Categorical abortion exceptions : Socratic Rhythm Method

by Matt Barr

Categorical abortion exceptions

Jonah Goldberg wants to know why there should be a categorical exception to any abortion regulation for rape and incest. He's not saying there shouldn't be, he's asking "what is the argument grounded in principle?" A fair question, given that, as he puts it,

I can think of public policy arguments, such as kids born under such circumstances may well have serious pyschological problems because mothers may not be committed to their children. And the general, "ick" response is very, very strong and I think that should tell us something....
Is it a liberty of the women argument? If that's case, why are these the only places where personal liberty should triumph? In the case of incest there's surely a health issue for the child involved. But incest isn't the only circumstance where that's the case. Is it the psychological health of the mother? I think that's obviously a serious concern. But, obviously, psychological health isn't at risk only in cases of unwanted pregnancies from rape or incest.

He concludes that the real answer is probably populist: that "huge majorities of Americans just detest the idea that women should have to have children from rape and incest." But: "If you're prolife," he says, "but think when really big majorities favor killing it's ok, you need to think things through a bit more."

Probably. I'm not committedly "pro-life" as that is understood today. I think 35-40 years ago there was a great idea that said that early in a pregnancy it shouldn't be anybody's business but a woman's and her doctor's whether that pregnancy should be aborted. I don't think the doctor's role was solely to decide if a woman was going to get physically sick or worse; I think emotional and psychological considerations were more likely to inform a decision, and that's fine, and really none of my business, or anyone else's. That may include unpreparedness to be parent. It may include the very real stress of derailing a life's plan, even temporarily. I'm fine with all that.

But I think since that time a movement has developed that I have real trouble getting behind that says that it's no longer a difficult healthcare decision but an Expression of Womanhood. I think there are lots of better ways to express womanhood than aborting a pregnancy. So, not being a woman myself, why is this my business and not the stuff in the previous paragraph? Well, it's not, I guess, except insofar as now we're talking about using one person -- fine, fetus, embryo, potential person -- in the service of someone else, and I think avoiding that is probably the best argument for the availability of abortion, so I'm not keen on it being flipped around.

I know there's all sorts of money to be made in abortion, but none of it's mine, and I don't think there's a qualitative difference between making money running abortion clinics and making money selling tobacco products. Neither is illegal, but if you can sleep at night, good for you.

So now that there's A Movement and a lot of money involved, can anyone ever be confident that health and welfare are the real factors in a decision to abort? I doubt it, and I think that's a shame, because I'd love to be king for a day and say "abortion for anyone who needs it, and no one has the right to figure out if a woman needs it but her, in consultation with her doctor," but The Movement and the people with the money on the line would blow through that loophole to make sure Womanhood was Expressed and money made.

You probably have figured out that there's no solution suggested by any of this, which is one good reason I rarely write about it. But how it's related to Goldberg's question: If ever I can appreciate that there would be an emotional and psychological reason to abort a pregnancy, it would be in the case of rape or incest. So while in my ideal world there wouldn't be a prohibition on abortion with an exception for those things, I can certainly understand how they get set aside into a different category.

Trackback Pings

Blogs linking Categorical abortion exceptions:

» Carnival of Liberty XXXVI from The Unrepentant Individual
Yes, friends, it’s that time again. Another week gone, and we’re onto the 36th Carnival of Liberty. I’ve hosted before, Carnival #1 and Carnival #20. I must have forgotten how much work it is, because not only have I volunteered to do it again, I thi... [Read More]

Tracked on March 14, 2006 1:22 PM

» Carnival of Liberty XXXVI from The Unrepentant Individual
Yes, friends, itâ€™s that time again. Another week gone, and weâ€™re onto the 36th Carnival of Liberty. Iâ€™ve hosted before, Carnival #1 and Carnival #20. I must have forgotten how much work it is, because not only have I volunteered to do it again, I... [Read More]

Tracked on March 21, 2006 3:29 PM

Comments

bujeeboo posted:

Oh my god.

Money to be made? huh? Expression of Womanhood?? Are you going to trademark that? The poor women in Mississippi who have to drive over 200 miles to have a free, legal and safe abortion (while risking taking time off from their job, arranging for child care, and a ride back home) would find these statements to be elitist and uninformed.

I understand we are "supposed" to be having the abortion debate, because well, the talking heads say we're supposed to be talking about it and stuff. But it's stunning to me how much the debate has drifted away from reality. This is still about access for poor women, and uninvolved and uninformed people making decisions for them. It is also about demonizing doctors.

March 11, 2006 11:49 AM

MJB posted:

I can't even imagine the haughty righteous indignation you'd muster if I'd posted that I oppose abortion rights.

