local decisions about abortion
Who Should Decide About Abortion?
Re: Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy" (op-ed, Sept 14)
If to “decide, state by state, about abortion” is better than to decide as a country, isn’t deciding individual by individual better still?
Re: Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy" (op-ed, Sept 14)
If to “decide, state by state, about abortion” is better than to decide as a country, isn’t deciding individual by individual better still?
A particular example of this is what I said about early life. You are
so sure you know what I think that you responded as if I said exactly
the opposite of what I did say. Are are some quotes:
I said, "I don't think DNA is sufficient to establish that an early
fetus is fully "human.""
You responded (immediately after that), "The above makes no biological
sense (I'm a computational biologist). What does DNA (the genetic
material that is the same in every cell of a living organism) have to
do with when a fetus becomes a person?"
Your response doesn't make any sense, because I agree with you, and
the sentence to which you were responding agreed with you. I don't
think DNA makes a fetus a person either. You're so sure you know what
I think, that you ignored what I said. I also pointed out that until
very recently the Catholic Church *never* said that DNA makes a fetus
a person, and *never* said that the early fetus *is* a person: it
assumed, in fact, exactly what you are saying: an early fetus does not
have "sufficient matter" -- does not have a developed enough body --
to be considered fully human. Only recently has the Church started to
talk more like the early fetus is a bearer of rights -- but there is
still no official contradiction of your position. I agree with you.
Thomas Aquinas (my specialty) agreed with you.
The Catholic Church does not directly contradict you, and for most of
its history clearly agreed with you. Your response to this is to say
the Church has "unreviewable and implacable stances" and to call for a
stronger "separation of Church and state" (which, whatever it actually
means in political theory, you seem to think means: separation of
religious people from legislative decisions). The "unreviewable and
implacable stance," my friend, is yours: no matter what I say about my
own opinion and the intellectual history I have spent seven years of
graduate school studying, you assume you already know everything, and
respond as if I had not spoken at all. This is a pointless argument.
Let me point out, that this is a pretty important issue: because it
means that my position on legal abortion, and the Catholic Church's
position, is *not* based solely on "defending the innocent." It is
based on all the reasons that you shrugged off because they don't fit
your paradigm.
Reply
Your position on the State is simply dogmatic. I hate to bore you
with quotations -- I know I always skim over them when I read emails
-- but here are several, just from your last email. Each of them
simply assumes a roughly Hobbesian theory of government. That theory
is arguably coherent -- I would argue it is not, but I see how it can
seem coherent -- but in no wise is it 'established' or rational. It
is just your opinion, treated as irrefutable dogma:
1. "Certain rights are just too fundamental to be put up for a simple
majority vote; the consensus must be overwhelming before such rights
are severely restricted. Having a judiciary protects these rights
from being curbed except by overwhelming consensus. [fine so far] A
woman's right to control her body and her life is one such right."
(Why? And of course, why does "right to control her life" mean "right
to kill her unborn fetus"? I know you have an answer -- but it
ultimately rests on dogmatic assumptions about political order.)
2. "The legal system exists to protect us from each other, not to
protect us from our own bad choices. It may not be used to protect
women from the possible harmful onsequences
of abortions."
Why not? Where do you get this definition of the legal system? It is
just your opinion.
3. "It's completely not ok though for you to use criminal courts to
"protect" women
from themselves."
Why not?
4. "owning a gun is a much less fundamental right than controlling
your body and your life."
Why is that? And again, why does "controlling your body and your
life" equal abortion?
5. "Laws against abortion may not be justified as "protecting women
from themselves" or based on some generalized social-policy
considerations. The right to control one's body and one's life is
just too basic to be subject to such indirect reasoning."
Too basic? Why?
6. "The presumption in this country is that liberties should not be
restricted except for good public-safety reasons."
Of course that is not the presumption of an "overwhelming consensus"
or we would not be having this conversation. Nor does it remotely
explain the democratic process in America. The presumption is simply
your own.
7. "banning abortion invades a fundamental right (privacy) in such
ways that it may not be undertaken without overwhelming consensus."
