Ramesh Ponnuru gives me a little spank for getting his name wrong. Fair enough. But he goes on to say that I can’t “make an argument pertinent to anything under discussion.” No, I don’t think that’s quite it.
To review: Ponnuru is arguing with Lemieux. Ponnuru said Lemieux’ argument was absurd. Lemieux responded that it was not. Now Ponnuru responds:
Lemieux thinks that I called his argument that bans on partial-birth abortion will lead to unsafe abortions rather than a decrease in abortions “absurd.” I didn’t. What I called “absurd” was his contention that, because those bans would have that effect, they were designed to “regulate female sexuality.”
Say what you will about my spelling: I did indeed get it that what Ponnuru was calling absurd was, very specifically, Lemieux’ labeling of something as the intent or goal of a legal measure when it was only a predictable effect of that measure. (We are taking as a premise that punishment, in the form of imposed risks, is a form of regulation.) Ponnuru’s point is that the charitable thing to do would be to acknowledge that, nevertheless, the intent of the measure is not regulating sexuality but – eventually, down the line – fewer abortions.
Now the most basic problem with this is that it is not, in fact, psychologically absurd to suppose that abortion opponents are motivated by desire to regulate female sexuality, per se. As many have pointed out – in comments to my post, for example – the fact that opposition to abortion is strongly correlated with opposition to birth-control is suggestive in this regard.
But another problem, which my post brought out, is that Ponnuru himself has written a book – The Party of Death – whose title presupposes the thing he now labels ‘absurd’: namely, it is reasonable to label as an intent or goal of a given policy anything that is the predictable effect of the policy. (He can wiggle off this hook in various ways. But, obviously, any wiggle good enough for him will be good enough for Lemieux. Example: suppose Ponnuru says ‘party of death’ is just supposed to indicate a horrible consequence. Well, Lemieux can say ‘punishing sex by death’ is, likewise, supposed to indicate a horrible consequence.)
Now, what is the takeaway moral from this ‘gotcha!’, if any? Since two wrongs don’t make a right, the fair thing for Ponnuru to do is say: ‘Lemieux, you are making the same mistake I myself made when I gave my book that absurd title. I admit I was wrong.’ (Or, if that was the publisher’s bright idea: wrong to let the publisher call it that.) ‘Do you, Lemieux, admit it was likewise wrong to say what you said?’
And NOW we can have an argument about something pertinent, should we be mutually desirous. Lemieux (and I, and others) can defend the proposition that, although of course it is not automatically the case that any predictable effect of a given measure is the goal and intent, in the case of abortion it is plausible to suppose desire to regulate female sexual activity is what actuates opponents of abortion, to a significant degree. And then it is reasonable to say that the ‘partial-birth’ ban looks bad in that light – looks less pragmatically defensible as an admittedly incoherent stepping-stone on the way to a more coherent position, more like just plain punishing women for their sexual choices.
In other Cornerite petard hoist judging books by their covers news: if anyone cares to write a book subtitled ‘the secret history of the American right, from Mussolini to … ‘ they could start with this post from Jonah Goldberg. Of course Goldberg will protest that he just found the idea ‘interesting’, didn’t endorse it. Still, finding something interesting would seem to be a mild form of temptation. I do wonder what clearer cases of totalitarian temptation he will unearth in the Clinton camp.
Google tells me someone beat me to the punch. And included another quote from the Waugh essay for good measure.
UPDATE: This post might seem elaborately picky, pesky, point-defensive or ‘gotcha’-fixated. At least I might seem over-fixated on motive. (Who cares what someone’s deep psychological motives are, in supporting a law? Maybe Dems want to raise taxes because their mommies didn’t love them enough. Who cares? What matters is whether what is proposed reasonable and justifiable.) But it seems to me that the question of motives – the motives of the pro-life side, in particular – is crucial, in this case. I don’t, personally, think it is demonstrably unreasonable to have a view of personhood that forbids abortion – certainly not late-term abortion, where the lines between abortion and infanticide become undeniably blurry and ‘viability’ gets tossed around, hopelessly. But I also think that mostly the abortion fight is, politically, a proxy fight about who controls women’s sexuality, not a metaphysical dispute about personhood. Of course it IS an issue about personhood. Deciding what you think is right means grappling with that. But deciding what is to be done, politically, means recognizing that it is, to a considerable degree, a struggle for sexual dominance. That’s weird, of course. Because making laws isn’t a form of having sex. (Yes, I noticed.) Still, symbolically, these legal acts appeal to supporters as symbolic forms of sexual dominance. Saying so isn’t absurd; it’s not some superfine form of fancy-pants hermeneutics of suspicion; it’s not practically irrelevant. Because, as Ponnuru would agree, the issue isn’t the partial-birth ban – which its strongest defender would admit is, at best, an incoherent halfway point on the way to somewhere else. The issue is: where are we going with this? In answering that question, it matters what impulses people really are expressing, in opposing abortion. If what they really want to do is regulate women’s sexual choices, then we are setting a precedent that it’s ok to do that.
{ 77 comments }
Matt Weiner 11.30.07 at 5:04 am
Ponurru
*ahem*
John Holbo 11.30.07 at 5:12 am
Corrected. Just for the record: I only got it wrong once this time – and I wrote the name, like, 10 times in the post. I believe I have now reduced my error rate to the point where it can be considered a harmless typo, rather than mockworthy ignorance.
Drake 11.30.07 at 5:38 am
Orthography is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
John Holbo 11.30.07 at 5:57 am
Orthography recapitulates philology.
Actually, I am thinking of writing something about the latest adaptationism evo-devo kerfuffle: Ontogeny is the last refuge of a spandrel.
But I’m not sure what that would even mean.
global yokel 11.30.07 at 7:04 am
The challenge I like to throw at right-to-lifers and the so-called ‘conservatives’ is this:
Reasonable people can differ on the morality of abortion; but do we want big government imposing itself and regulating the most intimate and sacred aspect of our personal lives?
That usually shuts them up. It helps to remind them that they are constantly complaining that government can’t do anything right– so why in the world are they inclined to trust the government on life + death issues like abortion and capital punishment?
