This past summer, both Anna Quindlen and Jill Filipovic posed a question for the pro-life community: assuming that abortion is someday outlawed in this country, how much time in prison should a woman who obtains an abortion receive? (I can find the link to Jill’s piece, but not Quindlen’s.) It’s an important question to ask of those who seek to outlaw abortion; nothing can be banned, after all, without criminalizing those who flout the ban. And it forces those who support making abortion illegal to be honest about their long-term intentions.
Jill wrote:
How much time should doctors do?
Do you support executing doctors who perform abortions?
Do you support jailing them for life? For a few decades?
How do we justify prosecuting doctors for performing abortions, but not the women who pay them to perform the abortion? Are there other situations in which a person can pay another person to commit an illegal act — an illegal act that allegedly takes a human life — and not be held culpable?
What about women who self-induce their own abortions, without the aid of a doctor? Do they qualify as illegal abortionists? Should they be prosecuted?
How can it possibly be legally (or even morally) consistent to attach full rights to a fetus and then treat its death as somehow less important, or different, than the death of a born person? Is a fetus’s death less important, or different, than the death of a born person?
I write about this today because Richard John Neuhaus throws out an answer in the January ‘08 issue of First Things (available online only to subscribers). Neuhaus:
Quindlen goes on to contend that, if pro-lifers were consistent, they would demand that the woman procuring the abortion, along with the abortionist, would be criminally prosecuted. “State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest that the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time.” Certainly not a bystander. Addled perhaps, as in confused, conflicted, conscience-stricken—and deceived by the addled arguments advanced by such as Anna Quindlen. The abortionist, on the other hand, knows what he is doing in his chosen line of work. As has been said ten thousand times over, in an abortion there are two victims: the child and the woman.
Bold emphasis mine.
I always enjoy reading Neuhaus, and am often provoked and challenged by how well he makes the case for his deeply reactionary views. But he falls down badly here. First of all, last time I checked, a great many doctors are women — Neuhaus’ use of the male pronoun here is not accidental, as it suits his weltanschauung to imagine that most physicians performing abortions are men. I sense it’s easier to imagine jailing the doctors who perform abortions when our imagination tells us that they are middle-aged white men presumably just “in it for the buck.”
But what’s stunning to me is the way in which Neuhaus tries to disguise contempt with compassion. “Addled” and “confused” are words we use to describe someone with dementia, not an adult human being making a decision to undergo a medical procedure. And while they might apply to some women who choose abortion, it’s absurd to suggest that they apply to all. I’ve accompanied quite a few women to clinic appointments where surgical abortions were performed (let me be clear that most were not women whom I had impregnated). I’ve gone as a youth leader with teenage girls too scared to tell their parents. And while a few of these women have, as Neuhaus suggests, been conscience-stricken, most had a great deal of clarity about what they were doing and why they were doing it. Scared? Some were. Sad? Some were. Addled? I’ve been to a heck of a lot of clinics and known a great many women who underwent abortion, and I’ve never met one who was “addled” at the time.
(Let me note also that with the increased use of oral abortifacients, more and more women are “taking charge” of their own abortions. This makes it harder and harder to maintain the pretense of “addledness”!”)
It is true that some women are coerced and pressured into abortion by their families or by the men who impregnated them. But most who choose abortion choose it as the best, or “least worst” of the options they have. And whatever one thinks of the rhetoric of choice, for most women it is indeed a real choice: a difficult one, a painful one, but one that they make themselves after considering their remaining options. To refuse to hold women responsible for the choices that they make is to infantilize them. Indeed, to insist that “only doctors will go to jail” is, in some sense, an even more offensive position than to propose imprisoning women who abort. It suggests that pregnancy — and its attendant anxieties — is so life-altering that it renders women irresponsible. Rights and responsibility tend to go in tandem; once we declare that pregnancy deprives women of the latter, it’s much easier to deprive them of the former.
(Tangentially and parenthetically: I like the “Swedish model” for combating prostitution. The Swedish model punishes those who buy sex, but not those who sell it. Prostitutes don’t go to jail, but johns do. Since many feminists — by no means all — embrace the Swedish model, aren’t we at risk of a contradiction by rejecting the “punish doctors, not women who abort” proposal? Aren’t the two proposals analogous?
The reason I — and others — can embrace the Swedish model for fighting prostitution while ridiculing the Neuhaus proposal is simple: those who provide abortions and those who buy sex are doing radically different things. A doctor’s primary concern, in keeping with time-honored medical ethics, is the safety and health of his or her patient. A john’s primary concern is his own pleasure. The former may accept money (usually not very much), but performs the procedure for fundamentally altruistic reasons. The latter pays money in order to satisfy a craving. The former is primarily concerned with the well-being of the Other; the latter with his own satisfaction. The analogy doesn’t hold.)
I long for a world where there are no abortions. I long for a world where there are no unintended and unwanted pregnancies. After years of agonized vacillating on the issue, I’ve reluctantly and prayerfully embraced the pro-choice position. I still have many good friends in the pro-life community, and I still feel the deep emotional pull of the arguments they make. My longing for the “seamless garment” approach to life is powerful: it’s at the root of my veganism, after all. But one of the things that brought me back to the pro-choice position was the sort of question that Quindlen and Filipovic pose. And the question deserves a much better answer from those who seek to outlaw abortion than the dismissive and belittling one that R.J. Neuhaus provides.
A doctor’s primary concern, in keeping with time-honored medical ethics, is the safety and health of his or her patient. A john’s primary concern is his own pleasure. The former may accept money (usually not very much), but performs the procedure for fundamentally altruistic reasons. The latter pays money in order to satisfy a craving. The former is primarily concerned with the well-being of the Other; the latter with his own satisfaction. The analogy doesn’t hold.
Oops. The proposed analogy is doctor:patient :: prostitute:john. You’ve just argued that a doctor is not like a john. But those are the wrong terms. You want to argue that, either, a doctor is not like a prostitute, or a patient is not like a john.
On topic: I’ve seen plenty of abortion opponents think of women seeking abortions in exactly the way Neuhaus does here. (NB I’m not saying all abortion opponents think this. Just that I’ve encountered many who do.) I wonder why this is. I think it’s clearly inconsistent — clearly if a woman is competent to be a mother, then she’s competent to choose to be a mother; but then she’s just as competent to choose not to be a mother, ie, to choose to have an abortion.
Now, you can agree with that last argument and still think that abortion is always the wrong choice. So abortion opponents have an easy out: just assert that women are competent and hence responsible for the decision to have an abortion, and so,`when’ abortion is outlawed as murder, women who seek abortions will serve jail time for attempted murder. But a lot of abortion opponents don’t want to do this, and I don’t see any other reasonable way to avoid the inconsistency.
