Finding common ground on abortion
A photo by 37 °C, a Flickr.com user, shown under Creative Commons
Would it be practical for pro-life and pro-choice activists to work together to reduce the number of abortions, despite intense feelings on the issue?
During the campaign stump, then Senator Obama expressed his desire of wanting to reduce the number of abortions. He talked about finding “common ground” between both pro-life and pro-choice groups. Obama supports a woman’s right to choose.
In “Some Abortion Foes Shifting Focus From Ban to Reduction,” Jacqueline L. Salmon of the Washington Post reports that an increasing number of antiabortion activists are now shifting the focus from outlawing abortion to creating programs to provide assistance for pregnant women in order to reduce the number of abortions. According to Salmon, traditional antiabortion groups view these activists as “traitors to their cause.” Yet these activists “argue that a more practical alternative is to try to reduce abortions through other means.”
What are your thoughts on the matter? Realizing this issue will generate strong feelings, I respectfully ask you to maintain a civil tone. While we may disagree strongly, we can still disagree respectfully.
I get so conflicted with this issue. I firmly believe that abortion is wrong, except for extreme cases of mother life and death, incest, etc. However, I don’t think it needs a national hearing. It is a STATE issue. If a state decrees it illegal, so be it.
With that said, I like the notion. Our country has been eroded morally over a long, slow period. Radical change is frowned upon. So, we begin with small changes. Over a smae period of time, the viewpoints can be shifted back to a more conservative, Christian value.
First, let’s call abortion what it is: prenatal murder.
Second, let’s recognize the devious nature of this politician. He voted 4 times in the Illinois Legislature to refuse a medical professional to aid babies who were literally born alive after botched attempts at prenatal murder. Those babies were then left to die with no medical care and no comfort though they were outside the womb, born, and qualify in even a pagan’s understanding as American “natural born” citizens with full rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and, of course, medical care.
That’s the man’s word we’re going to have to “trust” to believe he was “sincere”. Obama has lied about the IBAIPA and stated it was not necessary. Do the research. He was lying. He had clear evidence that babies were being born alive and were not protected. The man voted for infanticide. And lied about it. He lied about it to all America. The value of his word on the statement you just quoted has to be measured against the general value of his word based on his record. He cannot be trusted.
He made a commitment to upend all the things that were reducing abortion in America - parantal consent, etc., etc., etc. He’s committed to making the FOCA his first act as President.
This is a man who will speak out of one side of his mouth to dupe the naive, and out the other side of his mouth to state his true intents. He speaks with forked tongue.
There is no room for compromise, Ray.
What if I told you I would like to work with people to reduce the incident of rape, but I don’t want any laws on the books that make rape illegal and send rapists to prison.
Would you question my sincerity in truly desiring to reduce the numbers of the incidences of rape??
If you are using common sense, you would know I am being a hypocrite and hiding my real desire to see rapes increase - because failing to make rapes illegal is one sure way to increase rapes.
All Obama’s actions are geared to increase abortions - which is a multi-multi-million dollar big business.
It’s about money, Ray. There are special interest groups who harvest women’s womb by the grim reaper for a whole lot of money.
This is a bait and switch line by a quick change artist con man.
It has zero moral authority.
Grace.
Heh. I beat Grace by the skin of my teeth. Nicely said, though as I commented, while it is a good fight, I see no reason there cannot be good work in the area of modifying a young woman’s impression. Getting them help is a big part of it. Showing compassion and concern is another.
Getting them informed with OUR value system is a hard battle against every media outlet there is. So while you make a hard stand, I am there as well, passively-aggressively arguing my case- which ultimately is your case as well.
Sean
I, for one, am both pro-life and pro-choice. I do not believe that abortion is the answer, however, neither do I believe that adultery or divorce are the answer. These are moral decisions for each of us to make on our own. In legalizing abortion, the government can exert control over the practice and methods employed; in criminalizing abortion, we return to the days where young girls either suffered the devastating loss of fertility or died of complications from botched abortions that they received in seedy clinics south of the border. Take your pick. I prefer leaving the choice up to those whose bodies and lives will be affected by the choice. It’s not my place to decide for anyone else.
I totally agree we need to find common ground on this issue. You never are going to solve a problem when you have two groups of people yelling at each other and just jumping down each other throats.
A group of moderate Democrats have put out a 95-10 plan. Its goal is to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. 95% seems kind of difficult to attain. If we can have a comprehensive sex education plan, and make contraceptives more available we can prevent unwanted pregnancies. The problem is many conservatives only support abstinence only education.
Also, many women have abortions because they cannot financially provide for the child. So improving the economy, fighting poverty, expanding early childhood education, expanding child care, can all help relieve the burdens on mothers and lower the abortion rate. So there is an economic dimension as well.
I myself am conflicted on this. And I do have respect for the pro-life movement and I understand where they are coming from. I think most people see abortion as a sad and tragic choice, and would like to see less of it.
Well, Natalie, you’ve believed every lie the proaborts have propagated since the battle began pre 1973.
Prior to 1973 we as a nation, protected the unborn child. Women seemed to fare much better health wise in those days.
Now, we have breast cancer thru the roof and a sound sceintific connection made between the two.
You want to talk about infertility rates? They are thru the roof too, post 1973.
Are you aware of the number of women who have died during legal abortions? Are you aware those numbers are hidden for the most part? Yet there are scores of women who have died.
The numbers of “back alley” abortions were HIGHLY exaggerated by the proponents of abortion rights, please read Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (co founder of NARAL).
Further the government is not exacting any control over the practice and methods employed. It’s the most un-regulated industry, ever. See the # of women who have died left infertile, and ridden with breast cancer and no recourse for the women or families.
