Ah, Public Opinion

Third Way did a bunch of polling (PDF) in support of their new messaging report on the subject. In one section, the questioner says "I am going to list goals for some legislation before Congress regarding abortion. On a scale of 0
to 10, please tell me how strongly you support that goal, with a zero meaning you do not support it at all, a five meaning you are neutral toward it, and a higher number meaning you support it." Here's a couple of results:

People, in short, are pretty evenly divided on the question of banning abortion in all but the rarest cases, with 45 percent of the population having a pretty positive take on this abortion-banning concept. But the public is horrified by the idea of enforcing such a ban with prison time. That's not contradictory, as such, maybe tons of people think abortion should be illegal but punished merely with a light fine. It doesn't, however, make very much sense given the importance of the competing issues in play.

Comments

If abortion is murder, then why not jail time? Seems quite contradictory to me.

Perhaps only 11% of the country really feels that abortion is murder?

This video addresses exactly this issue. It illustrates just how little the most ardent anti-choice defenders have really thought about their own idiotic position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Posted by CKT | October 4, 2007 11:05 AM

There's an easier way of avoiding the contradiction. I would guess that many people think abortion should be enforced with prison time only on the supply side, much the way locking up drug dealers or prostitutes is more popular than locking up their customers, who are more to be pitied than blamed. It's a carelessly worded question, it isn't clear how the 'or' should be read.

Posted by Boring Commenter | October 4, 2007 11:09 AM

Boring Commenter makes a good point. The second question should be split into two before anyone draws any firm conclusions.

Still, I have little trouble believing that the American public wants contradictory things.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 4, 2007 11:17 AM

I would guess that many people think abortion should be enforced with prison time only on the supply side

See the part of Q.34 where it says "or performing one"

it isn't clear how the 'or' should be read.

Probably in the obvious way. Here's a wikipedia definition of or in case you don't understand it.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 4, 2007 11:19 AM

The problem with looking at the first question only by the mean is that you miss the fact that the majority (67%)of people hold strong feelings about the subject. The second question as Boring Commenter has said is that it doesn't make clear who pays the penalty. The right wingers have made it clear that abortion providers are to pay the legal penalties for abortions while the women who have abortions will get their's from their husbands, fathers, etc.

I wonder what the numbers more neutral numbers in the first question would have looked like if the second question was asked first. Would people be less likely to be neutral on the first question when a proposed punishment has been primed and how strict would that punishment have to be to dramatically change the results?

Posted by Ricky | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM

I'm sure boring Commenter is correct, that you would find more support for putting abortion providers in jail than the women that elect to have an abortion.

But prostitution and drug dealing isn't the best analogy. A better one is solicitation for murder. If a woman hires someone to kill her husband, she does jail time. How is a woman who hires someone to "kill" her embryo any different, given the assumptions of the anti-choice movement? They claim abortion is murder, yet the punishment should be different? Are embryos second class citizens?

Posted by CKT | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM

It's notable that 70% of responders have strong opinions on both questions.

Posted by MattF | October 4, 2007 11:22 AM

I think it possible that lots of people don't want abortion allowed but recognize that it's a difficult issue. Are people who have an abortion a danger to others? Are they more likely to steal or speed or drink too much? Are they even likely to have other abortions?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 4, 2007 11:24 AM

Seems consistent with the current Administration's views of most things: there ought to be laws preventing bad things, but nobody should enforce them (and of course they shouldn't apply to me); there ought to be a government program to solve any given problem, but it shouldn't be funded; we ought to invade Iraq, but not with enough troops.

Posted by DCBob | October 4, 2007 11:28 AM

CKT is quite correct about BC's analogy, but no, it's not embryos that are second class citizens here.

There are two ways to reconcile this discrepancy between attitudes toward jail time and attitudes toward abortion illegality. One is that it really is about controlling sexuality, not saving lives. The other is that women have less agency than men and so should be punished less for their murders (the same way we treat child criminals vis-a-vis adults). Either way, this internal conflict lays bare a pretty fundamental disrespect for women.

Posted by jhupp | October 4, 2007 11:30 AM

I think it's quite simple: people don't want our society to communicate it that it likes abortion as much as it likes heart surgery, they still want some shame and regret attached to it. Except for the hard core pro-lifers who believe it is murder from conception, it really IS all a framing issue.

Posted by artappraiser | October 4, 2007 11:33 AM

If a woman hires someone to kill her husband, she does jail time. How is a woman who hires someone to "kill" her embryo any different, given the assumptions of the anti-choice movement?

I realize the above is a rhetorical point, but it needs to be made often to highlight that the same approach governs the anti-abortion movement and the "war on drugs:" that it's the providers that need to be punished, rather than the end users.

And I imagine if abortion is criminalized, we'll end up with a parallel situation to what we have now with drugs: basically unchanged availablity. Only, as was the case in the pre-Roe era, women will be dying from kitchen-table abortions performed by people unqualified to perform them.

Posted by James Gary | October 4, 2007 11:36 AM

Yet, these polls are perfectly consistent with the view that abortion as a political issue is, for many people, principally an emotional issue. Put another way, they are against abortion because it is icky. This is the same sense in which many people are opposed to gay rights--because the idea of 2 men having sex is, to them, icky.

But when pressed on it, their gut ickiness reaction often gives way to pragmatism: Icky as abortion/male-male sex may be, they don't want to send people to jail for it. They just want the issue out of their faces.

Posted by Jim | October 4, 2007 11:38 AM

And artappraiser's right on here, too. My point was that, like drugs, people want abortions and whatever steps are taken to criminalize the procedure needs to accomodate that.

Posted by James Gary | October 4, 2007 11:40 AM

I standard exception is always "rape, incest, or the life of the mother". Where does this come from? An equally compelling (and probably more frequent) exception would be for things like Down Syndrome or severe genetic defect in the fetus. I wonder how this would affect responses, if it was put on either side of the equation.

Personally, if one added severe fetal defect to the standard exception above, then I wouldn't care all that much if abortion was outlawed for remaining cases. However, if abortion was outlawed even if there is a severe fetal defect, then I would be vehemently opposed.

Posted by Jim W | October 4, 2007 11:42 AM

Dan the Man, a statute that read: "Any person who performs or obtains an abortion shall be guilty of a felony" would not just criminalize performing an abortion. It would also criminalize having an abortion. So it is not surprising that the majority of Americans, who speak English as their native tongue, hesitate to endorse a law that would imprison anyone who "has an abortion or performs one."

Posted by y81 | October 4, 2007 11:51 AM

I asked this question of a pretty hardcore righty who is nearly a single-issue abortion voter, and his explanation is that a woman getting an abortion is always a secondary victim. I didn't think to ask whether a women who killed her already-born two-year-old should likewise be free from prosecution and considered a victim, but it strikes me as the logical corollary.

Posted by SDM | October 4, 2007 11:54 AM

Dan the Man, a statute that read: "Any person who performs or obtains an abortion shall be guilty of a felony"

"Any person" is not anywhere in the question.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 4, 2007 11:57 AM

Well, let me ask you, SDM, and the other hard-core lefties, the following. One occasionally sees a case in the paper of a pregnant teenager giving birth in a restroom or similar location and abandoning the new-born child to its death. I presume that you think that such a woman should receive the same punishment as a mob hitman who takes out a federal prosecutor. Murder is murder, right?

Posted by y81 | October 4, 2007 11:58 AM

Dan: Let me try again. There are two ways of reading the question.

Do you agree with either statement: that people performing abortions should be locked up, or, that people receiving abortions should be locked up?

Do you think that anyone found to be either performing or receiving an abortion should be locked up?

I'd hope that people who wanted to ban abortion would agree with the first reading, and that was Matt's point, I thought. But they've got a sensible enough reason to change answers on the second reading.

