Pill Kills

Jessica Valenti draws our attention to the latest initiative from the American Life League -- the Pill Kills campaign dedicated, it seems, to complaining about the Griswold decision that overturned bans on contraceptives. That's a terrible, terrible agenda the League is pushing but you've got to give them credit for seriousness of purpose -- all too often you see social conservatives aiming at what amount to marginal targets like gay marriage and abortion when the logic of their critique is aimed at stuff like divorce and basic birth control.

Comments

This is one case where "Bring it on!" is the right response. I welcome these people finally making it clear what they are really about, and I look forward to the response from the general public.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Well, you will still have trouble finding abortion opponents who will say there should be criminal penalties for a women who gets an abortion. The target is the abortion, but somehow the doctor and the clinic are the only parties with free will. I've always been blown away by this. All the anti-abortion folks I asked about it were totally befuddled, as if I had asked them whether a rape victim ought to be penalized for getting raped. It's an alarming amount of comfort with the notion that women do and should lack any agency regarding their bodies.

Posted by MSB | May 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Actually, Matt, the Pills Kill campaign seems to operate on two levels.

The first, as you point out, is to protest the Griswold decision of linking birth-control to right of privacy concerns.

The second, however, is to note that very many "contraceptive" pills actually *do* work as abortifacients. Especially if one construes conception, and not implementation, as the beginning of biological life.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Everyone is dishonorable if they disagree with Matt Yglesias, is the real take-away of this silly post. And all to have sex more often.

Posted by Matthew Dallman | May 7, 2008 12:27 PM

Matthew,

I disagree with your characterization of Yglesias. I agree that he misrepresents pro-lifers (such as myself) by claiming that, for us, abortion is a "marginal" issue (and lumped together, no less, with gay marriage--an issue on which myself and many other pro-lifers disagree)--since our "real" target must be "basic birth control."

There is nothing inconsistent with being (1) pro-life; (2) pro gay-marriage and (3) for access to birth control. These issues are lumped together because of political reasons, not logical ones. So Matt's wrong and over-simple here.

But in general I find he's argumentative rather than ideologically shrill, which makes him one of my favorite left-center bloggers out there.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Wow, what a great way to drive away sane, moderate people from your cause. This shows how the ultimate goal of the "Pro-Life" crowd isn't just preventing abortions, which I admit are morally and ethically problematic for many people including pro-choicers like myself. No, their real goal is attacking sexuality and the denying the biological fact that sexual satisfaction is a human desire. They are so far out of touch with reality that they propose a set of rules of human behavior that would never work if implemented in an actual society. If you really cared about abortion so much, then how could you possibly oppose contraceptives?

Posted by wahoomatt | May 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Everyone is dishonorable if they disagree with Matt Yglesias, is the real take-away of this silly post. And all to have sex more often.

Posted by Matthew Dallman

WTF?

Posted by El Cid | May 7, 2008 12:35 PM

Tell it to Douthat and the Christianists who populate his site. They have sworn that they are not aiming for Griswold.

Posted by SavageView | May 7, 2008 12:37 PM

Somehing like over 30% of all conceptions end naturally in miscarriage - way before the fetus is developed and birth is possible. To treat the moment of sperm meeting egg as a "baby" is the height of emotional propaganda. Just on a "rule of reason" basis, why would anyone support an organization or cause that claims a moral high ground through overt manipulation and lies?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 7, 2008 12:37 PM

As wj said above, many contraceptives are (or could be) abortifacient. The language in incendiary in that ad, but wouldn't people want to know that they are taking medicine that may may a very morally difficult decision without their awareness?
I can't see how women shouldn't know that before they start taking any medication.

Posted by Nathan Clark | May 7, 2008 12:42 PM

@Savageview: I call bullshit.

The entire foundation of the right-to-life movements is to strip away the "right-to-privacy" and to return personal sexual issues to the political gridiron.

Randall Terry was once quoted as saying that the ultimate goal is Griswald. If Douthat really isn't aiming for Griswald, he is either naive (the foundation for Roe is Griswald, since the former isn't decided without the latter) or hopelessly cynical.

Posted by Shine | May 7, 2008 12:45 PM

There is nothing inconsistent with being (1) pro-life; (2) pro gay-marriage and (3) for access to birth control. These issues are lumped together because of political reasons, not logical ones. So Matt's wrong and over-simple here.

Perhaps there is nothing logically inconsistent in holding all three positions simultaneously. I suspect, however, that there are very few people who do.

Posted by SavageView | May 7, 2008 12:47 PM

"There is nothing inconsistent with being (1) pro-life; (2) pro gay-marriage and (3) for access to birth control. These issues are lumped together because of political reasons, not logical ones."

There's nothing logically inconsistent about it, but the number of people who actually combine those positions is miniscule and certainly doesn't have any significant voice in the pro-life movement. I fail to see what Matt said wrong: "all too often" (note - not always) social conservatives hide their radical agenda to criminalise hugely common and accepted behaviour by prioritising marginal activities in their campaigns. That's exactly right, especially when it comes to reproductive rights.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | May 7, 2008 12:49 PM

It would be great if this movement could somehow be tied to John McCain. Being able to paint him as not just anti-abortion, but anti-birth control, would be electoral gold...

Posted by Spike | May 7, 2008 12:53 PM

It would be great if this movement could somehow be tied to John McCain. Being able to paint him as not just anti-abortion, but anti-birth control, would be electoral gold...

Posted by Spike | May 7, 2008 12:56 PM

And all to have sex more often.

Funny how that "have sex more often" dismissal comes up in the context of telling women what they shouldn't do with their bodies. Not.

BTW Nathan C., you're presuming women as a class don't know what they're doing with regard to birth control. Trust me, they do.

And wj, as Ethel-to-Tilly pointed out, many fertilized eggs don't implant and die. It is really something that deserves to be such a highly charged moral issue? Because the morning-after-pill isn't really killing a baby as the pro-natalists assert.

Posted by David W. | May 7, 2008 12:58 PM

"There is nothing inconsistent with being (1) pro-life; (2) pro gay-marriage and (3) for access to birth control. These issues are lumped together because of political reasons, not logical ones."

There's nothing logically inconsistent about it, but the number of people who actually combine those positions is miniscule and certainly doesn't have any significant voice in the pro-life movement.

Excluding gay marriage, since it's related only tangentially, I think you'll find that the opposite is true. Most pro-life people I know are not the die-hards who show up at clinics chanting "All babies want to be borned!" every weekend, and I have to believe that most of the pro-life population isn't, either. The folks I know are all fine with at least basic birth control, though some have issues with, say, RU486 or the morning after pill.

As far as your second point, about the pro-life movement, I suspect you're right to a certain degree. But I don't think we're in any danger of actually losing any rights to birth control pills. I don't care what state Sam Brownback represents, if he ever submitted and passed a bill banning it he'd be without a job at the next election.

Posted by mark f | May 7, 2008 1:02 PM

I take Ethel-to-Tilly and David W.'s point that "many fertilized eggs turn out to be non-viable." Unfortunately this correct empirical observation does not touch the principle that, if a new biological human organism *is* present at conception, it is wrong to use force to terminate its existence. Whether or not 30 percent of such organisms end up dying is moot.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 1:05 PM

By that measure, menstruation is an abortifacient, and the proper response would be to advocate for the new generation of pills that reduce the number of periods a woman has while taking them. No?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 1:05 PM

Incidentally, my hometown of Worcester is the, um, birthplace of the Pill. I can be thanked by association however you see fit.

Posted by mark f | May 7, 2008 1:07 PM

I'm pretty sure any polling data would show that the proportion of pro-life Americans who want to restrict access to birth control is relatively small. Certainly they exist, but to think the entire pro-life movement is really about overturning Griswold is either paranoia or pure liberal posturing.

Posted by right | May 7, 2008 1:07 PM

Pseudonymous,

I don't understand your point. A woman menstruates because she is *not* pregnant. Not because she is.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 1:10 PM

Tell it to Douthat and the Christianists who populate his site. They have sworn that they are not aiming for Griswold. - SavageView

But that's the point of the "pill kills" campaign ... to do an end run around Griswold by changing the terms. If the pill is murder, then "the right to privacy" doesn't apply, does it?