If it's as novel an idea as you make it out to be that since Roe v. Wade the abortion issue has been cast as a woman's right to choose and have autonomy over her body, then I should trademark it, and try and get published somewhere.

Abortion is a healthcare decision. It's none of my business. Flag-waving activists who cast it as a matter of our most fundamental cherished constitutional rights are idiots. It sounds like, since you agree with me that we should be more concerned about health and welfare than "rights," you agree. Great.

Poor men in Mississippi have to take off work and drive 200 miles for prostatectomies, too. Not that anyone gives a shit.

March 11, 2006 12:10 PM

bujeeboo posted:

No, I am afraid you are wrong about me, as usual. About the only argument in opposition to a woman's RIGHT to choose abortion that is acceptable to me is probably only a moral or a religious one which as we see, is getting harder for people to defend on its own, hence the need to resort to false arguments and straw men (or women in this case). And yes, I get haughtily indignant (damn straight)when someone postulates that it's some sort of cachet or a brand of womanhood to have an abortion notch or two under her belt. You sound like you write from an ivory tower when you say things like that (and we liberals get called elitist - sheesh!)

It's fake. I'm sorry but it just is. We should be having the discussion in this country perhaps to take the flag waving activists and the draconian moral absolutists out of it. But certainly not to blame women who need the procedure by tarring them as using a fetus or being part of a "movement". Many women in the poor South have such a lowly status in society and are overburdened with children and low-paying employment, I find it hard to believe that they are joining up for a cause. The elitist, activist women you describe sound (albeit sterotypically) like the type of women who will continue to be able to afford access to abortion, long after it is taken away from everyone else.

Oh, and I meant to ask you: what do you cite as a source for this established fact that there is money to be made in abortions? I don't see a glut of doctors lining up to get into the abortion "trade".

March 11, 2006 1:26 PM

MJB posted:

This post wasn't an NSC document with most of the words, other than "abortion" and "movement," blacked out. Was it? Abortion is a healthcare decision that's no one's business but a pregnant woman's in consultation with her doctor. The poor (straw!) women in Mississippi who have to walk 10 miles uphill aren't part of a movement looking for notches in their belts, but the abortion issue has been cast as a pillar of feminism, equality (because, after all, men can get abortions whenever they want to) and the American Way. Mostly not by people who need abortions. And I can't get behind it because it's asinine and selfish. Any possible way to read this as opposing abortion rights for poor women or anyone else was read into this by you. Poor Mississippi women rarely come to my blog and comment that a post of mine shows what a retard I am about abortion.

"About the only argument in opposition to a woman's RIGHT to choose abortion that is acceptable to me is probably only a moral or a religious one which as we see, is getting harder for people to defend on its own, hence the need to resort to false arguments"

Like what arguments in opposition to abortion rights? Of mine, not some imaginary friend you want to argue with?

March 11, 2006 2:13 PM

bujeeboo posted:

"Like what arguments in opposition to abortion rights? Of mine, not some imaginary friend you want to argue with?"

YOURS precisely. Buffy the Fetus Slayer who is part of A Movement, and is making a ton o' money for the Industry. By the way, the lack of source for your postulation that there is money to be made in abortion purveyance has been duly noted.

If you care to get a little more acquainted with the real faces of abortions, both provider and patient, there was an excellent Frontline episode called "The Last Abortion Clinic", which is about the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.

The discussion board on the show's website was very informative AND BALANCED, but in particular I like this post very much because I think it holds the real motivation for Buffy the Fetus Killer:

My job title is "Abortion Specialist" and I support women in making this very difficult decision everyday. One thing that has proven true over and over again is the decision to terminate a pregnancy almost always comes from a place of the woman wanting to be a good mother. Either she knows she isn't in a stable place financially or emotionally and wants the opportunity to provide a good home for her child or she wants to be a better parent to the child/children she already has.

So many of the women in our society have very low self esteem that comes from inherent sexism, abuse, neglect and lack of opportunity; this prevents them from advocating for themselves - eg:saying no to unwanted sex, seeking out appropriate medical care and birth control. Pair that with the fact that no perfect method of birth control has been invented and that many are unreliable even if used as directed and it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why women continue to get pregnant when they don't intend to. ...

I continually see patients who are caring, compassionate women who have found themselves in a position they never intended to be in but at least trust themselves enough to know that for what ever reason, they cannot take on what is the most important role a woman can attempt.

Nikole Anon
Seattle, WA

I am sure she is a very rich woman, that Ms. "Anon".