Posted by Boring Commenter | October 4, 2007 11:59 AM

"I standard exception is always "rape, incest, or the life of the mother". Where does this come from? An equally compelling (and probably more frequent) exception would be for things like Down Syndrome or severe genetic defect in the fetus. I wonder how this would affect responses, if it was put on either side of the equation."

Marketing.

Ironically, the abortion rate was probably higher before Roe than after.

Posted by Reality Man | October 4, 2007 12:04 PM

it isn't clear how the 'or' should be read.

Probably in the obvious way. Here's a wikipedia definition of or in case you don't understand it.

A reading of that poll that is perfectly consistent with your smug definition of "or" is that you get jail time if you either have an abortion performed on your person, or if you perform one. In that reading, we jail everyone.

We could possibly read the statement as either jail time is used to punish the person getting an abortion, or jail time is used to punish the person performing it. Unlike the first reading allows for the case in which a person getting an abortion is never prosecuted.

As you linked to a Wikipedia article on the logical operators, the difference is between

(recipient v performer -> jail)

and

(recipient -> jail) v (performer -> jail)

These are not identical. I suggest you study your logical a little more.

Posted by Walker | October 4, 2007 12:05 PM

y81 -

Actually, if a stupid teenager leaves a baby to die I'd probably support at least a manslaughter conviction if the baby actually died. A lesser charge if the baby was found and saved before it died. Circumstances might lessen or enhance that sentence of course (that's why we have judges and juries and not just computer programs to assign sentences), but that does in fact rise to the level of something I'd call murder. Since I don't have this idea that an undeveloped foetus is the same as a baby, this isn't a contradiction to me.

But let me turn it back around on you - would YOU prosecute murder charges against said young woman? And if you would, would you do the same to the teenage girl who got an abortion 6 months earlier instead? If not then what makes those two circumstances so different?

Posted by NonyNony | October 4, 2007 12:08 PM

Why did the people presenting this data choose to group 0-2 (three different responses) together and 9-10 (two different responses) together? If you're going to have 11 different possible responses, why not put five in the middle by itself?

Posted by washerdreyer | October 4, 2007 12:09 PM

There are two ways to reconcile this discrepancy between attitudes toward jail time and attitudes toward abortion illegality. One is that it really is about controlling sexuality, not saving lives. The other is that women have less agency than men and so should be punished less for their murders (the same way we treat child criminals vis-a-vis adults). Either way, this internal conflict lays bare a pretty fundamental disrespect for women.

Larn to read, kneejerk. None of this requires any fundamental disrespect for women. In fact, most of this suggests a fundamental respect for women.

Liberals and conservatives are opposed to abortion for many reasons, and in a perfect world would want to eliminate it.

But given that, most of them don't want women sent to jail over it.

That is not a fundamental disrespect for women, that is a fundamental showing of respect FOR women.

That's obvious unless you're some sort of modern feminist bigot looking only to create a protected class of women with rights superior towards men.

Posted by feh | October 4, 2007 12:17 PM

Regarding metaphors: All I meant was that it's easier to condemn the person walking away from the transaction with the money. And having stricter laws against that side may be necessary, because the law has to outweigh the profit motive.

Posted by Boring Commenter | October 4, 2007 12:19 PM

Doesn't a 5 mean you are neutral on the issue? A mean answer of 5.28, to me, would indicate that people are pretty neutral about whether abortions should be banned - not for or against it.

Posted by Julene | October 4, 2007 12:32 PM

A mean answer of 5.28, to me, would indicate that people are pretty neutral about whether abortions should be banned - not for or against it.

But as you can see, 2 out of every 3 people have pretty strong feelings one way or the other. They just happen to average out; few people are truly neutral.

However, you can see Third Way has their thumb on the scales considering that they group two answers together at the high end (9-10) and three answers together at the low end (0-2). The average of 0 and 10 is 5, yet the "middle" response is not 5 (or 4-6) but 5-6. That little stunt really calls their credibility into question.

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 12:36 PM

We could possibly read the statement as either jail time is used to punish the person getting an abortion, or jail time is used to punish the person performing it.

I think you miss the entire point of what was originally said. The original claim was "I would guess that many people think abortion should be enforced with prison time only on the supply side [..] it isn't clear how the 'or' should be read". But one could just as well have said, "I would guess that many people think abortion should be enforced with prison time only on the demand side [and not on the supply side]." Obviously no "reading of 'or'" could decide either way.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 4, 2007 12:38 PM

Q.34 really should be divided into two questions, one for women, one for doctors who perform abortions. I suspect you'd get different responses on each question.

It doesn't require believing that women lack moral agency to support banning abortion and yet not support punishing women who obtain abortions with jail time, in spite of what you might hear on LGM. All it requires is empathy coupled with a belief that most women who obtain abortions did so for reasons with which you can sympathize, even if you don't think they made the best decision. In a situation like that, it makes sense to remove the option so that people won't select it. Criminalization is the traditional tool for doing this.

I don't agree with abortion criminalization because I don't think abortion counts as murder, or even as killing anything important, if performed before development of a valid nervous system. But I can at least attempt to empathize with those who oppose abortion, and to understand why they oppose it, rather than creating some sort of black and white construct I can hate more easily.

Posted by Patrick | October 4, 2007 12:38 PM

Obviously it may be my bias because the idea of thinking of a fetus as equivalent to a child or adult in these cases seems so bizarre, and does not even seem to have come up in most of history, but it does seem that the number of people who actually believe abortion is equivalent to murder is fairly small.

Of course they are the loudest opponents of abortion, just as the loudest supporters of legalizing abortion tend to be those with the most extreme views on the other side. And it is true that when the people who believe abortion is murder defend the idea that women should not be sent to jail it is either on pragmatic grounds (the idea is such a political loser it would doom their cause) or on the second victim ground, which does treat women as lesser agents. After all there are no other cases in which someone who freely and knowingly commits murder gets off as a second victim without some kind of coercion or incapacity.

What explains the disparity, as a couple of people have hinted at above, is that people are not basically libertarians, and so they tend to believe that society should mark bad things by passing laws against them. It does not follow that all bad things should be met with jail time.

In general people are more likely to explain their objection to abortion by noting that the woman was not held responsible for her carelessness in getting pregnant. So it is an "actions should have consequences" kind of rule. And that also explains the rape or incest exceptions because there one is not causally responsible for getting pregnant. So no rule of justice is violated by not having to carry the fetus to term.

Posted by Lon | October 4, 2007 12:44 PM

I guess that some compromise solution can be offered. Basically, people want a law that would make it clear that abortion is wrong, but they do not want to make it truly criminal. A good analogy is "should sex with an 11 year old be always illegal" plus "should there be criminal penalties for 11 year olds having sex with each other".

By making it legal for 11 year old to have sex with each other "we are telling children that it is OK to fornicate". So illegal. But jail time is absurd too. In other word, the "moderate stand" on abortion is that it should be a subject of oprobrium but not legal penalties. Here comes Abortion Disaproval Act:

No abortion shall be perform until the person requesting abortion acknowledges reading the exhortation against abortion that is included in Annex A of this Act. If the requesting person does not know English, she should be given an approved translation into a language or dialect she comprehends. If the requesting person is illiterate, she should listen to a taped message, again, in a language or dialect she understand. If the requesting person is not capable of understanding due to an impairment, a legal guardian should read or listen to this message.

Each failure by an abortion provider to enforce this requirement will be a Class C misdimeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding the spot price of 10 barrels of Texas Intermediate Crude, as traded on Chicago Mercantile exchange on the first trading day following the date of the offence.

