To download for later, click this link
****Trigger Warning**** - If discussing sensitive topics such as rape may cause you distress, you may want to skip this episode and tune in next week.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Abortion
To download for later, click this link
****Trigger Warning**** - If discussing sensitive topics such as rape may cause you distress, you may want to skip this episode and tune in next week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Overall very good discussion.
ReplyDeleteOne important concept missed in the discussion of choice was the concept of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights may be taken away by legal due process under specific circumstances, but you can't just agree to give them up. (Not all rights are inalienable. For example, lots of specific property rights are alienable. The right to control the product of one's labor is alienable, though the right to liberty in its totality is inalienable.)
Liberals consider bodily autonomy to be an inalienable right. In the liberal view, you can subject yourself to a medical experiment, but you can't sign away your right to stop at any time. You can consent to sex, but you have the right to withdraw your consent. And you can get pregnant from consensual sex, but your control over your own body can no more be alienated by that decision than it can be forcibly taken away from you if you get pregnant by rape.
Of course, life is also an inalienable right, so I'm not saying that concept solves the abortion issue. But that is a reason why I don't view the circumstances of conception as relevant to whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion.
Another major point is that (like many liberal vs. conservative debates) this is in some ways a teleology vs. deontology debate. From a deontological perspective, it's easy to say that killing an embryo is much worse than not causing an embryo to come into existance in the first place. From a teleolgical (I guess I should say "utilitarian" to be clear that I'm not using a really old-fashioned "natural law"-y version of the term) perspective, thinking the death of embryos is "like murder"-level-unfortunate is more than enough motive force to propell you into "every sperm is sacred" territory. (Even admitting that a potential person not coming into the world is somehow bad in the abstract can lead you down the road to some really counterintuitive results if you approach it from a utilitarian perspective.)
(Very few people take the question of "just how bad is it that more potential people don't come into the world?" seriously. I have a lot of respect for people who do bother to take that seriously, even when their way of approaching the question (and their politics in general) differs wildly from mine.)
Unfortunately, the common ground on this issue is rather thin. It would be easy to find common ground on whether abortion is overall a good thing. But we're talking about whether it should be legal (political, not just ethical), which involves issues of coercion.
Threatening to throw someone in jail is coercion obvious coercion. But measures that intentionally make abortion more risky (including prohibiting doctors from providing safe medical abortions) are also coercion. Measures that make abortion intentionally more traumatic are also coercion. Giving someone a double-bind between subjecting themselves to additional medical procedures or carrying their pregnancy to therm when they don't want to do so is coercion.
So I was very disappointed that Matt's first example of supporting other measures to reduce the abortion rate was different, more indirect coercion! I was glad that you got around to access to birth control by the end (though I don't think that was quite as uncontroversial among conservatives as you made that out to be). But what about policies affecting access to (and price of) sex education, education in general, pre- and post-natal medical care, pediatric medical care, and things that mitigate the time-dependent downsides of parenting (childcare services, leave-of-absence from employment)? These are all impacted by contentious political policy issues and have large effects on (among other things) abortion rates.
(Splitting this off due to comment length limits.)
ReplyDeleteA few side-notes:
Putting aside the issue of personhood, the idea that life starts at the start of pregnancy (implantation, not fertilizaiton) is consistent for the reasons Matt describes. But some large portion of the conservative anti-abortion movement takes the position that "life begins at conception" in the context of opposition to hormonal birth control (which inhibits fertilization, but could inhibit implantation of embryos in some cases) and emergency hormonal birth control (even though research indicates that doesn't inhibit implantation of embryos at all).
The idea that "no one" wants to ban birth control is wrong. Many proponents of "fetal personhood" legislation state openly they expect those measures to prohibit hormonal birth control. Some elements within the conservative anti-aborion movement want outright bans on (at least) all non-barrier methods of contraception. Perhaps those positions are extreme, but I think they still have a substantial impact on legislative debate on the issue.
