Allow me some idle speculation on the political benefits of the repeal of Roe v. Wade
All of this talk about how outraged working-class red-staters ostensibly are about abortion (among other things) has made me contemplate the political benefits of the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
I know, I know. I don't want to save progressive taxation on the backs of women with unwanted pregnancies. I'm an abortion-rights extremist, actually. But bear with me for a second.
Roe v. Wade, by taking the abortion issue out of the legislative bodies and into the court system, leeches accountability out of the political system. Pro-life politicians get a free ride: they get to claim all they want that they want abortion to be illegal with no consequence for any of their constituents who might have an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice voters get to vote for pro-life politicians without any accountability for their votes either, because they know that the courts will keep abortion legal.
In the meantime, the weakness of the fundamental tenet of the pro-life position -- that a zygote is the equivalent of a human being -- goes unchallenged at every turn. Jim Demint, the new Republican senator from South Carolina, said on Meet the Press that he didn't know who should be criminally liable for an abortion if it was made illegal. George Bush's father and many other ostensible abortion opponents claim they favor exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Nancy Reagan was happy to abandon pro-life absolutism when embryonic stem-cell research held out hope for her husband. Abortion opponents make a big deal out of what they call "partial-birth abortion" when they're a tiny percentage of abortions, while the great bulk of abortions are done in the stage of pregnancy when the fetus does not resemble something that looks gruesome on a placard (RU-486 is the most extreme example in the other direction).
People, if a zygote is a human being it's a human being, and it's inconsistent to have an exception for rape, or to allow embryonic stem cell research, or to hold a woman who procures an abortion to a different standard than anyone else who pays for a crime to be committed, or to make the biggest fuss about the smallest percentage of abortions. Yet none of this intellectual dishonesty goes challenged in the public mind, and Roe v. Wade is like a giant tranquilizer in the sky making it all possible and sheltering people from the full brunt of their ostensible beliefs.
For the sake of women with unwanted pregnancies, I don't want Roe v. Wade to be reversed, but envision for a moment a world in which is was reversed, and people have to swallow hard and stand up for their beliefs. That will be easy for the people who really are pro-life, the Alan Keyeses of the world, but I suspect that most of the people who claim to be pro-life today (even a normally straight shooter like John McCain) would retreat really fast if their views actually had consequences. That wouldn't just apply to politicians, but voters too.
I know, I know. I don't want to save progressive taxation on the backs of women with unwanted pregnancies. I'm an abortion-rights extremist, actually. But bear with me for a second.
Roe v. Wade, by taking the abortion issue out of the legislative bodies and into the court system, leeches accountability out of the political system. Pro-life politicians get a free ride: they get to claim all they want that they want abortion to be illegal with no consequence for any of their constituents who might have an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice voters get to vote for pro-life politicians without any accountability for their votes either, because they know that the courts will keep abortion legal.
In the meantime, the weakness of the fundamental tenet of the pro-life position -- that a zygote is the equivalent of a human being -- goes unchallenged at every turn. Jim Demint, the new Republican senator from South Carolina, said on Meet the Press that he didn't know who should be criminally liable for an abortion if it was made illegal. George Bush's father and many other ostensible abortion opponents claim they favor exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Nancy Reagan was happy to abandon pro-life absolutism when embryonic stem-cell research held out hope for her husband. Abortion opponents make a big deal out of what they call "partial-birth abortion" when they're a tiny percentage of abortions, while the great bulk of abortions are done in the stage of pregnancy when the fetus does not resemble something that looks gruesome on a placard (RU-486 is the most extreme example in the other direction).
People, if a zygote is a human being it's a human being, and it's inconsistent to have an exception for rape, or to allow embryonic stem cell research, or to hold a woman who procures an abortion to a different standard than anyone else who pays for a crime to be committed, or to make the biggest fuss about the smallest percentage of abortions. Yet none of this intellectual dishonesty goes challenged in the public mind, and Roe v. Wade is like a giant tranquilizer in the sky making it all possible and sheltering people from the full brunt of their ostensible beliefs.
For the sake of women with unwanted pregnancies, I don't want Roe v. Wade to be reversed, but envision for a moment a world in which is was reversed, and people have to swallow hard and stand up for their beliefs. That will be easy for the people who really are pro-life, the Alan Keyeses of the world, but I suspect that most of the people who claim to be pro-life today (even a normally straight shooter like John McCain) would retreat really fast if their views actually had consequences. That wouldn't just apply to politicians, but voters too.