Many pro-lifers do want to keep the right to privacy because, e.g., they are Catholic and know full well the history of anti-Catholic discimination in England and the USA: if they have to resort to hiding their priests again, they want to make damned sure they have that right.

The problem with this shirt is that it changes the terms of the debate. We liberals need to do a far better job of being pro-active in establishing the terms of the debate. We should have pushed "they mean to take away your right to privacy including birth control" (to frighten Prods into worrying about Papist plots and Catholics into worrying about how they'd hide their priests if worse comes to worse) ... but now they're setting the terms of the birth control debate, which is not a good thing.

Too often it seems like liberals are people who've not played catch often enough (why we're perceived as "out of touch"): if you don't reach out to catch the ball, it'll break your fingers when it comes toward you. Or as they say, ya gotta take the bull by the horns ...

Posted by DAS | May 7, 2008 1:11 PM

The numbers I've heard are actually topsy-turvy on that. That it's actually 30% or so that DON'T miscarriage. Doesn't matter.

The unfortunate reality is that in terms of politics, you go with the anti-abortion groups that we have. And for the most part, they are all anti-birth control as well, (And for those that can expand scope, they tend to be anti-gay marriage as well).

And MY is right. Abortion is a marginal issue. If it wasn't, we'd have definitive plans from these groups on ending abortion, including some information on how much prison time women should spend if they have one. But we don't have that information, so the our assumption is pretty clear.

My guess? The target is Griswold, and the goal is to use it as leverage against the politically inconvenient. Similar to how sodomy laws were used in the south.

Posted by Karmakin | May 7, 2008 1:15 PM

wj doesn't understand the power of Ethel-to-Tilly's point. We actually don't know whether, or how often, a birth control pill causes a fertilized egg which would have otherwise made it into the endometrium to not implant. All we know is that when a woman is on the pill and an ovulation occurs anyway, some zygotes will not implant.

This means the term abortifacient, when used to described the failure of a zygote to implant, is practically meaningless. You can't prove the causation.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 1:15 PM

I don't believe that anyone--Catholic or otherwise--seriously thinks that returning the issue of abortion to the states will result in the persecution of Catholics, as the logic of DAS's post suggests.

The goal of the Pills Kills campaign is, as I said, two-fold: (1) it does go after Griswold (but here, again, there are not many pro-lifers who are also committed to anti-birth-control legislation, so this strategy seems weak) but it also (2) raises awareness that some contraceptive drugs do in fact work as abortifacients. As I posted earlier, I don't think that the PIlls Kill website is explicit about these aims or is even clear about how they're different. But they are, in fact, different.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 1:19 PM

Slogans! We need slogans. I suggest stealing from the NRA:

"If the pill is outlawed, only outlaws will have the pill."

"You can have my condom when you pry it from my cold, dead..."

Um. Maybe I need someone else to steal from.

Posted by pfc | May 7, 2008 1:28 PM

Dilan Esper begs the question. On his view a "fertilized egg" does not count as a new human organism. He--and others--suggest that implantation is the decisive moment. There are disagreements about this. But I am committed to the view that fertilization--not implantation--does in fact constitute the creation of a new human organism. A zygote--implanted or not--is already, on my view, a human being.

Also, Esper's argument from skepticism can be turned on its head. Even granted his premise regarding implantation (which I deny), it is precisely because we are unsure how many viable zygotes are destroyed as a function of the contraceptive pill that we should be cautious in describing it AS contraceptive and NOT as abortifacent.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 1:29 PM

To treat the moment of sperm meeting egg as a "baby" is the height of emotional propaganda.

Does anyone really believe that the presence or absence of implantation changes the moral calculus?
Its just as reasonable to say that using the pill is morally wrong as it is to say that aborting an already implanted egg is morally wrong. Making distinctions at this level is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 1:30 PM

Making distinctions at this level is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Or microscopic "babies"!

Posted by mark f | May 7, 2008 1:34 PM

But I am committed to the view that fertilization--not implantation--does in fact constitute the creation of a new human organism. A zygote--implanted or not--is already, on my view, a human being.

Great, but you should acknowledge that this is also begging the question, just as you accuse Dilan of doing.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 1:35 PM

Death to women who have abortions! I believe quartering would be an appropriate eye-for-eye punishment - tying each limb to a horse and have them gallop in opposite directions.

And death to the doctors that perform them! Perhaps Joe Pesci style, with their head in a vise would be the appropriate way.

If our Taliban is going to be stupid, they should be stupid all the way.

Posted by calipygian | May 7, 2008 1:36 PM

Suppose we knew how many viable zygotes were destroyed by the pill. Would that change anyone's opinions? The presence of uncertainty as to the causality seems like a complete side issue to me.

Also, the view that fertilization is the decisive moment in the creation of a human organism can only be based on the fact that the fertilized egg has a new DNA code. So, is it the idea that a cell containing a new DNA code is somehow sacred, whereas cells possessing the old DNA codes are completely expendable?

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 1:40 PM

I think it's important to remind everyone here that, despite what wj is saying, hormonal birth control pills are not abortifacients, but work by preventing ovulation.

This post and this one by P.Z. Myers ("Pharyngula") are about Plan B emergency contraception in particular, but also apply to other hormonal birth control pills. As he says in his post, regarding Plan B: How many times do I have to say this? There is ABSOLUTELY NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR ANY EFFECT OTHER THAN ON OVULATION. Vague hypotheticals that it might do X, Y, or Z don't cut it, unless you've got some supporting observations.

Just wanted to insert that little note in this discussion...

Posted by Alex R | May 7, 2008 1:42 PM

A zygote--implanted or not--is already, on my view, a human being.

Sheesh. Then remind me not to ask you to rescue me next time I hang around any burning fertility clinics.

Posted by Seitz | May 7, 2008 1:45 PM

I think it's important to remind everyone here that, despite what wj is saying, hormonal birth control pills are not abortifacients, but work by preventing ovulation.

Fine and dandy. But could someone explain to me why its ok to prevent ovulation but terrible to abort a recently implanted zygote? It seems to me that the end result is the same in either case.

Obviously, the distinction is important if you want to get a majority of people on your side in a debate about the pill. But, philosophically, I just don't see any reason for a distinction.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 1:50 PM

JimW - I suggest you get cracking and start lobbying to make artificial fertilization clinics illegal. It takes HUNDREDS of unimplanted zygotes to get one pregnancy.

But, I'd be careful, because fertility clinics are among that stuff that white people like and infertile yuppies will really be pissed that you're fucking with their ability to control their reproductive destinies by telling them that those hundreds of zygotes have as much value as a living, breathing human being.

Goddamn this is some stupid shit, arguing about when clumps of cells are people.

Posted by calipygian | May 7, 2008 1:52 PM

Get ready for the next American Life League campaign:

"KY Gel Causes Crabgas"

Thank God the ALL is looking out for us.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 7, 2008 1:53 PM

Unfortunately this correct empirical observation does not touch the principle that, if a new biological human organism *is* present at conception, it is wrong to use force to terminate its existence.

Doesn't conjure up quite the same emotional impact as "killing a baby" though, does it?

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 7, 2008 1:53 PM

Unfortunately this correct empirical observation does not touch the principle that, if a new biological human organism *is* present at conception, it is wrong to use force to terminate its existence.

Why is it wrong? You're making an assertion here without backing it up. The principle you're talking about seems to be concerned not so much with the biological human organism itself, given the fact that many fertilized eggs do not implant and gestate, but with the choice to bear a child or not.

Posted by David W. | May 7, 2008 2:01 PM

Goddamn this is some stupid shit, arguing about when clumps of cells are people.

