Discussion of Abortion

In my "Catching Up" post the other day, I was lucky enough to gain a few comments from my good friend Ed Hanks (otherwise known as Rensslaer both here in the comments and at the Paradox site - link in the Entertainment section to the right.)  You can also read his musings at Look On the Right Side.  In the discussion that followed, he and I went back on forth on the troubling issue of abortion and I must admit that it was a pleasant and meaningful discussion, unlike most arguments one might encounter.  As such, I thought it proper to break those comments out into their own post. Here is a little of the back and forth -

The portion of the post Rensslaer responds to:

Readers who are puzzled or angry that I am so supportive of Giuliani should view the 2008 election through this prism: of what import is the endless ‘war’ over abortion in the face of a complete collapse in the real war in Iraq?…

The above is from a post made by Mark at Decision '08. 

Renss responds:

I definitely agree with you on the war, and its necessity -- I've blogged on the subject at least twice this year.

But Giuliani is a non-starter with me (not that you're necessarily supporting him, but the Decision 08 guy is). I'm not a single-issue voter, even on the war (and I think he's hardly the only pro-war candidate), and I disagree with Giuliani on just about every issue other than the war. He might as well be a Democrat.

I remember just a few years ago, when I was more of a "pragmatic Republican" than I am today -- I might well have gotten along with the fact that he favors killing children. But now, I see "that pesky, divisive abortion issue" for what it is -- a matter of killing children. I see it as equivalent to a candidate who favors killing Jews -- it's not something I can set aside to make a pragmatic vote for the lesser of two evils.

My reply:

I must quibble that Rudy "favors killing children." What he favors, as far as I can tell, is the ability of an individual to make that choice on their own without the federal government stepping in (regardless of how right or wrong the choice may be.) To me, that is the most conservative position if one really wants to consider small government conservatism. To be sure, the practice of abortion itself is clearly killing unborn children, but rather than have the big old Feds tell me what is right and wrong, I'd rather promote a culture where one's raising and public temperament informed that instead. I tend to feel the same about some of the other issues your general social conservative would bring up in regards to Rudy.

I do support him, yes. And I am a single issue voter right now. I seriously doubt it will be terribly important in the near term that abortions are carried out if a bomb goes off in New York City because we have elected someone not willing to fight terrorism. Keeping someone out of the Oval Office that presided over a small number of children being killed, would very possibly instead see many, many children potentially destroyed in terrorist activities. If and when we can find a solution to the war, then I'll entertain thoughts towards domestic issues, both large and small. Until then, those other issues simply muddy the water (in an already dirty water town.)

Renss:

The issue, really, is whether abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

You've granted that "the practice of abortion is  clearly killing unborn children", so...

Think of it this way: Would you support someone whose platform included as a major issue a plank which would remove restrictions against murder, preferring to allow people to "make that choice on their own without the federal (or any) government stepping in (regardless of how right or wrong the choice may be)"?

Personally, I would not, and I'm betting neither would you, or any other conservative.

And since you've yourself made the link between abortion and killing children...

It seems hyperbole on one level to say this, but on another level not:

More people die from abortion every day than die of terrorism anywhere in the world.

The Centers for Disease Control figures indicate 2,300 abortions every day (and they admit that's a conservative figure). How many die from terrorism every day? Every month? Every year (other than 2001)?

Terrorism is important to deal with -- and I'm with you on it -- but abortion isn't something to be swept under the rug as relatively unimportant.

My reply:

If you think I consider abortion unimportant, you have misunderstood. I think the practice itself is abhorrent, but not the most pressing issue when compared to the issue of Islamic terrorism. Nor do I think it is the government's responsibility to counteract abortion and every bit of it's responsibility to combat terrorism.

Thus, I do not think the true issue is the death of unborn children as much as it is where the line is drawn with government involvement. You make the analogy towards adult murder, but fortunately, the morals and ethics of that practice were settled years ago. Unfortunately, the morals and ethics of abortion have not been settled, and I do not look towards the federal government to take care of that.