Labels: abortion
posted by honestpartisan | 2:54 PM
8 Comments:
This needs to be said. You are brave to put it in writing.EB
I personally have mixed feelings on abortion. On the one hand, I find the idea repugnant and those who use abortion as a method of birth control somewhat reprehensible when alternatives exist (although they are more work and less pleasant).
On the other hand, I don't want children to be with parents who don't want them. I don't want the precedent set that someone can legislate what a person can and can't do with their body. I really don't want a return to the nightmare that was pre-Roe v. Wade illegal abortions.
In the end I choose to support the right to choose not because I am particularly convinced by the "a two day old zygote is not a baby" argument, but because the alternative suggested by Pro-Life supporters in no way appeals to me.
from ratzlow:
interesting, but i wonder if the reversal or a threat of a reversal would ever inspire federal legislation. i guess probably not, it would be left up to the states, and i think rights should be federal. i don't wanna see interstate travel for abortions and intensified state rivalry on this issue. i think it could break up the union, which i don't think would help anybody either.
the only hope for progressives (and why do you hate this term, jack?) is to intensify efforts to make abortions as rare as possible, which they should be. we have to intensify efforts to improve our health care system and reduce poverty and increase the number of community support groups, including communal child rearing. (i'm also interested in sustainable development that includes allowing workers with families to be able to relax their weekly hours without driving into the poorhouse)
to me, the moral issue has never been interesting. this issue is about lack of social capital and social welfare. imagine a country where health care is a right, where day care centers and schools are in the same building, where communities are actually communities and not ghettos or suburban sprawl or frenzied hyperactive urban areas, and you have just imagined a world where there are very few abortions. i know, i'm an idealist and possibly naive. but i would like a progressive politian to say, and kerry seemed like he wanted to say this, abortions are a necessary evil, but an evil we can contain, let's just invest in trying to eliminate the root causes of abortion
there is no quick fix to this issue. the problem must be attacked at the source: poverty, communal isolation, abuse, ignorance, recklessness, youthful arrogance. only when the number of abortions are extremely rare will this issue go away.
Hi Dave,
I like what you have to say about the root problem being poverty and community issues. Ideally, women would be in situations where they are choosing their future and where they have a variety of positive choices.
However, I don't see abortions as "evil" or wrong. If a zygote is a human being, then it's a human being and killing it would be wrong - no matter what the circumstances (poverty, rape, incest, etc.) If it's not a human being, it's not. As a pro-choice person, I don't think that abortions are killing human beings. So what's evil about it?
I hope that I'm not twisting your words (when you refer to abortions as a "necessary evil"). But I felt I had to comment on your comment.
Rachel
The root cause of abortion is that the woman does not want to have a baby.Her right to choose.Dave, you will never be faced with this decision.Don't presume to know along with all the men of the world what it means to go forward with a pregnancy or not.Poverty and health care issues alone do not determine a woman's right to coose.EB
The root cause of abortion is that the woman does not want to have a baby.Her right to choose.Dave, you will never be faced with this decision.Don't presume to know along with all the men of the world what it means to go forward with a pregnancy or not.Poverty and health care issues alone do not determine a woman's right to choose.EB
i actually don't believe in evil, i meant “necessary evil” more as an expression
but would you agree that an abortion in the 9th month is, if not evil, wrong?
how about the 8th or 7th month?
there is no clear line between when it is wrong and when it is not wrong
many people believe abortion becomes wrong at conception
others believe it is not wrong up until the 1st day of the 3rd trimester
both ideas are too simplistic for me
i think it's probably okay the first day
a mistake happened, happens to everyone
but the closer we get to the full term the more wrong it is
especially if abortions are used as a form of birth control
as for a man having an opinion on the issue
of course, i will never have to face this decision directly
but all i was saying is, i hope women (and girls) can face this decision
without having to worry about health care and a feeling of isolation
and i also hope a decision to have or not have a baby is also considered before getting pregnant
i don’t think that is too controversial
ratzlow
Dave,
I guess I still don't understand what you mean by the expression "necessary evil" then. (even if we think of the term "evil" to mean "wrong")
And I agree with you that the issue isn't so simplistic - of course an abortion in the 9th month is wrong. But are abortions in the 9th month (or the 8th or the 7th) really the issue we're talking about here?
Rachel
Post a Comment
<< Home