The Silence of the Anti-Abortion Activists
If you want to start your day off on a sour note, pay some attention not just to the substantive harm Bart Stupak did to the health care reform bill over the weekend, and think about how little political benefit he got while doing it. What his amendment did, in essence, was take pre-existing compromise language that would have preserved the legal status quo for abortion (itself slanted toward arbitrary deligitimization of abortion as a medical procedure) and change it such that now the House bill, if enacted, would be a step backwards in terms of access to abortion.
So far, so bad. But you get what you get. Stupak is in the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and evidently he’s serious about it. Given an opportunity to restrict access to abortion, he seized the opportunity. But at least his fellow anti-choicers should appreciate his efforts, right? Now that he’s turned health care reform into an abortion-restricting bill, they’ll be supporting the bill, right? Even if no House Republicans could be persuaded to vote “yes” then surely single-issue anti-abortion activists will support it, right? Wrong! With the exception of Democrats for Life, pro-life organizations are praising Stupak but denouncing the bill anyway, citing imaginary provisions to euthanize seniors. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent out a press release urging passage of the Stupak amendment, but no release urging passage of the amended bill.
98 Responses to “The Silence of the Anti-Abortion Activists”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
you act as though the war against women has been won–it has not!
this is no time to relax; women are still treated as human beings in far too many ways. this new health care bill, for instance, would even permit women to buy insurance of their own, without having their father or husband buy it for them.
this is unacceptable.
until this bill formally strips women of all rights as citizens and officially makes them chattel, the catholic church will not rest on its laurels!
November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Has Planned Parenthood come out full square against the bill? The increased control of health care choices of women by socially conservative politicians is the strongest argument I have yet heard against socialized medicine in the US.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Raise your hands if you did not see that coming.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I love Bart Stupak, and all his fellow 64 pro-life Democrats who cast votes in favor of the protection of human life. This is truly and literally a miracle, as much as when Our Lord raised Lazarus from the dead.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:32 am
uhhh… or you can look at it that a pro-life guy passed a pro-life amendment because he considers it to be a much better bill now and even the supporters of the bill are not walking away from it. Whats the cost to him of passing this amendment? Its not like anyone believes that this amendment will stop democrats from supporting it.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:37 am
To be fair, at Mass at my (Catholic) Cathedral on November 1st, our priest urged us to support healthcare, but asked us to pressure our representatives to make it better by removing abortion language and including coverage for immigrants.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Today’s bold prediction: the Stupak language will make it in; any meaningful public option will come out; and still Joe Lieberman will filibuster, forcing the whole turd sandwich to pass the Senate through reconciliation.
This is what you get when the policies and politics fall between stools.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hector, would you please describe for me what you think women should be allowed to do? What are the extent of our legal rights? Are women human or are we wombs with legs?
In all seriousness, it is not possible to believe women should have legal rights equal to men and at the same time wish to ban abortion. If you want abortion banned, you must believe that women are not actual citizens.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am
It’s a measure of how fucked up “progressive” politics has become that Stupak raises howls of outrage while the deal with Tauzin, which will cost Americans tens of $billions year after year gets huckstered by the MattY/CAP types as a fiendishly clever political ploy. That deal means we will remain the only western democracy whose government refuses to negotiate lower Rx prices for its own citizens.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I really don’t get it. The left has been trying to persuade the American public that they should trust the government when it comes to healthcare, yet at the same time it wants to force the public to subsidize abortion, something which about half the country considers murder. Since when did progressives become so myopically anti-choice?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:00 am
This is truly and literally a miracle, as much as when Our Lord raised Lazarus from the dead.
Nope, just a bunch of dicks passing a dickish amendment. Even if you see it as a good thing, there’s no reason to see god involved.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:03 am
No matter what one’s feelings are on health reform and/or abortion rights, what rationale could one possibly have for thinking health insurance should cover elective abortions? Other elective procedures are not covered, and an elective abortion is not an insurable event.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent out a press release urging passage of the Stupak amendment, but no release urging passage of the amended bill.
The Bishops have long favored health-care reform, and, the abortion issue aside, were in support of this measure. Indeed, some on the right are already attacking the Bishops for their “far-left” stance on the issue. Guess they can’t win.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:12 am
That’s just silly.
The center of the abortion debate is the nature of the fetus: is it a person, entitled to all due protections of law, or a mere conglomeration of cells that may, eventually, become a person?
Despite some rather ugly subtext of some in the pro-life movement, there really isn’t a substantive disagreement that women are entitled to the same legal rights as men.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“…think about how little political benefit he got while doing it.” I don’t think you get it. Many people, myself included, in the US believe that abortion is murder. Political benefit doesn’t carry as much weight as being against legalized murder. If I have to weigh the impact of murdering a fetus vs concerns about women’s “rights”, I have to come down on the side of defending the unborn.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
[...] The Silence of the Anti-Abortion Activists – Matt Yglesias [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Craig #2: Socialized medicine does not make it harder or easier for the federal government to ban abortion. The federal government can ban abortion right now.
Adam #10: It’s very easy to understand, unless you’re an idiot. “Choice” as a political issue is not about taxes. You do not have a choice as to whether you pay taxes, and you do not get to choose which programs your personal special little dollars go to. You pay taxes, or you’re a criminal. You try to get the government to spend money the way you want, and if they don’t, you pay taxes anyway. That is how a functioning country works. As the old saying goes, if you’re against abortion, don’t have one. If the government decides to subsidize abortion, and you don’t want to pay for it, then you can leave the country. You should probably leave the country anyway.
AB # 12: Off the top of my head, vasectomies and bunion surgeries are elective procedures that are covered by many if not all health plans. It is a medical procedure, and should therefore be covered. I love how you misogynists pricks talk about abortion like it’s something a woman decides to do frivolously, purely for her own self-gratification, like going out for dessert.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Since the Stupak amendment apparently means the public option can’t cover abortion, this means that the pro-life movement should not only favor this bill, but should also loudly favor as large a public option as possible.
Doesn’t seem to be happening. As always, it’s about control, not life.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I want to support what Charlie at comment 6 said. In my parish, a letter from the US Catholic bishops was included with our Sunday bulletin, strongly supporting the health care bill as long as taxpayer money is not used for abortions, and immigrants (legal OR illegal) are included in the bill. That last provision is actually to the left of what most supporters of the bill are calling for. We were asked to contact our representatives and let them know what we thought.
