I was born in South Dakota when George McGovern was one of the state's popular Senators. I don't understand what has happened there. Most of my older relatives who have all passed away now were Republicans, but very different from the ones we have today. When abortion was legalized, it's not that they approved of abortion itself, but they did believe it was a private matter between a woman and her doctor. They didn't like it, but they also felt it wasn't for them to involve themselves in other people's bidness. I call it traditional Lutheran conservatism... every one just kind of minds their own business and keeps things to themselves. What people focused on was how hard you worked, not abortion.

Karol -

How would you feel if someone from S. Dakota came to Oregon, stood in the middle of our legislature and yelled at and shook our governor? Not saying I don't agree with you, just curious.

Sirajul

Seems to me that the best rhetorical response if anyone gets into a discussion about this is to ask "Oh, so rape is not a crime in S. Dakota?". Most anti-abortion people don't want to talk about the crime of rape, because they look like there is a crime they are excusing. (There was a time when it was excused by "well, these floozies in their short skirts" and then there was a major news story about a nun being raped and those cracks began to fade away as people started saying it was a crime of violence and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.)

And don't believe all religions look on this the same way. I have seen buttons that say PRAYERFULLY PRO CHOICE, and known people who didn't want to get into a debate about why giving birth to a child with a congentially fatal birth defect rather than abortion is a debate over the meaning of the Beatitude "Blessed are the merciful...". There was an attempt around 1981 to make it a crime to have an abortion "and miscarriage is considered to be an abortion unless proven otherwise" and it failed. That is "small government??".

I am old enough to remember when there was a year with 2 heated ballot measures: anti-abortion victims rights.

Someone (like KATU Town Hall) had one of those shows where all the advocates for all the measures were on at the same time and had the opportunity to ask each other questions.

The woman from the victims rights measure listened to the anti-abortion person and then said "The goal of our measure is to give all crime victims certain rights. We believe adequate medical care for crime victims is important. Are you saying rape is not a crime, or that victims of that crime don't have the right to make the same medical decisions for themselves that other cime victims have?".

The anti-abortion person didn't have a serious response. And then there was the time my reporter friend covered an anti-abortion measure by interviewing men in small towns in places like taverns. He got responses along the lines "Of course abortion is wrong, but if the government thinks it can make that decision for MY wife or MY daughter, the government has another think coming". That is true "we must give up the idea we can legislate the answer to everything" Robert Taft conservatism from half a century ago. In that sense, those like RTL are not conservatives.

And with regard to the last couple paragraphs, I would suggest anyone (esp. those not old enough to remember the days before Roe and Griswold) find and read 3 books.

Bob Packwood made a big splash more than 20 years ago by reading on the Senate floor from a book of history titled ABORTION IN AMERICA. There were those upset that someone would talk about history rather than just use political spin. There are honest people who oppose abortion and they have that right (my hat is off to those who raise adopted or foster children). If the anti-abortion folks did such good works instead of passing legislation like this and in some cases being violent, vandalizing, etc. the world would be a better place. Before anyone gets angry about that last comment, I don't see how slashing the tires of cars near an abortion clinic, or pouring glue in the locks, or setting a bomb or shooting someone working in an abortion clinic is "pro-life".

Second book: STORY OF JANE --a movement which was just getting started around the time of Roe, an underground movement to help women in crisis.

Third is historical fiction in the sense that the biographies of 6 women doctors were compressed and to some extent fictionalized to tell the story DOMINA about the first woman to earn a medical degree in the US (Men got scrolls at graduation which said Dominus, so hers was written Domina).

Suggested to me by a high school librarian I knew in the late 1980s. Tells the story of turn of the 20th century lives of women who in some cases had so many children in so few years their health was ruined.

Older women have sort of an institutional memory of this--of the friend who died in childbirth, the college student (oldest of 6) who had to drop out to come home and run the household because Mom's birth control failed and the younger ones needed someone to care for them while Mom had medical orders for bed rest. Of the men who took no responsibility for pregnancies they caused--it was always the woman's fault she "got pregnant".

It will be interesting to see what a backlash this creates. There have been reports that there are those in the RNC scared to death of a possible overturn of ROE. Because then it would be reality, not spin.

Don't forget that there is a network of pro-choice Republican women who refuse to support anti-choice candidates, and there have been more close elections than some want to admit. There were reports that the reason Doug Wilder became the first black Gov. of Virginia had nothing to do with race. There were female employees at the RNC who were quietly prochoice, and when they went home from work on election day they marked their ballot for the pro-choice Wilder.

But above all, dear younger women, don't get sucked into the nastiness. Develop a one-liner which makes people think. For instance: "so what medical decisions are men not allowed to make for themselves?". "What are the names of your adopted or foster children?" always stops people in their tracks, esp. by someone who is pro-choice and from a family which has adopted children or been a foster family. So do concerns about contraception, concerns of mothers and kids. Do these people complaining about abortion volunteer with any pre-natal program (childbirth classes, making sure women have transportation to and ability to pay for prenatal checkups, etc) or any program for newborns and young families?

Point out the dictionary definitions of PRO (in favor of something) and anti (against something) and ask what they are involved with that is truly "prolife".

Research what happened in the 1980s Rumania under Ceucescu (sp.?) the dictator who made abortion a crime where both doctor and woman could be jailed. That led to overflowing orphanages (families had too many mouths to feed) which were found to be unsanitary and children were not fed well. Is that what these people are aiming for?

But above all, remember this is a "hearts and minds" struggle. If someone says "you know, I never thought of it that way" that is a success. Some people have sincere beliefs which must be respected, but others just haven't thought it through that far.

Sirajul-

I think the point is that S.D. is introducing this legislation in order for it to be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court in hopes of having Roe v. Wade overturned now that they have Alito on the court. In that case, what the South Dakota legislature does is very much everyones bidness.

I was born in South Dakota when George McGovern was one of the state's popular Senators. I don't understand what has happened there.

Blast from the past! A friend of mine campaigned for George McGovern as a teenager (later her family moved to Oregon, but she grew up in SD). She once said "I got thrown off a lot of porches for doing that!

Don't forget that SD elected Aboresk (sp?) I think that was between McGovern and Daschle and Thune after Daschle.