John Holbo 11.30.07 at 7:30 am
Hmmm, now that I reread my own update, I don’t really like saying “these legal acts appeal to supporters as symbolic forms of sexual dominance.” I think it would be better to say: these legal acts appeal to supporters as symbolic forms of moral dominance. It’s not that being pro-life is kinky, non-consensual sex, in the symbolic sphere of the law (non-consensual non-sex, whatever). Rather, pro-lifers want it to be that there is some public, official reflection of the dominance of a certain ethical view. And that view has as much or maybe more to do with female sexual ethics than with the personhood of the fetus. So the fight, since it is officially a about fetuses, is a proxy fight.
This is not to deny that actual convictions about the rights of the unborn play no sincere, considerable role in motivating pro-lifers. Just that the other thing is pretty damn important, and certainly not to be ignored as ‘absurd’.
goatchowder 11.30.07 at 8:37 am
That’s really good.
In other words, it’s just tribal war? They want their “God Tribe” to be the top dog, and are flinging feces at the “Science Tribe” or the “Rationalist Tribe”? For no reason except that it’s a competing tribe?
Yeah, that’d probably be the simplest explanation.
It’d also explain the creationism, and the pledge of allegiance, and the ten commandments in the courthouse, and saying “merry christmas”, and all these other nonsensical things that they feel are SO important to impose upon us.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 8:51 am
“I don’t, personally, think it is demonstrably unreasonable to have a view of personhood that forbids abortion – certainly not late-term abortion, where the lines between abortion and infanticide become undeniably blurry and ‘viability’ gets tossed around, hopelessly. But I also think that mostly the abortion fight is, politically, a proxy fight about who controls women’s sexuality, not a metaphysical dispute about personhood. Of course it IS an issue about personhood. Deciding what you think is right means grappling with that. But deciding what is to be done, politically, means recognizing that it is, to a considerable degree, a struggle for sexual dominance. That’s weird, of course.”
and
“Rather, pro-lifers want it to be that there is some public, official reflection of the dominance of a certain ethical view. And that view has as much or maybe more to do with female sexual ethics than with the personhood of the fetus.”
So says you, and it is awfully convenient for your argument because then you don’t have to worry about or talk about the actual personhood of the very late-term fetus. You can say that people pretend to worry about that, but what they REALLY MEAN is that they want to oppress women. That is a great way of ensuring that the debate takes place on the ground you want it to. But since it doesn’t address the actual concerns of the large number of people who think “Gosh, a late term fetus REALLY IS A LOT LIKE A BABY, maybe that has *some* implications for *something*” we don’t get anywhere in the debate.
Yes, it is about women’s bodies. Yes, it is about personhood for innocent humans that don’t have the power to protect themselves. Yes, both are really important. That is why the issue is so thorny. Pretending that the whole thing is super-obvious, and that your opponents clearly don’t believe the things they claim to believe doesn’t magically make the whole thing non-thorny.
You’re just like people who say that Democrats are ‘secret Communists’.
abb1 11.30.07 at 8:53 am
Hmm, but the previous post – it wasn’t about amorphous ‘pro-lifers’ (something like a half of the population) but specifically about Ron Paul and his libertarian principles, right? It’s gotta be much easier to discern the motives of one individual than a hundred million people (several billion worldwide) viewed as a homogeneous group.
Bruce Baugh 11.30.07 at 8:57 am
Ho hum. More huffing, more ignoring of the circumstances in which dilation and extraction is actually performed, more disinterest in the consequences of the ban. “Pro-life” rhetoric would be more convincing if it showed any interest in the lives of mothers at any point along the way. (Or in the well-being of children once born, but that’s a separate piece of hypocrisy.)
Bruce Baugh 11.30.07 at 9:08 am
For that matter, a simple acknowledgement that leaders of the effort to ban dilation-and-extraction abortion see it as increasing the risk to the mother would go a long way to separating people who actually care about all the lives involved from those using the rhetoric to advance the usual anti-woman, anti-sex crap.
John Holbo 11.30.07 at 9:31 am
Sebastian writes: “and it is awfully convenient for your argument because then you don’t have to worry about or talk about the actual personhood of the very late-term fetus”
Why do I get not to worry about that?
Francis 11.30.07 at 9:33 am
SH: if there were more than a shred of evidence that a substantial percentage of the anti-choice movement were dedicated only to stopping late-term abortions, you might have a point. As it is, that evidence doesn’t exist. You appear to be a member of a very small group, ie those people who so desperately want to stop the minuscule number of pre-natal premeditated infanticides (also known as medically unnecessary very late term abortions) that they are willing to risk placing the approximately 1.2 million American women who get an abortion annually on the slippery slope to prohibition.
Take stock of who’s on your side. The people active in this issue tend not to have your narrow focus, but instead seek more generally to expand state power over female reproductive decisionmaking. Given the level of partisanship over the issue (frex, partial-birth abortion is not a medical term until the Senate made it one), there’s not a lot of room for compromise.
It’s also worth noting that men in general have a far easier time being anti-choice; it’s not their body that’s being regulated. Gay men have even less skin in the game; it’s not even their partner’s body being regulated.
(ye gods, a anti-choice libertarian conservative gay male living in San Diego. I’m sure there’s someone who blogs on a regular basis who embodies more internal contradictions than SH, but hell if I know who it is.)
abb1 11.30.07 at 9:53 am
The people active in this issue tend not to have your narrow focus, but instead seek more generally to expand state power over female reproductive decisionmaking.
This is not a very good argument. People who are most active are always most radical. This is like arguing that the anti-war protesters are terrorist supporters.
It either does make sense to stop this “minuscule number of pre-natal premeditated infanticides” or it doesn’t; if it does, then it’s not a slippery slope. In fact, your position is a slippery slope.
Brett Bellmore 11.30.07 at 11:25 am
“but do we want big government imposing itself and regulating the most intimate and sacred aspect of our personal lives?”
In a heartbeat, if it involves killing somebody.
functional 11.30.07 at 1:38 pm
Holbo — I think the moral of this story is, you’re more likely to be understood if you actually spell out an argument than to when you’re all cryptic and cutesy.
John Emerson 11.30.07 at 1:44 pm
Say what you will, but if a woman dies during an unsafe or an illegal abortion, that’s one woman who’s not going to abort again. Recidivism among fetus-killers is extremely high.
