South Dakota abortion ban

[stannard67]

I assume most everyone has heard about what's been going down in SD.

The ban is for all abortions except when the mother's LIFE is threatened. Rape? No abortion. Incest? No abortion. Health? No abortion.

I am as morally disturbed by abortion as maybe anyone on the left that I know. I respect the views of many pro-life feminists and socialists, and I even understand the sentiments of religious arguments against abortion. I want a "culture of life" more than I think the President really does (or understands).

But here's the deal: Somebody tell me why, if a 12 year-old girl is raped and impregnated, she should be forced to carry that child to term.

Patrick? Anybody? Bring it on. I'm waiting.

stannard

[shea_d]

Originally posted by stannard67
But here's the deal: Somebody tell me why, if a 12 year-old girl is raped and impregnated, she should be forced to carry that child to term.

Because back alleys and coat hangers are much safer...:rolleyes

[Pattybar]

Because Minnesota isn't that far away...

In reality, as far as I understand it, there are few-- if any-- people who perform abortions in South or North Dakota. My information may be a few years old, but it is my understanding that the only (elective??)abortions that happen in the state are done by people who fly in from elsewhere on a weekly basis to do them.

That being said -- I tend to agree that South Dakota is being foolish, and I suspect they setting up for a court challenge to Roe...

[patio11]

Fundamentally, it comes down to this: we don't kill children, even when their fathers are vile monsters, and even if it were to substantially ease the trauma of another person.

I'm not exactly the world's best person at expressing objections to anything in terms of a feminist or socialist ethic of care, but to take a stab at it: From the feminist perspective, aborting the child of a child who has been raped is trying to paper over one grevious failure to protect the innocent by hurting another innocent, but one with even less social standing than a 12-year old girl. Feminists would typically not be too sanguine about "fight oppression by oppressing someone even worse off, but please keep that out of sight so it doesn't trouble our consciences". Its also an indication of the abject failure of all involved, from the family to the government, to be able to deal with prenatal care and survivor counseling. The fact that the system is incapable of or unwilling to expend the effort to properly address the state of mind of the survivor is not a reason to take the "easy out" of just eliminating the physical manifestation of the crime, especially when that physical manifestation is a human being. A feminist might draw a parallel to an earlier, less enlightened era where the routine response to rapes was to eliminate *all* physical manifestations of the crimes (or to, say, the number of present-day countries and cultures engaged in that unspeakable practice), often on the rationalization that the continued existence of those women would burden their family or society. The feminist might continue to note that while there are certainly medical challenges associated with a pregnancy at age 13 they are very solvable if one is inclined to do so, and if a different 13-year old were to want to have a child a feminist, while perhaps personally disagreeing with the wisdom of having a child at that age, would be duty-bound to seek for her the very best in medical care. A particularly astute feminist would note that solidarity on the issue of prenatal care (and not just for rape victims) is very possible with people and lawmakers who would rather crawl on their hands and knees over broken glass than call themselves "feminist", and that feminists could easily achieve much better government-provided prenatal care for women if it were proposed in the context of a deal in return for their principled opposition to abortion.

I'm even less of a socialist than I am a feminist (and that takes some doing, since I'm one of the above crawl-over-glass folks), but I'm willing to give it a shot: First, a socialist would generally have misgivings very similar to a feminist's on the moral appropriateness of papering over one failing of the system by inflicting harm on another innocent, politically powerless party. The socialist might point out that abortion is part of the logical terminus of unrestrained capitalism: the reduction of human life itself to a commodity which is bought and sold, which appears on some balance sheets as an asset and on other balance sheets as a liability, and when a particular balance sheet is sufficiently in the red the liability must be liquidated. This might well offend our hypothetical socialist's sense of moral decency or social justice. Additionally, the socialist might note that the calculation on the net-benefits of abortion versus its alternative is, from the perspective of the state, purely a cost-benefits calculation in terms of dollars, and that calculation is both inappropriate on its face and rigged against the poor. Delivering a baby to term costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000, abortion costs $300, and the system is unwilling to cough up the difference in the general case. Of course, if one happens to be of means sufficient to spend $7,700 without blinking, the system is quite happy to let you choose freely, but it otherwise pressures you subtly and not-so-subtly to take the cheap way out of the dilemma. The socialist would point out that if we just had a governmental/health/economic system which was willing to foot the bill for those members of society who do not have the private means to sustain it then much of the psychological and medical rationale to abort the child would be eased significantly (the pragmatic socialist would realize, like the astute feminist, that there is a very numerous, motivated, and politically powerful constituency which has influence over the majority party sufficient to achieve almost any conceivable healthcare reform, and that all the socialist has to do to motivate them to do so is to explicitly link abortion and healthcare). The socialist might close by noting that he's read a lot about intersectionality over the last couple of years and is particularly concerned about the intersection of race, poverty, and crime, where the system is both habitually unwilling to protect, say, inner-city poor black women and then doubly unwilling to provide them with adequate medical care in the event of the attack, preferring to refer them to an under-paid overworked public health expert who would automatically recommend an abortion "in your best interests" after a five-minute consultation and then quickly return to the dozens of people on his caseload for the day (whereas a survivor of means in the suburbs would have the luxury of both a social support network and, when she sought medical attention, a number of professionals who would give her a sympathetic hearing for as long as she required).

