The Abortion Debate

It started out like any other blog post – a local bishop condemned pro-choice voters, so I threw in my two cents. A few weeks later, a pro-life advocate named Mickey left me a comment, saying that he respectfully disagrees. Not used to an eloquent (or even coherent) response from any pro-lifer that didn’t include the words “baby killer” in all caps, I decided to e-mail him personally and give my full perspective on the issue. He responded in kind, so we ending up going back and forth for several days, and I think that both sides made some excellent points, so I thought I’d post this exchange for anyone interested in the abortion debate to read. Below is the original post, followed by his comment and all of our e-mails. My words are in regular type, while his are in bold.

My hometown of Scranton, PA made national news again, and – big surprise – it wasn’t for anything good. Then again, it also involves the Catholic Church, so how could it have been?

As the Roman Catholic Church observes its annual “respect life” Sunday in this heated presidential election season, the unusually pitched competition for Catholic voters is setting off a round of skirmishes over how to apply the church’s teachings not only on abortion but also on the war in Iraq, immigration and racism.
In Scranton, Pa., every Catholic attending Mass this weekend will hear a special homily about the election next month: Bishop Joseph Martino has ordered every priest in the diocese to read a letter warning that voting for a supporter of abortion rights amounts to endorsing “homicide.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the last presidential election; the Pope wrote a very similar letter to denounce John Kerry. They both dance around calling the opposing candidate an agent of Satan, but it’s certainly implied that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for The Prince of Darkness – way to remain apolitical, you tax-exempt douchebags. Here’s a great quote from Martino’s letter…

Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”

So all those “rescued” children can be born into a country with no jobs, healthcare, or educational opportunities…what a blessed life that will be. It always comes back to that special brand of Christian hypocrisy that fights tooth and nail for the unborn, but those already out of the womb? Fuck ‘em. (Literally…Who are their priests going to rape if there are no children being born?) They continue to ignore two major arguments of the pro-choice platform:
1. People are going to have abortions anyway. Since when did making something illegal stop it from happening? Hell, in this country, making something illegal seems to encourage people to do it more, considering our crime rates. (No, I don’t think people will start aborting fetuses for fun…although I can’t think if a better way to spend a Friday night.) Abortion isn’t something that “the evil liberals” concocted a few decades ago to further the will of The Wicked One – it has been around long before Christianity could tell us it was wrong, and it’ll be around long after a new mythology emerges to take its place.
2. Pouring more time and money into sex education in schools, cheap/free contraception, organizations like Planned Parenthood, and social programs that benefit the poor (who tend to have the largest number of unwanted pregnancies) will significantly reduce the number of abortions because it significantly reduces the number of pregnancies in the first place. Just as people will have abortions anyway, people also tend to have sex anyway, despite what some self-righteous cross-dresser on a pulpit preaches. I know religion thrives on fear and ignorance, but sometimes you have to compromise with logic if an issue really means so much to you. You can tell your kid not to run in the house all you want, but you’ll usually find the vase on the floor in pieces at the end of the day. You can also tell your kid that sex before marriage, or any sort of sexual pleasure, is a grave and immoral sin, but then you’d be Sarah Palin – abstinence-only education obviously did her daughter a lot of good. And I’m not just talking about promoting condoms and birth control here – sometimes kids just need to know that there’s more to life than being a baby factory. The more opportunities you can offer the poor through grants, scholarships, tax-cuts, etcetera, the less likely they’re going to choose “popping out six kids, aborting six more, and working at McDonald’s” as their profession.

But I guess this is pretty hard to explain to a bunch of old codgers who’ve sworn off sex and will never marry or have children. It’s very easy to pick on those whose shoes you will never have to fill, and it’s even easier to politicize religion, as both politicians and religious leaders are in the same business of controlling the masses. What’s remarkable about this story is not their arrogance or greed, as those are givens, but the fact that left-leaning Catholics are actually fighting back this time. Groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance have been fighting to emphasize health care, employment, and housing as part of that “social justice” the bishop wrote about, and even a nun from my alma mater passed around a petition that discusses racism as another issue that threatens “the dignity of life.” But if you have these values, why call yourself Catholic? Why support an organization that has a history of persecuting those with your beliefs? It seems counterproductive to be fighting amongst each other as opposed to just breaking off and letting the Catholic Church’s reign of intellectual terror diminish to a bunch of spiteful old men in funny hats listening to their own bitching echoing off the ceilings of empty churches. If you want dignity in life, conjure up the pride and self-respect it takes to denounce your religion that promotes sexism, racism, and totalitarianism…then you’ll be doing your cause some real justice.