While Dan's suggestion that abortion is tragic and undesirable is a common ground view in the political mainstream, it's not entirely uncontroversial (a recent book making the counterargument has gotten a lot of press). Obviously, there you do have to resolve the issue of "just how bad is it to kill an embryo". Conservatives say "like murder", liberals tend to say "not ideal, but certainly not so bad as murder" (and sometimes, "even if it is as bad as murder, I'm going to grasp that metaphorical lead between my teeth and say yes, autonomy really is that important"). But there are some pretty great things about having ultimate control over not having children when you don't want to have children (or have more children). Even if you believe people are overall better off not having ultimate control over this significant aspect of their lives, it's hard to look at it honestly and say that there's no benefit, especially when you consider the revealed preferences of women who risked social censure (and even life and limb) to get an abortion. (By "ultimate" in this case, I don't just mean totally effective, but also final in a temporal sense. Without access to safe and effective abortion, it's not possible to meaninfully consent or refuse to consent to carry a pregnancy to term for the entire necessary duration of the pregnancy.)
I'm sad that my previous comment wasn't effective (or early?) enough to side-track you into futurism-podcasting about artificial wombs. I was entirely serious about that, though, I think that's a reasonably likely nearish-term techonlogical development with some really strange political implications.
Last comment, I swear, but I forgot one thing:
ReplyDeleteYou got your podcast feed working, so I was able to listen to this in the podcast app on my phone for the first time. Which is great! Thanks for getting that set up.
If someone considers a trans-vaginal ultrasound as "invasive" or even so far as "rape", what do you consider an abortion? Be it:
ReplyDeleteSuction abortion: Used during the first trimester. A suction tube is inserted into the womb and the suction tears the fetus apart limb from limb and sucks it from the womb and placenta.
Dilation and Curettage (D&C): Used at the end of the first trimester. The cervix is dilated and forceps are inserted into the womb and the fetus is extracted piece by piece. Then a sharp knife in a loop shape (a curette) scrapes away the remainder of the fetus and placenta.
Dilation and Extraction (D&E): Used after the first trimester. The cervix is dilated and the fetus is dismembered with forceps. The instrument seizes a part of the fetus' body, then it is twisted and torn out. The fetus' spine is snapped and the skull is crushed. The pieces are then reassembled outside of the womb to make sure there aren't missing pieces (which when not done correctly has resulted in complications and death for the woman).
Partial Birth Abortion: Used from 4th to 9th month of pregnancy. The abortionist uses ultrasound to locate the unborn baby's legs (and I specifically use "baby" here because the baby is considered medically viable from 24 weeks on). Forceps then pull the baby's legs through the birth canal, delivering the baby feet first, except for the head. Scissors then puncture the base of the back of the head and a suction device sucks out the brain of the baby, collapsing the skull for removal of the baby.
But hey, it's all okay, right? Since the baby isn't 100% out of the mother's body?
Saline Amniocentesis: Used after 16 weeks. A concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, which the fetus breathes in, swallows and dies. The dead body is then pulled out from the woman.
To my knowledge, those all sound a heck of a lot worse than a thin, lubricated instrument that's basically the size of a tampon. If the woman is pregnant (with the exception of Jesus' mother Mary, I should say), she has already had something up inside her there to begin with. And if she's getting an abortion, something much more invasive is about to happen.
As a very strong pro-life proponent, I was interested to hear Dan's point of view (since, honestly, how often do you really get to hear what the other side is saying without screaming at each other?). He brings up some interesting points though that I'd like to comment on.
ReplyDelete--Yes, I do think women should have to say why they are getting an abortion. It's a medical procedure. And if a woman thinks a second beating heart, unique DNA and blood type are part of her body, I think any doctor has a right to establish why the patient wants parts of their body sucked/pulled out and thrown away.
--The old white men making laws are elected. If we aren't happy with that, let's vote in other people or put ourselves up for the task.
