A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live
A couple of days ago, I wrote a post about Michele Bachmann’s latest crazy claim — this time that the health care reform legislation favored by Pres. Obama would allow 13-year-old girls to get abortions authorized by school health clinics and go home afterward with “mom and dad none the wiser.”
A lively conversation started up in the Comments section about the larger issue of public support for abortion rights and whether or not abortion should remain legal. One reader pointed to a recent article at CNN.com titled “Abortion Support Falls Sharply, New Research Finds,” and said he was a bit surprised that no one at TMV had blogged about this poll yet. I think his implied point — that this shift in public opinion regarding abortion rights is significant and should be noted — is well-taken. Hence, my decision to do this post.
First, let me quote from the CNN piece:
Support for abortion rights has fallen sharply in the past year, with Americans now split roughly 50-50 between those who back legal access to abortion and those who oppose it, according to a new survey.
The findings mark a dramatic shift in public opinion, supporters of abortion rights have outnumbered opponents for many years, with one brief exception, studies have shown.
But only 47 percent of Americans now feel abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a drop from 54 percent a year ago, according to the poll.
Meanwhile, 45 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. That’s up from 41 percent a year ago.
Given the survey’s margin of error, the two camps are statistically tied.
“These data suggest that a number of people have changed their minds in the past year,” said Gregory Smith of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, one of the survey’s authors.
If you look at the actual poll results, there appears to be a rather simple explanation for this shift: We have a pro-choice Democratic President in the White House now. The effect of this is to make liberals and Democrats relax a bit about abortion rights, feeling perhaps that nothing really bad can happen as long as Obama is in office. (I think this attitude is wrong-headed, but that’s another post.) The flip side of the coin, of course, is that Republicans who want to make abortion illegal in all or most cases, and/or even more difficult to get than it is now, feel the urgency of their concern more strongly because they no longer have an ideological friend in the Oval Office.
No single reason for the shift in opinions is apparent, but the pattern of
changes suggests that the election of a pro-choice Democrat for president may be a contributing factor. Among Republicans, there has been a seven point decline in support for legal abortion and a corresponding six point increase in opposition to abortion. But the change is smaller among Democrats, whose support for legal abortion is down four points with no corresponding increase in pro-life opinion. Indeed, three groups of President Obama’s strongest supporters – African Americans, young people and those unaffiliated with a religion – have not changed their views on abortion at all. At the same time, fully half of conservative Republicans (52%) – the political group most opposed to abortion – say they worry Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights.
So this may be not so much about more Americans turning against abortion rights as it is about one demographic considering it a relatively low priority given who’s in power, whereas the other demographic feels a greater sense of urgency.
All of which is not to say that there is no significance to a poll that appears to show Americans turning against abortion rights. And obviously, anti-choice activists are pleased with the poll’s results. What grabs my interest about the CNN piece, though, is the way some of these activists frame their opposition to abortion. There are the usual heartfelt declarations of absolute certainty about God’s existence, what God wants and demands, and why all women everywhere should be governed by their religious beliefs. And then there is this:
“This is great news. This poll shows that the pro-life movement is winning hearts and minds. Pro-lifers are making an effective case that all women deserve better than abortion and that every child deserves a chance to be born,” said Cathy Ruse, the senior fellow for legal studies at the anti-abortion Family Research Council in Washington.
Skip past the stomach-turning, patriarchal infantilization disguised as concern for what women “deserve.” Focus on the phrase I have bolded: “Every child deserves a chance to be born.”
I suppose I should be impressed, because it’s rare that opponents of legal abortion express their true motivations so openly. Usually, this sentiment is couched in fuzzier language about the “right to life.” Well, life, of course, encompasses much more than birth. In my experience, most proponents of criminalizing abortion (note that this does not include people who are against abortions but do not support making it illegal) are not all that interested in a child’s life — only its birth. This woman, at least, is being honest.
Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling a little testy. “Every child deserves a chance to be born.”
Not “Every child deserves to be wanted and loved.”
Not “Every child deserves to have a healthy start in life.”
Not “Every child deserves a chance — not a guarantee, a chance — to make it to adulthood.”
Not “Every child deserves to at least start life having a mother.
Not “Every child deserves to have a mother who is not herself a child.”
Not “Every child deserves a chance — again, not a guarantee, a chance — to be independent, to learn, to play a part, to have choices.
Not any one of hundreds of rights that we owe children because of the simple fact that they did not choose or ask to be here.
No, the right that Ruse sees as supreme is the right to have a chance to be born. If the baby is stillborn, justice has been done because the baby still had a chance to be born. If the baby dies hours after birth, and the mother’s health is destroyed by a pregnancy that was doomed from the outset, justice has been served because the baby had “a chance to be born.” If the baby never gets to eat solid foods, sit up, crawl, or walk; can’t eliminate on her own, can’t move a single muscle, can’t talk, laugh, or even smile; can’t show recognition of anything around her; has to be on medication to prevent devastating seizures that turn her face blue; has to be fed intravenously almost from birth; cannot cough or sneeze and so has to be aspirated regularly so the fluids that build up in her lungs don’t choke her to death; and if that child dies at the age of 3 never having actually lived in any meaningful sense of that word — by golly, justice has been served, because that child had the chance to be born.