Patrick McKenzie

[stannard67]

I don't deny these are cogent arguments, Jed and Patrick. I am particularly persuaded by arguments linking the pro-life ethic to larger social contexts, of course, and the implied flip side that structural reform must either precede or accompany sanctions on individual abortions. Also, I know Patrick is against the death penalty, which makes his position consistent.

But I seriously doubt that if either of you were judges, and a case was brought before you in which a 12 year-old girl was raped by her grandfather and impregnated, you'd have the walnuts to look her in the eyes and say "young lady, you WILL carry that child to term!" I just don't see it.

stannard

[scooter]

"Fundamentally, it comes down to this: we don't kill children,"

Wouldn't that mean that one wouldn't make any exceptions at all, including the life of the mother being in danger? If the justification is that one shouldn't kill children, a mother's death is not the same as the state killing a child (the latter is murder, the former, an unfortunate *potential* by product.) Thus, ultimately, by the logic extended above, wouldn't no exceptions be the norm?

S
Edit to note: Matt, the potential negative impact of an incestous pregnancy would be, I believe, even more distasterous on the formation of a fetus if the father was the mother in question's brother. This is an issue that gets more complex for me as well (yes, I'm sure that this is pretty clear, I'm pretty pro-choice): The potential impact of an incestous birth has not only dire impacts on the mother but the health of the child. But in SD, yes, that child would *still* have to be carried to full term.

[stannard67]

I also want to add that I have long admired Patrick's ability to articulately explain positions he disagrees with, to give them charitable and detailed interpretive readings. Patrick, if you ever wanted to, you'd make a good debate coach.

stannard

[patio11]

But I seriously doubt that if either of you were judges, and a case was brought before you in which a 12 year-old girl was raped by her grandfather and impregnated, you'd have the walnuts to look her in the eyes and say "young lady, you WILL carry that child to term!" I just don't see it.

This hypothetical is very similar to "Would you be so anti-death penalty if it were your own daughter?" I'd like to think that I would be, in either of the cases. In any event, the moral issue at stake in either case is too important to be delegated to someone's walnuts, which is why we generally don't give the grieving family standing to say "Hang 'em high" (though I understand the theoretical visceral appeal of it) and why we shouldn't give judges the standing to say "My walnuts can't countenance any further suffering of this child even if it costs another child his life" (though I understand the theoretical visceral appeal of it).


Wouldn't that mean that one wouldn't make any exceptions at all, including the life of the mother being in danger?

I have no moral objection to an exception-free anti-abortion law, although I realize that it is frankly impossible to transition to that law currently and for the forseeable future. Which is why I would counsel smaller, achievable steps to save every marginal life possible and solidify a social consensus which makes lasting, sweeping change achievable (incidentally, I think South Dakota's action is likely counterproductive to the goals of the pro-life movement, as its highly likely to be smacked down by the Supreme Court -- if I had my druthers I'd fight the partial-birth abortion fight first, where a win is achievable and even a loss today brings us closer to the win tomorrow, rather than overreach and get smacked down legally and politically for it.)

Also an incidental strategic point: current SC jurisprudence means that any abortion policy with a health exception is worth exactly nothing (health being defined as physical, mental, familial, and financial allows the exception to swallow the rule, as any pregnancy triggers mental, familial, and financial issues -- its like writing a resolution which allows the government to be topical based on their intent to be topical), and that all Constitutional policies must include a health exception. So if you're ever wondering "Why do pro-lifers always go out of their way to eliminate the health exemption?", now you know -- we've been burned by this one before.

