Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants.... Banning the non-existent problem of sex-selective abortion is an easy way to grandstand and score "pro-life" points while preening about how pro-woman you are. But banning abortions for fetal abnormalities could negatively affect all sorts of women—and their husbands—including those that tend to vote Republican.Such ugliness to that rhetoric! This is such a sad subject, from either side. Show some empathy! Show some soul!
१४ जानेवारी, २०१५
Should we — can we — ban selective abortion?
Over at Slate, Amanda Marcotte is writing about a bill in the Indiana legislature that would ban abortion motivated by the disability including "a mental disability or retardation; a physical disfigurement; Scoliosis; Dwarfism; Down syndrome; Albinism; Amelia; and physical or mental disease."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२७ टिप्पण्या:
How do we know how common these are? How do we know how common abortions are for gender selection? How do we know why women choose to have late term abortions? How do we know how many abortions are for the health of the mother?
We don't. That's how. And we, likely never will.
I think abortions are ugly, awful things. I also think they are sometimes necessary. Therefore I grit my teeth and find myself to be pro-choice.
I don't understand how an abortion can be banned based on the reason if the woman doesn't have to give a reason.
"it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes"
But there's the lie. What's so ugly? If a fetus is just a collection of mindless cells with no soul, no pain, no life, why the hell shouldn't we abort based on gender, eye color, and other trivial inconveniences and vanities?
I have never understood Hilary's logic in chanting "safe, legal and rare." Why should abortion be rare (or ugly) at all, if you really believe there is nothing valuable at stake? In a dispute in which there is no middle-ground, these are simple admissions.
So... these are abortions by women who want a baby, but a more perfect baby. Why impose more limit on these women than on women who are saying no to a baby that seems to be in perfect condition? It's hard to think about that, but it's the kind of nondiscrimination principle that seems appropriate elsewhere in the law.
1. In the US 90% of kids/fetuses/whatever nonobjectionable term in your multiverse are aborted.
2. This law is clearly unconstitutional. The state has no interest in abortions during the first trimester.
3. Pack are going down on Sun.
while those abortions aren't actually common in real life
I hope they're uncommon. I have a bad feeling that they aren't. But in answer to your question, Professor, I don't see how we can ban abortion for sex selection.
"Why impose more limit on these women than on women who are saying no to a baby that seems to be in perfect condition?"
Right. And why limit this choice to women who have babies still in the womb? Don't we recognize the same compelling circumstances where a baby is born with deformities? Isn't this the exact same discrimination that is "hard to think about"? No? Why not?
Really there is no actual difference between gunning down in the street cartoonists who offend your sensibilities and ripping a child from your womb who is giving you offense because it is female or otherwise imperfect.
Well no difference except for the fact that if one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers was the mom of a murdered cartoonist it would probably get some airtime.
Can't think why. Who would know better than mom who should die an agonizing death?
When your position is unjustifiable logically and morally all you have left is ugly rhetoric.
while [selective] abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants...
Selective abortions aren't common in the first world, but in the rest of world --- is Marcotte just clueless? You know that huuuge gender imbalance in China where there are all these "excess" men? Take a wild guess how that happened? Selective abortion in favor of boys is very common in India (if supposedly illegal) & in much of the Muslim world.
It's always amazing how folks like Marcotte who would lambast fly-over country boofers for their cultural ignorance of the world, get fairly stupid on their own when the world doesn't live up to their cultural stereotypes.
I have no idea what position Amanda Marcotte is advocating, but just based on her past behavior I'm going to assume I'm opposed to it.
Find a "gay" gene if you want it stopped.
China as been using abortion to kill off extra girl babies for generations.
Now they have several million males with no chance to find a female.
And thus much unrest, the violent kind of unrest.
Learn from that folks.. don't mess with nature.
Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life,...
"I have no idea if they are or they aren't, but I don't want this to be true (unless I could blame it on white men, then fer shure it would be true), so it's true, 'cause I say it's true."
...it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants..
So who out there isn't valuing their daughters, Amanda? I mean, you've devoted your whole dim-bulb existence to preaching the dogma that our society doesn't value females. Somebody out there has got to be down on girls. Do tell us all about it, Amanda.
Anyway, abortion isn't wrong, right? So why would sex-selective abortions be wrong, and why would it be "offensive" to point out that some groups practice this absolutely not-wrong thing at higher rates than others?
Then there's this gem from an article Marcotte links:
"The racism and the stereotypes and the stigma is laid so bare here," says Miriam Yeung, the director of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum. The group has long argued that that sex-selective abortion bans perpetuate negative stereotypes about Asian American women.
So Ms. Yeung thinks sex-selective abortions are bad, obviously, since she is angry that a group she belongs to is perceived as approving of and obtaining them. But she also thinks that "perpetuating negative stereotypes" is a vastly greater moral evil, since the former evil must be tolerated to prevent the latter. I wonder if, like Marcotte, she is actually capable of articulating why sex-selective abortion is wrong.
Jesus, pro-choice fanatics are moral cesspits. Or maybe just not the brightest bulbs.
Anglelyne said..."Anyway, abortion isn't wrong, right? So why would sex-selective abortions be wrong, and why would it be "offensive" to point out that some groups practice this absolutely not-wrong thing at higher rates than others?"
This. It's all moral rationalizing that doesn't stand up to light scrutiny.
Selective abortions for sex, eye color, hair color, or disabilities are a natural outcome of Roe v Wade and it's progeny which finds constitutional protection for abortion on demand. What is the moral difference of killing your baby/unborn baby/fetus for the wrong eye color as opposed to killing it because it would cause the mother unhealthy mental distress for other reasons? None. Thanks again, Justice Brennan.