But will it backfire? If this elects more Democrats to the US Senate in 2006, will this seem like a wise move in December to the people who are cheering it today?

Thanks to Karol for Reason Number 673 on why not to live in South Dakota.

Better dead than red!

LT -

It's funny I keep ending up talking to you here! Anyway, the problem with the questions you propose that women ask pro-lifers is that the questions come from a pro-choice perspective. You're not speaking the same language as pro-lifers; therefore, your qeustion does not compute. To the fundamentalist Christian pro-lifer, a human becomes a living soul at the moment of conception. For that reason, abortion at any stage is murder in their eyes. That view is based on their interpretation of the Bible, which they see as the infallible word of God.

Naturally, nobody with any sense of morality would justify murdering babies that are already born, even if they were the product of rape. It's certainly not their fault who their parents were. And few would justify killing deformed or handicapped babies, but would rather opt to keep them comfortable until they died of natural causes, or would expect the parents or the State to care for them for the duration of their lives. None of us believes a mother has a "choice" to murder her baby. To the pro-lifer, the view that you're talking about a baby extends clear back to the moment of conception. That's how they see it and that's why you can't talk to them that way. The belief that they are fighting infanticide is what in some leads to the extreme of murdering abortion doctors, whom they see as mass murderers of babies.

These people are driven by their belief that God wants them to end infanticide. You cannot reason with these people about what science has to say about when a baby begins to feel pain or begins to be self-aware or what it is like for a family or single mother to be forced to raise a severely handicapped or deformed child or a child that was the product of rape. This is not something they can understand or accept within the framework of their beliefs. Trying to win them over to your point of view is an exercise in futility. The only way I see of really preserving choice is to fight for serious separation of church and state. Leaning only on science rather than the Bible, the case simply cannot be made that a fertilized egg, or even an early-term fetus, is a baby with feelings, awareness, or a "soul." Abortion is always tragic and should not be treated lightly, but if we continue to tolerate the intrusion of religion into government, it will no longer even be an option.

I've never had the opportunity to say this before, but I think Becky nailed it. This isn't a rational debate and it hasn't been since the early 1970s.

As to the larger debate, I hate to all wobbly on the comrades here, but abortion is one of those cultural debates that essentially makes the argument for states and local rights. As much as I sympathize with any poor woman in South Dakota living under such a law, the pro-choice side is really holding back a dam in several states on this issue. You can rail against the injustice of it all, but it's a numbers game and I'd bet that the votes are there in a good number of states. As I see it, part of "choice" is acknowledging differences in values across the country. I honestly can't see this debate getting settled in a permanent fashion without devolving this authority the state level. If the Supreme Court outlaws Roe v. Wade and anyone attempts to follow with a law banning abortion on the national level, they'll absolutely destroy their party.

In the meantime, I'd advise anyone living in South Dakota to move - immediately. I've got relatives in North Dakota - the lesser of the two Dakotas - and there's a reason they never see me.

I appreciate that many of the respondents before me are attempting to be strategic and articulate. I, however, just want to be outraged today. How can you honor the child without also honoring the mother? No exemption for health, rape, or incest - is my adult life not worth something as well? We should all work together to reduce the need for abortions in the United States, but it sure is hard to work together when all I want to do is scream "BACK OFF."

I appreciate that many of the respondents before me are attempting to be strategic and articulate. I, however, just want to be outraged today. How can you honor the child without also honoring the mother? No exemption for health, rape, or incest - is my adult life not worth something as well? We should all work together to reduce the need for abortions in the United States, but it sure is hard to work together when all I want to do is scream "BACK OFF."

Thanks Jack. It helps to have grown up in the household of a Taft Republican.

Becky’s recommendations might be useful for talking to a “fundamentalist Christian pro-lifer” but not to the broader group of people who find something repugnant about the idea of snuffing out developing human life, in many cases by quite gruesome means. One needn’t believe in an immortal soul in order to take that position, and a thorough knowledge of relevant the science does nothing to diminish its persuasiveness. Whether or not a human becomes “soul” at the moment of conception, it is still human life by definition (which Becky’s language captures, perhaps unconsciously). Even a distinguished atheist might find himself defending the idea of the indivisible sanctity of human life; others might feel that abortion may be permissible up to some point, but that the question is hardly unproblematical from an ethical point of view, especially as the fetus develops further.

Again, I think Becky’s language betrays some sense of this, despite her affirmation of pro-choice orthodoxy. If we’re not talking about something as consequential, where does Becky get the idea that “abortion is always tragic”?

Finally, Becky says, “Naturally, nobody with any sense of morality would justify murdering babies that are already born, even if they were the product of rape.”

Nobody, perhaps, except one of the world’s most celebrated ethical philosophers today, and a chaiman of the last U.S. President’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission, quoted here by Nat Hentoff:

“The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral difference. We cannot coherently hold it is alright to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however," said Singer, "is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite, to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth."

One of the early blogs made a good point about how when she lived in South Dakota the people had voted to legalize abortion not because they approved of the practice, but because they did not want "WOMB POLICE", or felt that this was an area where government should not intrude(an idea of limited government). But with abortion being off the political scope because of ROE V. WADE, frustration mounted over time to the point where an overreaction has occured. Be very careful about taking something off the political table because backlash can be the result. Judicial fiat seems good in the short run (my side wins), but if no political consensus emerges(racial civil rights), time and frustration will radicalize the losers of judical fiat

Becky, If someone believes that life begins with conception and the law should read that way, they should sponsor a bill with that language. Sen. Hatfield opposed abortion but also would have opposed language worded that way (if his letters to constituents are to be believed). The abovementioned Robert Taft might have also opposed it, given his statement "we must give up the idea we can legislate the answer to everything".

Let's have that debate. Is anyone who believes a miscarriage is God's way of saying the child was not meant to be born the same thing as supporting abortion? That issue was debated in 1981 in Congress--maybe it is time for that debate again. Are those who were on the side of allowing Terri Schaivo a natural death instead of the Frist/DeLay sideshow likely to vote for people who say "life begins at conception by order of Congress and if your religious views tell you otherwise you are guilty of heresy"? Check out how many government jurisdictions in this country say "no religious test for public office".