Ah, Natalie….there are two lives involved in the “choice”, an innocent child dies a horrifying and painful death for what reasons?
You cannot possibley be pro-life and pro-choice, that’s another lie that has been spoon fed to women.
This issue will never have “common ground”. Either you’re for the brutal murder of innocent children or you’re not.
But Sandi and Laura, how will outlawing abortion fix the underlying problems that lead women to get abortions?
Women have abortions because they can’t afford to keep their children or because they are not prepared to be become parents, be it immaturity or the child’s father not being in the picture. Simply outlawing abortion is putting a band-aid on gun-shot wound.
If we really want less women to have abortions, why not revitalize our adoption services and foster care system, so that women feel like their children will have a home? (Minority children are disproportionately left in the foster care system.)
Why not encourage Americans to open up their homes to adopted children?
Why not teach real sex education in schools and subsidize birth control to decrease these unwanted pregnancies across the board? (Statistically speaking, teen pregnancy and STI rates are higher in states where abstinence-only education is the norm.)
Why not increase funding for job training and health care for pregnant women, providing women who keep their children with the best health care possible and more options?
Maybe there is no “common ground.” But characterizing pro-choice activists as “pro-aborts” doesn’t help the women who may have abortions.
Also, on a side note, women who have had abortions actually have decreased risk of pre-eclampsia in later pregnancies. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/11/15/Abortions_can_reduce_pre-eclampsia_risk/UPI-72561226725491/
I’d really love to know where you’re getting your facts on abortions and health, Sandi.
And maybe this is a bit of thread-jacking, but does anyone have any opinions on the Safe Haven law?
34 children have been dropped off at Nebraska hospitals, none of whom are infants. Yet the Nebraska legislature is amending the law to be limited to children under the age of 30 days.
We have a serious problem in this country.
It’s hard for me to believe that Obama is actually interested in finding a “common ground” when he’s said the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he would sign once President (if it’s passed by Congress).
Also, the idea of compromise between pro-life/pro-choice groups still results a net gain for pro-choice, as compromise (policy wise at least) still results in abortion.
Working to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country is great and absolutely necessary, but I believe that pro-life groups have been doing this for a long time, through support of counseling, mother’s centers, etc.
I support free speech rights. I am pro-free speech.
I support individual gun rights. I am pro-gun.
If I supported abortion “rights”, I would be pro-abortion, just as are those who do support abortion as a “right”.
The first right is the right to life, which I support. I am pro-life.
150 years ago, the Supreme Court found in Dred Scott v. Sanford that white people have a right to own black people, and that “a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect.”
Those who supported this ruling were pro-slavery, although some, such as Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois objected to that label, and called themselves “pro-union”.
I deny that slavery is a right. I am anti-slavery.
I deny that abortion is a right. I am anti-abortion.
In American politics today, “choice” is almost always code for abortion. Those who claim to be “pro-choice” are virtually never pro-choice about murder, bank robbery, torture or influence peddling. They are never pro-choice on muggings, drinking & driving, or underage smoking. They frequently vocally oppose choice in education. They insist that homosexual conduct is not a matter of choice.
It’s only when the “choice” is abortion that they’re for it. And they rarely respect the choice against abortion. Michael Barone was right when he said that the left and the intelligentsia would have loved Sarah Palin if only she’d aborted her son Trig. But she didn’t, so they hate her.
Legal abortion is the denial of the natural right to life. If the unborn don’t have it, then soon none of us will have it. If a choice had to be made, it is much more important to outlaw abortion then to reduce the number.
But in point of fact, the quickest way to reduce the number of abortions would be to outlaw it, and stop telling people that abortion is their right.
Hi Paul:
First off, this is just offensive: “Michael Barone was right when he said that the left and the intelligentsia would have loved Sarah Palin if only she’d aborted her son Trig. But she didn’t, so they hate her.” Do you really think that all Democrats and left-leaning persons (a) hate Governor Palin and (b) seriously wish that one of her children was dead?
Also, when you say “pro-life,” are you also anti-war and anti-death penalty or are you just anti-abortion?
Moreover, do you support the DHHS redefinition of “conception” to include fertilization, not implantation, thereby making some forms of contraception (e.g. IUDs) technically abortions?
Since this is a difficult issue, please be sensitive. While we may disagree strongly, we can still disagree respectfully. The main entry was about finding “common ground.”
I believe that other than the banning of late term abortions in the absence of a legitimate medical purpose, the federal government should be neutral on the subject, neither funding nor conferring or revoking a Constitutional right. As for the ability for a minor to obtain an abortion without parental notification, this needs to be treated as any other medical procedure, simply put, it is not allowed. This is a matter that should be decided by the states. States are more apt to find solutions that are more responsive to the needs of the communities within its borders. States that find workable solutions can become a model to other states.
I think this is common ground that real solutions can be devised from.
Maybe I was late in finding this out - but I recently read a little about Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe from Roe v Wade.
Later on, she renounced her stance on abortion and even tried to petition the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which of course was denied.
I side with Ron Paul’s proposal: grant Constitutional Rights to every unborn child - obviously including the right to live. This will at once supersede Roe v. Wade with no further legislation and will set things right.
Woman’s right to choose? Irrelevant - such a “right” can never override another person’s right to live.
The main point of this entry is to beg the question: Would it be practical for pro-life and pro-choice activists to work together to reduce the number of abortions, despite intense feelings on the issue?
Assuming that Roe v. Wade is not overturned, what practical measures, if any, can be taken between both groups?