Why is privacy a fundamental right, in what sense does regulating
medical procedures invade one's privacy (we regulate *every* other
medical procedure), and in what sense is a parent's relationship to
her child "private"?
Reply
questions. Again, Hobbesianism (and its modern variants) is a fairly
well-worked out system, and is arguably coherent. All I'm saying is
that ultimately you come down to some basic assumptions, and you and I
disagree. Both of our positions are, in that sense, dogmatic. I
think the two main assumptions are (a) when a human entity becomes a
bearer of legal rights and (b) whether government exists to defend
life or to promote the good life.
(Maybe that second one won't make sense to you. I'm putting you on
the first side -- ironically, I think the pro-choicer wants to just
"defend life." What I mean is, I think government exists to make life
better, to help people live more fulfilled lives in society. Your
assertions above all come down to the rejection of that position, and
the assertion that government only exists to protect us from external
harm. That is a coherent position. So is mine. You don't like mine,
I don't like yours. They are both "basic," "fundamental," "presumed,"
to use your words. *Part* of what divides us is the question of who
should be defended -- that's the standard question of whether an
unborn fetus is a legal "person." But I think the bigger part is
whether "defense" is the sole job of government. One job, to be sure.
But the sole job? You and I simply disagree on this. Welcome to
post-modernity.)
Fourth:
Your semi-dogmatic attachment to individual rights, and your
presumption that abortion is a key example of such rights, seems to
trump your engagement with actual facts about abortion. Three
examples:
1. I said, "I think there *is* an overwhelming consensus that
late-term abortion are, in fact, killing an innocent person." You
responded, "Which is why Roe doesn't cover them, which is as it should
be."
In a literal sense, you are right. Roe does not cover late-term
abortions. In fact, from what I've read, Roe doesn't cover anything
anymore. It's been replaced by a series of later decisions with
different rationales, especially Casey. In the case of late-term
abortion, I think the ruling precedent is Stenberg, which says you
cannot ban them without a broad exception for the "health" of the
woman, which includes . . . well, anything that would make her
uncomfortable. It really comes down to the same as Casey: if the
child would conflict with her personal desires, she can abort it, even
at nine months. Last year's Carhart ruled that one particular
*method* can be banned, as long as women still have free access to
other methods of late-term abortion. I assume you don't support
Carhart -- since it was decided by pro-life hacks, overrulling all the
pro-choice justices 5-4.
When I say Roe, I mean, like most people, the Court's whole abortion
regime. If your position is that Roe should be upheld, but every
subsequent decision extending it should be repealed . . . that would
be interesting, and would need some elaboration -- a whole lot more
elaboration than my position that the whole thing stinks. In any
case, I also don't think that Roe is necessary to protect early-term
abortions: you could win that battle democratically, even if we beat
you in the courts.
Reply
such doctors -- not to ban their specialty."
Such a strange thing to say in response to what I said. Because, in
fact, the Roe regime, as recently interpreted by a federal court, says
precisely that the doctor should not be punished. So again, maybe
you're defending "Roe" in a very literal sense, in such a way that you
disagree with what the Court has determined that Roe means. But you
have not engaged the actual real world, where Roe is held to prevent
malpractice cases against abortionists.
3. "Have you any evidence that this actually happens?"
You say this, again strangely, in response to my claim that abortion
promotes fatherlessness. What is strange is that I cited evidence:
the example of the black community, where fatherlessness and abortion
have climbed, in synch, at a rate disproprotionate to the rest of the
country. All though the same synchronization has happened in every
other community. Yes I have evidence. No, it is not sufficient to
overcome your dogmatic attachment to abortion.
4. "Banning abortions drives them underground, leading to unsafe
coat-hanger abortions."
I throw your question back at you, "Have you any evidence that this
actually happens?" I presume you are well enough read to know that
Bernard Nathanson, an expert witness in Roe in favor of abortion (he
was himself an abortionist), the one who originally "documented"
so-called "back-alley" abortions, later repudiated these claims and
admitted that the "coat-hanger" phenomenon was totally made up to
achieve a policy end. Of course we have no evidence for what happened
in dark back alleys in the sixties, but the people who made your
sacred claim in the first place have admitted that they *made it up*.