CODA: A small portion of this post is slightly modified from a comment I posted in the “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” thread.
63 Responses to “A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live”
I think the day after pill has something to do with it, with more people feeling there is less excuse for abortion.
Leonidas, that makes no sense at all. First of all, people who oppose legal abortion also oppose the morning after pill (which is what it's called). Second, the morning after pill is only relevant in a very specific set of circumstances that do not relate at all to the reasons many women have to choose an abortion.
Try to think about it, okay? Or read my post again. Maybe that will help.
A very long time ago I wrote an editorial that simply asked right-to-lifers to register their concerns for the unborn by registering their names for a special tax that would go to pay for all medical, clothing, food, schooling, transportation, housing etc. etc. etc. for each child born to a mother that did not want that pregnancy.
The conversation changed to the weather, or Letterman…I forget…so quickly that it made your head spin..lol…the fringe right is composed of mindless idiots that cannot even do basic math. Their “morality” is so simplistic that it is evil masked as good. Whenever asked to follow through, especially with their precious cash, on their simplistic morality, you can watch them scatter like ants off a hotplate.
The Devil wears a thousand different suits..
I'm reminded of David Morris in his article the pro-life continuum. He lays out a taxonomy of the spectrum of the beliefs and positions represented within the group sometimes monolithically described as “pro-life.” Captain Oblivious summarizes it nicely:
The Captain points out that “pro-life” does not necessarily mean “pro-baby”
Silhouette wrote:
The conversation changed to the weather, or Letterman…I forget…so quickly that it made your head spin.
GD wrote:
Pro-sperm – the most absolutist position, promoted by the Pope and archconservatives, believes that the sperm has an inalienable right to try to get to the egg
You both made me laugh.
Kathy,
I agree with your list of “Every child deserves to…”, but wouldn't you agree that none of those things are possible if the child's life is terminated before birth? You may disagree with the belief that human life begins before birth, but it is equally baseless to believe that it begins at birth as it is to believe it begins as conception. So, for one that believes it begins before birth, wouldn't it make sense to fight for the children who deserve to be born? So, I see nothing wrong with the statement “every child deserves to be born”. The question of abortion always come back to the question of when life begins. If you look at the other side's position through your own lens, of course it won't make much sense.
“A very long time ago I wrote an editorial that simply asked right-to-lifers to register their concerns for the unborn by registering their names for a special tax that would go to pay for all medical, clothing, food, schooling, transportation, housing etc. etc. etc. for each child born to a mother that did not want that pregnancy.”
There are many families (some of whom I know personally) that would gladly take that woman's baby, and pay a pretty large sum to cover the medical costs and adoption fees. I think it's a shame that adoption still has a stigma in our culture. People who adopt and the women who bare their children are heroes, in my opinion. I do believe that one thing the pro-life movement is missing is a strong support (financial and otherwise) of adoption programs. There's no reason that someone should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt, especially when there are so many people who feel so strongly about the right to life (including myself). If a handful of those people would come together in financial support of those who want to adopt, or maybe even consider adoption themselves, that would probably go a longer way to reducing the number of abortions than standing on street corners with signs will ever do.
If you look at the other side's position through your own lens, of course it won't make much sense.
I'm not sure that's the problem here. If you read my post again, and then read your comment again, especially the first sentence, you hopefully will see that there is a very fundamental logical fallacy in that sentence, as a response to the specific content of my post.
And actually, the question of abortion does not always come back to the issue of when life begins. It comes back to the question of when personhood begins, which is quite a different thing.
At any rate, there is no way one can logically respond to my list of what a child deserves at birth by repeating the same assertion that I argued against in my post. I stated in my post why and how “Every child deserves a chance to be born” is incomplete and inadequate as a statement of what a child deserves. So what sense does it make to come back with the response, “But don't you think every child deserves a chance to be born?”
Now this I can agree with. Very well said.
Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, and amen!!!!!!
I'll be glad to pay a tax for that reason. I'd be glad to expand adoption programs.
“Every child deserves a chance to be born”….
That is true. Every child, also, needs the chance to have all of the things you mention:
The chance to be loved, have a mother, etc.
With abortion their is no chance for those things. With birth, you have the chance. I think adelinesdad said that very eloquently.
If you care about the Christian perspective, I can't help but to think of Jeremiah 1:5….
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”
That's why Christians are so sensitive on this issue. Our God said that he knows his children before, during, and after conception. It's hard, based upon that, to regard the embryo, fetus, zygote (or any other term given) as anything but LIFE.
Just a thought.
[...] Read more from the original source: A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live [...]
This is a very reluctant comment, but perhaps needs to be said.
