A very thoughtful post, and a welcome attempt to talk to, rather than at, us pro-lifers.
I would like to take issue with a few of your arguments.
You write: The nominal goal of such regulations is to make the woman concerned consider additional information and opinions or spend additional time thinking about whether she should or should not have an abortion, and then go on to say why this makes no sense.
Your position that requiring someone to be more fully informed of the facts than they might otherwise might be before making an important decision reflects a lack of trust and is somehow improper runs counter to one of the major themes in governmental regulation for the past 70 years. Securities regulations, FDA labeling requirements, truth-in-lending laws--to name just a few--rest on the premise that it is worth the added burden to ensure that important decisions are best made with full information. It seems strange to argue that in this one instance, the burden of being provided with information is an unfair one, when we insist upon it in so many other contexts.
Ultimately, I think your argument against counselling and informed consent rules is simply a restatement of your apparent belief that they have no good effect and are put in place merely to punish poor women. That is a factual dispute I suppose we have that cannot be resolved.
Further, you do not address the main flaw in the argument that a desire to regulate abortion is all about not trusting women. If you accept (for argument's sake) the pro-life premise that the fetus has legal interests which should be protected, how can it be that in this one area, the state cannot intervene to protect those rights, and rather must leave the protection of those rights to a third party--indeed, a third party with interests sometimes adverse to the fetus's. We have laws against murder and theft and myriad other things which people are supposed to know are wrongful violations of the rights of others, and which, left to their own good judgment, we believe that no reasonable person would do. It is no argument against those laws that they reflect a lack of "trust" in people to observe the rights of others.
So, maybe the better approach is to acknowledge the good faith of your adversaries, rather then trying so hard to explain why they do not trust women. The approach which might work on me is presenting the facts supporting your point (1), so that you can show me why someone who trusts and cares for women--as we pro-lifers do--but who nonetheless wants to protect rights we believe the fetus has, should not support the counselling and notification laws you are addressing because they are not effective means of acheiving our goals.
If you accept (for argument's sake) the pro-life premise that the fetus has legal interests which should be protected, how can it be that in this one area, the state cannot intervene to protect those rights, and rather must leave the protection of those rights to a third party--indeed, a third party with interests sometimes adverse to the fetus's.
This argument doesn't relate to the regulations I'm discussing, because they do not put the decision-making authority in the hands of an impartial third party. (Not that I think regulations that did transfer decision-making authority to a judge? hospital review board? would be either a good idea or politically popular, but they would fit the paradigm of 'the state protecting the interests of the fetus against the interested mother' in a way that compelling the mother to make two visits to her abortion provider separated by 24 hours does not.)
Just asking, but how many persuadables do people like us find ourselves talking about these issues with? You never know, be prepared, good arguments will spread out, etc. But still, if I dig out invitation lists, or walk through a week's likely meetups, I realise damn near everybody is already there, or really quiet about it. People whom I know think differently, like nephews and their wives, are people with whom I just can't imagine the subject could possibly come up, unless the law changes, and maybe not even then.
So when do we make this argument?
they do not put the decision-making authority in the hands of an impartial third party
Sure they do. For example, they create a neutral rule that certain information must be provided to all mothers before they abort their fetuses, no provider may provide the abortion before the information is provided, and all mothers are free to do what they want after having received the information.
Again, if you want to argue that such procedures are not well suited to acheiving their stated goals, that's a different argument, and one that I think is worth considering.
Thinking of the best way of attacking republicans would be a better starting point. It's republicans who hold the unpopular view on abortion.
3: Well, there's conversation, and then there's public discourse. I hold the position of the 'liberal weirdo who Uncle Buck married' to my teenage nieces, so I get asked questions about "what does your kind think about X?" sometimes, giving me some room for gentle influence. And politicians have to campaign on this stuff -- not that anyone influential is reading this, but probably someone who reads this is a couple of degrees of separation from someone who is.
I really can't respect a `pro-life' activist who isn't campaigning at *least* as hard on issues of poverty and child rearing under difficult circumstances. It is an essentially flawed stance (not to mention cowardly) to advocate hardship for others to ease your own conscience...
Oh, I get that, and I'm my extended family's legal first responder, although no one has ever asked me what my kind thinks about X. I think when th' rinform comes we'll all be talking about this more, so it's best to be prepared.
Again, if you want to argue that such procedures are not well suited to acheiving their stated goals, that's a different argument, and one that I think is worth considering.
For one thing, the counselling requirement in many states requires that false information be provided to the woman. If you click through my link, three states require that women be counseled on a link between breast cancer and abortion -- there is no such link. If you want me to find you the links, I can, but trust me that it's been debunked. Likewise with the three states that require counseling on severe psychological effects of abortion on the woman -- there is no reputable research showing that such effects exist in any way such that childbirth is less psychologically dangerous. (That's six states in all -- the two sets of three don't overlap.)
Can we agree that laws mandating the provision of false information are a bad idea?
Great post. Also, I really like "at the woman's discretion". Compared to the usual "on demand", it (I think accurately) frames it so much better as a considered decision the woman is making. "Abortion on demand" might have made sense in the original 70s movement but now it sounds like you're ordering a movie from Pay-Per-View.
10: Which is why the word choice, even in the 70's, came to be the salient one. It seems to have worn out.
Can we agree that laws mandating the provision of false information are a bad idea
Of course we can agree. And this is the best way to argue against such laws.
Counseling on the subject of fetal pain, for abortions at a point before early in the third trimester when the brain has developed enough to have the capacity to process sensations is also required in several states, and is also based on a factual untruth.
re: 9 & 13, doesn't this legally require doctors to not do their job, i.e., offer the best medical service, which includes advice, that they're capable of providing? I don't know, has the AMA brought suit or anything?
"Further, you do not address the main flaw in the argument that a desire to regulate abortion is all about not trusting women. [...] It is no argument against those laws that they reflect a lack of "trust" in people to observe the rights of others."
