Abortion in the 2012 Election
Well, we certainly cannot complain in this election cycle that the abortion issue is being ignored. The selection of the resolutely pro-life Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate and the continuing fall-out from the Todd Aikin controversy has ensured that the abortion debate will receive plenty of attention in coming weeks, much to the dismay of Romney, who clearly is trying to change the subject.
While I’m always glad when electoral campaigns range over many issues, I have my doubts as to how constructive this discussion will be, particularly at a time when the two parties both seem preoccupied with their ideological electoral bases instead of reaching for the independents that are so important for success on election day. What I hear are strong, defiant statements of principle, expressed in “here, I take my stand” tones, and full-throated rejections of alternative points of view. Civility is an early casualty in this form of political discourse.
Of course, it’s not hard to understand why candidates would seek to distinguish their own views from those of an opponent. But candidates (and their staffs) would do well to recognize that a move towards civility does not weaken one’s position, and actually might strengthen it. I distinguish two ways this may be true with respect to the abortion question.
First, in a civil discussion, statements of principle require justification. My sense is that in a society where there is so much disagreement about moral foundations, we attempt to avoid explaining why we hold the moral positions we do—we simply expect that others disagree with those foundations, or even that others simply cannot understand them. And so we have pro-lifers arguing their position as though it descended upon them from the sky, and we see pro-choice advocates repeating the “right to abortion” mantra as though a rights claim isn’t a moral claim that needs to be considered alongside other moral claims.
For a civil debate, we need more than this; otherwise we simply hurl our principles at each other, again and again, while the public moral ground is ceded to mere pragmatism (go with what works) or majoritarianism (the majority is always right). The loss of a genuinely principled public discussion is a loss for all sides.
Second, in a civil discussion that is taking place within the political space, we need arguments that are genuinely political. This requires, among other things, the recognition not only that there are people who disagree with us, but also that after the election, some of those people are still going to be hanging around. This means that if we want to make progress on the policy front, we’re going to have to get along with these people. So while I personally find many of the pro-life arguments to be persuasive, I think it spectacularly unwise to seek nothing less than a full abortion ban. In the America in which I live today, there are simply too many people who disagree—many of whom I otherwise have great respect for—and so I have to accept that for the time being, any legal protections for unborn children that we might achieve politically will be partial and incomplete.
Again, for a civil debate, we need more than what we have—we need arguments from the candidates (on both sides) concerning how they will pursue their goals with respect to abortion politically—that is, we need to know how they get from personal morality to political morality. We need to see how the candidates see their goals concerning abortion policy as part of their larger task of promoting justice in politics—how abortion policy fits into their political worldview.
Given how important the issue is to so many people, it’s remarkable how rarely candidates take up the abortion question. This time around, there’s a genuine opportunity for an alternative political conversation—let’s make the most of that opportunity.
Paul,
I’m on board with the basic tone and content of your essay. The country is very divided on abortion, you observe. Furthermore, we (the American political community) have so many differences on moral foundations that we often avoid even the attempt to justify the principles we espouse. Therefore, you write, “I have to accept that for the time being, any legal protections for unborn children that we might achieve politically will be partial and incomplete.” I agree.
Based on this very brief summary of your essay, a few questions come to mind. What do you make of what I would characterize as several recent examples of “partial and incomplete legal protections for the unborn” such as laws that redefine abortion clinics as full-fledged medical facilities, and therefore, subject them to the more stringent regulations of medical facilities (even to the extent that some abortion clinics would likely be closed for non-compliance)? What about laws that require women considering abortion to have an ultrasound (even a non-invasive one) in an effort to better inform them about the reality of their potential “choice”? And what about laws that limit abortion based on the development of the fetus? And what about laws that prohibit abortion based on gender discrimination or particular disabilities of an unborn child?
Full disclosure, I tend to vote Republican because I have to, not because I get excited about it. In a two party system, they’re the best I can do. I hope this gives me a little credibility in asserting that when Republicans, mostly at the state level, have proposed laws like the ones above—laws that seek limited and partial protections for the unborn—they are vilified by the Left as if they are proposing full criminalization of all abortions, without exception. This doesn’t mean that those of us who are pro-life are off the hook with respect to our use of measured, respectful discourse on this issue. But sometimes on some issues, one side is significantly more responsible for incivility and distortion than others.
