Partial-Birth Abortion: What are the liberals really saying?
Posted on April 26, 2007
Filed Under Liberalism, Abortion |
Opponents to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion (or IDX) argue that the decision–the ban itself–only serves to increase the health risks to women, at least in certain circumstances.
I think the truth behind their opposition has different roots.
First, it seems obvious to me that this ban really makes very little difference to the overall abortion issue, at least from the liberal perspective. The IDX procedure isn’t the standard choice, so it’s not like the ban is going to create a dramatic shift in medicine. I think that the opponents oppose this ban so vehemently because, to them, it strikes fear into their hearts about the future solvency of the right to have an abortion all together. Their passion is somewhat misdirected, then, on this partial-birth abortion ban decision, because they’re not really mad about that; they’re afraid for the future of Roe v. Wade.
Many opponents also claim that their real problem with the decision is that it represents an encroachment of government into matters in which it should not be involved. In this case, the truth of what they are saying is that government’s regulation of medical procedures is an affront to science–the religion of liberalism. This ban, in their estimation, is an attack on their god. After all, “how dare the government question and subvert the supremacy of the medical and scientific communities!? Science is infallible and should be allowed to act in whatsoever manner it sees fit relative to what is best for individuals and humanity in general!”
The issue is really about weighing the lesser of two evils. On one side of the scale, the evil of government infringing on the rights of citizens (which is the core evil from which our Constitution was born); on the other side of the scale, the evil of murder (and let’s not mince words–ending a life, no matter at what level of development, is murder). At face value, murder seems to be obviously the greater of the two evils, and at this point liberals might be tempted to launch into a debate about “when does life really begin,” and all that nonsense. But that’s beside the point. Truthfully, these two evils are both pretty serious considering their attendant ramifications, but I won’t get into a long essay about the absolute necessity of agency.
So, to stick with the issue at hand, we have to weigh the two evils according to the facts that we have.
- Fact 1: no matter how you slice it, abortion is effectively murder. Whether you call it murder or “termination” or whatever, the end result is the same: one less human on Planet Earth.
- Fact 2: literally hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed each year in the U.S., the vast majority of which are NOT IDX. Statistically, very (and I mean very) few of these abortions result in long-term or permanent health complications for the woman.
- Fact 3: the medical statistics do not bear out this purported (and irrational) fear of an increase in health risks for women. If there is to be an increase, it would not be considered significant and certainly does not rise to the level of epidemic as some liberals seem to be suggesting.
- Fact 4: the use of IDX as a convenient method for terminating unwanted pregnancies in late term has been on the rise in recent years, medical considerations aside.
Given these facts, the comparison seems pretty easy: it is far less an evil to allow this ban as a blanket measure for protecting the lives of citizens (even the unborn ones) and to deal with any resulting health issues for women on a case by case basis than it is to continue to allow IDX to be mainstreamed. If IDX is off the table as a convenient alternative for mothers in the second and third trimester, perhaps they will consider committing to motherhood, adoption or some other means of dealing with their pregnancy rather than simply falling back on IDX because it’s “safe and easy.”
Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Those exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis, each according to its own merits, so to speak.
It seems obvious: there is far less bad that comes of this ban than there is good.
Now, you liberals who disagree, dispute me.
Comments
7 Responses to “Partial-Birth Abortion: What are the liberals really saying?”
Leave a Reply
It’s not called “termination” it’s called “interruption.”
I’ve yet to figure out how a person resumes the pregnancy after having interrupted it, but there you go.
When I had to chose between three medical benefit plans, all of which covered abortion, I picked the one that used the word “abortion” in their literature. IIRC, the other two used “termination” and “interruption.” I particularly remember the “interruption” term because I found it obscene.
I heard it again recently about making abortion legal in Mexico City (or was it Mexico as a whole?)… one of the proponents was happy that women would now have the right to “interrupt” their pregnancies.
–Followed you here from QandO. Will blog roll you if you like. My blog roll is wimpy and I don’t post enough, but maybe I ought shape up.
Synova, an excellent comment.
As you can tell, I haven’t posted much, either…yet.
I’m happy to add you to the roll, though.
How do you deal with the fact that most liberals are also Christians?
And you approach this argument as an existentialist, a rather an odd stance, it is. You state that
“Fact 1: no matter how you slice it, abortion is effectively murder”
You don’t have a basis for your position, so you simply affirm it as true. That’s cart before horse if ever I saw it.
Using your methods, I hereby declare that Counterfact #1: Life begins at birth.
I’m on the same solid ground as you.
See further comments at my blog, where you have posted.
“Life” does not start at birth. The fact of being “alive” is very unambiguous. A single cell is either alive or dead. A virus or germ or even a seed is alive or dead.
No matter how you slice it, abortion kills a distinct living organism.
Kill being an active sort of verb.
Many fetuses die without having been killed.
Now is “killing” necessarily “murder?”
Ordinarily the various sorts of murder require a human victim and some measure of intent. An abortion is clearly intent. Is the word “effectively” enough to say that the statement allows for viewing the event in a less than immediate context? Does it allow the point that the distinct living organism starts to count as a human being, capable of being murdered, to be seen in potential?
It’s a less outrageous thing to say than to suggest that “Life begins at birth” when it quite obviously does not.
The point at which a fetus counts as human isn’t quite as obvious, perhaps, but it’s arguable while “life begins at birth” is not.
Well played, Synova.
I’m actually writing a new post to address this issue further. When it’s up, I’ll add a link from this comment.
I’m probably not willing to say that abortion *is* murder. I’d be willing to entertain a simple definition for human life at both ends such as brain activity.
Brain activity, NOT thinking. I don’t think that babies are even quite “all there” for several weeks after they are born. In fact, you can look at a baby one day and suddenly get the idea that “someone’s home”.
But trying to define “now it’s human” is so very difficult I’m not sure we should even try.
And considering the options that science may bring us in the future we probably need an ethical standard that has some flex to it. Trying to define “human” and “not human” makes me think of past efforts to define people as “not human” or “not having a soul”. Cloning or even genetic engineering or anything that uses human DNA is frightening to some people and I think unnecessarily so.
I suggest a standard of a “good faith effort”.
Because killing a fetus is wrong doesn’t mean that we’re obligated to go to extreme lengths to keep a fetus from dying or prosecute mothers for prenatal injuries. A good faith effort, not an extraordinary effort, to allow a fetus to grow should be made. It allows for medical necessity. It allows for quite a lot. It allows for the needs of the mother to come first if something happens.
This also, very nicely, covers issues of cloning or human experiment. Good faith. The clone or other subject must be given a fair chance to grow up. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t. Back seat of a car or a laboratory… you don’t do the things that make a person without taking responsibility for the life you make. That means a good faith effort to follow through.
[…] a previous post, I made the assertion that abortion is effectively murder, to which my liberal opponent […]