Friday, November 07, 2003
Abort, Retry, Ignore?
There's something about the always-contentious abortion debate that lends itself to battles over terminology. The recent Laci Peterson tragedy was a good illustration of this, as news outlets waffled between the terms "fetus" (which sounded too callous under the circumstances) and "unborn child" (which sounded too "pro-life" by journalistic standards). The Partial-Birth Abortion ban produced similar verbal battles, with most news sources feeling the need to add the qualifier "so-called," which made sense during the initial debate but now seems bizarrely left-slanted and unnecessary with "Partial Birth" being a clearly defined legal term, regardless of whether it's the technical medical one.
The most common battle is with regards to what to call people with a certain held belief. Although the public generally seems settled on the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", the mainstream press refuses to use the latter term, insisting on "anti-abortion" or, more frequently as of late, "opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose," which is troubling both for its obvious editorializing, and the fact that it's a bit of a stretch to read such a right into the constitution, regardless of your feelings on the matter. On every other issue, simple "pro" and "anti" are uncontroversial descriptors, such as pro-affirmative-action vs. anti-affirmative-action, pro-gun-control vs. anti-gun-control, pro-capital-punishment vs. anti-capital-punishment, etc. And yet, although "anti-abortion" is seen frequently, "pro-abortion" is never, ever used (outside of the literature of right-to-life organizations). This inconsistency isn't necessarily as slanted as it initially appears, since unlike other issues, few abortion supporters would describe their position as "pro-abortion," nor could their beliefs necessarily be construed as such, for the same reason that all who believe cigarettes should remain legal are not necessarily "pro-cigarette". Abortion, at the risk of stating the obvious, is more complicated.
For example: I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-choice" because she believes the procedure should be legal for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, despite the fact the most pro-life individuals, such as President Bush, also believe such exceptions should be allowed. Similarly, I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-life" because she would never herself have one, but believes the procedure should be legal for others who might choose to. Therefore, confusingly, this "pro-choice" friend would be called "pro-life" by most, and the "pro-life" friend would be called "pro-choice" by most. This also explains why there's such inconsistency in polling data on this issue, for when you simply ask "are you pro-life or pro-choice," polls show a national pro-choice majority, but when you ask specific questions on circumstances and procedures, such as Gallup does, polls show a pro-life majority.
The complexities of the abortion debate therefore do not allow for easy black-and-white divisions, not only because people disagree on the terminology, but also because many standard terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are meaningless in a debate context, since those who disagree with one or the other are quite obviously not "anti-life" or "anti-choice." Therefore, rather than using politically crafted buzzwords, I've attempted to fairly identify the nine main possible positions on abortion below, based on the beliefs themselves. I've done my best to clear these with friends among the different positions, to assure I'm not allowing any of my own bias or feelings to seep through, within reason. (As with all such lists, there may be some overlap across categories.)
1) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances, and Anyone Who Would Perform Them Deserves to Die. Obviously the most extreme of the anti-abortion positions, and only a tiny minority of "pro-life" individuals (though they get vastly disproportional press, likely due to the paper-selling irony of their argument.) Those in this group point out the moral similarities of assassinating Nazi officials during and after the Holocaust, for they're convinced that abortion is a second holocaust against young children, and just as inexcusably evil.
2) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances. This position is traditionally called a "zero-exception pro-lifer," illustrating a wish to ban the procedure even in cases where the mother's life is endangered. (My first long-term girlfriend fell into this category, despite being a liberal Clinton-voting Journalism major.) The opposition to the procedure may be religious in nature, or based on a moral belief that the life of the unborn outweighs that of its carrier, for the same reason that the life of a young child is often more valued than a grandparent. (Obviously, from this category down, violence against individuals who disagree is passionately opposed.)
3) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except to Save the Life of the Mother. Or, a "one-exception pro-lifer." A person in this category believes the unborn child is equal (not superior) to the mother, and therefore in issues where one or both may be in danger, the decision should be left up to doctors or family, as in the case of, for example, deciding which conjoined twin should die to save the other.
4) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except in Cases of Rape, Incest, or to Save the Life of the Mother. This "three-exception pro-lifer" position is certainly the most common among pro-life politicians, and likely stems from the pre-1973 laws in most states which forbade abortions in all but those circumstances. Those in this category believe women should not be required to continue a pregnancy to term if they could have had no control over the conception, whereas pro-lifers in the first three categories argue that a child should not be "punished for the crimes of its father," for no one would argue that a child of a rapist is any less an individual regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception.
5) Abortion Should Be Legal, Though I Personally Disagree With its Morality. Arguably the most common position in this country, and the one that is most difficult to categorize as either "pro-life" or "pro-choice." (President Bush is in this category, for example, with regards to his stated legislative desires, though his heart is likely in category #4 above.) Because there are so many with this belief, especially women who consider themselves "pro-choice" but would never have an abortion themselves, it is unfortunate that they get lumped with one "side" or the other, often with those with whom they disagree and would disavow.
6) Abortion Should Be Legal, but With Restrictions. Another common category, this explains why supposedly "pro-life" legislation such as parental notification laws, 24-hour waiting periods, and the recent Partial Birth Abortion ban have such widespread support outside of the typical "pro-life" voter. The belief here is that abortion should generally be legal, and is not necessarily immoral, but that doesn't mean unrestricted "abortion on demand" up to the cutting of the umbilical cord is in the nation's best interests.
7) Abortion Should be Legal Without Restrictions. Most national abortion rights organizations fall into this category, including the stated positions of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). They interpret any restrictions on a woman's choice as a "slippery slope," but on balance do not believe abortion should be encouraged or discouraged.
8) Abortion Should be Legal, and Encouraged in Some Circumstances. Some leaders and public speakers from the above-mentioned organizations fall into this category, as well as many political activists and active-minded citizens. There is a definite distinction between one who believes abortion should always be a woman's individual choice, and one who believes certain women (people in poverty, unwed teenagers, etc.) should be encouraged (though not forced) to consider the option more than others. The belief here is that abortion is not only a woman's choice, but can also serve a greater public good. In general, those who use arguments of "overpopulation" in abortion talks also fall into this category.
9) Abortion Should be Legal, and Forced in Some Circumstances. In which circumstances an abortion should be forced, of course, makes a lot of room for debate in this category. The Chinese government regularly exercises its right to force abortions to combat overpopulation concerns. In this country, most states (including Michigan) allow a mother to force an under-18 offspring to have an abortion (just like any other surgery). The distinction between this viewpoint and the preceding category is that the belief that abortion can serve a greater good can outweigh the "right to choose" in certain situations.
Of this wide array of positions, only the first three categories could really be described as "anti-abortion" and only the last two could be described as "pro-abortion." The rest, which make up the vast majority of the nation, combine elements of both the desire to protect and honor human life with the practical concerns of a choice-based free society. While it's tempting to lump individuals into two groups of belief patterns (or two political parties), it often trivializes and clouds important issues. It would be equivalent to forcing all people into stating whether drugs should be "legal" or "illegal" without allowing them to specify which drugs (alcohol? Viagra? crack?) or under which circumstances. And it doesn't help matters when the leaders of both "movements" are often on the extreme sides of the debate, and don't even represent the majority of their supporters, much less the nation.
We need an open and honest national discussion on this, not screaming talking heads, fanatical "slippery slope" conspiracists, or five-foot-high color posters of aborted fetuses. This is a polarizing issue, perhaps more so than even the war in Iraq, but there is common ground among the majority which we can all work towards. Reasonable people on all sides need to realize that those on some "other side" are not evil. There are brilliant, educated, caring, and compassionate people across the spectrum, and if there is a "right" position, no one will be won over to it by badgering or insinuations of immorality or idiocy.
As with any emotional argument, we will likely never all agree (at least, not in our lifetime), and our goal should be understanding and compromise in the meantime. But acknowledging that there are more than simply two points of view is an excellent start.
Note: I have excised a line in this article regarding Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's support of forced abortions for certain ethnic/minority groups. Although Sanger was a eugenicist and advocated sterilization for members of "undesireable" races or the "feebleminded," many claims of supporting "forced abortion" are taken out of context and hard to find outside of pro-life websites, and therefore make it inappropriate to include her in position #9 without a bit more research. Thank you to the ludicrosity.com viewers who corrected me on this!