David, may I point out that there is a line-drawing problem to your idea of granting constitutional rights to “unborn children.” The rhetorical question being, when is a “unborn child” considered alive? But I prefer not to go there because that is not the focus.
It’s a critical question but I think the differences are just too great from what I’ve seen. BTW another potential compromise that is more politically viable is to limit abortion by time: i.e. make it legal in the first 20 weeks but illegal afterwards unless a doctor determines the mother’s life is at stake.
BTW I am one of those few people that just really don’t care about the social issues, so people from both the left and right yell at me all the time telling me what’s right and wrong and I don’t particularly enjoy that. I’m generally more concerned with whether we get blown up by terrorists, go into a depression, run out of gas, have drug dealers in the street, etc. Arguing about social issues is a luxury you only have when your other needs are largely being met.
The bottom line is that the de facto measure to reduce abortions is by outlawing them. I seems to me that a view that says abortions are okay (pro-choice) is fundamentally inconsistent with a view that abortions should be reduced. If it is acceptable for a woman to choose to have an abortion, then why is there a need for reduction? Why is it a bad thing? I believe the pro-choice camp bankrupts their own position of its underlying premise (that abortion is acceptable) when it says that abortions should be reduced. There should be no reason to reduce a practice that you believe is morally acceptable. There’s just not a middle ground there. Either you (1) believe abortions are morally acceptable, or you (2) believe that abortions are morally unacceptable. If you believe (1) then you’re without an argument as to why they ought to be reduced. If you believe (2) then you’re without an argument as to why they should not be prohibited.
So, the bottom line is, I have trouble believing that anyone espousing to be “pro-choice” is legitimately concerned with reducing abortions.
Also, on a side note, both the term “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are euphemistic. If we want to be realistic about this dispute, the correct terminology would be “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion,” because abortion is what we’re talking about it. If you’re in favor of “choosing abortions,” then you’re in favor of abortions, period. It’s a simple logical connection. If you’re not in favor of abortions, you’re against them, period.
To me, this is the ultimate issue where pro-lifers need to learn the lesson that the GOP tried to teach liberals in the 1980’s — you can’t get rid of something just by outlawing it. I’m a pro-choice absolutist, for reasons having nothing to do with abortion itself and having everything to do with the right to choose. The answer is to do what a lot of liberals did in response to the policy overreaches of the 60’s - 70’s — realize that the key to effective policymaking isn’t in laws, but in acknowledging social realities and putting in place appropriate incentive structures. Yes, we should reduce the number of abortions. Let’s just work on that.
Paul, let’s get semantic: I am pro-choice and anti-abortion.
I do not believe abortion is a morally acceptable procedure in and of itself, but I also believe that when it occurs it is a measure of last resort (and I mean the term literally, ‘last resort’, not ‘minimal expenditure’ or any offensively callous term you may internally think pro-choicers secretly mean metaphorically.)
Why I am pro-choice is simple: I do not believe that the government has the right to ban a procedure without the consent of the people. Theoretically, the power of government is vested by the governed. I believe that if the overwhelming majority of Americans believed murder should be legal then it should be legal. I believe legislating morality is not the responsibility of the government. The responsibility of the government is to respond to the will of its people. And when there is no clear overwhelmingly observable majority opinion, claims of “morality” alone cannot sway the government.
To me, the question isn’t really whether a woman’s right to choose or an unborn fetus’s right to life is more legally important; the question is whether government has the right to ban a procedure without the will of the people. If the government can do that, then we cross a line I never want to see crossed.
Jonah, you’ve just advocated the overturning of Roe v. Wade, probably without realizing it. Currently, the reason abortion is legal is because the Supreme Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Constitution to include, as a protection of privacy, a woman’s “right” to choose to have an abortion. Basically, the Supreme Court (not elected individuals mind you) decided that the question of the legality of abortion is NOT an issue “the people” are allowed to decide about. As it stands, Roe says that it is the job of 9 unelected officials to tell the country how to behave in regards to abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would actually send that question back to the people because it would become a state issue. The states’ legislatures (representatives of the people) would decide whether or not to pass laws allowing or banning abortion. Bottom line: if you want the consent of the people to decide the abortion issue, Roe v. Wade has to be overturned.
And thus the “line you never want to see crossed” was crossed back when Roe was first decided. And I agree with you, we need to uncross it.
Finally, your first proposition is empirically false. The overwhelming majority of abortions are not “a last resort,” but rather based on the mother’s decision that the baby would inconvenience her lifestyle. If you mean last resort literally, as you suggest, then you would be supporting a view that says abortions should only be allowed in the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, which is not the case in 99% of abortions.
I think Norma laid out some excellent points to bring about much needed change in this policy area.
First, she is right to argue that America needs to get back to real sex education. We need to leave behind the ill-conceived notions that abstinence-only education works to teach kids about sex. In fact, there is not one peer-reviewed study supporting this ideologically-driven method. Let’s get real: condoms must be made easily available, and kids must be taught how to use them. With proper education and access, we can expect our children to have safer sex. This change will also work to reduce STDs.
Second, the morning after pill must be made available over-the-counter now. The FDA recommended it. Political appointees stood in its way. This bottleneck should clear with the change in the administration.
Great debate so far! Thanks Steven!
In short, no - pro-life should not settle with a compromise. The motivation of pro-life must be moral justice and such a compromise on moral justice is acceptance of moral injustice. We can aim no lower. Although advocates of pro-choice may not know any better, we who advocate pro-life do and our accountability to moral justice is higher - our sin will be far worse should we condone any measure of murder than those who do so in ignorance.