Posted by piotr | October 4, 2007 12:57 PM

For those that suggest that they can understand why one might outlaw abortion, but not require jail time to women who willingly consent to have one, I have a question:

If having an abortion is not the willful, premeditated taking of a human life (aka murder), then what exactly is the objection?

If it's not murder, then exactly is being "killed"? It's obviously not a human being, right?

Those that believe that women who have abortions should be thrown in the slammer at least are being logically consistent...

Posted by CKT | October 4, 2007 1:02 PM

All it requires is empathy coupled with a belief that most women who obtain abortions did so for reasons with which you can sympathize, even if you don't think they made the best decision.

That contradicts pretty much all rhetoric about how abortion is murder, rather than just some instance where "you don't think they made the best decision." Unless people who believe that a fetus is a living person also support offering a whole lot of blanket exceptions to jail time for actual murder.

Posted by Cyrus | October 4, 2007 1:02 PM

Steve,

I could be wrong, but I think they averaged the raw answers (which ranged from 0 to 10, with 5 being the midpoint). The groupings you allude to were just for display purposes, and don't affect the computed averages. It would be stupid to first quantize the raw measurements into these coarse groupings, and then average those.

Posted by Jim W | October 4, 2007 1:05 PM

That is not a fundamental disrespect for women, that is a fundamental showing of respect FOR women.

Utter horsehockey.

The controversy about abortion is about controlling women, and about punishing the hussies for being sexually active.

This is about sex. It's no coincidence that rabid bluenose neanderthals, who are also totally squicked out about male homosexuality (which can't result in pregnancy) are also jumping up and down and screaming about abortion.

This is about sex and control of women, nothing else at all. Everything else is pretense to try to disguise this basic, fundamental fact.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | October 4, 2007 1:08 PM

For the sake of bipartisanship I will go along with piotr's bill only if the following amendment is added:

This bill can only be passed by a majority of the American people voting in a binding referendum not by secret ballot but by declaring their citizenship and registering their Social Security number with the Abortion Disapproval Commission.

Should this amendment pass those voting in favor of said referendum will yearly pay a proportion of their total wealth into a fund that will go to pay for the support and care of all children, until they reach the age of majority, currently 18 years of age, born to women who read said Disapproval Act and then decide not to follow through with the abortion of the fetus.

The percentage taken will be determined each year by the number of children due to be paid in the system with the amount to be distributed to each child determined by a UN-sanctioned human rights body.

Posted by Ricky | October 4, 2007 1:12 PM

Gosh, CKT, many people object to drowning dolphins in tuna nets, or hunting foxes, or running a red light and killing someone. Governments often pass laws providing punishments for people who engage in those activities. Yet none of them is murder.

There's a persistent belief among the commentators that one's political opponents are wildly illogical, so illogical that a simple question will trip them up. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by y81 | October 4, 2007 1:13 PM

Fair enough, y81, but do you really believe that abortion opponents consider it an issue along the same lines as fox hunting? Ditto to Patrick about not making the best decision; is that really all abortion opponents are saying? Because it certainly never sounds that way to me. Where are all these non-murder-based defenses of banning abortion? The only other ones I can remember hearing are sex-based, in which case, yes, it does come down to controlling women's sexuality.

What are these other reasons, ones that people actually can or will offer?

Also, as an aside, running a red light and killing someone is vehicular homicide, which falls very much within the legal continuum of murder, albeit not at the first or second degree.

Posted by jhupp | October 4, 2007 1:25 PM

Is our fetuses larning?

Posted by commie atheist | October 4, 2007 1:31 PM

y81, let's get specific and try to avoid drawing comparisons with dolphins and human embryos.

Let's say a woman offers a man money to kill her husband. The man caries out the act and the woman pays the man. This is the deliberate, willful, premeditated taking of a human life, mediated through a third party for which money was exchanged.

If all embryos are human beings from the point of conception, then how is abortion any different from the scenario above, other than the age of the "victim"? How can one scenario send a woman to jail for life and the other give her a slap on the wrist and maybe some "prayer counciling", given the assumptions of the anti-choice movement?

Posted by CKT | October 4, 2007 1:32 PM

I'll grant that y81 offers a plausible view: people regard abortions as bad but not as cold-blooded murder by a contract killer. Fair enough. The question is whether this is actually the correct explanation for people's views. I say no.

Feminists have long argued that people's position on abortion amounts to, 'abortion for me, but not for thee'. That is the only explanation for views on abortion, where nearly 50% of women b/w the ages of 18-45 have had an abortion, but 45% of the population opposes abortion. Either pro-lifers and pro-choicers are split along lines of: have you had an abortion in your life or not (which is known to be untrue), or some people who've had an abortion oppose their legality.

As a side note, this is not really an unusual circumstance in american politics (or perhaps any poliitcs).

So what would a ban on abortion, but light punishment mean? It would mean people with their shit together, mostly wealthy people, would have a bail-out if they got pregnant. Go to Canada, or get that connection at the country club to hook you up. Maybe just travel to California where they'll always be legal. But everyone else suffers the cost of having sex and getting pregnant. Because for me, this was an understandable one-time mistake. And sometimes you just don't have a condom handy. But for all those whores out there getting pregnant and using abortion as birth control: fuck 'em. I think this viewpoint explains most of what you see in this survey.

Posted by mpowell | October 4, 2007 1:39 PM

CKT, it doesn't follow necessarily that a ban on abortion would be based on the premises of the anti-choice movement. The laws and enforcement of laws in a democracy should generally -- and this is far from an absolute -- should reflect the general sense of morality and fairness of the citizenry. It may be illogical for the punishment for a hypothetical illegal abortion to be light compared to the punishment for murder, granting the premises of the anti-choice movement. However, simply because abortion would be banned doesn't mean the fetus is considered by the state a human being with irreproachable human rights. So, despite having an abortion ban, a cognitively pluralistic society can still exist in which people can formulate their own attitudes regarding the nature of human life in the womb, and the law would reflect that attitude by having weak punishments for having illegal abortions.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 4, 2007 1:49 PM

What a stupid poll. Of course they don't want the woman to be put in jail, the proper punishment is stoning. Silly people - how are gonna stone her if she in jail?

Posted by abb1 | October 4, 2007 1:52 PM

Re: One is that it really is about controlling sexuality, not saving lives.

Even so, failing to enforce such a law effectively would not do much to control sexuality either.

Re: The controversy about abortion is about controlling women, and about punishing the hussies for being sexually active.

Maybe, but the odd point from this survey is that people don't seem to want anything partricularly severe as far as punishment for the women goes.

Re: Should this amendment pass those voting in favor of said referendum will yearly pay a proportion of their total wealth into a fund that will go to pay for the support and care of all children

That would require people to reveal their vote-- a breach of the secret ballot. Maybe your widen your clause top include everyone, the entire tax-paying population (you'd get more money that way too)

Posted by Jonf | October 4, 2007 2:00 PM

Jonf:

The punishment for the women is childbirth itself, and having to care for a child after birth.

With, I might add, no help from society at all. The Chimp made that VERY clear in his veto yesterday.

Once the child is out of the womb, the wowsers do not care about it.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | October 4, 2007 2:06 PM

I could be wrong, but I think they averaged the raw answers (which ranged from 0 to 10, with 5 being the midpoint). The groupings you allude to were just for display purposes, and don't affect the computed averages.

Yes, it's the presentation that is misleading, not the survey itself.

The presentation attempts to demonstrate that the extreme positions on abortion are held in equal proportions. But they accomplish this by grouping three survey answers (0-2) together at the pro-choice end of the spectrum, and grouping only two (9-10) together at the pro-life end. It's not a fair way to present the data, and it makes you wonder what other points they're fudging.