I think this is a strawman. LB isn't saying that there isn't a consistent position valuing fetal life that advocates for laws restricting abortion. (She says that there is.) But just because such a position exists doesn't mean that others don't support certain restrictions on abortion for other motives. You seem to be saying that the existence of this extreme but consistent position is a flaw in the argument that there is another group that holds a different position.
Idealist, how about this hypothetical: Accepting (for sake of argument, if you will) that obtaining abortions is already too difficult for many of those least likely to be well informed (especially youth), any such information constraints make things worse. However, if you feel that such education is important (with strenous exception to false information --- we are talking about factual *and complete* information), why not decouple this from the abortion process entirely. And since nothing but good can come of boys being better informed too, make this part of mandatory junior high school (or perhaps late grade school?) education. Problem solved, or not?
You seem to be saying that the existence of this extreme but consistent position is a flaw in the argument that there is another group that holds a different position
No, I think the recognition of the fetus's legally-protectable rghts is the cornerstone of the pro-life view. Some pro-lifers believe that this means that abortion can never be justified, notwithstanding the clear rights of the mother, others, like me, think that at some stages the fetus's rights--while always present--are trumped by the mother's. But the basic viewpoint is the same.
What I do not think is a basic pro-life view is that we do not trust women. I have never heard someone say that they opposed abortion for this reason. And I have know a lot of people who would describe themselves as pro-life. So I do not know who this group you need to engage is. To be sure, this being a big world, there must be someone who really does oppose abortion because they do not trust women. But making this the premise of a discussion is like my engaging in a discussion with Democrats starting from the premise that they hate America. Again, this being a big world, there no doubt is a Democrat out there who hates America, but (assuming you are a Democrat), would you find this to be the best way to engage you? If you really do hate America, I'm not going to convince you of anything anyway. And if you do not, and rather we simply have different--but genuine and reasonable--views about the best way to make this a better world, you might not be inclined to listen to my arguments if my premise is that you hate America rather than that we have a disagreement on facts or on how best to address the facts, even if we agree on them.
re: 16
I have no problem with sex education in school, including education for both sexes about abortion. At the same time, if I were in favor of requiring informed consent at the time a woman seeks an abortion, I would not find sex education in high school to be a reasonable alternative. If it is important enough to do, it's important enough to do at the time, when the interest in the material is less theoretical.
But then again, perhaps my view is skewed by how few classes I showed up for in high school and how little attention I paid in most of the few I attended.
Some pro-lifers believe that this means that abortion can never be justified, notwithstanding the clear rights of the mother,
And as I said, that's a position I can respect, but there's not much to argue about. Not the target of the post.
others, like me, think that at some stages the fetus's rights--while always present--are trumped by the mother's.
Here, the question is do you, personally, support the regulations we're talking about? Or given that the answer is probably "some, not others" which regulations do you support? Mandatory counselling giving false information, I understand is a no. Waiting periods, increasing the difficulty and expense of abortion, at no obvious gain other than (1) making the woman think about having an abortion for at least a day, presumably because the assumption is she wouldn't otherwise and (2) placing an obstacle in her path?
19:
That doesn't address my (hypothetical) contention that coupling of education and abortion in this way is in itself a problem, does it?
Perhaps I was being a bit opaque. Essentially what I am asking is: are you trading off some presumeably better educated (avoiding, for the moment, problems with the `education') decisions for some people who are too intimidated (or otherwise blocked) to follow through with their decisions? These things are difficult to quantify, of course.
You speak of such regulations as if they unambigously only have an upside, and that is just not true.
do you, personally, support the regulations we're talking about
No, but that does not mean that I find many of them unreasonable, much less instituted for any bad motives.
For example, you phrase the issue as: Waiting periods, increasing the difficulty and expense of abortion, at no obvious gain other than (1) making the woman think about having an abortion for at least a day, presumably because the assumption is she wouldn't otherwise and (2) placing an obstacle in her path? Well gee, who could be in favor of that? But what if one thought that counselling and a waiting period would ensure calm, mature and informed reflection before making an important decision affecting the rights of others? Further, what if one believed that the burden on the poor was not nearly as bad as you assume, and was at any rate, more than worth it. Then counselling and a waiting period would not seem like such a bad idea.
The point here is salami tactics: These regulations generally have no particular relationship to protecting anyone's rights -- they are designed as obstacles. (For example, while there's nothing wrong with mandating the provision of accurate, useful information to a woman before she chooses to have an abortion, a requirement that falsely frightening information be provided? Is an intentional obstacle. A requirement that the woman be physically present at the clinic the day before the abortion, in a country where many women have to travel hundreds of miles to get to an abortion provider? Is an intentional obstacle. A 'safety' requirement like the one in the linked article, with no obvious relationship to actual safety? Is an intentional obstacle.)
If it can be made clear that regulations on abortions generally do not protect women or protect any 'rights' of the fetus in any rational manner, we may have more success organizing people in the middle to oppose them.
But what if one thought that counselling and a waiting period would ensure calm, mature and informed reflection before making an important decision affecting the rights of others?
If one thought that, that would be a case where the question "Do you trust women?" would be absolutely appropriate. Someone who thought that would think that there was a substantial risk that women generally would not bother to consider the moral issues involved in an abortion unless their attention were forcibly directed to them by a daylong waiting period. (Note: Obviously, there are some female moral idiots, as there are some male moral idiots. The objection here is the assumption that some significant percentage of women capable of engaging in moral reflection simply wouldn't bother unless compelled.)
Really, what would such a person think of women generally?
You speak of such regulations as if they unambigously only have an upside, and that is just not true.
Not at all. Who more than a libretarian Republican would accept the notion that all regulation has downsides. Of course abortion regulation has downsides. That regulation has downsides says nothing about whether the regulation is acceptable, else there were be no laws at all, and I am not one of those libretarians.