Even when talking with Chicago Irish Democrats, we can all agree that abortions are terrible and should be reduced (and in my opinion completely eliminated). The problem goes back to the liberal idea that government can offer us anything. The Church has taken care of the orphans and young mothers since it’s inception. There is not a church in the world that would not take an unwanted child, period. We need to teach kids in high school (or earlier) the choices (see? I am pro-choice) that they have when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. This is also a civil rights issue since most abortions come from the poor & minorities. So are we supposed to weed out the poor through abortion? Absolutely not. Rich, poor, black, white, latino…doesn’t matter. All people have the right to life. In an ideal world we could outlaw abortion on a national level, but that just won’t happen, at least not now. We must allow the states to decide for themselves and as we have seen with same-sex marraige, we are the ones in the majority. Some states will opt to still allow abortions with restrictions, but I highly doubt you will see at-will abortion happen in any state. Better to let 40 states do what is right than have all 50 with blood on their hands. Also, we have to stand up to the federalization of everything and stand up for the states’ rights, especially education, marraige, abortion, and taxes.
I always dread having the responsibility of reminding the masses this, but clearly I must. Americans Are Not As Divided As You Want Them To Be, or at least you think they are. Death penalty, abortion….yes on all these “hot button” issues, MAINSTREAM America is in common thought and unison. Of course cable news would like you to think they are not, so they can make a business out of the constantly reporting or making primetime shows on the “divides” in America.
At this point, I recommend the easy read of Culture War, a scientifically look by political scientists that debunks the myth of such large divides on issues
The truth is the MAINSTREAM has no problem with early term abortions (especially chemical abortions, by pills), especially when the mother’s health is at risk.
For the Americans who spend most (or all) their energy on such issues like abortion, are probably not sophisticated enough to address America’s more pressing education issues, taxes, or national security issues. They simply like “for or against” type stances. I find both outward supporters and opponents of abortion to be equally counterproductive to America’s political environment
I have a few thoughts/questions…
Jonah - When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, it nullifed the laws of a majority of states which outlawed abortion. Unless you equate government with the judicial branch alone, the government (and I assume that when you say govt., you’re referring primarily to the legislative and executive branches, since they are the branches–at least at the federal level–which are most accountable to the people) has never had a chance to make abortion illegal, b/c the Supreme Court took away that right.
What did happen in Roe was that the government, i.e. the federal judiciary, made abortion through all three trimesters constitutionally legal “without the will of the people,” whose will had actually dictated that abortion be illegal.
Also for Jonah. I get tired of the intellectually weak argument that government has no business legislating morality. Unfortunately, the reality is that every policy decision made by government reflects the endorsement of a particular moral standard over numerous– and probably countless–other moral standards.
For example, Jonah says, “I believe legislating morality is not the responsibility of the government.” Jonah then immediately states the proper responsibility of government, to wit, “to respond to the will of the people.” Unfortunately, Jonah has just succeeded in contradicting himself in short order.
The belief that government should respond to the will of the people asserts a belief about government that ultimately reflects a strikingly moral judgment. There is no logical reason why that statement must be true, no law found in nature that demands it be true, and history has proven this countless times. Jonah prefers a government that responds to the will of the people over, say, communist regimes of the twentieth century or absolutist monarchies of the 17th and 18th century.
Jonah’s statement merely begs the very moral question, why should it be the responsibility of govt to respond to the will of the people? At heart, no matter how much some try to deny it, the answer to that question will be based on particular moral views about the world and those who live in it. So let’s dispense with the worn out trump card of “no legislating morality!” that attempts to circumvent serious discussion on “social issues.”
Brandon - Kudos on a well reasoned argument.
As to the general question of finding common ground, I think it will prove difficult, but I would like to see the number of abortions decrease and so will entertain the possibility that there are pro-abortion policies that might also help reduce the number of abortions. Having said that, I would be very interested to look at abortion rates in countries and states that have the least restrictive abortion laws, and then look to see which of those countries has seen the largest DECREASE in abortion rates, or even any decreases in abortion rates, over time. Once identified I would like to see if there are any particular policies present in those particular countries/states which might explain the decrease. From such inquiries, we may find “common ground” between the pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups.
However, I generally think that large decreases in the number of abortions will only happen as the culture generally becomes more and more convicted about the need to protect human life. I am encouraged by the fact that the younger generations in America tend to be more pro-life than the older generations. Hopefully this is a sign that the culture is going in the right direction, where abortion becomes steadily morally indefensible.
I should have clarified what I meant when I said “an overwhelming majority” earlier… neglecting to do so was begging for the responses I’ve received on my part.
I believe it would be reasonable to assume that, if all of the American population could be polled on the morality of murder, over 99% would respond that it is immoral. That is an overwhelming majority.
I find it hard to believe that an overwhelming majority such as that has ever opposed abortion. That may seem like a high standard, but it is the standard I set for the intersection between “morality” and “legislation.”
So, Harris, I hope you can see I do not contradict myself, I simply neglected to philosophically elaborate on my positions. Forgive me.
Looking at “legislating morality”, I simply beg the question: if we are to legislate morality - whose morality do we choose? Is it yours? Well that’s conceited. Is it mine? Likewise. Is it the majority’s? In the world you would propose that seems too fickle… what of these issues that are 50/50? Does the vote of the people (by the way, when do you propose a national referendum would take place? Or is it state-by-state, which simply leads to abortion becoming a ghettoized phenomenon and not eliminated, which seems less moral than concentrating on abortion reduction…) get to change the law at its whim? Is a more stable legal code necessary?