That's my whole point. The rationales people use to privilege one point in development over another do not hold up to scrutiny. In my opinion, the only argument that makes sense regarding the sacredness of life relates to the presence of consciousness. It is our consciousness, after all, that makes life worth living.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 2:01 PM

"On his view a "fertilized egg" does not count as a new human organism. He--and others--suggest that implantation is the decisive moment. There are disagreements about this. But I am committed to the view that fertilization--not implantation--does in fact constitute the creation of a new human organism. A zygote--implanted or not--is already, on my view, a human being."

Why should any controversial view on this be pushed by the state? What if my religion says life begins at birth? As a society in general, we might not all agree when life begins, but we can all agree that a baby that has been born already is a living human being. In addition, our Constitution only grants citizenship (and thus American rights) to naturalized citizens and people who were born - not conceived - in the US. Allowing abortion to be legal allows people to exercise their own religious beliefs about the beginning of life within an agreed-upon parameters of when a child is definitely alive. No one forces a woman who believes life begins at conception to get an abortion. Anything more is robbing people of their religious freedom.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 2:10 PM

The rationales people use to privilege one point in development over another do not hold up to scrutiny. In my opinion, the only argument that makes sense regarding the sacredness of life relates to the presence of consciousness. It is our consciousness, after all, that makes life worth living.

Actually though, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence (and we are talking, bottom-line, "law" here, after all, has always recognized a bright line of "birth" separated the existance of what comes after from what came before. Up until the first blanket anti-abortion measures of the 19th century were passed, jurisprudence concerning abortion generally draw a very significant line at "quickening" (something that Roe v Wade merely had the effect of restoring) - and one of the very practical reasons for drawing that line *is* the high incidence of natural miscarriage - especially early in the pregnancy.

Once you start treating whatever organism that exists from the moment of conception exactly as a baby (and how are you going to prove the point of consciousness anyway?), then you really do start down a pretty steep slippery slope when those 30%+ of pregnancies that end in miscarriages go wrong. All well in good in the abstract when discussing questions of individual "morality", but from a legal standpoint, if you've ever been in a situation where your mother or wife or sister or girlfriend has suffered a miscarriage (notice the terminology there, btw), the last thing needed is for the abortion police to come sniffing around obstensively protecting the "rights" of a zygote.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 7, 2008 2:14 PM

Does anyone really believe that the presence or absence of implantation changes the moral calculus?

Absolutely. A new relationship is formed with the mother, directly taking nutrition. It makes a world of difference for thinking through things like stem-cell research.

To treat the moment of sperm meeting egg as a "baby" is the height of emotional propaganda

Well, at that point, there is a growing organism with unique human DNA. It has begun a process that if not interrupted, will eventually result in human adult. The zygote-embryo-fetus-infant-toddler-child-adolescent intermediate phases are part of the human development process from fertilization to adult. So "baby" is emotional, but meant to communicate "same status as baby".

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 2:15 PM

Does anyone really believe that the presence or absence of implantation changes the moral calculus?

Absolutely. A new relationship is formed with the mother, directly taking nutrition. It makes a world of difference for thinking through things like stem-cell research.

To treat the moment of sperm meeting egg as a "baby" is the height of emotional propaganda

Well, at that point, there is a growing organism with unique human DNA. It has begun a process that if not interrupted, will eventually result in human adult. The zygote-embryo-fetus-infant-toddler-child-adolescent intermediate phases are part of the human development process from fertilization to adult. So "baby" is emotional, but meant to communicate "same status as baby".

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 2:18 PM

@Savageview: I call bullshit.

The entire foundation of the right-to-life movements is to strip away the "right-to-privacy" and to return personal sexual issues to the political gridiron.

Randall Terry was once quoted as saying that the ultimate goal is Griswald. If Douthat really isn't aiming for Griswald, he is either naive (the foundation for Roe is Griswald, since the former isn't decided without the latter) or hopelessly cynical.

That was my point.

Posted by SavageView | May 7, 2008 2:27 PM

But could someone explain to me why its ok to prevent ovulation but terrible to abort a recently implanted zygote? It seems to me that the end result is the same in either case.

In the first, a person is choosing to chemically affect the biological function of their own body. In the second, and independent organism with its own unique DNA is having its life forcibly terminated (this is true anywhere on the clump-of-cells / de-facto-baby spectrum).

Mixing up contraception and abortion is the stupidest thing possible for pro-lifers, both politically and conceptually.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 2:28 PM

It has begun a process that if not interrupted, will eventually result in human adult.

You could make the same argument against condoms. When people have sex, they have begun the same process, just at an earlier point in time. Absent "condomus interuptus", this process would in many cases result in a cute little baby.

I am essentially pro-choice, but I do take exception to the common pro-choice argument that the fetus is part of the mother's body, and therefore the state has no claim there. If the plan is to go ahead and bring the fetus to term, I do think the state has an interest in its proper development (eg, protecting it from too much alcohol, providing it adequate nutrition, etc).

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 2:28 PM

So "baby" is emotional, but meant to communicate "same status as baby".

By that logic, a zygote has the same status as a teenager and the only objection to giving it the car keys is that it doesn't yet have the necessary organs to operate an automobile.

So the fact that we aren't up in arms about the tragedy of fertilized eggs that fail to implant leads me to believe that we don't really act as if zygotes are equivalent to teenagers.

Posted by David W. | May 7, 2008 2:29 PM

"You could make the same argument against condoms. When people have sex, they have begun the same process, just at an earlier point in time."

Completely false. We're not doing the metaphysics of causality here. You could go back even further to "when he booked the hotel room" or some such ridiculousness.

There is a unique organism with its unique human DNA that exists after fertilization that did not exist prior to that. (What status of "personhood" we confer on that is another issue.)

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM

Fine. But you have not stated why it is that a cell containing a unique DNA sequence has special value. If your answer is "Faith", then I'll be satisfied.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 2:43 PM

Being anti-gay marriage, abortion and birth control is less morally consistent than being pro-life and anti war. If you're so concerned about killing un-viable zygotes and fetuses, why no outrage over hundreds of thousands of perfectly viable Iraqi's that our fab foreign policy have snuffed out?

http://www.cafepress.com/thejennifers.253314171

Posted by john i | May 7, 2008 2:50 PM

I said that a) it is a unique organism, i.e it satisfies the metabolic/reproductive/negentropy criteria for "life"; and b)the presence of a human DNA sequence entails classifying this life as "human."

I'm saying it's human life at that point, and it wasn't before that. What value that gives it up for debate. I can give you my argument for value, but I'm trying to be descriptive here. Productive discussions about value are hard to have when basic facts are in dispute.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 2:57 PM

I don't understand your point. A woman menstruates because she is *not* pregnant. Not because she is.

wj? Thanks for making it clear that you don't have a fucking clue about biology.

If you really are "committed to the view that fertilization--not implantation--does in fact constitute the creation of a new human organism", then you're presumably committed to treating trashcans containing used sanitary products as mass graves.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 3:06 PM

nolaboyd, A does not necessarily follow B. You are making a logical jump based on faith.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 3:09 PM

The point isn't whether a zygote (or any given embryonic stage) is human life. Of course it is. It's clearly not dead and if it's not human, what is it? The point is whether it's a person, and if so, which rights of personhood it should have. A lot of the unnecessary heat would be taken out of the debate if people were clear on that point. That still leaves a whole lot of necessary heat, of course, as there is wide and passionate disagreement over the question of personhood and considerable disagreement over the rights of a given class of person what to do when they infringe on others' rights..

Posted by Ginger Yellow | May 7, 2008 3:42 PM

So I'm the only one who wants a t-shirt that says, "The Pill Kills Babies. Tasty, tasty babies" then?

This isn't about zygotes, fertilized eggs, or any of that. This is about controlling female sexuality.

Posted by Persia | May 7, 2008 3:51 PM

The point isn't whether a zygote (or any given embryonic stage) is human life. Of course it is. It's clearly not dead and if it's not human, what is it?