In truth, the number of abortions has gone down over the last 20 years or more. This is not due to heavily restrictive laws (though I will certainly concede things like parental consent does help and was necessary.) The practice has lessoned in many peoples eyes/minds precisely because discussion of the morality of abortion has been on peoples lips. That is the only way to truly lesson the practice - not outlawing it. If there were some way to overturn the bad law made by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, I would be perfectly happy allowing each and every state to make the decision of whether or not they would allow abortions. The conservative approach should not be to include more government, but to get government out of the way and allow the better angels of man's nature take over when it comes to the personal responsibility to make such a drastic choice. That is what should be talked up...not some sort of Federal Law outlawing the practice entirely. One, it could and will never happen. And two - nor should it.

It is hypocrisy to suggest on the one hand that there is too much government and then to expect yet another level of such to contend with a moral issue. I am not suggesting you have done so, but that this seems the general position. I do not want government dictating morals, but rather, my own heart and mind should be sufficient (from abortion to drugs to sex and on and on and on.)

Now, if you want to discuss the rights of children (both born and unborn) we could move on to an entirely different set of parameters that in the end, could possibly include the victims of abortion. But any constitutional amendment must protect and preserve a right, not deny such.

Renss:

Al, I've seen these arguments before, and I'm not insensitive to them, but I don't find them compelling because if my principle is correct, none of them matter. Society has been brought to think of unborn children as having less rights than pets, and to think of the act of abortion -- the murder of children -- as equivalent to speeding through a stop sign.

First, government can never dictate morals (though it's trying to, now, with the thought/hate crimes legislation). 

But government dictates moral behavior every day. That's what laws are! And that's all that they are -- rules for living in civil society which are not allowed to be contravened without punishment.

Secondly, this is not a question of more or less government, or levels of government. It is one of definition. I would never suggest MORE government for anything. I'm suggesting expanding the definition for the existing laws to protect those people who remain unprotected -- to expand the practice and enforcement of our laws to protect rights which already exist.

If you've read my blog, you know that I see the answer to all this as Personhood - the same expansion of definition which ended slavery nationwide. Is a black woman a person, or a piece of property? Is an unborn child a person, or a piece of property? That is the critical question here, and they are equivalent questions.

I actually oppose parental "consent" laws, because they are very like allowing someone to get a government "permit" to hold a slave. It grants a "right of consent" for one person to say it's all right for a second person to kill a third person. Besides that, it undermines the definition of personhood.

Do laws outlawing slavery violate the "right" of a person to hold a slave? According to the logic of Planned Parenthood, they do. But in our society no person has the right to hold a slave -- a person -- hostage to do with as they please. The government divested them of their "property" because it is always wrong to take an innocent man's freedom. Likewise, no person has the "right" to dispose of another person as if they are medical waste. No one has that "choice" as a right, any more than anyone has a "choice" to hold a slave or kill a Jew.

So, again, the question comes down to who is considered a person, and who is not. This is worth a whole 'nother post, but I can assure you, once you start drawing arbitrary conditions or lines which define personhood other than "from fertilization to natural death", then you leave in question alot of other questions, such as:

- Should a person be allowed to live past the point where they contribute to society, or should government euthanize them?

- Does a retarded person have a full right to life?

- Do you have the right to remain on life support at all? Even in a coma? If so, where do you pull the plug? (I saw an instance just this week where a woman said she didn't want to be on life support more than 4 days, but on the 5th day she awoke from her stroke/coma)

- Do you have a right to be retarded?  In some countries you don't -- you are mandated to be aborted.

- Does a person's right to life change when they are in a coma?  If they are unconscious?  If they are sleeping?

- Does a handicapped person have as much of a right to life as everyone else?

All of these questions go to viability, worth to society, age, level of development, etc. -- all the conditions which people use to try to define an unborn child as a non-person can also be applied to an adult person in another situation (which puts their own rights in question). We can either hold a pragmatic view, and go down a slippery slope (which the US is going down already), or we can hold to a principle of rights to every person.

