Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2006

A Discussion of Abortion — Part Four: Summing Up Today’s Comments

Filed under: Abortion,General — Patterico @ 9:33 pm



I appreciate all of the comments people have been making on this week’s abortion posts. There are people coming at the question from all sides, which is great. What is even better is that we have shown that the issue can be debated without the seemingly inevitable descent into name-calling or nastiness. Almost without exception, the discussion has been respectful and substantive.

Have we reached a consensus on how to view incipient life, and what power the state has to regulate abortions? Of course not. It’s hard to imagine that our society ever will. But I have so far noticed some startling points of agreement.

Notably, all sides seem remarkably tolerant of other positions, to a degree that would seem unthinkable to those who are used to watching “talking heads” scream at each other on television. Most of you recognize that reasonable people can disagree with you about some aspects of your opinions.

For example, those who fervently believe life begins at conception almost uniformly understand that many Americans disagree with them on core issues, such as whether abortion should be permitted in cases of rape. They are willing to settle for something less than their view of perfection in terms of regulation. They just want the chance to persuade their fellow citizens to change the laws — something the courts have essentially prohibited for over thirty years.

Those who believe that a fetus does not enjoy full rights until viability turn out, when closely questioned, to be far less doctrinaire than the NARAL types you see on television. These commenters initially seem insistent that society not interfere in any way with a woman’s choice. But upon closer examination, they prove to be comfortable with the state’s deployment of resources to persuade a woman not to abort her child — as long as there is no coercion or criminal prosecution involved. They understand the potential moral problems inherent in turning over the decision entirely to the woman, and are willing to take non-coercive steps to encourage the woman to consider adoption or caring for the baby herself.

I think that, while most commenters approach the issue from different perspectives, most of you see something valid in the point of view expressed by AMac.

On the one hand, AMac argues that a fully developed person has greater moral status than an embryo. AMac argues that this is something that we all intuitively grasp. Even “life begins at conception” people can see this point. (After all, most of you are not so doctrinaire about your position that you consider abortionists to be murderers, in quite the same sense that you consider Charlie Manson and Richard Ramirez to be murderers. You may consider abortionists to be morally repugnant, but you do not celebrate violence against them.)

On the other hand, AMac says that a fetus deserves moral consideration before viability, beginning sometime in the 2 to 4 months window. He says it’s tough to draw a clear and exact line, but that as a fetus becomes more like a fully developed human, we should accord it greater moral respect, deserving of protection. I think that you “no regulation until viability” people can see his point here too. After all, most of you clearly recognize that abortion is not ideal, even before viability — and that it becomes less ideal the further the pregnancy develops.

Steve provides a link to James Q. Wilson’s essay, which inspired this series of posts, and quotes a particularly meaningful passage:

People treat as human that which appears to be human; people treat as quasi-human that which appears quasi-human.

The conundrum is with pregnancy, we start out with something that is clearly less than human, and end up with something that is fully human. The question is how we treat it in the meantime, and how to make the judgment.

AMac’s thesis suggests that there are shades of gray; that it is a continuous process of development that calls for judgment. But the question remains: just when does the fetus deserve moral respect to the point where society may have the right to get involved in some way?

What a great lead-in to tomorrow’s post.

Again, I think this is a remarkable exercise in civil discussion about a controversial topic. Thanks for participating.

5 Responses to “A Discussion of Abortion — Part Four: Summing Up Today’s Comments”

  1. This has been the most interesting and informative discussion of abortion I’ve ever had the pleasure to participate in. Patterico’s summary of the opinions expressed shows that even as divergent as our opinions may be, we can be civilized and respectful of others. It also shows that, as many legal scholars have said, Americans were moving toward some consensus about the legalization of abortion before the Supreme Court usurped our rights and declared abortion to be a constitutional right. What a pity.