Under the current rulings, I don't see how you can ban abortions based on the reason behind them.
Abortion is ugly.
This shit isn't hard. It's the abortionists and their adherents who have painted themselves into untenable ethical quandaries that they have to wring their hands over.
The answer to whether elective abortion (as opposed to efforts to save the life of a mother with the inevitable side consequence of causing an abortion) is no, full stop.
The fact that libtards have to scratch their heads over this shit is a signal that they got their first principles wrong.
Well, forget it. Libtards don't have 'first principles.' They have convenience and favored demographics. That's why these fucking ghouls can sit around wondering whether we should ban abortion based on gender or gay genes or whatever but not say a word about aborting based on the probability of gingerhood or brown eyes.
It is very simple if you start from the premise that life is sacred and begins at conception. All else follows. Hell, I'm fine with defining life beginning at cocktails.
I get the libertarian argument against the federal government getting involved, but these libtards sure as hell don't really believe that. Genuine libertarians are few and far between (and inevitably nutty in their own rights).
Maybe if we could isolate a libtard gene I might be on board with selectively aborting to eliminate that. I mean, sure, it goes against everything I believe in, but hey, I'd be fine with looking that libtard in the eye and say... how did the Hildebeast put it? Oh, yes... "we're going to take away your life for the common good."
Marcotte completely misses the biggest way in which such laws are flawed - it's impossible to determine why a woman wants to abort a particular baby. One can argue that nobody will give an honest reason for an action when that honest reason makes the action illegal, but that there are other reasons which keep the action legal. But instead of that argument, which is nearly unassailable, Marcotte argues that the motives of such laws are bad, and that women don't really have such motives.
Also notice that Marcotte gives a link to support her claim that opposition to sex-selective abortion is motivated by anti-asian racism, but not for her claim that those abortions are uncommon. Since she can't be bothered to provide a supporting link for that claim, it's fair to assume that she's lying about that.
Hillary's fraudulent "safe, legal and rare" was brought up earlier.
Let's not forget that these pro-abortion people (which would include anyone who asserts that an abortion is "necessary") overwhelmingly registered absolutely zero objections, much less outrage, to Kermit Gosnell and his chamber of horrors. In fact, they also overwhelmingly and vehemently have opposed legislation that would stop the Gosnells that are still out there.
For all their faux complaints about the back-alley coat-hanger abortions pre-Roe, all they did was to invite the coat-hanger abortionists out of the alley and into some dank, dirty office. It's not "choice" they care about, but power and cold hard $$$$.
Such ugliness to that rhetoric!
Amanda Marcotte is a very ugly person on the inside. This is quite normal for her.
Jason:
Some libertarians argue for abortion as if it were equivalent to emancipation. I suppose that is technically true, but it belies the character of human life from conception.
- - -
If you are pro-choice, then yes, or no. If you are pro-abortion, then no. Her arguments are strawmen full of straw.
This is what we know. A human life a semi-stable chaotic process that begins with conception and concludes with a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death.
This is what we don't know. Before conception and after death, the disposition of a human life is an article of faith.
This is what we assume. There are two moral axioms that underlie all positive moral philosophies: individual dignity and intrinsic value. Males and females have equal intrinsic value, other than a natural bias that favors the latter. Individual women and men may want a boy or girl, etc.; but sane people will not abort a human life when it does not meet their expectations.
As for genetic or congenital abnormalities, when do we stop counting? This issue is related to euthanasia or assisted suicides. If we take a purely rational approach, then most human life is disposable and viable candidates for elective abortion throughout its life.
So much for separation of church and state. It was always a false premise advocated by a competing church.
When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value?
All abortion should be outlawed, period.
One of the few things I agree with Scott Walker about - "rape" and "incest" are not a good enough reason to murder an innocent baby. A child should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.
I don't buy the "it never happens so don't ban iif" theory--if it doesn't happen then what's the harm in banning it? At worst we have a useless law. It'd be different if it had us intended consequences.
Of course, if you think abortion is fine--just a procedure, not taking any life--then you should be fine with abortion for any reason. Marcotte is just mad that the pro-lifers are exploiting a split among pro-abortionists and pro-choicers who have reservations about abortion.
Great statute, because not only does the world need more unwanted children, it REALLY needs more unwanted children with Down Syndrome, scoliosis and other deformities.
"opposition to sex-selective abortion is motivated by anti-asian racism"
It's racist to want more people from a certain race!
The Constitution recognizes the existence and rights of two parties: "We the People" and our "Posterity".
The only exception granted by moral and secular laws to justify murder is self-defense. The exception granted to women that they may terminate a wholly innocent human life when it is uniquely vulnerable is peculiar in that it is both extra-moral and -legal with respect to common standards. When a mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy, then there is an effort to secure the lives of both the mother and child, with a bias toward the mother.
Lucien:
No, it forces us to ask the hard questions, but not at the expense of a viable human life. Aborting and sweeping it under the rug, flushing it down the toilet, decapitating and dismembering a viable human life, only ignores the issues.
What are the risk factors that increase occurrence of genetic and congenital abnormalities. For example, we know that older men, and especially women, are prone to reproductive defects. This would require reevaluation of the liberal social order. Another is the dissociation of risk men and women enjoy when they have sex, and the consequences of encouraging this juvenile behavior in adults.
So she wants to ignore sex selection and claim it as a non existantant issue?
I feel obliged to show as much compassion as all the good little progs who have no qualms at all about complaining because Trig Palin was not aborted. Anything above that is gravy and my good nature.