My reply:

I promise to touch on this more when I post over the weekend, but allow me to say I certainly see the point you are making (and appreciate it greatly, make no mistake.) I think what makes this particular issue so very problematic is that instead of just looking at one individual's personhood, we are now talking about at least two (if not three if one considers the father's rights in any of this.) How do you dictate to one person while holding the second's rights sacred? Or conversely (as it is now) - we hold the rights of the mother to be legally sure, but not the rights of the child she carries. Who gets "the shaft" in the end?

Ideally, personal responsibility would solve this issue, but I think we both know that as long as government is willing to take care of those who won't take care of themselves and people are not willing to take on their own general responsibility like providing for their old age or healthcare, they certainly aren't going to do the right thing in terms of waiting to have sex or using proper protection to be sure they do not get pregnant. Further, there are certain circumstances (though rare) that muddy the water - rape and incest, obviously.

Renss:

At what point, then, does the mother gain legal responsibility for her child, if ever?

At what point does the mother gain moral responsibility for her child?

At what point can she no longer absolve herself of responsibility? 

Birth? A week or so after birth (as Sen. Boxer contends)? Viability? When the baby starts to look human? When the baby's heart begins to beat? When the baby can take care of herself? When the baby is adopted?

Dependent, certainly, on your answer to those queries, you must then ask yourself whose rights are paramount at that point. What makes a difference for the mother's responsibility for the welfare of the child at 1 month after birth that she didn't have at 1 month before birth? Presumably, you believe that at some point the mother does not have the "right" to allow the kid to die.

The difference, perhaps, is that I believe the mother has no "right" to allow the kid to die, ever. Starting when that kid became a human being -- whether you believe this child was chosen by God, or by a chemical reaction, that remarkable instant is at fertilization, when the child's DNA and who she will be has been established for the rest of her life, no matter how long that might be.

My reply:

To answer your question directly, the mother has responsibility for the child from the moment of conception (in fact, prior to in that the mere decision to embark on the act that might create such is surely a responsibility.) The child itself has zero for the mother as it has yet to form the ability of thought as far as responsibility and understanding are concerned. Thus, the mother has the great ability to recognize said responsibility where the child is not yet a "thinking" creature - but nonetheless, a creation to be respected and cared for.

The rights are inherent, but as far as the government is concerned, they have yet to begin until that child is a full fledged member of the census. Regardless, the mother has full responsibility for the child. And yet, after the child is born, there are no laws that suggest a parent must remain on top of the child in education - only that they must "go to school." There are no laws that demand that a parent invest in the child a sense of citizenship or even the very same personal responsibility that has led to this situation. Yet this does not absolve them of their wrong towards their child.

My earlier point is - a child has little to zero protections as the current law stands. If we are to look at Federal responsibility towards parental responsibility, then we must consider the entirety of childhood when the "person" is at their most weak and vulnerable period. And in doing so, how invasive must we be to ensure such a thing?

*

And that is where we have left it.  It is interesting that the very point I was making in the original post seems to play out yet again in the discussion - that to me, the war is more important than any one social domestic issue but others are more interested in considering abortion first, Islamic terrorism second.  But I readily admit that Renss maintains his principles by steadfastly holding to his position on abortion.  And to be truthful, there are candidates that would surely attempt to further our war aims that would also be better candidates on the issue of abortion for those that consider it paramount.  But the electability of those candidates worries me unlike Rudy, who I think could win with a comfortable lead in a national election.  It's the primary where he has a hard time.  And while many might take the unproven Fred Thompson who has seemingly flipped his support on abortion (as has Romney), I see a man of principle in Rudy who has stated clearly his distaste for the practice while he remains unwilling to make any great change in the national temperament on the issue.