This is, to me, the whole debate in a nutshell: Does regulation designed to protect the rights (in my view) of the fetus justify the infringement of the rights of the mother?
The point isn't that those who are pro-life consciously say "hey, I don't trust women, so I'm pro-life." The point of the "not trusting women" argument--which I agree with, btw--is that it points out the underlying logical conclusion of a lot of anti-abortion regulations and rhetoric.
If you have a position that abortion is *sometimes* okay, then that by definition means that you don't think it is *absolutely* akin to murder. That a judgment call has to be made about when the circumstances (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, the mother's health, whatever) are dire enough to make abortion okay. Therefore, saying that we need to legislate/advise/counsel women, as a class, about when it is and isn't okay implies that women, as a class, are not capable of making those decisions.
It's very silly, imho, to think that women who are pregnant are *less* likely to think of all the reasons not to have an abortion (but it can become a baby! but it's mine! but I'm the one that got myself knocked up!) than we are, sitting around with our theoretical thought experiments. It's condescending. It demonstrates, to my mind, a lack of trust in women as moral agents and decision makers.
It's not an argument to say that we have laws against murder and theft because we don't trust people not to do them. No; we have laws against murder and theft because we feel that murder and theft and wrong, across the board. We don't offer people counselling about when it is okay to kill someone, or when it is okay to steal; we don't suggest that judges or doctors or store owners be required to issue licenses to kill or steal if the circumstances are proven okay according to X set of standards; we don't have a complex network of regulations requiring people to get permission to murder or steal from their parents, or to only do it in some cities, or only between the hours of 9-5, or to wait 24 hours to think it over first. It is the existence of regulations that concede outright that abortion is, in fact, sometimes okay--but we really really don't like it, missy, and we really want you to think hard about this before you go through with it--that demonstrates a lack of trust in women's moral autonomy.
Does regulation designed to protect the rights (in my view) of the fetus justify the infringement of the rights of the mother?
The point is that the regulations we're discussing don't make sense as a protection of the rights of the fetus. A ban after some developmental stage does, certainly (I'd argue strongly with anyone placing that stage anywhere other than at conception (which, while I disagree with, is a reasonable breakpoint) or somewhere in the early third trimester when the brain begins functioning in some manner comparable to that of a fully developed human).
A requirement that the mother be physically present at the clinic twenty-four hours before the abortion has no obvious relationship I can see to any rights the fetus may have. If there is such a relationship can you talk me through it?
(and, as usual, what B. said.)
25: I notice you still haven't addressed the point, but won't push you on it. I'd definitely question the idea that in general, such regulations are actually designed the way you say, though. As LB and others note here, it just doesn't hold together. It seems most plausible that some legislation is being proposed and passed simply as the maximum nuisance value that people can manage to legislate -- people who would rather legislate against abortion entirely but know they couldn't get it to pass.
My most lengthy and thoughtful discussions about abortion with someone who is part of the mushy middle were with a 25-year-old guy. He was honestly and sincerely convinced that outlawing "partial-birth abortion" was a Good Thing. I struggled to find a way to challenge the "facts" he thought he knew by presenting the facts I think I know -- namely, that it's medical procedure, and horrible to contemplate, sure, but it's used rarely and for very good medical reason, and that removing it from doctors' options for treating their patients is a bad idea.
We went around on this for a while. I knew he was arguing in good faith, so I tried to present my perspective as clearly and fairly as possible. It's just really, really hard to shift thinking when the person is operating with a paradigm that says "This procedure is evil and if we outlaw it, women will go with less evil abortion procedures and we'll have saved some babies from a more gruesome kind of death."
Another part of this is the class issue. When I probe some people's arguments (not talking about Idealist or anyone here, since I don't know you personally), I hear something that sounds like, "Well, of course SOME of us would think this through long and hard before we did it, but OTHER people wouldn't, and we need this waiting period to be sure that they really know what they are getting into."
To me, this is a confusing morals with laws. Morally, YES I would love for every single woman to think clearly and carefully about her decision to not have (or have!) a child. (And I think that the vast majority of them already do.) Morally, yes I would love for any woman having an abortion to tell her husband or significant other, and preferably discuss it with him at length.
But legally? Do I think my government ought to require every single one of 150 million female Americans to follow somebody's idea of "careful" decisionmaking? Hell no.
Really, what would such a person think of women generally?
That they are human.
It's not an argument to say that we have laws against murder and theft because we don't trust people not to do them. No; we have laws against murder and theft because we feel that murder and theft and wrong, across the board.
Consider tort law. Everything you do during the day impacts someone else negatively, if only in the most de minimus way. However, you are not liable to them except where you have injured them by acting unreasonably. Who gets to judge whether you actions were reasonable? Not you. The law does not grant to anyone--man or woman--the right to invade the rights of others and to be free judgment just because the actor decided that she knew what was best both for her and the other.
The thing is, if one believes that a fetus has rights, citation to a woman's moral autonomy is an insufficient answer. Not that the woman's autonomy is not vitally important, it just is only part of the equation.
re: 29
Sorry. I'm way behind at work and have self-indulgently spent too much time here today. I will respond later.
Given that this is the message that I got when I tried to post this, I do not appear to be the only one who thinks I have posted too much today: In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
Ideal, you keep on appealing to the idea of an impartial decision maker, weighing the reasonability of the woman's choice to have an abortion (i.e., with the comparison to tort law, in which an impartial court decides whether the defendant's actions were wrongful.) This idea simply has no application to the regulations we're talking about. No one, other than the woman involved, is going to pass judgment on whether her actions were reasonable. The regulations simply provide procedural hoops she must jump through before making her unreviewed decision.
Now, I would also oppose a regulation putting the decision in the hands of an 'impartial' decision maker, for other reasons. But given that there is no such regulation on the table, talking about the regulations that are on the table as if they fit that pattern doesn't make sense.
