Balkinization: Open Thread on Luker, Buchanan, Cook, Erdmann, Goldstein and Gordon Posts

Comments:

Luker: "Now, paradoxically, because parents affirmatively choose in many cases—as Palin reportedly did—to continue a pregnancy with full knowledge that a Down syndrome baby is on the way, parents and society alike increasingly treat children with Down syndrome as full members of our society, rather than as unfortunate accidents to be whisked out of public view. Again the paradox of choice: those parents who do not feel capable of taking on the challenges-and rewards—of having a child that’s 'different,' opt out by choosing abortion, but those who see themselves as equal to the task demand respect and support."

The most horrifyingly chilling thing I have read in quite a while. The right to abortion improves the lot of Down's Syndrome children, because even though 90% of the parents faced with such children abort them, the 10% who are left are really appreciated.

# posted by

Chris : 8:56 AM

Shayo Buchanan: "The invocation of concerns about nonmarital sexual morality – evaluated through the lens of the sexual double standard – seems to trigger a diminished level of Equal Protection scrutiny even in cases that do not involve abortion."
in reference to nguyen and michael M

I read those cases, and VMI to a lesser extent, to be saying that when men are disadvantaged by a gendered law that law will receive less scrutiny. After all, don't those cases respectively hold that a law that punishes young men but not young women for the same conduct does not violate equal protection, and that a law that allows women but not men to pass on their citizenship to children conceived abroad do? I found it odd that you glossed over the holdings in your post.

I think those cases are less about regulating sexual behavior than about the court not finding it necessary to strike down laws that are based on stereotypical views about male sexuality. In Michael M, that young men do not care if the young women they sleep with will become pregnant and will not be deterred by that possibility, and in Nguyen that male servicemen will father illegitimate children with various natives and neither know nor care about it.

Whatever the level of truth in those stereotypes generally, the court does not find it necessary in those cases to protect the portion of men to whom they do not apply.

# posted by

Neil : 10:56 AM

Luker: What militantly pro-life Palin would deny is that abortion and the pill, as the Harvard economist Claudia Goldin has shown, were the keys that opened up higher education and the professions to women. Not just in the obvious ways, so that you could time your fertility and your education without sacrificing either, but in subtle cultural ways as well. When I was a graduate student in 1970 at Yale, I was denied a fellowship because, as I was airily told, I just might get married and have children. Five years later, no department chair in the Ivy League would have said that with a straight face, because Roe made clear that while women might very well get married and have children, we’d do it the way men did—when it worked for us and fitted into the larger trajectory of our lives.

The problem Luker faced was discrimination against women caring for children. That discrimination was not in any way overcome by Roe inventing a right for women to kill off their children. Indeed, Lukan seems to make the rather ghastly suggestion that Roe enabled women to conform to this discrimination by allowing them to kill off their children during university. In stark contrast, Palin represents overcoming that discrimination and succeeding in life without killing her children.

Luker: Or take Palin’s new baby, the one with Down syndrome. I’m old enough to remember when it was the norm to send Down babies to institutions where warehousing, neglect and a refusal to remedy reasonably simple physical problems compromised these children’s abilities and often their very lives. Now, paradoxically, because parents affirmatively choose in many cases—as Palin reportedly did—to continue a pregnancy with full knowledge that a Down syndrome baby is on the way, parents and society alike increasingly treat children with Down syndrome as full members of our society, rather than as unfortunate accidents to be whisked out of public view. Again the paradox of choice: those parents who do not feel capable of taking on the challenges-and rewards—of having a child that’s “different,” opt out by choosing abortion, but those who see themselves as equal to the task demand respect and support.

This post shows the eugenics foundation of the abortion movement, holding that some humans have more worth than others. Indeed, Lukan's comment interpreting Palin's love for Trig as a demand for equal respect to those who choose to kill off their Downs children appears to indicate that Luker shares the eugenics view that subhumans like Trig should be killed and Palin's path is an exception which might be tolerated.

Which is why Palin is probably the perfect woman of her era. A woman whose life is shaped by choices fought for and won before she was a teenager, who sees no relationship between intimate choices she and her family take for granted and hard political struggles over the past century, now casually aspires to take those choices away from her fellow citizens.

This is pure spin.

Palin stands as an indictment of Lukan's abortion views. Palin's refusal to kill Trig through an abortion was not an exercise of choice made possible by Roe. It is instead a rejection of the idea there is a legitimate choice under such circumstances other than to welcome one's own children into the world with love.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:19 PM

This post shows the eugenics foundation of the abortion movement, holding that some humans have more worth than others.

Nobody is pro-choice because they want to kill off "inferior" humans. People are pro-choice because they care about sexual freedom and gender equality, and people are pro-life because they don't.