Mickey: You’re argument is about the quality of a person’s life…not the right of the person to have a life. The last time someone made this argument, they were justifying slavery.

Either a person has an inalienable right to life, or they do not. The Declaration of Independence, the Founders, and the Constitution all make the case that people have the right not to be exploited and killed unjustly. The safest place in the world should be the womb of a mother…and the violence of abortion destroys life and deeply wounds the mother.

Abortion victimizes women, destroys lives, and degrades humanity. It is a crime against humanity.

You say, “people are going to do it anyway.” This is true of any number of human crimes like drug abuse, DUI, theft, murder, and rape. The “they’re going to do it anyway” is no reason not to prohibit the behavior. By all means, address the root causes of poverty and irresponsibility, but don’t use the state to sanction murder and violent violation of a woman through abortion.

So I’d like to start this off by thanking you for responding to my post in a calm and rational matter. As I’m sure you’re aware, many members of the pro-life movement prefer damning and name-calling in all caps when discussing these issues, so I truly appreciate your coherent and logical response. With that said, I’m afraid that I cannot agree with your perspective, as I, too, have valid reasoning.

Let me first address your use of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Founding Fathers by just pointing out that while their ideas were brilliant and their words certainly timeless, they were also a bunch of lying hypocrites, much like today’s politicians. You start your comment by saying that my arguments also justify slavery, but then you invoke the names of slave-owners to back up your argument. These men were writing, “All men are created equal,” while their slaves were outside doing the yard work. Jefferson may have been a radical for his time, but he also fathered children outside his marriage with one of his slaves. While the words sound really nice and everybody wishes they could live up to the impossibly idealistic standards set forth in these documents, reality recognizes that we’re not all as perfect as the lessons we preach.

This brings me to your use of the “sanctity of life” argument. While you did not explicitly use the term, it was implied in your first three paragraphs as the center of your ideology, and while it’s one of those terms that sound really good in theory, it’s also very hard to practice in terms of reality. While you may be a staunch follower of this principle, nature is definitely not as philosophical. How far does the sanctity of life extend? The sanctity of life, by your standards, should include all life, not just the lives of the people I see when I leave my home every day. Just as I cannot directly see a tiny fetus as it begins to grow inside the womb, I also cannot see the germs that are causing me to have a cold or the ant I just stepped on as I walked out onto my porch to grab the morning paper. So should I kill the germs with my antibiotics so that I may live, or should I let them kill me so that I can preserve their right to life? Should I let the ants invade my home because their right to live on this property equals my own? This house was built where a forest used to be, so technically, I murdered thousands of animals, insects, plants, and microscopic organisms by destroying their habitat…but nature has its revenge. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, diseases, plagues, and other natural phenomenon wipe us out every day by the thousands, so I doubt that nature subscribes to this “sanctity of life” idea. Hell, the only way we can sustain healthy bodies is by killing other living things and consuming their energy…it’s nice to say that I believe all living things are equal and every single spark of life is sacred, but I’d be big fucking hypocrite if I didn’t recognize that our very way of life stomps all over that idea.

But maybe you simply mean that human life is sacred, and fuck everything else. That’s all well and good too, but where are you pro-lifers once this children are born? Just as you believe that life begins at conception, I believe that life continues until death. Many of the same lawmakers that support the overturning of Roe v. Wade also cut funding for social programs that would benefit these children and their parents, and the ironic part is that they’re basically being forced to have these unwanted children by these politicians in the first place. You claim to want to “address the root causes of poverty and irresponsibility,” but I also didn’t hear your amazing tax plan that’s going to balance the budget and pay for the food, clothing, shelter, and education of all these “saved” children.