Well, here’s the problem: I’m trying to argue that the Swedish model is a good way to think about dealing with prostitution and a bad way to think about abortion. Since the Swedes criminalize johns and Neuhaus et al want to criminalize doctors — in both cases without jailing either prostitutes or women seeking abortions — I was trying to compare johns and doctors. I may be inelegant, but I’m trying to explain why “Swedish model good” — “Neuhaus model bad.”
The anti-choice view is not that women are complete human beings really, but ambulatory wombs, and therefore a woman who chooses abortion is almost by definition broken. A clock cannot choose not to run, a car cannot choose not to start, and a woman cannot choose to avoid birth. It does not compute.
I’d add that a great many anti-choicers probably don’t think this, but would in fact like the threat of jail looming over the head of women who engage in unsanctioned sexual contact, but in a country where 1/3 of women have abortions, 95% of people have had premarital sex, and 98% of women have used contraception, mentioning the jail option is just bad politics. People are willing to accept that female sexuality is naughty like speeding, but not naughty like robbery or murder.
Perhaps “Swedish model good” is entirely consistent with “Neuhaus model bad” because the Swedish model punishes the “demand” side of the equation and the Neuhaus model punishes the “supply” side. So really, the Swedish model and the Neuhaus model are not the same at all, and there’s no need to go further than that to explain why one could believe the Swedish model good and the Neuhaus model bad at the same time.
I think a better analogy to the Neuhaus model would be punishing drug sellers, but not drug buyers. Do you support incarcerating drug dealers but not drug users? Usually people who take this position use the same logic as Neuhaus - the drug dealers are preying upon the weakness of the adicts’ addictions, and the adicts are less responsible for their choices because they are impaired by their addiction (and the psychoactive substances they’re ingesting). For both Neuhaus and the above position on drug dealers/users, the positions “make sense” because they assume/rely on the deminished capacity of the buyer to be responsible for his/her actions.
In contrast, people who argue that effective drug policy should focus on treatment for the users, aimed at reducing demand, are more analogous to the Swedish model re: prostitution.
Here is a link to the text of that article. I think that is all of it.
I find the conversations about abortion in the East Coast vegan community quite odd. For starters, I’ve only ever heard of three vegans identifying themselves as “pro-life” — you, Kucinich, and a former co-worker. All were men, all three came from/converted to Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, and all of them reluctantly embrace pro-choice principles — but are extremely hesitant about applying the label to themselves.
Yet all of the women vegans not only define themselves as pro-choice, but are very active in reproductive rights issues. None came from Evangelical or Catholic Christian backgrounds. Of the four who faced surprise pregnancies, three of them gave birth. The only one who did get an abortion did so because it was an ectopic pregnancy that would have killed her. Had the pregnancy not been life-threatening, she would have carried it to term. (Even though there are many women who would not have told me, when I worked at the vegan restaurant I was also working at the only clinic providing abortions. Consequently, I would have recognized any regulars.)
In retrospect, I’m pretty sure I’m the only one who, if I had faced a surprise pregnancy, would have had an abortion.
I’m not sure why, but this pattern doesn’t really seem to jive with Luker’s motherhood thesis. Maybe it’s just because finals are making my head explode, but I can’t quite put my finger on why. It seems to have more to do with Leviniasian ethics at a political level, but Kristevian ethics at a personal level.
Or maybe I’m just overthinking it to avoid studying for finals.
Are there other situations in which a person can pay another person to commit an illegal act — an illegal act that allegedly takes a human life — and not be held culpable?
Assisted suicide? I’m not fully informed on the law, but I suspect suicide (even attempted suicide) is legal in most states (it’s not legal in the UCMJ, but rarely prosecuted unless there is an impact on unit welfare); however, active participation in assisting another’s suicide is not legal except perhaps under strict conditions. One may argue the recipient of the service, being deceased if the attempt is successful, can not be held “culpable.” Yet, certain death benefits could be denied, but often are not unless specific language exists in the policy/contract.
Perhaps not a perfect fit, but that situation came to mind.
I assume you aren’t in favor in of punishing johns because their “primary concern is [their] own pleasure.” Otherwise you would also have to punish people who buy chocolate cake or back massages. Presumably you think exchanging sex for money in some way is a criminal act (otherwise, why punish either?). In order for you to show the non-analogy, you need to tell us why the john should be punished but not the prostitute and then show that these reasons are different than the reasons pro-life people give for why doctors should be punished but not women who get abortions.
I should also point out that a pro-life person believes, of course, that when a pregnant woman walks into a doctors office, the doctor has two patients, not one. A pro-life person would therefore also believe that the doctor is not looking out for “the safety and health of his or her patient” when he or she performs an abortion, since the doctor is killing one of his or her patients.
Gosh, I’m regretting the parenthetical discussion altogether, as it’s distracting from the point, which is to get pro-lifers to answer the question about what they intend to do with women who abort.
Word!
Amanda, are you sure that the crux of the “anti choice” position is that women are not complete people, but “ambulatory wombs” (nice graphic language, similar to the “sperm receptacle” that a woman is in an earlier post). Could an alternate explanation be that “anti choice” people do not think that women are not complete, but rather that the unborn fetus IS complete, a “non-ambulatory person”.
The wild tangential speculation that “anti choicers” would like to throw those in jail for “unsanctioned sexual contact” is a bit of a stretch. Conservative folks may lament what they perceive to be the degradation of culture and sexual modesty, but I have never heard anyone propose incarceration as a meands of addressing it.
which is to get pro-lifers to answer the question about what they intend to do with women who abort.
I’d just like pro-choicers (And since you civilly use pro-life instead of the perjorative anti-choice, I will forbear pro-abortionist) to explain why a fetus is a lump of tissue in one instance, and Scott Petersen gets two convictions for murder in another.
It’s one or the other. Whole lotta people trying to have it both ways all around.
I actually thought your parenthetical was quite pertinent to the discussion. And I think that if you were to spell out more clearly why exactly you think johns should be punished but not prostitutes, you might come closer to understanding why some pro-life people think the same thing about doctors who perform abortions and women who get them.
Macht, the difference starts with motive: the john’s motive is entirely selfish, the doctor’s rarely (if ever) so. Contrary to the fervid fantasies of some pro-lifers, there is no “abortion industry”; in California, the Medical reimbursement many physicians receive means that they perform surgical abortions at a loss. The john is using a woman’s body for his pleasure, and using it in a distinctly different way than if he, say, hired a masseuse.
There would be no prostitution industry if it weren’t for johns. There would, however, still be abortions if there were no doctors to perform them. That’s a fairly whopping difference.
You’re just repeating what you said above, but you still haven’t answered my question, which is why you think a john should be punished, but not a prostitute. To put it a different way, don’t you think it is inconsistent to say the following with regard people who don’t think women should be punished for abortions but not in regard to your position about prostitutes not being punished:
“To refuse to hold women responsible for the choices that they make is to infantilize them.”