Abortion is a personal moral issue, not an issue of government intervention. Hating to admit it, I actually find myself in the same postion as former president Jimmy Carter, opposing abortion personally but defending individual choice politically.
Several things have happened to change attitudes on this issue. Abortion has been legal since 1973 (more than a generation). That means that many have forgotten, or never knew, the ugly truth that existed before 1973; that abortion was not so much illegal as it was subterrainian, back alleys, by defrocked doctors, coat hangers in bedrooms, even horror stories of self-administerd Drano by desperate women and not-quite women. The second thing that has happened is the “partial birth” abortion debate, where the pro-life constituancy clearly gained the perception of having the moral high ground.
Additionally, the issue is now mis-framed. If the survey asks about unfettered abortion rights the answer is likely to be different than if the survey asks about general abortion rights with certain restrictions.
One of the mistakes, I believe, of the pro choice constituancy is the failure to recognize the public appeal of restrictions like parental consent and safety regulation of abortion clinics. In their zeal, too many pro choicers have demanded absolutism on the issue and failed to understand the nuances of the broader public. This leads the general public to view them as inflexible extremists, and the general public tends to, at some point, respond negatively to what they perceive as extremism.
Personally, I'd like to see this issue moved from the political to the individual/moral. That is unlikely to happen, and, for now, the pro life constituancy is gaining ground.
I don't understand why we can't all do what Obama proposed on the campaign trail, which is to support a pregnant woman so she has an easier time to say “yes” in keeping the baby.
It would be expensive, offering daycare, health insurance, education, etc. But if we really want to reduce the number of abortions then programs like these are necessary. Otherwise people who b*tch and moan about abortions and want them to be illegal are just whiners who put a price on principals.
GD, “Pro-sperm – the most absolutist position, promoted by the Pope and archconservatives, believes that the sperm has an inalienable right to try to get to the egg – if you are Pro-sperm, you oppose all forms of birth control.”
So… do you happen to know….. what do the pro-sperm folks think of masturbation? After all that is a form of birth control; the sperm have been denied their inalienable right to try to get to an egg.
“I'd be glad to expand adoption programs.”
Yes… but not every mother would want to give her child up for adoption. I think there are plenty of women out there who would like to raise their own children if they felt that it was possible, such as having health insurance, day care, education, etc.
thanks Kathy. I'd like to make a comment about little ones who are born and present in the USA. Mothers and fathers who would love more than anything to keep their children and family intact: Need chance at decent shelter, a decent job, education, decent food, safer rather than raw criminal neighborhood, others who will help with encouragement and be small extended family. Most of all, need NOT to have resources withdrawn from them, and not so fast social engineering transferring wanted babies from poorest families to far better off families by withdrawing or giving no help to the poor.
Adoption ought not cost thousands of dollars because adoption ought not be a business. It ought to be a community involvement. One of the most egregious things I've seen in my lifetime is the orphanages and foster homes and 'holding tanks' in the US, overflowing with parentless children, or children whose parents are mentally incapable of caring for them… but the infants and children are the wrong color, the wrong age, the wrong look, the wrong issues… so unregulated adoption “Agents” have gone to Peru, China, Korea, Africa, Phillipines, Romania, India, and even Native American rez's, to bring what some call “the market for exotic children” to the USA for adoption.
The situation is difficult to understand (for me). Adoption is unregulated in the USA as well. When there is unregulation of any business– I sense from watching the shambles that has come from communications and bank deregulation, that corruption and misuse and greed are often rooted deeply, so much so, even the insiders look past it, saying they are only conducting business… regardless of who it hurts, and how it spins facts… and then, suffer the little children… and the parents who dearly want them.
Of course it is inadequate. Does saying that “every child deserves to be born” imply that that is the only think that he deserves? Of course not. You can argue that we should do more to help children, but no one is arguing that the only thing that children deserve is to be born. It seems you are trying to find a contradiction where there is none. There's no contradiction in the statements “every child deserves to be born” and “every child deserves to be wanted and loved.”
Stockboy, Archangel, and adelinesdad….
Bravo to you all.
I've got no problem at all with supporting pregnant women with tax dollars. Nuturing and the proactive route is always better than despair and destruction. The unborn children deserve every opportunity to be born, grow up, and become something great. They are defenseless and the chance is unfairly taken away from them.
Apparently, Obama's position on this is a good one. Bravo to him as well.
adelinesdad and JD, I'm going to presume you are, in the hierarchy I presented, “pro-fetus” not opposed to all forms of birth control. JD, you present a strong case for the pro-CHOICE position. Namely, by citing Scripture, you remind us that your belief is a religious one, not shared by all, and none in America get to dictate religious belief to the rest of us.