My comment that, “People are going to do it anyway,” was simply my way of asking, “What do you hope to accomplish by making abortion illegal?” Whose minds would you change? How would you improve those lives once they are born? By solving what you see as a problem, you are creating many, many more. You cannot force these parents to give these children proper care. You cannot force people to adopt in record numbers. You cannot force those surrogate parents to raise those children effectively. You can’t force these kids to grow up without any problems because, “Mommy didn’t want me.” You cannot assume that back-alley abortions aren’t going to occur, or that quack abortion doctors aren’t going to spring up to “solve those unwanted problems.” How many children have you adopted? How much money have you donated to needy mothers? How much do you really care, not just in principle, but in practice? If you’re going to support something, either you go all the way or not at all, I say.

I support legal abortion because I recognize that we live in a system, and it’s a cruel and indecent system that feeds the rich and fucks the poor, and nobody has more children than the poor. I won’t argue with you over the exact moment that life “begins” because that’s, relatively, a personal perspective. I will, on the other hand, ask you to recognize that the quality of life, not its sanctity, is what I’m concerned with. In a society where people are living longer and having more children, you have to start thinking about issues like overpopulation and population density. You have to consider that this planet wasn’t meant to sustain so many lives, and neither was this man-made system. Theft, murder, and rape directly infringe on the lives and rights of others, so I cannot support them. Abortion, on the other hand, is something that a woman chooses to do to her own body, so who am I to take away that right?

The fact of the matter is that this shouldn’t be up to us. You commented under the name “Mickey,” so I’m assuming that you’re a guy. Not to be crude, but we can blow our loads and walk away – women aren’t given the same luxury. You will never have to face this decision in your lifetime, unless you happen to be that transsexual that was on Oprah a few months back. Who are you to tell a woman what victimizes her? “Victimizing” implies something being forced upon someone, and last time I checked, there’s nothing written in Roe v. Wade that forces women to have abortions. They may feel, in certain situations, that they do not have a choice, but they, in fact, do when it comes right down to it. If it is such a crime against them, why do so many women support it? If it victimizes women, why would they put themselves through it? My guess would be it’s because they felt like it was the right thing to do for themselves and their lives. Just as you cannot force women to raise children as you’d like them to, you also cannot force them to have children in the first place so that you, personally, can feel better about humanity. And if you think you’re just doing “what’s best for them,” well then that sounds like a justification for slavery.

Thanks for commenting!

Rich,

I appreciate your respectfulness as well, and thank you for your personal response.

It’s unfortunate that members of the Pro-Life Movement have not been respectful, please accept my apologies on their behalf.

Your arguments below don’t really address mine…you created a “strawman” argument that I didn’t make and then try to knock it down.

The fact that some of the Founders were slave owners bears very little on the ideal that “all men are created equal.” That ideal is enshrined in American law through over 200 years of court cases and Constitutional Amendments. It’s a red herring to suggest that somehow the ideal of equal human rights for all men is compromised because imperfect men espoused it.

If you read any argument for slavery, you will find the same words about economics and choice that are used for abortion. In fact, some of the arguments for slavery are compelling, if you ignore the fact that African Americans are human beings. The fact is that in the United States, it is against the law to deny a person their right to life without due process of law (i.e. in court).

But don’t take my word for it…listen/read Dr Alan Keyes, an African American writer, ambassador, and sometime candidate for office:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Words/Slavery.htm

On your other point about “sanctity of life.” We are talking about human life here, and it’s simply a distraction/false choice argument to muddy the waters with the “microbe”/”ant” issue…

Either an embryo/fetus/baby is a human person and constitutionally protected or not…it’s really not any more complicated than that. All the arguments about “choice” are about a person having life and death power over another weaker/defenseless person.

In the Pro-Life Movement, we believe that treating another person as “property” to be killed “in consultation with their doctor, minister, etc” is murder, that no person has the right to treat another as property.