How's this for language?

One day I ran into a friend in a library after a very long day at work. Young man from E. Oregon who had been campaign manager for an E. Oregon legislator had then moved to Wash. County and had culture shock. He had been a volunteer for the Billy Graham Crusade. That day he walked up to me and said "Isn't it great! I just found out that --- is prolife". I said "Fine, what volunteer work does this person do?" HUH? So I said "When Webster defined the prefixes pro and anti, he was not making a statement on abortion when he defined pro as being in favor of or in support of something".

Next time I saw the young man, he said "You really made me think last time I saw you. You're right, pro-life people should be involved in something productive" and how he'd become active in a local CASA group for abused kids.

When I was at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, I saw 2 approaches to opposing abortion. One was a guy with glossy fliers showing the picture of a fetus. The other wore a Hubert Humphrey button. Which do you think was the more effective and why? Hubert Humphrey was opposed to abortion, capital punishment, nuclear war, using food as a weapon (not selling food to enemy countries). Is that the definition of "pro-life" or is it voting the RTL party line?

I had a very nice conversation with the Humphrey gentleman, and asked a tough question of the guy with the glossy fliers.

I have relatives/ friends who have been foster parents (our family was a foster family when I was in high school) or adoptive parents, and/ or raised kids with medical or other challenges. THEY are the truly prolife people and have the right to any opinion on this issue they bloody well please.

But I don't see how the "abortion is wrong and anyone even asking detailed questions must be one of those abortionists and murderers" is pro-anything.

Just as blowing up ROTC buildings didn't end the Vietnam war, I don't see how nasty or violent behavior ends abortion.

One more thing. Is belief in the Beatitude "blessed are the peacemakers" a Christian attitude? Do those who are nasty to people they disagree with follow that Beatitude?

There has been a common ground movement for years which brings people on opposing sides of this issue together for dinners, social events, etc. across the country--to learn that those on all sides are human beings. It was started by local people on all sides of the issue who were tired of roaming groups like "Operation Rescue" coming into town, disrupting everything --sometimes there was violence and vandalism--and then leaving town so the locals had to clean up the mess. So some locals on all sides decided maybe their energies should go to issues they could agree on, like feeding hungry kids, making adoption easier, parenting classes, that sort of thing.

I don't see how Jesus would have wanted the abortion clinic bombings and shootings in the name of pro-life any more than he would have wanted ROTC buildings blown up in the name of "stop the war".

We need DEBATE in this country. Debate is not "you're wrong, I'm right, end of discussion", it is "here is what I believe and why and I'd like to discuss that with you".

If someone believes in carrying a child to term even if the result of rape and incest, who then raises that child? Would you, Becky? Is it cruel and unusual punishment to require that crime victim to carry that child to term? Would you look that crime victim in the eye and say "sorry, you have to carry this pregnancy to term because the rape is not the child's fault? Are you saying that at the moment of conception a woman loses the right to make her own medical decisions for 9 months? Could anyone in Oregon be elected on that platform? How should men be punished for fathering children out of wedlock. or doesn't that matter ?

Good for you, Kari. As someone who has read the Bible cover-to-cover (yes, even all the begats and all the poetry) I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where the Bible says that a) abortion is wrong, or b) life begins at conception.

I recall being at an event which brought together all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds (wedding in another city or something like that) and someone who'd been reading a book popular with fundamentalists said "...but it is in the Bible".

Someone else said "Funny, at one time I read the Bible from cover to cover and I don't remember that--where in the Bible, actually?" and this person couldn't say. They'd just been told it was in the Bible.

As a fervrent abortion rights supporter, I agree with Becky. This debate is impossible to solve in the current context because everyone is so polarized. On one side, you have people like me who say basically "Women ought to have a choice" and on the other side people are saying "Abortion is murder". Both sides believe passionately in their philosophies and there really is no middle ground, particularly for the anti-choice side.

To compare it to another social issue debate, the death penalty, although there certainly are people who are both always against the death penalty (including me) and those who would like to see it applied in a lot more crimes than it currently it, the majority of people has found ground for balance. This is particularly true in the limitation of crimes eligible for the DP.

The abortion issue is the most polarizing issue in 20th century politics and I frankly don't see that changing for quite a while as it is nearly impossible for both sides to move from their basic positions without sacrificing a great deal of what they believe it.

All that being said, look for the federal court to toss this bill so fast your head will spin.

One quibble, Kari: discussing what precisely is and is not in the Bible may be academically interesting, but I'm not sure demonstrating the absence of a specific mention of abortion proves anything - and that applies even as methods of abortion existed certainly by the time of the New Testament and likely before. Nor should one be terribly mystified about an absence of a thorough debate on whether life begins at conception; the medical field simply hadn't reached a state where that could be discussed.

Even as I'm pro-choice, I've always believed the debate about when life begins to be something of a dodge, a way to cloak an act of dubious morality behind scientific sideshow. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm comfortable with the idea of ending a life, but I'm also willing to accept that as reality. I also don't believe denying that that is the essence of abortion moves the debate in a useful direction.

The ultimate tipping point for me came by following each side's position to its ultimate outcome: in a pro-choice world, people remain free to not obtain an abortion, a position that accords with their conscience; in other words, they remain free to live their life as they see fit and to make choices about that life. if a pro-life world, morality may be served by the end of all abortions, but it chucks individual autonomy out the window.

To make something of an odd point, I'm actually happy with where things are with abortion right now. People have the option of obtaining safe and legal abortions, but the outrage from a good chunk of the culture requires everyone to think long and hard about it - and it should be hard. Basically, I'm with Hilary: everyone agrees the fewer abortions the better; the question is how to get there.

And I've got news for the pro-life camp: denying that teenagers have sex and abstinence-only sex education isn't the way to do it.

Becky's post reminds me of a conversation many years ago when I was an exchange student in Finland. Scandinavian countries were some of the first to offer free and safe abortions to women. I said to my host parents, "many people in the US believe abortion is the killing of a life. How did Scandinavian people deal with this issue?" My host parents responded that, in fact, they believe abortion was murder. "But you support making abortions available?" I asked, "how does that work?" They responded, "in this case we are only risking one life."

