Just to add to my previous notes, I've read a whole lot of pieces this weekend about how terrible Sam Alito's opinion in Dobbs is; about the misogyny of conservatives; about their ignorance of history; about the Court's lack of democratic legitimacy; about all the other rights that are certain to fall now that Roe is toast; and about bodily autonomy and how it is so in the Constitution.
I'll have more to say about this tomorrow, but what's striking to me is how bad all these columns and essays and think pieces have been. I'm not sure I've read a single one that I'd call lucid or persuasive—and that's despite the fact that my personal view of abortion is about as extreme as it's possible to have.¹
We liberals really need to get our act together. How is it that after 50 years we're apparently still not able to defend abortion in any kind of simple, convincing way that appeals to anyone who's not already on our side?
¹I'm not in favor of any limits on abortion aside from the ordinary regulation applied to any outpatient surgical procedure. In the non-surgical arena, if I had my way abortion pills would be sold over the counter. Nor do I think abortion should be a "difficult" or "agonizing" choice. A fetus isn't a human life and deserves no more legal consideration than your tonsils.² I recognize, of course, that many people disagree with me.
²This is key, and it's a demonstration of the immense polarity in our political life. Conservatives talk endlessly about how abortion snuffs out a human life. That's the whole magilla. But if you read only among liberals, you might not even know this is an issue. We simply don't talk about it.
Why? I don't know how it polls or what effect it has on most people, but it has to be addressed if we want to win the war for public opinion. There are just too many people who care about this and need to hear simple, convincing arguments that a fetus isn't a human life in any reasonable sense of the term. We're cowards if we aren't willing to take that on.
I do want to say something against Kevin's stating that a fetus has no more value than tonsils: that's a ridiculous statement, which depends entirely upon the stage of development.
Before about 4 months, there's essentially no more brain activity than is required to keep a heart beating, and Kevin's statement makes sense scientifically. And this is a simple enough concept to discuss with voters.
Similarly, at 7, 8 or 9 months, you're talking about a baby, and way fewer people are good with abortion on demand at that stage. And that's ridiculous anyway, since people don't have elective abortions at that stage unless some horrendous condition is detected. But in 2016, Trump kept talking about killing healthy babies just before they were about to be born, and Clinton didn't push back and say that that's both illegal and never happens anyway.
It's also worth pointing out that the human reproductive system is very failure prone, and if something like a detached placenta occurs at 5 months, then despite everything, an abortion may be the only thing that can keep the pregnant woman alive.
This is just a long winded way of saying that this *isn't* a simple issue, and if we want to win on it, we're going to have to discuss it in its full complexity.
It means that when the anti abortion crowd opines on the “unborn” I say I’m more interested in the already born. In addition, the rights of a fully grown female person always trump the rights of a zygote the size of a pomegranate seed. Late term abortion is always due to a dire and tragic circumstance……
The most compelling argument in favor of abortion rights are the health consequences for women. Google Savita Halappanavar, the tragic case that ultimately resulted in liberalization of abortion laws in Ireland. There are so many things that can go wrong during pregnancy that may be life-or fertility-threatening, from ectopic pregnancies to silent miscarriages to pre-eclampsia. To me, one of the most troubling aspects of the Dobbs decision is the fact that women already are not receiving care for miscarriages in red states (https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=011089738672311785372:yrshxu5c-pw&q=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-dobbs-abortion-ban-reproductive-medicine-alabama.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiB2s_Nns74AhX0lWoFHcVLAWgQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw1he7csI-DkVAlAtCLUORKV). Arguing about when life begins is a fool's errand if your goal is to persuade people that abortion needs to be legal.
The fundamental premise of the majority religions in the United States is that belief is the lens through which facts should be examined. Kevin posits there is some value in providing better facts. I don't see how that is useful.
Pingback: Sam Alito and the meaning of life – Kevin Drum
Democratic liberals followed the advice to moderate on divisive issues like abortion and now women have lost a reproductive right. Instead of celebrating the morally superior choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy liberals adopted the view terminating an unwanted pregnancy was repugnant and should only be performed after all other options exhausted. Liberals did not fight to publicly subsidize abortions for the poor or offer women who abort unwanted pregnancies a stipend to reward them for making the right choice. Liberals claimed to want legal and safe abortions, but not as a public policy to stop the births of unwanted children destined for neglect, trauma, and abuse.
There is hope however. Since Roe no longer protects anyone's right to privacy overpopulation alarmists and eugenicists can mobilize to pass laws preventing people from procreating. China could enforce its one child policy because its citizens had no right to privacy, and now the US can enforce similar policies.
This addresses the “life” issue
https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/
"... A fetus isn't a human life and deserves no more legal consideration than your tonsils.² .."
I doubt you actually believe this. Or do you favor putting Accutane back on the market?