I say this maybe to challenge part of your thesis, I’m not sure. But it appears clear to me that persons on the liberal side of the political spectrum, including most Democrats, view any abortion limits, regardless of the principled justification, as an unbridled attack on the dignity of women. (I just listened to the president of NARAL speak at the Democratic National Convention so I may be a bit more frustrated, even exasperated, than usual).
Thank you,
Nathan
Paul,
I’m on board with the basic tone and content of your essay. The country is very divided on abortion, you observe. Furthermore, we (the American political community) have so many differences on moral foundations that we often avoid even the attempt to justify the principles we espouse. Therefore, you write, “I have to accept that for the time being, any legal protections for unborn children that we might achieve politically will be partial and incomplete.” I agree.
Based on this very brief summary of your essay, a few questions come to mind. What do you make of what I would characterize as several recent examples of “partial and incomplete legal protections for the unborn” such as laws that redefine abortion clinics as full-fledged medical facilities, and therefore, subject them to the more stringent regulations of medical facilities (even to the extent that some abortion clinics would likely be closed for non-compliance)? What about laws that require women considering abortion to have an ultrasound (even a non-invasive one) in an effort to better inform them about the reality of their potential “choice”? And what about laws that limit abortion based on the development of the fetus? And what about laws that prohibit abortion based on gender discrimination or particular disabilities of an unborn child?
Full disclosure, I tend to vote Republican because I have to, not because I get excited about it. In a two party system, they’re the best I can do. I hope this gives me a little credibility in asserting that when Republicans, mostly at the state level, have proposed laws like the ones above—laws that seek limited and partial protections for the unborn—they are vilified by the Left as if they are proposing full criminalization of all abortions, without exception. This doesn’t mean that those of us who are pro-life are off the hook with respect to our use of measured, respectful discourse on this issue. But sometimes on some issues, one side is significantly more responsible for incivility and distortion than others.
I say this maybe to challenge part of your thesis, I’m not sure. But it appears clear to me that persons on the liberal side of the political spectrum, including most Democrats, view any abortion limits, regardless of the principled justification, as an unbridled attack on the dignity of women. (I just listened to the president of NARAL speak at the Democratic National Convention so I may be a bit more frustrated, even exasperated, than usual).
Thank you,
Nathan
Paul,
I’m on board with the basic tone and content of your essay. The country is very divided on abortion, you observe. Furthermore, we (the American political community) have so many differences on moral foundations that we often avoid even the attempt to justify the principles we espouse. Therefore, you write, “I have to accept that for the time being, any legal protections for unborn children that we might achieve politically will be partial and incomplete.” I agree.
Based on this very brief summary of your essay, a few questions come to mind. What do you make of what I would characterize as several recent examples of “partial and incomplete legal protections for the unborn” such as laws that redefine abortion clinics as full-fledged medical facilities, and therefore, subject them to the more stringent regulations of medical facilities (even to the extent that some abortion clinics would likely be closed for non-compliance)? What about laws that require women considering abortion to have an ultrasound (even a non-invasive one) in an effort to better inform them about the reality of their potential “choice”? And what about laws that limit abortion based on the development of the fetus? And what about laws that prohibit abortion based on gender discrimination or particular disabilities of an unborn child?
Full disclosure, I tend to vote Republican because I have to, not because I get excited about it. In a two party system, they’re the best I can do. I hope this gives me a little credibility in asserting that when Republicans, mostly at the state level, have proposed laws like the ones above—laws that seek limited and partial protections for the unborn—they are vilified by the Left as if they are proposing full criminalization of all abortions, without exception. This doesn’t mean that those of us who are pro-life are off the hook with respect to our use of measured, respectful discourse on this issue. But sometimes on some issues, one side is significantly more responsible for incivility and distortion than others.