But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the US Constitution. You see, the persons protected in the Constitution are very clearly defined. They are BORN here or naturalized. Once a woman is BORN, she has Constitutional rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and many more. Under NO circumstance can she be forced by government at any level to have or not to have a medical procedure, especially to benefit any OTHER person. She cannot be required to give a kidney to save a life, or even blood. She cannot be forced to have any procedures to benefit her children, who as citizens, also have Constitutional rights. The simple Constitutional FACT is that our rights cannot be subordinated to the rights of other citizens, and certainly not to *potential* citizens. A fetus has no Constitutional rights. It is not a citizen of the USA. It would take a Constitutional amendment to define a fetus, morula or zygote as a citizen. And as I noted above, a woman citizen STILL can't have her rights subordinated to another citizen. Think for a minute about the ramifications if we could be forced to have, or not to have, medical procedures to benefit another citizen. You have two kidneys. There are people who will die unless you give one up. (Preposterous as it sounds, that is what you propose, that a woman give up her right to make health decisions for herself and instead make them for another citizen or in the case of abortion decisions, a non-citizen).
If all of this sounds callous, it shouldn't. The fact is that MOST fertilized eggs do not become a baby citizen. There are over 100 reasons a pregnancy might fail, and more fail than not. For a US citizen's rights to be taken away to protect a mass of cells that MIGHT become a citizen is just wrong. And it's unconstitutional.
There are a number of good points made in this thread. The one that stands out for me most was made by tidbits (my emphasis):
“Additionally, the issue is now mis-framed. If the survey asks about unfettered abortion rights the answer is likely to be different than if the survey asks about general abortion rights with certain restrictions.”
People on both sides of the discussion are framing their opposition in absolute terms.
From the pro-choicers, we tend to hear things like… anti-abortion= no bc pills, morning after pills, no consideration for rape / serious danger to the mother, etc..
The pro-lifers have a tendency to frame it thusly: abortion = murdered children.
Even the preferred nomenclature for one another is obfuscating. (pro-life = anti-choice; pro-choice = pro-death)
In truth, the vast majority of people in this country have opinions that are FAR more nuanced on this issue. I've stopped trusting the polls about this almost across the board, because asking about abortion in general terms gives general answers, which are totally worthless.
Conservatives are often criticized by liberals for taking the constitution too literally in issues of states' rights, gun control, or redistribution of wealth. But when it comes to abortion, we should take the phrasing literally? Yes, I'm sure when the framers used the word “born”, they specifically had in mind to exclude the unborn. But when they enumerated specific powers given to the federal government, they did not mean to exclude any other power the federal government might later want to have. Or when they talk about freedom to bear arms, I'm sure they just meant for that right to apply in rural areas for the purposes of hunting. I don't know your specific positions on gun control and states' rights, so it's unfair of me to assume. So I'll ask: GD, what are your thoughts on the constitutionality of gun control laws and states' rights?
Secondly, who is arguing that women should be forced to undergo any procedure? Would you deem mother nature to be unconstitutional, since she requires that pregnant women to eventually give birth? It is a medical procedure that is required to avoid giving birth. A medical procedure is not required (although it is often sought to assist, for good reason) in the process of giving birth.
Thirdly, the specific issue I had with this post is the presentation of a false choice–that the ideal that everyone deserves to be born is somehow at conflict with the ideal that every child be born in a loving family, or to have good health, etc. This would be false even if your constitutional argument is correct.
thanks for the reply. I know this is a highly emotional issue, so I want to tread lightly. My overall point is that the woman is a citizen with rights, including the right to make virtually any decision with respect to her body. By what right do you subordinate that right to another citizen? Leaving the “potential citizen” aside for now, should she be required to give blood or a kidney if her child needs it? Should the father?
Thanks to each of you. . .this is the first time i have read a thread or heard an Abortion debate done with civility from each side making valid and thought provoking points. . .
only when people approach the Pro life and Pro choice with this kind of dialogue will there be a possible resolution for our country. . . Thanks maybe there is hope. . .
JD: “I'll be glad to pay a tax for that reason. I'd be glad to expand adoption programs.”
Let's start by expanded adoption programs to thousands of gay and lesbian couples. Let's see how long before you change your mind.
I understand the public appeal of laws restricting access to abortion; I just don't agree that they serve the purpose they are allegedly meant to serve. They don't respect women's health or lives, they don't do anything positive for the parent-child relationship (and indeed, the government has no business getting involved in the parent-child relationship one way or the other), they don't make an unwanted child wanted, a profoundly brain-damaged child functional, a fatally diseased child healthy, and they don't give a child born to a 12-year-old child, a mother.
That's the one percent of your post I disagree with.
Masturbation is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, which Christians call the Old Testament; abortion is not. The issue of “abortion” (in quotes because of course no word like that comes up in the Bible), is referred to only once and then indirectly — in the Torah passage (I've forgotten the exact cite) that prescribes the punishment for striking a pregnant woman. That passage — which states that one who kills a woman in striking her is to be punished more severely than one who causes a miscarriage but does not kill the woman — has been understood in Jewish tradition to suggest that a fetus is not a person in the sense that the woman carrying the fetus is.
However, we both know which of the two — abortion and masturbation — is the one that religious zealots want to make illegal, and which one they harass and intimidate women for doing: It's the one, of course, that is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible, and that the Bible really has very little to say about.
