The Republican convention is coming up in the US, and the party is about to confirm a hardline platform that includes an extreme position on abortion (though, as pointed out by various members of the party, it is not new). The platform calls for a “right to life” amendment and makes no mention of exceptions for cases of rape or incest, a position that many voters didn’t think much about until Todd Akin’s recent comment suggesting such a need would be unnecessary. It turns out that although about half the country identifies as pro-life, over 80% support exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
The position of Todd Akin (and VP Candidate Paul Ryan) that exceptions like this are wrong is more rationally consistent, however. If abortion is literally murder, then pre-approving exceptions is surprising, and it does seem a case of punishing the child for the sins of the father. Of course, if abortion were murder, then the deaths of fetuses would deserve death certificates, which implies they’d have birth certificate, which obviously a fetus does not have – so would we then start requiring conception certificates? This notion of “pro-life” is specifically an idea of beginning citizenship before most people even tell their friends they are expecting (well, in this form of thinking, they aren’t so much “expecting” as already parents). If the claim “abortion is murder” is taken seriously, it leads to a rather severe position.
Akin’s comment was offensive on its own terms, as it showed a lack of scientific understanding and implied that a woman impregnated by rape must not really have been raped after all. But it also seemed to suggest that a woman’s body knows better than a woman’s mind which pregnancies to keep, and even that it’s okay if the body wants to abort some of them, just not if her mind chooses to do so. Beyond that it showed a complete ignorance of women’s history, as it is extremely likely that rape has been a popular method of fatherhood in many times and places. A woman with no rights does not have the right to say no. She is at the mercy of men around her who may take an interest in her wishes and respect them, but who ultimately make the choices.
But all of this is specific to his attempt to avoid the actual question of whether there ought to be an exception for rape. If only there weren’t this problem of rape, Akin’s excuse seems to say, abortion could be argued as a case of fetal life without taking note of the vessel in which the fetus develops. But the case of rape – no matter if it is uncommon – reminds us how big a deal a pregnancy is for the woman herself. If it is unfair to burden someone with an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, is it fair to ask them to accept it when it is unwanted due to birth control malfunction? If the environment and options available are exactly the same and the only difference is whether the woman was sexually interested, the consistency begins to look weak again.
Considering the widespread rejection of Akin’s comment and the broad agreement that exceptions in the case of rape should be allowed, we can determine that many pro-lifers are more interested in a general social preference than the technical details. As we saw with Palin, they might claim to “choose life” without recognizing that in choosing they are not endorsing the position as it is written. To hope women don’t have abortions – to prefer to see a movie ending with a baby rather than a procedure – is different from desiring to outlaw something or change the status of citizenship.
There is a powerful element of self-expression in voting, even though the ballots are secret. Much like those who vote for third parties, some single-issue voters aren’t necessarily hoping to cause the outcome they are voting for to be realized. Instead, their intent is making a statement that the whole country can hear. Yet, some of the proponents do wish to implement those legal changes. While they merely preach their opinion, those who take the platforms to be serious, on both sides of the issue, are concerned for real consequences.
Miranda:
You it seems do not support exceptions to the right to abort of any kind but you are not an extremist, only the other folk who take the opposite view are.
This is a political post, not one that has any philosophical content so I have nothing more to add.
Michael:
How you distinguish between political and philosophical posts?
Is Aristotle’s Politics a political or a philosophical text (or both)?
michael, you are right that I didn’t explore the difference between associative and cognitive thought in as much detail as I initially intended. As swallerstein notes, there is a naturally philosophical component to politics, but I did not go very deeply into the meta level philosophy in this (though I disagree that I did not touch upon it at all).
Thinking symbolically or associatively instead of according to determined outcomes and strictly rationalistic arguments are different forms of political activity. For some, the sense of expressing a hope or feeling is more important than a cold analysis of what specific results would occur. Regarding abortion, there are a great many people who like the idea of no one having an abortion, but who are nonetheless shocked at the idea of certain people being stopped from having one. This generalized or associative kind of thought is in a way looking at a bigger picture – a vision for a world rather than the next step – but it can end up having very real impacts.