The point is that both Becky and LT are right. We need to frame the discussion with pro-lifers in terms that resonate with them, but also remind people that to be pro-life, we need to honor, cherish, and respect the lives of women. -TL

Idler -

There is no "betrayal" in the tone of my post. I have arrived at my position through many years of back-and-forth weighing of the matter. I was raped at a time in my life when having a baby would have ruined my future. I know my husband would probably never have gone out with me to begin with if I had a child already. I've seen young girls who were very close to me and my family struggle over what to do with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy when they were unmarried and watched them make the whole range of choices, with never an entirely happy ending no matter what they chose to do. I remember seeing my children's heart beat on the ultrasound screen for the first time and how that made me feel, even though they had only been developing for about five or six weeks. I know two women who chose to terminate a pregnancy at 5 months because they found out their babies were not developing normally. I know a woman who had a baby with Downs Syndrome and welcomed her to the family, and I know of similar children who have lived hellish lives because they weren't wanted but their mothers had no choice. I know women who suffered through illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. All of these experiences have worked together to humble me about making decisions for other women. The circumstances are simply too personal. So while I don't believe abortion should be outright accepted by society and treated as if it is no big deal, I think it needs to be available. And even more important, we NEED groups like Planned Parenthood to help our young women prevent those unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and to help them find their sense of self-respect after having gone through an abortion.

Why is abortion always tragic? Because, as you acknowledge, most people do recognize that we're talking about a human life and the scars from making a decision to terminate a pregnancy, not to mention the circumstances surrounding how the pregnancy occurred or how the family reacted to it, are carried throughout a person's life. For those who decide to get married due to an unplanned pregnancy, they often face a lifetime of struggles with a mate they should not have married, and may even eventually divorce. If the baby is given up for adoption, there is always the fear and concern about what kind of parents the child had, whether the child was loved, whether they hated you for not wanting them, etc. People close to me have experienced all of these things. The question many people struggle with is whether that life has progressed to the point that it has rights of its own.

Finally, Idler, don't lump pro-choice people in with radical sickos who believe in eugenics and infanticide. That's just plain ridiculous.

Becky, you’ve misunderstood my post and have answered in a way that supports my contentions rather than otherwise. My point—which also seems to have been absorbed by other commenters about as well as water by a duck’s back —is that repugnance toward abortion is shared by a much wider group than fundamentalist Christians, and that God need not enter into the ethical debate. Thus all the talk about whether it’s in the bible is a waste of time.

I had no intention to lump all pro-choice people with “radical” sickos such as the distinguished Princeton philosopher I mentioned. Probably most pro-choicers would find Singer’s position disturbing. I was merely pointing out that your claim was erroneous, which I think is an important observation to make in a debate on this topic.

I'll leave it to others here to comment on your judgement that "most people do recognize that we're talking about a human life."

Correction: The reference to Professor Singer in my last post should have read —"radical sickos"— not —"radical" sickos—.

I wish abortion was outlawed in the Bible. Then pro-choicers could argue the separation of church and state prohibits using the Bible as a justification for being anti-choice.

We are now living the "Bush Legacy."

Safe, legal abortion was one of the great developments of the last century. Without it, women's current status as equal partners in society would never have happened. It made it clear, that every child was by choice. No woman was going to be forced to drop out of school or out of the work force to have a child unless she chose to.

I think people forget that even in the 1970's married women were being excluded from professional schools. They had been presumed to be sexually active and to have little control over whether they would get pregnant. And getting pregnant meant having a child. Safe, legal abortion broke that absolute connection between choosing to be sexually active and choosing to have a child. Instead it gave women absolute control over the decision regardless of whether they were married or sexually active.

Abortion is not a tragedy, it is liberating for any women who doesn't want a child. And it liberated every woman to participate in society on their own terms, whether they ever have an abortion or not.

"Finally, Becky says, “Naturally, nobody with any sense of morality would justify murdering babies that are already born, even if they were the product of rape.”

Nobody, perhaps, except one of the world’s most celebrated ethical philosophers today, and a chaiman of the last U.S. President’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission,"

Singer also advocates euthanasia for the severely disabled under some circumstances, animal rights and personhood for Gorillas. He has a whole theory about when life should be protected.

He never even suggested that babies who were the product of rape could be murdered and his theories on the protection of life would seem to preclude it. The use of that quote in this context is really an example of how outrageously dishonest this debate has become.

But of course you can find people who support infanticide. I believe the Federation for American Immigration Reform has some people on their board who advocate it for other countries to control their population growth. We have all kinds of amoral nuts in this country.

Ross, your response certainly shows how sanctimonious and presumptuous the debate can be. Allow me to seriously respond to what you say.

First forget about the word “rape” in the original Becky quote. I nearly cut that out and left it in lest someone accuse me of tampering with her positing of exceptional circumstances. But what does Singer actually say and what are its consequences for the point in question? What further context would undermine the principle he articulates?

Becky raised the issue of whether anybody “with any sense of morality” would justify infanticide. Perhaps I would have done better to qualify what Becky said with a more careful choice of words. I do not suggest that Peter Singer likes the idea of “murdering babies that are already born.” I think one of the reasons Singer has been so persuasive is that he has a very lively sense of morality and is a very gentle person. But in that respect I would say he’s better than his principles.

The principle that I quoted from an essay, by long-time Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff is highly significant, and not least because it advances a position more radical than that of most pro-choice advocates. Consider it in the light of Jenni Simonis’ post. Jenni is at pains to demonstrate that most abortions are far earlier in the term than some pro-lifers would have you believe, thus their portrayals of the gruesomeness of abortion are misleading. Jenni appeals to a distinction between a tiny fetus and a regular-sized baby. Singer regards that type of argument as illegitimate. By doing so it provides a justification not only for late-term abortion but also infanticide.

As a disciplined logician, Singer himself knows this, and carries the principle through to its conclusion. He has in fact floated the idea that parents have a 28-day period within which they could justifiably take their child’s life. Singer generally applies this concept of discretionary infanticide in cases of children born with some serious kind of abnormality, but there’s no question he explicitly provides a justification for infanticide. Consider this interview excerpt:

Terry Lane: You’re listening to The National Interest, and I’m talking to Peter Singer about his book ‘Writings on an Ethical Life’, and on that very subject, Peter, this is where you make another very controversial proposition, that perhaps there should be a 28-day period after the birth of a child during which it has not acquired the full moral status or right to life that we would accord to other human beings.

