Is "Pro-Choice" the Same as "Pro-Abortion"?

I've written on abortion here a few times, most notably here (an ethical analysis of the phrase "abortion is murder") and here (an exegesis of Jeremiah 1:4-5, a verse often used as a proof-text to show that God is opposed to abortion). But I haven't written much on the subject lately, because I've found that while such posts tend to spike participation in the comments section, they don't actually generate good conversation. In fact, I all but vowed never to blog on abortion again. Arguments concerning abortion generate so much more heat than light.

But...

Today I stumbled on this post by Frank Lockwood, the Bible Belt Blogger, and Religion editor at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. In it Mr. Lockwood, formerly of the Lexington Herald Leader, while discussing whether or not "Mike Huckabee is destroying the old Reagan coalition," mentions "pro-abortion-on-demand party bigwigs" of the old GOP.

I shuddered. And not just at the notion that the Republican party could once have been said to be run by those who do not favor the criminalizing of abortion, though that would indeed be jarring news to a neophyte like me if I didn't have at least some grasp of recent political history. Mostly I shuddered because the descriptor "pro-abortion-on-demand" is, with the possible exception of "baby-killer," the least charitable (and in most cases, least honest) way to describe those of us who believe that abortion should be in at least some cases a legal option.

One commenter on the post, going by the handle UKLutheran, put it nicely:

It actually comes across as quite biased when you say "pro-abortion," suggesting that supporters of reproductive rights are members of the "voluntary human extinction movement" and favor abortion over childbirth.

In contrast, the term pro-choice suggests that one supports the constitutional right for a woman to choose: completely independent of whatever decision she makes. Even "pro-elective abortion" is misleading- not a few of the pro-lifers want criminalize even non-elective abortions (ie. abortions to save the life of the mother). Pro-choice implies support of freedom and rights, not a preference for any outcome.

On the other hand, many pro-choice people see abortion as an absolute moral wrong, but cannot see how government intervention, the abolishment of a right to privacy, and murder charges for desperate women (and doctors) will help matters.

To describe such people as "pro-abortion" is an absolute smear!

You need not be in favor of something (and can indeed be strongly opposed to it) without believing it should be a criminal matter or something the government should address (a sad fact that often gets overlooked in light of our increasingly large and meddlesome government).

That, as UKLutheran argues, many people who believe that abortion is in all or most cases morally wrong still oppose criminalizing it, shows one major problem with conflating "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." That is, however, by no means the only problem.

Even those who believe that abortion is in many cases a morally permissible act are by no means best described as being in favor of it, as though they would jump up and shout "You go, girl!" whenever a woman makes the difficult and painful decision to terminate a pregnancy. It is quite possible to hold that a behavior is a viable moral option without being rightly labeled "pro" that behavior. Just War theorists, for instance, may hold that in certain circumstances military violence is a viable moral option. That would not necessarily make them "pro-war."

Beyond that, Mr. Lockwood did not describe the (mostly late, at this point) pro-choice wing of the Republican party as merely "pro-abortion"; no, they were "pro-abortion-on-demand." This communicates at best a certain casualness, as though they believed that obtaining an abortion was and should be a matter as simple as ordering a cheeseburger (not a morally or psychologically simple matter for me, a vegetarian, but I digress...) or a pay-per-view movie. Yet, pro-choicer that I am, I know of no one, regardless of their views on the ethics or legality of abortion, who treats actual instances of abortions casually. Yes, some people I know may be casual with their arguments (darn near careless, even). But I know of no one who thinks that an actual instance of voluntarily terminating a pregnancy is or should be casual.

Yes, I know people who think that it should be easier for a woman who has made the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy to have access to a safe, legal abortion. I am such a person. The pro-life (perhaps a similarly misleading label, as many who advocate for criminalizing abortion are in favor of capital punishment and at least some wars, while also supporting economic and ecological policies that deal death daily) movement has succeeded in placing tremendous obstacles between many women and safe, legal abortions. I and others favor removing many of those obstacles. That hardly makes us "pro-abortion-on-demand."