It happens that some parents use their right to choose in order to abort a fetus that carries a severe disorder or defect. But that's not the REASON why we have a right to an abortion. Bart's argument is like claiming that because some people might use their tax rebate checks to hire a prostitute, the reason for tax rebates is to promote prostitution.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:47 PM

People are pro-choice because they care about sexual freedom and gender equality, and people are pro-life because they don't.

I'd amend this to read, 'people are pro-choice because they care about sexual freedom and gender equality more than fetal life, and people are pro-life because they care more about fetal life than sexual freedom and gender equality.' Would you agree?

# posted by

Asher : 5:19 PM

"Nobody is pro-choice because they want to kill off "inferior" humans."

"Nobody"? That's a remarkably dogmatic statement, when you consider the actual origins of Planned Parenthood.

# posted by

Brett : 5:22 PM

I'd amend this to read, 'people are pro-choice because they care about sexual freedom and gender equality more than fetal life, and people are pro-life because they care more about fetal life than sexual freedom and gender equality.' Would you agree?

Not really. I don't think pro-lifers are more concerned about fetal life than pro-choicers if you are talking about, say workplace smoking regulations or environmental laws to stop pollution that could harm the fetus.

Pro-lifers are pro-lifers because of their views about sex and gender, not their "superior commitment to life".

"Nobody"? That's a remarkably dogmatic statement, when you consider the actual origins of Planned Parenthood.

This isn't the 1920's, Brett. Conservatives bristle when they are reminded that their movement stood foursquare with the bigots carrying the firehoses as late as the 1960's. The question is why people are pro-choice NOW, not what non-progressive theories people may have embraced a century ago.

Pro-lifers make up lies about the motivations of pro-choicers because they don't want to talk about the fact that the pro-life movement is all about restoring patriarchal gender roles and retying sex and reproduction in the hope that people will conform to conservative Christian standards of sexual morality again.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:54 PM

Not really. I don't think pro-lifers are more concerned about fetal life than pro-choicers if you are talking about, say workplace smoking regulations or environmental laws to stop pollution that could harm the fetus.

Pro-lifers are pro-lifers because of their views about sex and gender, not their "superior commitment to life".

Well this is interesting. I happen to be pro-life. I always thought it was because I valued fetal life even more than I value sexual freedom and gender equality, as important as I think those things are. But it turns out that because I, and I suspect millions of other pro-lifers, never have given a moment's thought to workplace smoking regulations that might prevent harm to the fetus (like I just said, I'm totally ignorant about workplace smoking regulations, but how many fetuses actually die in utero from secondhand workplace smoke?), I've revealed myself to be a hypocrite who doesn't really care so much about fetal life, but rather is pro-life because of retrograde views on sex and gender. Certainly if fetuses are dying or being severely harmed by secondhand workplace smoke, I'd agree that there'd be something suspicious about a pro-life politician who opposed workplace smoking regulations in spite of his knowledge about the harms to fetuses that failing to regulate workplace smoking would cause. But like I said, many pro-lifers are probably just ignorant on these matters.

# posted by

Asher : 8:11 PM

tray:

Read Kristin Luker's "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood". You will find that very few pro-lifers hold feminist beliefs, most condemn promiscuity, and there isn't any great correlation between the pro-life position and other issues involving the sanctity of life, from the death penalty to environmental protection to workplace safety.

That doesn't mean that such people never exist-- but it does mean that the reason why most pro-lifers become pro-life isn't because they care about life more than pro-choicers do-- that's just what they tell themselves. The actual dispute between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is a dispute about gender and sexuality.

"Pro-life feminists", i.e., people on board with the sexual revolution and feminism but who simply don't support abortion rights because they think it is murder, are very rare. Not unheard of, but rare.

# posted by

Dilan : 8:36 PM

I've never understood the death penalty argument. Being pro-life doesn't entail any special commitment to the 'sanctity of life'; it just follows from the belief that fetuses are morally equivalent in certain respects to born persons (in particular, born persons innocent of murder). Now, I wouldn't be surprised if pro-lifers tend to condemn promiscuity. Pro-lifers tend to be more religious than the average bear, and religiosity does correlate with conservative attitudes about sex. But I don't know that you can get from a correlation between conservative views on sex and being pro-life to causation.

# posted by

Asher : 9:32 PM

If the death penalty were the only issue we were talking about, yes, it is distinguishable from abortion (though bear in mind that many procedural protections that conservatives oppose ARE NOT distinguishable from abortion, as they are about ensuring that innocent people don't get executed!).

But it isn't JUST the death penalty-- there are all sorts of life and death issues in politics, and Luker found that there just isn't a lot of support out there for a "seamless garment" approach a la the Catholic Church's official position; rather, pro-lifers are no more likely to support the "life" side of the various life-or-death issues in politics than pro-choicers are.