Thomas 11.30.07 at 2:29 pm
You continue to elide the difference between a ban on abortion and a ban on partial birth abortion. Even if it could be said that a ban on abortion is a de facto regulation of female sexuality, that doesn’t mean that a ban on partial birth abortion operates the same way. Partial birth abortion is, we’re told by abortion-rights supporters, a very very rare event. Most women have sex, many have abortions, but very few have partial birth abortions. If one intended to regulate female sexuality, increasing the risks of abortion by banning late term abortion (assuming that the ban has that effect) is an absurdly attenuated way to accomplish the goal.
As for the update: I’d think that the recent controversy over embryonic stem cell research would be relevant. Lab work isn’t a form of having sex. There are some putative pro-lifers who think that abortion regulations are fine, but that regulations on embryonic stem cell research are’t (former Sen. Danforth comes to mind). But most pro-lifers of the sort you’re talking about are consistent in their views whether sex is involved or not. (And most pro-choicers are as well.) Sometimes the debate is really about what the debate is about.
bob mcmanus 11.30.07 at 2:35 pm
6:You were right the first time. Such a large component of the old ethico-religious systems are motivated on maintaining the patriarchy that some of us think the concept of natural property rights is a gendered derivative of male dominance.
Drake 11.30.07 at 3:30 pm
“I’m not sure what that would even mean.”
Signification capitulates to sonority.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 3:46 pm
Francis, “SH: if there were more than a shred of evidence that a substantial percentage of the anti-choice movement were dedicated only to stopping late-term abortions, you might have a point. As it is, that evidence doesn’t exist. You appear to be a member of a very small group, ie those people who so desperately want to stop the minuscule number of pre-natal premeditated infanticides (also known as medically unnecessary very late term abortions) that they are willing to risk placing the approximately 1.2 million American women who get an abortion annually on the slippery slope to prohibition.”
So you’re saying that even if you accept that they are in fact infanticides, it wouldn’t be worth stopping that because of the risk that stopping such infanticides might speculatively allow pro-life people to go beyond regulating the infanticides to restricting other abortions? Is that a fair characterization of your position? Because I don’t want to impute something really ugly to you based on a misreading.
Why would it be impossible to stop at ceasing the infanticide cases? Isn’t it likely to strengthen the pro-choice side in the rest of the cases because they don’t have to ridiculously defend the infanticide cases?
John, “Why do I get not to worry about that?” I don’t know, but you APPEAR to avoid worrying about that by waving it aside and saying that the REAL concern is controlling women. Now it is possible that I have done the same thing you did and inappropriately projected your motivations on your rhetorical technique. If so, I apologize, because doing so is an inappropriate way of characterizing your opponents.
Walt 11.30.07 at 4:38 pm
Sebastian: The states have always had the means to prevent medically unnecessary late-term abortions. Always.
bob mcmanus 11.30.07 at 4:40 pm
I did a search at Obsidian Wings for SH’s post where he explains his position on 1st term and mid-term abortions, but failed to find it. He has always been very cautious, careful and focused, and I have said elsewhere that I have zero evidence of a general misogyny with SH. It would be very hard to prove, and I have tried, that SH seeks to limit late-term abortions as a step to total prohibition.
Similarly he argues about constitutional interpretation very abstractly, refusing to go into the policy consequences of his textualism or originalism or however he describes it. Used literal and defensible interpretions of Geneva when discussing “unlawful combatants.”
He works very hard to avoid accusations of disingenuousness.
geo 11.30.07 at 5:19 pm
Seems to me that bruce baugh’s comments in #s 10 and 11 are not only unanswered so far but unanswerable.
Kathleen 11.30.07 at 5:42 pm
These high-minded arguments about “personhood” and everyone getting to prove their moral worth by stomping all over the bodies of pregnant women make me want to puke. It’s like Peter Singer proving his moral purity vis a vis animal personhood by airily declaring death to retarded people.
Society decides who is a person. That’s it. There is no inherent personhood in any entity. We discuss, debate, and decide in community.
Has no one noticed that CORPORATIONS are “persons” in social terms without having any of the supposedly precious super important qualities of personhood moralists like to wax on about at masturbatory length? How is this possible if “personhood” is a real thing given by moral universals? Might it be that “personhood” is socially given?
The point-scoring about “if you think fetus X is a not a person it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that you would happily shoot elementary school students at will” is just wankery-puffery.
We change our defnitions of personhood in social context *all the time*. Ask women and blacks and gays, they can tell you. It’s not about constructing the perfect moral argument and then informing the slack-jawed masses what they must therefore think.
It’s about the masses insisting on personhood of one type or another: which, sorry, can turn out as both rights for former non-persons like women AND *not* treating fetuses as persons.
I don’t begrudge the fetus-huggers using the civil rights argument, they should go for it. I think their actual motivations for using that argument is hypocritical misogyny, but whatever. What they need to accept, however, is they can LOSE that argument. Part of what undermines their stand is that if they really mean what they say (and, obvy, they don’t) they should be advocating for locking homicidal women up left and right.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 5:42 pm
Since Bruce doesn’t seem to provide a question, it isn’t shocking that it goes unanswered.
“I did a search at Obsidian Wings for SH’s post where he explains his position on 1st term and mid-term abortions, but failed to find it. He has always been very cautious, careful and focused, and I have said elsewhere that I have zero evidence of a general misogyny with SH. It would be very hard to prove, and I have tried, that SH seeks to limit late-term abortions as a step to total prohibition.”
In this spirit of comity, I’ll take that as a compliment.
mpowell 11.30.07 at 6:09 pm
So you’re saying that even if you accept that they are in fact infanticides, it wouldn’t be worth stopping that because of the risk that stopping such infanticides might speculatively allow pro-life people to go beyond regulating the infanticides to restricting other abortions? Is that a fair characterization of your position? Because I don’t want to impute something really ugly to you based on a misreading.
So Sebastian, what action could I take in the political sphere to oppose medically unnecessary late term abortions that would not risk more expansive bans on abortion? Remember, even this ban does not address specifically medically unnecessary abortions. And ‘risk’… really? I’m pretty damn sure that if we elect Republicans because they pass measures like this one we substantially increase the likelihood of vastly more expansive abortion bans. That’s why its pretty important to know what the motivations of the types of people who are typically driving these issues really are. Because once we elect them, that’s the agenda they will advance.