Also, adoption does not address, in all cases, the problem or issue that leads to the decision to have an abortion. If a woman's health or life is seriously at risk from a pregnancy; if the fetus has a grave abnormality that is very likely to result in death at an early, or certainty of death at an early, age; if the pregnancy results from rape or incest; if the fetus is so profoundly brain-damaged that no independent, meaningful life is possible; then adoption is irrelevant.
This is why, even though reconfiguring society to make it easier for women to carry their pregnancies to term is extremely important and very desirable, abortion still must remain legal because there will always be circumstances in which a woman must choose to have one.
Most of all, need NOT to have resources withdrawn from them, and not so fast social engineering transferring wanted babies from poorest families to far better off families by withdrawing or giving no help to the poor.
As usual, Dr e, you bring up crucial points that the rest of us have missed. The above sentence struck me most forcefully, but the rest of your comment is equally true.
Thank you.
“should she be required to give blood or a kidney if her child needs it?”
No, but it is appropriate for her to be forbidden to do direct harm to her child. That seems to be the more accurate analogy, and again underscores that the debate comes back to the debate over when “personhood” (thanks for the correction, Kathy) begins.
Does saying that “every child deserves to be born” imply that that is the only think that he deserves? Of course not.
Adelinesdad. That is not the relevant takeaway from what I wrote (in my post). My point is not spelled out, but I thought it was clear nonetheless. The point is that “every child deserves to be born” is frequently in conflict with “every child deserves…” the things I listed in my post. To explain further, if a child is revealed in prenatal testing to have a fatal genetic condition for which the survival range is two and a half to 5 years, with no current possibility of a cure, then it's meaningless to say that “every child deserves to be born” is not the ONLY thing every child deserves, because there will be no chance for that child to have any of those other things, ever.
This is just one example; there are many others, of circumstances in which this would be the case.
So yes, there IS contradiction in the statements “every child deserves to be born” and “every child deserves to have a chance to grow up.”
GD,
There is absolutely nothing I can add to that, except: well said.
Health danger to the mother or child, fetal abnormalities, etc. represents a very small fraction of abortions over-all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Un…). I'm no expert on the subject, but I have heard experts say that if a health danger is discovered in the third trimester, usually the most effective way to mitigate the danger is to get the baby out through C-section, not abortion, which actually takes longer than a C-section.
I know some pro-lifers would disagree (and maybe would not even consider me pro-life for saying this), but I would accept making abortion illegal except for in certain rare cases, provided the bill was carefully written to not allow abuse of the exception clause. However, I respect the view of those that disagree because (a) I don't believe any one view of when personhood begins to be superior to another (prior to birth of course), since the matter is entirely subjective, and (b) if one believes that personhood begins at conception, or at some other time before birth, the logical conclusion is that the fetus should be protected the same way we would protect an born infant.
Conservatives are often criticized by liberals for taking the constitution too literally in issues of states' rights, gun control, or redistribution of wealth. But when it comes to abortion, we should take the phrasing literally?
So you agree that there *is* an implied right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution that makes laws forbidding abortion unconstitutional? And an implied right to health care?
If you say yes, and we agree on the underlying principle that a law, to be constitutional, must be rooted in, or implicit or implied by, an explicitly stated constitutional provision, even if the law itself is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then find me and name me the explicitly stated Constitutional provision in which forcing a woman by law to carry a pregnancy to term is rooted.
A medical procedure is not required (although it is often sought to assist, for good reason) in the process of giving birth.
Tell that to the person whose life is saved by a kidney transplant. Or heart surgery. Or removal of an appendix. Or an abortion.
Bravo!
And personhood begins, per the U.S. Constitution, at birth.
I have heard experts say that if a health danger is discovered in the third trimester, usually the most effective way to mitigate the danger is to get the baby out through C-section, not abortion, which actually takes longer than a C-section.
I don't know who these “experts” are to whom you refer, but no competent or qualified medical professional would make a general, blanket statement about what the most effective way is to mitigate danger to a woman's health or life in the third trimester, or at any point in pregnancy. It depends on the woman's medical history and on many other factors as well. Keep in mind that a C-section is a highly invasive procedure; there's no reason to believe that it's always or even usually the best way to save a woman's life or preserve her health.
I would accept making abortion illegal except for in certain rare cases, provided the bill was carefully written to not allow abuse of the exception clause.
What constitutes “abuse” and who gets to decide? Does the government start second-guessing a woman's doctor now, and substitute the judgment of strangers and non-professionals for the judgment of the doctor who knows the woman's medical history and the woman herself the best?
What procedure would you suggest using to draw up an authoritative list of fetal abnormalities and health threats under which it would be acceptable for the government to substitute its own judgment for that of the woman involved as to which threats to her health or life are trivial enough to subordinate to a child's “right” to be born?
I would add that the very concept of a woman “abusing” the right to make decisions for her own health and life is deeply offensive.