Peter Singer: Yes. The 28-day period is not something that I now want to really place any emphasis on. I think there is a problem with any sort of arbitrary cut-off point for something as serious as a right to life. But I guess what I was suggesting was that there’s a gradual development of capacities like self-awareness, which I think we can say are important in terms of giving a being a right to life, and they, whenever they do occur, they’re not really there within the first month of life, and that would be a fairly safe kind of cut-off point to saying you haven’t got a being that has that degree of self-awareness that later humans have, which could well be seen as something relevant to the wrongness of killing them.

Now, Ross, I don’t accuse you of “outrageous dishonesty” for getting this wrong, but I will say that you show an all-too-common complacency about your position and a self-righteous willingness to denounce your adversary in moralistic terms. Your celebration of abortion rights in your 10:38:05 post is well-written and coherent but it rests on assumptions which are hardly unchallengeable. One of the most common tropes one encounters on the liberal side of this debate is the unthinking religiosity of the other side (a tendency demontrated to a “T” in this thread, where abortion opponents are characterized as ignorant fundamentalists). But it strikes me that there is at least as much unthinking religiosity in your position. It’s not that you have refuted an alternative view of democracy and human dignity held by the other side, it’s that you lack the generosity, open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity to even consider whether it might exist.

Karol-

I want to scream too.

When I was pregnant and unmarried I got all kinds of unsolicited advice about what I should do. Some said have an abortion, that if things didn't work out with the father no one would want me. Some said that if I didn't have the baby I would never forgive myself. My boyfriend's step-mom gave me a right-to-life pin (you know, the one with feet the size of an 11 week old fetus?) I didn't ask anyone to tell me these things. I still resent the people who tried to interfere - on either side - and they were friends and family members. The idea of government interference in the most difficult and heart-wrentching decision of my life was unfathomable.... until Bush won again. And the people we elected to protect us rolled over to get their belly's scratched by Alito.

I made the choice that was right for me, at that time in my life - and I'm now a mother. I didn't know I was ready until the choice presented itself. I don't know what I would have done if I had gotten pregnant several years earlier. But the thing is, I don't feel that I have to share my rationale, one way or the other, with anyone, because it's personal. Abortion, and birth are life-altering events. I thought about all my options, and lucky for me, all my options were legally available to me. My parents didn't have to ship me (their financially indepdendent adult college-educated child) off to a convent for nine-months (though I was surprised by the number of people I met who would have been more comfortable if they had.)

I think that some of the comments in this thread highlight that despite our great left-leaning state, many men and women don't respect women. We're not respected as mothers, as young single women in the workplace, as single mothers young and old, as married stay-at-home moms. Pro-choice isn't (or shouldn't) be about just abortion. It's about respecting the women in our world enough to give them control over their own destiny, whether we agree with it or not.

So, liberated blueoregon posters, put your money where your mouth is and give to planned parenthood today

Umm, who doesn't respect women? Why is this a men vs. women thing? I believe that women have actually a slight majority amoung voters within the USA. So if you don't like the laws or the members of Congress or who sits on the Supreme Court I'd think you could blame women for all of these things couldn't you? Or is that a little too close to the truth to deal with?

This is a men vs. women thing because men cannot get pregnant, there is a history of men impregnating women and then taking no responsibility, and because there are lots of men who brag about making sure abortion is illegal, but never talk about the responsibilities of men. Wasn't there just a story in the last few days about some famous sports figure (accused? arrested? being found guilty?) and a rape charge? If that rape results in pregnancy, should that famous sports star be required to pay child support if the pregnancy is brought to term? Does that famous sports star have any right to say if his rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion if he caused a pregnancy?

Or is the attitude "boys will be boys"?

Is rape a crime of violence, or a crime of control where a man shows he can overpower a woman?

And on the subject of what Oregon Woman said, OF COURSE it should be a personal decision. Not only about unwanted pregnancies but about other medical decisions.

Awhile back the wife a famous newspaper editor gave birth to a child with some serious heriditary condition. That child spent a lot of time in the hospital (fortunately, the family could afford the medical bills). On learning more about the condition, they discovered that any future children they might have ran the risk of the same condition.

She wrote a guest opinion which I think I read in a paper other than the one her husband edited because it was reprinted elsewhere. She detailed all the hospital stays, how painful it was for the child and the parents. She concluded by saying she and her husband had decided that if she again became pregnant, she would undergo tests to see if the same condition had developed again. "And if the answer is that it has developed, we have decided what we will do in that situation. And that the decision is ours alone, and deserves to be private".

There are those who say "every human life is precious" --does that mean they would be willing to help out with the care for those with congenital medical problems as volunteers? That every one of those people who talk about life being precious is an adoptive or foster parent or volunteer with some program for parents and kids? Or is this an example of "what I believe is what you should do"? If it is that last sentiment, then this is not about abortion, it is about control.

There was a time when conservatives believed individuals controlled their own lives. Barry Goldwater once said "Do you mean to tell me we fought Communism just so we could tell women they are not allowed to make their own medical decisions?".

If you believe abortion is wrong, you have a right to that opinion. And if you back it up with good works (helping parents, kids, pregnant women, or others as a volunteer, an adoptive or foster parent) that is great.

But if this is a case of "I oppose abortion and therefore you have no right to something I oppose", that is not about "human life". That is about people trying to control the behavior of individuals they have never met. And that sounds like dictatorship to me.

"not least because it advances a position more radical than that of most pro-choice advocates."

No kidding. It is a philosophical discussion of the value of life and its application to animal rights "advances a position more radical than that of most pro-life advocates". It has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate.

"Singer regards that type of argument as illegitimate. By doing so it provides a justification not only for late-term abortion but also infanticide."

Actually he uses it to justify the extension of the right to life to non-humans by basing that right on self-awareness rather than the distinction between a fetus and a child. Again, it has nothing to do with abortion rights.