And I’m not afraid to say it: I’d rather allow partial birth abortions that qualify as infanticide (in the kinds of numbers we see today) than allow numerous states in the union to ban abortion outright or enact de facto bans for certain classes of poorer women.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 6:16 pm
it is awfully convenient for your argument because then you don’t have to worry about or talk about the actual personhood of the very late-term fetus
I also don’t have to worry about the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. More “conveniences” of being rational and insisting that words mean something.
“Personhood”? Can I observe said state on the aetherial plane?
.
Bobcat 11.30.07 at 6:34 pm
Kathleen writes, “Society decides who is a person. That’s it. There is no inherent personhood in any entity. We discuss, debate, and decide in community.” As evidence for this proposition, she writes “We change our defnitions of personhood in social context all the time. Ask women and blacks and gays, they can tell you.”
Er, surely the thing to say in response to this is that society was wrong in denying that blacks and women are persons?
As for grand moff texan’s contention that, just as we don’t have to worry about the (existence of the?) tooth fairy or the Easter bunny, we also don’t have to worry about personhood. After all, if we care about whether words mean anything, then we should care about whether personhood means something. Since it obviously doesn’t, then we shouldn’t care about personhood.
But I don’t find that obvious. I care, for example, about whether I or my loved ones are alive or dead. Why, you might ask? Well, I think there are all sorts of things I can’t enjoy when I’m dead (for instance, the company of my loved ones), and all sorts of things I can do when I’m alive (walk, talk, chew gum, etc.). It seems to me that a major difference between someone who is living and who is dead is that the former is a person and the latter is not. Moreover, one reason I would not like to be lobotomized is that I think it would diminish my personhood — defined as my ability to make decisions, my ability to have experiences, etc.
Thus, I think personhood can have a *fairly* definite meaning attached to it (not good enough for the purposes of mathematics, but good enough for philosophy, law, or ethics), and given the meaning I and almost everyone else attaches to it, it seems to me to be very important.
I take it I’ve missed Kathleen and grand moff texan’s points, though. Surely they could not hold the views I attributed to them?
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 6:41 pm
But “alive” and “dead” are well established words, bobcat. They more than adequately serve to describe the states and relationships you provide as examples.
Concocting a neologism, however, as a back door to legislating a minority view (around 14% last I checked) of ontology and ethics, elevating the ignorance that cannot distinguish a blastocyst from a human being into law, that’s something entirely new.
And, in a few years, they’ll try some other sneaky thing.
.
Who 11.30.07 at 6:52 pm
Globalyokel writes:
“The challenge I like to throw at right-to-lifers and the so-called ‘conservatives’ is this:
Reasonable people can differ on the morality of abortion; but do we want big government imposing itself and regulating the most intimate and sacred aspect of our personal lives?
That usually shuts them up. It helps to remind them that they are constantly complaining that government can’t do anything right— so why in the world are they inclined to trust the government on life + death issues like abortion and capital punishment?”
It’s posts like this (and John’s broad assertion that resistance to abortion is “strongly correlated” to opposition to birth control) that make me wonder whether some of the people here have so much as chatted with more than one or two pro-lifers (if any).
I doubt global’s comment shuts anyone up, except in global’s own mind. “Big government” does quite well in a number of areas, including capital murder, kidnapping, etc. “the most intimate and sacred aspect of our personal lives” is a bit of a giveaway here, since many people might argue that comment to be a bit of a muddle. Is it childbirth or sexuality or both that global’s writing about, or just whatever melange of both they have in their own mind.
Pro-life philosophy across the board is predicated on the idea that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protection. Since the Constitution deals directly with life and due process, it’s a very large stretch to make the case global tried to here. Laws against murder, assualt, rape, etc. are all quite Constitutional and quite sound as far as the public opinion goes. No one minds the government regulating those areas, even though there are plenty of thorny cases.
Global’s relying on the assumption that since they see moral ambiguities about the issue that everyone else does, but the fact is that most pro-lifers don’t in general about the fundamental principle described above.
Even where the concept of government reach is concerned, there is a commonly involed principle of handing the issue to the states rather than a federal ban (related to the little brouhaha here, actually) but people so inclined assume the states will make a judgement and have a say one way or the other on the issue, in taking such a position.
Global’s comments seem more like fantasy than the actual product of conversations with a broad swath of pro-lifers.
abb1 11.30.07 at 6:53 pm
Wait a minute, no one here said anything about any blastocysts. This is about late-term abortions, medically unnecessary late-term abortions. Can we at least agree on the subject matter?
Who 11.30.07 at 6:59 pm
I see Grand Moff is still at it, writing:
“Concocting a neologism, however, as a back door to legislating a minority view (around 14% last I checked) of ontology and ethics, elevating the ignorance that cannot distinguish a blastocyst from a human being into law, that’s something entirely new.”
First off, I very seriously doubt the percentage given. A source would be nice.
Primarily though, moff suggests that it’s ignorance that “cannot distinguish a blastocyst from a human being.” Just what distinctions will moff suggest, and are those reasonable ones. That’s where the disagreement lies. Rely on vague, shifty, and highly subjective definitions of human-beingness (or personhood) or rational, scientifically verifiable definitions of human beings.
Moff wants us to rely on shifting standards that don’t necessary guarantee the protection of many born humans (severely disabled for example) and then pretends that not accepting (as opposed to recognizing) the differences he posits as meaningful regarding abortion law is “ignorance.”
It’s a shifty, but ultimately dishonest way of arguing, “If you don’t agree with my position, you’re an ignoramus, just because I say so,” because abortion opponents recognize differences between blostocysts and say, 16 week old fetuses, etc. They just don’t happen to find that those differences are meaningful enough to justify the destruction of one over the other.
Who 11.30.07 at 7:02 pm
Abb1 – Blastocysts, fetuses, partial birth cases – it doesn’t really matter to the most committed “pro-choicers” which is why they opposed anti-partial birth abortion laws in the first place. Moff is at least honest enough to admit, whether intentionally or not, that ultimately pro-choice absolutists view all human life shy of birth as non-persons.
abb1 11.30.07 at 7:08 pm
Nah, there are no absolutists here, it’s just a matter of setting parameters. Discussing a hypothetical example or something.