Marcotte....the moron with a megaphone.
It's a woman's choice to keep her legs crossed. After that, you're screwed.
Paul,
My wife and I both only children have, regarding China, joked a billion only children with the bomb.
What could go wrong?
@Lucien,
Great statute, because not only does the world need more unwanted children..
Unwanted children? In the US, there are basically no white (and few of any other color, either) babies given up for adoption Couples routinely wait years, and fork out tens of thousands of dollars for babies, even from overseas. Why do you think couples are going overseas to China, Russia, Ukraine, etc for adoptions, even for "problem" babies? There are no "spare" babies in the US, and there hasn't been for over 30 years.
Scoliosis, by the way, generally shows up around puberty, which most folks agree is a little late for an abortion. Even in the 15% that's congenital, the congenital nature of the disease refers to the cause being in fetal development, not necessarily meaning that the symptoms show up at birth.
The blame for the sex-selective abortions in China falls not on the Chinese people but solely on the Chinese Communist Party, which implemented and rigidly enforces the one-child policy. In a country without social security, without government healthcare, with no social safety net, a male child is all that stands between rural peasants and an impoverished, desperate old age. So, Amanda Marcotte, you can blame your buddies in the Communist Party for this one.
Many Germans did not want to be reminded of individuals who did not measure up to their concept of a "master race." The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society, a threat to Aryan genetic purity, and, ultimately, unworthy of life. At the beginning of World War II, individuals who were mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or mentally ill were targeted for murder in what the Nazis called the "T-4," or "euthanasia," program.
The "euthanasia" program required the cooperation of many German doctors, who reviewed the medical files of patients in institutions to determine which handicapped or mentally ill individuals should be killed. The doctors also supervised the actual killings. Doomed patients were transferred to six institutions in Germany and Austria, where they were killed in specially constructed gas chambers. Handicapped infants and small children were also killed by injection with a deadly dose of drugs or by starvation. The bodies of the victims were burned in large ovens called crematoria.
Despite public protests in 1941, the Nazi leadership continued this program in secret throughout the war. About 200,000 handicapped people were murdered between 1940 and 1945.
The T-4 program became the model for the mass murder of Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and others in camps equipped with gas chambers that the Nazis would open in 1941 and 1942. The program also served as a training ground for SS members who manned these camps.
"The Murder of the Handicapped"
United States Holocaust Museum
Heeeeeey...I have scoliosis! Perhaps these people don't realize what it is and that it can be fixed? Perhaps she thinks it means something else.
Althouse,
I understand your gist at 6:11, but it still creeps my out that you can cold bloodedly write that.
OTOH, your words put the logic of the pro-abortionists' position in sharp relief. Yes what IS the rationale for exceptions, if any?
In the future, to obtain an abortion, a woman will need a doctor's certificate stating that her fetus is a straight, white male.
Anyway, abortion isn't wrong, right? So why would sex-selective abortions be wrong
That an activity isn't always wrong does not imply that it is always right.
I mentioned Gosnell to my mother who is a retired nurse in her 80s. She said oh, that reminds me...I worked with a few nurses who left their jobs at the clinic because they couldn't stand the crying of the babies ( late term abortions). My mom was pretty much waddayagonnado? I am still horrified. I guess the babies left to die in the closet that Obama was OK with (the lawsuit by nurses wanting to care for the "fetuses" before they died) are more common than the Amanda Marcorttes of the world will have you believe.
I always think, switch baby with puppy and I bet the reaction is different.
The stigma today is on those who give up their baby for adoption. They are shamed.
I'm not sure if anyone actually cares, but there is at least one paper on this by Almond and Edlund in the 2008 PNAS. They found that in Asian families in the US that had three children, when the first two were girls the sex of the third child was much more likely to be a boy, indicating the existence of sex selection abortions of a girl fetus. (And evidence of a smaller incidence in families with just two children whose first child was a girl.)
They used a sample of 5% of the census, and found that there were about 390 "missing girls". Multiply that by 20 (5% sample, see) and you get about 8000 sex selection abortions. I don't think this is per year -- they limited their sample to families where the oldest child was 12. But say over 5-10years and you have 800-1600 sex selection abortions per year in the US among families of Asian descent.
It looks like the provisional Althouse judgment is that this law, whichever one it is-- my understanding is that similar législative projects are afoot in more than one jurisdiction, and I don't feel any need to ever read any more Amanda Marcotte-- will fail in the courts. Which grieves me, because I can imagine the world without the several people I know who live with DS etc, and it is a less vibrant and much poorer place. The disingenuousness of those who pretend not to know that such selective abortions routinely take place is galling, particularly when they also profess to be liberal-minded and sensible of the multicultural realities.
This debate is so beyond my ken. From as old as I was able to understand, my mother was telling me that I had my being born before Roe v Wade was decided to thank for things.
Sex-selected abortions aren't "ugly stereotypes" -- they're reality throughout much of the world. Read the rather chilling tally of pre- and post-birth female infanticide as a major social paradigm, particularly in Asia, the book "Bare Branches" by Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer.
" Therefore I grit my teeth and find myself to be pro-choice."
So do I after seeing women died from illegal abortions when I was a medical student/ I think every woman has the right to two abortions but should be sterilized after the second.
sex-selective abortions aren't actually common in real life
voter fraud is rare
women rarely lie about rape
So many pronouncements, so little data.
It's not unheard of in law to ban something done for a BAD reason that is normally permitted for any reason or for no reason.