"It’s not that you have refuted an alternative view of democracy and human dignity held by the other side, it’s that you lack the generosity, open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity to even consider whether it might exist."

My argument was explicitly about the importance of the existence of safe legal abortion to the lives of women and their equal role in American life. It wasn't a refutation of anything, muchless some "alternative view of democracy and human dignity" you imagine is held by all those who want to make abortion illegal.

You haven't even attempted to address Singer's arguments, you have merely attempted to use his explosive philosophical views as a weapon against innocent bystanders in your verbal war.

"I don’t accuse you of “outrageous dishonesty”"

Good. Because you would have no basis for it.

"There are those who say "every human life is precious" --does that mean they would be willing to help out with the care for those with congenital medical problems as volunteers?"

I think many cases it does mean that. In many cases it doesn't. But I think this is not really a fair question or even a relevant one. We are talking about whether we should have laws to prevent people from having abortions, not a religious or philosophical or practical discussion of under what circumstances someone should or shouldn't have an abortion. This is a political debate over what role government will play in that decision and the implications of giving it any role at all.

That's right, Ross. The point is that, unlike you, I refrain from carelessly resorting to unjustified slurs.

Now that you've been demonstrated wrong on the question, you don't have the grace to even admit it, let alone to apologize.

You only repeat my point about your prior post: it's not a refutation of anything, and you're not even interested in considering the arguments your adversaries might have.

And what precisely is the reason I need to further address Singer's arguments? I'm perfectly willing to do so, but think it's tangential. I only raised it to demonstrate that justification of infanticide wasn't beyond the pale of polite society, as Becky seemed to think. However Singer's concept of the 28-day period fits in with his larger views on the ethical treatment of animals, it is an explicit justification of infanticide.

We are talking about whether we should have laws to prevent people from having abortions, not a religious or philosophical or practical discussion of under what circumstances someone should or shouldn't have an abortion.

Ross, how long have you been following this debate? Over the last 25 years, many people have made religious, philosophical, and practical arguments for why their proposed legislation on abortion is the only legislation on the subject which should be discussed.

I only raised it to demonstrate that justification of infanticide wasn't beyond the pale of polite society, as Becky seemed to think.

Baloney. You raised it because you know it is beyond the pale unless one is a philosophy professor who wants to explore boundaries.

The point is that, unlike you, I refrain from carelessly resorting to unjustified slurs.

I think I called it correctly as you continue to demonstrate. The introduction of an extremist's views on infanticide into a discussion of abortion rights is an effort to inflame, not inform or persuade.

Now that you've been demonstrated wrong on the question

Wrong on what question? I have a feeling we are not even discussing the same topic.

you're not even interested in considering the arguments your adversaries might have.

What arguments have been made that you think I am "not even interested in considering." There are not very many arguments on the topic that I haven't heard and considered at length.

Singer's concept of the 28-day period fits in with his larger views on the ethical treatment of animals, it is an explicit justification of infanticide.

Yes it is. A philosophical one. What does it have to do with abortion rights?

So, ethics/philosophy has nothing to do with legal issues? On what grounds do people debate the appropriateness of laws? Ross, if you don't think ethical theory has bearing on the formulation of law and policy for any controversial issue, be it abortion, capital punishment, slavery or whatever, I feel I'm wasting my breath.

"Over the last 25 years, many people have made religious, philosophical, and practical arguments for why their proposed legislation on abortion is the only legislation on the subject which should be discussed."

I am not sure I understand your point. Almost all the arguments for legislation against abortion are grounded in religious and/or philosophical arguments. But the issue of whether someone should have an abortion and whether it should be legal or illegal are not the same discussion although they are often confused and clearly related for some people.

Does that address your point?

So, ethics/philosophy has nothing to do with legal issues?

If you say so. I didn't. I simply asked what Singer's extremist views on infanticide has to do with abortion rights.

Here is what I said above:

"Safe, legal abortion was one of the great developments of the last century. Without it, women's current status as equal partners in society would never have happened. It made it clear, that every child was by choice. No woman was going to be forced to drop out of school or out of the work force to have a child unless she chose to.

I think people forget that even in the 1970's married women were being excluded from professional schools. They had been presumed to be sexually active and to have little control over whether they would get pregnant. And getting pregnant meant having a child. Safe, legal abortion broke that absolute connection between choosing to be sexually active and choosing to have a child. Instead it gave women absolute control over the decision regardless of whether they were married or sexually active.

Abortion is not a tragedy, it is liberating for any women who doesn't want a child. And it liberated every woman to participate in society on their own terms, whether they ever have an abortion or not."

Now tell me what Singer's philosophical support for infanticide has to do with it? You seem to be taking for granted Singer's and Randall Terry's shared belief that abortion and infanticide are the same thing. I think there are a lot of supporters of abortion rights who disagree with that idea.

"avoiding actions that cause pain and terror in the recipient of those actions, human or animal, are to be avoided by the ethical actor."

Such as childbirth?

If one wants to have an ethical discussion, then one needs to address both sides of the ethical question. At what point do you impose physical pain and discomfort over a period of months on an unwilling mother?

"Avoiding" childbirth is not an option unless one has an abortion

That was my point.

The "Do no harm" basic rule is almost meaningless when "harm" can be easily postulated for any decision made by the woman.

Again my point. If whatever pain might be inflicted on the fetus is germaine to the ethics of abortion then so is the pain we know is inflicted on the woman by continuing a pregnancy.

I would again point out there has been an enormous societal benefit to women having control over the decision of whether (or when) to have a child. It seems to me that benefit gets a quick nod and then there is enormous energy that goes into the discussion of various stages of fetal development. As if that was the determining factor in whether women should continue to have the benefits of safe, legal abortion.

"I'm not taking an absolute postion, but whacking a chunk of pipe into a baby's head as it emerges from the birth canal, makes me a little nervous about the ethics involved. I'm thinking that you also might feel some doubt around this issue."

The ethics involved? Yes. But the question is not one of ethics, but one of law. In general, doctors don't do third trimester abortions. When they do it is extraordinary circumstances. There are a handful that do what would be called "elective" abortions where the mother's health is not in serious jeapordy and those are almost all for seriously damaged fetuses. The woman does not really have an absolute right after the second trimester. So the ethics of aborting a viable fetus have questions attached and those are recognized in the current system where the decision is left up to the woman and her doctor.