I am so damn burned out on these threads. And my first comment got eaten. So I'm assuming I haven't been banned, so, excellent post, LB, and surprise, surprise, I still don't find the 'do you trust women?'-style of argument likely to convince. And I don't want Idealist to feel dogpiled.
We're talking about elective abortions, so let's compare them to other forms of elective surgery or medication. And I don't mean this pejoratively at all - elective certainly doesn't imply frivolous in the way I'm using it. Perish the thought. But it's a decision where the overwhelming deciding factor is the patient's wishes rather than a pressing medical need. (Think bunion surgery, or removal of a small lipoma or mole, or many of the 'cures' for back pain, or breast reduction surgery. Or anyone where the patient might go either way, depending on the risks & benefits.)
In those other instances of elective surgery (and all surgery), the doctor's job is to inform the patient as much as possible to the risks and benefits of the procedure. The pain, the expected recovery time, the expected benefits all should be laid out to the patient. It would be ludicrous to suggest that full disclosure of the risks and benefits somehow compromised the patient's autonomy What use of agency if founded on a lie? Neither do we assume that a patient considering surgery already has all the accurate facts. And again, offering this information isn't usually taken as evidence that the doctor thinks the patient isn't capable of making her own decisions.
Now, certainly there are well-informed patients who, before visiting the doctor, have so thoroughly researched their condition and symptoms that the doctor's information is redundant. But it would be absurd to suppose that because some patients are well-informed, that all are, and it would be negligent to refuse to inform patients on the grounds that they probably know it anyway. After all, who would consider an elective surgery without knowing all the risks? Don't you trust patients?
So, why is this different with abortion? There seems to be one major reason: most of the information is outright false, lying by omission, intentionally misleading, and emotionally manipulative. And that is perhaps the *only* place where 'do you trust women?' might attach. Why, if you are so convinced that abortion is wrong, Mr. Pro-Lifer, do you feel the need to lie to women about its risks and benefits? Why isn't the counsel of their doctor enough? And perhaps the moderate pro-lifer has an answer. (I suspect it's probably: we don't trust Planned Parenthood.)
But note two things: First, this doesn't get us out of a mandatory waiting period, nor of information requirements. (LB's first argument against waiting periods I think is more compelling: they don't do what they hope, and they hurt poor women.) It only gets us the requirement that patients should receive accurate information about abortion, just as they should receive information about any other major procedure. Second, none of this argument turns on trusting women or not trusting women; it's about sparing a woman from having to sift through false information at an already emotional time.
Oh, Idealist, that's just Unfogged-software-speak for 'You double-clicked on the post button, we think you are the spambot.'
I'm all for the 24-hour waiting period, but the state should waive it if the woman can produce an essay, notarized and dated, reflecting on her decision to abort the pregnancy. I don't see what's left to debate except fonts and margins.
That reminds me, no abortions if you use Comic Sans.
you keep on appealing to the idea of an impartial decision maker, weighing the reasonability of the woman's choice to have an abortion
I am not sure I understand. I am saying that the people can make laws restricting abortion. I am saying that I do not see the injustice--at least as a theoretical matter--of laws requiring informed consent, etc. Are you saying that I have suggested here that a judge or doctor decide before the fact whether a woman can have an abortion? I do not think I have done so, could you point it out to me? I think what I have been talking about are clear regulations of general application.
Now, there is a situation which we have not discussed where this could come up, and those are "health of the mother" exceptions to bans on third trimester abortions (hasn't the Supreme court said that such exceptions are required? not sure). I suppose that I would expect a doctor to make the decision whether the exception applies.
So, why is this different with abortion?
You've moved the goalpost a bit here, haven't you? We're arguing about regulations that apply only to abortion, not to other elective surgeries. In that context, isn't an argument that abortion should be subject to the same standards of information disclosure, etc., as all other surgeries an argument against, rather than for, such regulations?
(And you should so not worry about being banned. I can't imagine what would lead me, or anyone else who posts here, to ban someone.)
I can't imagine what would lead me, or anyone else who posts here, to ban someone
Though trying to imagine might make for an intersting discussion...
Consider tort law. Everything you do during the day impacts someone else negatively, if only in the most de minimus way. However, you are not liable to them except where you have injured them by acting unreasonably. Who gets to judge whether you actions were reasonable? Not you.
Ideal, this is an appeal to the idea of an impartial decision maker. I'm not saying you're advocating this, I'm saying your rhetoric is disconnected from the regulations at issue.
I'm trying to think of an analogy to the situation here, where the question is when does the fetus have rights that must be protected? LB and B probably think "around quickening" which is in the third tri. Idealist seems to think much earlier, perhaps at any time where surgical abortion is needed.
Does this logic mean Idealist would apply the same restrictions to morning-after medication?
Slavery is a sort of analogy, in that everybody recognised a moral right to fair treatment, but there was a sharp divide over whether the slave had or should have rights. Wasn't settled amicably.
Children are an analogy, in the sense that they have more rights as they grow, but torts done against them, for instance, toll--wait unitil they can assert them.
Re: Cala's 34: Does any American state currently require doctors to provide any specific information about the costs and benefits of any elective surgery, major or minor?
(I would imagine this issue is addressed solely by malpractice laws, including discussions of what constitutes "informed consent." Am I wrong?)
I certainly think that there is plenty of unnecessary surgery in this country. But I don't think my discomfort with that is enough to require a government law or regulation to make super-super sure that doctors, with 10+ years of education and training, really manage to provide patients with the full list of costs and benefits.
I would imagine that the alternate perspective on this issue is that if you believe the fetus has rights, then you may rationalize government intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship by saying that it's NOT just between doctor/patient. But I dunno. Am I misrepresenting?
Idealist seems to think much earlier, perhaps at any time where surgical abortion is needed.