Meanwhile, pro-life views correlate extremely well with conservative views on sex and gender. That's what the issue is really about.

# posted by

Dilan : 10:31 PM

Pew has an interesting executive summary page which outlines the history of abortion policy in the leading nations of the world. Much of the politics in the US pro- and anti-abortion has to do with intercaste mysogyny and some ostensible brand of male image making instead of addressing private and personal rights of women with respect to ethics in childbearing. So, much of the invective is, consciously or not, directed at mores rather than human dignity issues.

From the Pew summary, consider: Japan legalized abortion in 1948 as part of its brave new face of society, China has legal abortion longtime, Latvian women began to receive access to abortion since 1955 under Soviet occupation government rules. There were noticeable political shifts in the US in the 1960s, as in Europe, with respect to solidifying political rights to abortion. Sweden in 1974, and then-Yugoslavia in 1977 legalized abortions. I think it is important to regard the process in a technical medical science perspective as a modern procedure perfected during this timeframe, beginning 40-60 years ago, although much of the polemicized opposition to abortion has roots in ethical literature extending much farther back in civilized history.

# posted by

JohnLopresti : 12:47 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Palin's refusal to kill Trig through an abortion was not an exercise of choice made possible by Roe. It is instead a rejection of the idea there is a legitimate choice under such circumstances other than to welcome one's own children into the world with love.

Nonsense, of course. She made a choice; there's no other way to put it. She may not have felt that she had any choice, but then again, just because someone denies they have free will doesn't mean they don't, and just because someone says that the earth sucks and gravity doesn't exist doesn't mean the theory of gravity is wrong.

"Bart" says she rejects "legitimate choice". But that doesn't apply in her case; what she wants is for her "choice" to apply to others as well and for them not to have that choice (which is quite obvious in "Bart"'s phrase that she "reject[s] ... 'legitimate choice'".

Cheers,

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:48 PM

johnlopresti said...

Much of the politics in the US pro- and anti-abortion has to do with intercaste mysogyny and some ostensible brand of male image making instead of addressing private and personal rights of women with respect to ethics in childbearing.

What in Heaven's name does the belief that society should not sanction the killing off of its children for the convenience of their parents have to do with "intercaste misogyny" and "male image making" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean)?

It is amazing the lengths pro abortion folks will go to avoid the central ethical question presented by abortion - the humanity of the child being killed.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:51 PM

Tray:

I've never understood the death penalty argument. Being pro-life doesn't entail any special commitment to the 'sanctity of life'; it just follows from the belief that fetuses are morally equivalent in certain respects to born persons (in particular, born persons innocent of murder).

Tray, those that advocate the death penalty either deny that there's a soul to be saved in every person, or they don't care. If you take Christianity seriously, every person you execute before they're 'saved' will not go to heaven, and every person, even the worst axe-murdering pederast, can be
'saved' by the simple expedient of accepting Jayyyzzzuuss as their lord and saviour and devoting their life to him. Kooky, I know, and perverse, but that's the way it is. As such, perhaps it's permissible to kill those that have been 'saved' (as their reward is in heaven, even if the trip has been expedited), but surely it's a sin to kill those that haven't yet been 'saved'....

Not to mention, 'original sin' means that all foetuses are sinners and are not 'innocent' until they accept Jaaayyyyzzzuuss as their lord and saviour. As such, why do Christians keep talking about killing 'nnocent life'?!?!?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:59 PM

It is amazing the lengths pro abortion folks will go to avoid the central ethical question presented by abortion - the humanity of the child being killed.

That isn't the central ethical question. The central ethical question is whether the two most important societal advances of the 21st Century-- women's rights and sexual freedom-- are going to be rolled back.

The vast majority of pro-lifers believe that they should be rolled back, while the vast majority of pro-choicers believe that they should not be. In contrast, pro-lifers aren't any more likely to actually believe in the sanctity of human life across the board than pro-choicers are.

So that's the issue, Bart. If you want to adopt the feminist agenda and praise the sexual revolution, and say that while you support every other aspect of them, you just can't bring yourself to support what you see as the taking of human life, then you can talk about it as (for you) the central moral question. But that is not where you stand. You stand with all the other anti-feminists and social conservatives, which is why pro-choicers do not accept that you are really motivated solely by a concern for life.

# posted by

Dilan : 1:40 AM

Dilan:

You my recall from your parent's explanation of the birds and the bees that sexual intercourse proceeds conception. Thus, whether one kills the child after conception has nothing to do with your freedom to have sexual intercourse with whom or what you please.