--Ultrasounds: I disagree that all women going in for an abortion know what they're doing and what exactly is inside of them. Heck, I wouldn't have known what was happening each week in pregnancy if I didn't look it up online or in pregnancy books. Shouldn't every women get to make an educated decision? Shouldn't she see multiple points of view before doing something irreversible? Should we really advocate ignorance in order to spare someone a twinge in their conscience?
--I think that a woman should be given many options, including information on adoption. Is carrying a baby for 9 months easy? No. But then again, perhaps we could avoid the "worst day in a woman's life" and bless a couple that battles with infertility. I don't know of a single woman that would say they regret giving up their baby for adoption and wish they would have done an abortion.
Chelsea: a big part of my discomfort with the anti-abortion movement is that it feels to me that it implies that the woman is innately subordinate to the life within her. I think many conservatives feel that liberals maybe even place less value on life due to our stance, or at least the lives of infants. For me at least, it really comes down to the fact that if you get rid of legal abortion, a pregnant woman loses many rights over what she may do with her body. I think liberals feel that the woman should lose no liberty over her body. What's your opinion about that?
ReplyDeleteA woman should absolutely be given access to whatever medical information/advice she desires. I'd say our objection as liberals is certainly not to a woman's doctor giving her information. We strongly object, however, to legislators writing into law statements her doctor is required to make. Here's a great article that I think does a pretty good job of portraying one liberal view of abortion rights, and also discusses specifically the incorrect science this doctor is required to quote: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/19/1337712/-Meet-Dr-Willie-Parker-Perhaps-the-Bravest-Christian-Abortion-Provider-in-the-US#
That is an interesting one, since I believe that in cases where the mother's life is in danger, it does take precedence over the baby inside her. That said, I believe abortion should only be an *option* in the most extreme and rare circumstances, including ectopic pregnancy and perhaps rape. Besides an ectopic pregnancy (which doesn't have the potential to be carried until the baby is viable), there isn't a time that killing the baby and only that will guarantee the mother will live. If the mother is sick or in danger, I advocate measures to save her life first, even if it might harm the baby unintentionally.
DeleteIf you come across a car accident that has a mother and a baby inside and you can only choose one to pull out, that doesn't mean you take out the mother and shoot the baby.
I'm sort of at a loss as to how a pregnant woman, just because she's pregnant, suddenly has no liberty over her body. Can't the baby and the mother be in harmony?
As I do have libertarian leanings, I am big on being free to choose. I believe agency is one of the greatest gifts from God. However, I also believe that with agency, we should experience the consequences of our choices, whether they are good or bad. The problem with most abortions is that they abolish a consequence, in this case, a baby. If you choose to engage in sexual activity, there are consequences, including the chance you can get pregnant. That is a choice** that the people involved take.
**Excluding rape
The majority of women who choose abortion do so because it's inconvenient (cannot afford it/ a born baby would require lifestyle changes [AGI, 2014]).
And this is the biggest problem to me, that a life (or even if you don't agree it's a life in the womb, as Dan points out in the podcast, there is no denying it will be a life) is taken away because of selfishness. Life is the first component listed in the Declaration of Independence as a right endowed by our Creator. Liberals and conservatives uphold the right of life for the woman/mother. Can we not also uphold it for the innocent life inside her?
I think the best answer I can give you is that in life, and in politics, I try to be a pragmatist. For example, I certainly think teenagers shouldn't be having sex. Yet I will certainly acknowledge that it happens all the time, and so it should be easy for them to access birth control methods without having to ask their parents, and over the counter as well. If I oppose such policies, then whether I want it or not, what I'm going to end up with is a lot more pregnant teenagers.
DeleteSo a similar argument can be made around abortion - if you take away legal means, women will do it illegally and risk death. Then you're losing both the mother and the baby.
"Can't be the baby and the mother be in harmony?" Yes, they often are. But not always. And what really strikes me down the conservative/liberal divide on this one is that it really feels to me like liberals feel that agency should remain with the woman, but conservatives feel like she forfeits it upon becoming pregnant.