Not to speak for Idealist, but he's in a peculiar rhetorical position here. From earlier conversations, my understanding is that his sense of when the fetus's rights 'trump' the woman's is at about six months. He's pro-life in an argumentative sense, but were he writing the laws I believe they'd look fairly similar to the Roe regime.
I would imagine that the alternate perspective on this issue is that if you believe the fetus has rights, then you may rationalize government intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship by saying that it's NOT just between doctor/patient.
Yes.
this is an appeal to the idea of an impartial decision maker.
Ture, it has nothing directly to do with the specific regulations at issue. It was meant to respond to the more general claim that I mistrusted women because I would be willing to curtail their right to act based solely on their own view of what was best. We do not do that in any other case where the rights of others are at stake, I do not see why we should do it here.
I don't know the law. I'm pretty sure I could sue if my doctor just assumed I knew the risks, performed the procedure and it turned out I had been unaware of them and was unhappy with the results, though. And I think I'd feel betrayed if it turned out I'd been lied to, by omission or otherwise.
LB, I didn't intend to move the goalpost. I'm just saying with the class of elective procedures, of which abortion seems to be a member, we presume that the patient should be informed. How that should occur, could indeed be an argument against waiting periods, etc, in that abortion should not be singled out specially. But we don't generally presume that the patient has done his own homework and just give them the procedure they demand, crying 'patient's agency' otherwise.
And my only point, really, is that if we want to convince the moderate pro-lifer, accusing him of a secret philosophical misogyny that neither he nor anyone he knows is aware of, is probably not the best method. Especially if there are better arguments at hand.
And if you use A4 paper, no contraception for you, either.
33: I think that Ideal has argued (and I'll say since he's gone for now) that these procedures can be considered to be inanimate analogues of impartial decision makers. I.e. a waiting period is identical to an arbiter whose decision criterion is that women who have waited X days at the abortion clinic are more likely to be getting an abortion for the right reasons. The fact is that no human arbiter would actually use anything close to that criterion, but that's the analogy.
And, if I understand, you're arguing that since these restrictions don't actually have anything to do with a woman's suitability to have an abortion by *any* moral standard (unless you posit things like "punishment for sex" or "women aren't trustworthy") that the analogy really fails.
OK, looks like Idealist didn't leave. So maybe scratch my post.
accusing him of a secret philosophical misogyny that neither he nor anyone he knows is aware of
The point (which obviously isn't clear, which is why this discussion is useful, and thank goodness there are people like you and Ideal arguing) is to make it clear that these regulations don't make sense in the context of balancing a fetus's rights against a woman's. Some make sense in the context of being as harassing and discouraging as possible in a realm where most people won't vote for an absolute ban on abortion (i.e., counseling on an imaginary link between abortion and breast cancer; 'safety' regulations requiring that abortion clinics be shut down for reasons unrelated to actual patient safety). Others make sense in the context of a belief that women won't think seriously about deciding to abort a pregnancy unless compelled to -- an awfully contemptutous position to take.
I don't mean to compel anyone who supports abortion regulations to confront their true inner misogyny. I mean to make the point that these regulations are either irrational, cynical, or misogynist, and that someone who supports them should think about the specific regulations they support, and ask whether they have any reasonable relationship to 'balancing rights' between the woman and the fetus.
I don't really want to comment on this at all because I'm so tired, but let it be said that I'm both pro-life and pretty much totally in agreement with this post.
I don't really have much else to say, however, as this post is explicitly not aimed at me, one of the hardcore pro-life extremists.
And my only point, really, is that if we want to convince the moderate pro-lifer, accusing him of a secret philosophical misogyny that neither he nor anyone he knows is aware of, is probably not the best method
Absolutely.
To be clear, I think LizardBreath has bent over backwards to keep her disagreement civil despite what I know to be her strong feelings on the subject. It is a rare and wonderful thing (and something I sometimes am unable to do).
Now I really have to get some work done and then go do my other job, now that I am a partner--meet an old friend and beg for work. Ah the glamour of being a New York lawyer.
I was thinking of calling you out by name, but I figured that if anyone reads this who doesn't hang in the comments, it would get confusing. It's maddening -- I can actually get along fine with what I've described as committed, consistent pro-lifers. I disagree, but you guys make sense. People who take intermediate positions (not that I don't appreciate you a great deal, Ideal, Cala) make my head spin.
(I shared a house with the president of the MIT Right to Life association in college. We got along great, barring the time that I pointed out to her that selling pumpkins was a peculiar choice for a Halloween fundraiser, considering that people were going to cut them open and scoop out the seeds. But she forgave me after a week or two.)
And while I'm bonding, Witt -- you're new, or have I just not noticed you before? In any case, someone should be by with a fruit basket shortly.
And if you use A4 paper, no contraception for you, either.
That's harsh, Cala. Haven't we all experimented with Tray 4 at one time or another? Though it should go without saying that I've never personally loaded Tray 4.
And while I'm bonding, Witt -- you're new, or have I just not noticed you before?
Longtime lurker. I figured I should delurk when I realized I was mentally referring people to the appropriate post in the archives when in-joke #7,162 came up.
In any case, someone should be by with a fruit basket shortly.
I mean to make the point that these regulations are either irrational, cynical, or misogynist, and that someone who supports them should think about the specific regulations they support, and ask whether they have any reasonable relationship to 'balancing rights' between the woman and the fetus.
The problem with this is that accepting the position (here, being moderately pro-life) is not the same as accepting the reasons for the position (not trusting women), and there are lots and lots of possible philosophical ways to get to any position. I don't think there's an exhaustive list here, and Idealist certainly doesn't seem to think his views are anywhere on there.
When confronted with the conclusion that he's a misogynist, our interlocutor can either a) concede, heap ashes on his head, and become fully pro-choice, b) bite the bullet and figure that being accused of misogyny by a bunch of liberals probably is worth a few baby lives or c) provide an alternate justification that avoids the misogyny.