    I think it is correct that most pro-lifers could deal with SOME abortion available if there were more restrictions than now exist. This is not unreasonable, given our nature as Americans to believe in the rights of the majority to make the laws, but for the minority to try to affect those laws.

    sharon (fecb65)

  2. As part of the “life begins at conception” crowd, I think my biggest frustration has to do with the binary choice currently presented by abortion: all or nothing. I would prefer nothing, but I know my chances of getting it are less than 0. I would be satisfied with some common sense restrictions, with limiting the time period for abortions to happen.

    I have no desire to see my preference imposed through the courts. I simply want to see the issue returned to the States. I happen to think that we’d see quite an interesting variety of abortion laws, if that were ever to happen. It would also make Supreme Court confirmation hearings more interesting, that’s for sure.

    Joe Martin (b38253)

  3. The conundrum is with pregnancy, we start out with something that is clearly less than human, and end up with something that is fully human.

    I see no basis for this statement at all. A baby is very different from an octogenarian, yet both are human. If youth does not make one less human then this statement is patently false. Today we know what a fetus looks like – today we have no excuse for this error. We know all about human development. This was hidden from previous generations. There is no change in the womb that makes one human whereas before they were not, other than conception. But keep looking – maybe hair? Or toenails? What about humor, or the ability to blink one’s eyes. Give me a break.

    Fetuses are not parasites, and they are not cancerous growths. They very young people. The only reason to say otherwise is to give a woman another chance to change her mind – at her child’s expense.

    The argument behind the argument is that we don’t want a woman to carry a baby she doesn’t want. But most would restrict her choice after viability – so if she changes her mind then it’s too late. And, except in cases such as rape, she has already had her choice. But the father is out of luck – his wages could be garnered for 18 years due to someone else’s choice, and he would have no role in raising the child. Abortion takes the choice from the couple and gives it wholly to the woman. This is not a good policy for the mother, the father, and the child.

    Abortion does not fix the situation. Many women bitterly regret it. Telling a woman that she is carrying some kind of growth (a disease?) instead of a baby is a lie. It ultimately helps no one.

    There are no partial humans. One is either a separate and distinct human life, or one is not. Sub humans are a fantasy borne of convenience. And they set a very, very dangerous precedent. We’ve seen it before.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  4. Well, thanks for the thoughtful contributions of Patterico, Amphipolis, Psyberian, TNugent, Paul, and others on this blog.

    I’ll make a point that I think many of us in the middle share. (‘The Middle’ was described in the Part 3 post as people who generally hold that a fetus acquires progressively more right to “moral respect” in the 2-month to 9-month window.)

    A philosophical position may necessarily lead to corrolaries that appear to be absurd. The advocates of such a stance should show that these corrolaries either don’t follow, or aren’t absurd. Else, those of us who are more practical than philosophical will reject the position.

    The example here is “human life begins at conception, and fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are identical in moral terms to infants, children, and adults.”

    Corrolaries:

    –An infertile woman who chooses IVF is morally indistinguishable from the murderer of a 20-year-old college student (a multiple murderer, given the number of embryos that are destroyed in vitro).

    –A Tay-Sachs carrier who chooses prenatal testing and then aborts a genetically defective first-trimester fetus is the moral equivalent of the murderer of a disabled child.

    To me, these fantastic conclusions suggest that the initial premise is faulty.

    Rather than looking to the bright-line demarcation point (fertilization, or implantation), I allow that human-ness may be acquired, or bestowed, gradually. I recognize that shades of grey is a prescription for contentious policy-making. In comments 30, 37, and 62 in Part 3, TNugent has provided an insightful framework for thinking about that point.

    No compromise will satisfy advocates of Positions #1 (Life begins at conception) or #2 (No regulation until viability). But to my surprise, I now believe that it will be possible to construct laws, policies, and institutions based on perspectives that are shared by the middle two-thirds of Americans.

    AMac (b6037f)

  5. I have written a half dozen articles in reconsideration of the abortion issue, trying to bring some relatively unappreciated facts about it to the discussion and to reframe the whole issue as an issue, largely, of women’s first pregnancies and family formation. Could I suggest that you look at it? The series starts here–
    http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com/bodyparts/abortion/index.html

    Turin (30b9f6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1147 secs.