How about the egg and sperm cells prior to fertilization. They are alive. They are human cells. They have DNA. The only difference is that they share the same DNA as the all the other cells in the host bodies, whereas the zygote has a new DNA sequence. So, the argument is that it is sacred because it is new. Why does newness confer sacredness. Because it just does.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Persia -
No you're not. Sign me up.
-j

Posted by john i | May 7, 2008 3:59 PM

Sexual abstinence kills babies.

Posted by Virginia | May 7, 2008 4:01 PM

>I said that a) it is a unique organism, i.e it satisfies the metabolic/reproductive/negentropy criteria for "life"; and b)the presence of a human DNA sequence entails classifying this life as "human."

So by this standard Henrietta Lacks is immortal?

Posted by snoey | May 7, 2008 4:07 PM

Dilan Esper begs the question. On his view a "fertilized egg" does not count as a new human organism. He--and others--suggest that implantation is the decisive moment. There are disagreements about this. But I am committed to the view that fertilization--not implantation--does in fact constitute the creation of a new human organism. A zygote--implanted or not--is already, on my view, a human being.

Actually, I took no position on this issue. (Indeed, it's pretty clear to me that personhood isn't an on-off switch but is rather a continuum. But that's beside the point.)

Rather, my point, which you do not deal with, is that science is unable to definitively tell us that the pill causes any zygotes / blastocysts that would have otherwise implanted to not implant. Thus, even if you grant the absurd claim that personhood begins at conception, we don't really know if the pill is causing any deaths above and beyond what mother nature causes.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 4:09 PM

Once again the anti-abortion crowd is misrepresenting the facts:

The pill prevents ovulation.

Plan b prevents implantation.

Neither is abortion - period.

Typical right wing demagoguery to misrepresent the facts and then to advocate for taking away a woman's right to choose under ALL circumstances.

If we outlaw birth control - abortions will go up. If we outlaw abortions - women will get them anyways under unsafe conditions. These antiabortionist people have no moral basis for what they are proposing - because the proposed "solutions" end up harming more people than the fetuses they supposedly "save".

Posted by correctnotright | May 7, 2008 4:12 PM

Ethel-to-Tilly writes:

"Actually though, Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence (and we are talking, bottom-line, "law" here, after all, has always recognized a bright line of "birth" separated the existance of what comes after from what came before. Up until the first blanket anti-abortion measures of the 19th century were passed, jurisprudence concerning abortion generally draw a very significant line at "quickening" (something that Roe v Wade merely had the effect of restoring) - and one of the very practical reasons for drawing that line *is* the high incidence of natural miscarriage - especially early in the pregnancy."

This is inaccurate, as Robert Byrn summarizes:

"(a) even the earliest common law cases do not support the proposition that abortion was regarded as a "liberty" or "freedom" or "right" of the pregnant woman or anyone else; (b) "quickening" was utilized in the later common law as a practical evidentiary test to determine whether the abortion had been an assault upon a live human being in the womb and whether the abortional act had caused the child's death; this evidentiary test was never intended as a judgment that before quickening the child was not a live human being; and, (c) at all times, the common law disapproved of abortion as [wrong in itself] and sought to protect the child in the womb from the moment his living biological existence could be proved."

Francis Wharton, who wrote one of the two leading nineteenth century American treatises on how the common law approached abortion, wrote: "The notion that a man is not accountable for destroying the child before it quickens, arose from the hypothesis that quickening was the commencement of vitality with it...[which] is now exploded in medicine, the fact being considered indisputable, that 'quickening' is the incident, not the inception of vitality."

Posted by torourke | May 7, 2008 4:38 PM

(a) even the earliest common law cases do not support the proposition that abortion was regarded as a "liberty" or "freedom" or "right" of the pregnant woman or anyone else; (b) "quickening" was utilized in the later common law as a practical evidentiary test to determine whether the abortion had been an assault upon a live human being in the womb and whether the abortional act had caused the child's death; this evidentiary test was never intended as a judgment that before quickening the child was not a live human being; and, (c) at all times, the common law disapproved of abortion as [wrong in itself] and sought to protect the child in the womb from the moment his living biological existence could be proved

So, in other words, the history supports the contention that pre-quickening abortion was not considered a crime, but pro-lifers have all sorts of explanations and rationalizations for why this doesn't really mean that the law permitted pre-quickening abortion.

I've learned a long time ago not to expect any honesty on the history of abortion from pro-life authors. Of course, one can try to explain away the shift in views about abortion over the course of time. But an honest author would at least admit that these are rationalizations and that there's no way to establish their truth.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 4:49 PM

nolaboyd, A does not necessarily follow B. You are making a logical jump based on faith.

A and B are two separate claims, with B being more specific than A. No logical jumps, faith-based or otherwise. Try to keep up.

By that logic, a zygote has the same status as a teenager and the only objection to giving it the car keys is that it doesn't yet have the necessary organs to operate an automobile.

Sub in "toddler" for zygote and "organ development" for organs. Still don't like the logic?

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 4:57 PM

Not inaccurate at all - I never claimed that abortion was permitted or approved of in common law - you're creating a strawman. The fact is, and Byrn's word suport me - Jim stated that "[t]he rationales people use to privilege one point in development over another do not hold up to scrutiny" - but the point *is* that a point in development HAS been used in such a way, legally, for centuries - the purpose being not so much with the metaphysical or legal question of creating or recognizing "personhood" or "rights" (that SOLELY occurs at birth - and our entire legal system - rights, etc. are based upon that. You can't bequeath property to a fetus, you can't tax a fetus, a fetus cannot sue in court, etc.)

But, because of the very real, very common incidence of miscarriage, both then, and now, the incidence of fetal death, whether natural or not, was not considered a crime or prosecuted as such before that point. And that is something that has to be considered and taken into account if we are going to overturn a thousand years of civil legal practice to accomodate the religous views of some.

For purposes of this discussion, the historical Anglo-Saxon legal tradition would never accomodate the viewpoint that "the pill kills babies". Nothing that you've posted refutes that.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 7, 2008 5:01 PM

"A and B are two separate claims, with B being more specific than A. No logical jumps, faith-based or otherwise. Try to keep up."

Then you don't have an argument. I can claim that A) I am Superman and B) I can fly. However, since these are just assertions based on blind faith, they are simply silly. How is that different from your claims?

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2008 5:16 PM

I think we could solve all of this anti-choice/contraception hoohah very simply.

For one year, fertile women should NOT use any contraception. If you become pregnant, sue your local rightwingnut politician/preacher/pundit for healthcare support. When you deliver the cute little baby, name the wingnut as the father and drop it off at his office/church/home for 18-20 years of parental care.

If these busybodies are so concerned about the state of the eggs/sperm/zygotes in other people's bodies, they should be more than happy to raise the resulting children.

Posted by CParis | May 7, 2008 5:29 PM

Dilan,

Go back and read the quotes I posted, take a deep breath, and then think about what you wrote, because the conclusion you drew is possible only if you are intentionally misreading the evidence (or just read through it too quickly). Both major nineteenth century American treatises on how the common law approached abortion agreed that pre-quickening abortion was a crime, but one that was obviously very difficult to prosecute. Quickening was used as an evidentiary standard, but again this standard did not imply that pre-quickening abortion was legal.

And the dishonesty on the history of the abortion law has come entirely from the pro-choice side. Pro-choice historians even presented a fradulent brief on this issue during the hearings for Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

See here for more:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v47/ai_17443648

Posted by torourke | May 7, 2008 5:46 PM

15-40% of normal pregnancies end in miscarriage and potentially more because of failed implantations and miscarriages that occur before women are aware they are pregnant.

You know what kills babies? God.

Posted by brenna | May 7, 2008 5:57 PM

I have been away from this thread for a while. Let me take up some of the responses to my earlier claims.

1. I am committed to the view that a zygote is a human organism because the zygote--and neither the egg nor the sperm that comprise it--has the potential to develop into an adult human being.

2. As soon as this potential is present, there is an identifiably new organism.

3. Because I believe that a human person is essentially his or her biological substance, I believe that a zygote is a human person, indeed, the *same* human person that the infant, or teen, or adult is.
So I reject Dilan Esper's assertion that personhood occurs on a continuum. Esper rejects my argument as "absurd" but fails to provide one of his own. I would ask Esper, then, what are the criteria for personhood?