None of this gets him to confront the issue of balancing woman/fetus rights as neatly as pointing out that all the measures proposed haven't done the job they hoped they would. One's a philosophical argument and one's a practical one.
We've all experimented with that foreign paper, SB, but we should know better than to let our indiscretions see the light of day.
None of this gets him to confront the issue of balancing woman/fetus rights as neatly as pointing out that all the measures proposed haven't done the job they hoped they would.
Doesn't establishing that the regulations we're discussing are "either irrational, cynical, or misogynist" make that point? After all, innocently irrational is an option.
So are we forcing him to confront his inner Bitch or no?
? I'm not following. I said this:
I don't mean to compel anyone who supports abortion regulations to confront their true inner misogyny.
if that's what you're asking. The point I'm hoping to make is that these regulations don't make sense outside of a cynical or a misogynistic mindset, hoping to convince the odd moderate out there into saying "Hmm -- while I would like to see the rights of the fetus balanced against those of the mother, I see that the actual regulations being passed serve that purpose very, very, poorly."
Isn't that all confronting the inner misogynist is? 'Hmm, I thought I had good, fetus-saving reasons for this, but the only reasons I have are nasty woman-hating ones. I don't wanna be a woman-hater! Or a pirate!'
I don't think the list of irrationality, cynicism, and misogyny is exhaustive (neither does Idealist, who actually is a proponent of pro-life pro pro cala can't think), and certainly saying 'These are your three options' doesn't make it so.
I just think if we want to say, 'The actual regulations intended to balance the rights of the fetus against those of the mother serve that purpose very, very poorly.' we can do that by showing that the actual regulations serve that purpose very, very poorly. Like you did in your first argument.
The law does not grant to anyone--man or woman--the right to invade the rights of others and to be free judgment
But what those who would ban abortion are arguing for is a law that grants to a fetus the right to invade the rights of a woman. Her right to determine what happens to her body and her right to refuse to use her body to support someone else's. life,
Isn't that all confronting the inner misogynist is? 'Hmm, I thought I had good, fetus-saving reasons for this, but the only reasons I have are nasty woman-hating ones. I don't wanna be a woman-hater! Or a pirate!'
Not really. The hoped for thought process is "I supported these regulations, but hadn't picked them apart on this level. I now realize that they make no sense unless one is (1) cynically trying to prevent women from getting abortions despite the fact that an absolute ban is politically impossible or (2) viewing women's decision-making capacities in a misogynistic way. Given that I am neither cynical nor misogynist, I exert the noblest power of the human psyche, that of changing my mind when I decide that I was in error, and I now no longer support the regulations in question."
Saying that the regulations are misogynist doesn't accuse everyone who supported them of being misogynist. It merely points out that if one is not misogynist, then these regulations are poorly suited to serve one's purposes. That's an accusation of being mistaken, but you can't change anyone's mind, ever, about anything, without convincing them that they were wrong in the first place.
something about this thread has me idly wondering if one can find a legislator who has both supported restricting access to abortion such as discussed, but fought against reduced access to birth control and/or sex education?
That would be interesting. These are generally going to be state laws, so if you're restricting yourself to people who've actually voted for the restrictions, you aren't going to get a national figure, but my guess is that at the state level, legislators like those you describe are few and far between.
The non-misogynist moderate pro-lifer can respond:
I believe that the majority of women who seek abortions are poor, single, and young. They are likely to be under an intense amount of pressure, are the least likely to have received adequate education on this subject beforehoand, and may well have no authoritative person with whom to talk about her options.
Given that, requiring that truthful and relevant information be presented to the woman prior to the procedure enhances her autonomy by allowing her to make a more fully informed decision. In a perfect world, certainly, women would enter abortion clinics well versed in what the procedure involves, the possible moral implications, and so forth. But we do not live in a perfect world. In this world, time, class, race, money, etc. place substantial limits on our ability to obtain and analyze information. Information requirements simply ensure that no one makes a decision without knowing all the facts, regardless of her position in society.
Ok, but do we think it's a good idea to inform these poor, single, young women about the probable economic effects of having children while one is poor, single, and young? Or just the "it could become a baby, you know" stuff?
>These regulations still leave the decision in the woman's hands – they just assume that women, as a class, can't be trusted to inform themselves of the relevant facts and make abortion decisions thoughtfully and after moral deliberation. That assumption, made by someone who has considered it explicitly, reflects a profound contempt for women as moral decision makers.
I agree that the type of regulations you are talking about are bad ideas. But, abortions are not wrong, so there really is no requirement for any moral deliberation. It is a question of what you want to do with your life.
A) What information, particularly, do you think women considering abortion are lacking? (This is a real question. An honest portrayal of the medical risks would tell her that a surgical abortion is safer than continuing the pregnancy. IMO, an honest portrayal of the social services and support available for a poor single mother would probably tell the woman that there was less help available than she had guessed -- people seem to have an inflated idea of what welfare will do for you -- but I could be wrong. An honest portrayal of the moral issues? What facts is she likely to be lacking here? She knows she's pregnant, and she knows the fetus will be a baby in nine months if she doesn't have the abortion, and she knows that babies are people. I can't see what morally relevant facts she's likely to be unaware of.) What were you thinking, in some specific sense, that a woman considering an abortion should be told before she makes the decision?
B) I'm really not all that opposed to mandatory counseling, so long as it's accurate and not abusive. What sets me off is mandatory waiting periods requiring physical presence in the clinic some time period before the abortion, so that the process cannot be completed in one day of travel. Can you come up with any reason that either (1) telephone counseling or (2) same-day counseling wouldn't serve any legitimate purpose for counseling?
I can think of one: early in the pregnancy, it looks like a ball of cells, not a cute baby like on the pro-life packets.
I suspect that won't make the pro-lifers happy.
Seriously, I think all you'd need is the relevant, true medical information and the Planned Parenthood questionnaire decision tree type thing.