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 2:09 PM

It should be quite clear: if you think abortion is murder, then a woman who has a doctor perform an abortion on her has engaged someone else to commit murder. Yet for some reason most anti-abortion types are unwilling to face the obvious consequences of this.

The latest lame attempt to dodge these consequences, on prominent display at a fairly recent NRO "symposium" I can't be bothered linking to, is to claim that the woman is the "second victim," which is ludicrous for multiple reasons. For one, it doesn't even pretend to address the question. Being a "victim" does not get you off the hook, even prima facie, for soliciting murder. Also, many many women have had abortions without feeling "victimized" by the experience (which is not to say that they enjoyed it, of course). The wingers apparently hold that all such women are victims, regardless of what they themselves have to say about it. This at least coheres well with the wingnuts' general denial of women's capacity for independent agency.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 2:13 PM

Last I checked, only 14% of Americans wanted to ban abortions. I guess they're just really, really, really loud people.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | October 4, 2007 2:15 PM

hum: Another common belief among the commentators here is that one's opponents are "wingnuts" and not worth talking to.

jhupp: I do not think very many lawyers (I am one) would describe vehicular homicide as a subset of murder. Murder and vehicular homicide are subsets of homicide. (Some other elements of the set are manslaughter and justifiable homicide.)

Posted by y81 | October 4, 2007 2:19 PM

It's really obvious to anyone who has paid attention for the last 20-some years: They want to make abortion illegal, because they don't want women having sex without the "punishment" of childbirth hanging over the women's heads. Consequences, bitches!

But they also want to be able to avail themselves of the procedure if necessary, because their circumstances are always different and righteous and excusable. So, no jail time.

Anyone who has ever escorted (read: protected) women as they entered a clinic on Saturday morning knows the dirty little secret of the pro-lifers protesting and screaming at them: A number of them have had abortions themselves, and the next weekend were on the line protesting again. Not because they feel guilty, but because they think their situation was oh so different from any of these whores ending their pregnancies today.

Denial and hypocrisy. It isn't just for the Ted Haggards and Mark Foleys and Larry Craigs and Jim Bakkers of the world.

Posted by lisa | October 4, 2007 2:23 PM

With respect to Matthew Struhar, the only way for our democracy to reflect "the general sense of morality and fairness of the citizenry" in this case would be to not legislate on the matter one way or another. And that, of course, is the pro-choice position.

Posted by noema | October 4, 2007 2:27 PM

y81, feel free to substitute whatever referring term you like; the substance of my points is not affected thereby. I'd be interested in hearing any substantive response you might have, especially as you are a lawyer; your observation that some here feel their opponents are not worth talking to does not, in this case at least, apply to me.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 2:29 PM

Addendum:
Here's how the opinion poll should read.

"If you or a loved one ever became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, would you want abortion to be illegal or legal?"

Simple, really.

Posted by lisa | October 4, 2007 2:30 PM

Yes, it may be logically coherent to believe that abortion is bad, and should be outlawed, but is not murder.

But many people who believe that abortion is murder also believe in capital punishment. Unless they believe that abortion is some weaker sort of murder (and don't say so explicitly), clearly their principles ultimately imply that women who obtain abortions should be executed. Yet we see no calls for this.

Even those people who don't believe in capital punishment feel that murder should be severely punished, even by a sentence of life in prison. Yet we see no calls, by those who believe abortion to be murder, for the life-imprisonment of women who have their fertilized eggs killed.

And of course, the belief that fertilized eggs are human beings also implies that spontaneous abortion, which kills about a sixth of fertilized eggs, is an enormous public health problem. People who believe that fertilized eggs are human beings should, logically, be calling for a massive medical research program to combat miscarriage. Yet this is unheard of.

So people who claim to believe that fertilized eggs are human beings, and that therefore abortion is murder, are either lying about their beliefs, happy to be utterly inconsistent, completely full of shit, or all of the above. It's hard to come to any other conclusion.

Posted by Ken C. | October 4, 2007 2:32 PM

Ken C., I believe the incident rate for miscarriage is closer to 1 in 5, but even this is probably low since many miscarriages occur without anyone reporting it to a doctor.

Of course when an implanted fetus dies, it doesn't always just come out on its own. The practice to remove a dead fetus from the womb before it begins to rot is the same procedure as just about any early term abortion.

Imagine the police having to investigate every miscarriage that required a D&C? How many women are going to stand by while police interrogate them after a miscarriage? And what a waste of police resources.

Posted by Ricky | October 4, 2007 2:44 PM

This is such crap. Almost nobody believes that abortion is murder, because they make exceptions for rape & incest.

If a fetus is really a human being, then, sorry, it can't be OK to kill them because their father was a rapist.

Really, if you're opposed to abortion because it's murder, you can't possibly sanction it simply because a woman was raped. A rape victim doesn't even have the right to murder her rapist, so I don't understand why anyone would think she'd have the right to murder his unborn child.

This entire movement isn't about babies at all, which is why their arguments are so damn incoherent. It's about punishing sluts and keeping women in their place. Good girls who were innocent victims don't have to live with the consequences. But all you other ho's do, because you chose to be ho's.

Posted by anonymous | October 4, 2007 2:48 PM

Imagine the police having to investigate every miscarriage that required a D&C? How many women are going to stand by while police interrogate them after a miscarriage? And what a waste of police resources.

Oh, yes, the fetus police, barging into wombs without warrants because the bitches need to be put in their place.

James Dobson just creams at the thought of this.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | October 4, 2007 3:01 PM

Another amendment to any ban on abortions:

A DNA test will be performed after any women has carried an unwanted pregnancy to term and the father of the child will be immediately castrated.

Posted by Ricky | October 4, 2007 3:01 PM

Anti-choicers only want to prosecute the doctors, of course. That's how the South Dakota statute was written -- the only penalty was on the doctors.

The obvious conclusion is that they don't feel that silly women should be held accountable for their actions. They're just helpless pawns.

Thad Beier

Posted by Thad Beier | October 4, 2007 3:02 PM

Noema, that may be true, but I was speaking hypothetically and not advocating a position on abortion. I was just stating that simply because the anti-choice movement perceives abortion as murder, that does not mean a ban on abortion would constitute abortion as murder.

One common theme in this discussion is the idea that the movement has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn and everything to do with putting women in their place. Perhaps that was true once, but today's high school and college kids constitute perhaps the most pro-life generation since the Roe was handed down (which doesn't mean that this generation is majority pro-life). Given that generation's likely embrace of liberalism on most other issues, including (hopefully) equal pay, and the increasing number of pro-life progressives, I don't think that line of argument holds much weight. Just because somebody thinks abortion is wrong doesn't mean his or her opinion is based upon a sincere desire to limit the rights of women. Not every abortion is the result of a woman in an unfortunate situation. Sometimes abortions are the result of couples wanting a boy instead of a girl, or vice/versa. Sometimes abortions are the result of a couple not wanting a child with Down syndrome. If and when sexuality is detected in the womb, what will happen to likely homosexual fetuses? If something so inherent to one's identity as sexuality is manfiest prior to birth, then doesn't that merit some kind of second look at abortion among progressives?

I'm not trying to advocate any sort of ban on abortion. I thought the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal ban on late term abortions was misguided, in fact, given that particular ban's rigidity. But I believe abortion is wrong in most cases, and I'm genuinely saddened by women in desperate situations who are afraid to bring children into the world. Even if it's a Constitutional right, that doesn't mean the abortion rate isn't a potential social-political problem that could perhaps be somewhat corrected via politics. Bush's veto of SCHIP may have done more to hurt the cause of reducing -- not banning -- abortions in this country than anything any pro-choice politician has done.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 4, 2007 3:14 PM

Here's the bottom line:

Abortion should be legal, but rare. The test of this is that many anti-choicers are also violently against contraception, or educating about contraception. The only abortion preventative measure they'll consider is abstinence.