There's something about the always-contentious abortion debate that lends itself to battles over terminology. The recent Laci Peterson tragedy was a good illustration of this, as news outlets waffled between the terms "fetus" (which sounded too callous under the circumstances) and "unborn child" (which sounded too "pro-life" by journalistic standards). The Partial-Birth Abortion ban produced similar verbal battles, with most news sources feeling the need to add the qualifier "so-called," which made sense during the initial debate but now seems bizarrely left-slanted and unnecessary with "Partial Birth" being a clearly defined legal term, regardless of whether it's the technical medical one.
The most common battle is with regards to what to call people with a certain held belief. Although the public generally seems settled on the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", the mainstream press refuses to use the latter term, insisting on "anti-abortion" or, more frequently as of late, "opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose," which is troubling both for its obvious editorializing, and the fact that it's a bit of a stretch to read such a right into the constitution, regardless of your feelings on the matter. On every other issue, simple "pro" and "anti" are uncontroversial descriptors, such as pro-affirmative-action vs. anti-affirmative-action, pro-gun-control vs. anti-gun-control, pro-capital-punishment vs. anti-capital-punishment, etc. And yet, although "anti-abortion" is seen frequently, "pro-abortion" is never, ever used (outside of the literature of right-to-life organizations). This inconsistency isn't necessarily as slanted as it initially appears, since unlike other issues, few abortion supporters would describe their position as "pro-abortion," nor could their beliefs necessarily be construed as such, for the same reason that all who believe cigarettes should remain legal are not necessarily "pro-cigarette". Abortion, at the risk of stating the obvious, is more complicated.
For example: I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-choice" because she believes the procedure should be legal for cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, despite the fact the most pro-life individuals, such as President Bush, also believe such exceptions should be allowed. Similarly, I have at least one friend who considers herself "pro-life" because she would never herself have one, but believes the procedure should be legal for others who might choose to. Therefore, confusingly, this "pro-choice" friend would be called "pro-life" by most, and the "pro-life" friend would be called "pro-choice" by most. This also explains why there's such inconsistency in polling data on this issue, for when you simply ask "are you pro-life or pro-choice," polls show a national pro-choice majority, but when you ask specific questions on circumstances and procedures, such as Gallup does, polls show a pro-life majority.
The complexities of the abortion debate therefore do not allow for easy black-and-white divisions, not only because people disagree on the terminology, but also because many standard terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are meaningless in a debate context, since those who disagree with one or the other are quite obviously not "anti-life" or "anti-choice." Therefore, rather than using politically crafted buzzwords, I've attempted to fairly identify the nine main possible positions on abortion below, based on the beliefs themselves. I've done my best to clear these with friends among the different positions, to assure I'm not allowing any of my own bias or feelings to seep through, within reason. (As with all such lists, there may be some overlap across categories.)
1) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances, and Anyone Who Would Perform Them Deserves to Die. Obviously the most extreme of the anti-abortion positions, and only a tiny minority of "pro-life" individuals (though they get vastly disproportional press, likely due to the paper-selling irony of their argument.) Those in this group point out the moral similarities of assassinating Nazi officials during and after the Holocaust, for they're convinced that abortion is a second holocaust against young children, and just as inexcusably evil.
2) Abortion Should Be Illegal Under All Circumstances. This position is traditionally called a "zero-exception pro-lifer," illustrating a wish to ban the procedure even in cases where the mother's life is endangered. (My first long-term girlfriend fell into this category, despite being a liberal Clinton-voting Journalism major.) The opposition to the procedure may be religious in nature, or based on a moral belief that the life of the unborn outweighs that of its carrier, for the same reason that the life of a young child is often more valued than a grandparent. (Obviously, from this category down, violence against individuals who disagree is passionately opposed.)
3) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except to Save the Life of the Mother. Or, a "one-exception pro-lifer." A person in this category believes the unborn child is equal (not superior) to the mother, and therefore in issues where one or both may be in danger, the decision should be left up to doctors or family, as in the case of, for example, deciding which conjoined twin should die to save the other.