What evidence we have suggests that the number of abortions exploded
when it became legal -- surprise surprise. It doesn't take a social
scientist to guess that would happen.
(Let me acknowledge, in passing, that most of what you say is *much*
more intelligent than the coat-hanger argument. I disagree with you,
I think you are extraordinarily bad at engaging a position you
disagree with, and I think your positions are even more dogmatic than
mine -- but coat-hangers is really beneath you, because it is such a
scare tactic and so utterly unfounded in any kind of evidence.)
Reply
"It often seems that pro-lifers want to ban abortion to "cover their
behind" -- "we have done our part to eradicate an evil, and what
happens outside the law is not our moral responsibility"."
You made this argument in your previous email, too, and I forgot to
respond to it. Let me say that I am sensitive to the argument. I
also abhor moralistic arguments that lay no hold on the speaker. I
absolutely affirm your desire to stamp this out. But I don't think it
applies.
Because the terrible thing about laws banning abortion is that they
apply equally to everyone. If we ban abortion and my wife gets raped,
she is just as much a "victim" of that law as anyone else. If we get
pregnant unexpectedly, a ban on abortion stops us from terminating the
pregnancy too. That doesn't stop my wife from being absolutely
opposed to abortion -- much more viscerally than I am.
(I suppose you'd say that my wife wouldn't want to get an abortion
anyway . . . but that seems to undermine much of the pro-choice
rhetoric. Most pro-choicers say they would never "choose" abortion,
but would only get one in an emergency -- emergencies ranging from
incest and rape to birth defects or a bad economic situation. In
other words, they think anyone would want an abortion in a bad
situation. But my wife and I would be just as much "victims" of such
situations as anyone. We are taking a big "risk," in the pro-choice
calculus, by trying to ban a procedure that we might "need." We are
not imposing any risk on others that we are not taking on ourselves.)
In any case, I feel like a lot of liberalism fits your bill a lot
better than conservatism. (It doesn't sound like you are a
liberal--more a libertarian?--so this probably doesn't apply to you.)
Conservatism, generally, wants to regulate sexual behavior but not
economic behavior, whereas liberalism wants the opposite. It seems to
me that paying high taxes and being forced to recycle is a pretty easy
way to be "moral." Anyone can do that. But being bound to stick with
a marriage even if you don't feel like it? That's hard for
*everyone*. Pornography is tempting for everyone. Abortion is
tempting for anyone in a bad position. Adultery is tempting for
everyone. And all of these on a much more visceral, personal level
than high taxes. In other words, it seems to me that conservative
moral "crusaders" are fighting for laws that hit a lot closer to home
than the laws urged by liberals. When liberals fight to keep
pornography legal but to ban smoking in bars, I think they are
choosing an easy moralism while keeping the things that they really
desire: because everyone gets more excited about pornography than
about a cigarette.
You probably won't agree with this last section. My only point is
that I am sensitive to the criticism of easy moralism, but I don't
think banning sexual behaviors (which so often involve exploitation
and the hurting of children) is nearly so "easy" as the Left's
moralism.
(Incidentally, you are also leaving out a tremendous lot of work done
by the pro-life community beyond banning abortion: especially crisis
pregnancy centers. A few of my friends have even adopted babies who
were going to be aborted. That is not easy.)
Reply
morning, because I want to give you a decent response and explain why
I'm not going to respond in the future. I took up this correspondence
with you in the first place for two reasons: first, because it seemed
the polite response to an email, and second, because I wanted to show
you that pro-lifers are not as stupid as you think they are. I think
I've fulfilled my duties on the first count -- in part by trying to
explain, here, why I'm breaking off the correspondence. I rather
doubt I've gotten anywhere on the second one, because you seem
unwilling to take me seriously and unwilling to recognize your own
presuppositions. But I've done what I can, and I don't think it's a
good use of my time to try to do any more. I hope I've given you a
little food for thought.