4. Because of reasons 1-3, I am committed to the view that Plan B contraceptive agents do function as abortifacients, since they artificially impede the zygote from achieving implantation or create conditions that make impossible its future biological development.

5. As I've said before, I do think that Pills Kill is a poorly formulated campaign. It is poorly formulated for two reasons. (1) it fails adequately to decide whether it is going after Griswold or just going after Plan B contraceptives and (2) because of this, it fails to distinguish the two classes of contraceptive outlined by correctnotright above. On my view, the first type of contraceptive--a condom or a pill that prevents ovulation--is NOT an abortifacient, NOR should it be illegal. Pills Kill confuses all these issues, and for that reason is problematic.

6. Dilan Esper fails to grasp my point. It is precisely *because*, in his words, "science is unable to definitively tell us" whether certain contraceptives function as contraceptives or abortifacients that we--or, better, I--need to err on the side of caution. For someone who is opposed to abortion but not contraception, the possibility that using a contraceptive device may unintentionally have abortifacient effects cause for concern. This is why I believe it is important that drug companies are forthright about even the possibility of their contraceptives acting as abortifacients. I am of course aware that others here do not share these concerns. But, from where I stand, they are real concerns.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 6:00 PM

Let me address also brenna's recent argument because it has been made more than once on this thread.

Brenna writes: "15-40% of normal pregnancies end in miscarriage and potentially more because of failed implantations and miscarriages that occur before women are aware they are pregnant.

You know what kills babies? God."

I take the point to be that because many zygotes fail to develop into adult human beings, it is wrong to argue that intentionally preventing this development is wrong. My argument, however, holds that zygotes are already human beings. And just because some human beings die earlier than others do (and, indeed, all of them die eventually), it does not follow that it is acceptable to intentionally kill them. By this logic, it is correct to kill anyone at anytime, since everybody eventually dies.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 6:10 PM

I reject Dilan Esper's assertion that personhood occurs on a continuum.

After showing your ignorance of biology, you now show your ignorance of law. Personhood is clearly defined on an age continuum in terms of the right to vote, drive a motor vehicle, serve in the army, criminal responsibility, etc.

So, you can 'reject' it as much as you like, but that doesn't mean toddlers can drive. You can be committed to your views, but that makes them no less silly. And as someone deeply committed to the view that silly persons should not be allowed to set the terms of other people's lives, you are thus unworthy of further engagement, other than to be ridiculed.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 6:49 PM

My argument, however, holds that zygotes are already human beings.

Your argument is entirely unsupported.

Hell, even religious types didn't oppose abortion until the 1800s. Abortion was an acceptable option until quickening... about 6 months.

Posted by brenna | May 7, 2008 6:49 PM

Go back and read the quotes I posted, take a deep breath, and then think about what you wrote, because the conclusion you drew is possible only if you are intentionally misreading the evidence (or just read through it too quickly). Both major nineteenth century American treatises on how the common law approached abortion agreed that pre-quickening abortion was a crime, but one that was obviously very difficult to prosecute. Quickening was used as an evidentiary standard, but again this standard did not imply that pre-quickening abortion was legal.

I'm not going to bother discussing evidentiary presumptions with you in depth, because you aren't arguing in good faith. Simply put, however, a conclusive presumption (which is what the quickening standard was) is not a rule of evidence; it is a rule of substantive law. The pro-lifers are just trying to explain away a change in the law in order to support their "Oceania was always at war with Eastasia" argument.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 6:57 PM

Because I believe that a human person is essentially his or her biological substance, I believe that a zygote is a human person, indeed, the *same* human person that the infant, or teen, or adult is. So I reject Dilan Esper's assertion that personhood occurs on a continuum. Esper rejects my argument as "absurd" but fails to provide one of his own. I would ask Esper, then, what are the criteria for personhood?

Wj:

The relevant criteria for personhood with respect to the issue of abortion is, simply put, a being whose life, if given legal protection, will not inpinge on the right of a woman to be a full participant in society, including to have sex without fear of procreation, and to not have her job or education interrupted or to be forced into or to stay in a bad marriage or relationship or driven to suicide by an unwanted pregnancy.

In other words, all the stupid philosophical arguments that conservatives sit around spinning about who is and isn't a human life have nothing to do with this issue, because this issue concerns women's rights and feminism which are more important than those sorts of silly debates.

That said, on an abstract, philosophical level, there is not one "criterion" of personhood; rather, as human life develops, it gains a greater interest in its life as attains more of the attributes of a living person. There is no one particular moment where that occurs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 7:05 PM

Again, I have a hard time following pseudonymous's argument.

The point is not that, at various stages of their existence, persons are accorded different privileges in the social communities they happen to inhabit. The point is that, at each one of these stages, we are talking--fully and unqualifiedly--about a *person*. A toddler is no less a person than an adult. A zygote is no less a person than a toddler.
I am sorry that pseudonymous finds me "silly" for holding this. But it is held not with the intention of "setting the terms of other people's lives," as s/he claims.

Brenna claims that my argument that zygotes are human beings is "entirely unsupported." Brenna then moves to a non sequitur (and at any rate historically dubious) assertion that has nothing to do with my post. However, I have provided support for my contention. My support is that a person is to be understood as an individuated biological organism that is part of the human species. Now, many disagree with this account of personhood. Many people claim that it just *can't* be right that zygotes are persons in the same sense that, say, toddlers are; and some will even claim that toddlers are not persons in the same sense that, say, adults are. I disagree with these arguments for several reasons, which I will not go into here. But, at any rate, it is incorrect to assert that my own claim about personhood is "entirely unsupported."

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 7:06 PM

I don't think Dilan Esper and I are going to come to an agreement on these issues. But I will continue the exchange anyway, since I am learning much from it.

I am unsatisfied with Esper's response to my question--namely, what are Esper's own criteria for personhood? I don't believe Esper offers a plausible explanation of these criteria in his/her last paragraph. But this is perhaps too much too expect in a blog post, anyway.

What is more upsetting is Esper's contention that thinking seriously about personhood is merely a distraction from the main issue--namely, "women's rights and feminism."

Presumably Esper understands his/her commitment to these causes to be rational. That is to say, presumably Esper has reasons for supporting women's rights and feminism, and presumably these reasons have to do with what women are. That is, I highly doubt that in Esper's own thinking political ideology comes before metaphysics. Rather, my best guess is that, perceiving that women are *fundamentally* equal (in a metaphysical) sense with men, and yet perceiving that their equality is regularly denied--either overtly or, more subtly, through structural institutions and practices--Esper takes up the cause of remedying this political injustice.

I believe that, if we are to have a just society, we should model the structures of that society on what is best for persons. And this includes an understanding, first, of what persons *are* and second, what conditions are proper to their flourishing. So I reject the implication that political questions can take precedent over, or can be responsibly decided in advance of, a correct understanding of the person. I suspect that Esper agrees with this.

Posted by wj | May 7, 2008 7:43 PM

I said:
"a) it is a unique organism, i.e it satisfies the metabolic/reproductive/negentropy criteria for "life"; and b)the presence of a human DNA sequence entails classifying this life as "human.""

Reality man said:
"Then you don't have an argument. I can claim that A) I am Superman and B) I can fly. However, since these are just assertions based on blind faith, they are simply silly. How is that different from your claims?"

The difference is -- and try to follow this, *reality* man -- that I am simply citing the definitions given in science. If you dispute either that it is alive, or that the life in question is human, please state where in the taxonomic structure you would place the human zygote.

I am not making an argument yet. I'm trying to establish that we are all aware of the agreed-upon facts before we start the arguments.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 8:01 PM

I'm not going to bother discussing evidentiary presumptions with you in depth, because you aren't arguing in good faith.