I’d just like pro-choicers (And since you civilly use pro-life instead of the perjorative anti-choice, I will forbear pro-abortionist) to explain why a fetus is a lump of tissue in one instance, and Scott Petersen gets two convictions for murder in another.
Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? That will answer your question.
That said, I presume that you, Gonz, would hold a woman who aborted twins to be as morally guilty, and deserving of punishment under the law, as Scott Petersen. You’re no Neuhaus to pretend that women are addled little things who can’t be responsible for what they do.
The wild tangential speculation that “anti choicers” would like to throw those in jail for “unsanctioned sexual contact” is a bit of a stretch. Conservative folks may lament what they perceive to be the degradation of culture and sexual modesty, but I have never heard anyone propose incarceration as a meands of addressing it.
Well.
Any conservative folks who happen also to be Biblical literalists much logically support execution as a punishment for male homosexual sex. Which goes quite a bit further than mere incarceration.
Any conservative folks who happen also to be Biblical literalists much logically support execution as a punishment for male homosexual sex.
Which is a gross distortion of fundamentalist sola scriptura understanding.
And I am no literalist, but there is plenty to criticize in that particular heresy without having to invent things.
Macht, I think johns should be punished because they take advantage of women’s desperation for their own gratification. (If you look at prostitution globally, particularly in Eastern Europe/Asia, etc., you see how many women are coerced into it. The notion of the “happy hooker” isn’t entirely a fantasy, but the number of well-compensated sex workers who love what they do is small compared to the number of the exploited and coerced.) It’s not “infantilizing” a woman to protect her from a pimp and a john, but it is infantilizing to try and “protect” her from a medical service she wants and needs.
Gonzman: I said “[must] logically support.” I didn’t say, “do support.”
If someone says, “The Bible is the literal word of God; we must obey God by following the Bible’s commandments literally,” and the Bible says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death,” logically, that person supports and endorses that statement.
Tom: “Could an alternate explanation be that “anti choice” people do not think that women are not complete, but rather that the unborn fetus IS complete.”
Please see Ampersand’s chart fairly solidly debunks this claim.
Hugo: “It’s not “infantilizing” a woman to protect her from a pimp and a john”
But isn’t it infantalizing when you try to protect her preemptively?
Lots of people in the anti-prostitution world debate this a great deal, M.E. I don’t think it’s any more infantilizing than, say, telling someone they can’t sell their kidney on Ebay.
That said, I presume that you, Gonz, would hold a woman who aborted twins to be as morally guilty, and deserving of punishment under the law, as Scott Petersen. You’re no Neuhaus to pretend that women are addled little things who can’t be responsible for what they do.
My views on the abortion controversy have gotten me briskly booted out of the “Pro-Life” camp; I have a long history of displeasing the fanatics on both sides. And I am cool with that.
and the Bible says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death,” logically, that person supports and endorses that statement.
If you are bound by Mosaic, and not Noahide, Law. For one.
Your understanding is a caricature. But then, most bigotry is.
If you are bound by Mosaic, and not Noahide, Law. For one.
So they’d only endorse the execution of male homosexual Jews, then?
(I’m suspecting we should probably stop this exchange due to thread drift.)
Getting back to Neuhaus…conservative estimates are that 1/4 to 1/3rd of American boomer/genX women have chosen legal abortion. Neuhaus must lead a peculiarly insular life to truly believe that the majority of these women are “addled, deceived and confused.”
I think his position speaks more to his vision of women as a whole…how else could he blithely assume that the choice of a huge minority of American women is the product of “addled” thinking?
Reading between the lines, I get the sense that Neuhaus views all women as children, lacking agency, formed intellect, convictions and initiative.
It would be good if folks with credentials could call him on his bias.
My views on the abortion controversy have gotten me briskly booted out of the “Pro-Life” camp; I have a long history of displeasing the fanatics on both sides. And I am cool with that.
This would be the Golden Mean theory of abortion?
Remember that people bound by Noahide law are not the ones who take the Bible literally without questioning or trying to interpret it.
Not really analogous; the Neuhaus argument makes a lot more sense. For just about any crime in which gender is not an issue, we punish the career criminal more severely than the client. Imagine the outrage if anyone were to propose throwing the book at all drug addicts while letting dealers off scot-free. Or maybe prosecuting employees who accept less than the minimum wage, while doing nothing to employers who pay that amount. Even in the case of contract killers, arguably the closest analogy to unlawful abortions, would anyone seriously argue that the hit man should be punished less severely than crazed ex who hires him in a fit of rage?
That said, whether the crime is prostitution, illegal drugs, illegal abortions, or any other crime unlikely to be witnessed by anyone but the participants, there is certainly a practical reason why it may make sense to single out one participant for prosecution while letting the other off with a slap on the wrist. If you want to end prostitution, or sharply curtail it, you’d better let either the prostitute or the john rat the other out without facing prosecution themselves. The practical question is who is more likely to do that, the prostitute who makes her living that way, or the john who indulges every now and then, and probably isn’t terribly proud of it?
It’s no difference at all. First and foremost, you have the roles reversed. To the extent that abortion is analogous to prostitution, the women who seek abortions are the johns, not the prostitutes, and there would certainly be no abortion industry if it weren’t for women seeking abortions. Second, while there would certainly be some abortions without doctors to perform them, does anyone seriously doubt that there would be far fewer?
Neuhaus must lead a peculiarly insular life to truly believe that the majority of these women are “addled, deceived and confused.”
Well, he could well believe that most of the world is “addled, deceived and confused”; as far as I can tell, nothing in his belief system precludes that possibility.
Lynn, that’s a charitable interpretation, but Neuhaus is very clearly trying to paint a picture of women who are tricked and lied to by male doctors. Female abortion doctors don’t exist in his world, and women aren’t adults, but moral children who can never, ever make a deliberate decision to abortion. He doesn’t say that women should be exempt from prosecution if they are misled. In his worldview, no woman could possibly make such a choice freely, and any woman who chooses abortion is “addled”.
Remember that people bound by Noahide law are not the ones who take the Bible literally without questioning or trying to interpret it.
Which would be what? Gentiles?
Well, that includes every Christian on the planet.
This would be the Golden Mean theory of abortion?
It would be the theory where I regard people who adopt extremist political stances that begin with such statements as “Every” and “None” are liars.
I have made this statement countless times before, and if I am repeating myself, I am sorry.
But MANY anti-choice folks talk about having a baby like it is the equivalent of having a tooth pulled or something.
The only analogous situation would be to pass a law that says: ANy male who has impregnated a woman (and this can now be proved with DNA) has to support her and her child for eighteen years, no argument. If he cannot support her his parnet and relatives must be forced to.”