When Roe v. Wade overturned bans on abortion, yes, it overruled the will of the people in those states, but in service of the sizeable minority. Roe v. Wade, to my point of view, is a decision on par with Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court overturning the will of the people when the majority of the people (note: not an “overwhelming majority”, which is my personal term for the tipping point, preferably the same point where the general population is so in agreement that to disagree would clinically be considered insanity - that is my personal threshhold for “legislating morality”) were willing to limit the rights of the minority.
And, Harris, as a young person, I take umbrage your comment about the younger generations of America. As someone who has lived in a post-Roe world all my life, I think many of my female friends of similar age would sincerely be appalled by your efforts to remove a right they have had since birth. It gets trickier to do that as the world adapts to new realities, and each generation will take less kindly to a right revoked than a right protected.
Lastly, Brandon. I would love to see you cite a report for that 99% statistic of yours. If you can, I will gladly eat my shoe.
Sure:
Less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Taken from:
Lawrence Finer, et. al, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.
My apologies for being off by 6%.
Back to the issue of arriving at common sense solutions to reducing abortions—
Norma made another great point by addressing the problem of poverty. Enhanced economic security brings enhanced capability for women to make choices and live a life worthy of human dignity. Unfortunately, the divide between the rich and poor is greater now than any moment since the Great Depression. The middle class is being squeezed, diminishing the capability of poor mothers to provide for their children. Economic policies that benefit all citizens, not just those at the top, will relieve pressure on mothers who must make the understandably heart-wrenching decision of whether or not they can adequately provide for a child on the way.
Haha. What intellectual fun this is!
Jonah, thank you for proving my point yet again.
You state that you draw the line between “morality” and “legislation” where morality is any issue on which there is less than total support. (which, as an aside, seem to beg the question of how do we determine what counts as a moral issue?) Therefore, since abortion is not opposed by 99% ( or any other similarly high figure) of people, the government should not legislate against it, b/c to do so would be legislating morality.
This is fine and reasonable, as you suggest. It is also an inherently moral position. You are arguing that government should not legislate “morality,” unless there is near total consensus on that morality. Well and good. But why must that be the rule to which we in society adhere? That is not a law demanded by forces in the universe. It is simply your moral position that it would be wrong to legislate morality without overwhelming support.
I, on the other hand, have a different moral belief–that a government can and should legislate morality even when less than 99% of people agree.
To say that we shouldn’t legislate morality is simply semantic legerdemain used to impose one’s own morality.
Unfortunately, Jonah, every position you take is going to reveal your own moral belief. We cannot escape the fact that when a government acts in any manner, it is legislating morality.
So, the question that you pose is exactly right. It is not a matter of if morality should be legislated, but rather which morality will be legislated–that morality which says abortion is wrong and should not be allowed or that morality which says abortion–though unfortunate–should be allowed to exist. Both are moral arguments.
We need to stop deluding ourselves by saying that “we shouldn’t legislate morality,” when by making that very statement we are taking a moral position on what government policy should be and in effect asking the government to legislate in favor of that moral position.
As to your taking “umbrage” by “my efforts to remove a right” of women, I’m sure southern plantation owners in the mid-19th century were just as appalled by the efforts of abolitionists to take away their “right” to own slaves. And if your “morality test” had been applied then, I wonder if there would have been 99% approval of the idea that slavery was wrong?
The point is simple–the idea that rights should not be taken away simply because they have existed for some people “since birth” is a laughable proposition revealing a massive lack of logic. If that reasoning were applied in the mid-19th century, slavery wouldn’t have been abolished, because there certainly was not a consensus that it should be ended.
So, by all means, I advocate taking away the “right” of my female friends to abort an unborn child, and am proud to say so. I am for the rights of the unborn child, which is every bit as human as black slaves in the American South were in 1861.
I look forward to the day when Americans (at least 99% of them!) will look back in history and say, “how could we have allowed abortion to take place?,” in the same way that we look back now and say, “how could people have ever allowed other people to be enslaved and owned as property?”
I appreciate that many of you have kept a tone of civility in your comments. Please continue to do so in order to move the conversation forward. Thanks.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue and my own personal stance on it. I agree with what Natalie has said above, by calling herself pro-life and pro-choice. While I don’t agree abortion is right, the unfortunate fact is, there are always going to be women who seek them. In fact, earlier today I did a little research on the history of abortion, as I was very unfamiliar with it. I was kind of surprised that it has been going on pretty much since the beginnings of recorded history, with all sorts of crazy methods used. I think working to reduce the numbers of them is a good plan, while still making the option available to women safely, as there will always be women seeking abortions. Although I strongly favor a time limit in which they can be performed. Partial birth abortions are some of the sickest things I have ever read about. No way is that NOT murder. I also must add that while I don’t agree with it, I would NEVER judge someone who’s had one (I know a few people who have.). It is simply not my place to.
Harris, you raise excellent points.
If you believe that the decision I have made, that I do not believe the government should legislate morality, is a moral decision in and of itself, I can see where you would aptly describe a slippery slope in my argument. However, I see my decision as a philosophical belief about government in the abstract. Which is why I believe the government should not legislate morality… I find the tricky business of morality in legislation is better solved by never exercising it (or, if by your eyes that is an act of morality, than only exercising it once.)
The aside you raise, as to what constitutes a moral issue, is a tremendous aside, and gets precisely to my point. There will always be dissent, there always be minority opinion, therefore instead of spending effort determining where to draw the line in the sand, I find it a much more resourceful proposition to not draw a line. Of course, the act of not drawing a line is an option on the line-in-the-sand spectrum, and I must concede that point. But I stand by my position nonetheless, as I expect you to stand by yours.