Wow, Dilan, that cop out is really beneath someone of your intelligence. The further lumping of wj into a broad group of "the pro-lifers" who are "just trying to explain away" is clear evidence that you don't know what to do with someone who disagrees with you that doesn't fit into your caricature.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 8:21 PM

Presumably Esper understands his/her commitment to these causes to be rational. That is to say, presumably Esper has reasons for supporting women's rights and feminism, and presumably these reasons have to do with what women are. That is, I highly doubt that in Esper's own thinking political ideology comes before metaphysics.

"Metaphysics", in this context, doesn't exist. It isn't real. It means "whatever I think God wants but can't prove".

So yes, I think the real world concerns for women, and the fact that abortion restrictions will harm them immensely, are far more important than metaphysics. Indeed, I think that a person's desire to pick his or her nose is far more important than metaphysics, because metaphysics have no importance whatsoever.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 8:36 PM

Every single argument about abortion I have ever seen on the Internet features someone making a total conflation between the morally neutral concept of membership in the species Homo sapiens and the morally charged concept of personhood. This one is no exception, and that is all I am going to contribute.

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 8:38 PM

A toddler is no less a person than an adult. A zygote is no less a person than a toddler.

This is just clearly untrue, given that personhood is constituted socially, and we do actually live in societies that make such distinctions. I'm tempted to quote Bill Hicks -- 'you're not a person until you're in my phone book' -- but I'll just leave you rifling through piles of used tampons for evidence of mass murder.

At least nolaboyd is clinging to a biological argument, albeit in a shallow way, given that the scientific discussion on what constitutes 'life' and particularly a discrete living thing is more than somewhat complex, and what nolabody considers 'agreed-upon' facts are mere simplifications. As such, his tactic is a bog-standard practice in online arguments.

It is, however, entirely beside the point.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 8:41 PM

guyx: read closer. You're absolutely right that they're distinct, but I've maintained that. The ascription of personhood happens someone between fertilization (when human life begins) and birth (when no one denies it). Where, and by what criteria one ascribes this, is the argument.

pseudo, find me a scientist who denies that a zygote is alive, and that as a life form defines it as something other than human.

When does this human life form achieve the status of personhood with all the attendant rights? That's the question. But denying that it is a genetically human life is inconsistent with science.

And Dilan, if someone just flatly contradicts you that women are not equal to men (as many do), then how do you argue your point? Or do you just retreat to your "bad faith" dodge?

Posted by nolaboyd | May 7, 2008 9:17 PM

The ascription of personhood happens someone between fertilization (when human life begins) and birth (when no one denies it). Where, and by what criteria one ascribes this, is the argument.

I'll buy that, basically. Worth noting, though, that

(a) apparently there actually is some debate in the scientific community as to whether fertilization is indisputably the beginning of human life even biologically. See this article for a start; scroll down to "Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins."

(b) some have in fact denied personhood to newborn infants (e.g. philosopher Michael Tooley; see also the fact that infanticide has historically been regarded as morally acceptable in some societies; the linked article also has some historical-overview stuff relevant to that. I'm not going there myself, mind you.)

now i really am out of here

Posted by guyx | May 7, 2008 9:53 PM

If unique DNA is the identifier for "life", then I take it no one will be upset if we kill one of a pair of identical twins......

Oh, and there's also cases of zygotes absorbing each other, so seeming unique individuals can have more than one set of DNA...

My view? If you think a zygote is equivalent to human life, we'll stuff it in YOUR belly and YOU can carry it to term. Women have more rights than to simply be walking wombs, a fact that too many people forget.

Posted by grumpy realist | May 7, 2008 10:02 PM

And Dilan, if someone just flatly contradicts you that women are not equal to men (as many do), then how do you argue your point?

It proves my point. The abortion issue is all about how people feel about women's rights and feminism. Those of us who think that the feminist revolution is tremendously important and one of the great achievements of society will tend to think that debates about whether microscopic forms of human lives have protectible interests is a total distraction from the real issue, which is what will happen to women if we ban abortions.

In contrast, the pro-life side is mostly comprised of people who never bought into feminism. This gives them the luxury of worrying about categories and continua and what constitutes personhood, because if women are forced to change their lives and subordinate themselves to men as a result of illegal abortion, that's a feature, not a bug.

But make no mistake, this is what the battle is all about. A group of mostly religious folks think that legalized abortion is both a symbol of and a powerful enabler of societal changes in the role of women and a rejection of the importance of gender differences that they simply don't accept. Everything else, including the silly debate about whether an embryo is really a person, is collateral.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 7, 2008 10:24 PM

The sum of the previous discourse makes me want to impregnate a chicken.

debates about whether microscopic forms of human lives have protectible interests is a total distraction from the real issue, which is what will happen to women if we ban abortions.

That's a "total distraction" and not the "real issue" only if you have already decided that those clumps of cells don't have protectible interests. I happen to agree with you about that myself, but I don't think that every anti-choicer is at bottom motivated by a desire to subjugate women: I think some of them are telling the truth when they say they believe the zygote is a fully human life deserving of protection against destruction.

It's complicated, because there are religious/sociological overlaps, such that no doubt some of the folks who genuinely think the zygote is a baby also have anti-progressive views about women's rights and sexuality generally. But I don't think you can just dismiss the issue about personhood so easily, even though I myself agree broadly with your sociological characterization of what is motivating a significant part of the anti-choice movement. If the zygote/fetus really were morally equivalent to a baby, they'd be right: abortion would be murder. I think they're wrong about that, and unpacking why they are wrong has to involve explaining why the zygote isn't a baby. That leads you straight into the whole personhood / biology / philosophy briar patch, like it or not.

Posted by hello | May 7, 2008 10:58 PM

That's a "total distraction" and not the "real issue" only if you have already decided that those clumps of cells don't have protectible interests.

Not true, hello. They very well might have protectible interests such that we might decide that, for instance, a fertility clinic which negligently destroys embryos is liable for their destruction, or that a pregnant woman who is shot dead is counted as a double homicide.

The thing I object to is getting into a stupid discussion about the impossible to answer question of when personhood begins in situations where the result of the discussion threatens the tremendous gains that women have attained in society.

It's rather simple. In situations where women's rights aren't at stake, we can have all the discussions that pro-lifers may wish to have regarding this absolutely stupid and abstract issue. With respect to abortion, however, where the central and paramount value of gender equality is at risk, we don't have these discussions-- we protect women's rights, which are more important than theoretical claims to a right to life made on behalf of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 1:51 AM

pseudo, find me a scientist who denies that a zygote is alive, and that as a life form defines it as something other than human.

Ah, you prove my point about Standard Online Argument Tactics.

Getting biologists to define 'dead' is much more interesting, and for the non-scientist, there's a fun RadioLab on the topic.

Like I said, though, it's entirely beside the point, because it's not as if science can pinpoint the time when one can vote, one can drive, or one can die at the hands of the state.

Now go and picket some funeral homes.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 1:57 AM

It should be noted that if you pull the first 's' out of that silly phrase you have a certifiably awesome punk rock band name: "The Pill Kill Babies". Rock on!

Posted by slackerjax | May 8, 2008 4:31 AM

pseudo, find me a scientist who denies that a zygote is alive, and that as a life form defines it as something other than human.

I will if you find me a scientist who denies that a sperm or un-impregnated egg cell is alive and human.

Posted by Jim W | May 8, 2008 9:35 AM

Dilan:

They very well might have protectible interests such that we might decide that, for instance, a fertility clinic which negligently destroys embryos is liable for their destruction, or that a pregnant woman who is shot dead is counted as a double homicide.

If something like these scenarios were the case, this would entail recognition of moral status of the embryo/fetus that would also have direct implications for abortion. How could it not? If killing a pregnant woman counts as killing two persons, then one of them is the fetus, so killing a fetus counts as killing one person.

The thing I object to is getting into a stupid discussion about the impossible to answer question of when personhood begins in situations where the result of the discussion threatens the tremendous gains that women have attained in society.

(a) There's nothing impossible about the question. We attribute personhood to some beings and not to others. There must be reasons why we do that, grounded in characteristics possessed or not possessed by those beings. We ought then to be able to determine what those are. It may well turn out that there isn't a particular instant when personhood begins -- i.e. it is acquired gradually -- but this is also a relevant, discoverable fact.