Francis 11.30.07 at 7:11 pm
I will concede the following: in California, no person may conduct an abortion after 25 weeks without first obtaining written approval of a second Board-certified obstetrician selected by random process who must conclude that neither waiting for term nor attempting live delivery are medically appropriate. If the approval is not delivered within 3 business days, it is presumed given. Files will be reviewed (with patient anonymity guaranteed) on an annual basis by a peer review board which will have the power to revoke a doctor’s authority to conduct late term abortions and to conduct second-party reviews, but solely on the basis of violation of best medical practices.
Let’s keep prosecutors and AGs out of the process, thanks very much.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 7:17 pm
Moff is at least honest enough to admit, whether intentionally or not, that ultimately pro-choice absolutists view all human life shy of birth as non-persons.
“Admit”? How can I admit something I have not said and do not think?
Oh, that’s how. You seem to have a lot of those.
.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 7:22 pm
The 14% number represents the percentage of Americans who would support a ban on all abortions. It’s been trading in that range for a while. I believe it was Gallup.
The distinctions Who is asking for are much like the differences between caviar and fish. I can tell the difference. The proper descriptor for someone who can’t is ignorant.
Finally, as for vague and shifting standards for what is and isn’t a human being, we’re not the ones babbling about ensoulment.
.
Patrick 11.30.07 at 7:57 pm
Lemieux is at his best when he argues that actual abortion regulations actually favored by anti-abortion people are usually pointless, logically incoherent rules that do little to stop abortions from actually occurring, are barely if at all coherent from the position of someone who wishes to reduce the amount of abortions which occur, and are usually much more coherent if one assumes their goals are to use the law to inflict negative consequences on women perceived as sexually irresponsible.
Lemieux is at his worst when he ellides from this into arguing that actual opponents of abortion are actually unconcerned with the abortion rate and are actually quite concerned with regulating loose women. He often cavalierly dismisses the alternative hypothesis, that abortion opponents just aren’t very good at understanding law, medicine, and the real world effects of their own rules.
In my opinion, it is more likely that abortion opponents are simply knee jerk. They know they don’t like partial birth abortion, so, they pass a law saying it can’t happen. They then assume that they’ve accomplished something useful, without further thought or investigation.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 8:04 pm
the alternative hypothesis, that abortion opponents just aren’t very good at understanding law, medicine, and the real world effects of their own rules
You know, I made a similar point in a thread below, which prompted Who to cite “Silent Scream” (yes, that “Silent Scream”) to illustrate the level of legal and medical savvy among anti-abortionists.
He succeeded, but not in the way that he likely intended.
.
Who 11.30.07 at 8:25 pm
Moff,
You make me laugh. You’re the king of straw men on this board, generalizing the opposition and their principles without the slightest hint of irony in your remarks.
It would help if you’d give a direct answer to points instead of just hoping everyone is on the same memes that you’re working from.
As for abortion opponents not being very good at understanding law medicine, etc. That’s a hoot. Nathanson is an OB/GYN for example, and there are number of respected legal scholars on the pro-life side of things.
Just because a few of you wish your opponents were idiots doesn’t make it so. A shame you can’t get past that to the real issues.
PS change admit to infer and it will read just fine…especially if you deign to follow the context of the posting.
Who 11.30.07 at 8:28 pm
Moff writes:
“Finally, as for vague and shifting standards for what is and isn’t a human being, we’re not the ones babbling about ensoulment.”
You don’t babble much about DNA and individuality of life forms either.
As for your caviar/fish example, it’s a horrible analogy that doesn’t answer the original point, but I’m getting used to that with you.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 8:34 pm
Who, I’ve been both direct and clear, though I admit to having fun with language and toying with idiots like you.
I have answered you directly, which is why your only recourse has been to put words in my mouth, as you have done with others in another thread. Weak. But hey, if you can’t handle the subject I shouldn’t blame you for changing it.
Oh, and you’d have to change “admit” to “imply,” not “infer.” Nice of you to cite your straw man while accusing me of the same vice. If, in the future, I need yet another example of the ignorance of the anti-abortion movement, can I borrow you?
.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 8:35 pm
As for your caviar/fish example, it’s a horrible analogy that doesn’t answer the original point, but I’m getting used to that with you.
That’s because it’s not an analogy at all, but I’m getting used to you running away when someone answers your question.
.
mds 11.30.07 at 8:36 pm
You know, pace walt at 22, I might be willing to accept a compromise banning access to medically-unnecessary late-term abortions, rather than the status quo of unlimited on-demand abortions that are available nationwide to anyone who’s pregnant. Perhaps we could start out using “third trimester” as a rough guide for “late-term.” Yeah, I’d grudgingly accept such a Supreme Court decision, and I’m sure those here morally opposed to late-term abortions would, too.
In a heartbeat, if it involves killing somebody other than a pregnant woman.
Fixed that to make it more accurately apply to the D&X ban under discussion, Brett.
functional 11.30.07 at 8:37 pm
And Holbo, by the way, you still don’t understand Ponnuru’s argument, which may explain why he didn’t see the relevance of your initial (and typically precious) response:
I did indeed get it that what Ponnuru was calling absurd was, very specifically, Lemieux’ labeling of something as the intent or goal of a legal measure when it was only a predictable effect of that measure.
No, you don’t get it. What Ponnuru was calling “absurd” was not Lemieux’ labeling of something as the intent of a legal measure when it was only a predictable effect of that measure. As Ponnuru has made clear, what he calls absurd is the claim that regulating female sexuality is either the goal or the “predictable effect” of a ban on partial birth abortion.
Kathleen 11.30.07 at 9:06 pm
….aaaaaaand with mds we get the perfect storm: total ignorance of the actual “status quo”, description of “unlimited on-demand abortion” like women are loading up on abortions at Costco.
how many women other than me are on this thread?
mds’s “I might be willing to accept” (!?!?!?!?) just made me wonder.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 9:17 pm
“But “alive†and “dead†are well established words, bobcat. They more than adequately serve to describe the states and relationships you provide as examples.