In employment law there's a concept called "at will" employment. (Stick with me; I'll get to abortion.) An "at will" employee is one whose employment isn't protected by an individual employment contract, a union agreement, or the like. An "at will" employee can be fired for any reason, or for no reason at all; the employer doesn't have to justify his action. BUT the courts often hold that although the employee can be fired for any reason of no reason, he/she cannot be fired for certain BAD reasons -- such as reporting to the appropriate authorities unsafe working conditions that violate the law.
A similar rule applies to tenants after their lease expires -- they can be evicted for no reason, but not for a bad reason, e.g., reporting housing code violations.
So couldn't you apply the same principle to abortions? The mother has a right to abort the child if she wishes, for any reason or no reason, but she can't do so for a BAD reason, such as sex selection, etc.
The problem is, in the employment and rental situations there's a person who can assert the right not be be fired, or not to be evicted, because the reason is BAD. The unborn child can't assert the right not to be aborted. Her natural protector is her mother, who might have standing to seek to protect the rights of the unborn child, but not if the mother is the one seeking the abortion.
Although I favor any legal device that would reduce the abortion holocaust, I don't think this one works.
This is a comprehensive issue that concerns what our society has normalized (i.e. promoted), what it tolerates and does not discourage. Boys and girls, men and women, who are not prepared to accept responsibility for a human life, should not have sex. Sexual education should be replaced with classes that teach biology and morality. Womb banks should be closed, and sperm depositors should be turned away. Men and women should not have sex outside of wedlock (i.e. commitment). Men should not have sex with multiple women, and women should not have sex with multiple men. You know, the traditional values of most of our fathers and mothers.
The state's compelling interest is to secure taxable assets and reduce the problem set. The party's compelling interest is DRAT (Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax) policy that marginalizes its competition. The survivors' compelling interest is to mitigate and prevent debasement of human life.
Once, repent. Twice, and more, natural born killer. The right and rite sought by the Chinese communists and terrorists alike is pro-choice or a selective doctrine.
That said, the establishment of general principles should not be directed by the exceptions. That is a simple effort to derail a rational and productive debate that is long overdue.
The moral axioms are individual dignity and intrinsic value. So, how do we reconcile them, and control selective and general debasement of human life?
Bob Boyd said...
"I don't understand how an abortion can be banned based on the reason if the woman doesn't have to give a reason."
Can you understand how a corporation can be guilty of sex discrimination when it doesn't give a reason for its hiring decisions? Some doctors have disparate impact.
If homosexuality is genetic, how long until a prenatal test?
Then what?
while those abortions aren't actually common in real life
The human race is slowly but steadily succeeding at removing Down Syndrome from existence.
EMD: "The human race is slowly but steadily succeeding at removing Down Syndrome from existence"
Over 90% of babies diagnosed with DS while in utero are aborted in most Western European nations and the abortion rate in the US for DS is over 80%.
Anyway, abortion isn't wrong, right? So why would sex-selective abortions be wrong, and why would it be "offensive" to point out that some groups practice this absolutely not-wrong thing at higher rates than others?
I'd love to see the answer to this question.
OpenID madisonfella: "All abortion should be outlawed, period."
That's fine if that's your opinion, but this thread is about selective abortion.
Over 90% of babies diagnosed with DS while in utero are aborted in most Western European nations and the abortion rate in the US for DS is over 80%.
What's interesting is that continued study into the cause of DS has opened up new ideas about treatment in diseases from cancer to Alzheimers.
I would just like to say that I know several families with DS children and they are no less valuable to humanity, but we've convinced ourselves that they are a burden and should be eliminated.
Sad, really.
If we insist a valid reason be given for abortions.... JAORE the Magnificent predicts a branch of medicine that specializes in finding the right decisions. See justification for medical marijuana.
Or medical excuses for Madison protests.
The fascinating thing to me is that there are few issues where there is so much agreement in the population than abortion, yet there is so much controversy. Almost any time quality polls are taken on the subject, fairly strong majorities are willing to accept abortion in the first trimester and a little way into the second trimester, while very strong majorities oppose abortion in the third trimester. The real uncertainty lies in the nebulous area in between, in the second trimester. Unfortunately, there seems no real prospect for resolving that uncertainty, as activists on both sides would rather demonize their opponents and take absolutist, no-quarter positions, out of step with the actual beliefs of most of the citizenry.
"The human race is slowly but steadily succeeding at removing Down Syndrome from existence"
Really?
How many of those aborted DS babies were being carried by women with DS, or had fathers with DS?
Selective abortion has no effect on DS carriers who do not have the disease itself, and are the source of almost all DS babies.
In any procedure carried out a million times or so annually, something can be both "rare" and common enough to worry about. We recall millions of vehicles because a handful of accidents reveal a potential defect. With infants, apparently the numbers have to be higher.
Biff:
It's not a matter of belief. It is self-evident that a human life begins with conception. That's where the discussion has to begin. Any arguments to commit premeditated abortion need to answer: when and by whose choice a human life acquires and retains value? Pro-choice is a selective doctrine used to avoid answering this basic question and has facilitated both a selective and general debasement of human life.
Gahrie,
What EMD is getting at is that we are aborting an ever-increasing fraction of Down Syndrome infants.
Amanda is showing all the empathy she has. Give her a break.
Marcotte can't show what she doesn't have.
Abortionistas are scrupulous about always calling it "anti-choice." They refuse to ever call it "pro-life."
No one has any rights if any one has no rights.
Indiana can go for broke and legislate that life begins at implantation. The courts at that point are stuck since scientifically that is true and at that point the State dies have a compelling interest to preserve life.