Which means that preventing abortion is not about saving babies.

It's about sex, and controlling women.

Period.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | October 4, 2007 3:26 PM

If and when sexuality is detected in the womb, what will happen to likely homosexual fetuses? If something so inherent to one's identity as sexuality is manfiest prior to birth, then doesn't that merit some kind of second look at abortion among progressives?

How so, exactly? The fetus's sex has long been detectable in the womb, and this is at least as "inherent to one's identity" as sexuality is. The fact that such factors can be identified in the womb doesn't bear on the moral status of the fetus. It just tells you something about the person that that fetus may eventually become.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 3:30 PM

Here's one approach to understanding the inconsistency: the public wants fewer abortions, but they don't want to punish those that obtain them. Rather they want to enable women to avoid them (by providing adequate support for women with unplanned pregnancies to have the baby and by funding contraception and sex education).

Of course, the idea of such entitlements is a non-starter among the policy elite and would be laughed off the table.

Posted by Siger of Brabant | October 4, 2007 3:33 PM

The controversy about abortion is about controlling women, and about punishing the hussies for being sexually active.

This is about sex. It's no coincidence that rabid bluenose neanderthals, who are also totally squicked out about male homosexuality (which can't result in pregnancy) are also jumping up and down and screaming about abortion.

This is about sex and control of women, nothing else at all. Everything else is pretense to try to disguise this basic, fundamental fact. Apprentice to Darth Holden

As the rad fems like Amanda Marcotte would say, STOP MAKING THIS ALL ABOUT THE WOMENS!

Utter horsehockey? What is utter horsehockey is to refuse to look at the data and refuse to acknowledge there are plenty of men, WOMEN, LIBERALS, GAYS, LESBIANS, conservatives that are against abortion.

The sexual revolution is here to stay. Stop fighting that battle. Worse, stop couching everything in terms of your right to have sex. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU DO.

Plenty of good reasonable people think abortion is wrong AND think that all people should be able to have sex with the partner of their choice.

It is bullshit to claim that anyone that doesn't like abortion must not like it because they are trying to control women's sex lives. It is self-defeating.

It is certainly not reality based.

Posted by feh | October 4, 2007 3:42 PM

We already tried the "any women who has a miscarriage has to report it along with the remains and be investigated" schtick in North Carolina, I think it was, in a proposed bill. (Some dingdong wingnut politician's idea, as could be expected.)

Total and complete uproar, lots of used tampons and menstrual pads delivered, total embarrassment for the politician.

Posted by grumpy realist | October 4, 2007 3:42 PM

You have to hand it to y81, he's the gift that keeps on giving. He came up with the comparisons to fox hunting and tuna nets on the one hand and babies murdered at birth on the other, as NonyNony and jhupp pointed out.

We have lighter punishments for hurting animals than people because we assign animals a different moral status than people.

OTOH, we have lighter punishments for teenage mothers who kill their babies at birth than hardened mob hitmen because of the intention and situation of the killer.

But few people (11% maybe?) want to punish abortion like we do infanticide, regardless of the intent and situation of the murder. No matter how rich, comfortable, empowered, and knowledgeable about fetal life a woman is, few people would punish her like a mother who killed born babies.

This is clearly evidence of "different moral status" reasoning, like that for animals. It would be perfectly logical to have such a point of view, and in fact I suspect a huge chunk of Americans think exactly like this. It's not even inconsistent with views that are very much to the right of the status quo. It doesn't even imply that women have limited agency (although punishing doctors more than women does), because it's the condition of the offspring, not the mother, that's relevant here.

But it's completely inconsistent with warnings of "slippery slopes" that the pro-life movement is always giving us. Punishing abortion differently than infanticide completely violates their "person is a person no matter how small" ethos.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 4, 2007 3:44 PM

Rather they want to enable women to avoid them (by providing adequate support for women with unplanned pregnancies to have the baby and by funding contraception and sex education).

But the actions of many of those on the right wing show that they don't want those things. Which, again, shows that they aren't nearly as concerned about reducing the number of abortions as they are about controlling and punishing women.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 3:44 PM

Apprentice, not every member of the pro-life camp is opposed to contraception. Senator Bob Casey, for example, wants to make RU-486 more accessible. You simply identified part of the stupidity in the hardcore anti-choice position, and also one of the reasons why I've never been able to identify with the movement even knowing I think abortion is almost universally immoral.

Also, hum, you make a good point, and I should have spoken more broadly. I do think there is something exceptionally wrong about having abortions because of gender, certain medical conditions, and (perhaps eventually) sexuality, and I'm disappointed that librals shrug off these instances rather than invite a cultural discussion on abortion and morality so that people can broaden their hearts and accept their eventual children for who they are. I think this should be a cultural movement exclusively, not something guided by government sanctions. I'm also aware that these circumstances constitute a thin minority of abortion cases.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 4, 2007 3:52 PM

>"If you or a loved one ever became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, would you want abortion to be illegal or legal?"

A: Yes.

Posted by Matt B | October 4, 2007 4:01 PM

Matthew, that's the problem with the "pro-life" camp.

The leadership that gets the most air/face time is very much about taking away a woman's right to control her own body.

There may be those who are morally consistent on this issue, who oppose capital punishment as well as abortion, who do not make judgements about the sexual morality of women who have abortions, who understand that contraception is part of the solution, who do not harrass women going into women's clincs on the assumption that they're going in for an abortion instead of pre-natal care for a wanted child, etc.

The anti-choice movement is dominated by the people I'm talking about, and I made this clear with the word "many", who oppose contraception as well as abortion, and therefore the idea that they're thinking of the children is an outright fabrication to cover their true agenda.

Personally, whether or not a woman has an abortion, for whatever reason, is none of my business. Particularly since I will never suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. If men carried children, abortion would be a sacrament.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | October 4, 2007 4:14 PM

Isn't this the law in Germany? I think their Constitutional Court came up with something about how it could be illegal but there could be no enforcement. I have no idea what the reasoning was (which in the German language could probably be summed up in a single paragraph-long word) but it is perhaps consistent with how many people feel about abortion -- it's a shame but putting someone in prison is not the answer.

Posted by Joe | October 4, 2007 4:19 PM

Around the time of Roe v. Wade first-trimester abortion was legalized in West Germany under narrow circumstances - since reunification first-trimester abortion is legal after counseling. In France one has to get permission from special boards after the first trimester and iirc only on the basis of birth defects. European abortion laws are I think generally more restrictive than those in the US, whether from the influence of the Catholic church or the question of eugenics and Nazism (the latter a complex influence working both ways).

Posted by rilkefan | October 4, 2007 4:30 PM

The idea that the rate of miscarraiges is relevant to the abortion debate depends on certain consquentialist assumptions, which I happen to share, but most abortion foes don't.

If one thinks that the bad thing about the abortion is the consequences for the fetus, then accepting that the fetus is a person means that most ensouled persons in history had that kind of horror inflicted on them by natural causes.

But abortion foes are more likely to be virtue theorists who see the problem with abortion being in some way the purposeful violating of God's law, or something equivalent. And even if one wants to accord miscarragies to God, God is not seen as bound by God's law. So the comparison of abortions to miscarraiges becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

Another argument, one that is bad because it assigns to the opponent views he doesn't have to accept, is the idea that there is an inconsistency in supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion (or vice-versa). There are enough relevant differences between the cases to make it consistent to oppose either one without the other. The difference between a fetus and a developed person on the one hand, and someone innocent vs someone who has forfeited their right to life on the other.

On the other hand people who oppose abortion on Catholic authority but reject the teachings of the church on the death penalty are being inconsistent.