So here’s the challenge…and fair warning, the photos are graphic…visit the link below and look at the photos of aborted fetuses in the first trimester (less than 12 weeks) of life. I don’t believe you can look at the photos of hands, legs, heads, etc, and come to the conclusion that these are “lumps of tissue” or “not people.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

Peace,
Mickey

Mickey,

My point in bringing up the fact that the Founding Fathers aren’t the gods that many Americans see them as wasn’t to say that their writings are invalid. As I said, I am a fan of Jefferson’s writing myself. My point, as I transitioned into later, was that it’s so very easy to say that you believe in protecting life – it’s another to actually do so yourself. (Just as it’s easy for free men to say that all men should be free.) No one says they are for poverty, but very few people actually donate all they can spare to charity to alleviate that problem. As a man who will never have to face the choice that poor, teenaged, single mothers face every day, it’s really quite hypocritical of you to condemn someone whose shoes you will never have to fill. I know I will never have to face that choice, so I cannot judge those who will. In a flood, for example, anyone would say that they would risk their own life to save a drowning little girl. But when that situation actually occurs, there are many people who would probably choose to save their own skin. While you may view this as a cowardly choice, you have to wonder if you would really do the same. Your family may depend on you, after all, and if you both end up drowning, many more lives will be ruined. Every case of abortion has its own individual set of circumstances, and a sweeping law that prohibits abortion altogether ignores this completely. The pro-life movement is a very idealistic one that does not face a lot of harsh realities, such as the simple fact that not everyone receives their morality from ancient holy books, and you should not legally force them to. (“Freedom of religion” is in those aforementioned documents, too.)

Now I must address your slavery/abortion equation. “The language sounds the same,” is not very convincing – some of the things President Bush has said sound very similar to things that Adolf Hitler has said, but that doesn’t mean that Dubya is a member of the Nazi party. What bothers me about men like Dr. Alan Keyes is that they have very selective memory when it comes to the history of slavery. Clearly, Dr. Keyes is a Christian, yet he forgets that Christianity was used as a justification for slavery before it became the dominant black religion in America. When Africans were being purchased or kidnapped from Africa, their Christian masters justified their authority by arguing that they were “saving” these poor people from damnation, as they were worshiping “false” gods. They brought them to America and forced them to read the Bible, marry, and adopt a religion they truly didn’t understand. Christianity was shoved down their throats and now they sing its praises in churches across the country. Wouldn’t a true individualist (he paints himself as such in this speech) reject this long-standing injustice and re-adopt the religion and culture of his native people? This is one example of why it’s a bad idea to bring “god” into legal matters.

And if you want me to be blunt, I shall be – if a fetus is a child or it isn’t, I’m going to have to disagree with you and say that it’s not. I have seen pictures like this before. Just as you dismiss my arguments as “distractions” or “strawman” pleas, I must dismiss this argument as per shock value. Instead of addressing my request for a valid tax plan, explaining how you would fix the broken foster care/adoption system, or telling me where the money would come from to fund the social programs that these mothers would require, you resort to showing me bloody abortion pictures. If that’s not a strawman, I don’t know what is. Whether it’s right or wrong doesn’t change the fact that banning abortion tomorrow will set in motion a snowball of other issues that pro-lifers haven’t addressed. It is so hard to legally define “life.” If the second that an egg is fertilized it becomes a legal person, then this brings up so many new legal issues that the courts will be overrun. For example, if a woman’s body forces a miscarriage, is she a murderer? Should she be immediately thrown in prison for life, or is this manslaughter? A prosecutor could say that she did not eat the proper foods to sustain life, so therefore, she killed her baby intentionally. The defense could argue that she was so stressed from working three jobs to support her kids that she couldn’t sustain life no matter what she did. Where does it end? What does this solve? Sounds like more clogged courtrooms (and more taxpayer money wasted) to me.