Returning to the actual concept of abortion, if I may, reveals why it is a trickier concept than the (intriguingly) applied metaphor of slavery and abolitionism. Unlike slavery, the moral arguments I see between pro-life and pro-choice are fairly comparable. The pro-life moral argument is rather explicit: abortion is murder. Not too hard to consider, not too hard to defend. The pro-choice moral argument, for me, stems from an absolutist’s perspective.
In the absolute worst-case scenario (where all legislation should, in my book, be aimed towards), an abortion is considered in a case where either the mother or the fetus will die. Both organisms have a right to life, I think we both would agree. However, there is the simple fact of this hypothesis: one of them will die. It is unavoidable for the purposes of this thought experiment.
If this is the case, the pro-choice argument simply states that it is in no way the government’s responsibility to decide which lives. The government cannot mandate an abortion, nor can the government ban it. This is, as you well know, the “health of the mother” case.
If the pro-life argument is to ban abortions, then how is it not murdering the mother?
Of course, even most pro-lifers concede this point and acknowledge the “health of the mother” argument and offer exceptions in any legislation banning abortion. My point, and it goes back to the philosophical argument earlier, is that this is now simply drawing a line in the sand. And I would, philosophically, prefer not to spend any effort arguing and determining where the line in the sand should be drawn, because that process serves no one and ends up unresolved. And that is why I am pro-choice; because it should be in no one’s hands to decide. And if a decision must be made, it should only be in the hands of those it directly affects.
“The main point of this entry is to beg the question: Would it be practical for pro-life and pro-choice activists to work together to reduce the number of abortions, despite intense feelings on the issue?”
I think it is practical for anti-choice and pro-choice activists to work together to reduce the number of abortions. For example, the Pregnant Women’s Support Act (HR 3192) and Reducing the Number of Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (HR 1074) are both examples of pending legislation that actively try to support women who want to carry their babies to term. The PWSA has a number of provisions that address the underlying reasons why women have abortions, namely inequality, poverty, and the often lack of options for unwanted children: making the adoption tax credits permanent, ending pregnancy as “pre-existing condition” for health insurance providers, federal funding for abortion counseling and daycare on university campuses, federal funding for pregnancy prevention education in public schools, requiring women’s health centers to provide adoption referral information, etc. Similarly, the Reducing the Number of Abortions and Supporting Parents Act would expand Medicaid and Title X to include family planning services, would require states to provide free contraception to women whose incomes were 200% or less than the federal poverty level, provide no-cost visits from nurses to teens and women who have given birth for the first time, expand a tax credit for adoption and fund child care services for parents in college, etc.
These are two real examples of anti-choice and pro-choice activists working together to diminish the abortion rate in this country, by addressing the reasons why women get abortions, not just the legality of the procedure itself.
Also, I think it should be noted that in nations where abortion is illegal, there is no evidence that the number of abortions has decreased. It has only made abortions more dangerous. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1)
But I think there’s another issue that needs to be addressed. The profile of women who have gotten abortions has changed over the last 35 years. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/nyregion/new-jersey/02Rparent.html) Most women who have abortions are in their 20s, unmarried, have children already, are poor, and consider themselves Christian. Where is the support network for these women? Moreover, where are the fathers of these children? By casting abortion as merely a women’s issue, we ignore the other half of the equation: the men involved. Perhaps we should also be encouraging men to be responsible parents and wait until they are financially stable enough to start having sex, in case of an unwanted pregnancy. Women alone are not the gatekeepers of sexuality.
I did not read the other comments before I contribute because I didn’t want my message to be influenced but simply to speak from my heart. I am 52 years old. I made an impulsive choice when I was 16 and got pregnant. Abortion as an option never even crossed my mind. I had my son when I was 17. That “baby” is now almost 35. He was a self-made millionaire by the time he was 30 and is a wonderful husband and father of three today. He was wanted. He was loved. I was a good mother. I didn’t party or neglect him. I went back to school. I worked. I met my goal to sign my first book contract by the time I was 30. Finishing my own growing up was complicated by my choice to be sexually active so young. That said, there have been over the years many people whom I cared deeply about who, when confronted with unplanned pregnancies, chose to terminate. I am not God. I do not judge them. But my heart does grieve with them and for their unborn, as for all the “chest-beating” that some pro-choice people do to fight for the “right to choose” they usually avoid the truth of what it looks and feels like to be “on the other side” of the choice. The pain and torment that many women and men feel–often years later when they do have children–about the lives they chose to deny can be excruciating. One of my friends lost one of her two sons to leukemia a few years ago and can’t help think sometimes still that God punished her for having an abortion twenty years ago. I insist to her that God doesn’t punish like that. He sustains us while we punish ourselves. Life and loss are necessary colleagues. But we must stop trying to pretend on BOTH sides of the abortion issue that there is any choice that comes without harsh consequences. Giving babies up for adoption is no picnic in my observation either. Maybe common ground can be found in merely telling the truth about the “bigger picture” and then allowing the couple involved to make their choices knowing that there will, in fact, be fall-out. I believe this approach really could reduce the number of abortions.
I would like to make a suggestion to all of the commentors on this list. Read Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Whether you agree with the outcomes or not, it is worth understanding the nuanced arguments made by each side, rather than getting your information about each case filtered through advocacy groups. Free access links to both cases are below.