On the issue itself, it appears that Renss and I also disagree, at least in terms of how much government responsibility should enter the equation.  I may have made a poor assumption thinking Renss favors laws outlawing the practice when I am not entirely sure that is the issue.  And while I would not desire to see Federal law take hold (as it is frankly now by ensuring it through the Supreme Court), I would have little issue with a Constitutional amendment that somehow protected the rights of children from the moment of conception until they are released from their parent's responsibility at the age of adulthood.  Otherwise, we would be pushing a law simply to ensure the child is born while then leaving it to the whims of human nature that the parent may raise the child to be a productive member of society.

Do not get me wrong, I hold the nature of the unborn child as unarguable.  It is a creation and as such, should be respected - the relationship between carrier and carried one of custodial responsibility of the mother (and father, frankly.)  But this is a moral and ethical argument and one I do not think belongs in the political arena.  Rather, it belongs in the public arena as a discussion of those very same morals and ethics.  And teaching of these things begins in the home. See how we have moved right back to the way a child is raised and taught?

I appreciate Renss' argument regarding slavery and how that ties into abortion.  It is true that where once the black man was considered less than a full human being, he now is rightly considered as full a human being as anyone else.  So too should it be with the child a woman carries.  And as it should be with a parent that is now no more than a very old child.  But I consider morality a private thing and in the end (and in this country specifically) we should be free to practice our morals rightly or wrongly until they intersect with the rights of others.  And this is where the abortion argument gets complicated.  How much right does the child have over the mother and how much right does that mother have that trumps that of the child?  With the child not yet living in the world, the harm done to it may be less of a harm than that done to the mother made to carry the child to term only to not care for it (and thus potentially causing harm to the public at large if the poorly raised child turns against the very same public attempting to preserve its right.) 

This is a calculated argument, I am aware.  But one must consider the situation fully.  It is not simply a matter of ensuring the life of an unborn child, to me.  There is the full range of unintended results in trying to carry out such a government protected right of a child.  Between the parent and the child, who's life are we willing to hold more important?  Who is it that we want to dictate to, basically?  Either we tell the child, "You have no right to be born" or we tell the woman, "You have no right to control your body."  Further, if we tell the child, "You have an inherent right to be born" then we must also tell the child, "You have in that inherent right, the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well."  To ensure they have that pursuit of happiness, we would have to dictate to every parent in the land that they meet a certain set of obligations beyond but surely including - food, shelter, clothing and education.  How would that work exactly?  What behemoth of a government program would make that happen and how much of our tax dollars would it take to carry out such a thing?  If we cannot demand that a parent raise their child correctly, then how can we demand that they not have them until such a time as they are able?  If we cannot demand when and how people have sex, how can we demand that they be forced to face the responsibility of their error only so long as to birth the child, leaving the rest of that result to the "human nature?"

You see, there is more to this matter than simply ensuring the sanctity of life.  While I agree with the notion, I also understand that at times there are grey areas that can only be answered by one human being to themself.  In the end, man will have to face God alone and answer for all of their sins.  It is he who should be (and does) render judgment on this, not I or you or the Federal government.  But there are areas in which we can utilize the government.  In fact, government's sole reason for it's creation is to preserve and defend our rights as outlined by the Constitution.  We allow them to exist so that they might work against those elements that work against us.  Terrorism certainly fits that bill.  While there are domestic areas in which government can and must take action, the time for doing so is down the road once we have secured the safety of now. 

It's been a good discussion, and one I imagine may continue.  I certainly don't mind.  But I cannot consider this issue outside of the reality at hand - there is a war on and it must be won.  If we lose, we'll not have much say in the matter of abortion or anything else unless we convert to Islam and submit to Allah.  On the bright side, I suppose...they don't care for abortion either.  But I am sure that's not how Renss or anyone else wishes to address that moral issue.  That is all.

Comments

[Ed Hanks]

Al,

Thank you for your thoughtful and measured response!