March 11, 2006 2:40 PM

MJB posted:

You mean... abortion can be a difficult decision impacting a woman's health and psychological and emotional well-being? I had no idea! I'v seen the light, now. Let me revise my post to reflect this new revelation.

March 11, 2006 3:20 PM

bujeeboo posted:

No (as I wipe the dripping sarcasm off the screen from your post), I mean rather than the suction and scalpel toting Moll you suggest in your Woman Having A Movement portrayal (okay, I am having a bit of fun with your post now), I am suggesting that the motivation most women probably have for getting an abortion "comes from the place of wanting to be a good mother".

You write that you believe this is a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor, which would be a fine place to begin to raise consciousness on where we might go with some solutions. But you go on to create this straw woman, this stereotypical band of feminazis who extoll the virtues of having an abortion as some expression of womanhood. And that these women are somehow representative of A Movement and that is their motivation for keeping abortion legal. My point: those who are fighting to keep abortion legal for any woman who wants it ain't neccessarily the same as those who are getting them. THOSE women's issues are the ones that should be considered, which goes beyond pregnancy and certainly goes beyond toting a protest sign.

"I know there's all sorts of money to be made in abortion,..." (sigh) It's okay, no sources still, but I will remain skepical if that's okay with you.

March 11, 2006 3:58 PM

MJB posted:

My head hurts. I return to the point made five or six weeks ago above that I am really scared of what response I would get from you if I opposed abortion rights. Maybe the docile, thoughtful, understated abortion rights movement would get more traction with people who regret abortion but don't want laws against it if its adherents had better reading comprehension.

For what probably only seems like the twelfth time, the seizure of the issue by activists who've made it a individual ideation, rights-based movement -- most of whom, again, don't need abortions, and who in the main would have no problem getting them if state laws started to be passed making them more difficult to get -- has nothing to do with why an individual woman gets an abortion. Which is exactly the problem I talked about in the post. Or to put it less elegantly, "those who are fighting to keep abortion legal for any woman who wants it ain't neccessarily the same as those who are getting them." No shit. Let me update my post again. Your tut-tutting me about not understanding that point of "yours" proves that you're not listening. Which would normally be fine, but you're making me out to be this elitist, ignorant ogre who wants to condemn poor women to baby factoryhood, and after a few times it starts to get seriously insulting.

I know from experience what a girl goes through to decide to abort a pregnancy. I'll assume from your obvious self-professed expertise you do, too. I'll also assume neither experience was substantially different, especially in the sense that nobody was probably notching a belt or excited to be able to exercise a constitutional right, which you seem to honestly think is what I think of girls and women who abort. That leaves us with message board posts -- I can Google, thanks -- and esoteric arguments that are even less effective when they're not actually read. I think we've probably both said everything we can possibly say about this. At least three times.

If what you're after is an apology for not supporting abortion rights with sufficient verve and aplomb, or daring to suggest that there are nuts out there I don't like pushing the issue in a way I can't get behind, it's not forthcoming.

March 12, 2006 11:40 AM

bujeeboo posted:

I don't believe I have ever asked anyone for an apology for stating what they believe, first of all.

So we agree that it's the same women in your world and my world who will be hurt if abortion is not available to them. I am going to assume that there are many issues and ideologies that you agree with in principal, but that you don't necessarily agree with the PAC group's or lobbyist's tactics (or beliefs in the case of your "movement" example - which I am still skeptical about) that is fighting to keep your issue from being attacked and perhaps taken away. Everyone has an issue they care about that professional activists or lobbyists are either attacking or trying to preserve. People often even feel enough passion to preserve their issue that they might want to give money to a PAC or lobby group. God Bless America.

Taking the law away hurts real people, whether you and I agree that it's a "right" or not. I think this is the crux of why I can't get behind Conservative ideology and it was further proven after Katrina. They have nothing to fill the vacuum once the law, institution, or funding is removed. There's lots of simple morality lessons and lots of punitive ideas, but there is NOTHING to help the poor woman with 5 kids and 3 part time jobs who got knocked up again by her husband if this "right/non-right" is taken away. Just take the damn law away, and while you're at it blame those feminists for trying to save it.

You know all you have to do to bring me back to your blog is post something about abortion. I CAN'T HELP IT! What should I do, roll over and do nothing?? We are at a serious juncture with abortion "rights/non-rights" now that South Dakota (the coathanger state) and Tennessee is challenging the law. I think it would do everyone well to focus on the women of places like Mississippi and what dire straights they will be placed if this law is gone, and fill the vacuum.

March 12, 2006 1:44 PM

Post a comment

Due to comment spam, please enter the five-digit security code along with your comment. I'm sorry for the hassle.



real quick liberty law blogs music movies sports supreme court constitution home