I read Frank Lockwood's Bible Belt Blogger almost every day. Generally he is, so unlike the Faux News (aka Fox Noise) Network that placed this phrase in our collective consciousness, "fair and balanced." In this case, however - unless Mr. Lockwood has in mind particular GOP leaders who really believed that getting an abortion should be as easy as getting a Big Mac - I think he's guilty of a smear.

Death Certificates for Aborted Fetuses?

I just saw this at Bible Belt Blogger:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.

Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Republican, said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed. He predicted it would pass in the Republican-controlled Senate but would have a hard time making it through the Democratic House.

"All these people who say they are pro-life _ at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," said Campfield.

The number of abortions reported to the state Office of Vital Records is already publicly available. The office collects records _ but not death certificates _ on abortions and the deaths of fetuses after 22 weeks gestation or weighing about 1 pound.

The identities of the women who have abortions are not included in those records, but death certificates include identifying information such as Social Security numbers.

Campfield's bill, introduced Monday, would give abortion providers 10 days following an "induced termination of a pregnancy" to file a death certificate.

House Judiciary Chairman Rob Briley, a Democrat, called Campfield's proposal "the most preposterous bill I've seen" in an eight-year legislative career.

__________________

I know, I know... I should be doing my homework right now. I've still got some work to do before my Paradigms in Christian Mission class starts, two hours from now. But before I finish that, I've simply got to say something about this.

Like proposed "fetal homicide" laws, this bill is simply a pretense, I think, to smuggle in a concept of personhood beginning before birth. It is also a shameless attempt to bully scared pregnant women who are agonizing over whether or not to terminate their pregnancy. It is simply a cheap political stunt, aiming to sidestep the legal debate over abortion. It also - if passed - stands to do a great deal of harm.

The worst part about this bill, if the AP article is any indication, is its dishonesty. Rep. Campfield, the sponsor of the bill, states that its purpose is to "see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions." But, as the article notes, there are already available statistics on the number of abortions being performed in the state of Tennessee, and everywhere else, for that matter. With the click of my mouse I can access the information that Rep. Campfield claims this bill will provide to the state. I find it very hard that he, a Representative in the Tennessee House, needs a new law - a law that, incidentally will also provide recognition of the personhood of aborted fetuses and make public the identities of women who have had abortions - to obtain information that I can access from the computer in my basement.

Cal Thomas is at it again

My brother Tom called me yesterday to say that if I hadn't read Cal Thomas' latest op-ed piece I just had to drop everything and read it. It was simply too inflammatory to let stand. Since I was in St. Louis visiting my grandparents (more on that in a coming post) I didn't read Thomas' rant masquerading as an essay until just now. Simply put, I am stunned. I've picked Cal Thomas apart here before, but I've always tried to be charitable enough to avoid using phrases like flamingly stupid or ignorant beyond the point of my endurance.

In my last dissection of a Cal Thomas piece, I wrote that "[h]e is more than capable of making a good argument, though he does it less and less these days. But he is trading good reason for a flamethrower, which is not only intellectually dishonest, but morally reprehensible." The more he writes, however, the more I have to wonder whether or not he really can construct a decent argument. After all, building a sound argument, like building anything else, depends first and foremost on where and how you start. If your argument doesn't have a good foundation then it will crumble, no matter what you put on top of it.

Here is the foundation for Thomas' recent blustering:

Which of the following scenarios constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution: (1) aborting a baby with a fully developed nervous system and probably inflicting great pain; (2) murdering a nightclub manager in cold blood; (3) taking 34 minutes — twice the normal time — to execute the murderer of the nightclub manager?

While he is clearly trying to manipulate us into thinking that options (1) and (2) are so obviously cruel and unusual that it would be absurd for anyone to pick (3), in reality, per the way that he is setting up his argument, (3) is the only option one could honestly pick.

Why? Because here we are having a discussion on constitutional law, as Thomas makes clear with his reference to the Eighth Amendment. As such, we can only discuss - per the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against the state's imposing a cruel and unusual punishment on someone found guilty of violating a law - the constitutional value of actions committed by the state. So, the only actions which can be deemed by the Constitution to be cruel and unusual are actions by the state. See the trend here?