I don't think legislators are the ones to have a serious discussion of the ethics, figure out where the line is for each situation and then codify that in law. Figuring out the ethics of a particular situations is far better left up to doctors and women. Are there mistakes? Probably. But there will be far more mistakes made by turning the decision over to legislators, district attorneys, judges and other politicans with the attendent political posturing.

I suspect we have more ethical mistakes now on the side of having women far too young being coerced into having a child than women having abortions when they shouldn't. Where do you come down on the ethics of an eleven or twelve year old being forced to go through childbirth?

Dear AF re:

So if you don't like the laws or the members of Congress or who sits on the Supreme Court I'd think you could blame women for all of these things couldn't you? Or is that a little too close to the truth to deal with?

Oh, you got me! It's all our fault. Sigh.

If only women worked harder...complained a little less... knew how lucky we really have it.

Not trying to put word in your mouth here, but are you saying that there is no room for debate at all? Are you saying that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion up until the minute that the fetus "becomes" a baby by taking its first breath, (or whatever standard you may apply)?

Are you suggesting going back to a system which some hospitals had more than 30 years ago where a committee had to approve every abortion?

I suspect what is going on with the people in the great middle is not giving a woman absolute rights in all cases, but closer to what Roe really says. No matter how much rhetoric says otherwise, "abortion on demand" is propaganda like "death tax" for estate tax.

There is a point of view (not often recognized these days, but a strong philosophical position in the mid-late 20th century) which says there are things government should not be doing--professionals/ individuals should instead. Schaivo case was a great example. How many people really think more highly of Dr/Sen. Frist since he diagnosed Schaivo from the Senate floor via videotape?

I suspect there are lots of people in the middle on this question who would look at the quote at the top of this comment and ask where medical professionals fit in this equation.

What is wrong with "safe, legal and rare" and "between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her church"?

Are there more abortions when unemployment is high or low?

In rare instances, childbirth poses such a threat to a woman's health that while she may survive she may not be in sufficient health to take care of the child she gives birth to or other children if she has them. Where does that fit in this debate?

Or is even bringing that up (even by someone who knew of a situation like the above paragraph which happened decades ago before Roe when yes, sometimes there were abortions quietly performed to save a mother's health) what that one S D legislator on TV tonite called "abortion on demand"?

"I suspect what is going on with the people in the great middle is not giving a woman absolute rights in all cases, but closer to what Roe really says"

I suspect the "middle" is not so "great" on this issue. The "middle" on one side are people who are willing to allow abortions to save the mother's life and perhaps in cases of rape or extreme damage to the mother's health. The "middle" on the other side think that abortions very late in pregnancy should happen only in those same extreme cases and perhaps in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

But the South Dakota law has nothing to do with that debate. It will force an eleven year old who has been raped to go through childbirth. A case that is no more rare than the late abortions that are the focus of the "middle" in this debate. But apparently that eleven year old is not worthy of our ethical concern.

This question has little to do with my poistion in the previous post, but I just sort of imagine that wwe could figure out a way to get an abortion for an eleven year ol prior to six months of fetal gestation.

Thank you Pat.

In the context of this debate on S. Dakota (exception for the life of the mother but not for incest) it seems to me that ALL potential situations should be discussed here, as there are some who may be new to this debate. And as such may not realize there have been extremists in this debate over the last quarter century who have suggested no abortion, no way, no how, no matter what the circumstances, and how dare anyone say otherwise.

Not suggesting that about you.

"You both took statements that I made and tried to graft them onto Right winged rhetoric"

I didn't intend to attribute anything to you, I'm sorry if it sounded that way although I don't see that in what I wrote.

My point is that when we discuss the "ethics" around abortion, we need to consider the ethics of all sides of the issue. Especially if we are going to focus on rare and exceptional cases.

And, as I said above, I think sorting out the ethics of late abortions is not a task we want to hand to legislators, district attorneys and judge. The question of what to do with an eleven year old nobody imagined was pregnant until it was obvious after six months is one of those ethical questions.

"Has absolutely nothing to do with forcing childbirth."

Denying an abortion is forcing childbirth by definition. Is there some other alternative for a pregnant woman?

"I just sort of imagine that we could figure out a way to get an abortion for an eleven year ol prior to six months of fetal gestation."

The reality is that there are eleven year olds who are being forced into childbirth because their parents oppose abortion. The question is whether that is ethical and by extension should it be legal?

The South Dakota law makes ending that pregnancy illegal. And there have been proposals at the federal level to make it illegal to transport a minor across state borders for purposes of getting an abortion. So it is not that far off that parents will not have the ability to "figure out a way to get an abortion", at least not legally.

"only 1.4% of all abortions are done from the 21st week on."

If I recall right, even that number is misleading since the overwhelming majority of that 1.4% are still done before the 24th week.

But late abortions are still a part of the discussion - who decides when an abortion is appropriate? The extraordinary nature of late abortions just adds to the difficulty of deciding the balance of ethical, personal and practical considerations that need to go into that decision.

Even the most deterimined pro-life advocates struggle with those decisions when the woman's life is at risk. But its clear that any childbirth involves some risk, so where is the balance? And is this a decision a woman and her doctor make or is it prescribed by law?

And I will add again - who decides when an abortion is appropriate for an 11 year old? Is this a decision the family and doctor make or is it prescribed by law? Because I think we sometimes forget that going forward with preganancy also involves ethical questions.

"If the family and the girl agree, then that's an easy situation. If they don't, then some sort of legal process should start, that way the girl's interests and rights can be taken into consideration."

I don't agree. I think this is a decision the parents make in consultation with the doctor and the child. Not giving a child an abortion at that age borders on child abuse, but I think it has to be left up to the parents to sort out what is best for their child. Of course, like any issue with kids, there may be times when the decision has to be taken away from the parent.

I don't think they should be given the say, without the child's input.

Wouldn't most parents give the child input and make the decision they thought was in the best interests of the child? At that age parents are making every important decision for the child and I don't think we can legislate family communication. If you have a pregnant 11 year old you have a case of rape so there are going to be others involved with the family. But in the end its up to the parents to weigh what is best for their child.