In 1981 my wife almost died during a pregnancy, our first. Our choices were to terminate the pregnancy or lose both of them. The scene was the leading specialty hospital in our state, miles and miles from home, where she had just been admitted and we thought she was there for "observation" since she had very early toxemia. The news that we had this decision to make was a shock.
She wanted to risk continuing the pregnancy. I convinced her the choices we had were for us to lose our child, or for us to lose our child and each other through her death. We chose to end the pregnancy. Our very premature daughter lived 11 hours in the neonatal ICU but her lungs were just not developed enough. I have her birth certificate and her death certificate.
We never did finish a pregnancy but we started at least four more.
We adopted two kids with special needs.
I don't see why we need to be killing all these children in the womb. They have their own DNA and fingerprints. Isn't that enough to be a person?
Best response ever to an Amanda Marcotte piece: "This would usually be the point where I state for the record that I believe very strongly that all women are human beings. Problem is, I’ve just conceived a sudden suspicion that one of them is actually a Vogon spy in a skin suit."
n.n. - Your point is well taken, but it's not quite what I was driving at, and I could have been clearer about my intent, especially when using the word "belief."
We live in a society where a 55-45% election usually is considered to be a "landslide," yet majorities ranging from 60% to more than 80% agree on when abortion may be allowed or not allowed as a legal and political matter, as opposed to a moral or scientific matter. (Various Gallup polls and other polls have been surprisingly consistent on this subject, going back a couple of decades.)
FWIW, the more I've thought about when human life begins, the less certain I am. I used to be firmly in the camp of "at conception," but then wouldn't that impose an obligation to try to save all conceptuses, including ones that fail to implant successfully? At the same time, and I realize this may sound absurd, at first, but why wouldn't we count sperm or eggs as human? What else would they be? They both have the potential to develop into adult humans. Do we discriminate against them because they don't have a full set of chromosomes? What do we do about fertilized eggs, i.e. post-conception eggs, that don't have a full set of chromosomes? Some, but not all, of them can develop to term. What is special about the fusion of a sperm and an egg at conception that makes them more human than they were before, even if they have combined in a way that makes them no more viable than they were before conception? In terms of viability and potential, is a one celled or a two celled, post conception, pre-implantation embryo really that much different from its pre-conception precursors? My background is in cell biology, and I am not sure of the answer. Is it all really a matter of practicality, i.e. there are so many sperm and egg cells that we couldn't imagine trying to have them all become babies, so we don't even try?
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm earnestly trying to grapple with questions of biological potential and how they might inform ethics and policy. I'll be quite frank and say that I've been gravitating toward a position that, as a matter of law and politics, a "human life that must be protected by law" certainly is one that has developed to the point of having some clearly human characteristics and a functioning nervous system, which puts us somewhere in the late part of the first trimester.
Earlier than that, I'm truly not sure what to think, as I find most of the changes that occur before then have more in common with shades of gray than black and white, unless we do start getting into theological issues.
In the end, where are we in terms of what is practically done in a politically diverse society, besides finding areas of consensus and having respect for people in those areas of consensus, even if we are earnestly convinced that they are incredibly wrong and we want to advocate that they change their minds? Is ugly rhetoric (in either direction) the most effective strategy for moving the debate?
(I do not mean to trivialize or ignore the perspectives of people who believe abortion is murder or who believe that whatever happens before birth, it is not happening to a baby. I'm limiting my comments to the political aspects. Sorry this is so long. Like I said, I'm grappling.)
I wonder how tolerate murcotte would be of parents who abort babies with the "gay gene".
Anyway, abortion isn't wrong, right? So why would sex-selective abortions be wrong, and why would it be "offensive" to point out that some groups practice this absolutely not-wrong thing at higher rates than others?
I'd love to see the answer to this question.
I answered it at 8:19pm.
Abortion was made legal because of the stigma of being an unwed mother, because of the cost of raising a child, and because of the lack of readiy available birth control.
There is no stigma for unwed mothers any longer.
The demand for children to adopt from birth is astronomical.
Birth control is free from planned parenthood.
One of the issues cited by the courts is the question of when life begins, and the courts decided not to address that issue. Seemed awfully convenient to their arguments. They refused to consider the child's rights be considered at all.
But in a balancing of rights between the mother's penumbra right of aborting and a child's enumerated right to life, it is clear that the woman who couldn't keep her legs closed should be required to endure nine months of inconvenience rather than a child die.
Why they abort is irrelevant and is simply playing tricks with the law. Ay port in a storm, and if this were to succeed in saving lives I won't speak out against it, but in the current monstrous legal framework we have I seriously doubt this will be viable.
While this isn't likely to prevent a single abortion--after all, if it's illegal to abort for certain reasons, but legal to abort for no reason, then obviously women will simply not state a reason to abort--this is clearly a PR signal by the pro-lifers. Drawing attention to some unsavory justifications for abortion is what the point of all this is, and it puts pro-choice legislators on the spot. Oppose the law, and you're in favor of sex-selective abortions. Agree to the law, and you're tacitly acknowledging that abortions can be performed for unpopular reasons, thus making abortion in general less popular.
I can see the PR bind the pro-choicers are in with initiatives like this, but then if you truly believe that the abortions in question are okay (i.e., not killing a human being) then you should be fine with them whatever the reason. We don't have a problem with someone removing their own appendix because they believed the appendix was Negro, after all. What makes abortion distinct is that many pro-choicers acknowledge a certain discomfort they have with the procedure, that it is more than just removing an unwanted blob of cells.
@MichaelK,
" Therefore I grit my teeth and find myself to be pro-choice."
So do I after seeing women died from illegal abortions when I was a medical student/ I think every woman has the right to two abortions but should be sterilized after the second.