(b) Objecting to even having the discussion, trying to dismiss its legitimacy by calling it "stupid," etc.: this all looks like trying to simply shut off discussion because you don't like where it might lead, and then trying to justify that move by saying the discussion is stupid, abstract, irrelevant, pointless, etc. I don't think this drastic and somewhat desperate move is necessary, because confronting the issue of personhood rather than trying to dismiss it leads to a finding that does not threaten women's rights. Also, your position here is never going to convince anyone trying to approach the issues from a rational standpoint. This may well include the people (mostly men, like it or not) who make public policy about abortion.

Women's rights trump the fetus's rights only if the fetus does not have a right not to be harmed in the way abortion harms it. That has to be shown, and there is no harm in seeking the truth about it. Trying to shut off inquiry because you don't like the possible results is not only objectionable in itself, but will also turn off anyone who is trying to examine the issue with an open mind.

Posted by hello | May 8, 2008 11:34 AM

Just two quick responses. I will not respond to pseudonymous because I still don't understand him/her, and I will not respond to Jim W because it seems to me he is--and has been throughout the thread--equivocating on what he means by "alive."

To Esper:

1. Esper writes: "So yes, I think the real world concerns for women, and the fact that abortion restrictions will harm them immensely, are far more important than metaphysics." This sentence is of interest to me because, in the course of two clauses, Esper goes from appealing to the "real" world to denying the importance of "metaphysics" in adjudicating difficult decisions that are to be made in that world. But Esper's appeal to the real world commits him to metaphysics, whether he or she likes it or not. And this metaphysics is not, as Esper assumes to be the case, dependent on any sort of religious revelation. So I continue to remain unsatisfied with Esper's thinking here.

2. Esper--and several others (most notably and ably nolaboyd)--have pointed out that there is a difference between allowing that a zygote is a member of the human species and allowing that a zygote is a person. This is, of course, true. On my own view, the only nonarbitrary way of understanding personhood demands that we understand it as being continuous with the biological existence of the individual member of the human species over time. I do not hope to persuade anyone else of this position here and now, but I just want to point out that this question is separate from the larger question of whether Esper is being rational when he/she demands that the interests of a particular politics are self-justifying. At times it seems that Esper is claiming that politically promoting "women's rights and feminism" is brute for him/her. It needs no other justification. But this certainly can't be right. So I ask Esper to reflect more explicity on how he/she has arrived at--to repeat--what I believe is a noble and admirable politics.

Posted by wj | May 8, 2008 11:34 AM

This sentence is of interest to me because, in the course of two clauses, Esper goes from appealing to the "real" world to denying the importance of "metaphysics" in adjudicating difficult decisions that are to be made in that world. But Esper's appeal to the real world commits him to metaphysics, whether he or she likes it or not.

wj, I don't play silly philosopher's games. Yes I know that if you want to get back to first causes, we can have all sorts of debates about the background assumptions behind empericism.

Meanwhile, however, I don't want women to lose their jobs, leave school, get stuck in abusive marriages and relationships, and commit suicide.

Debates about the nature of reality and whether we need metaphysical axioms to support our sensory perceptions belong in college debating societies and philosophy departments. They have no place in public policymaking, especially when "metaphysics" is just a highbrow substitute for "God".

So I ask Esper to reflect more explicity on how he/she has arrived at--to repeat--what I believe is a noble and admirable politics.

It's pretty simple, wj. I think that the greatest accomplishment of humankind over the last decades is that we finally learned how to respect the rights and harness the talents of 51 percent of the population who were once enslaved and treated as property and as incapable of being leaders or having their own interests or having fulfilling sex lives with partners of their choosing.

The lives and livelihoods of those tens of millions of women are more important to me than a discussion about what goes on under a microscope or inside the womb, and quite a bit more important to me than any blather about "metaphysics" (which is all BS hallucination and speculation anyway).

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 1:57 PM

I will not respond to Jim W because it seems to me he is--and has been throughout the thread--equivocating on what he means by "alive."

Its fine if you don't want to respond. But I'm not equivocating. My belief is simple: a human cell that is metabolically active is alive. There is no point at which a new "life" commences, except insofar as you want to call one cell splitting into two cells the formation of new life. What makes conception different is that it involves the formation of a new DNA sequence. What we are talking about here is the transformation of existing life through reasonably well-understood biological processes, not the emergence of new life per se.

A human being is a complex system comprising billions of cells. The worth of a human being is due to his or her ability to experience consciousness. Consciousness arises out of the interactions of many of these cells in a process that we do not, and are probably incapable of, ever truly understanding.

To assign the same worth to this complex system, comprising billions of cells, and the single cell that it develops from at the time of conception, makes no sense to me. However, if one were to do this, it seems to me that it would make just as much sense to assign the same worth to the associated egg and sperm cells that existed a few seconds prior to conception. So, I see no basis for saying that an early abortion is morally worse than birth control.

Posted by Jim W | May 8, 2008 2:19 PM

Dilan, you are de facto taking the position that the zygote/fetus/blastocyst etc. does not have any relevant moral status worth taking into consideration. That's a philosophical position, so your claim not to have anything to do with "silly philosopher's games" is either disingenuous or wishful thinking. I can't see any reason not to cop to it and explain to your opponents where they are wrong.

Posted by hello | May 8, 2008 3:03 PM

You know, all these tired old arguments are kind of beside the point. As the original post implied, the pro choice among us should rejoice at this sort of stuff, because, whatever the motivation of the anti-pill folks (sincerely belief that the pill kills babies, or good old fashion defense of "traditional" sex roles and sexuality mores), the reality is that, to much greater extent than even abortion itself, they are wildly out of step with the American people. And that can only hurt their cause politically.

Similarly, focusing on stopping late term abortions, though dishonest in many respects, is a savvy politically.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 3:12 PM

Dilan, you are de facto taking the position that the zygote/fetus/blastocyst etc. does not have any relevant moral status worth taking into consideration.

No I am not. As I noted, if we are talking about the liability of fertility clinics for negligently destroying embryos, we are giving embryos moral status.

Women's rights and feminism, however, is the most important single advance of society in the last few decades. There is no moral status that one could give to a fetus or an embryo that would make it worth sacrificing the gains of feminism.

So I don't give a damn about the debate about whether a fetus or an embryo is a person in situations where women's rights are affected. It's a fascinating thing to discuss in college philosophy class, or in someone's parlor while smoking a few cigars. And where women's rights are not in the balance, we can even make policy based on those debates. But those sorts of debates should not be used as an excuse to screw over women.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 3:37 PM

Esper writes:

"So I don't give a damn about the debate about whether a fetus or an embryo is a person in situations where women's rights are affected."

The question I am going to put to Esper is not meant to be taken as a reductio. Esper, if I were to substitute "infant" for "fetus" in your above sentence, would it still represent your position?

Posted by wj | May 8, 2008 4:22 PM

As I noted, if we are talking about the liability of fertility clinics for negligently destroying embryos, we are giving embryos moral status.

If the embryo has moral status in that setting, how can it not have moral status in the womb?

So I don't give a damn about the debate about whether a fetus or an embryo is a person in situations where women's rights are affected

Apparently you are saying that even if the fetus/embryo were a person, you wouldn't regard this as having any relevance to abortion policy or the morality of abortion. I completely fail to understand you here, so I'm retiring, and thank you for the discussion.

Posted by hello | May 8, 2008 5:05 PM

wj:

That's a self-contradictory hypothetical. It is entirely possible and a straightforward process to protect born infants without doing the sorts of harm to women's rights and feminism that abortion restrictions do.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 5:06 PM

hello:

Even if we assumed arguendo the absolutely stupid and impossible to prove proposition that a zygote is the same as a human person, its rights could in no way outweigh the importance of ensuring the equality of 51 percent of the population, allowing women out of bad marriages and relationships, keeping them from committing suicide, allowing them to stay in school and keep their jobs, etc.