I say this maybe to challenge part of your thesis, I’m not sure. But it appears clear to me that persons on the liberal side of the political spectrum, including most Democrats, view any abortion limits, regardless of the principled justification, as an unbridled attack on the dignity of women. (I just listened to the president of NARAL speak at the Democratic National Convention so I may be a bit more frustrated, even exasperated, than usual).
Thank you,
Nathan
The discussion about abortion always lead to more than that. Why?
I was a native of The Netherlands before I emigrated to the US in 1964. That means I am old and can remember things. We too started with abortions on demand. For a liberal country not that big a step. But soon afterwards, their came a demand for euthanasia for sick older people. And even though it is officially illegal, the government let it pass. So now, when you are older and you are sick, you are offered euthanasia. When my mother was ill, and in a Dutch hospital, just ten years ago, I was called in and asked if I wanted her life terminated.
The next step is happening now. Children who have a terminal illness also qualify for euthasia. And they are now trying to apply this as well to newborns who are psychologically diseased, the ones who are severely retarded.
So, in my country, this is what abortion led to. Maybe we need to think long about it.
The discussion about abortion always lead to more than that. Why?
I was a native of The Netherlands before I emigrated to the US in 1964. That means I am old and can remember things. We too started with abortions on demand. For a liberal country not that big a step. But soon afterwards, their came a demand for euthanasia for sick older people. And even though it is officially illegal, the government let it pass. So now, when you are older and you are sick, you are offered euthanasia. When my mother was ill, and in a Dutch hospital, just ten years ago, I was called in and asked if I wanted her life terminated.
The next step is happening now. Children who have a terminal illness also qualify for euthasia. And they are now trying to apply this as well to newborns who are psychologically diseased, the ones who are severely retarded.
So, in my country, this is what abortion led to. Maybe we need to think long about it.
The discussion about abortion always lead to more than that. Why?
I was a native of The Netherlands before I emigrated to the US in 1964. That means I am old and can remember things. We too started with abortions on demand. For a liberal country not that big a step. But soon afterwards, their came a demand for euthanasia for sick older people. And even though it is officially illegal, the government let it pass. So now, when you are older and you are sick, you are offered euthanasia. When my mother was ill, and in a Dutch hospital, just ten years ago, I was called in and asked if I wanted her life terminated.
The next step is happening now. Children who have a terminal illness also qualify for euthasia. And they are now trying to apply this as well to newborns who are psychologically diseased, the ones who are severely retarded.
So, in my country, this is what abortion led to. Maybe we need to think long about it.
Nathan—
Thank-you for the comment, Nathan. I broadly agree with you that the types of laws and regulations that you describe are precisely the sorts of things that we should be able to debate constructively. Those proposing these sorts of regulations can appeal to how these proposals fit into larger moral frameworks—even perhaps moral frameworks that their opponents might be able to affirm. Meanwhile, those opposed to such laws need to consider them on their merits, not simply as attacks on their fundamental principle.
I think that one reason this is so hard to accomplish with the abortion issue is that the issue is so easily framed as one right being set off against another. It’s hard to achieve compromise in when we believe basic rights are threatened. But another reason has to do with a feature of the abortion debate that is unique. For most of the other issues we’ve debated, there has existed a deeper agreement about the goal we’re trying to achieve, even though we may fiercely debate how we’re going to get there. Both left and right would like to see a balanced national budget, for example; they “merely” disagree on how to achieve it. But abortion is unique in that a central question of the debate is whether there’s a moral principle at stake at all. After all, if the fetus has simply no moral status, there’s a good deal less we need to talk about.
For me, that makes finding an “alternative political conversation” for the abortion debate more difficult than for other policy debates. What I tried to do in my original post was try to find a way to move beyond those basic statements of principle to actual engagement of arguments. But there's no denying that it is tough to find alternative grounds for debate.
Thanks for your comment, Keith.
I think the most important part of your post was the question, “Why?” I’ll not question the trajectory you outline; what I’d like to know is why it occurred the way it did in the Netherlands. Is it the case that abortion on demand leads necessarily to euthanasia in the way that you describe? Are there deeper factors that explain both sets of phenomena? Knowing more would help us a good deal, both as we seek to make (or change) policy, but also as seek to pursue and support a “culture of life” more broadly.