In scenario (1), Thomas' graphic depiction of an abortion, the state is not an actor. Thomas is free to argue that abortion is immoral, and he is even free to argue that in most or all cases abortion should be illegal. I am not entirely inclined to agree with him, as I think

a.) that abortion is under limited circumstances morally permissible, and

b.) that outlawing abortion would produce more harm than good, failing to attain the good aim of limiting the number of abortions while simultaneously maximizing the worst possible end, which is an even greater loss of lives as abortions are performed underground rather than in medical clinic.

But we could, of course, have that argument. An argument we could never have, however, is one about whether or not an abortion procedure counts as cruel and unusual punishment per the Eighth Amendment. This is, of course, because the state commits no action in an abortion. As being a fetus is not a crime, and certainly not a capital one; and as being aborted is not the mandated by our criminal justice system or imposed by any state; an abortion may have a positive or negative moral value, it may be deemed to be right, wrong, or somewhere in the vast middle, but it will never be cruel and unusual punishment per the Eighth Amendment, and to claim otherwise is recklessly stupid.

The same is true of scenario (2). While this situation is less morally problematic that the first one (is there a serious debate in this country about the moral value of murder?) it is still not a situation under the purview of the Eighth Amendment, as it was certainly not the state who murdered "a nightclub owner in cold blood." Rather, it is the state who has rightly deemed such an action to be illegal, and in need of the harshest justice which can be legally administered.

So, the only action which could be considered cruel and unusual per the Eighth Amendment is the one in scenario (3), as it is the only action committed by the state. As such, it should be considered apart from the actions in scenarios (1) and (2), as there can be no serious comparison between the three. They simply don't have anything in common.

Bracketing off the moral consideration in abortion, which Thomas has so recklessly introduced here to conflate the topic, I have to ask this question:

Do we want the standard for the moral and legal value of actions committed by the state to be determined by the worst criminal acts? Do we really want murder to be the standard for criminal justice? Do we really want the state to justify the taking of a person's life by saying, like a spoiled preschooler, "He did it first!" or "She started it!"?

If I'm reading Cal Thomas correctly, that's exactly what he's saying.

Anti-Abortion Bumper Sticker

Can it really be? According to my own internal search, I haven't posted a Bumper Sticker Watch since this one in February! That simply cannot stand.

For those of you who weren't around for my Bumper Sticker Watches, I have an unhealthy fascination with religious and political messages on the bumpers of cars. While I keep my own car pure (save for the Autism Awareness magnetic ribbon, put there by my dear wife, who feeds us by working as a behavioral therapist with autistic children) I cannot help but admire those brave souls who bare their beliefs on the butt of their car.

So from time to time (but, evidently, not for a long time) I post an ode to some message that I see on a car. Sometime the ode is sincere, sometimes satirical. Remember, even in my most reverent moments my tongue is generally firmly pressed to my cheek.

Anyway, since I haven't posted on bumper stickers in so long, I simply couldn't resist telling you about this one.

Recognizing that I'm never again going to get above a basketball rim (for the record, I've dunked four times in my life, thank you) I've started playing tennis again. Tennis is a game that ages a little more gracefully. I'm also in charge of the cat litter in our house, which has alas been far too neglected this past week. I say alas particularly because the litter box is in the basement next to me office, so when its contents begin to, well, shall we say ripen, I notice. And, speaking of ripening, my bowl of cereal this morning reminded me that I either need to get less milk when I go to the grocery, or I need to drink a little more of it more quickly.

This created an interesting shopping list for me today:

1. One new can of tennis balls, since the balls I played with yesterday were over two years old.

2. One crate of cat litter - the litter box can't be changed without some fresh litter, and boy does it need to be changed.

3. One gallon of skim milk.

Where could I go to get all three of these items? Well, I could go to Wal Mart, but I've been boycotting them for most of my adult life. Of course, they haven't noticed yet, but I'm still holding out hope. What do you think: can one small family in Louisville, KY bring down a corporate giant? If we're joined by enough other families, yes we can!

So, I decided to go to Target. My mother tells me that, ethically speaking, Target isn't much better than Wal Mart (this is how, by the way, she justifies shopping at Wal Mart, not boycotting Target, but that's another story), but ethics aren't the only factor to consider. There's always aesthetics, and if Target takes over the world at least the world will look relatively pretty.