Posted by Lon | October 4, 2007 4:38 PM

America was well on it's way to debating, organizing, and voting by State on what sort of modern abortion policy society was going to have a consensus on. As the States voted, yes, in places like NY and California, no (except in the usual exceptions) in Oklahoma...some groups vowed to work to change the State legislature's opinion...but people tended to accept society's consensus.

The great error in this was the Supreme Court, and activist Courts in general, intruding. By making it a Diktat, and basing their authority on nothing IN the Constitution - they created the Great Cancer that has riven US society for 35 years.

The only solution is to overturn a bad decision and send the matter back to the States to decide.
There would be a few years of intense debate, then law would be set that people accept a good deal more since it came through the democratic process, not at the whim of lawyers in robes.

And everyone knows what the outcome would be in their State...and those who find State law intolerable could move to a state that matches their political views better, if they prefer...as they already do on matters like taxes, firearms, school funding.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 4, 2007 4:48 PM

Isn't this the law in Germany? I think their Constitutional Court came up with something about how it could be illegal but there could be no enforcement.

German Wikipedia ("Schwangerschaftsabbruch") says:

Abtreibung ist rechtswidrig, nach heutigem Recht aber bis zum dritten Schwangerschaftsmonat straffrei, wenn vor dem Eingriff eine Beratung stattgefunden hat. Rechtskonform ist die Abtreibung bis zur Geburt, wenn Gefahr für das Leben oder eine schwerwiegende körperliche Beeinträchtigung besteht und dies nur durch eine Abtreibung verhindert werden kann.

rough translation: "Abortion is illegal, but according to current law is not punished if it takes place before the third month of pregnancy, if counseling has taken place before the intervention [i.e. the abortion]. Abortion is legal up until the moment of birth if there is a danger of death or serious bodily injury [of the mother, I take it] and this can be prevented only by an abortion."

There's also a provision for legal abortion up to the 12th week in cases where a "criminal indication" is present (rape, woman's inability to consent).

Also, relevant to the current discussion: Im Falle einer Abtreibung nach Beratung zwischen der 12. und 22. Woche bleibt die Mutter selbst straffrei, der Arzt handelt jedoch strafbar.

"In the case of an abortion after counseling between the 12th and 22nd week, the mother herself is not punished, but the physician is liable to punishment."

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 4:53 PM

And everyone knows what the outcome would be in their State...and those who find State law intolerable could move to a state that matches their political views better, if they prefer...as they already do on matters like taxes, firearms, school funding.

Right. Single mothers barely getting by who can't afford another kid and whose birth control fails, or who live in a state with no rape exception, etc., can just up and move the family a few hundred miles. No problem.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 4:57 PM

Lon: "But abortion foes are more likely to be virtue theorists who see the problem with abortion being in some way the purposeful violating of God's law, or something equivalent."

This is irrelevant to the point that, if you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, and if you believe that people should do all they can to preserve the life of (innocent) human beings, then you should be calling for medical research to save all those innocent human lives. The second belief does require a certain acceptance of the violation of nature that medical treatment entails, true. But it's cutting things pretty fine to believe that there are some human beings, who God requires us not to kill, but for whom life-saving medical treatment is not highly desirable.

"Another argument, one that is bad because it assigns to the opponent views he doesn't have to accept, is the idea that there is an inconsistency in supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion (or vice-versa)."

I hope you don't believe that I was making that argument, because I wasn't: the (clearer) inconsistency is in supporting the death penalty, opposing abortion, and not calling for the execution of women who obtain abortions. People with such beliefs otherwise have to cut things pretty fine by believing that having your own innocent fetus-American killed, with malice aforethought, is a lesser kind of murder than others, or that women don't have the moral agency to be fully culpable.

Posted by Ken C. | October 4, 2007 5:26 PM

Apprentice, there are many people out there who advocate a consistent life ethic (most prominently have been Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI), which was developed by former Chicago Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, that life must be protected "from the womb to the tomb." While I can't exactly be placed into this categorie of pro-lifers (since I'm not exactly in the camp that wants to ban abortion -- my feelings on this issue are extremely camp), this camp will grow in numbers over time as my generation (current high school and college kids) grows up and becomes more politically active.

In short, I agree with most tenets of the consistent life ethic. I oppose capital punishment, Oregon's "right to die" law (although I think living wills are necessary in Terri Schiavo-like cases), torture, the right to late term abortions (with medically necessary exceptions), and unjust war. Also, I think quality of life issues -- universal health care chief among them -- can do a lot to reduce the abortion rate. I also think the consistent life ethic, properly understood, forces us to consider the harmful effects of banning abortion (not to mention the potentially harmful effects of not funding stem cell research).

I am aware of the idiotic extremism of many in the anti-choice movement. Opposing contraception and gay adoption while supporting abstinence-only sex education (and terrible Republican candidates with terrible Republican policies) is counterintuitive. Personally, I don't think too highly of contraception, but that's a personal choice, and to demand that the state limit access to contraception is idiotic here and downright murderous in other parts of the world. So I welcome a new phase of the pro-life movement that focuses less on a potentially dangerous abortion ban and more on smart policy -- I hope one comes soon, because I as of now I'm not comfortable in either camp on the abortion issue.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 4, 2007 5:30 PM

Not that anyone cares, but I just noticed that when I quoted from the German Wikipedia above, I had somehow come across a mirror of an old page that hadn't been updated since 2004. The current entry on the topic has a more detailed discussion, different from what I quoted, but the substance of the law seems the same.

Posted by hum | October 4, 2007 6:08 PM

Re: The punishment for the women is childbirth itself, and having to care for a child after birth.

???
How is that "punishment"? Besides the woman isn't the only one affected. Whoever impregnated her will be dunned by the Friend of the Court for child support payments for the next 18 years.

Re: With, I might add, no help from society at all.

See above. Also, don't forget Medicaid, sChip as well as a number of welfare programs that are still available for single mothers. Also, don't forget the option of adoption. If somehow conservatives could enact an abortion ban and enforce it (see below), they could not (and I doubt would even try) to force women to raise their children if they wished to give them up for adoption.

Now, on the issue of enforcement, this situation actually reminds me of Prohibition when the Dry's had their law and the Wet's had their whiskey. Because if you enacted an abortion ban but did not include some fairly stiff penalties, abortion would simply continue the way most people so minded continued to booze all through the 20s. I rather agree that the motivations are very muddled here. Or maybe a lot of people just want an abortion ban for purely symbolic reason, while allowing abortion to continue off the books so to speak in case they and theirs need one.

Re: Imagine the police having to investigate every miscarriage that required a D&C?

They wouldn't have to investigate such things unless the law strictly dictated that they did. The police have considerable leeway as to what they chose to look into and what they don't. I Suspect most police departments would give that one wide berth. In fact I suspect that in many communities prosecutors would not even prosecute actual abortions.

Posted by Jonf | October 4, 2007 6:21 PM

The only solution is to overturn a bad decision and send the matter back to the States to decide.
There would be a few years of intense debate, then law would be set that people accept a good deal more since it came through the democratic process, not at the whim of lawyers in robes.

And everyone knows what the outcome would be in their State...and those who find State law intolerable...

...will drive across state lines and get abortions there, then go home. The rabid anti-abortionists will never settle for a state by state solution.

Posted by Jimmy Jazz | October 4, 2007 7:02 PM

They claim abortion is murder, yet the punishment should be different? Are embryos second class citizens?

Probably.

This highlights the false dichotomy set up by abortion rights supporters. A fetus need not possess all the rights of a born person to possess the right not to be killed.

Posted by me | October 4, 2007 7:08 PM

The only abortion preventative measure they'll consider is abstinence.Which means that preventing abortion is not about saving babies.It's about sex, and controlling women.Period.