Roe:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
Casey:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
This is my first post here, and I have to say that I am so glad to see this issue discussed with candor, honesty, and respect. My two cents:
I don’t think conservatives need to rethink their position on this issue, since I personally believe the logic of the pro-life stance is internally sound. However, I do believe conservatives and Republicans have done a horrific job of framing this issue. Many of the young, professionally oriented women I know cling to the “pro-choice” mantra because they honestly believe that a pregnancy will derail their professional plans and “ruin their life”. This is not a failure of policy, this is a failure of message. Liberal pro-choice advocates have done an excellent job framing pro-life conservatives as “anti-women” by arguing that abortion is the only thing that guarantees a woman won’t be stuck at home, will have the opportunity to pursue an education and a career of her own. Until pro-lifers break out of that frame, we will lose this debate.
Almost all the pro-lifers I know are absolutely 100% pro-choice in the sense they believe a woman has a right to choose when to have a child and when not to have a child. Where the differences lie between pro-life and pro-choice is the kind of mechanisms women should use to make that decision. This is where pro-lifers have an opportunity. We must reframe the debate around being pro-woman and pro-family.
First, I would say we pro-lifers should prioritize: do we care more about increasing teen abstinence or decreasing abortions? Ideally I would say we should want both outcomes, but realistically promoting the former may be undermining our efforts to achieve the latter. We must drop the abstinence-only argument and start advocating and subsidizing birth control. Teen sex is a cultural issue that we can work on through other means that the government. Abortion, however, is a much more pressing issue, especially for those of us who believe that abortion causes the death of a living person.
By advocating birth control, conservatives can take back millions of women on this issue. Most people are pro-life in the sense they want to avoid abortion for themselves or the people they know and love. Therefore, I would hazard to guess that most women would embrace a party that strongly believed in the right of a woman to decide how and when to get pregnant, but denounced abortion as the primary means of securing this right. Does this sound like common ground that could be acceptable to the many factions of conservatism (libertarians and SocialCons, I’m looking at you) as well as moderates and democrats?
My primary complaint with the Republican stance on this issue is the level of it’s effectiveness over the past 30 odd years since Roe v Wade. I am tired of abortion stances that are more moderate, but also much more likely to be passed being shot down by pro-life purists because it’s considered “compromising” our principles. Color me one who would prefer half a loaf to no loaf at all. I believe if the focus of our assault was on education of the specifics and possible effects of the procedure, regulating the industry, maybe forcing a 72 hour waiting period for the women to consider the decision, parental notification, late-term abortion restrictions, and yes, better sex education and birth control access (including Plan B being available over the counter) we would see the number of abortions drop. I also believe we need to have more pro-active measures, such as accessibility to counseling (I know a lot of groups do this, but we need more) and support groups for women stuck making these tough decisions (see earlier comment), and for them after the decision is made, it would go a long way towards helping our image and our cause.
Abortion isn’t going anywhere any time soon, so attempts to strike at the horribly reasoned Roe v Wade in an attempt to once again make abortion illegal is a losing argument at the moment. Even if it was overturned, you would be lucky if 2 or 3 states made it illegal. When North Dakota are voting down ballot propositions that include health exceptions, the debate is lost at the moment. Personally, I hold the value and importance of even one innocent life above the adherence to “pure moral philosophy.” I would ask those that attack everyone who tries to reach the middle ground this, if you could save even one innocent life by feeling like a hypocrite over the issue of life, would that not be a truer adherence to your supposed values that purity of argument and failure of results?
I apologize that this has wound up being a little more incendiary than I originally planned, but I find it odd that there are those that claim people who are trying to save lives are hypocritical, while holding to arguments that have not made much ground. Isn’t it more hypocritical to claim to value life while discounting methods to save it because it doesn’t fit your box perfectly? If you honestly think simply holding to the “abortion is murder” argument, and trying to win minds in straight outlawing abortion is going to work over time, I’m afraid you are delusional. The younger generation does find abortion more distasteful than the older, but they also are not about ready to outlaw abortion. Thus our focus MUST be on methods of limiting abortions, because we could actually get that passed.
Just wanted to Josh to know I am glad he wrote this and gave me different perspective on the issue.
What keeps things clear for me when asked about common ground on abortion is calling to mind other atrocities. Should we reduce or outlaw the number of slaves, rapes, concentration camp victims, etc. Hard to think of any other issue that has claimed the lives of 50,000,000 human beings directly and the hearts of those involved in abortions. Can’t remember who said it: if you compromise on the truth, that means you never had it.
There can be no common ground on this issue. You cant compramise on a moral issue.
I am an Anti-Abortion Democrat. However, I don’t think we should call on Big Government to make the choice FOR woman. I like the idea that both sides would work together to reduce the number of abortions as a united front.
Of course there’s some compromises possible:
a) making Safe Haven places more available, so mothers of infants whose lives are so inconvenienced by the child that they can give the child up,
b) push to make ADOPTION, not abortion, the planned end of an unwanted pregnancy,
c) end gov’t subsidies for abortion; replace them with gov’t subsidies/ tax credits for pre-natal care and newborn care and day care (this is not a Rep/ conservative/ small gov’t position, but it’s an anti-abortion position)
d) make colleges more accommodating to new parents, especially single mothers, so as to help them finish their education while raising their children.
(See Feminists for Life).
Pro-life folk would probably do better focusing on changing the culture, more so than the law.
Tax vouchers for education would probably allow more schools to be more strict on morals and ethics.
I wrote the above before looking at InsideCatholic and the <a href=”http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Uniting-under-the-Pregnant-Women-Support-Act-.html&Itemid=127″>Pregnant Woman Support Act.</a>
Introduced by pro-life Democrats. Surprisingly, there seem to be a few.