Patrick McKenzie

[patio11]

Thanks for mostly undeserved praise. Means a lot to me coming from probably the best debate coach I know. A traditional coaching job is, unfortunately, not likely to be in the cards for me.

Patrick McKenzie

[thedancingbear]

The smallest achievable step to reduce the number of abortions is to provide meaningful options for young women who are pregnant.

If you want the number of abortions in the United States and world to be zero, as I do, a focus on decreased desire for abortions is going to pay off much faster than making them harder to get. this is where some folks segue into talking about access to contraception and sex education but that's not the point of this post.

There are groups across the United States that operate non-profit homes for very young, very poor women who get pregnant and have no mechanisms to deal with it. (example: http://www.ssfw.org/ )Absent some help many of these girls will absolutely get an abortion, probably whether it is legal or not. They are terrified about the prospect of having a child and rightly so, because I'd be scared as shit too if I was pregnant before I was old enough to drive.

These homes provide a place to stay, access to prenatal medical care, and some basic life lessons. like, good nutrition, basic finance type basic. They also prevent the father from menacing the mother which is an often overlooked issue. these things, more than any anti-abortion law ever possibly could, will actually give the kid, once born, a shot at having a mom who is ready to care for him and wants to do so.

the nice part about all of this is that it's a project and concept everyone ought to be able to get behind. Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the services these homes provide and the differences they make in the lives of women are unquestionably, unconditionally virtuous. While the way the homes are operated vary (some are explicitly religious, others are not) they all perform a service that changes lives in the most literal, real, absolute, unyielding sense. There are women and children across the country who owe their entire lives and future to places like this, so I sure hope that this post has inspired anyone who cares to take a look around their communities to see if you have a place like this that could use some support, financial or whatever else you've got to give.

ian

[debater]

10 characters

[scooter]

...I love Ruth...

In other notes, two things:

1) Will SD also be making forms of contraception and information concerning means of preventing unwanted pregnancies readily available as per Ian's (good to see you again)suggestion or will they just assume that no-one will have sex save for procreative purposes unless a child is the desired result?

2) I have to echo Matt's statement: I cannot agree with Patrick's point as we have a fundemental difference in opinion regarding the premise of his argument but his method is wonderfully sound.

S

[Pattybar]

For a 12 year old, a serious argument can be made that actually carrying the child would endanger her life.

The sad fact of the matter will probably be pregnant teens heading for the border to get abortions in neighboring states. I really hope they live east or south, as North Dakota isn't exactly a hot-bed of abortion providers (people fly in to do them now.. ).

It is a sad and stupid move that South Dakota is making --- and it is being seen as a blatant attempt to provide a test case for Roe.

[world_dictator]

Fundamentally, it comes down to this: we don't kill children, even when their fathers are vile monsters, and even if it were to substantially ease the trauma of another person.

I certainly dont consider myself a bleeding heart liberal but I think the point should be made that we kill children all of the time. When we shoot a missile into a village that has a terrorist in it we more or less accept the fact that civilians will die, and its almost guranteed that children will be among them. When we send troops into foreign countries we often wind up killing kids.

As Irony would have it, the people, Republicans, who say killing kids is bad are the ones who often authorize and plan these military activities that kill kids.

I'm not really making an argument one way or the other or bashing on Republicans, because I think there are compelling arguments for many of the military actions we take, I just think the argument that we dont kill kids is incorrect.

[keithschnak]

If you want the number of abortions in the United States and world to be zero, as I do, a focus on decreased desire for abortions is going to pay off much faster than making them harder to get.

Perm.

[stannard67]

Perm isn't net-beneficial: you can't make abortions harder to obtain. You can only make them harder to obtain SAFELY. People will still get abortions and there will be a net loss of life and health, turning your moral imperative.

[Alan]

This law will be struck down, because it fails to provide an exception for the health of the mother, as required by Roe, and it's companion case Doe v. Bolton.

It will be an interesting test for both Roberts and Alito, seeing as they both testified under oath that Roe was "superprecedent" and essentially impossible to overturn, at least this quickly.

Not sure what Specter would do if they both voted to overturn Roe....

[Madgenius]

Hide.

[scooter]

Specter: Needs to votes outside of the PA T so he's not overturning any time soon.

Rickie, meanwhile, needs the Commonwealth to suddenly spring to life, do the electric slide, and fly to Mars if he's to stand a chance in hell.

S