Absurdly illogical position.

It is obviously possible to hold the view that both abortion and contraception are immoral -- for different reasons.

Posted by me | October 4, 2007 7:16 PM

This may have been pointed out, but this chart is misleading...in order to make the extremes appear equalish, it uses 0-2 on the left (three positions) and 9-10 on the right (two positions)...

that is why it doesn't leave 5 by itself (which would be logical) because that would make the distortion too obvious

Posted by Nathan | October 4, 2007 7:53 PM

"This highlights the false dichotomy set up by abortion rights supporters. A fetus need not possess all the rights of a born person to possess the right not to be killed."

So: a fetus possesses the right not to be killed, but not all other human rights. Just what other human rights does it possess? When exactly does its moral status shift to that of a "born person"? At birth, a week before, what? How do we know what the rights of the not-quite-human fetus are? Is its life actually important, or is it just important not to kill it? If its life is important, why don't we stop this horrible plague of spontaneous abortion? If it's important not to kill it, why isn't the woman who orders it killed to blame? What should her punishment be?

Posted by Ken C. | October 4, 2007 7:59 PM

Probably.

This highlights the false dichotomy set up by abortion rights supporters. A fetus need not possess all the rights of a born person to possess the right not to be killed.

Once you have any differentiation of degrees of personhood, assigning any enforceable right not to be killed to newly fertilized eggs becomes really absurd.

That's not to say that all abortion regulation becomes absurd but opposition to Plan B and stem cell research certainly does.

It is obviously possible to hold the view that both abortion and contraception are immoral -- for different reasons.

In other words, you DO want to control sex and women, it's just a coincidence that you want to end abortion too.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 4, 2007 8:01 PM

I was so ahead of you in making this point.

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/2007/08/abortion-logic.html

Posted by Bill C. | October 4, 2007 8:11 PM

I have the feeling that what many posters aren't understanding is that most of those people being polled are taking the poll very seriously.
Thus they reply honestly how strongly they feel about abortions (pro or anti). However, they are also demonstrating a very adult attitude when they come to the further questions: they are very against abortions, they don't want women to have abortions, they don't want abortions made illegal.
None of these positions are necessarily contradictory; these people are giving their honest opinions about a very emotional topic and concluding that, while they are against abortions, would not urge someone to have an abortion and might think abortions are "icky"; in the final analysis, it is not their business (right?) to penalize someone for having an abortion.

Posted by Doug S. | October 4, 2007 8:17 PM

Matthew Struhar,

Please define the term "consistent life ethic," and then we'll see how much sense this "ethic" makes, and how consistent with it your positions really are.

Posted by Mixner | October 4, 2007 8:41 PM

Gosh, CKT, many people object to drowning dolphins in tuna nets, or hunting foxes, or running a red light and killing someone. Governments often pass laws providing punishments for people who engage in those activities. Yet none of them is murder.

True, but irrelevant. Killing dolphins and foxes is not murder because dolphins and foxes are not "persons" or "human beings." Killing someone as a result of running a red light is (usually) not murder because the act of killing is unintentional.

But if an embryo or fetus is a "person" or a "human being" (as pro-lifers usually claim it is), and if the abortion is intentional (as induced abortions are in almost all cases), why is the abortion not murder? In what way that is relevant to the definition of murder does abortion differ from, say, murdering a newborn baby?

One obvious answer is that embryos and fetuses are not persons. But pro-lifers usually deny that. Another answer is that the act of abortion represents the removal of life-sustaining resources that the donor is not obliged to provide. In that sense, abortion is more like refusing to continue to donate life-sustaining blood or tissue, or refusing to continue to operate a ventilator for a person unable to breathe on his own. But pro-lifers usually seem to deny that too.

Posted by Mixner | October 4, 2007 9:09 PM

It's been said before, Mixner, but a fetus doesn't have to maintain the full rights of a human being to have the right not to be aborted. Establishing that abortion ought to be illegal is not the same thing as establishing that abortion is murder. And I don't find your particular argument compelling. An individual refusing to give life-saving tissue to a person in need doesn't necessarily end the life of the dying person -- another person may decide to donate tissue or a cure may be discovered -- whereas abortion absolutely and irrevocably ends the life of a fetus with no hope of any other outcome. And what is the extent to the right to an abortion under your example? Does a woman have the right to end her pregnancy for any reason when she's going through labor? I don't see how anyone's personal morality could justify such an act unless there's a medical reason. No matter how much analytical posturing we do, the general sense of morality and fairness of the American people would probably arrive at what is for both sides a compromised position, no matter how seemingly illogical that position would be.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 4, 2007 10:48 PM

It's been said before, Mixner, but a fetus doesn't have to maintain the full rights of a human being to have the right not to be aborted. Establishing that abortion ought to be illegal is not the same thing as establishing that abortion is murder.

I don't think you read my post very carefully. If an embryo or fetus is a "person" or a "human being" (as pro-lifers usually claim it is), and if the abortion is intentional (as induced abortions are in almost all cases), why is the abortion not murder? In what way that is relevant to the definition of murder do you think abortion differs from, say, murdering a newborn baby?

And I don't find your particular argument compelling. An individual refusing to give life-saving tissue to a person in need doesn't necessarily end the life of the dying person -- another person may decide to donate tissue or a cure may be discovered -- whereas abortion absolutely and irrevocably ends the life of a fetus with no hope of any other outcome.

This is also irrelevant. There may be only one potential donor. Only one available match for a patient needing a bone marrow transplant, for example. The potential donor refuses to donate, and the patient dies. In what morally and legally relevant ways do you think this situation differs from abortion?

And what is the extent to the right to an abortion under your example? Does a woman have the right to end her pregnancy for any reason when she's going through labor?

No, I don't think so. But I do think she has a right to an early abortion "for any reason," and I also think that abortion should remain legally available throughout pregnancy with little restriction, as it is now.

I don't see how anyone's personal morality could justify such an act unless there's a medical reason.

Define "medical reason." Be clear. I'm still waiting for your definition of "consistent life ethic," by the way.

Posted by Mixner | October 5, 2007 12:26 AM

One is that it really is about controlling sexuality, not saving lives.

Wow, pro-abortion advocates are really good at figuring out other peoples' motivations, aren't they?

Posted by Gabbo | October 5, 2007 3:08 AM

"This is also irrelevant. There may be only one potential donor. Only one available match for a patient needing a bone marrow transplant, for example. The potential donor refuses to donate, and the patient dies. In what morally and legally relevant ways do you think this situation differs from abortion?"

Well, they're both equally wrong morally, I believe. But my point isn't to argue the logical implications of banning abortion given the premises of the anti-choice movement that a fetus is a human being, but to say that abortion could have legal limitations that, while perhaps not totally consistent with the premises of the anti-choice movement, reflect the sense of morality and fairness of a given democratic society. Legally, a fetus doesn't have to be classified as a human being in order to receive the right to not be aborted. The legal difference is clear. A person refusing to give a bone-marrow transplant, as much of an asshole as he or she may be, is simply letting the person in need die. The neglect is wrong, but it's not an external, disruptive act causing the person to die, but simply a wholly separate human being's neglect or inability. An abortion is, frankly, an act of violence. A fetus may not be fully human, but it's a living being whose life is ended via external disruption.

The consistent life ethic is the belief that life ought to be protected from conception until natural death. On a moral non-political level, this fits me: I think abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment are wrong. My political views aren't totally compatible with the consistent life ethic, perhaps, although I'd like to think my support for stem-cell research is based out of a concern for human life. Also, I think anyone concerned about life ought to consider the potentially harmful implications of banning first trimester abortions. Generally, the consistent life ethic is espoused by pro-lifers trying to convince other pro-lifers that it's alright to vote for pro-choice candidates because of their views regarding other issues.