I was not suggesting that only pro-life people do this – they are just an example of a group that finds the meaning of abortion powerful enough to look past the nitty gritty. But there are plenty of other issues where people are swept away by meaning without being able to investigate detail. It’s why politics is so volatile to start with.
oops, wasn’t logged in
– and in a hurry so can’t change it now… sorry ’bout that.
“…we can determine that many pro-lifers are more interested in a general social preference than the technical details.”
I wonder if you take the pro-choice philosophy to be grounded in technical details or to be just another social preference (that might be, conveniently, more in line with certain details).
Miranda,
You lost me at “literally murder.” Murder is not a completely rigid concept, legally or morally. When pro life advocates speak of abortion as murder, they may be speaking for emphasis, and hold the view that abortion is a type of manslaughter.
Legally, there are varying degrees of murder, and defenses to murder – most having to do with mens rea, or intent. In most moral systems, and in common sense notions of justice, the psychological distress of the perpetrator is relevant in assessing the culpability and punishment for the act.
The debate seldom gets to the realm of punishment, but abortion has not traditionally been treated as murder – that is, a capital crime – and I haven’t heard many pro life advocates suggest life sentences for women having abortions.
Abortion is sui generis. There are no truly comparable acts. To call it “murder” is a clumsy analogy, just as calling it a “medical procedure” is an avoidance of its true nature.
There is no logical inconsistency in allowing the mental state of the woman to play a role in determining the legal consequence of abortion and still treating abortion as a taking of human life. The consistency you are demanding is taking semantics too far, rather than analyzing the nature of the act and the objection to the act.
Great post, Miranda. I thought it was on target.
Don points out two things: that murder has degrees, and that the concept of murder is fungible. He uses this as reason to believe that pro life advocates (whoever they are, however many of them there are) has been mischaracterized.
Of course, it seemed clear enough that your point was to acknowledge that public figures on the American fringe can use the rhetoric of murder without any seriousness. It seemed to me that your point was that these public figures are utterly and completely responsible when their rhetoric is taken seriously by their followers and fellow travellers. (Indeed, when American paramilitants assassinate abortion clinic doctors, I doubt very much that their stated cause is, “Doctor So-and-so committed manslaughter”.)
The psychological distress of the perpetrator does not make an act legal. A plea for lenience is different from a claim to propriety. The issue here is not just that people might sometimes think it ok to reduce the penalty if a rape victim had an abortion, but that they would consider it terrible if a rape victim were not given the option at all.
As you say, it’s often a way of speaking for emphasis (but no, I don’t think you can then equate it to manslaughter – that’s a category definition). The confusion between a metaphorical or literal interpretation is what I’m pointing out. I think clearly some people – those who would not allow a rape victim to have an abortion – do take it literally. But most do not.
BLS Nelson, I am not sure it’s simple a case of manipulative language, though it may largely be. But there are some people whose commitment to a literal interpretation is sincere, and some of them are leaders.
Where someone stands on the rape issue is a good gauge of whether they are literal or metaphorical interpreters, and though it’s a minority of voters, there are a fair number of prominent speakers on the issue who think a rape exemption is unethical.
This discussion might be too narrowly focussed. Given how many humans there are, contrasted with how many the planet can support, I think any population-reduction technique should be considered.
BLS Nelson,
I don’t think I said that pro life advocates have been mischaracterized. Nor do I think that the use of the term “murder” is used without seriousness. In their view, abortion is a type of homocide. To shorten it to “murder” is hardly disingenuous.
Miranda,
—A plea for lenience is different from a claim to propriety.
I don’t think there is necessarily a claim to propriety. Pro lifers would probably still say the far more moral option is to carry the fetus to term. Although I haven’t look at this in detail, there is apparently a great deal of law internationally that establishes that infanticide while the mother is suffering post partum depression can establish no higher a sentence than manslaughter.