But as I’m sure you’re aware by this point, I’m not going to change your mind; nor will I change yours. The reason this has been so hotly contested for so long is because it’s really just a matter of faith – either you believe it’s offensive to god or you don’t. What I said about the “sanctity of life” may have sounded ridiculous – it was supposed to. My point was, “Where does it end?” Once you’ve passed this ban, what’s next? What other bodily functions must be controlled by the government? You’re not speaking on behalf on women, Mickey – they can do that on their own just fine. You’re speaking on behalf of your god and your religious beliefs, and when you start to speak for an invisible man and claim to know what he would want from us, it forces guys like me to stop listening really quickly. There’s a nun who lives in my area who is famous for bringing “poor” people to my neighborhood from other states. These are people who have been convicted of violent crimes or led bad lives – she claims that their surroundings made them so immoral, and that all they needed was a change of scenery and some new opportunities. My neighborhood went from a place where you could leave your front door wide open all night to a place where you can get stabbed for walking down the wrong alley in just a few short years. You may think that you’re doing a lot of good based on your philosophically “sound” principles, but in the end, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I hope you understand that by “solving” one problem, you should be responsible for solving every other one that pops up in its place. I hope the pro-life movement is ready with those answers.

Sincerely,
Rich

Rich,

I find it ironic that you speak about “faith” and I, as a religious man, am speaking about science. I repeat: I am not making a religious argument.

I recognize that not everyone (not even all my co-religionists) share my faith. I’m making an argument based on science and logic, and law. I bring up the slavery parallel because the argument doesn’t merely “sound the same”, it is the same, that is: a category of human being (African American or fetus) is not a human being.

Your argument is about “ideals” of choice and freedom, and you reject out of hand the reality of humanity in photos as “shock.” I’m not being idealist, I’m being realist.

Sir, you are arguing against yourself, and making a case against arguments I haven’t made. That’s why I used the words “strawman” and “red herring.” I never argued, for example, that all life is sacred…I argued for the dignity and civil rights of human beings.

Science proves that the fetus is a living human being. The word “fetus” is a Latin word meaning “act of bearing young, offspring.” (Webster) I refer to the photos, not to shock anyone, but to bring the discussion out of the abstract and into reality.

We’re talking about human beings.

Yes Christian people advocated slavery, and used the Bible to justify it….Christian people proclaim themselves pro-choice. Christian people commit crimes of all sorts. But let’s not forget that the Abolitionist movement that ended slavery was a Christian movement. Because people are unable to live up to their own ideals does not invalidate the ideals. If that were true, then the United States shouldn’t be here since Americans often fail to live up to our own ideals.

As for not addressing the other social issues…I share your desire for a just society. By all means lets work on poverty, supporting families, adoption, tax policy, defense policy, etc, etc. BUT…if we don’t address the most fundamental right first…the right to live…then all other rights, tax policies, etc, are meaningless. A dead person doesn’t care how good the education and health care systems are because they’re dead.

As for speaking for women, I will add that there is a growing body of evidence (pun intended) that abortion harms women physically and mentally. It’s a complex subject of its own, so I won’t try to go into that discussion yet, but here’s a couple of links:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org and http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/index.htm

The heart of the issue is whether a human being in the womb is entitled to Constitutional protection.

The embryo/fetus/baby is a separate human being. He may be wholly dependent on his mother for life, he is certainly not fully grown, but he is not a dog or a moose or a bacteria….he is a human being. That’s not an article of faith…it is scientific verifiable fact.

I’m curious…and this is a sincere question, not a rhetorical one…why don’t you consider the embryo/fetus a human being?

Peace to you this day,
Mickey

Mickey,

I bring up the faith factor because, I assume, that is where this idea of “life begins at conception” originated from for you. Historically, however, Christians (many prominent names, at that) have changed their view on this matter many times, as you can read here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

I do see irony in your statement, but I also see irony in the fact that religious people tend to use science when it is convenient for their argument, but when it contradicts their beliefs, science is suddenly a bunch of hogwash. And again, I agree that people do not always live up to their ideals. I’m not saying that it makes their arguments completely invalid, but it obviously sets very unrealistic goals for most of humanity as well. I’m sure there’s plenty of Christian mothers who agree with you that abortion is murder, at least until it is their daughter who is knocked up with some scumbag’s kid…then it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. By banning abortion, you’re relying on people’s “common decency” to “do the right thing” (in your perspective) and raise this child. If you want more pictures of unwanted children, bring your camera to any dumpster, because I guarantee that not much is going to change just by making it illegal. Just ask lawmakers how prohibition worked out and you’ll see how hard it is to take a simple right away.