Concocting a neologism, however, as a back door to legislating a minority view (around 14% last I checked) of ontology and ethics, elevating the ignorance that cannot distinguish a blastocyst from a human being into law, that’s something entirely new.”
This is annoying. As abb1 said (and yikes I’m agreeing with abb1) the issue being discussed is late term abortions. So if you are going to be quoting percentages, you should be talking about the around 60% of people who think that in most cases those should be banned.
mds 11.30.07 at 9:20 pm
kathleen, a diffident suggestion: it might be time to have your sarcasm detector serviced. (The modification of Mr. Bellmore’s self-righteous selective defense of “human life” could have acted as a tip-off, if nothing else.)
Watson Aname 11.30.07 at 9:26 pm
SH: Is that 60% number for late term, or viable?
Regardless of the motivations, pushing legislation (presumeably as a wedge) that doesn’t affect the ability to perform an abortion at a given point, but does force it to be done in a way demonstrably more dangerous to the woman — at best this shows disdain for the women. That is probably overly charitable to the proponents of legislation like this.
mds 11.30.07 at 9:28 pm
the issue being discussed is late term abortions. So if you are going to be quoting percentages, you should be talking about the around 60% of people who think that in most cases those should be banned.
And yet again, in most cases, under the Roe framework they already were. The D&X ban simply made obtaining the medically-necessary late-term abortions that are still legal more dangerous. I can understand how kathleen was taken in by my insufficiently over-the-top pronouncements that the status quo is “unlimited abortion on demand”, given that that actually does appear to be your ignorant / mendacious argument.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 9:45 pm
This is annoying. As abb1 said (and yikes I’m agreeing with abb1) the issue being discussed is late term abortions.
Red herring. I was very clear what I was talking about and understand that it’s only part of the picture. There is no requirement that all posters stick to the main issue of the post.
So if you are going to be quoting percentages, you should be talking about the around 60% of people who think that in most cases those should be banned.
Why? If “personhood” exists from the point of conception then all abortions, even early chemical ones, are the same as murder. Isn’t that the point?
That’s why I quoted that number.
As for your number, I have no idea what you’re talking about. “57 per cent of respondents think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37 per cent believe the procedure should be illegal some or all of the time.”
.
John Schuh 11.30.07 at 9:45 pm
All the discussion shows the absurdity of law which prohibits state regulation of a medical procedure, when the doctor owes his very right to practice to the state. All because of a badly written Supreme Court opinions that ignores the basic facts of human development.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 9:48 pm
“And yet again, in most cases, under the Roe framework they already were.”
De jure perhaps, de facto, no. In the late 70s and 80s the medical exemption in California was so broad that any psychological discomfort at not being able to obtain an abortion post-viability was enough to allow for an abortion. It was within one hair’s-breadth of complete abortion on demand. And since such requests now are never denied, I strongly suspect it is still the case.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 9:48 pm
Sorry, SH, I misread your post.
I now understand your statistic, but reserve my right to talk about what I was talking about even if you don’t think it’s the issue being discussed.
.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 9:52 pm
SH was being modest. This poll shows 72% supporting a ban on late term abortions, though the question included the non-medical term of abuse “partial birth abortion,” so I’m not sure if the number is valid.
.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 9:56 pm
“Why? If “personhood†exists from the point of conception then all abortions, even early chemical ones, are the same as murder.”
Sure. And where-ever personhood exists, it is murder AFTER that. The question is “where does personhood exist?” You are correct that about 14% of people think so at the point of conception.
Your statistic is deceptive and I’m pretty sure you know it. Even according to your statistics only 17-21% of people support abortion in all cases. Which cases do you think are the line between them and the additional 36% who are ok with it in most cases? I think you have a good guess that it is the post-viability abortions (and I know I’ve seen statistics that confirm that). But I won’t bother looking that up unless you affirm that you actually believe otherwise. Do you?
I’ll assume you don’t. So for an obvious majority of people don’t approve of abortions in ALL cases. According to your statistics that is about 73% of people. Unless you think those cases they don’t like somehow avoid the post-viability abortions, you just undercut your own argument.
abb1 11.30.07 at 9:57 pm
Could you explain the “in a way demonstrably more dangerous to the woman” claim, please. I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act and didn’t find anything there to support this claim. It has this statement:
If it’s demonstrably more dangerous, please demonstrate.
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.30.07 at 9:57 pm
Sorry, we cross posted.
Grand Moff Texan 11.30.07 at 10:06 pm
Your statistic is deceptive and I’m pretty sure you know it. Even according to your statistics only 17-21% of people support abortion in all cases. Which cases do you think are the line between them and the additional 36% who are ok with it in most cases?
It’s not deceptive once you know what I was talking about, which is not what you are talking about, but I’ll take a guess. Which cases do I think are the ones those polled would ban? Um, how ’bout the ones they were told were “partial birth”? That’s just a guess, which is not the same as a poll. I know that you know the difference.
If one could poll a group after giving them the actual details and incidence of late term abortions, without the irrational mumbo-jumbo and scare tactics, I’d be very interested to know the results.
.
global yokel 12.01.07 at 12:06 am
I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life” crowd if those same people demonstrated such high regard for the sanctity of human life in other contexts besides abortion.
cw 12.01.07 at 2:02 am
kathleen, i’m another woman on this thread. and what i find stunning is the way this fantasy of “medically unnecessary later term abortions” is being bandied about. anyone who has ever had a baby knows that the safest and easiest way out of a pregnancy at the point a d & x is done is vaginal birth; no woman would have this procedure unless something has gone terribly wrong. raising the specter that we’re all clamoring to have them recreationally is deeply insulting. whether or not the pregnancy is wanted, the experience of giving birth to a dead baby is monstrous, and no woman in her right mind would choose it unless the alternatives were worse. and no doubt some moron will pipe up that of course there’s a woman out there somewhere so depraved that she’ll ask for a “non-medically necessary late term abortion.” perhaps there is. and perhaps there’s a doctor out there somewhere with no rational sense of ethics, willing to undertake a gruesome procedure so she won’t miss her nail appointment, completely careless of any concern that someone that depraved might just sue him or her for malpractice. and never mind the odds of these two freak anomalies finding each other, or of the slim likelihood that a woman with that weak a grasp of practicality or morality is functioning highly enough to have access to adequate funds to sway such a cad. because their morbid, misogynist imaginations can concoct such a scenario, regardless of its infinitesimal likelihood, it is perfectly appropriate to subject the actual women whose real-life wanted or unwanted pregnancies have gone horribly wrong, who are experiencing what is likely the most traumatic and excruciating event of their lives, suffer through a more difficult and more dangerous procedure. because they have such a low opinion of us (we must be stopped from slaughtering our own children for frivolous reasons!) they’re entitled to inflict suffering on those of us who are trying to have babies. but they care about life more than those of use who produce it.