The rights of 51 percent of the population to be protected against grave harm and gross inequality are simply a lot more important than even the rights of a microscopic human person in the womb, even if we concede the personhood issue.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 5:12 PM

I don't believe I understand what Esper means by "self-contradictory hypothetical." I suspect Esper doesn't understand either. I don't believe Esper is willing seriously to argue his/her position, I'm sorry to say. Every time s/he is asked to give a reason for what s/he takes to be obvious positions but which are in fact rationally contestable, Esper resorts to rhetorical mischaracterizations of the opposing argument and just asserts what s/he would try to prove. This is too bad.

Posted by wj | May 8, 2008 6:32 PM

wj:

The entire reason why women's rights are so acutely impacted by the abortion issue is because the fetus/embryo is inside the woman. Thus, requiring her to carry the fetus to term causes all sorts of harm to her. There's no way to protect the fetus without dragging the woman along for the ride.

In contrast, protecting the life of a born human being is straightforward and can be done without screwing over women or sacrificing the gains of feminism.

So the answer to your question is no, you can't simply substitute an infant and apply the same reasoning. Because in the case of an infant, the issue of women's rights simply doesn't arise in the same manner.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 8:11 PM

Re: There is no moral status that one could give to a fetus or an embryo that would make it worth sacrificing the gains of feminism.

A false dichotomy. There are nations with far more restrictive abortion laws than ours yet some are also far more egalitarian-- and no, the women do not go about in burqas and are nort required to get a man's permission to lweave the home. Don't be coy, Dilan-- aborion does not underpin feminism.

Re: There's no way to protect the fetus without dragging the woman along for the ride.

There's no way to protect any one human life without impating other lives. Universal healthcare requires us all to ante up some of our hard earned money and accept some limitations on our own medical freedoms. So what? Isn't it worth it? And in some extreme situations we might even have to institute a draft and force young men (an maybe women) to fight and die to protect all of us. Your argument is so extreme that it could only please the most hard-hearted social Darwinist.

Now as to the argument about zygotes and personhood: has anyone considered a very simple definition of personhood, one already in use at the far end of life? Personhood requires a minimally functional brain. When that brain ceases to function we acknowledge that personhood has ceased and what we have left is an inanimate object, property of the next of kin. Why not use that definition during gestation? If it has a minimally functional brain, it's a person and is not to be killed except in self-defense (i.e., medical necessity). This occurs very early in pregnancy (though not at the zygote phase) and so places all abortions, as we generally use the term, under very severe scrutiny. But it avoids arguing about souls, zygotes, implantation and the like. Contraception is free of any scrutiny, and would-be sexual revolutionaries can continue to goose step all the way to boudoir with their paramour of the evening, condoms or pills in hand.

Posted by Jonf | May 8, 2008 9:45 PM

There's no way to protect any one human life without impating other lives. Universal healthcare requires us all to ante up some of our hard earned money and accept some limitations on our own medical freedoms.

It is offensive to compare the basic freedoms and equality of women to having to pay some higher taxes for a health care plan.

Again, all these posts prove my point-- the difference between pro-choice and pro-life isn't that pro-choicers don't respect life-- we do-- but that pro-lifers don't respect women's rights.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 8, 2008 10:39 PM

Re: Again, all these posts prove my point-- the difference between pro-choice and pro-life isn't that pro-choicers don't respect life-- we do-- but that pro-lifers don't respect women's rights.

Tarring with a broad brush there, Dilan. I would support a new ERA for the Constitution. In fact, I'd like to see the Right to Privacy written right into the Constitution so as to remove it from the hands of judges like Scalia. And you did not reply to my point that women rights do not require abortion, as witness several European countries where abortion is fairly restricted, but women's rights are written into constitutional law and there is greater pay equity, more women in leadership positions, paid maternity leave etc.

Re: It is offensive to compare the basic freedoms and equality of women to having to pay some higher taxes for a health care plan.

If we were talking about the right to vote, or freedom of speech maybe (although "offensive" is silly in even that context: there's nothing offensive about the comment, unless you simply take offense at the very idea someone disagrees with you). But abortion is secondary to basic freedoms. We are talking about forcing people to get pregnant against their will, after all.

Posted by JonF | May 9, 2008 6:32 AM

But abortion is secondary to basic freedoms. We are talking about forcing people to get pregnant against their will, after all.

Abortion is as basic a principle of women's rights and equality as there is. Because without legal abortion, it's difficult for women to compete with men in the workplace and in schools, unless they decide to become celibate (which isn't required of men).

Treating "getting pregnant" in the world without abortion rights as optional is treating a fulfilling sex life as optional-- but no woman should have to give that up.

If men are really interested in saving the lives of all those fetuses, there's a simple solution. Let's sterilize all men who want to have careers or get a good education. Better yet, let's castrate them. They can make some sperm donations before the surgery, and if they later want to father a child, we can implant the sperm in their willing partner.

Only something like that would wreak as much havoc on men as making abortion illegal wreaks on women. And since no man would ever agree to those terms, men need to stop telling women that their sex lives are optional.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 9, 2008 11:51 AM

I see now that Esper basically subscribes to Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument regarding abortion, according to which it makes no difference whether the fetus is a person or not, so long as we can show that the *existence* of the fetus in the woman constitutes an undue burden on her autonomy as agent.

For, if this is the case, then it follows that the person-in-the-womb makes claims upon the person-who-has-the-womb that are unjust and so warrant the killing of the person-in-the-womb.

I am not persuaded by this argument for many reasons. To fully answer this argument, however, requires no less than a sustained criticism of Jarvis Thomson's account of agency and autonomy. This account, however, is so entrenched in contemporary society--it is for the most part shared equally by "right" and "left"--that it is difficult to address directly.

One would have to unearth the philosophical presuppositions behind Jarvis Thomson's account of autonomy and demonstrate that they reflect more the perversions of late-capitalist society than any "norm"--natural or otherwise--for agency as such.

But, since I did not intend my exchange with Esper to constitute an argument about the morality of abortion per se, but rather an argument about whether Esper was being sufficiently self-reflective about his/her political allegiances--what and why they entail what they do--it would be beside the point to engage him/her on the issue of abortion directly, since it is highly unlikely that either of us would move the other, so different are our starting points for reflecting on these issues.

So I thank Esper for his/her exchange on these issues, and I'll leave it at that.

Oh, one more thing. If anyone out there is interested in reading a very good recent defense of abortion, I recommend David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion (CUP, 2002).

Posted by wj | May 9, 2008 1:46 PM

Re: Because without legal abortion, it's difficult for women to compete with men in the workplace and in schools, unless they decide to become celibate (which isn't required of men).

Dilan,
Every time we argue abortion you state this as if it were a hard fact beyond dispute. I but I don't see it as a fact at all. Indeed, I cited the fact that there are countries abroad where abortion is more restricted and yet women enjoy greater economic and political equality with men-- a fact which disproves any hard link between abortion rights and economic rights. And it's easy to see why this could be so: as long as contraception is legal and readily available women will not need abortion to avoid unwanted pregnancy (add in of course a greater degree of legal protection for pregnant women and new mothers; and financial support as well. I am foot-stomping in favor of such things, which go a ong way to correcting any economic damage women might suffer via pregnancy.)

Re: Treating "getting pregnant" in the world without abortion rights as optional is treating a fulfilling sex life as optional-- but no woman should have to give that up.

Once again, you can have a fulfilling sex life with abortion. Do you perhaps inhabit some alternate reality where birth control does not exist, only abortion does?

By the way, my post this morning contained an error: it should have read "We are NOT talking about forcing women to get pregnant".

Posted by JonF | May 9, 2008 7:27 PM

It is a rare occasion that I have an abortion conversation with an anti-choicer that does not begin with "You have to understand that a human life is being created and destroyed" and end with "It isn't enough that I follow the rules of my God, you must also follow the rules of my God!" But maybe I should talk to more anti-choicers...

Posted by Sideways 8 | May 21, 2008 12:03 AM