Under our law, intentionally killing another human is illegal subject to a limited handful of affirmative defenses. Thus, the woman's "right" to kill her child comes right back to central ethical question presented by abortion - the humanity of the child being killed. If the child is a human being, there is no such right under law.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:51 AM

the motivations of those opposing or supporting a woman's right to an abortion do not affect the morality or immorality of the choice (whether or not to actually abort a fetus) itself.

it makes sense that people who oppose pre-marital sex also oppose abortion on demand, they probably think people should rarely or ever need them. however, a person can logically believe that abortion is an immoral act, even if not the same as a murder. and from there such a person could legitimately believe that they should be restricted as a matter of public policy. they can do so (a la tray) without wanting to roll back the sexual revolution, by thinking that while people should be free to have sex as they wish, they should use protection, and that in the unfortunate circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy, the life of the fetus should take precedence over the desire of the mother to abort it in the absence of extenuating circumstances (such as a threat to the life or health of the mother, rape, or perhaps a serious birth defect).

# posted by

Neil : 2:07 PM

Dilan:

So that's the issue, Bart. If you want to adopt the feminist agenda and praise the sexual revolution, and say that while you support every other aspect of them, you just can't bring yourself to support what you see as the taking of human life, then you can talk about it as (for you) the central moral question.

"Bart" gave away the game here:

["Bart"]: 3) Lastly, the Dems became the party of social license, extending right to criminals and now terrorists, abortion and firearm confiscation.

[Arne]: [...snip...] At least now "Bart" comes clean WRT abortion, though. It's not "pro-life", it's "anti-social license"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:13 PM

Neil:

[T]he life of the fetus should take precedence over the desire of the mother to abort it in the absence of extenuating circumstances (such as a threat to the life or health of the mother, rape, or perhaps a serious birth defect).

Why? If it's a "human" with the rights of any other, it ought to live regardless of the circumstances. Rape and incest (or even a birth defect) can't be valid excuses for an abortion then. You might as well go around demanding people give up their spare kidneys for those in need.... If the anti-abortion crew were to take this absolutist (albeit logically consistent) stance, that might make sense ... and it would also result in people rejecting such absolutism.

OTOH, if we have a gradation of "interest" and a continuum of "rights" (ala the Roe v. Wade demarckation), we might consider competing interests.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:30 PM

Arne,

One need not be committed to the proposition that a fetus is a human being with all the rights of other human beings in order to believe that:

---[T]he life of the fetus should take precedence over the desire of the mother to abort it in the absence of extenuating circumstances (such as a threat to the life or health of the mother, rape, or perhaps a serious birth defect).---

That position just weighs the fetal right to life higher than a position such as the one taken in Roe and its progeny. Consideration of those extenuating circumstances explicitly favors the mother over the fetus, which is rational for many reasons such as the fetus's dependent position, the mothers right to eschew risk in bringing it to term, and the fetus's likely lack of sentience. The main difference is that such a view places a burden on a woman who has a healthy unwanted pregnancy to carry it to term out of respect for the life or potential life of the fetus, and in consideration of her opportunity previously to prevent the pregnancy. It places the risk of birth control failure on the mother instead of the fetus.

I think the placement of that risk is what is really at issue in this debate. In that vein I would note that, for an unwilling father, there is no way out under his control if the birth controls he puts in place or thinks are in place fail for any reason. While he does not have to carry a baby to term, he is likely to face a lifetime of unwanted responsibility.

# posted by

Neil : 3:51 PM

You my recall from your parent's explanation of the birds and the bees that sexual intercourse proceeds conception. Thus, whether one kills the child after conception has nothing to do with your freedom to have sexual intercourse with whom or what you please.

Bart, that position is ONLY held by people who OPPOSE women's rights and the sexual revolution.

The entire point of those two movements was to SEPARATE sex from procreation so that we could enjoy one without it leading to the other. Pro-choicers think that is a salient improvement in Western Culture. Pro-lifers want to go back to the days when sex risked procreation so that they can create incentives for people not to have sex that pro-lifers don't approve of.

Again, that's the issue here.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:06 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

John Howard : 6:56 PM

Why? If it's a "human" with the rights of any other, it ought to live regardless of the circumstances. Rape and incest (or even a birth defect) can't be valid excuses for an abortion then.

This dilemma is neatly avoided if the issue is seen from the perspective of equal conception rights for men and woman. Rape is a violation of one person's right to control their reproduction by another person, and so an abortion is justified to prevent the rapist from getting away with it. Incest is also a violation of conception rights, and again abortion is justified to stop it from resulting in reproduction.

However, when there is no rape, when there is consensual sex, there is no control of one person's reproductive potential by another person unless abortion is legal. If one person has full control of another person's reproductive future, that's not equal reproductive rights. If one person can choose to end or choose to continue a consensual pregnancy, that's as wrong as accepting the right of a rapist to choose whether to impregnate someone against their will or not.

# posted by

John Howard : 7:01 PM