Because THAT IS WHAT BEARING A CHILD demands of a WOMAN: all her resources and usually those of her family for Eighteen years per shild at the VERY LEAST.
It is utterly overwhelming. But until such a law as I have described is passed, there is no comparable experience for men.
I certainly do not think the passing of such a law would be terribly popular. But so many people seem to think that it is just FINE to demand that kind of sacrifice from women..usually from YOUNG women who cannot yet even support themselves.
It is just like an insane BLINDNESS to ignore that women with unplanned pregnancies are asked the impossible. Literally Impossible!
Until males are held equally culpable, we MUST be Pro-choice.
Three compromises shape the laws we live with: first, what the voters who vote based on the issue will tolerate; second, what the politicians really believe, and third, what juries will enforce. After the voters in conservative South Dakota rejected the anti-abortion movement’s model law, I don’t think anyone believes most voters will put up with a law that would criminalize women for having an abortion, and juries will almost certainly not enforce it (don’t take my word for that; type Morgentaler into the wikipedia search box).
My moral compromise on the issue goes like this: consistently, non-coercively pro-life. I oppose war and violence, I support measures to ensure that women who choose to carry to term get the support they need, but I oppose any attempt to coerce a woman to carry a fetus to term if she chooses not to.
which is to get pro-lifers to answer the question about what they intend to do with women who abort.
Hugo, did the pro-choice “community” (I’m not aware of any central decision making body for either pro-choicers or pro-lifers) have to decide the questions of the rights of a fetus or viability before Roe v. Wade? The SCOTUS majority ruling in that case established admittedly arbitrary (and some might claim “inconsistent”)implementation criteria when finding a right to an abortion existed. Perhaps a more inclusive discussion with the scientific, medical, theological, philosophical, and (insert numerous other disciplines / communities) would have been helpful before the decision, but I suspect pro-choicers would not have wanted to hold up the decision on whether abortion was legal to establish first the legal and moral consistencies associated with the decision.
That question is not to trivialize the point there are serious implications associated with reversing current law. However, “pro-lifers” don’t get to decide what to do with people involved in abortion if the procedure is illegal; that’s reserved for the people writ large through the legislative and subsequent judicial processes. To ask the question “how much time in prison should a woman who obtains an abortion receive?” seems as disingenuous as asking pro-choicers before Roe on consistency to the questions of when does life begin?, when is a fetus viable?, or when does an unborn baby have rights?
Framing the serious considerations legislative bodies would have to tackle is important, but the questions read to me in general more as rhetorical ones to affirm the inability to achieve consistency in the legal (and moral) consequences of outlawing abortion. Again, a standard hardly achieved across many areas considered criminal and one, if followed, would have never resulted in decriminalizing abortion in the first place (although perhaps unrestricted abortion on demand up to the point of birth strikes me as one position that could achieve such a standard).
OK Hugo.
GRE study question!!!
doctor= paid practitioner
prostitute = paid practitioner
person seeking abortion = paying customer
john = paying customer
“doctor” is to “prostitute” as _______________ is to _________.
Capisce?
To ask the question “how much time in prison should a woman who obtains an abortion receive?” seems as disingenuous as asking pro-choicers before Roe on consistency to the questions of when does life begin?, when is a fetus viable?, or when does an unborn baby have rights?
But those questions sound like entirely reasonable ones to ask pro-choicers (of which I am one), either pre- or post-Roe. If you’re advocating for a change in the law, you should be able to explain what kind of change you’d ideally like to see. Staking out a position like that is a necessary input to the legislative and judicial processes that will ultimately define the specifics of the law.
Which would be what? Gentiles?
That was me with not enough coffee typing “Noahide” instead of “Mosaic”. D’oh.
Even in the case of contract killers, arguably the closest analogy to unlawful abortions, would anyone seriously argue that the hit man should be punished less severely than crazed ex who hires him in a fit of rage?
Would anyone seriously argue that the ex who hires him should be punished less severely? That the ex is not actually guilty of murder, or is understandably “addled” and therefore not responsible for their actions? I note you felt compelled to come up with an excuse in the bit about “in a fit of rage”, but would anybody really argue that the ex should be excused because of “rage”?
And remember that the real analogy here is of a parent who hires a contract killer to murder his or her child, not spouse or ex-spouse. Would anyone in that circumstance tut-tut about their “rage”, or suggest that the parent is not really guilty of murder?
Dave, the analogy you’re trying to create is exactly the one I’m rejecting, as the reasons why the customers are “paying” are so different as to render any comparison both odious and impossible.
Goodness, John, your views on life are quite similar to mine.
I have trouble with the presumptions that some make about “protecting life” by making abortions illegal. Certainly with Some Poor and Some “Doubting” women they are less likely to abort when abortion is illegal, but:
The wealth of information that comes out of the study provides some striking lessons, the researchers said. In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.
–
Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.
—
ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html )
Where people wish to make abortions less prevalent, it seems that their efforts would be best spent on “positive sex education” - which focuses upon birth control and discussing sexuality, rather than upon banning abortions.
The problem with this is that the issues are really “moral” - and that most “pro-life” people who work extensively upon issues such as banning abortion are also rabidly against sex outside of heterosexual marriage. Given the rates of sex outside of heterosexual marriage this is, of course, problematic. Also - obviously - many “pro-life” people are scared of Empowered Women - who are Sexual Beings.
As someone who considers herself a pro-life feminist (not an oxymoron) Quindlen’s argument was the first one to really make me re-evaluate my position. I am currently somewhat unsure as to how I feel about abortion, thus the reason why I feel I have little to add to this discussion. However, I just wanted to say that her “How much jail time?” claim is a question that not even staunch pro-lifers can really answer, making it probably one of the most important topics someone has raised in recent times in regards to this tired and never-ending debate.
However, I just wanted to say that her “How much jail time?” claim is a question that not even staunch pro-lifers can really answer
Why not? After all, if the goal of pro-lifers comes to pass and Roe is overturned, then there will be no choice but to answer that question.
Mythago, there was a time - and that time has long passed - when I would have answered that question with, “Lock ‘em up for life. Abortion is murder. End of story.” From a extremely staunch pro-life perspective, doctors who perform abortions are murderers. If you truly believe that human life begins at conception, then there is no question about it. One of the appeals of the fundamentalism I grew up with is that it gives you that black/white certainty. However, most pro-lifers would agree that it is harder to answer the question “How much jail time?” when it applies to the women who seek abortions. I have yet to hear a good pro-life answer to that question when it is phrased to apply to the women. I don’t even have a good answer, which is why I sometimes wonder if I am more pro-choice than I like to admit.