And what's a medical reason? Generally, it's whatever a doctor tells his/her patient what must be done in order to improve the patient's well-being. In my opinion, late-term abortions ought to be permissible when a woman's life, overall physical health, and ability to have more children are threatened. There may be other cases in which an exception is necessary. But this is why I dislike the bill passed by Congress (and upheld by the Supreme Court in the most idiotic opinion of Anthony Kennedy's career) that banned the dilation and extraction method of abortion. If a woman whose reproductive health and ability to have more kids is in jeopardy because of a major complication to her pregnancy, one that would usually result in the inability to have more kids and a child who would not live very wrong, ought to have a legal right to an abortion, but under the current law she would not.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 5, 2007 9:27 AM

"No matter how much analytical posturing we do, the general sense of morality and fairness of the American people would probably arrive at what is for both sides a compromised position, no matter how seemingly illogical that position would be."

This can't be explained away as an artifact of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem or something. Very few pro-lifers admit to wanting to punish abortion as much as we punish homicide of the born. Either they're all just backpedaling themselves and pretending they don't want that, or they just hold an illogical position--but either way this is an internal rather than interpersonal inconsistency.

I don't mean, as some might, that *everyone* who wants more abortion regulations is illogical, but those who make "slippery slope" arguments against fertility treatments, stem cell research and Plan B while also refusing to punish moms at all are being inconsistent.

I'm of the opinion that only ones who maintain a consistent life ethic would not be Catholics but those following Hindu or Jainist ahimsa doctrines. When Rome condemns eating meat and "Just War", then maybe they can get back to me on consistency. Note that once animals are added to those with a right to life the inconsistencies evaporate, as it makes perfect sense for animals to have different sets of rights with different sanctions backing them up depending on their nature.

Posted by Consumatopia | October 5, 2007 9:55 AM

It's not hard to figure out, since positions taken be anti-choice people are more consistent with punishing sex than with reverence for fertilized eggs as human life: here's a handy list of them. See above for another example or two.

Of course, since it's easy to imagine that it's those irresponsible welfare queens that are out there having that irresponsible sex and wanting those abortions, I think there's often an element of racism involved as well.

Posted by Ken C. | October 5, 2007 11:16 AM

Oops, the above is a response to Gabbo: "Wow, pro-abortion advocates are really good at figuring out other peoples' motivations, aren't they?"

By the way, that's "pro-choice".

Posted by Ken C. | October 5, 2007 11:18 AM

Those who support restrictions on abortion in excess of what Roe already allows the states to do but do not support a blanket ban with penalties draconian enough to make it possibly impact behavior share one false assumption: that there is some foolproof way for a third party (you, a doctor, a judge, a jury, a prosecutor) to tell a 'good' abortion from a 'bad' abortion. As the thread above demonstrates, opinions on this subject differ too widely for that to be realistic, consistent, or fair. So as imperfect as it may be, women should make these decisions for themselves based on whatever advice or religion she wants to follow. You need help if YOU really think YOU (or your elected official or the judge your elected official appoints, or the doctor the state licenses) want to decide whether a 15 year old runaway pregnant with an 18 year old drug dealer's baby (which could also have been the result of a rape by her stepfather - no one is sure - that's why she ran away) should get an abortion even though the baby appears to be in good health, though a certain birth defect does run in the family. If she dies in childbirth can you live with your responsibility in the matter? Do you want your tax dollars to support the baby if it turns out to be crack addicted? What if YOU had to sit here in the preemie unit day after day trying to get the state not to turn off its life support while the baby slips away? See, you and I don't have to do or risk those things. That's why neither we nor the people we empower with our vote get to decide instead of the 15 year old.

Posted by bmc90 | October 5, 2007 11:33 AM

Well, bmc90, and of the rich girl whose parents are paying for the abortion? An abortion would be fortunate for her and for her parents -- the last thing they need is to live with the stigma that their daughter had a child out of wedlock. And I'm so glad couples can have an abortion when they don't like the gender of their child, or they can have an abortion upon realizing their child will have Down syndrome. They could afford the child, yes, but, geez, they really don't want to deal with that inconvenient strain.

Look, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have first trimester abortion be legal, but throwing around one scenario doesn't help any particular position. If I were an anti-choicer, the examples I just threw out there wouldn't have helped my argument any more than the hypothetical situation you presented.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 5, 2007 2:28 PM

Well, they're both equally wrong morally, I believe.

And how wrong is that? How wrong do you think it is for someone to refuse to donate blood or tissue or organs (a kidney, say) to save the life of another person (again, assuming there is no other available donor)? On a scale of wrongness from, say, jaywalking to first-degree murder, where do you think it lies? And do you think it should be a crime? If not, why should abortion be a crime, if abortion is only "equally morally wrong" as refusing to make a life-saving donation of this kind?

But my point isn't to argue the logical implications of banning abortion given the premises of the anti-choice movement that a fetus is a human being, but to say that abortion could have legal limitations that, while perhaps not totally consistent with the premises of the anti-choice movement, reflect the sense of morality and fairness of a given democratic society.

The point is that the "legal implications" most pro-lifers attribute to abortion (a minor crime for the woman, or perhaps not a crime at all) are completely inconsistent with their premises about the nature of abortion (that it is an act of killing of a "person" or "human being.") This isn't just a quibble, it's a great glaring contradiction in their position. Cognitive dissonance. The contradiction is also apparent in other positions typically held by pro-lifers, such as their reluctance or refusal to treat the destruction of embryos through stem-cell research or IVF as murder. There seem to be very, very, VERY few pro-lifers who really believe their own rhetoric about embryos and fetuses being "babies" or "persons" or "human beings."

Posted by Mixner | October 5, 2007 2:49 PM

I can't exactly give a scale on the wrongness of an abortion or refusing to give life saving tissue, except to say that I generally adhere to a religious tradition that would classify these acts as mortal sins.

The pro-life movement ought to address these contradictions, and I agree they exist. If they "soften" their rhetoric and make the case that abortion is wrong without assaulting the general sense of morality and fairness of the American people, then they'll gain a lot more in popularity. The pro-life movement needs to change its position on a wide number of issues, particularly contraception and sex education.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 5, 2007 3:00 PM

Ken C. - Wow, that list might actually make some points if "Abortion should be treated exactly the same as a child murder" were anything close to actual pro-life positions, beyond maybe a few wackos in Colorado Springs. I think you'll find that there are many Americans who feel that granting full legal personhood --- which minors under the age of 18 don't even really have --- is irrelevant and that what is most important is that human fetuses should be allowed the most basic, minimal right that one can possibly give to someone: the right not to be killed at a whim. The details beyond that can be worked out. And no, not everyone who feels abortion should be illegal feels the same way about birth control. The number of people in the U.S. who oppose Griswold v. Connecticut is almost vanishingly small; the number of people who oppose Roe v. Wade is much, much larger.

Posted by Gabbo | October 7, 2007 7:03 AM

"the right not to be killed at a whim"

"At a whim". Nice touch. When your father raped your thirteen-year-old sister, was considering abortion a "whim"?

Oh, you mean when those welfare queens screwed around and got knocked up. That whim.

"The details beyond that can be worked out."

Well, by all means, let's hear those worked-out details. What are the clear and obvious rights held by fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses? Why aren't you desperate to save their innocent, not-quite-human-but-close lives from the plague that they suffer? Why shouldn't those women, who have their not-quite-human-but-close fertilized eggs killed, be punished harshly? Why is it ok for not-quite-human-but-close embryos to be sacrificed to the cause of huge families, via fertility drugs and IVF? Clearly, you've thought all this through; please share your insights!

Posted by Ken C. | October 7, 2007 2:39 PM