s period, that would mean that 50% of babies die in the first two weeks of life. IF we count these embryos as persons would’t we have to do something to save these lives? Catch all these lost embryos and keep them alive somehow?
People who want legal protection for embryos ignore the reality of human development and don’t realize what it would really mean