You all keep on fighting for the "right" to kill yourselves off.

Yep, liberals, progressives, et al. keep on doing in their young all in the name of personal freedom while conservatives keep reproducing and the voter numbers keep growing in our favor.

Just laughing my ass off at your single minded puruit of oblivion.

Of course, you could discuss the real implications of the law in South Dakota which is a direct assault on Roe v. Wade but not in the way you think it is.

Honest people understand that Roe v. Wade was a terrible instance of judicial activism. One which had no grounding in constitutional law or to use your buzz words "Settled law" as you now claim for Roe. The Texas laws overturned in Roe had been on the books for over 120 years. Roe has been on the books for 33, math skills anyone as to which law was/is more settled?

The deal is this, the South Dakota law goes to SCOTUS in 3-5 years. If Roe is struck down then the abortion issue goes back to the States where it had been in the first place.

Remember, the Constitution (both Federal and State) and government (same) don't grant/give you rights. You are born with your rights and you through our system allow them to be curtailed as you see fit by the government you elect which then makes the laws we live under. If you don't like the laws, get elected and change them.

Honest people understand that Roe v. Wade was a terrible instance of judicial activism.

So a majority of the Supreme Court were not only wrong in your view, but dishonest?

The Texas laws overturned in Roe had been on the books for over 120 years. Roe has been on the books for 33, math skills anyone as to which law was/is more settled?

The prohibition of Jim Crow laws isn't settled law if it is simple math. Its not.

You are born with your rights

And some are born with more rights than others.

This is all very interesting, except it doesn't really matter whether abortion is a right or not. For that pregnant eleven year old whether she has a right to an abortion is irrelevant, its whether adults are smart enough to make sure she can get one.

As I wrote above:

Safe, legal abortion was one of the great developments of the last century. Without it, women's current status as equal partners in society would never have happened. It made it clear that every child was born by choice. No woman was going to be forced to drop out of school or out of the work force to have a child unless she chose to.

Whether it is a right or not, women having that choice has transformed our society for the better.

Safe, legal abortion was one of the great developments of the last century. Without it, women's current status as equal partners in society would never have happened. It made it clear that every child was born by choice. No woman was going to be forced to drop out of school or out of the work force to have a child unless she chose to.

Whether it is a right or not, women having that choice has transformed our society for the better.

Of course this is only true at the expense of snuffing out developing human life and effectively culling the generations. If you're not indifferent to that cost, then you ask whether the end justifies the means.

In other words, the above characterization is persuasive if one holds certain assumptions, but if one doesn't then it may not be.

The concept of "equal partners" sounds great when one contemplates an abstract notion of equality and assumes that difference necessarily amounts to invidious inequality. It's a persuasive argument in a culture based in significant part on Enlightenment notions of liberty, but it also suppresses the biological fact that one sex bears children and the other doesn't. The inescapable consequence of that fact is that if the species is going to perpetuate itself, women will always bear an unequal burden. In a civilized society, one might argue, men should be expected to bear a complementary burden.

The concept of "equal partners" sounds great when one contemplates an abstract notion of equality and assumes that difference necessarily amounts to invidious inequality.

I don't see the ability of women to choose how they will participate in society as an "abstract notion". Nor does it make any assumptions about whatever differences result from those choices. A woman becoming a doctor or lawyer or CEO or engineer or manager or line supervisor or construction worker does not require anything but having the opportunity and ability. Historically, without control over whether or when to have children women were excluded from making those choices.

the inescapable consequence of that fact is that if the species is going to perpetuate itself, women will always bear an unequal burden.

It is not inescapable at all. The idea that a woman should be forced to have children in order for the "species to perpetuate itself" is I think at the core of some of the most extreme anti-abortion positions. And its a ridiculous argument. Most women have children by choice and even most women who have abortions will choose at some other point in their lives to have children.

I don't see the ability of women to choose how they will participate in society as an "abstract notion".

You’re right, it’s not. But the “equal partner” concept you advance is. One can affirm a woman’s right to pursue whatever course she likes while also realizing that women bear a burden (and enjoy a distinction) in the reproductive process that men don’t and that they thus have a role to play in society that men don't. Both men and women can be CEOs, engineers, etc., but only women can bear children.

That’s the burden I’m refering to when I say:

the inescapable consequence of that fact is that if the species is going to perpetuate itself, women will always bear an unequal burden.

I don’t know how you get from this to “the idea that a woman should be forced to have children.” How will the species perpetuate itself if women aren’t having children?

The reason for bringing this up is to suggest that your position is premised on a more radically individualistist view than your opponents on this issue hold. Abortion makes more sense from your point of view, less from theirs. You are more likely to emphasize liberty, they are more likely to emphasize responsibility. You are more likely to view motherhood as an inconvenience and something more closely akin to a consumer option, they are more likely to see it as a blessing and something more closely akin to a duty or at least an essential part of life. That said, there are people who share your individualistic, politically rationalist outlook who nevertheless are more preoccupied about abortion’s costs and are more likely to ask whether the end justifies the means.

How will the species perpetuate itself if women aren’t having children?

The species does not depend on forcing women who don't want to have children to have them.

your position is premised on a more radically individualistist view than your opponents on this issue hold

I doubt it. Just introduce the idea that society can decide to not allow them to have children on the order of China's efforts to control population growth and the opponents of abortion would be just as "radically individualistic".

You are more likely to emphasize liberty, they are more likely to emphasize responsibility.

Not really. This goes back to that eleven year old. It is irresonsible to allow an eleven year old to have a child, but if we required an abortion for anyone at that age, the opponents of abortion would be arguing that it was a private decision for the family and doctor.

Neither side in this debate is willing to allow the other side to enforce its version of "responsibility" on them.

they are more likely to see it as a blessing

I doubt it. Most parents who choose to have children see them as blessings - at least until they get to age two. In fact, the availability of abortion has taken much of stigma out of being a single mother. Single mothers are now mothers by choice like anyone else.

<h2>Abortion transformed women's role in society. And I agree with you that some of the opposition to abortion is from people who are uncomfortable with that change rather than welcoming it.</h2>