I don’t follow your line of reasoning on “category definitions.” The categories at issue have vague lines, and the question in this case is defining a crime that is currently non-existent. Within the category of homicide, we can decide to call different acts murder, manslaughter, or not prosecute them at all. We cam discuss whether morally these are clear categories, but we are talking about the business of making law, which more often than not is the result of compromise among competing interests, full of inconsistencies, rather than some pure application of principle. There’s no requirement that one start from a logically consistent position and negotiate downward, rather than accounting for the limitations of what one can accomplish. The number of abortions from rape is a small proportion of the total. If a pro life advocate’s proposal bans 95% percent of abortions, I don’t see how you can criticize his or her sincerity on the issue.
The human life amendment is more problematic, because it can touch so many other issues. The reason I think it exists, however, I believe is also practical. Roe v. Wade made abortion a matter of constitutional law, and someone serious about banning abortion would probably prefer to deal with it constitutionally, rather than hoping it is overturned and battling state to state. But the problem there is in the details, as we are speaking about a specific legislative proposal, in contrast to the use of the term “murder,” when the details of the proposed statute are not yet fleshed out.
I think it is helpful to think of the varied positions one can take by looking at the question of end of life. There are a variety of possible approaches to the handling of killing the terminally ill or suffering: never allowing it, allowing it only when medical devices are the only thing that prolongs life, allowing it in the case of brain death, allowing it when someone is in a coma and unlikely to come out, allowing it when three doctors certify the degree of pain and hopelessness, allowing it when the person is of sound mind and asks for it, and probably a half dozen other possibilities.
To choose any one of these positions would probably reveal an underlying value judgment. But, stepping into the political or practical realm, taking a position that is closest to one’s values, but still respectful of either the differences of others or the practical obstacles of passing legislation, is not a betrayal of those values or a mark of hypocrisy.
I am not sure I understand exactly what is to be considered here. How ever the only person or potential person who does not have a voice is the child. Had it ever been made known to me that my conception was the result of a vile and loathsome rape I would be very disturbed. What a dreadful way to start my life and what a dreadful thought to carry through life, the fact that my father was a rapist. I was conceived out of fear, a violent struggle, with no love no pleasure experienced by my mother. I would wonder about my own genetic composition what might I have inherited from that ghastly man. I would wonder why my mother ever allowed me to be born, was she not horrified at what she was carrying? I guess only a woman can answer such questions. There are many people who are in the position of having been generated out of rape and so far as I remember I have not become acquainted with their thoughts on the matter, which of course could vary greatly from from mine.
The point I am making is the selfishness of some parents to be or those wishing to become parents. Seldom is any thought given to the child in so far as its fitness for a completely healthy life or whether they are in fact suitable to be parents at all. Some people will have a child at all costs whether it will be badly physically/mentally handicapped. No thought is given to what kind of lifeis to be lived.
I am not well acquainted with the American political/legal systems so what I say here probably does not directly impact the question under discussion. However speaking as an atheist, and one who adheres to no particular established moral code of conduct, it seems to me that in cases of rape the decision as to whether the pregnancy, or any pregnancy for that matter, should be terminated should be solely the choice of the mother, and termination, be freely available.
@Don Bird,
Many people should agree with you, especially concerning the opinion that the final decision is the choice of the mother.
What is also being discussed here is the whether the state can interfere in the sovereignty and liberty of the individual. This is a battle line of the pro-choice and pro-life camps, and there are a lot of cliches that both sides use. According to the new official GOP program, decisions on abortion should be made by the government and from a constitutional amendment – based on marginal electoral results.
Perhaps there is also a question of what a political candidate can promise during an election. Rape pregnancy is very rare and it seems unfair to attach importance to the issue during an election. It is of concern that a politician can sneak a constitutional amendment promise during an election. Abortion is not even up for referendum. A politician can promise to uphold the existing constitution and the status quo without fear of reprisal. However, to propose a constitutional amendment should require more than a fast campaign promise a few weeks before an election, especially on such a divisive issue.