Patterico is burning through a number of partial-birth abortion issues to the extent that I think he's putting too fine a point it. But he's an attorney so we can forgive him that.
Nevertheless I still do have a problem with Conservatives who come up with the wrong-headed initiative to create a 24 point rubric for determining the breadth of conditions under which these single-issue voters get their way with abortion. And I think it has something to do with the way I am turning my attention to the nexus of sex, religion and power.
First things first. What I believe:
Do I think abortion is murder? No.
Do I think abortion is manslaughter? No.
I think abortion is roughly akin to reckless endangerment. But I'd be hard pressed to think of any situation in which abortion should be a felony. But this is in fact exactly what anti-abortion activists do in their spare time.
I think the universe of legitimate and moral reasons to have abortions is small, but I think it is larger than the universe social conservatives would allow. I think the legality of abortion is not a problem primarily because I don't think we need, from a national standpoint, all of those children. This sounds like a crass thing, but I don't think it is any more crass than the assertion implied by the illegality of abortion, that we are obliged to make our sex payoff in babies.
Quite frankly, I find it difficult to take any anti-abortion sentiments seriously from some hypocrite with fewer than four children. If there's anything worse than an armchair quarterback, it's an armchair OB/GYN. And I resent their endless second-guessing of this highly personal decision making process. Think of it this way, what if we had a Minister of Sex who interrupted primetime television with a public service announcement whose tagline was 'Fuck Responsibly'. How long would you think that was cool?
Am I pro-life? Absolutely. Should people be persuaded against the practice of abortion? Sure. But just as there should be ethical limits on the practice of meaningless sex in the form of self-restraint, there should be ethical limits on the bullying trying to find its expression in the power of the State. It's not as if nobody knows that abortion is controversial and that many find it morally inexcusable. The problem is that of hubris. There is no point in rubbing the nose of a woman who has an abortion into the mud, and there is truly no excuse for the arrogant political activism of establishing prior restraint.
The difficulty is that the anti-abortion lobby has essentially lost all credibility in addressing their concerns in public debate. I don't see any evidence of anti-abortion activists trying to come up with a new public consensus. Rather they are rather shamelessly trying to stack the deck with, ahem, activist judges, and an ever tightening skein of legislative attacks around the edges of the practice. Because of the way this activism plays, especially around the highly wonky details of partial-birth, or this or that procedure, I'm convinced that advocates for reversing Roe v Wade have dropped all pretense of accepting public criticism. Thats a miserable business for a Conservative to be in.
I very much agree with the axiom of difference between Liberals and Conservatives that goes like this. A Liberal's emphasis is using the power of the State to protect against the dysfunctions of the community and family. A Conservative's emphasis is using the power of the community and family to protect against the dysfunctions of the State. So there is a fundamental contradiction in the legislative and judicial agenda to increasingly restrict men and women from abortion, which is at the very least an effort made by them to correct, albeit by drastic means, an abuse of their sexual freedom. Like it or not, abortion is restraint.
To take away this particular choice from adults, which is essentially one of lethal force, is to infantalize the public. It is to say, we do not trust you enough to allow you this life or death decision and therefore we deny you the right to make it. It is tantamount to pre-emptive sterilization. But before I run off the rhetorical cliff, I think there are a good number of fundamental points that can and should be made by anyone who cares how children are brought into this society.
If the pro-life crew says that it is preposterous to suggest that a potential parent should abort because they are unsure about the quality of life of the child, I agree with them. The possibilities are endless for any newborn and we should never abort hope. But the logical consequence of this is that those who recognize endless possibilities should be more willing to sire offspring. There is something wrong with America in that wealth is not associated with large, but with poor families. This contradiction cannot be overlooked.
If the pro-life crew says adoption and foster parentage are viable alternatives that should be more transparent and used, I agree with them. Let's get rid of the corruption of those government bureaucracies. Children are not an agricultural commodity, let's manage their placement with more compassion.
If the pro-life crew says we ought to recognize life at conception or codify the sanctity of life at some genetically significant moment other than birth, I disagree with them. You are not a person until you are born and a fecund or pregnant woman should have no more legal standing than one who is as barren as the surface of the moon.
BTW, raise your hand if you are a woman and you would rather lose a child or an eye as the result of a miscarriage.
The so I think there is a fundamental difference that I would like to express between pro-life and anti-abortion. I think it is reasonable to consider pro-lifers Conservative, but those who are seeking to overturn Roe vs Wade are not. Whereas the former are properly concerned with the abuse of sexual freedom the latter group is ready to use abortion as a litmus test to abuse the Judiciary.
I wonder about the probity of people who 'see dead people' when thinking about the effects of abortion on our nation. Such a vision does not accommodate itself to the real economy of sex, and seeks to regulate all sexual behavior in one fell swoop. It is becoming clearer to me that the anti-abortionists are enemies of liberty. And so I believe that overturning Roe is a step that we cannot afford to let them take. The principle at hand is simple. Individual liberty vs State force.
Recent Comments