Abortion harms some women physically and mentally – I’d never deny that. But there are plenty of others that have come out just fine after having an abortion – I know at least two of them personally. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I have not brought up the “rape/incest/life of the mother” argument yet. The reason I haven’t is because they are, admittedly, a small percentage of all abortions, and up until now, we were being pretty general about abortion. Now that we’re delving into individuals, I feel like I must mention this because it brings up another interesting contradiction. I’m not sure what your position is, but I know many Christians are against abortion, except in these cases. Now one minute, they are arguing that the life of an innocent child trumps anything the mother may be thinking or feeling, but the next, they’re saying that this product of rape or incest or this harmful pregnancy can be terminated because of the circumstances of its creation. It is not the fault of the fetus that the mother was raped or that it may kill her, yet it’s fine to hold it accountable anyway? I will not assume, however, that you are making that argument. I will assume that you believe the child should be born no matter what. Now you may not know any rape victims, but I know several, and not one walked away mentally unscathed from the experience. You mean to tell me that it wouldn’t fuck them up to give birth to or care for a product of the worst moment of their lives? You mean to tell me that it’s ok to sacrifice a mother’s life in hopes that her child may live? And those limited cases aside, you’re telling me that because a small percentage of women regret their abortions that the feelings and opinions of others who feel that it was the right thing to do should be punished? You’re only looking at one side of the coin here. Nothing is being forced onto your side – you’re forcing restrictions onto mine.

I did not bring up the issues of taxes and poverty and social programs because I think they are more important than the issue of abortion. (I do, but that is beside the point.) That would simply be ignoring the issue at hand. I brought them up because banning Roe v. Wade will immediately affect all of these issues and more. If you want to talk science, remember that every action will have an equal or opposite reaction. So now that you’ve given everyone “the right to live,” you’ve also taken away everyone’s right to live well. With our current economic crisis, things are tough enough, but even more sacrifices will have to be made to accommodate all these new lives. It would be extremely unrealistic to assume that every American would be ready and willing to do without a few luxuries (and possibly some essentials) to help out the greater good, even (god forbid) adopt a child instead of having their own. Look at the way we treat illegal immigrants for evidence of that.

And that’s not the only thing that’s going to have a snowball effect. Once you’ve taken away a woman’s right to choose, the next logical step would be to take away another fundamental right women hold dear – the right to take birth control. If a woman is not allowed to stop an unwanted pregnancy, and birth control does just that, then I guess that’s next on your list, right? If life begins at conception, and you’re preventing conception, then you must be preventing life (and god’s plan for life). Don’t tell me that that’s not part of the Christian agenda. While many churches have abandoned that rhetoric because of its unpopularity with come-and-go churchgoers, it’s still the official position of many Christian sects, including the Catholics. Even if this is not your personal intent, many other Christians will see this as the next step – one has to “be fruitful and multiply,” after all. You can’t even masturbate without someone complaining that you’re wasting precious seed.

But really, the main thing you want to know is, “Why don’t I consider the embryo/fetus a human being?” The answer is really quite simple – an embryo/fetus is still in the process of becoming a human being. You don’t consider an egg a chicken, do you? Sure, a fetus has human parts, but I don’t consider a front door and a window a house – it has yet to be built. Yes, it has DNA…so does a flake of dead skin. You may think I’m arguing semantics, but I’m really not – I can see your perspective, but I just can’t bring myself to feel the same way you do about that fetus. It may be heartless, cruel, or indecent in your eyes, but we’re all heartless, cruel, or indecent in one way or another, whether it’s ignoring that starving bum in the street, buying expensive, name-brand clothes and a 40-inch flat-screen television instead of donating our money to those less fortunate, wasting precious natural resources for personal pleasure (which, in turn, pollute and destroy the environment), or mindlessly contributing to a wealth-obsessed consumer culture. I guess this is just my “vice” – what’s yours?

Rich