Sebastian Holsclaw 12.01.07 at 2:56 am
“I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life†crowd if those same people demonstrated such high regard for the sanctity of human life in other contexts besides abortion.”
Do you have particular individuals on this thread in mind, or are you just saying that in a free form sort of way? Do you object to Catholics who don’t like the death penalty and who don’t like abortion?
Sebastian Holsclaw 12.01.07 at 2:59 am
“and perhaps there’s a doctor out there somewhere with no rational sense of ethics, willing to undertake a gruesome procedure so she won’t miss her nail appointment, completely careless of any concern that someone that depraved might just sue him or her for malpractice.”
Who precisely would be suing this depraved doctor for malpractice? The woman who wants the medically unneccesary abortion? That seems rather unlikely.
Mithras 12.01.07 at 3:51 am
cw wins this thread-
because their morbid, misogynist imaginations can concoct such a scenario, regardless of its infinitesimal likelihood, it is perfectly appropriate to subject the actual women whose real-life wanted or unwanted pregnancies have gone horribly wrong, who are experiencing what is likely the most traumatic and excruciating event of their lives, suffer through a more difficult and more dangerous procedure.
That about sums up Holsclaw and his ilk.
Who 12.01.07 at 3:53 am
(Apologies for the length)
Grand Moff writes,
“Who, I’ve been both direct and clear, though I admit to having fun with language and toying with idiots like you.
I have answered you directly, which is why your only recourse has been to put words in my mouth, as you have done with others in another thread. Weak. But hey, if you can’t handle the subject I shouldn’t blame you for changing it.
Oh, and you’d have to change “admit†to “imply,†not “infer.†Nice of you to cite your straw man while accusing me of the same vice. If, in the future, I need yet another example of the ignorance of the anti-abortion movement, can I borrow you?”
I seldom do this, because unlike characters like Grand Moff Texan I prefer to try for at least some semblance of civilized discourse, but I have to point out that Moff calling me an “idiot” is more or less a compliment, given the lack of clarity and ludicrous quality of the arguments in his posts to me, and my general contention that moff seems to call people idiots as a way of dealing with the simple fact that they disagree with him. To put it in a way he seems to prefer, “Idiot, heal thyself.” You’ve only toyed with me the way a gazelle toys with hungry lion.
Enough of the faux chest-beating though. I don’t think moff’s an idiot in the conventional sense (beyond his underestimation of those who agree with him) He simply hasn’t answered my earlier objections at all. Moff, you’ve simply retreated to additional name-calling and presumptions, based on a willful disregard of the point I was trying to make earlier, and continuing pretenses that because people do see things exactly they way you do they are somehow more generally ignorant. I can understand and excuse this mistake to a point, but the belligerence it’s accompanied with is, to put it nicely, silly.
My earlier point centers around Moff’s suggestion (the nice way to put it) that pro-lifers (at least some) were ignorant because they didn’t know the differences between “blastocysts” and “human beings.” The fact is that the average pro-lifer knows what those differences are at a basic to advanced scientific level in terms of physiological differences, but from an ethical and moral standpoint holds that those differences are far less important than the difference between a genetically human individual life form and the ovum and sperm that came before it.
Moff accusation of ignorance thus stems not from any actual ignorance of the basics, but from disagreement with him (and others) that the differences he focuses on are somehow more meaningful, meaningful enough to decide that the life in question, although it is at a scientific level unquestionably human, can be freely destroyed.
The differences that Moff says pro-lifers are ignorant of are actually quite familiar to the pro-life movement. We simply and emphatically disagree that those differences are significant enough to destroy human life. The differences Moff wants to engage are shifting because they depend to a large extent on subjective definitions of nebulous concepts like personhood and human beingness (as opposed to humanness, which is the quality of being a member of the human race, something even zygotes qualify for at a scientific level).
So the straw man here is the conflating of different ethical valuations of certain differences with the outright ignorance of them. It’s a bit like telling people who don’t celebrate Chaunnakah that they are completely ignorant as to the existence of the holiday.
As to law, Roe v. Wade engaged the differences Moff focuses on with little to no legal precedent, settling on viability (which the SC essentially immediately overrode by offering another vaguary – the mother’s health – as an all compassing override switch for even viable fetuses.)
I’m happy to discuss the reasons I think such differences are ultimately unwieldy and unethical as grounds for the dividing lines of protection of human life, but Moff doesn’t seem interested in engaging me on anything I’ve raised beyond name-calling and self-delusional grandstanding.
As to words in one’s mouth, I would very much like to know where I babbled about ensoulement.
He does resort to ridiculous analogy, clumsy really since he never does address the differences I’m focusing on, regarding caviar and fish. He writes:
“The distinctions Who is asking for are much like the differences between caviar and fish. I can tell the difference. The proper descriptor for someone who can’t is ignorant.”
So, if I’m “asking” for certain distinctions, then clearly I can tell the differences since I want to make them. But the original differences Moff were alluding to people being ignorant of were the ones regarding blastocysts (which are not eggs as caviar are, but fertilized, partially developed but unimplanted individual human entities) and human beings (which as a term can mean either “persons” in the vague philosophical way or human organisms). Which is it? Either answer undercuts moff to some extent because if he’s suggesting the fish/caviar example is an analogy of the blastocyst/human being differences, he really doesn’t know what a blastocyst or caviar are. If on the other hand he’s suggesting that I’m settling on direct differences that are analogous to fish/caviar, then he fails to address why those differences shouldn’t be meaningful (probably relying the assumption that it is somehow self-evident, because he holds the view) and he doesn’t begin to address my assertion that because pro-lifers more greatly value certain differences that in no way makes them ignorant of other ones.