It seems to me this debate has run its course, so I'm not going to spend more time lengthening this thread. But I do want to clear up some things that perhaps got lost in the shuffle:
1) The various sentences that start with “Every child deserves…” that are in question are clearly statements of ideals. None of them are contradictory. Since we live in an imperfect world in which unfortunately circumstances sometimes come up, either by bad luck or by the bad choices of ourselves or others, it is true that in some cases we find ourselves in a non-ideal situations in which an ideal outcome is not possible, or in which two ideals seems to conflict. That does not make those ideals contradictory in the general sense. So, I see no reason why you need to critique someone who says “every child deserves to be born” for supposedly contradicting your statements that “every child deserves to be wanted and loved” or your other statements. I agree with all of them, and in truly tragic circumstances where not all of them are possible, it is heartbreaking. But most abortions happen not because all of the ideals cannot be met. Most happen because the decision is made that the ideals would be too difficult to meet, despite the availability of families willing to adopt.
2) I do not agree that the founders intended to specifically exclude the unborn from citizenship. The first paragraph in my response to GD was sarcasm meant to bring to light the inconsistent position held by those on the left: that we should interpret the constitution absolutely literally in regards to abortion, even when there is no evidence that the founders ever considered the question, and at the same time they argue that conservatives should not take so literally things such as the enumeration of states' rights, even though there is ample evidence about what the founders did intend. It takes an immense suspension of disbelief to believe that the founders purposefully used the word “born” in order to specifically exclude fetuses. In any case, that phrase is used to define who is a “citizen”, not a “person”. Last I checked, it is illegal to kill someone, regardless of whether that person is a citizen or not. (For the record, I don't consider abortion to be the same as murder, but I understand the position of those who do as it is the logical conclusion to the valid belief that full personhood begins before birth).
Per the US Constitution?
Not true.
AD,
I know you said this is your final contribution to the thread, but I do want to respond to a couple of your points. If you want to comment in return, feel free — I won't hold it against you.
I see no reason why you need to critique someone who says “every child deserves to be born” for supposedly contradicting your statements that “every child deserves to be wanted and loved” or your other statements. I agree with all of them, and in truly tragic circumstances where not all of them are possible, it is heartbreaking. But most abortions happen not because all of the ideals cannot be met. Most happen because the decision is made that the ideals would be too difficult to meet, despite the availability of families willing to adopt.
First of all, there are many circumstances in which not all of those conditions can be met. It happens all the time, probably every single day. In other words, your phrase “in truly tragic circumstances where not all of them are possible, it is heartbreaking” seems to me to suggest a tacit assumption that such circumstances are relatively rare. They are not. They are not at all rare.
Second, one of the reasons I take exception to the statement “Every child deserves a chance to be born” is that this statement is usually made by someone who wants abortion to be illegal in all or most cases, and as GD noted earlier in this thread, there is an inverse relationship between opposition to abortion being legal and support for social policies and laws that help babies, children, pregnant women, and mothers (especially single mothers). So although for you there may be no contradiction between the statement “every child deserves a chance to be born” and the statement “every child deserves to be wanted and loved,” etc., in reality there most definitely is a contradiction — because the same people who want to force women to bear children also usually oppose any kind of progressive social policy.
For this reason, among others, I think it's much sounder public policy to make sure that every child is born wanted and loved, with a reasonable chance at a healthy start in life, and with a mother who is healthy and alive and an adult, rather than to pass laws criminalizing abortion. My feeling is, Let's make sure that the social infrastructure is there to assure that every child is born with those rights already fully realized, rather than forcing women to have children they don't want or can't care for and just hope for the best.
Even when (and if) we ever do that as a society, there will still be circumstances in which the statement “Every child deserves a chance to be born” is meaningless and untrue. This is the third time I have made this point now (the second time if we don't count what I said in my post, where I did not spell it out). If an unborn child has an anomaly that is incompatible with life, or with long-term survival, or with any kind of meaningful existence, the statement “Every child deserves a chance to be born” is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't connect with the reality. It doesn't have any meaning.
I don't know how I can make this point more clear, but you keep on coming back and repeating the same thing without acknowledging or responding to my point. You cannot logically say that a fetus revealed by prenatal testing to not have a brain — literally, no brain — deserves a chance to be born. That's an extreme case, but it happened to the sister-in-law of someone I used to work with, and she had an abortion, and she was not someone who would ever have thought she would choose to have an abortion. She was married, it was a planned and wanted pregnancy. And there are plenty of cases not as clear-cut or extreme as that in which a “chance to be born” is meaningless and even cruel.
But most abortions happen not because all of the ideals cannot be met.
It doesn't have to be “all of the ideals.” A child without a brain is not “all of the ideals” it's only one, but it's still absurd to say a child without a brain or with only a brainstem deserves a chance to be born. Furthermore, they're not ideals, or shouldn't be. They should be serious commitments society makes to every child that is brought into this world.
Most happen because the decision is made that the ideals would be too difficult to meet, despite the availability of families willing to adopt.
