Today we move from the Middle East to the less controversial topic of abortion. By way of background, my views on this subject are as follows:
1. While it can hardly be denied that life begins at conception, the notion that a fertilized egg is a human being, and that its destruction constitutes homicide, defies common sense.
2. The point at which a fetus becomes a human being, and is therefore entitled to some degree of legal protection, is a functional/biological question. If the fetus has the reasonable potential to survive and function on its own, it meets the test. Traditionally, and in the Roe case, this standard has been described as “viability.”
3. Due to medical advances, it is possible that the point of viability can change over time.
4. I have a serious problem with people who claim to be “pro-life,” but whose interest in providing support for the child disappears the minute it is born ( i.e., go get a job and be a rugged individual like me, you little baby moocher!)
5. Conservative critics of the legal reasoning in Roe have the better of the argument. I personally think the balancing test was appropriate from a policy perspective, but the legal foundation for it was very shaky, and the decision should have been left to the legislatures of the individual states.
With that in mind, I turn my attention to a posting by Ross Douthat in yesterday’s New York Times on the politics of abortion. Douthat is a conservative columnist who wears his Catholicism on his sleeve. While I rarely agree with him, his writings are thoughtful and steeped in a long line of conservative tradition, so, unlike many of his right-wing colleagues, I take him seriously.
Deconstructing his arguments into syllogisms, and using terminology describing the factions of the Republican Party from my previous posts that is unfamiliar to him, he says the following:
1. As a good Catholic, I fully embrace the idea that human life begins at conception. Response: See #1 and #2 above. I don’t remember ever reading his views on the death penalty, so I am not certain how truly “pro-life” he is. On abortion, however, his record speaks for itself.
2. I am a member of the Christian Democratic faction of the Republican Party. As such, I support at least the concept of an effective welfare state that provides protections to every member of society, no matter how poor or powerless he is. Response: Ross is more skeptical of the use of American military power than most of his CD colleagues, which I view as a good thing. Otherwise, this is true.
3. Unfortunately, my faction represents a small minority of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is more or less unanimously opposed to further restrictions on abortion, so my only allies in this battle are the Reactionaries in the GOP. Response: True.
4. My goal of limiting abortions to the maximum extent possible in the short run, and banning them altogether in the future, takes precedence over my concerns about the social costs of requiring women to have unwanted children (which, in any event, I take to be overblown). As a result, I will swallow my principles regarding the welfare state and support the Reactionary agenda in the hopes of getting things done. Response: There is a reason this blog is named after Thomas Cromwell and not Thomas More. I take the social costs far more seriously than he does, and I am not volunteering to pay for them.
5. I see no problem in making opportunistic arguments against particular abortion practices that have nothing to do with the rationale for my ultimate objective of banning abortions altogether as long as they move the cause in the right direction. Response: This has all the intellectual honesty of the supporters of medical marijuana legislation who privately view it as an opening to recreational use, but only talk about the benefits of medical uses in public. Or, if you like, of Iranian war hawks who claim to believe that Iran can be compelled to fundamentally change its policies through sanctions, when the opposite is clearly true.
Even though it would be very difficult for him to embrace any sort of compromise on this issue, he does discuss the possibility of reaching a middle ground that would be more acceptable to the general public than the current judicially-created status quo. Personally, I would be willing to accept the following:
1. Reopen the issue of the date of viability. Put all of the medical facts, as they exist today, on the table and see where the discussion goes. If the facts support an earlier viability date, so be it.
2. In exchange for that, abortion opponents would have to agree to two things. First, put an end to the harassment of abortion clinics through spurious rules that purport to protect the health of the mother, but which have no basis in sound medical practice. Second, agree to raise taxes to the extent necessary to provide the medical and social services for the mothers of the unwanted children, and for the children themselves.
Any takers?