4) Abortion Should Be Illegal Except in Cases of Rape, Incest, or to Save the Life of the Mother. This "three-exception pro-lifer" position is certainly the most common among pro-life politicians, and likely stems from the pre-1973 laws in most states which forbade abortions in all but those circumstances. Those in this category believe women should not be required to continue a pregnancy to term if they could have had no control over the conception, whereas pro-lifers in the first three categories argue that a child should not be "punished for the crimes of its father," for no one would argue that a child of a rapist is any less an individual regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception.
5) Abortion Should Be Legal, Though I Personally Disagree With its Morality. Arguably the most common position in this country, and the one that is most difficult to categorize as either "pro-life" or "pro-choice." (President Bush is in this category, for example, with regards to his stated legislative desires, though his heart is likely in category #4 above.) Because there are so many with this belief, especially women who consider themselves "pro-choice" but would never have an abortion themselves, it is unfortunate that they get lumped with one "side" or the other, often with those with whom they disagree and would disavow.
6) Abortion Should Be Legal, but With Restrictions. Another common category, this explains why supposedly "pro-life" legislation such as parental notification laws, 24-hour waiting periods, and the recent Partial Birth Abortion ban have such widespread support outside of the typical "pro-life" voter. The belief here is that abortion should generally be legal, and is not necessarily immoral, but that doesn't mean unrestricted "abortion on demand" up to the cutting of the umbilical cord is in the nation's best interests.
7) Abortion Should be Legal Without Restrictions. Most national abortion rights organizations fall into this category, including the stated positions of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). They interpret any restrictions on a woman's choice as a "slippery slope," but on balance do not believe abortion should be encouraged or discouraged.
8) Abortion Should be Legal, and Encouraged in Some Circumstances. Some leaders and public speakers from the above-mentioned organizations fall into this category, as well as many political activists and active-minded citizens. There is a definite distinction between one who believes abortion should always be a woman's individual choice, and one who believes certain women (people in poverty, unwed teenagers, etc.) should be encouraged (though not forced) to consider the option more than others. The belief here is that abortion is not only a woman's choice, but can also serve a greater public good. In general, those who use arguments of "overpopulation" in abortion talks also fall into this category.
9) Abortion Should be Legal, and Forced in Some Circumstances. In which circumstances an abortion should be forced, of course, makes a lot of room for debate in this category. The Chinese government regularly exercises its right to force abortions to combat overpopulation concerns. In this country, most states (including Michigan) allow a mother to force an under-18 offspring to have an abortion (just like any other surgery). The distinction between this viewpoint and the preceding category is that the belief that abortion can serve a greater good can outweigh the "right to choose" in certain situations.
Of this wide array of positions, only the first three categories could really be described as "anti-abortion" and only the last two could be described as "pro-abortion." The rest, which make up the vast majority of the nation, combine elements of both the desire to protect and honor human life with the practical concerns of a choice-based free society. While it's tempting to lump individuals into two groups of belief patterns (or two political parties), it often trivializes and clouds important issues. It would be equivalent to forcing all people into stating whether drugs should be "legal" or "illegal" without allowing them to specify which drugs (alcohol? Viagra? crack?) or under which circumstances. And it doesn't help matters when the leaders of both "movements" are often on the extreme sides of the debate, and don't even represent the majority of their supporters, much less the nation.
We need an open and honest national discussion on this, not screaming talking heads, fanatical "slippery slope" conspiracists, or five-foot-high color posters of aborted fetuses. This is a polarizing issue, perhaps more so than even the war in Iraq, but there is common ground among the majority which we can all work towards. Reasonable people on all sides need to realize that those on some "other side" are not evil. There are brilliant, educated, caring, and compassionate people across the spectrum, and if there is a "right" position, no one will be won over to it by badgering or insinuations of immorality or idiocy.
As with any emotional argument, we will likely never all agree (at least, not in our lifetime), and our goal should be understanding and compromise in the meantime. But acknowledging that there are more than simply two points of view is an excellent start.
Note: I have excised a line in this article regarding Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's support of forced abortions for certain ethnic/minority groups. Although Sanger was a eugenicist and advocated sterilization for members of "undesireable" races or the "feebleminded," many claims of supporting "forced abortion" are taken out of context and hard to find outside of pro-life websites, and therefore make it inappropriate to include her in position #9 without a bit more research. Thank you to the ludicrosity.com viewers who corrected me on this!