I'll look forward to your parting blast!
I wish you the best,
Eric Johnston
(ps - you're welcome to post these emails, if you really want to. For
the record, the NYT piece was solicited, not submitted -- I'm really
not looking for ways to get into this conversation. But someone at
their op-ed page heard of me and thought it would be entertaining to
post my position. I'm really not all that concerned what goes on the
web about me, good or bad.)
Reply
ok. i'm sorry where i offended you or misheard you, and i appreciate
your taking
the time to explain yourself. i probably did rely on some stereotypes that
may not applly to you specifically.
you're right that some of our disagreements cannot be bridged. i
think discussions
are useful regardless of that, as they help everyone refine their position and
understand better the other side's thinking, even while still
disagreeing with it.
now, let me respond to some of your points, and after that i'll just
wish you the
best luck with your dissertation and everything else you're doing.
i don't believe that government should do nothing but protect us from
each other (as you can easily see by reading my letters at
http://ilya.cc/lett ); i think the government should provide a robust
social safety net, and help people with education, job training,
universal health care etc. but these are all services that the
government offers. that's very different from when the government
forbids you to do something. i very strongly believe that the
government may not forbid you to do anything unless it demonstrably
harms someone else. smoking is bars is banned to protect non-smoking
patrons, not to protect the smokers. the unfortunate result of
permitting everything that doesn't harm others is that we must permit
apparently distasteful things like pornography. but the alternative,
to protect people from self-harm by banning self-harmful behaviors, is
worse. who decides what is self-harmful? some will say that reading
Noam Chomsky is too harmful to be permitted. some will say that
mountain climbing is too risky to allow. who decides? the only
viable solution is to allow everything unless it harms someone. we
have regrettable exceptions to this (like criminalizing nonviolent
drug use), but the answer is to remove the exceptions -- not to
criminalize more "victimless" crimes.
social engineering is a fine thing, and there are many effective ways
to accomplish it.
you can reduce abortions by promoting sex education and contraception
(something the Catholic Church recklessly opposes), by promoting
adoption like your friends are doing, by educating women on the
psychological dangers of abortion, by creating jobs so that everyone
can afford to raise their kids, by increasing enforcement of child
support, and in many other ways. just as, you can fight smoking by
educating people about its dangers and providing smoking cessation
programs. if it's possible to achieve laudable social goals without
the abhorrent action of creating victimless crimes, then that route
should be pursued; and as illustrated above, that is almost always
possible.
Reply
protecting people from themselves by threatening them with jail if
they do self-harmful things that harm no one else, is such a bad
thing. in general, most things currently defined as crimes in our
society _do_ have identifiable victimes other than the perpetrator.
that seems to be a reflection of a live-and-let-live consensus in our
society. i think this live-and-let-live approach is a large reason
for this country's prosperity and power, compared with more moralistic
and restrictive societies like iran.
you're right that my strong attachment to individual rights -- that
invasive things may not be done to you except to protect others -- is
an axiom. it is also tempered in many ways; e.g. i support higher
taxes to fund social programs, because taking away part of your income
is less invasive than controlling your medical procedures. and i
support gun control because, again, there are many alternative means
of self-defense, so the particular self-defense method of owning a
lethal gun is a less basic right than controlling whether you have a
child. most of all, "invading" your life by taxing your income or
restricting what guns you may owe is for a clear benefit to others.
invading your life by controlling whether you may abort a fetus that
is not a child, is of no benefit to others. these two considerations
-- how bad is the invasion of your life, and how big the benefit to
others -- must be balanced in all decisions. we just disagree about
what the acceptable balance is.
> (Incidentally, you are also leaving out a tremendous lot of work done
> by the pro-life community beyond banning abortion: especially crisis
> pregnancy centers. A few of my friends have even adopted babies who
> were going to be aborted. That is not easy.)
where did i say that such things are bad? on the contrary, i respect them
very much. but if you can reduce abortions by such voluntary means,
without criminalizing victimless behavior, then there is no need to do
something as drastic as defining a new victimless crime.