I should add that at this point, I have no idea whether I align myself with the pro-life or pro-choice movement, although I would say that, if I had to choose, I would say I’m pro-life. All I am saying is that question is the first one to really make me see the pro-choice perspective in a new and challenging way. To me, the answer isn’t as important as the sheer fact that Quindlen’s question made me see it from a new perspective.
Wait, is Gonz really saying that I’m a “fanatic” for thinking that I get to make my own medical decisions, all the time? It’s fanatical now to believe that ALL women who are not incapacitated by an accident or severe illness have control over their own bodies?
However, most pro-lifers would agree that it is harder to answer the question “How much jail time?” when it applies to the women who seek abortions. I have yet to hear a good pro-life answer to that question when it is phrased to apply to the women.
Right, but what I don’t understand is *why* there should be no good pro-life answer. Neuhaus’s argument–that women are morally and intellectually children–is the only answer I’ve seen other than “they’re murderers, lock them up” (which is definitely in the minority). The political considerations are very real, but obviously not voiced.
Only you can answer, Acer, as to whether any of your beliefs are fanatical.
And as for your attempt to shove words in my mouth, I personally believe your control over your own body should extend to you being able to auction it off organ by organ on ebay.
Honest to God, except for a list of people who would fill one side of a standard sheet of paper, so long as “ye harm none” what personal choices you make are a matter of supreme indifference to me.
Personally speaking, I think Ms. Q’s question was gutless. You really want to ask a question like that, allow me: “If you really think a fetus is a child, would you be willing to kill someone to save a child’s life?” I’m not.
I am against stupid governments making stupid, micromanaging laws that they haven’t got a prayer of actually enforcing. Period. And realistically speaking, if abortion were under a death sentence tomorrow, there would be a brief hiccup where the abortion rate dropped, and by next March there would be this mysterious upswing in miscarriages that scientists everywhere would be scratching their heads over. It’s not going to happen, and the Republicrats in Congress already waste enough of my time and tax dollars as it is on stupid crap. Both sides of the aisle are full of &@%#$@! idiots who somehow think that they can legislate both thoughts and morality, and as far as I am concerned, a pox on both of them. I just haven’t figured which side is “Second verse, same as the first.”
We’ve already seen what a smashing success prohibition was. Laws against suicide? What shall we do - EXECUTE them? (Boy, that’ll show those scofflaws!) We have laws against racism - and there are still tribal relatives of mine who hate my half-breed ass. Laws against abortion? The end runs on that boggle the mind on mere casual reflection.
As to whether anyone agrees with your choice or not - different story. But then again, why do you care? If your neighbor says you should not have an abortion, or if you should have twenty, does it pick your pocket or break your leg?
Or are you merely offended at a difference of opinion? Ah … in that case, then yes, you would most assuredly be a fanatic.
That’s the thing, Gonz, personal bodily sovereignty is not an opinion. It’s an inalienable right. And yes, I am most definitely offended by those people who think that by virtue of being a young woman, I don’t have it. I am also offended by people who think that women are mentally and morally children. I am not offended by people who think that abortion is morally wrong because it is murder, as long as they are also anti-war and anti-death penalty. But I’ve never actually met one of those people.
However, since my personal views on abortion are more liberal than most peoples’ (somehow “women get to make their own medical decisions, all the time” turned into a radical position) I did find your comment about “fanatics” relevant.
I don’t understand is *why* there should be no good pro-life answer
I can’t speak for the entire pro-life movement, but my response is: Yes, abortion should be safe and legal. Doctors should not be berated, imprisoned or killed for performing abortions, and women who seek them should not be shamed in any way. There is no clear-cut answer as to when life starts because it is largely a philosophical question. Does life start at conception? Implantation? When the heart starts beating? (I have my own personal beliefs on this, but not everyone shares those beliefs, so it would be downright wrong of me to insist that people who don’t share them be ridiculed and jailed). However, I am willing to support organizations that offer women alternatives to abortion. I am willing to support funding/school curriculum that educates teenagers on how to practice contraception and practice safer sex. My personal response isn’t so much about redefining law, it’s about trying to put myself in another person’s shoes, because, one day, a surprise pregnancy may happen to me.
Long story short: I have yet to come up with a good pro-life answer. There may not even be one.
That’s the thing, Gonz, personal bodily sovereignty is not an opinion. It’s an inalienable right.
Ah - an “inalienable right.” All sorts of those things these days what people think are up for popular vote.
The original definition of “inalienable” among the founders included such this that Congress were to make no law - one way or the other - because they had no authority over it. Well, guess what - Bring something before a court, a power hungry fascist says - “Oh, goody! I’ll take this case - I always wanted authority over this…”
People seem to forget when you make a law that says “Yea” or “Nay” you aren’t only making that law - you are transferring, to that adjudicating body, the right to say yea or nay. If you can forbid something with a law today, tomorrow that law may be changed to be cumpulsory. And the follow up to that - in a pluralistic society - is that the laws you make today will be given to your political enemies tomorrow to either guard, change, or enforce.
And yes, I am most definitely offended by those people who think that by virtue of being a young woman, I don’t have it. I am also offended by people who think that women are mentally and morally children.
Hmm. So, let me ask you this then: How about we do away with laws about statutory rape? If you can make that decision to keep a baby or not by sheer dint of being pregnant, obviously it must follow that the decision TO get pregnant - or engage in such behaviors - is yours to make.
And, no, ma’am, the question is not asked seriously - just to get you an idea where such questions will start under that reasoning.
Women aren’t children, no. But children are.
This is not a black and white issue when you dig this deep in it - the deeper you go, the greyer and more muddied it becomes. Often people on the left raise the charge that applying such black and white thinking to grey areas is a sign of fanaticism.
.I am not offended by people who think that abortion is morally wrong because it is murder, as long as they are also anti-war and anti-death penalty. But I’ve never actually met one of those people.
And it is, for one, a ridiculous, apples and oranges demand for a foolish consistency. It is perfectly reasonable to find abortion to be the killing of an innocent, war (at least a just one)to be the killing of an aggressor or oppressor, and Capital Punishment to be the just execution of a guilty person. The three are not the same even by casual examination.
I, for one, am very much against the death penalty for a number of reasons. And while there are a great deal of reactionary, bloodthirsty proponents of capital punishment, most people who argue for it have very well reasoned - even compelling - good faith, arguments.
If I were to instantly demonize those with whom I disagree, I could probably be reasonably be charged with being a fanatic.
However, since my personal views on abortion are more liberal than most peoples’ (somehow ” turned into a radical position) I did find your comment about “fanatics” relevant
Somehow, I get the idea that if you were married to a man, and wanting children, and you found out that he had a vasectomy or something (”men get to make their own medical decisions, all the time”) on his own, without so much as a howdy do, that you’d react with less than aplomb.