I'm also not in favor of imposing personal responsibility through the law when the result could be a most unhappy child. Andrew Solomon, by the way, wrote a whole chapter in his book "Far From The Tree" about women who conceived through rape and how their relationships with their children are. (Spoiler - pretty awful most of the time)
Oh, and I hasten to add that the spacing in my last sentence before the link was code-induced and not some attempt to convey emphasis with spacing!
ReplyDeleteHa, Dan and his suggestive spacing! I knew it! :)
Delete> If someone considers a trans-vaginal ultrasound as "invasive" or even so far as "rape", what do you consider an abortion?
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be missing that the objection is to coercion. I think liberals agree with conservatives that coercing someone into having an abortion would be really, really terrible. I think it's obvious that coercing someone into having an abortion is worse, way worse, than coercing them into having a trans-vaginal ultrasound. But in the example I (and, I believe, Dan) was discussing, I was describing a woman who was not coerced into having an abortion but was coerced into having a trans-vaginal ultrasound.
> I think any doctor has a right to establish why the patient wants parts of their body sucked/pulled out and thrown away.
I think any doctor doing due diligence will be concerned about their patients' motives. However, I don't think that's the same as saying the doctor must know all they'd like to know about their patients' motives before providing the desired medical care.
> Shouldn't every women get to make an educated decision? Shouldn't she see multiple points of view before doing something irreversible? Should we really advocate ignorance in order to spare someone a twinge in their conscience?
I also agree with that. But, again, there's a difference between a doctor suggesting an additional procedure and the law requiring it. Should everyone have the option? Absolutely. I'd even be fine with doctors encouraging it, if they think that's best for their patient. But if a woman says, "I don't want any additional procedure, I've already made up my mind", I don't think it's acceptable to say, "You must have this additional procedure," even if that procedure is less invasive.
The concept of "informed consent" is about protecting autonomy. If you're saying, "You must consent to some procedure in order to consent to another procedure," that turns the concept of informed consent on its head. Particularly given two factors:
1. There may be more than one way to obtain information. You mention reading written information about the course of pre-natal development. Laws that specify trans-vaginal ultrasounds must be used in situations where medical professionals would consider abdominal ultrasounds to be totally sufficient for imaging purposes (or in cases where it's too early for any ultrasound to produce useful imagery) are suspicious, to say the least.
2. Patients should have some sort of say about what sorts of information are relevant for their decision-making. An ultrasound will definitely not convey information that is not conveyed by an ultrasound image of the embryo or fetus. It won't answer complicated ethical or theological questions.
I think that a woman should be given many options, including information on adoption. Is carrying a baby for 9 months easy? No. But then again, perhaps we could avoid the "worst day in a woman's life" and bless a couple that battles with infertility.
I agree. Who could object to providing information and options? But I have seen people who are opposed to abortion act in ways that cause significant emotional trauma, and then describe that as just "informing" or "providing options". It's possible to inform people without coercing and abusing them, so I agree with you to the extent that women can be "given options" and "informed" without coercion or emotional abuse.
A side note: I think Dan's quote about the "worst day in a woman's life" is in many cases significant hyperbole. Not in all cases, some women describe their abortions using that phrase verbatim and meaning it literally (and not just in situations where the alternative is last day). But I've read some accounts from women who have had abortions who say that they had no significant feelings of grief or guilt at all.
ReplyDeleteI think Dan has a good reason for engaging in this kind of hyperbole, he's emphasizing areas of agreement. But it's one thing to emphasize areas of agreement when talking about your own opinion, and another to do so when talking about other people's experience.
Speaking of which, I really want to link to this essay, "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" (which presents accounts from abortion-clinic workers about times when anti-abortion activists became patients themselves). I'm not linking to this to advance some particular argument (it's not a persuasive essay, I'm not confident it advances any particular position of mine effectively). But I found it very interesting when I first read it, and I hope you will find it interesting as well.
Also, I want to link to this article on artificial wombs which Slate published the very day after I left my last set of comments.