On my way to Target to pick up my three disparate items, a mid 90's, metallic blue Ford Ranger pick-up truck pulls in front of me. On the right side is a Bush-Cheney '04 bumper sticker. On the left is an metal Ichthus fish. (How many times have we seen those two together?!?) And in the middle? A large colorful bumper sticker, with white trim, which has a picture of a crawling Caucasian baby in a white cloth diaper, and text which reads:

DIAPERS ARE DISPOSABLE
BABIES ARE NOT
STOP ABORTION

Will the anti-abortion movement ever grow tired of equating abortion with infanticide? I'll admit it, my moral intuition makes me very uncomfortable with the practice of abortion. For much of my life I have identified myself as pro-life, even though I am nominally pro-choice now (that is, I think that under certain limited circumstances abortions are morally permissible; and further I think that abortions, whether morally permissible or not, should remain in most cases legal, because to criminalize abortion would ultimately do more harm than good), but I've got to say that I am morally and intellectually offended by the fundamental dishonesty of conflating the killing of an unborn fetus with the murder of a little child.

But bumper sticker leave little room for subtlety or argument. They simply reduce complex ideas to manageable sound-bytes, just like every other politically propagating media in America at the moment. Is there, then, any wonder that political discourse is so polarized and uncharitable? Is there, then, any wonder that people are so willing to believe the worst about the people who disagree with them.

Pro-choice? You're nothing better than a baby killer! Why don't you just club kids like baby seals?

Pro-life? You wish women would go back to the only thing they're good at - popping out babies and fresh-cooked meals!

In favor of affirmative action or social welfare? Why do you hate hard work so much? What's your problem with a level playing field?

Opposed to affirmative action or social welfare? Why must you continually oppress and exploit minorities?

Liberal is, in our polarized political lexicon, becoming another word for communist. Conservative is becoming another word for fascist. And all because our ideas and beliefs, as represented by our talking points and bumper stickers, oppose nuance and complexity.

No one is completely right, and most people aren't completely wrong. Very, very few of us wake up in the morning trying to come up with the most effective way to really do some harm to our culture and the people in it. It's just that whenever we solve a problem new problems emerge, the unintended consequences of our "solutions." But bumper stickers like the one I saw today, so full of misplaced moral superiority, so full of intellectual and ethical dishonesty, stifle what should be a great debate in this country. Instead of opening up avenues of thoughtful communication, they shut them down, firing up the people who are "with us" while trying to shame or intimidate those "against us."

Maybe I don't like bumper stickers as much as I thought I did.

Do the ends justify the means?

Forget for a moment everything that I've written on abortion (including this and this). Pretend that I'm not some crazy heretic who thinks that abortion is a complicated moral issue which can't be reduced to a simply pro or con, for or against, right or wrong. Wipe from your mind the knowledge that I think that having an abortion is, under certain limited circumstances, morally permissible.

In this backwards (and far less nuanced world) I am a pro-life evangelical Christian who is concerned about the morality of a society that permits the deplorable practice of abortion. How, do you think, would I feel about this?

Radical anti-abortion advocates have long used a strange utilitarian calculus to justify any means to prevent abortion, even killing doctors who have performed abortions. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that some people would be willing to lie to pregnant teenagers to scare them into not having an abortion. But I still have to wonder how someone can take the moral high ground when their strategy for ending what they see as a social evil involves deceiving scared and vulnerable people to manipulate them into doing what you think is best.

And I have to wonder about a government which funds medical misinformation.

But, I'm out of indignation, and that is the real shame. When I read this study, I wasn't surprised, angry, or even disappointed. I think that I have outrage fatigue.

Can't Escape Abortion (no matter how hard I try)

A lively debate on abortion at Habakkuk's Watchpost (which was wisely killed by the powers that be, as it was getting a wee bit testy) has found its way here. As such, for those poor souls who actually enjoy debating the moral and legal value of abortion, there are new comments on my abortion post from December, Boldly Going Where No Man Ought to Go. If you can't resist getting sucked into a debate that never goes anywhere, leave a comment on that post.