A stray comment in this article by Megan McArdle, with a link to Guttmacher Institute's data on the subject, gives me a different perspective.
To quote Megan:
the grisly statistics you hear about the death toll from back-alley abortions date from the pre-antibiotic era. Even before abortion was legalized, the number of annual deaths had plunged to less than 40, because antibiotics cleaned up any resulting infections. If antibiotic resistance becomes widespread, the annual death toll from abortion might well be higher than it was in 1970.
However, I think I still agree with you on sterilization. Maybe even after the first abortion.
After all, she wants sexual intercourse without the danger of pregnancy, right?
@Paul Zrimsek
Amanda Marcotte has always struck me as the sort of person who majors in psychology in order to better mimic normal human behavior.
"Marcotte completely misses the biggest way in which such laws are flawed - it's impossible to determine why a woman wants to abort a particular baby."
Actually, it's pretty dadgummed easy. Does the baby have a birth defect detectable by test? Then that's why the woman wants the abortion and she can't have it.
I suppose the same standard could be used to prevent sex selection abortions: if it's a girl then no.
I'm surprised Marcotte isn't in favor; after all, under that regime only boy babies could be aborted.
My cousin works in fertility. She supports the right to abortion. She also says that sex selection abortion is not at all uncommon. The even discussed withholding the sex of the baby at her practice, but obviously, that is just impossible. I wonder where Marcotte gets her stats. Do people report reasons for abortions? Oh that's right, she just imagines a number she needs to make her case and then that is the stat.
So... these are abortions by women who want a baby, but a more perfect baby. Why impose more limit on these women than on women who are saying no to a baby that seems to be in perfect condition? It's hard to think about that, but it's the kind of nondiscrimination principle that seems appropriate elsewhere in the law.
1/14/15, 6:11 PM
It's hard to think about because the core principals of the pro choice position are corrupt. There is no justification for killing a baby, perfect or imperfect.
I answered it at 8:19pm Revnant
No you didn't, you made a nonsensical statement.
Revenant to eric: "I'd love to see the answer to this question."
I answered it at 8:19pm.
I think eric was looking for Marcotte's answer, not a rational person's.
This morning I realized something. Given the response of left-wing women to the fact that Sarah Palin carried her Downs child to term, not only does Marcotte believe that it ought to be legal to abort a Downs baby -- she and the rest of the feminists think it ought to be mandatory.
"CWJ said...
Althouse,
I understand your gist at 6:11, but it still creeps my out that you can cold bloodedly write that."
Seriously? Are you unaware of the retarded metal gymnastics she performs to claim she believes "abortion is murder" yet she is "pro choice".
"I'm tempted to put the Hottest Guys of Anti-Feminism together so everyone can enjoy neckbeards, stained shirts, and beady eyes."- Amanda Marcotte
She is a master of elevated argument.
Her claim that sex selection abortion is rare is based on the idea that to believe it is true must be racist, and racists are always wrong.
It is a syllogism!
I believe "abortion is a kind of murder" and I am pro-choice.
This world is not a perfect place.
When the mythical gay gene is finally discovered and women start aborting gay fetuses it will be interesting to see the reaction from the pro-choice side.
There is no practical way to enforce the law. But, that's also true about a lot of other laws -- I just don't see how you can enforce it in any real, meaningful way.
I'd love to not have to vote Democratic, but then I read about the other side trying to force women to give birth to children with severe mental and physical disabilities.
Others on this thread have noted this from Marcotte:
"Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants...."
About 90% for Down Syndrome, Marcotte.
Liar, drunk, or stupid?
Why not all three?
This is fantastically dumb, pro-abortion, false, and wishful thinking about, of all things, racism.
but then I read about the other side trying to force women to give birth to children with severe mental and physical disabilities.
Like being a girl.
It did not even occur to me that sex-selective abortion in the US would be related to any particular race.
Weird to interject race into the conversation and then say "How dare you perpetuate this ugly stereotype?!" I didn't. You did!
JAORE: I think abortions are ugly, awful things. I also think they are sometimes necessary. Therefore I grit my teeth and find myself to be pro-choice.
If you change "abortions" to "euthanasia," do the first couple of sentences change?
Does the last? Do you grit your teeth and find yourself to be pro-choice, in regards to adult children terminating their parents?
Meanwhile, the Chinese say:
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening using next generation sequencing
"This BGI study reports pre-implantation sequencing of hundreds of blastocysts. 42 ongoing pregnancies were achieved, with 24 babies born thus far.
Background
Next generation sequencing (NGS) is now being used for detecting chromosomal abnormalities in blastocyst trophectoderm (TE) cells from in vitro fertilized embryos."
tim in vermont, to Rev: No you didn't, you made a nonsensical statement.
Not exactly - honest people who actually care about the consistency of their views can come up with examples of when it is wrong to do something that is not wrong in itself. His response was just kinda spergy and out-of-context, since the question was being put, mostly rhetorically, to dishonest ideologues. Now, they'd give a genuinely nonsensical response, along the lines of:
Q: Is it ever wrong to do something that is not wrong in itself?
A: You're a racist.
The squirrel meme versus the red meat meme.
Someone would abort their baby because he had albinism?
By the same token, if they did isn't that as good a reason as any? You could abort your kid for any reason.
"Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants"
So the issue wouldn't be aborting of female fetuses, but aborting of female fetuses because you don't want a girl that would be the issue?
If you look at the numbers of fetuses aborted every year a lot of them are in fact females.
I wrote a law journal article about whether the U.S. could outlaw sex-selective abortion. Spoiler alert: no, it can't.