Part of what irks me about the mandatory counselling laws is that Planned Parenthood and most abortion providers--hell, most ob/gyns, period--are awesome about counselling and educating patients. But of course the kind of counselling and education they give isn't the kind of counselling and education a lot of people want them to give. Most providers do their jobs because they're really committed to respectful, responsible women's health care--after all, they have to walk through picket lines to get to their jobs, they get threatened explicitly and implicitly, and so on. They're not interested in guilt-tripping or scaring women in difficult situations by giving them misinformation or exploiting their emotions when they're in crisis.
But, abortions are not wrong, so there really is no requirement for any moral deliberation.
Yeah. This is a post in which I'm trying to find common ground with the moderate pro-lifers so as to convince them that although we differ on the phiosophical and moral issues, we don't need to disagree on regulations. I suppose I haven't made my own moral position clear, which is that a fetus is not an entity with rights or interests before some point early in the third trimester when its brain reaches a level of development comparable to that of a human being, and that abortion before that point is simply not wrong, regardless of the reason. After that point I am unsure enough of myself that I am comfortable with a ban with exceptions as described in the post. But arriving at that position took a certain amount of moral deliberation.
65: Not entirely an answer to your question, but illuminating statistics.
"She knows she's pregnant, and she knows the fetus will be a baby in nine months if she doesn't have the abortion, and she knows that babies are people."
I take it that moderate pro-choicers (where I categorize myself) use a viability or brain-function standard in judging at what point the fetus's rights begin to rival the mother's, but presumably there are other ways of looking at the question. The person in question might well not be aware of the stages of development, and that info might be relevant to her decision. (Guttmacher says the most-cited reason for +16 week abortions is "Didn't know I was pregnant".)
Time to sleep on a decision is often invaluable. If tomorrow morning someone offers me a job about which I have possible moral qualms and says, you have to decide today, I would feel much more pressured than if I had a full day to think about it.
Note again that European countries impose waiting periods and lecturing; do you think this is simply burdensome?
Uninformed question - are there analogous regulations in adoption, divorce, marriage law that seem reasonable? In buying a weapon?
"these regulations aren't going to preferentially discourage the abortions you disapprove of"
I don't think you made anything like this case - you noted classes of people likely to be unduly hindered, but that's not a reason to reach your conclusion.
Rilkefan:
Let me direct you to the questions I asked Andrew in my 70:
I'm really not all that opposed to mandatory counseling, so long as it's accurate and not abusive. What sets me off is mandatory waiting periods requiring physical presence in the clinic some time period before the abortion, so that the process cannot be completed in one day of travel. Can you come up with any reason that either (1) telephone counseling or (2) same-day counseling wouldn't serve any legitimate purpose for counseling?
Again, it's the logistical burden that bothers me, not the counseling, so long as that counseling is accurate and not abusive.
This:
Time to sleep on a decision is often invaluable. If tomorrow morning someone offers me a job about which I have possible moral qualms and says, you have to decide today, I would feel much more pressured than if I had a full day to think about it.
is kind of silly, isn't it? The woman in question has as much time as she wants to consider the issue, within the limits of the gestational process. No one is suggesting that women be pressured into undergoing abortions without time to think. I am saying that mandatory waiting periods calling for physical presence in the clinic are logistically burdensome, and are burdensome for no good reason.
Note again that European countries impose waiting periods and lecturing; do you think this is simply burdensome?
I don't have a detailed sense of the abortion regulation regime in European countries. If you describe one in detail, I may or may not think it is overly burdensome.
In 75, I read Rilkefan as saying the mother would learn new things in the counseling, and would need a night to sleep on it after learning those new things.
Right, which is why I keep harping on the physical presence requirement, which, in the absence of false or misleading information, is all that bothers me.
I think there's little argument that information is best learned in person in most cases, and my first thought - that it would be reasonable to require watching a video on the web and answering a few questions to prove participation - run into issues of class and education and language and privacy. Also I have some uninfomred qualms about counselling done over the web or phone - clearly better than nothing, but I suspect considered problematic by professionals.
I guess I wish a spectrum of Europeans would comment on their systems and their cultures' preceptions of the regulatory schemes.
To my mind a more immediate issue than the abve is that of minors. I see them as having a better argument in general for obtaining abortions for non-medical reasons, but less of an autonomy argument.
Also I have some uninfomred qualms about counselling done over the web or phone - clearly better than nothing, but I suspect considered problematic by professionals.
I just can't see this as reasonably sufficient to legally require the logistical burden for all women who need abortions, given the distances that many women in the US have to travel to reach an abortion provider. Some subset of women might be uninformed about the developmental stages of pregnancy (obviously, of course, a woman who was unaware she was pregnant until 16 weeks would not practically be able to get an abortion at her first visit to a doctor), might be able to absorb that information better in person than on the phone, and might absorb it more fully after having a day to think about it. For that reason every woman who lives too far from a clinic has to be forced to take two days off work and spend a night in a hotel? The possible benefits seem wildly out of step with the costs.
I see them as having a better argument in general for obtaining abortions for non-medical reasons, but less of an autonomy argument.
I'm right with you here.
I think there's little argument that information is best learned in person in most cases.
In which case, isn't it a bit arrogant for people who are not pregnant to presume that they have *more* information about the circumstances of being pregnant, and the particular situation of pregnant woman X, than pregnant woman X herself?
re: 21
Essentially what I am asking is: are you trading off some presumeably better educated (avoiding, for the moment, problems with the `education') decisions for some people who are too intimidated (or otherwise blocked) to follow through with their decisions?