And no, it’s only a difference in practice - not in principle.
Let us posit, then, a male pill. Unobtrusive Male BC. Shots … 3, four times a year. Easily payable in cash by anyone with an above minimum wage job - or perhaps for free at Planned Parenthood.
Let us posit, also “women get to make their own medical decisions, all the time” is absolutely true. Note, that this is an absolute, un-nuanced statement. It means what it means - or it is a mere and meaningless example of sloganeering.
This means, then, that when it comes to your reproductive system, this right is yours to do with as you please, and is nobody else’s business - AT ALL. You may remove your ovaries, tie your tubes, chemically stop ovulation, Morning after Pill, abortion, etc., etc. etc. Your body - your choice. Even informing someone is a gift - not an obligation. Because if this does not mean this, then your statement - your absolute, no exceptions statement - has an exception, and is now false.
Given this - does he have that same right to make the medical decision about his body - not to produce viable sperm - that you do to not produce viable eggs, and under those same terms? And “Yes or No” is a fair demand for an answer. And get the emotion out of it - we’re just talking rights. Should he have that right?
If he does, you have no more right to feel ill-used than he does if you choose to not participate in child-making.
If not - why do you have more rights by virtue of your gender than he does?
Fanatics often have a “This for me but not for thee” mindset; also, while absolutist thinking is not proof of fanaticism, I don’t know of a fanatic who does not engage in it.
But yeah - abolutist statements are usually considered pretty radical. When I state that my right to keep and bear arms should include state of the art military weapons, and that if it is a right, a right should not require a license (Mother May I?) to exercise , most people regard that as pretty radical.
A lot of people, too, would say that having even one radical POV makes you a fanatic. I get called a “Gun Nut” all the time.
Then again - disagree with someone, and they often regard you as a fanatic.
Like I said - only you can call if you are. I know I’m not - so I really don’t give a fig what people think. Go thou and do likewise. Ultimately, if you ask me, the true test of “Fanaticism” lies not in the conviction that you are right, but in the refusal to consider that you might - in some way, however small - be wrong.
I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it happened at about the same time that “make their own medical decisions” took on the meaning “kill their own kids, if it suits them.” Men have never enjoyed that dubious “right,” thank God.
Men have never enjoyed that dubious “right,”
Never? Anywhere?
There is no clear-cut answer as to when life starts because it is largely a philosophical question.
But we’re talking about a movement made up in the majority of people who believe life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder. Given that, why is there no pro-life answer to the question “How much jail time?”
I can see that pro-lifers who think abortion should be legal but discouraged, or who think abortion is wrong but are not willing to impose that with the force of law, might have difficulty with an answer. But if one’s believe is “abortion stops a beating heart,” then surely it’s not difficult to answer the question: A woman who kills her unborn baby should be treated exactly like a woman who kills her born baby.
Man, someone’s been failed very badly by the school system. “Patria potestas” mean nothing to you, Xrlq?
And among those better-known ancient societies that practiced infant exposure, who exactly do you imagine got to decide which infants were exposed and which accepted into the family? Hint: Not the infant’s mother.
…why is there no pro-life answer to the question “How much jail time?
My point is that there is no single “pro-life” answer. Some pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists — there is a difference between those two terms) would have no problem locking abortion doctors and even women who seek them up for life. For others, like me, this question helped me understand the pro-choice side a little better. Most of Quindlen’s Newsweek articles on the topics do that, which is why I love her. I’ve heard all - or most - of the other pro-choice arguments, but Quindlen presents a fresh one.
I both love and hate this question. I love it because it made me really think about my position and because I think it helped me understand the other side. But I am slightly frustrated with it because Quindlen seems to think that her question somehow proves that pro-life arguments have little validity in light of pro-choice ones. Abortion is one of the most infinitely complicated topics of all time, and this question, in some ways, oversimplifies the matter because it lumps all pro-lifers into one category. Does it sift out who is a true pro-lifer versus who isn’t? This is why I am having trouble calling myself pro-whatever now.
Mermade,
Yes, abortion should be safe and legal. Doctors should not be berated, imprisoned or killed for performing abortions, and women who seek them should not be shamed in any way. There is no clear-cut answer as to when life starts because it is largely a philosophical question. Does life start at conception? Implantation? When the heart starts beating? (I have my own personal beliefs on this, but not everyone shares those beliefs, so it would be downright wrong of me to insist that people who don’t share them be ridiculed and jailed). However, I am willing to support organizations that offer women alternatives to abortion. I am willing to support funding/school curriculum that educates teenagers on how to practice contraception and practice safer sex. My personal response isn’t so much about redefining law, it’s about trying to put myself in another person’s shoes, because, one day, a surprise pregnancy may happen to me.
I respect your choice to label yourself however you may — I’m sure you have reasons that aren’t in this one paragraph — but this is really very close to what would probably be the official pro-choice stance, if there were one. Jut sayin’.
Anywhere, sure. I was referring to civilized western societies. If you have to go back to the stone age to show precedent for men getting to kill their kids for convenience, you’ve made my point more strongly than I could have done myself.
Civilized Western Societies?
Relatively recent development, and no, one does not need to return to the Stone Age to discover evidence of the paternal “right of refusal.”
Gonzman: I don’t know about Acer, but if the day comes when a nationwide movement is agitating at every level to ban vasectomies, I will be arguing for men’s right to have them.
This means, then, that when it comes to your reproductive system, this right is yours to do with as you please, and is nobody else’s business - AT ALL. You may remove your ovaries, tie your tubes, chemically stop ovulation, Morning after Pill, abortion, etc., etc. etc. Your body - your choice. Even informing someone is a gift - not an obligation.
It’s common decency and good sense to discuss one’s reproductive choices with one’s spouse or partner, in most relationships. But, a fundamental level, yes, absolutely, “your body - your choice.” I don’t see how the fact that people tend to consult their family members about important decisions poses a challenge to the idea that, in the final, legal sense, those decisions belong to the individual.
So, would I be upset if my partner, whether female or male, went and made a big reproductive choice without me? Very probably. Should she be legally obliged to include me in that decision? No.
personal bodily sovereignty is not an opinion. It’s an inalienable right
So, you would favor eliminating laws that prevent me to sell my kidney? Perhaps the government can regulate the market conditions, but why can’t I sell my kidney (I can live without one, although perhaps at a higher risk that I will accept with the right compensation)? If I don’t own my kidneys, who does? Does the womb rate higher than the kidney or vagina (since in most places, woman control uncompensated access to that part of the body, but somehow lose control if direct compensation occurs)?