>We are
> not imposing any risk on others that we are not taking on ourselves.
that is certainly a welcome change from what many "conservatives" do
(like sending others' children to war but not their own). in practice,
the well-off would still have abortions available to them ( by traveling to
another state or country ), so overturning Roe would ban abortions
mainly for the indigent.
more important, that you live your moral beliefs is very respectable,
but not a justification to impose them on others. jehova's witnesses may
"abstain from blood" in a car accident, but may not force others to do so.
moral vegetarians may not impose vegetarianism on others.
living your beliefs is certainly necessary before you try to impose
them on others,
but is hardly sufficient.
>Just because I oppose abortion doesn't mean I like judicial
> fiats.
i understand that your commitment to democracy is real. we just disagree
about which personal behaviors may fairly be voted upon by others.
clearly not 100% of everything is up for a majority vote, as the Bill
of Rights shows.
exactly what _is_ up for a vote -- that we disagree upon.
Reply
all i was saying is that "having DNA" has nothing to do with personhood
(viruses have it, bacteria have it), so it was strange to hear DNA brought up
in the context of the discussion. certainly there are other biological
features of fetuses that may be elucidated by science, that will help clarify
when a fetus becomes a person. but "having DNA" is not such a feature.
>my position on legal abortion, and the Catholic Church's
> position, is *not* based solely on "defending the innocent."
Ok, good to hear that. It's also based on "protecting people from themselves
by threatening them with jail if they do something self-harmful, or by
threatening
with jail anyone who facilitates their willing self-harm". As noted above,
we disagree on whether this is ok. Certainly, if these things are ok, I don't
understand why cigarette smokers and makers are not jailed.
> in what sense does regulating
> medical procedures invade one's privacy (we regulate *every* other
> medical procedure
"Regulating" medical procedures involves letting you opt for a risky medical
procedure that may harm you physically and psychologically, as long as
the risks are explained to you. Regulating medical procedures does not
involve banning procedures simply because some people may have
regrets afterwards.
This is different for children, of course; the parents or guardians
decide what's
best for the child. But once you're an adult, you're allowed to take risks and
possibly harm yourself. The state is no longer your "parent" in the same sense
that your mother and father were.
>But you
> have not engaged the actual real world, where Roe is held to prevent
> malpractice cases against abortionists.
If women routinely don't have accurate information about what an
abortion entails,
the answer is to improve communication. There is no reason why "in
the real world"
you cannot communicate a message to people willing to hear it.
I'm all for pre-abortion counseling, perhaps by specially licensed counselors
unaffiliated witht abortion clinics. But ultimately, after all the counseling,
the choice must be the woman's, since it's her life and she has to live with the
consequences, and she's an adult.
>fatherlessness and abortion
> have climbed, in synch, at a rate disproprotionate to the rest of the
> country.
Correlation doesn't mean causation -- both these things could be caused
simultaneously by a third factor, such as an economic downturn that
disproportionately affects that group. But in any case, since there are
measures short of criminalizing abortion for reducing fatherlessness --
stronger enforcement of child support, better access to sex education and
contraception, educating women so they have more power and can
stand up to irresponsible demands by men -- the justification for doing
something as drastic as restricting women's choices is not there.
Of course, we disagree whether restricting abortion is such a drastic thing.
>your dogmatic attachment to abortion.
Of course, my attachment is not to abortion per se, but to not forbidding any
victimless personal behavior. I'm uncomfortable with abortion, as I am with
homosexuality for example; I'm just far more uncomfortable with controlling
people's lives in major ways, without justification rooted in public safety.
I do believe in helping people not harm themselves ( I volunteer on
suicide/listening hotlines, for example ); but I believe this should be done
non-coercively.
Ok, I tried to address some of your points. Thanks again for taking
the time to write. Best wishes for your dissertation, your job search
and your family.
regards,
ilya
Reply
Leave a comment