That, AD, is one of the most outrageous assertions that people who want abortion to be illegal make — all the more so because it's probably the most common.
Hear this, AD: You do not know the first thing about the reason for any abortion unless you are intimately and personally familiar with the woman having the abortion. It doesn't matter how many times you say, it's not true. It's flat-out false, and it's so presumptuous that if steam could come out of my ears, it would. You cannot see into the hearts, minds, families, lives, personal histories, medical histories, problems, challenges, circumstances of millions of women you don't know, never met, never will meet. Forget about it, AD. You don't know, and it's deeply wrong for you or anyone to pretend or imagine that you do.
Furthermore, your “despite the availability of families willing to adopt” is also a falsehood in its implication that all, or even most, unwanted babies are adoptable, or actually are adopted. Do you have any idea how many children are in the foster care system? Well over half a million as of September 30, 2001, according to this site. Many such children in the foster care system have been abused, neglected, and/or have serious physical or emotional problems.
Here are some sobering figures to bring you down to earth if you really believe there's a loving adoptive family for all or even most babies and children who need one.
I do not agree that the founders intended to specifically exclude the unborn from citizenship
That's not the point, though, whether they specifically intended to exclude the “unborn” from citizenship. The rights enumerated in the Constitution attach to persons who are born in the United States or attain naturalized status in the United States. I won't use this thread to get into all the many reasons why it's ridiculous to argue that fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are citizens. What's relevant in the context of this particular discussion is that the U.S. Constitution defines the rights it enumerates as applicable to persons who were born or naturalized in the U.S. That seems pretty clear to me.
A constitutional amendment of course would change that, but as it stands now, fetuses are not persons or citizens under the law.
Last I checked, it is illegal to kill someone, regardless of whether that person is a citizen or not.
You are begging the question of how “someone” and “person” are defined.
(For the record, I don't consider abortion to be the same as murder, but I understand the position of those who do as it is the logical conclusion to the valid belief that full personhood begins before birth).
So you recognize that the statement “abortion is murder” is a belief, not a fact. You recognize that IF you believe that full personhood begins before birth, then the “logical conclusion” for YOU, as someone who holds this belief, is that abortion is morally wrong. By the same token, your neighbor or friend may believe that full personhood begins, not just “before birth,” but at the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, or even before that, when a huge crowd of sperm are competing with each other to see which one can fertilize the egg first. Whose belief should govern the bodies of millions of women? Yours, or your neighbor or friend's?
An even better question: If it's only a belief no matter how valid, and not a fact or an indisputable reality or truth, that an unborn child is already a full person, then how do you justify imposing your beliefs on all women? If you're just saying that you believe a fetus is a person and you think abortion is wrong, then you're right that that's a valid belief — for you. It's when you and other people who think like you tell me they want to make all or most abortions illegal for all women based on your belief, which may not even be the same as your neighbor's belief or your friend's belief, even though you both oppose abortion, that I start to see red.
For the life of me, I don't know how you justify doing that.
The Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade separated personhood from humanity. In other words, the judges argued that a developing fetus was a human (i.e., a member of the species Homo sapiens) but not a person. Since only persons are given 14th Amendment protection under the Constitution, the Court argued that abortion could be legal at certain times. This left to doctors, parents, or even other judges the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding when personhood should be awarded to human beings.
(Author K. Anderson).
So we only protect “persons”, not human beings according to the Supreme Court. Is that ok with you?
If so, then what is the argument for protecting non-citizens who visit here? Are they not entitled to life?
Your argument states that the “life” within the womb is not protected by the Constitution. And yet it is illegal to take a “human” life?
If visiting non-citizens are entitled to life (event though they are not under the Constitution), how can you eliminate a “fetus” because they are not yet citizens?
That is argument is not logical.
Can't gays and lesbians currently use artificial insemination?
Let's focus adoption on those who try to conceive and cannot, first. Shall we?
“Masturbation is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, which Christians call the Old Testament; abortion is not.”
And your point?
Are you saying, “Since masturbation is ok, then abortion is ok?” I know you're not.
Masturbation is not the topic. But since you brought it up, as Jews or Christians we shouldn't do that either. Nor should we give the middle finger, which is not in the Bible either.
If you actually studied Scripture, which I will assume you do not, other than to attempt to turn religion against those who faithfully practice it; you would know that you must study the entire Bible to find your answers – not merely take one line out and use it to your benefit. You must know the context, how it fits in relation to the new covenant, and how it is truly meant away from man's influence and opinion.
” has been understood in Jewish tradition to suggest that a fetus is not a person in the sense that the woman carrying the fetus is”..
It is not understood that way in Jewish traditon. Abortion is strictly abhored by orthodox Jews. Once again, see Jeremiah 5.
As I've said before…. In Biblical terms, abortion is wrong. Muslims, Bhuddists, Jews, & others consider abortion murder. Only the humanists, who stand directly against God, attempt to make excuses for all sinful behavior as acceptable.