“Of course there’s some compromises possible:
a) making Safe Haven places more available, so mothers of infants whose lives are so inconvenienced by the child that they can give the child up,
b) push to make ADOPTION, not abortion, the planned end of an unwanted pregnancy,
c) end gov’t subsidies for abortion; replace them with gov’t subsidies/ tax credits for pre-natal care and newborn care and day care (this is not a Rep/ conservative/ small gov’t position, but it’s an anti-abortion position)
d) make colleges more accommodating to new parents, especially single mothers, so as to help them finish their education while raising their children.”
Oh, but all of that would be Socialism, making us little better than the USSR or China. I don’t want to have to pay for someone elses baby. The federal government shouldn’t be involved with that…
There will never be compromise when people dogmatism over pragmatism.
The first mistake is making the assumption that it’s OK for the government to sanction taking innocent human life. That’s the logic fallacy which leads to this whole morass of debate, when the core issue is really quite simple.
I reject the idea that we will never be able to do away with abortion in this country (apart from extreme medical cases such as eptopic pregnancy) and that therefore we should just get used to the idea of abortion on demand always being around. It’s exactly analogous to people in the early 1800’s saying , “Slavery is here to stay, so we need to find common ground on it.”
Even abortion’s proponent’s (most of them) admit that they don’t like the practice and would prefer alternatives. So I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that this practice can become a dark side note in history like slavery did, at least in moral, free societies like our own.
“I reject the idea that we will never be able to do away with abortion in this country (apart from extreme medical cases such as eptopic pregnancy) and that therefore we should just get used to the idea of abortion on demand always being around.”
You can try to deny reality all you want, but history and other countries show that abortion occurs whether or not it is illegal.
I don’t think this is the place to debate morality or statistics about abortion (editors, please let me know if I’m wrong); I can bring up all sorts of biblical statements, thought experiments, and current statistics that show anti-abortion folks can be on thin ice.
I would think the purpose of this thread would be whether or not Republicans as a party should attempt be bipartisan on this issue to gain votes. They can choose to stick by ideology, thus alieanting a large portion of the voting public, or they can take a pragmatic view try to work with pro-choicers to minimize the number of abortions (via easing adoption, prenatal care,…).
Abortion is ultimately a moral choice! To have sext may be as well depending on your situation. The goal to eliminate pregnancy must be approached from three sides 1)lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancy, whether in a married relationship or not. This means 2)laws enforcing appropriate restrictions. This means parental notification, restrictions on late term abortions, no partial birth abortion, restrictions to prevent abortion being used simply as birth control, and I am sure other laws to regulate those providing the service. 3) Education. We must educate kids about their bodies. We also need programs which teach kids what its like to be a parent, programs which teach abstinence and responsibility and we need programs which teach about the affects of unprotected sex. Bring in aids victims, bring in someone who has had other STDs.
The thing we should not do is hand out the pill or condoms to kids who are two young emotionally to engage in sex. That says to the kids it’s ok for them even if they are 13 or 14. To say well their going to do it anyway is the wrong answer. Parents must be parents. Also, parents must be allowed to be parents. If my child’s school hands my child the pill or a condom they are circumventing me and enabling behavior from my child which is not something I want them to engage in!
“If my child’s school hands my child the pill or a condom they are circumventing me and enabling behavior from my child which is not something I want them to engage in! ”
Questions:
Should it be illegal to sell birth control to those under 18? I don’t know of any states that have that rule, and I suspect that most Americans would be against it.
If it is legal to sell it, will only the wealthier kids have birth control?
Have you done any research on the science of sex education, such as from the CDC?
“I would think the purpose of this thread would be whether or not Republicans as a party should attempt be bipartisan on this issue to gain votes. They can choose to stick by ideology, thus alienating a large portion of the voting public, or they can take a pragmatic view…”
Timetheos, I think you’re on to something vital — and larger than this one issue. What alarms moderates is not the Republican ideology but its absolutism. ”There can be no room for compromise” one hears again and again — even in these forums. That can only fail: without compromise there can never be agreement.
Would you consider it an “attempt to be bipartisan” for the party to acknowledge, and even embrace, a diversity of views (on any issue, but let’s be brave and use this one)? If so, what about that acknowledgement is “bipartisan”, exactly? Can Republicans never tolerate anything other than lockstep allegiance? If so, the party’s over.
I wonder how large that alienatable portion of the electorate is, who would abandon a conservative political party broad enough to include a spectrum of beliefs. I confess to fear that it might be sizeable; the old Adlai Stevenson story comes to mind: ”Oh Mr. Stevenson, every thinking American will vote for you.” “That’s not enough, madam; we need a majority.”
That’s not to say that conservatives must move toward the center to succeed. Quite the contrary: a conservative party whose ideology CAN tolerate variability, can then move with greater assurance to the right — not so much to its “base” as to its foundation — toward its core beliefs, e.g. smaller role for the federal government, etc. And wouldn’t that confuse the absolutists!
The way I feel about it is that aboration is wrong. But the way to get it abloshied is us to slowly get it it reduced by starting to go back on how late in a pregnancy you can have a aboration and slowly work back until it is completely gone. And yes it does need a federal hearing on it it is not just a state issue it is a national issue that affects us all.
I’m sorry, there can be NO COMMON GROUND when it comes to the inalienable right of an unborn child to LIVE. I see NO common ground with those who side with abortionists and/or pro-choicers, period. I came to this web site to offer the “New Republicans” some suggestions on how to win over the American people’s votes…this site was suggested to me by America Coast 2 Coast. After reading this article, though, I don’t believe you people deserve my support. You’re still young and nieve…wake up already. The MAJORITY of the American people are siding with us, the Conservatives of America. We don’t need to “find common ground” with the minority base that is trying to kill our country. That’s not what we, the majority, want OR need. Thank you.
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.