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I think counselling laws can be justified by the argument that they, on balance, ensure that hard decisions in which someone other than the decisionmaker has an interest are made responsibly. Might such rules make it harder for some women than others to exercise their right to make informed decisions about abortion for themselves. I imagine so. And this is something that certainly should be considered in enacting such laws (just as, as was pointed out upthread by LizardBreath, informed consent laws only make sense if, as a minimum, the information provided is correct and relevant). However, to say that a law may not be passed because it is not perfect, and might make life harder for some than it does for others, is a standard no other law is expected to meet. It is, of course, a standard which no law could meet.
Re: 63
You are exactly right. The pro-life basis for regulating the right of a woman to abort a fetus is that the rights of the fetus--which if not aborted likely will be born and become an independent person--at some point and in some ways trump the rights of the mother to determine what happens to her body and to refuse to use her body to support someone else's life.
But if LizardBreath's post and the resulting comments--particularly Cala's--accomplish nothing else, maybe they could make people consider that the best response to that position is not to start from the premise that pro-lifers hate or mistrust women, but rather that (1) you respectfully disagree with the notion that a fetus should have rights of that magnitude (it's a very hard question, I grant you--that's why although I am philosophically pro-life, I think there should be wide latitude for women to make abortion decisions on their own before the state gets involved) and/or (2) (LizardBreath's point, I think) even if you accepted the premise that a fetus has rights which the law is bound to respect, most of the regulations proposed on abortion do not reasonably advance their intended goals.
To be sure, while I have not noticed anyone here calling pro-choice people baby killers, the lack of civility often goes the other way, and it would be a good thing if pro-lifers took the same point about not assuming their opponent's bad faith. It really is hard to have a useful conversation when your opponent starts with the premise that you are either a knave or a fool.
Anyone know a good pro-life web site that should be given a link to this post?
82: I don't think we are too far apart on this. I'd fully back a law insisting that accurate information and counselling be made available to all women without (significant) obstacle. However, I think you have to be very careful with counselling laws, and most of the ones I've heard of have been, on balance, bad laws in my opinion. Particulary in the case of false information being propogated, but also care must be taken if there is an imbalance of power. I certainly think that any woman facing this decision needs to have access to information and counselling....
... however, as LB notes above, access to abortion is non trivial to a lot of people. Putting obstacles up like multiple visits doesn't serve to meet your goals, as far as I can see, and I would have to judge that overall this is a larger problem than lack of counselling, so would err in that direction rather than the other.
Of course I no more believe in perfect laws than you do. I do, however, see flags when `might make life harder for some people' tends to systematically mean the same people, over and over again.
I suppose that ties into my original comment in 7.
GAH! of course 84 was me, replying to Idealist.
stupid cut-n-paste ^#^*^#%. I suppose I need sleep.
LB @ 76:
"I guess I wish a spectrum of Europeans would comment on their systems and their cultures' preceptions of the regulatory schemes."
I'm very out of touch with the details of the position in Britain these days, but these links might help. The first one is a clear setting out of the law, by a mainstream voluntary organisation which gives advice on all sexual and reproductive issues to young people. The other one is the advice you'd get from the Citizens Advice Bureau, which is the most accessible source of information outside the health system.
http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M5_7_abortion.asp
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/young_people_health_and_personal.htm#Abortion
The general ethical/political position here is that for most people of any age, abortions before the 24 week limit remain readily accessible, though if you really didn't know where to start and you were unlucky with your doctor, or English wasn't your first language, you would have problems.
The 24 week limit is based on estimates of viability at the time of the most recent legislation (1990), and there is certainly growing pressure from "pro-life" groups to revise it backwards. The "pro-life" movement has never gone away in Britain. In the 70s and 80s we saw off three attempts at restrictive legislation, and I'm not complacent about it now. The leadership tends to be Catholic rather than evangelical.
Sorry if I've taken your request a bit more seriously than you wanted - I seem to have droned on a bit.
chris, that was me, and thanks.
I would guess point a) from your first link means that technically there is no regulation at all beyond the (nontrivial) practical issue of getting two doctors to agree. I also wonder if the two-doctor rule is a de facto waiting period.
rilkefan,
Sorry. Yes, it certainly can be a de facto waiing period. It's a lottery, to put no finer point on it. Depends on where you live, how well resourced the nearest clinic is, how well disposed your General Practitioner is, whether you're rich enough to buy your way past the queue...
Also I have some uninfomred qualms about counselling done over the web or phone - clearly better than nothing, but I suspect considered problematic by professionals.
Sort of. Standard medical informed consent (at least in a research context, which is my area) requires that a doctor witness a signature/cosign the form. However, the information given pre-consent is not required to be done face to face (to the point where even high risk surgical trials can do initial patient recruitment over the phone). Regulations also require that consent be obtained by someone with sufficient medical training to answer any questions that the patient may have- a doctor or nurse, although others can substitute, depending on the trial.
Oddly, the waiting period may have a legal leg to stand on, if nothing else- I've heard tell of at least one case where a doctor gave the relevant information and consented a patient the morning of a surgery, and there was some legal trouble afterwards (this may be unique to research, possibly even my area of research- most patients are under quite a bit of stress the morning of, and consenting them in that state with no lag so they could withdraw consent is considered unethical)
One reason I'm opposed to restricting even purely elective third-trimester abortions (though in practice I know this position is unlikely to be popular) is the possibility of chilling effects. Suppose we ban them--what form does the ban take? A fine? Revocation of license? Prosecution for murder? On whom, in practice, is the burden of proof that the abortion wasn't the forbidden kind?
I'm willing to grant that the question of the morality of these cases is a hard one, but we're talking about law here; I know that access to abortion has been severely curtailed even for the cases where it's legal, both by various legal encumberments and by the demonization of doctors. Purely elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses in the third trimester are (unless I am mistaken) relatively rare, rarer than late abortions of seriously abnormal or medically dangerous pregnancies, and the common practice of talking about viability as a mark on the calendar seems contrived to blur the distinction. I'd want to see solid assurances that banning the banned ones isn't going to make it difficult to perform late-term abortions in the permitted situations, or legally scary for doctors to perform them.