One of you asked what I was getting at with the thought experiment pitting 500 zygotes against one baby. (If you were in a burning medical building, which would you save?)
I've argued that some pro-choice leaders are slightly out of synch with some pro-choice voters. While all pro-choices want the decision to be made by the woman, many rank and file voters do believe that after a certain point the fetus takes on some personhood rights -- a position not typically espoused by pro-choice leaders.
I've wondered to what extent there's also a gap -- more subtle perhaps, but real -- between pro-life voters and pro-life leaders. Consider: 37% of the population wants abortion illegal except in cases of rape and incest. That means about half of pro-life voters would make that exception. Yet if abortion is murder, allowing it because the life was created through another crime makes no sense. To me, that means pro-life voters are seeing -- perhaps unconsciously -- their own shades of gray.
So: curious: what's the nature of these gray areas? And do they point to areas of potential common ground? If a pro-life person would save the baby instead of the 500 zygotes, it made me wonder whether they would agree to some public policies that would prevent some second or third trimester abortions at the risk of allowing some loss of zygotes. For instance, if Plan B mostly operates as birth control, not an abortafacient, but it may occasionally lead to a fertilized embryo not implanting. If greater use of Plan B led to far fewer second or even later-first trimester abortions, is that something that some pro-life voters would be willing to accept?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"And the Church clearly teaches that a baby implanted in a fallopian tube qualifies as innocent"
And justifes the surgery to remove it and terminate its life, because the mother will die unless the surgery is performed.
I would not die to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not a saint. Abortion in a case where a woman's health is at risk from the pregnancy is regrettable, but I call it self-defense. I'm pro-life, but I see some shades of gray here. As far as a penalty for abortion, I'd probably class it as involuntary manslaughter, depending on the circumstances behind the abortion, and the penalty would probably be community service at a women's clinic and/or a small fine.
"And justifes the surgery to remove it and terminate its life, because the mother will die unless the surgery is performed."
The Church does in fact justify the surgical removal of the fallopian tube which of course will have the tragic side effect of the baby dying. But it does not justify the killing or removal of the baby directly, e.g. by using the drug methotrexate.
Thats true, but the Church has been unable to make a moral distinction between the two that makes one speck of sense. I suspect this is what Steve Waldman was gettign at. There is probably a very large number of Americans who agree that abortion shoudl be permitted when the mother's physical life is in danger. M y guess is that number is well over 90%.
His "500" hypothethical is designed to draw out that almost all Americans do not see the zygote as entitled to full legal protection even if they can't articualte a reason why. That opinion is most evident when the mother's life is at risk. The vast majority of Amercans will choose the mother over the unborn. They seee no pricipled distinction between a salpinectomy and methotrexate. To the extent Americans are willing to allow abortion to save the mother's life, they are not "pro-life" as that term is commonly used. The Catholic Church's position is more restictive than that. It prohibits abortion even when the mother's life is threatened.
If you define "pro-life" more broadly, to include permitting abortion only when the mother's life is threatened, you will be in favor of more abortions than the Catholic Church is, but still in favor of allowing a relatviely few number of abortions.
The vast majority of Amercians still belive that this is too limiting. The vast majority of Americans also would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. This position is rejected by the Catholic Church and many people who are pro-life. Depsite that, the vast majority favor abortion in cases of rape or incest partly because they see the zygote as not quite entitled to full legal protection at the rsik of significant emotional harm to the mother--the point made by Steve Waldman's thought experiment.
Unfortunately, for promoters of Plan B - there is no evidence that it lowers the number of pregnancies or abortions in a population. One of Plan B's leading promoters, James Trussell has publicly rejected his previous estimates for how many pregnancies and abortions this drug would prevent. That hasn't stopped Planned Parenthood from continuing to use his previous estimate.
There's also no scientific evidence that Plan B prevents implantation.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.