Perhaps Moff can make pie out of his rhetorical mincemeat here, but I’m skeptical. I feel a bit like I’m in the arguments I use to have with a young cousin, who replied to every comment I made, no matter how reasonable or paitient (and I’m honest enough to admit I can be pretty snarky sometimes) with the words “you’re just stupid.” After this gets repeated awhile in place of coherent answers, you begin to feel a certain irony set in.
Also, please look up “analogy” while you’re at it Moff. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy) When you compare two things to other things, even if you are being vague about those things, it’s analogous.
And also, one might note that infer and imply in certain contexts are synonyms. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer) but why all the quibbles if you’re really interested in engaging people on the issue? An old English major won’t hold things like that against you if you’re willing to really address some these points. The problem is you haven’t.
Who 12.01.07 at 4:10 am
Globalyokel writes:
“:I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life†crowd if those same people demonstrated such high regard for the sanctity of human life in other contexts besides abortion.”
Like opposition to the death penalty? (Raises hand) Concern for and donations to international children’s relief? (Raises hand). Opposition to euthanasia and abuse? (etc.) A certain selection of priests, bishops, and cardinals aside and those are pretty Catholic positions.
As before, I have to wonder if global talks to actual pro-lifers on a regular basis.
Of course, the line is a familiar one. Sometimes it’s played as a way to paint all (or let’s be charitable – most) pro-lifers as sex-prohibiting maniacs hiding behind the fetus but really not interested in human life beyond that little charade. Lest Moff raise the pretense that I’m building one of his straw men, let me add that I used the word “sometimes” and exgaggerate a bit for minimal comic effect. At other times, the line is code for, “our policies are really ones that promote the welfare of people whereas yours hurt them.” This is a common refrain among politicians who are pro-choice and like to empahsize that their focus on social justice and economic issues are somehow morall superior to a free market approach. Strangely enough, organized Catholicism is often well in tune with these individuals on those issues, to a large extent.
Sometimes it’s a bit of both.
Sometimes it’s just a line repeated as as bit of self-bolstering. I can’t speak for global but that last bit is the feeling I get from their post.
“I’d be a lot more interested in the arguments of the “pro-life” crowd” sounds pretty legit, but the generalization that follows (much like some of the same sorts of stuff in cw’s last post) presents an opponent consisting primarily of friendly, non-threatening (at least to the psyche) straw.
Maybe global could deal with the specifics of the contexts and sanctity they are referring to. I could be missing something, but since there are pro-lifers on both sides of the political aisle (as I’ve mentioned in another part of this blog – Nat Hentoff is a perfect example of a left-wing ardent pro-lifer) it’s hard to see how global’s assertion can be taken seriously as a real assessment of who “pro-lifers” are. The canard may be familiar, but it has little to do with real life. Most hasty generalizations don’t.
abb1 12.01.07 at 8:53 am
cw wins this thread
No she doesn’t, not even close. That was a really bad comment.
All she had to say is “I feel that medically unnecessary late term abortions are never ever performed because I feel it would be irrational and I feel that all women are rational”. Well, fine, just type this phrase and avoid gratuitous insults and rhetoric that make the comment even sillier.
Kathleen 12.02.07 at 8:32 pm
Another vote for CW winning the thread.
Alison P 12.02.07 at 10:44 pm
Thank you cw for your comment. It is easy for men to express themselves unemotionally as they seek to ban medical treatments that are only needed by women. It is much harder for women, who will bear the consequences, to be coldly unemotional as we try to defend our health and safety.
abb1 12.02.07 at 10:57 pm
That’s not a good way to defend anything. Sure, you can bully some (maybe even most) people into silence, but it won’t convince anybody.
Alison P 12.02.07 at 11:28 pm
I did use the word ‘bullying’ to refer to you in my comment originally, but then I thought long and hard, with the comment open on my computer, and I felt perhaps it was too subjective a judgement, and amended it to what you read above. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your tone in this thread comes across as callous and lacking in empathy to me. It seems to me similar to people who demand that soldiers go to die in battle, knowing that they personally will never have to fight.
abb1 12.03.07 at 8:10 am
This is bullshit. First of all it has nothing to do with you, in any case no more than, say, with my daughter. Second, there’s absolutely nothing callous in my tone.
Not that it matters much, but the truth is, if anything, exactly the opposite. If, indeed, viable fetuses are being routinely killed in the 7th, 8th or 9th month of pregnancy without sufficient medical reason (as Ron Paul’s quotes in the previous thread suggest) – not to mention in extremely barbaric way – then it’s you who sound callous and lacking in empathy. And also unpleasantly self-pitying, for no apparent reason.
Alison P 12.03.07 at 10:03 am
I will leave it to any readers who are still following this thread to judge whether you are adopting a bullying tone or not
Who 12.03.07 at 2:20 pm
Alison,
The silliness I find in your and cw’s comments is the broad way in which everything is generalized to the convenience of the argument, from the availability of medical procedures at the stage described to the implication that there are no women who feel differently than you do.
Such rationalizations may ease one’s mind in the darker hours but are hardly reflected in the variety of the real world. I certainly believe in a few universals myself, but they do have to accompanied by the absence of contradictory evidence. The moment a single woman, either dispassionately or emotionally, enters the thread to contradict you (I suspect that may have happened already) the basis for your argument is gone.
As to the idea that a few posters “voting” that cw “wins” the thread… well, I find that amusing, and quite self-serving. It’s as though the notion that one agrees with someone to the point where they decalre them the victor completely obviates the need to consider any points of the opposition’s argument.
Why not just say your mind is closed to alternative ideas and be done with it?
Kathleen 12.03.07 at 5:18 pm
Alison — just didn’t want to leave you alone with the creeps at the end of this thread. It’s hard not to get pulled into arguments with the creeps about this stuff, but for what it’s worth: yeah, they’re creeps.
abb1 12.03.07 at 7:26 pm
It’s hard not to get pulled into arguments with the creeps about this stuff…
Yeah, I bet; though miraculously you did manage to avoid presenting any arguments. Temper tantrum is not an argument, you know.
Comments on this entry are closed.