* It's not the murderers' fault.
* It's not really a baby.
* and so on.
As I said in my previous post, I don't want to lengthen this thread and I'm sticking to that, especially because I've apparently made you upset (like GD said, this is understandably a sensitive topic) and so it's unlikely that we're going to be able to have a productive discussion from here on. But it appears some of my clarifications did not actually perform their function, so let me try again.
You said: “First of all, there are many circumstances in which not all of those conditions can be met. “
I said previously, “Since we live in an imperfect world in which unfortunately circumstances sometimes come up, either by bad luck or by the bad choices of ourselves or others, it is true that in some cases we find ourselves in a non-ideal situations in which an ideal outcome is not possible”. I'm agreeing with you Kathy. But the statistics on abortion which I already linked to are clear that most abortions do not occur because of such circumstances. I am not attempting to look into their hearts. I am reading the response to the question, “why did you have an abortion?” No need for mind or heart reading.
You said: “It doesn't have to be “all of the ideals.” A child without a brain is not “all of the ideals” it's only one”
To clarify, this is the meaning I intended. The meaning of “any” might have been ambiguous: “But most abortions happen not because one of the ideals cannot be met.”
“Can't gays and lesbians currently use artificial insemination? Let's focus adoption on those who try to conceive and cannot, first. Shall we?”
Ah, did I catch you in your bias? (hint) You do realize those statements are contradictory, right?
Thank you sparrow. Some of us really do try to discuss even the most emotional issues calmly and without throwing bombs.
For adelinesdad and JD, the issue is not how many parents are willing to adopt, or how many fetuses are likely to be born damaged or die in utero. My point is that we have no right to take away a woman's constitutional rights. Let me illustrate with a couple examples.
Mary is undergoing treatment for cancer. Her birth control fails (or her “won't power”) and she becomes pregnant. The chemotherapy drugs could kill the fetus; Mary could die without them. She is very afraid of dying and terrified of her cancer. Continuing the therapy will, in your words adelinesdad, “do direct harm to her child”. You say she should risk or sacrifice her life for the fetus, which may very well not survive anyway. I say the woman's right to life and freedom is guaranteed while the fetus has no constitutional rights at all. But let's say your view prevails and during pregnancy the woman cannot do “direct harm” to her “child.”
Now consider that many, perhaps most drugs are contraindicated during pregnancy; blood pressure, diabetes, hormonal treatments, anticoagulants, almost all of them. So by subordinating a woman's rights to the “rights” of the fetus, you essentially deny a woman's right to almost any medical care during pregnancy. Obviously it would be illegal for her to smoke or drink too, and while we're at it, her diet could “do direct harm to her child” as could her career or recreation choices. I know you are not advocating so extreme a denial of her rights, but just the first step. I'm thinking like a lawyer. It is currently clear that a woman legally has rights that you wish for her not to have. But subordinating her rights to those of a fetus is the most extreme departure from constitutional rights.
To remove any arguments based on how “likely” it is that the baby or mother are at risk or the “federal takeover of health care” that would ensue in a government official deciding whether or not a woman has a right to treatment that might harm her fetus, let's dispense with all that.
It is statistically true that abortion is safer than bearing a child. The first and most fundamental right granted by the Constitution is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Currently NO ONE in America can be forced to make any decision that increases the likelihood of their DEATH. A woman who decides to abort a fetus, REGARDLESS of her reasons, is choosing to increase her survival chances. As callous as that may sound to you, it is true. She is safer not continuing the pregnancy and in order to change that, you have to undo the most fundamental right granted by the Constitution. You have to abrogate a citizen's right to decide how best to protect her own life. It doesn't matter how much risk there is, and it doesn't matter if her fears are irrational. We are allowed to have irrational fears.
“Can't gays and lesbians currently use artificial insemination?”
Only if they're rich. And have a womb. And heck, from an evolutionary point of view, they are “trying to conceive”. I mean, that's why all the fun bits are so fun, even if on an intellectual level the members participating know that no conception can take place. It seems that in the present situation, where we have so many thousands of kids without permanent and loving homes, and thousands of gay couples who want nothing more than to provide a loving home to one of those kids, it seems that you're advocating that punishment of the gay couples for being gay is more important than the welfare of the kids they would provide homes for. That seems fully antithetical to everything else you're saying.
GD and Kathy — You are awesome, and I very much appreciate and agree with your comments. Just so you know.
Well, of course, you've made me upset, adelinesdad. But that's not your fault. The subject is inherently upsetting for people who have strong beliefs one way or the other. You have expressed your strong opinions, as I have, with as much civility, thoughtfulness, care for the words you choose, and respect for the feelings of others, as can reasonably be expected given how personal and emotional this issue is. That's not something I can say for everyone (in general, not just here), and I appreciate it.
And besides, I can take it.
Since you prefer not to continue contributing to this thread, I will respect that, and let your clarifications stand, with no further comment from me.
GD,
So many crucial and excellent points, so well made.
Thank you.