But those questions sound like entirely reasonable ones to ask pro-choicers (of which I am one), either pre- or post-Roe
Agree, Stentor — that is why I wrote “Framing the serious considerations legislative bodies would have to tackle is important.” My intent, though, was pointing out the lack of a consistent position within “X” community as justification for not changing the law would create a standard that would not have led to the Roe decision. Again, do you think the pro-choice community would not have an issue if the majority opinion read something to the effect that “well, a right to an abortion does exist, but because there is no consensus on when that right begins and ends (26 weeks, or 27 weeks, or 28 weeks, etc.), let’s keep the status quo until some diverse collection of people reach a consensus”?
This statement is from the Wisconsin chapter (?) of NARAL - “I support the balance struck in Roe v. Wade, which allows the woman to make the decision about an abortion prior to fetal viability. After viability, states can ban abortion except when the woman’s life or health is endangered.” (aside - I think Roe established the trimester balance and subsequent rulings modified to fetal viability) What if science one day allows fetal viability at 1 month, even before a woman may know she’s actually pregnant? Shouldn’t we have answered that before Roe? Is there a “pro-choice consensus” on fetal viability as the standard when the state magically can raise fetal right to life above the woman’s right to privacy? Did it exist pre-Roe? Does it shift with advancements in science?
As some have pointed out in the thread, there are practical reasons to keep Roe even if one disagrees with that decision. As Mythago noted, “there will be no choice but to answer that question.” My main contention is simply to raise the perspective that the same reasoning applied pre-Roe would have kept the status quo because of the difficulty of getting a single set of “accepted answers.”
Because THAT IS WHAT BEARING A CHILD demands of a WOMAN: all her resources and usually those of her family for Eighteen years per shild at the VERY LEAST.
A woman (or man if he has custodial rights after birth) can in many instances transfer this “resource burden” to the state or other members of a community through adoption.
My “pro-life” position is this. I think human life beings at conception and abortion is morally wrong. But I do not consider it legal murder, and it should not be prosecuted as such.
I don’t think I should have to pay for it, or subsidize it through tax dollars. This position aligns with radical libertarian positions.
Another area where I disagree with some pro-choice advocates is in the area of parental notification. I don’t see this as an absolute “medical rights” issue. I’d be pretty upset if some guy paid for a boob job on my underage daughter, and the law said her “absolute right” meant I can’t even be notified. I’d be similarly upset if that same guy paid for her abortion, without so much as a notification to me.
It’s common decency and good sense to discuss one’s reproductive choices with one’s spouse or partner, in most relationships. But, a fundamental level, yes, absolutely, “your body - your choice.” I don’t see how the fact that people tend to consult their family members about important decisions poses a challenge to the idea that, in the final, legal sense, those decisions belong to the individual.
Because it is a distinction which makes no distinction.
If you and I are negotiating - anything - and I am “discussing” something with you where the choice is mine, I have made it (Or made it fait accompli), and to which I am not going to persuaded against, of “for” as the case may be, you’d have the perfect right to accuse me of negotiating in bad faith and wasting your time.
Whether “You get a vote, I get a vote, and then I get any tiebreaker that is necessary” is right, just or fair is not the point. It may very well be all of those. But it is NOT democracy, and to pretend that someone actually has input in it is both insulting and disingenuous in the extreme.
Harsh? Yes. But it is what it is.
So, would I be upset if my partner, whether female or male, went and made a big reproductive choice without me? Very probably. Should she be legally obliged to include me in that decision? No.
When we are discussing “rights” the legal obligations are the only thing that matter.
Even in such cases - and the only state I know of that “fault” based divorce is still in effect is New York, and I’m not familiar with the specifics - arguments can be made that “No legal obligation to inform means no cause for divorce” to “You may decide unilaterally to do so, but it is grounds for divorce.” I personally don’t care, so long as it is even handed in such cases.
As far as your personal relationships and voluntary associations go … do what you want. Don’t like someone’s stand vis-a-vis abortion? Don’t associate with them. Don’t date them. Don’t work for them. Don’t employ them. Don’t do business with them. Don’t join the (Club, Church, etc.) So long as you acknowledge they have that same right - No skin off my tuchis.
My “pro-life” position is this. I think human life beings at conception and abortion is morally wrong. But I do not consider it legal murder, and it should not be prosecuted as such.
Well, I think a lot of things are morally wrong that Da Gubbmint has no business sticking their nose into because (A) it is unenforceable, or (B) it gets the camel’s nose under tents I don’t want the camel in, and which is (IMO) a greater evil, so I am there with ya.
I don’t think I should have to pay for it, or subsidize it through tax dollars. This position aligns with radical libertarian positions.
Mmmmm …
I dunno. Rape. Cases of incest. Statutory rape. “If you carry this baby, it is likely you will have a stillbirth and may die too.” - these things aren’t boogeymen. They are real. And I think it is perfectly reasonable to require publicly funded hospitals to provide them, and for insurance companies to cover them as medical necessities
Now, when the sex is voluntary and the procedure elective … different story. People may reasonably argue where that line is drawn, but it is a line which may be drawn.
Another area where I disagree with some pro-choice advocates is in the area of parental notification. I don’t see this as an absolute “medical rights” issue. I’d be pretty upset if some guy paid, for a boob job on my underage daughter, and the law said her “absolute right” meant I can’t even be notified. I’d be similarly upset if that same guy paid for her abortion, without so much as a notification to me.
Yeah - the whole notion of a school nurse saying “No, I can’t allow you to take Midol, but I can take you to an abortion clinic without your parent’s consent” is kind of hinkey. And in the latter case, that only allows a 25 year old sicko to cover up impregnating his 14 year old victim under cover of “privacy” so I ain’t jiggy with it either.
As some have pointed out in the thread, there are practical reasons to keep Roe even if one disagrees with that decision.
Steve, my disagreement with Roe is simple - it is now in the hands of five people.
Even on the left - how many resources have been spent worrying about nominees to SCOTUS that could have been spent elsewhere had it been left to a less central authority?
It’s like I said above - I cannot empower a central authority to say “yes” without simultaneously empowering it to say “no.”
Gonzman, I don’t understand your comment.
I get to decide how I’m going to vote. I’m sure you’ll agree that this is at it should be.
I also often talk politics with my friends and family members. Sometimes I talk politics with strangers on the internet. Consequently, my friends, relatives, and strangers on the internet do have some kind of influence over my voting choices. And I have some influence over theirs.
The fact that these conversations happen is not a challenge to the fact that my vote is my choice. Because it’s my choice, I get to make it however I want — for me, that includes talking to people, debating with people. The fact that I consult others — and should consult others, it’s important to hear other perspectives — doesn’t mean that they should get some kind of vote about my vote.
The fact that I consult others about my reproductive choices — and should consult them, as they are directly affected — doesn’t mean that they should have a “vote” per se in my final decision. It’s my choice to hear those perspectives, my choice to incorporate them or not. I can choose to grant them a kind of vote — and virtually everyone does for their significant others — but they’re not entitled to one.