(SHAMELESS PLUG: 23 Geo. Mason C.R. L.J. 333)
However, empirical data shows that sex-selective abortion, while rare, is a problem in the U.S. (that is, if you think it is wrong to abort a fetus for being the wrong gender), and that it is concentrated in Asian and Indian families.
That fact does not cause a negative stereotype against Asian or Indian women; it exposes the inhumanity of cultural and political systems that place so much pressure on women to have a son that they are willing to abort daughters en masse.
The problem for people like Marcotte, is that they don't want to grapple with these kinds of moral problems. If she did, however, she would probably agree with Tabitha Powledge, who wrote: "To make it illegal to use prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex choice is to nibble away at our hard-won reproductive control, control that I think most of us believe is the absolute rock-bottom minimum goal we have got to keep achieved before we can achieve anything else." (see my article, footnote 170, for the citation)
I'm generally anti-abortion, but I realize there are some valid reasons so I propose an alternative:
If an abortion is conducted for any reason other than preserving the life of the mother, permanent sterilization. Period. I suspect a couple of good results:
1. greater consideration prior to having an abortion,
2. reducing the number of abortions, and
3. accidental selective breeding for traits favorable to the survival of the species
This could have a profound effect on black American demographics, although I could see population going either way depending on the subculture.
If there were a rule against aborting girls because they were girls mothers who wanted to abort babies who were girls could simply say they don't want to be a mother and could still get an abortion.
Why assume that those wanting an abortion are telling the truth about why they are getting one. Since in fat ANY reason will do.
CWJ: My wife and I both only children have, regarding China, joked a billion only children with the bomb.
Am I the only one having a hell of a time trying to parse this sentence?
Curios George wrote:
Seriously? Are you unaware of the retarded metal gymnastics she performs to claim she believes "abortion is murder" yet she is "pro choice".
So she is pro murder. Good to know.
I should clarify my previous post: federal and state legislatures cannot ban sex/race/disability-selective abortions under current jurisprudence. However, I discuss in the article the evolution of abortion jurisprudence, and whether there is room for further evolution. Conclusion: unlikely, but possible.
" Banning the non-existent problem of sex-selective abortion is an easy way to grandstand and score "pro-life" points while preening about how pro-woman you are."
Not wanting a girl baby is anti woman. But aborting a girl baby isn't?
So she is pro murder. Good to know.
But it won't be called "murder," it'll be called something more like "pre- and post-partum selection."
JAORE wrote:
I think abortions are ugly, awful things. I also think they are sometimes necessary. Therefore I grit my teeth and find myself to be pro-choice.
But you'd be pro choice even when they aren't necessary. By definition.
If the govt can force me to buy insurance, a legal product. Then the govt can force you to terminate a flawed baby. Flawed as determined by the gov.
Do people report reasons for abortions?
Is there a box on the form that says "I want to murder my baby because it isn't convenient for me right now"? Or one that says "I can't keep my legs closed and don't want to bother with birth control"?
Because those are the two main reasons for abortions in America.
Am I the only one having a hell of a time trying to parse this sentence?
Took me a couple times. He's trying to say "Imagine a billion people, all of which are only children (as in with no siblings) and they have nuclear weapons"
Am I the only one having a hell of a time trying to parse this sentence?
No, you're not.
SeanF said...
If you change "abortions" to "euthanasia," do the first couple of sentences change?
Does the last? Do you grit your teeth and find yourself to be pro-choice, in regards to adult children terminating their parents?
Yes. And I pray that it is done only to relieve horrific suffering of those that are facing a lingering death without chance of healing. I have faced that cliff, I hope you never have to do the same.
Do you have a method of seeing into the heart of others? If so, please offer your services to assure euthanasia is never done because granny is a burden.
I have no such power.
jr565 said...
But you'd be pro choice even when they aren't necessary. By definition.
Yes, jr, hence the gritted teeth. I can no more look into the heart of a woman facing the choice of an abortion than I can someone whose parent is facing a lingering, agonizing terminal illness.
0.003% of guns are used for homicides each year. On that basis people like Amanda Marcotte want to put great restrictions on the right to keep and bear arm. Oh, who am I kidding. On that basis they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely.
So when she says that these kinds of abortions are not common:
1) How does she know?
2) How often do they need to happen in order to justify laws banning them?
JAORE: Yes.
So if a law were proposed allowing adults to kill their elderly parents for any reason, no questions asked, you would support it? Really?
"I wonder how tolerate Marcotte would be of parents who abort babies with the 'gay gene.'"
docweasel, I suspect that at that point her brain would explode.
Of course, the question presumes that there is such a thing as a "gay gene", and that homosexuality is genetic and not produced by individual choice influenced by environmental pressures. There is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is proven to be genetic. I suspect that the reason that scientists have yet to find the "gay gene" is because it doesn't exist.
I love that nobody seems to ask WHY the Chinese "favor" girls. There is a reason. From what I understand, sons have an obligation to support the parents while parents are obligated to support the daughter until her marriage. There is a logical reason to favor boys in their culture.
Biff:
FWIW, the more I've thought about when human life begins, the less certain I am. I used to be firmly in the camp of "at conception," but then wouldn't that impose an obligation to try to save all conceptuses, including ones that fail to implant successfully? At the same time, and I realize this may sound absurd, at first, but why wouldn't we count sperm or eggs as human? What else would they be? They both have the potential to develop into adult humans. Do we discriminate against them because they don't have a full set of chromosomes? What do we do about fertilized eggs, i.e. post-conception eggs, that don't have a full set of chromosomes? Some, but not all, of them can develop to term. What is special about the fusion of a sperm and an egg at conception that makes them more human than they were before, even if they have combined in a way that makes them no more viable than they were before conception? In terms of viability and potential, is a one celled or a two celled, post conception, pre-implantation embryo really that much different from its pre-conception precursors?