In my parish, our pastor avoids including secular politics in his homilies; he simply asked us to read the letter and do what our consciences required.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, Adam, and legal in this country. Pregnancy is also a situation with major implications for a woman’s health and her control over her body. A pregnant woman is simply not in a position comparable to someone wondering if they should get an elective procedure like a face lift.
“Half” the country thinks it’s “murder”? That’s news to me. And why should people who morally oppose this right get to reduce women’s ability to cover their health with insurance? With this Stupak amendment, we’re witnessing not merely a choice not to move abortion rights forward, but an actual step back from the status quo.
There are people who think contraception is akin to murder too. Rest assured, funding for contraception is next in their targets. But I guess we myopic lefties will have to stroke our beards and acquiesce to their oh-so-respectable moral concerns. Deference everyone, please.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
#10: word!
To put it differently: if I understand correctly the way the abortion issue has played out over the last six months in the House, Pelosi did her very best to ignore Stupak-type abortion complaints – until the very last day or two before the vote. At that point it became evident that the ONLY way the health care bill could go forward was with the Stupak amendment.
You guys who characterize the resulting HR health-care bill as a ‘turd sandwich’ just aren’t hungry enough. It’s called compromise: love it … or live with languishing laws! (…sorry… ; )
November 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
@Anthony Damiani — How on Earth can you debate the status of a fetus and ignore the women that it’s INSIDE?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am
To Charlie and Lizzie L:
It’s also fair to point out that the Catholic Church was/is prepared to actively fight health care reform if it didn’t get its way on the Stupak amendment. I was just discussing that here last night with commenter Hugo.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS207636+30-Oct-2009+PRN20091030
November 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
This whole Stupak amendment thing is just another demonstration of how may people would rather ride their own, ideological hobby horse than actually support legislation that’s going to help a lot of people. This goes for the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
@Anthony Damiani — How on Earth can you debate the status of a fetus and ignore the women that it’s INSIDE?
Karen, I’m uncompromisingly pro-choice and do see it as a women’s-rights issue. But to the anti-choice crowd, it has nothing to do with women, really. To them, our position is the equivalent of saying that opposing infanticide = opposing women’s rights. It’s really a clash of discourses.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If only that last clause were actually true. Unfortunately for your little rant, the rest of the bill is actually a steaming pile of crap that on balance may well do more harm than good, and in any case will do less than nothing to effect genuine reform of an out-of-control, economically unsustainable system.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Marcia Angell on why this bill sucks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html
November 9th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Sorry, Anthony, I see your point now. (Insert moral about Typing Before Coffee.)
For anyone out there who isn’t pro-choice, please tell me how you ignore the woman carrying it?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I’m pro-choice, but I think maybe it’s best to remove the abortion controversy from the health care fight. At least there’s one less reason for people to be passionately opposed to reform.
Because so many people are opposed so strongly to abortion, maybe it’s easier to have pro-choice people donate money to organizations that help the indigent pay for abortions.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:02 am
29: Eventually, these idiots need to lose the battle over whether tax payer funds can be used for abortions. If abortion is a legal procedure, it is a matter of basic fairness for it to be included in government insured health care. Politically, that may not be possible right now, but this is not an acceptable long term outcome.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I really don’t get it. The left has been trying to persuade the American public that they should trust the government when it comes to healthcare, yet at the same time it wants to force the public to subsidize abortion, something which about half the country considers murder. Since when did progressives become so myopically anti-choice?
Since when does half the country consider abortion to be “murder”? Only a very few people actually consider the destruction of an embryo equivalent to the death of an infant.
What’s really at stake here is the promise on the part of Democrats that government bureaucrats will not come between you and you and your health care. Do we want to politicize health care or not? If not, then we’re getting off to a really bad start.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Karen 22: “How on Earth can you debate the status of a fetus and ignore the women that it’s INSIDE?”
How on Earth can you debate the rights of a woman and ignore the status of the fetus that INSIDE?
I’m not particularly pro-choice. I don’t ignore the woman, but I believe the health care bill is better with the restrictive language. I would not spoken out against it just on that basis though, because universal access to affordable health care is much more “pro life” than laws restricting abortion. I have a much easier time taking an anti-abortion position in other countries where actually having the child is not such a financial nightmare.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I agree with mpowell. So what if “many people are opposed so strongly to abortion”? Many people are strongly opposed to thwarting reproductive rights.
And it’s silly to tell the latter group that they should just go donate out of pocket to preserve abortions, as if it was a friggin charity rather than a legal right and medical procedure.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Mark@17: Off the top of my head, vasectomies and bunion surgeries are elective procedures that are covered by many if not all health plans.
And they shouldn’t be. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
It is a medical procedure, and should therefore be covered.
Being a medical procedure is not the criteria for whether something should be covered by insurance. Plastic surgery and Botox are medical procedures too.
I love how you misogynists pricks talk about abortion like it’s something a woman decides to do frivolously, purely for her own self-gratification, like going out for dessert.
So now I’m a misogynist (and I think women get abortions for fun) because I don’t think abortions should be covered by health insurance? You don’t know anything about me buddy, so piss off.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@ 32 Granted these numbers are for Britain which is generally a more expensive place to live that the states, but once you add in insurance costs (remember the NHS is free) and university tuition (£3500/year here), I think you’re looking at a pretty good comparison.
On what planet is raising a child not a huge financial nightmare? Especially when it’s child three or four and you can already barely afford child one and two.
Stop bargaining away my rights you assholes.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
super majorities of people have stated time and time again that women should have autonomy over their bodies, that they have the right to terminate unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies. this is a fact. but because the women-hating zealots who want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and commit murder on a regular basis in the name of this “cause” are louder, make more of a racket, and scare more people, we have a tyranny of the minority in yet another aspect of American life.
Bart Stupak is an idiot who lives in the C-street ‘mansion’ with his sex-crazed ideological kin like John Ensign. Who knows what weird, freaky skeletons he has in his closet. Why aren’t the Dems finding these things out, and threatening to take him down in total and utter disgrace? If the Dems had real leadership, Stupak would have been scared to death to ever, ever offer a bogus amendment such as this in the first place. Instead, traitors to the party are free to demand that bills be watered down by sacrificing hard-won rights for women, who people like Stupak see as sub-human and subservient by nature.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am
How on Earth can you debate the rights of a woman and ignore the status of the fetus that INSIDE?
Assuming that all abortions involve a fetus, and assuming that women generally are unmoved by their own pregnancy, is extremely dishonest and insulting.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Eight years from now, when America has sustainable economic growth, a stronger safety net including universal access to quality health care, and have almost completely removed fighting troops from the Middle East, morons like Steve LaBonne will still be bitching about how Obama and the Democrats have sold ordinary Americans out to the corporatocracy, and imagining how much better our lives would be if we had thwarted the Democrats’ instanct for compromise by voting for Nader and Kucinich.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Karen–
I don’t think a reasonable person would wish to ignore her; however, at such point as the fetus is considered is a morally, legally human entity, the mother’s unquestionably real right to do what she wishes with her body is subordinate to the right of the child to continue living.
I believe reasonable people can differ on the questions of when life, humanity, or legal and moral rights begin or ought to begin. I don’t personally believe I possess the wisdom to resolve the issue.
But I don’t understand what appears to be the contrary claim, that abortion is the killing of a human being, and that’s somehow OK. Is this your position?
November 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am
@37: And the reverse assumptions are also extremely insulting. Which was kind of the point, you know?
And some one who writes the kind of non sequitir you did at 31 first para should not be lecturing people on dishonesty. I didn’t make the assumption that all abortions involve a fetus, but you directly implied that no abortions do.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Eight years from now Mike Huckabee, or whoever, will be running for his second term if the Democrats go on as they are now. The likes of brewmn will be at a loss to understand how that happened, since being all “moderate” and all was supposed to be a winning strategy (hey, just ask Creigh Deeds.)
November 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@37: And the reverse assumptions are also extremely insulting. Which was kind of the point, you know?
There’s a difference between “caring for women” and “caring for this woman who is pregnant and desires an abortion.” The latter is hard to claim if you’ve already decided beforehand that her circumstances are irrelevant. You may “care for her” in some kind of abstract way, but you’re not treating her situation with respect. That’s just the truth.
And some one who writes the kind of non sequitir you did at 31 first para should not be lecturing people on dishonesty. I didn’t make the assumption that all abortions involve a fetus, but you directly implied that no abortions do.
79% of induced abortions concern embryos. If “abortion is murder” then the destruction of an embryo is murder. That is not “dishonesty”–that is the reality of what we’re talking about. 89% of abortions occur in the first trimester. If you want to differentiate between trimesters and stages, go ahead, but don’t conflate <20% with the normative.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Consumatopia @18: Since the Stupak amendment apparently means the public option can’t cover abortion, this means that the pro-life movement should not only favor this bill, but should also loudly favor as large a public option as possible.
Doesn’t seem to be happening. As always, it’s about control, not life.
A good examination of how the compulsory-pregnancy movement’s policy positions cohere with its stated concern for the lives of fetuses, versus how those positions cohere with a different motivation, namely, the motivation to control women’s sexuality by punishing them if they have sex, can be found here.
An example:
November 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
This post makes no sense to me, other than to provide another platform for a liberal male blogger to prove that he’s mad about this.
The Conference of Bishops has publicly come out in support of the amended bill. Is MY’s complaint about how many press releases they’ve put out?
The substance of the amended bill includes a lot of stuff besides restrictions on abortion! It’s odd that one has to point this out, but this is why pro-choice people still voted for the bill. And why right-wing people who are against any substantive health care reform at all remain opposed to the bill despite its pro-life bona fides. The lifenews article MY links to does nothing more than quote right-wing pro-lifers (and pro-life Democrats) on their views about the bill.
“Bart Stupak is an idiot who lives in the C-street ‘mansion’ with his sex-crazed ideological kin like John Ensign… Why aren’t the Dems finding these things out, and threatening to take him down in total and utter disgrace?”
Awesome idea. As if Stupak single-handedly forced Pelosi to allow a vote on the amendment, and then somehow made it pass with only GOP support. The “problem” for pro-choice Democrats is not Stupak, it’s that without pro-life Democrats who sit at the back of the bus 95% of the time, there is no majority for progressive legislation in the House. Without Stupak’s amendment the bill would have failed by quite a few votes. Nancy Pelosi gets this–why can’t you?
November 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Jason L.- thanks, I’ve always believed that and I’ve been looking for a good summary of the arguments in support of it. The one at your link is excellent.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
For anyone out there who isn’t pro-choice, please tell me how you ignore the woman carrying it?
I am strongly pro-choice up to the 22nd week and wrestle with the issue increasingly as birth approaches. But for people who are anti-choice from conception, on one side of the scale is the non-consensual termination of an innocent human life with no less moral worth than you or I. Once you put that on one side of the scale, the particulars on the other side aren’t of great concern.
Sincere anti-choice people, that is, people who believe that an embryo has the same moral worth as you or I and oppose abortion on those grounds rather than on paternalistic/control/misogynistic grounds, presumably care greatly about reducing unwanted pregnancies, and so pro-choice people like us can work with them to try to get contraception more available and widespread and inexpensive, and also to improve sexual and reproductive education so that people are more responsible in their sexual decisions. Sadly, it seems that there aren’t many such people, or, at least, these people’s positions are absent from politics in the U.S.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m pro-choice, but I think maybe it’s best to remove the abortion controversy from the health care fight. At least there’s one less reason for people to be passionately opposed to reform.
But this didn’t “remove the abortion controversy”. Obama, Pelosi & co already tried to do that by not having the public option cover abortions (a preemptive concession which got them nothing, as this amendment demonstrates). What the Stupak amendment does is make it so that private plans which accept even a single person getting federal subsidies cannot cover abortion. And almost all private plans are going to want to be able to accept people getting subsidies – that’s a big potential market. Which means if this bill passes almost no private health insurance will cover abortion. It’s a huge step backwards.
Prior to the Stupak amendment I was prepared to see the plan as maybe barely a good thing – with individual subsidies and the remnants of a public option just about balancing out a regressive mandate, taxes to discourage “Cadillac plans” aka decent coverage, and moves towards enabling future Medicare cuts. (See here & here for elaboration). I think Stupak & co have tilted the plan decisively into worse-than-the-status-quo territory.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Sincere anti-choice people, that is, people who believe that an embryo has the same moral worth as you or I and oppose abortion on those grounds rather than on paternalistic/control/misogynistic grounds, presumably care greatly about reducing unwanted pregnancies, and so pro-choice people like us can work with them to try to get contraception more available and widespread and inexpensive
No, because they also think that contraception is bad. If you have sex but artificially prevent pregnancy, you are thwarting God’s will and possibly also enjoying illicit sex without the consequences.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I am firmly opposed to circumcision, vasectomies, or any other procedure that alters the normal appearance or operation of the penis. I insist that no procedure that meets my definition be included in anybody’s health care plan.