And, no — personal relationships are not democracy. Nor should they be.
Gonzman, I don’t understand your comment.
I get to decide how I’m going to vote. I’m sure you’ll agree that this is at it should be.
I also often talk politics with my friends and family members. Sometimes I talk politics with strangers on the internet. Consequently, my friends, relatives, and strangers on the internet do have some kind of influence over my voting choices. And I have some influence over theirs.
And this is as far as I need to go. Evidently, your mind is not made up - or not made up completely. This is a good thing.
If your mind is made up - why bother? I mean, jeez. Right now in the next county over people are up in arms because the zoning commission or something like that has been doing coffee klatches, making decisions before meetings, and let people speak so they “feel” they have input, and then just doing a formalized, for the record vote of what is a done deal. People are pissed. And with good reason.
Same thing - just a different scale.
If you have to go back to the stone age to show precedent for men getting to kill their kids for convenience
Oh, are we qualifying it with “convenience” now? It never fails to amaze me how many pro-lifers will talk about the Miracle of Birth and Woman’s Sacrifice out of one side of their mouths, but sneer about pregnancy and childbirth as mere “inconvenience” out of the other.
I was thinking, actually, of “honor killings” in modern societies, where men are not only entitled, but expected to murder their daughters if those daughters are thought to have behaved dishonorably. And, as ahunt points out, it’s not as though “Western” culture sprang into the idea of children as humans with rights, rather than merely the property of their parents, immediately after the Stone Age. American slaveowners who fathered children on slaves were certainly permitted to sell those children into slavery, beat them or even kill them for any reason. Even “inconvenience”.
But I am slightly frustrated with it because Quindlen seems to think that her question somehow proves that pro-life arguments have little validity in light of pro-choice ones.
Her question shows that an awful lot of people who claim “abortion is murder” and “life begins at conception” don’t really believe those things, or if they do, believe that women are idiots and morally stunted.
The same reason there is no good anti-murder answer to what the penalty should be for murder. Pro-choice vs. pro-life goes to the question of whether there should be a penalty for abortion; it offers no guidance at all as to what that penalty should be if there is one.
OK, I get it. If the same backward societies who hate us badly enough to send their malcontents flying planes into our buildings, also encourage men to murder their own daughters to protect some gross perversion of “honor,” then I guess it stands to reason that civilized societies that abhor such practices must allow pregnant women to do the same to their unborn fetuses. Brilliant reasoning, that.
If the same backward societies who hate us badly enough to send their malcontents flying planes into our buildings, also encourage men to murder their own daughters to protect some gross perversion of “honor,” then I guess it stands to reason that civilized societies that abhor such practices must allow pregnant women to do the same to their unborn fetuses. Brilliant reasoning, that.
Um, your attempt to connect abortion to honor killings missed the mark completely. Furthermore, you now have outright contradicted what you said earlier about men never having the right to kill their kids.
Oh yeah, even if you narrow it down just to so called western societies… since you couldn’t take a hint earlier, other posters were clearly referring to ancient Rome and the accepted practice among Romans of fathers killing their children. And yeah, by most uses of the term “western civilization”, Rome was not only a part of said civilization, but one of the most influential nations in that tradition.
Sundown beat me to it…but well into the 4th century in Europe, Papa had the right of refusal.
And as Myth notes, right into the ninteenth century…Papa could do whatever he damned well pleased with his children born to his slaves, and enjoyed vast latitude in his conduct towards his legitimate children.
Just thought I would point out that, in El Salvador, they have already answered the questions Quindlen and Filipovic asked. I blogged about it here.
The same reason there is no good anti-murder answer to what the penalty should be for murder.
Wow. My state has laws about murder; doesn’t yours?
Pro-choice vs. pro-life goes to the question of whether there should be a penalty for abortion; it offers no guidance at all as to what that penalty should be if there is one.
Of course it does. If life begins at conception, then we treat the killing of an unborn child the same as a born child. That means we apply the same law to a woman who gets an abortion as we do to a woman who kills her born baby. The answer to the question isn’t a fixed number like “she should be in jail for two years”; it’s “the same penalty as if the victim was born, not unborn.”
I really do not understand why this is a difficult question to answer honestly.
As for plane-hurling barbarians, Sundown beat me to it, but I notice you’re not touching the question of those nice, self-described Christians who raped their slaves and treated their own children as property. Perhaps they were closet Muslims?
The same reason there is no good anti-murder answer to what the penalty should be for murder.
Wow. My state has laws about murder; doesn’t yours?
Pro-choice vs. pro-life goes to the question of whether there should be a penalty for abortion; it offers no guidance at all as to what that penalty should be if there is one.
Of course it does. If life begins at conception, then we treat the killing of an unborn child the same as a born child. That means we apply the same law to a woman who gets an abortion as we do to a woman who kills her born baby. The answer to the question isn’t a fixed number like “she should be in jail for two years”; it’s “the same penalty as if the victim was born, not unborn.”
I really don’t understand why this is a difficult question to answer honestly.
As for plane-hurling barbarians, Sundown beat me to it, but I notice you’re not touching the question of those nice, self-described Christians who raped their slaves and treated their own children as property. Perhaps they were closet Muslims?
Um, Mythago was the one who brought up honor killings in this context, not me.
Hogwash. First, my original point was about societies whose values ours can identify with, not societies whose values we find abhorrent (and therefore, worse than useless when arguing over what rights women ought to enjoy in ours). Second, even if we do include such backward societies in our analysis, my original point - that men have never enjoyed a general right to “kill their own kids, if it suits them” - stands. To the best of my knowledge, “honor” killings are not legal anywhere, and even where they are more-or-less tolerated, the victim generally had to do something (or at least, the perp had to believe she had). To disprove my original point, even in the most technical sense, you’ll have to produce at least one country in which it is 100% legal for fathers to murder their children, born or unborn, simply because they want to. Good luck.
To disprove my original point, even in the most technical sense, you’ll have to produce at least one country in which it is 100% legal for fathers to murder their children, born or unborn, simply because they want to.
Hm. Is there one country where it is 100% legal for mothers to murder their children, born or unborn?
And it’s pretty obvious that in societies where honor killings are approved (if not mandatory), the victims don’t have to do anything at all.
You should have put “mothers” in “bold,” Myth.
Born, no. Unborn, yes.
Well, that depends on what you define as a child, doesn’t it? I don’t believe a zygote is a child, but maybe you do.
For everyone picking apart the analogy:
You are proving hugo’s poing. He is saying they are not analogous situations.
Please read it again!
Born, no. Unborn, yes.
Ah. So your original analogy doesn’t work either.
Still waiting to hear why this is a ‘difficult’ question for a pro-lifer to answer.