Many of these are things that I have considered, and decided in my own mind, in the past. It's something I've thought quite a bit about, over the years, and my beliefs on abortion have changed according to batting these issues back and forth. Ultimately, they brought me to the conclusion that the right to life must be paramount, and that the right to convenience (i.e. a supposed right to control ones' own body, even when another person is affected by that decision) cannot be substantiated.

For instance -- re: your "calculated" argument regarding the "net good" of comparing one person's (the child) rights versus another person's (the mother) rights to not be bothered by having to raise a child.

I will posit -- what if you have a child who has been orphaned and abused, such that society must take care of them and they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Should society, then, provide them with a slave to take care of them for life?

But, you say, we don't have to do that because we can just pay for a servant to do the same thing. However, I argue, that would be missing the point. By proposing that one person's life/personhood be subsumed to the rights of another to be cared for or comforted, that constructs a proper analogy between the convenience of the child/mother. If we propose to infringe another person's personhood to take care of another person, that is the only analogy that holds. Slavery, then, for the betterment of society?

Secondly, as to the war's importance vs. abortion. First, I would never vote for someone who wasn't good on both issues. For instance, many people I know like Ron Paul, who is strictly pro-life, but who wants to bring our troops home from all overseas bases -- a position I regard as insane. Winning the war is important -- VERY important! But consider...

There were, historically, many Germans who compromised their morals to support Hitler, because they believed that no matter how bad he was, he was the best way to challenge the increasing threat from within and from without (the USSR) of socialism and communism. They might prefer a more moderate democracy, but if that construct was insufficient to protect them from the Red Menace, it was not enough. They chose to support Hitler.

So what did they achieve, in the end? By compromising their morals in fear of what they perceived as a larger danger, their government and country were destroyed, and 6 million Jews (and 300 million others) died for it. Surely that had to include nearly 100 million Germans.

In Mark 8, the Bible asks, (36) What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

And I'm not one who generally uses the Bible to argue on the point of abortion. I'm a former secularist, myself, and I held pro-life views (if inexact) even as an atheist. There are plenty of secular ethical arguments to protect the right to life from fertilization to natural death. But, in the end, morality must come from God. Morality absent from God is always going to be imperfect because man is imperfect and our "personal morality" is relative and changing.

I appreciate that you're not adverse to a constitutional amendment to support the personhood of the child, as that is the way we must go on this issue.

In fact, there are many pro-life organizations and leaders today who have not yet grasped what you have!

Ed

[AL Hurd]

Ed, I must admit the Nazi analogy is rather off the mark (and somewhat silly to try and utilize in an argument about the United States.) My usual rule of thumb is the moment the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" enters a conversation, it is over and the person using those words loses. Thus in order to address the substance of your latest comments, I'd best leave any response to that out. ;)

As for the other portion dealing with "slaves" - any parent is in effect a slave to their child in that certain things must be done (whether one likes it or not) in order to raise the child effectively. This, however, is insufficient to ensure the child becomes a healthy and useful member of society. Again, there is more to this than simply the life of the child (and thus the right to life of said child.)

In the end, however, it remains a personal issue. One that cannot be dictated by society but rather suggested by morality and ethics that a person hopefully derives from the Almighty. While my own belief (and yours) sits easily with the definition of what constitutes a child and living person/human being, society apparently disagrees to some point, at least as far as making laws about such. Instead, we have a de facto law handed down from on high. Either way that decision works is unacceptable because it is unconstitutional.

However, once (and if) such court "law" is rescinded, the thought of what is involved in the process of abortion will remain in the public conscience and will continue to be something only answerable to each human being in time. Laws can certainly be made to address the issue, but I remain uncomfortable with Federal law entering this particular arena. As you have thought on this often over the years, so too have I. That's where my mind comes down on it.

I do not think we differ so much on what abortion is but rather how it is to be dealt with by society. In that difference, I don't see either of us moving one way or the other. But I certainly would be curious what you would have put into place to address the issue. I am thinking we would disagree there as well given how strongly you feel about this particular issue, but I remain open-minded enough to consider possibilities.

AL