I also think Viagra and people sitting in bathtubs overlooking an ocean at sunset should be banned.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Oh, and judging from that ridiculous photograph, Stupak is a sex scandal waiting to hit the newswires.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Bart Stupak is an idiot who lives in the C-street ‘mansion’ with his sex-crazed ideological kin like John Ensign. Who knows what weird, freaky skeletons he has in his closet.
The basement abortion clinic at the C-Street House of Manly Men is fairly well hidden.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
It’s time to end tax exemptions for the catholic church. If any religious organization seeks to impose its views on marriage, abortion, contraception and divorce on the rest of us, it should not get any help from any public source. The less public power any religion has, the better for everyone, including its adherents.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You don’t know anything about me buddy, so piss off.
We can tell that you’re a bag of shit.
It’s not as if the Stupakers are actually bothered about reducing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies — remember the stimulus kerfuffle about contraception? And so healthcare policy remains hamstrung by slut-shaming misogynists.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
ObamaCare should include free cryobanking and IVF procedures coupled with mandatory vasectomies for American men on their 18 birthday. That should cut the number of abortions by at least 70%. Then we can turn our attention to teen pregnancy and liberal women who sleep with dirty foreigners.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
It’s not as if the Stupakers are actually bothered about reducing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies
I couldn’t care less what the Stupakers think about abortion, unwanted pregnancies, or contraception. I’m sure their views on those things are not in line with my own, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t give a shit if someone wants to get an abortion, and I don’t give a shit about the circumstances surrounding how she got pregnant. But insurance is meant to cover unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses. An elective abortion is not an insurable event, it doesn’t matter what your beliefs on abortion are. A big reason we have spiraling health care costs in this country is because of third party payment for so much of our health care. Reducing the amount of third party payment – especially in the case of preventable, elective care – is a good thing, regardless of whether the people proposing a specific amendment are scumbags.
We can tell that you’re a bag of shit.
What are you, 12 years old? I’ve yet to see a single comment thread when you’ve offered anything of substance but instead you just rely on ad hominem, call people names and generally act like a child. Usually it’s not even worth paying attention to, but I’d love to hear your rationale for what makes me a bag of shit for thinking abortion shouldn’t be covered by insurance.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
But insurance is meant to cover unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses. An elective abortion is not an insurable event
A pregnancy may certainly be unexpected, and paying for an abortion is certainly a medical expense. So your only point of contention is that an abortion is never a “catastrophic” medical expense.
A big reason we have spiraling health care costs in this country is because of third party payment for so much of our health care.
And now we’re in full-out stupid territory. Yes, we have spiralling health care costs because poor people have subsidized abortions. Get rid of this subsidy, and poor people will become responsible consumers, keeping medical costs down by carrying pregnancies to term and having babies. Abortions are extravagant wasteful purchases, and there’s no financial cost to getting rid of them.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“But insurance is meant to cover unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses.”
So health insurance shouldn’t cover mammograms, prostrate exams, pap smears, prenatal care, immunizations…? Okay, let’s run that up the flagpole.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
For anyone out there who isn’t pro-choice, please tell me how you ignore the woman carrying it?
We don’t ignore the woman, and in fact I and the Catholic Church are in support of universal health care throughout the life cycle, as well as more support for alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. I happen to disagree with the Church on contraception, which I support.
But as for the question of abortion, we’re dealing with a distinct human life here. Unless the continuation of the pregnancy is going to seriously harm the mother, then we need to allow that life to continue. It’s a matter of weighing rights — pregnancy is a serious issue and in order to be truly pro-life we need to have more serious mechanisms (such as guaranteed maternity leave) in place to support women throughout their pregnancy and, indeed, after birth as well. But when the seriousness of the impact of pregnancy on the life of the mother is weighed against the most elemental human right of all — the right not to be killed — we must come down on the side of supporting the most basic right to all humans.
Of course, this largely comes down to the definition of when personhood starts. From conception, of course, science tells us that a zygote is a distinct living organism, with human DNA distinct from either parent.
But is every human, then, also a person? This is an ontological question, not a scientific one. Personally, I believe this is so, but I can see how people of good will can disagree. What I cannot see is how anyone can deny the personhood of an unborn fetus, particularly in light of advances in the care of premature births. It seems absurd to draw a line at the moment of birth and deny the humanity of an otherwise viable infant.
But even before viability, it is undeniably a human life, and the question is whether we extend personhood to that human life. I am proud of the history of liberals fighting to extend personhood and human rights to those that powerful forces would like to cast as the “other” — non-white people, non-Christians, women, illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians — and I think it’s a great shame that so many liberals have the blinders on when it’s come to extending humanity to the unborn.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
As I pointed out in another thread, Stupak forces abortion to be carried as a rider in the exchange, which will ultimately house all insurance plans in the country. Carrying abortion as a rider is basically the same as not covering it–who’s going to spend money every month on the assumption that they’ll accidentally get pregnant?
So, with Stupak we’re effectively banning private insurance coverage of abortion.
That’s a bigger blow to choice than Hyde is. Democrats in the House have just struck the biggest blow to choice in the Roe era.
It’s a big fucking deal.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“But even before viability, it is undeniably a human life”
Many, many people deny this.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
@Popeye: A pregnancy may certainly be unexpected, and paying for an abortion is certainly a medical expense. So your only point of contention is that an abortion is never a “catastrophic” medical expense.
In the overwhelming majority of cases a pregnancy is not “unexpected”, that is unless there are adults out there who are unaware of how babies are made.
An elective abortion is not an insurable event, that is a simple and undeniable fact.
And now we’re in full-out stupid territory. Yes, we have spiralling health care costs because poor people have subsidized abortions.
Nice straw man. Read what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote. One of the reasons we have spiraling health care costs in this country is excessive third party payment. This has nothing to do with abortion specifically, and I’m sure total expenditures on abortion are very small compared to overall spending. But moving towards less rather than more third party payment is crucial to controlling costs, especially for the types of care that should not be covered by insurance (routine illness, preventive care, elective procedures).
November 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“But even before viability, it is undeniably a human life”
So we should have a funeral every time a fertilized egg fails to implant?
It’s not human and it’s not a life, and it’s pretty insulting to living humans to say that it is.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
What I cannot see is how anyone can deny the personhood of an unborn fetus
Why does it always come back to the fetus? The vast majority of abortions do not involve fetuses. If abortion were widely available for the first ten weeks then fetal abortions would be even more rare than they are now.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
@tomemos: So health insurance shouldn’t cover mammograms, prostrate exams, pap smears, prenatal care, immunizations…? Okay, let’s run that up the flagpole.
That is correct, it most certainly shouldn’t cover mammograms or prostate exams. Women over 40 should have a mammogram every year or two. It is a known, planned expense that should be budgeted for. A mammogram on average costs about $120, well within the budget of the overwhelming majority of Americans. If as a society we will not expect people to take enough personal responsibility to budget for an annual $120 health expense to avoid getting cancer than the hopes for ever having a fiscally sustainable health care policy are nil.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“A mammogram on average costs about $120, well within the budget of the overwhelming majority of Americans.”
Well, the fiscally responsible thing to do is probably not to pay that $120 for someone who can’t afford it, and instead wait until they get cancer when we can pay tens of thousands of dollars for their chemotherapy, mastectomy, life support, etc. You want “unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses,” you got it.
“If as a society we will not expect people to take enough personal responsibility to budget for an annual $120 health expense to avoid getting cancer than the hopes for ever having a fiscally sustainable health care policy are nil.”
Personal responsibility? What does that have to do with this? The problem with people like you is that you don’t see any difference between fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
AB, if you’re not a troll, you’re an idiot. Grow the fuck up.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Well, the fiscally responsible thing to do is probably not to pay that $120 for someone who can’t afford it, and instead wait until they get cancer when we can pay tens of thousands of dollars for their chemotherapy, mastectomy, life support, etc.
The very extreme cases who cannot afford it are not the issue here. You’ll notice I never said that people who are in truly dire financial situations should not receive assistance. But it is a very small minority of Americans who cannot afford to pay for routine, planned medical expenses, and we should not be determining national health care policy based on those extreme cases.
A serious question: what percentage of people in the US do you think are so destitute that they truly cannot afford to pay for their own mammogram?
Personal responsibility? What does that have to do with this?
What does it have to do with this? Seriously? You don’t think people ought to bear some responsibility for their own health? That they ought to be expected to budget for taking care of their own routine health care expenses? Is it acceptable to you that someone would have, for example, cable TV, but then say that they cannot afford a mammogram?
The problem with people like you is that you don’t see any difference between fiscal responsibility and moral responsibility.
Well, I’d say that you’ve got your own blind spot in your inability to see the way those two are linked.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
AB, if you’re not a troll, you’re an idiot. Grow the fuck up.
I’m neither, but I am swayed by the stunning intellectual depth of your argument.
And pleasantly amused at the unintentional irony of the last sentence.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
In the overwhelming majority of cases a pregnancy is not “unexpected”, that is unless there are adults out there who are unaware of how babies are made.
I stand in awe of your stupidity. Really, so whenever a woman has sex, she “expects” to get pregnant? Nice job trolling.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“You don’t think people ought to bear some responsibility for their own health? That they ought to be expected to budget for taking care of their own routine health care expenses? Is it acceptable to you that someone would have, for example, cable TV, but then say that they cannot afford a mammogram?”
Of course, on a personal level, people should budget for health care. But policy isn’t made on a personal level. I’m saying it’s better policy to provide financial assistance for medical procedures which people might be tempted to go without. Your confusion of what you would advise a friend to do, and what the government should do, is a fundamental misunderstanding of social policy.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I stand in awe of your stupidity. Really, so whenever a woman has sex, she “expects” to get pregnant?
So there are women out there having sex who are completely unaware of the chance they may become pregnant? Do they think babies get delivered by a stork?
Every adult out there is very well aware that having sex could lead to a pregnancy, so that pregnancy is not “unexpected”. Maybe they think the probability is low enough that it is worth the risk. Maybe they are in a good relationship and think if it happens no big deal, I’ll just keep it. But there are not adults out there getting pregnant that did not make a conscious decision to have sex knowing full well they could end up pregnant.
Nice job trolling.
Yup, everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“But even before viability, it is undeniably a human life”
Many, many people deny this.
Is it alive? Yes. What species is it? Human.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
So there are women out there having sex who are completely unaware of the chance they may become pregnant?
Do you ever listen to Loveline? There are a lot of people walking this earth whose consciousness of the realities of reproduction are sorely lacking.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Of course, on a personal level, people should budget for health care. But policy isn’t made on a personal level. I’m saying it’s better policy to provide financial assistance for medical procedures which people might be tempted to go without. Your confusion of what you would advise a friend to do, and what the government should do, is a fundamental misunderstanding of social policy.
But social policy should not further ingrain people with the mentality that they needn’t take any personal responsibility. Social policy should not operate under the assumption that people need to be hand-held into making responsible decisions, because then it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Why would you even want your insurer to pay for your mammogram? If everyone is going to get one every year, paying for it with insurance is just making you pay even more for it, because now you’re just prepaying for it along with some additional administrative expense (whether the insurer is public or private). If we want to increase the probability that people get mammograms every year and thus decrease the incidence of breast cancer, there are much better ways to do that than mandating that health insurance pays for it.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Do you ever listen to Loveline? There are a lot of people walking this earth whose consciousness of the realities of reproduction are sorely lacking.
Touche. But again, I wouldn’t set national health policy based on the behavior of promiscuous 16 year olds in Alabama.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
So there are women out there having sex who are completely unaware of the chance they may become pregnant? Do they think babies get delivered by a stork?
Do you expect to get old? Do you expect to get sick? If your job involves a lot of heavy lifting, do you expect to get back problems? If you get in a car, do you expect to get in an accident?
I’m calling you a troll not because you disagree with me, but because I really don’t think that you actually believe what you’re saying. It is possible that you’re a complete moron; you definitely aren’t that smart.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Usually it’s not even worth paying attention to, but I’d love to hear your rationale for what makes me a bag of shit for thinking abortion shouldn’t be covered by insurance.
Well, it depends on why you have a stick up your ass about it. You appear to be more in line with the magic pixie dust brigade who believe that putting big price tags on every medical procedure will suffice.
But insurance is meant to cover unexpected and catastrophic medical expenses.
The Dutch make the distinction between routine healthcare costs, covered by a premium and subject to market competition among insurers, and “exceptional healthcare costs”, covered by a payroll tax and delivered on what’s essentially a single-payer basis. They class abortion as an exceptional cost, and take it off the table; they also have one of the lowest abortion rates in the developed world.
If you’re going to be a definitional pedant and declare that health insurance must be like fire or car insurance, then that’s really your own problem.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Oh, I forgot. You work in the health insurance industry, so you’re talking your own book, as well as being a hypocrite.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Is it alive? Yes. What species is it? Human.
You can grow human cells in a laboratory. They remain alive, and they are human cells, but they are not distinct human beings.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“Is it alive? Yes. What species is it? Human.”
What species is a tumor, or a mole? What species is your arm? Is amputation therefore murder?
Incidentally, earlier you said:
“I am proud of the history of liberals fighting to extend personhood and human rights to those that powerful forces would like to cast as the “other” — non-white people, non-Christians, women, illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians — and I think it’s a great shame that so many liberals have the blinders on when it’s come to extending humanity to the unborn.”
Does it give you pause that discrimination against non-whites, non-Christians, women, gays, etc. are all waged by the mainstream power structures in this country, but the so-called discrimination against the unborn is “committed” by and on behalf of those outside of those power structures (women, especially poor women)? Do you not notice that the same forces trying to “extend humanity to the unborn” are almost always the same as those trying to take it away from the very groups you mentioned (especially women and homosexuals)? Doesn’t that suggest that the comparison between abortion and other forms of “discrimination” is facile?
November 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
@pseudonymousinnc: Well, it depends on why you have a stick up your ass about it. You appear to be more in line with the magic pixie dust brigade who believe that putting big price tags on every medical procedure will suffice.
So you readily admit that you are arguing not against anything I’ve actually said, but instead against a caricature of what you’d like to imagine I’ve said. You’ve created a boogeyman in your mind and wrongly assign his views to me because it is easier than addressing actual arguments. At least you’re honest about your complete lack of any justification for your silly accusations.
they also have one of the lowest abortion rates in the developed world.
Please tell me you’re not implying that the funding of the abortions has anything to do with that. I really didn’t expect an argument that silly.
Oh, I forgot. You work in the health insurance industry, so you’re talking your own book, as well as being a hypocrite.
Please enlighten me with how that has any relevance, since my views do not align with those of the health insurance industry, and please also explain what I’ve said that’s hypocritical. You’re big on insults and accusations, but severely lacking in substance. Is broken record ad hominem really all you’ve got?
November 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Touche. But again, I wouldn’t set national health policy based on the behavior of promiscuous 16 year olds in Alabama.”
I hate to feed the trolls, but promiscuous 16 year olds in Alabama are American citizens who deserve equal protection under our policy, you monarchistic shit.
There are a whole lot more promiscuous 16-year olds than there are puerile sexless College Republicans, and so in a democracy their well-being is more important than yours. Those are precisely the people that need to be helped by protective policy. Snobs don’t notice the safety net, but it’s there for them still!
Also, once you trick a girl into fucking you for an extended period of time, you’ll be very upset when she demands $500 for her abortion and leaves you after you refuse.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
#17: It’s very easy to understand, unless you’re an idiot. “Choice” as a political issue is not about taxes. You do not have a choice as to whether you pay taxes, and you do not get to choose which programs your personal special little dollars go to. You pay taxes, or you’re a criminal.
Translation: All that “pro-choice” stuff was just propaganda. Mark is pro-abortion and want to force everyone to support it.
It’s just like the desire to have laws forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. “Pro-choice” doesn’t mean letting everyone make a personal choice about whether to get involved in abortion, it means that once a woman makes a decision, everyone else should not just accept it, but be forced make accomodations to their own life so she can get it.
You try to get the government to spend money the way you want, and if they don’t, you pay taxes anyway.
Trying to get the government to spend money the way they want (i.e. not on abortion) is exactly what the pro-life side is doing on this issue. If people were arguing that if the government subsidized abortions that then they had no responsibility to pay taxes, you might have a point.
But you seem to be saying that objecting to having my tax dollars spent on abortion, and working legislatively to make certain that that doesn’t happen, is somehow an outrageous violation of other people’s rights. You’re the one being an idiot here.
Adam is not arguing over whether or not government has the power to force him to pay for abortion. He is asking why objections to taxpayer dollars going to abortions is not given the same respect as, for example, objections to taxpayer dollars going to fund faith-based charities?
As the old saying goes, if you’re against abortion, don’t have one.
A pro-choice sentiment.
If the government decides to subsidize abortion, and you don’t want to pay for it, then you can leave the country. You should probably leave the country anyway.
An anti-choice, but pro-abortion sentiment.
But in any case, “If the government decides to subsidize abortion, and you don’t want to pay for it, then you can leave the country,” is not what you are saying. You are saying “if you don’t want to pay for abortion, shut up and don’t express your opinion or try to get legislation to reflect your views.”
November 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
#30: Eventually, these idiots need to lose the battle over whether tax payer funds can be used for abortions. If abortion is a legal procedure, it is a matter of basic fairness for it to be included in government insured health care.
Again, liberals show that all their bullshit about tolerance and choice and “to each his own” is only a ruse to gain sympathy when they are out of power. Once liberals are in power, they want tolerance goes out the window, and it’s “use the government to force everyone to support me and my way of thinking.”
#33: And it’s silly to tell the latter group that they should just go donate out of pocket to preserve abortions, as if it was a friggin charity rather than a legal right and medical procedure.
Right, because doing that would actually suggest that the people who disagree with you have rights, rather than just being evil bigoted peons who must be cowed to support your vision of society.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
What species is a tumor, or a mole? What species is your arm?
They’re not separate entities from the host, and don’t grow further along the normal sequence of human development.
Do you not notice that the same forces trying to “extend humanity to the unborn” are almost always the same as those trying to take it away from the very groups you mentioned (especially women and homosexuals)?
Well, I pointed out the converse, that many otherwise liberal people are illiberal in terms of extending personhood to the unborn. Yes, I have noticed that many people who are right on abortion also hold odious views in other regards. I’m not alone, though — check out the term “consistent life ethic” on Wikipedia or Google.
Does it give you pause that discrimination against non-whites, non-Christians, women, gays, etc. are all waged by the mainstream power structures in this country, but the so-called discrimination against the unborn is “committed” by and on behalf of those outside of those power structures (women, especially poor women)?
Any abortion committed on behalf of a poor and/or minority woman is, in turn, committed on a poor and/or minority child. This is all committed and supported by a wealthy and powerful abortion industry and political groups that have managed to scuttle any substantial legislation for the rights of the unborn in the 36 years since Roe v. Wade, whether Republicans or Democrats have been in power.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
promiscuous 16 year olds in Alabama are American citizens who deserve equal protection under our policy, you monarchistic shit.
Such impeccable reading comprehension. Let me break out the handpuppets for you:
1) No one is questioning if promiscuous Alabaman teens are indeed citizens deserving of equal protection
2) The promiscuous teens in question, as well as anyone else in the country who is unaware that one can become pregnant from vaginal intercourse, are indeed a tiny minority in the country
3) We should not make national health policy decisions that affect the entire country based on this very tiny minority of people who are ignorant of the basic biology of conception
There are a whole lot more promiscuous 16-year olds than there are puerile sexless College Republicans, and so in a democracy their well-being is more important than yours. Those are precisely the people that need to be helped by protective policy. Snobs don’t notice the safety net, but it’s there for them still!
That you have created this image in your head of me being a “puerile sexless College Republican” made my day, so I thank you for that. It’s sad really, that people like you assume anyone who disagrees with them is either a Douthat-esque prude or a mouth-breathing troglodyte, but you seem to find great pleasure in dreaming up these imaginary caricatures, so by all means carry on.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
They’re not separate entities from the host, and don’t grow further along the normal sequence of human development.
Neither is an embryo a “separate entity from the host.”
You’re defining embryos and fetuses as “people” and then looking for qualities that support that definition. Then when somebody challenges those qualities, you refine them further. And then you end up describing something that just happens to exist in the human womb, which is a circular argument.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
And almost all private plans are going to want to be able to accept people getting subsidies – that’s a big potential market. Which means if this bill passes almost no private health insurance will cover abortion. It’s a huge step backwards.
This is false.
The largest segment of the private health insurance market by far is the group plan sector selling to employers. This will still be the case if HCR is enacted. Under Stupack, health insurers will remain free to provide abortion coverage with such plans, even if they are selling different plans into the subsidized exchange market. It is these latter plans — which, after all, will be directly subsidized by tax payer cash — that won’t be allowed to cover abortion.
Even with Stupak this is arguably an advancement for abortion rights supporters, because taxpayer subsidies will now flow into the coffers of companies that pay for abortions (with different, non-subsidized plans). In other words, Pelosi’s bill — even with the adoption of Stupak — frankly whittles away at Hyde. And this, of course, is in addition to the massive tax code subsidy already enjoyed by health insurance companies that pay for abortions.
The one thing abortion rights supporters do have to be worried about is the long term path of the exchanges. I’m not sure how they’ll play out over the long term, but it’s possible, I suppose, that group market plans will utilize the exchanges to find new customers (many of whom will be entitled to subsidies), and that they’ll eventually begin to substantially reduce abortion coverage in the policies they sell. Still, this is a long way down the road, and is balanced by the (above-mentioned) leakage of public monies into the provision of abortion services, contra Hyde.
If abortion opponents had been tougher (or smarter) they would have pushed for an amendment prohibiting any health insurance firm that covers the procedure from selling policies into the subsidized exchange market, period. Money is, after all, fungible.
I can understand the trepidation of the abortion rights community, but it’s definitely not worth sinking HCR for. Pelosi did what she had to do.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“They’re not separate entities from the host, and don’t grow further along the normal sequence of human development.”
Christopher is right: this is pure question begging. For one thing, an embryo is not a “separate entity from the host” in any sense that isn’t also true of a tumor. For another, by your standard every ovum is also a human being. “Every sperm is sacred,” indeed.
“Well, I pointed out the converse, that many otherwise liberal people are illiberal in terms of extending personhood to the unborn.”
And what I’m saying is that your definition of “illiberal” here doesn’t hold water. You might as well say that anyone who doesn’t want to give animals the vote is being “illiberal.”
“This is all committed and supported by a wealthy and powerful abortion industry”
And here, I’m afraid, you sound completely crazy. There is no “abortion industry,” unless you would characterize, say, the Sierra Club as “a wealthy and powerful environmental industry.”
November 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Did a majority of Congresspeople who voted for the bill, vote for the amendment?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Wow, a whole thread about ignoring that churches are allowed to buy up safe places that provide abortion, thereby removing that option and how having tons more poor and unfed children without healthcare would make the poor and unfeds’ lives better.
I don’t understand the argument. “We should have more sick children because abortion is bad!” “We should have more crowded schools because abortion is bad!” “We should allow more women and infants to die or become barren because abortion is bad!” “We shouldn’t allow more privacy between doctors and patients, because abortion is bad!” “We shouldn’t allow doctors and patients privacy about what they’ve decided is necessary because abortion is wrong!” “Women should give up their jobs and lives because abortion is bad!”
And the biggest crazy of them all, “We shouldn’t have healthcare for those additional poor children because abortion is bad!”
Wha?
November 10th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Even with Stupak this is arguably an advancement for abortion rights supporters, because taxpayer subsidies will now flow into the coffers of companies that pay for abortions (with different, non-subsidized plans).
That’s a little bizarre. Handing out money to insurance companies is inherently a pro-choice policy, because a tiny fraction of their budgets goes to abortion? Does that mean that handing money to Lockheed Martin is a pro-health policy, because a tiny fraction of their budget goes to research with applications towards prosthetics? And handing money to BP is a pro-environment policy, because a tiny fraction goes towards green energy?
On the other hand, I think the danger that the restrictions on plans offered in the exchange will extend, in practice, to plans sold to employers is very high. There are all kinds of reasons for the plans to be the same – administrative, advertising, the opportunity to cut a cost. Moreover, if the employer mandate doesn’t end up strong enough, the proportion of the population getting individual care will increase.
Seperate point. I don’t really understand “moderate” anti-choice people, of the sort who have appeared in this thread. If an embryo is a person, thousands of them are being murdered a year, with legal sanction! That’s the kind of thing that we normally try to stop by any means necessary! But I’ve never heard of even that small percentage of anti-choicers who support contraception pushing a big campaign of accurate sex ed (think of what could be done with the resources that go into “crisis pregnancy centers”). Let alone the kind of creating thinking in comment #54 – wouldn’t forcing men to go to a doctor when they wanted a child be a small price to pay for saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? Isn’t infertility absent medical help an easier burden than an unwanted child? Somehow, though, the solutions actually put forward all put the burden on women…
But, curiously, the condemnation of women isn’t at the level that one would expect if the embryo = person equation were taken seriously. Usually the condemnation that comes down on somebody who orders another person killed to save themselves some trouble is pretty severe – even if it’s quite a lot of trouble they’re saving. The mob boss and the contract killer are both subject to the death penalty or life in prison. How can you think abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being and not apply the same standard? Even the apparent minority who support the murder of abortion doctors don’t openly advocate the murder of the person who has actually made the decision.
If there’s an explanation for all this except that opposition to abortion is more about slut-shaming than life-saving, I’d love to hear it.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Christopher is right: this is pure question begging. For one thing, an embryo is not a “separate entity from the host” in any sense that isn’t also true of a tumor. For another, by your standard every ovum is also a human being. “Every sperm is sacred,” indeed.
No, from the beginning I said that an embryo was worthy of our protection because it was a distinct human. I chose those words carefully and they still cover all of your examples above. Your sperm or egg cells are just as human as any other part of you, but they are not distinct from you because they do not carry the DNA of a separate (i.e., distinct) human being from you. They carry your DNA, which is why crime labs can trace them to a single person, just like saliva.
Tumors are also part of you, although to become a neoplasm they’ve mutated in a malignant way. But they haven’t mutated to become a distinct human. My understanding is that they’ve just mutated incrementally from your original DNA; they haven’t undergone the 50/50 blending of the parents’ DNA that happens in conception. And to the extent that they have mutated from your original DNA, they’ve done so in a way that changes them from growing into a human being into growing into a tumor.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
If there’s an explanation for all this except that opposition to abortion is more about slut-shaming than life-saving, I’d love to hear it.
If you can find one thing I’ve written on this subject that was about slut-shaming rather than life-saving, I’d love to see it.
Anyway, to answer your question:
1. Trying to prevent abortions is about saving lives; if I were dwelling on how to punish those who have them, then your accusations of slut-shaming might hold water.
2. But since you do ask, for a crime to be committed, there has to be willful, conscious knowledge of what’s being done. The fact of the matter is that most people in this country (and presumably, even more of those who have or commit abortions) do not see unborn children as being distinct human beings. Abortion advocates further this when they refer to the unborn using terms like “the products of conception.” If someone truly believes that they’re just conducting a medical procedure, akin to removing a tumor, then that’s more a matter of ignorance than moral culpability.
3. Furthermore, the mother in these cases often comes to want an abortion because she is in a desperate situation and doesn’t see any other ways out. A more humane solution is to help her out of whatever the situation is and try to prevent the “need” for abortion. Punishment is really secondary to prevention.
4. Indeed, it is appalling that there are so many abortions in this country. You’ll notice that after 20 years of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II in office and a 12-year span of Republican control of Congress, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. So the supposed pro-life Republicans (and really, that’s pretty much the only way that they’re generally better than the Democrats) aren’t much good in this regard, and at this point we can probably prevent more abortions with Democrats in control, because of the better health care and policies conducive to alleviating poverty and other economic hardships they have in place.
5. And yeah, some of it is just a recognition of what can and can’t be done in this world. People die early from many other causes, too, and there’s only so much change we can each do. But also, to an extent, I do recognize that an embryo is different from a fully-grown human being. Nobody’s asking for embryos to get property rights, for example. But if they are human beings in the most basic sense of the word, what they should be entitled to is the most basic, elementary right of them all: the right to life. I.e., it should not be legal to kill them. I’m not asking for anything beyond that.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am
On the other hand, I think the danger that the restrictions on plans offered in the exchange will extend, in practice, to plans sold to employers is very high. There are all kinds of reasons for the plans to be the same – administrative, advertising, the opportunity to cut a cost
I think this is very unlikely. I’m not sure what you mean WRT to “advertising” and “administrative” reasons; but health insurers already, under the status quo, tailor their plans to suit different budgets and customer needs; this doesn’t seem to be much of a hurdle in practice. But the biggest reason I think your fears are unfounded is that there almost certainly would be strong push back — from more affluent health insurance customers in group plans — if health insurance providers began dropping reproductive health coverage from their plans on a widespread basis. Ezra Klein wrote about this yesterday in his blog. The net-net is the Hyde Amendment was always substantially symbolic in its effects — at least when it comes to more affluent women — in that it ignores the $200 billion tax code subsidy to health insurance providers — many of whom do cover the cost of abortions.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
[...] profound act. Matt Yglesias dismisses this distinction made by the majority of Americans as “arbitrary” and as merely part of an effort to [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I’d love to hear your rationale for what makes me a bag of shit for thinking abortion shouldn’t be covered by insurance.
Asked and answered.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Late to the party, but the whole issue of what is human and what is a life is a red herring.
If Hobbits existed on Earth, presumably we would agree that they have equal moral standing as we humans. We would thus probably make sure that our laws considered them legal persons, and in moral philosophy we would grant them status as persons.
So the humanness of an entity is not relevant to whether it can be morally aborted; rather, whether it is a person is what matters.
We can throw up our hands and say that personhood is entirely a social construct, or we can try to identify objective criteria for personhood.
Without going into too much detail, most thoughtful people can probably agree that birth and genetic uniqueness are irrelevant to personhood, and also that the potential for personhood should not be conflated with actual personhood.
If I kill someone indoors rather than outdoors, that doesn’t affect the morality of my actions; similarly, if I kill someone inside a womb rather than outside it, that doesn’t affect the morality of my actions. Twins and genomically-rearranged cancer cells are a strong argument against genetic uniqueness as constituting personhood.
Valuing potential for personhood as tantamount to actual personhood commits us to having as many children as possible, for a fertile man and woman desiring to have sex is the potential for a new personhood — hell, a fertile womb anywhere in the world and frozen or undischarged sperm anywhere in the world is potential for personhood.
It’s useful to think about what we humans share with hypothetical Hobbits or other sapient races from fantasy and science fiction. For me, this takes me to two points that are candidates for the beginning of personhood: nervous-system developments that around the 22nd week of gestation mental developments well past birth. I don’t have the guts to say that infanticide is OK, so that leaves me with personhood beginning toward the end of the second trimester. I think that thoughtful and reasonable people might disagree with where personhood begins after the formation of the primitive streak (beyond which twinning is impossible) and before toddlerhood, and I am unsure of and uncomfortable with my tentative demarcation of personhood at a particular week in gestation. But after having wrestled with this issue probably more than any other moral one, I haven’t found any good (let alone convincing) arguments why abortion should be banned before the formation of the primitive streak or permitted after toddlerhood, at least no good arguments that aren’t of a pragmatic nature.