The challenge in your argument is the difference between action and inaction. It's not a matter of when it begins but rather what happens naturally verses what happens with intervention. eggs and sperm are not alive because they do not have a self-directed process for development. Once an egg is fertilized, that self-directed process has begun. The end of that process by natural causes is no different than someone else dying of a heart attack. A natural un-directed process terminated a life. We easily make the distinction between someone dying from illness or disease verses someone killed, why do we have a problem with that distinction for pre-birth life? An abortion is a non-natural termination of the life process. A failed implantation or miscarriage is a natural termination. It does not inform on the question of when life begins.
In simple terms, life begins at conception and will continue to run its course until either natural causes or willful intervention ends it.
We can also introduce willful activity that improves, prolongs or prevents the termination of an existing life. Bypass surgery, medications, etc allow us to prevent the natural termination of life. Whether we can do things at the very earliest stages of life does not change the basic calculus of whether we should actively terminate a life. However, a moral hazard is introduced when we are able to increase the chances of implantation or the prevention of miscarriages. That question is similar to asking how far we go to safe a life. If you deny life saving surgery to an accident victim, have you committed moral wrong?
To Wa St Blogger and n.n. -- nice exchange.
Biff:
The difference is between a state and a process. A sperm or egg represent a state, and also a source. A human life is a process that begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, or conception (the initial source). That process is actually chaotic and the path will be influenced by various natural and conscious sources and sinks until its "death" (the final sink).
It is both practical and proper to distinguish between natural, accidental, and premeditated path changes. So, while we are interested in the effects of the first two, we have a special interest in the last one because it requires a conscious decision. Whether a society is organized by religion (i.e. moral philosophy) and/or authoritarian rules (e.g. law), the prerequisite for liberty is people capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. Some behaviors are rejected; most are tolerated; and a few are normalized or promoted (presumably because they have a redeeming value to society and humanity).
It is self-evident that a human life, which is at minimum a physical process, begins at conception. The question is then: when and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain value? The pro-abortion or choice position is that a human life has selective value or is effectively a commodity. I think this characterization debases human life. It's the difference between art and pornography; or, as Althouse observed, between a kiss and debauchery.
I know of a woman who has had seven abortions, she told me that while drunk and she comes from a family of born again christians. I suspect most women who have had an abortion also have had multiple abortions.
That's fine if that's your opinion, but this thread is about selective abortion.
Once again, Curious Drago scolds others for allegedly not being "on topic" while 1/2 the comments he makes in the thread are personal attacks that have nothing to do with "the topic".
As others have pointed out, he has one set of rules for himself and an entirely different set of rules he tries to enforce upon others.
I've always thought that life begins at the moment you move west of Interstate 5. But that may be just a local prejudice.
Abortion is legal up till the end of the first trimester everywhere, legal to the end of the second many places and largely illegal during the third. The jury is still out on fourth trimester abortions, but some women can get away with it by alleging post-partum depression.
In my opinion, only the several States have the legal power to regulate abortion. Rowe v. Wade was wrongly decided, because there is no Federal power to regulate or address abortion.
If abortion is legal for any reason until the end of the second trimester, then why can't sex selection be a reason? Or selecting against the chance of being gay? Or left-handed?
The door was opened; no reason to start acting reasonably now. Infanticide is the law of the land; deal with it.
If you are a man completely opposed to abortion it's easy to say, "We must protect all life and it's not fair to blame an innocent baby for what his or her parents may have done. No consideration should be given to the woman who will carry the child to term. Life begins at conception.” I think it is harder for a woman to insist that a rape victim be forced to carry the child of her rapist, especially if the rape victim is a young girl, for example, perhaps a victim of incest. It's harder for a women to totally lack empathy, although it does happen. That’s a case of selective abortion I can support.
As I read some of these comments I wonder how people can be so inhumane to women under the rationale of "protecting innocent life?" The logic I have seen here is that even though women are the ones actually having the child there's no reason to allow women to have power over the process. Men have the power over the rest of the world and therefore should be in charge of deciding about abortion. BTW, I'm not pro-abortion but I trust most women are not psychopaths and they take abortions very seriously. Women who have had two or more abortions should at least get counseling and probably be sterilized. Women don't choose to abort over eye color and I seriously doubt they ever will. Sex selection is dangerous because cultural biases do actually damage society if there are not enough females for balance.
No you didn't, you made a nonsensical statement.
That you didn't understand it does not make it nonsensical.
The original questioner asked how, if abortion is right, there could be cases where it is wrong. There are two possibilities here:
1. The questioner has set up a straw man ("people who think abortion is right 100% of the time") and is poking at it, in which case the questioner is a douchebag.
2. The question does not understand how a procedure which is sometimes right can be sometimes wrong. In which case the questioner sucks at understanding set theory.
It is self-evident that a human life, which is at minimum a physical process, begins at conception.
So which member of a pair of identical twins isn't alive? After all, either one or both of them didn't exist at all, at the point of conception.
Logically, either (a) one or both twins don't count as human life, or (b) human life can begin at a point *after* conception.
If (b) is true, then it is no longer "self-evident" in any way that human life begins at conception. It is merely self-evident that a living cell that is genetically human is created at the point of conception.
And you have 37 billion such cells in your body alone.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा