Lukewarm About Criminalizing Abortion?
I appreciate your concern for already born children and your views.
Abortion is a human rights issue, but there ARE valid reasons for liberals
to be lukewarm about criminalizing abortion.
You write:
"To me, life starts when a child is born and until then, it is only a part
of the mother, and therefore left to the mother to decide its fate."
I beg to differ with your line of reasoning.
James Tunstead Burtchaell, a Catholic priest and author of Rachel Weeping:
the Case Against Abortion, accused Jimmy Carter of "waffling" on the
abortion issue.
Abortion is a human rights issue, but there ARE valid reasons for liberals
to be lukewarm about criminalizing abortion (privacy and civil liberties
concerns; the debate over the personhood of the unborn; the endless debates
over when it is acceptable for humans to kill other humans; even many
opposed to abortion say criminalization won't work or they don't want to
impose their religious beliefs upon others, etc.)...
...the argument about the unborn child being part of its mother is not one
of them!
----
Abortion policy must be completely secular. In 1797, America made a treaty
with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam
was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under
John Adams.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who presided over 60,000 abortions before
changing sides on the abortion issue, wrote in his 1979 book Aborting
America:
“The U.S. statutes against abortion have a non-sectarian history. They were
put on the books when Catholics were a politically insignificant
minority...even the Protestant clergy was not a major factor in these laws.
Rather, the laws were an achievement of the American Medical Association.
“Traditionally, religion opposes abortion because ‘the Lord giveth, the Lord
taketh away.’ What about atheists like myself who do not believe in the
existence of a personal God?
"I think that abortion policy ought not be beholden to a sectarian
creed...In the case of abortion, however, we can and must decide on the
biological evidence...without resorting to scriptures, revelations, creeds,
hierarchical decrees, or belief in God. Even if God does not exist, the
fetus does.”
In 1827, Von Baer determined fertilization to be the starting point of
individual human life. By the 1850s, medical communities were advocating
legislation to protect the unborn. In 1859, the American Medical
Association protested legislation which protected the unborn only after
“quickening.”
A rational, secular case thus exists for the rights of the unborn.
Individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until death.
Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc. are all
different stages of human development. To destroy that life at any stage of
development is to destroy that individual.
The real question in the abortion debate is not necessarily the seemingly
absurd scenario of giving human rights to human zygotes, but rather the
thorny question of how to legally protect those rights without violating a
new mother’s privacy and civil liberties.
And the right to privacy is not absolute. If parents are abusing an already
born child, for example, government “intrusion” is warranted—children have
rights.
Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and
our choices and requires a change in our lifestyle—the abolition of (human)
slavery is a good example of this.
A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood
transfusions—even if her religion forbade it—for the sake of her unborn
child.
One could argue, therefore—apart from religion—that recognizing the rights
of the unborn, like the rights of blacks, women, LGBTs, children, animals
and the environment, is a sign of social progress.
----
The humanity of the unborn: Are the unborn human? Yes. Biologically, the
unborn are not only human, they have an individual human genetic identity;
46 human chromosomes.
Virtually all medical authorities (physicians, biologists, etc.) agree with
geneticist Ashley Montagu who wrote: “the fact is simple. Life begins not
at birth, but at conception.”
J. Lejeune of Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s
syndrome, observed: “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at
conception.”
When does human life begin? “At conception,” states Professor W. Bowes of
the University of Colorado.
Professor M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard writes: “It is scientifically correct
to say that individual human life begins at conception.”
Dr. Mary Calderon of Planned Parenthood in the 1960s, wrote: “Fertilization
has taken place; a baby has been conceived.”
Everything that defines a person physically is present at fertilization—only
oxygen, nutrients and time to develop are required.
The unborn child has his or her own genetic code, EEG trackings, and
circulatory system. Often, the blood type and sex of the unborn child will
also differ from that of the mother. The heart of the unborn child begins
beating at 18 days, and is pumping blood at 21 days.
The brain is functioning at 40 days—EEG trackings have been made at less
than six weeks gestation. The unborn child responds to stimuli by the sixth
to eighth week. Rapid Eye Movements (REMs) characteristic of actual dream
states, are present in 23 weeks.
There are clearly two distinct individuals (mother and child) present during
pregnancy.
----
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of
conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary
to the laws of humanity.”
---Declaration of Geneva, World Medical Association, September, 1948
“The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special
safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well
as after birth.”
---A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, United Nations General
Assembly, 1959
“Is birth control an abortion?”
“Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”
---Planned Parenthood pamphlet, August 1963
“Every person has the right to have his life respected, this right shall be
protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
---American Convention on Human Rights in San Jose, November 22, 1969
“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of Western
medicine... it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the
idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has
been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really
knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether
intra- or extra-uterine. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which
are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life
would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable
auspices.”
---Editorial, Journal of the California State Medical Association, September
1970
----
In 1972, the National Organization for Women (NOW) expelled all its pro-life
members in order to stifle dissent on the abortion issue. These pro-life
feminists went on to form their own organization. Feminists For Life has
chapters in the United States, Canada and New Zealand.
In her article “Feminism and Abortion: The Great Inconsistency” (The New
Zealand Listener, January 7, 1978), Daphne de Jong responded to the
abortion-rights argument that the unborn child is merely part of its mother
and not a separate individual human being endowed with human rights:
“Until this century, the laws of both Britain and America made women a ‘part
of’ their husbands.
“’By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law...our law in
general considers man and wife one person.’ (Blackstone’s Commentaries,
1768)
“The one person was, of course, the husband, who exerted absolute power over
his wife and her property. She had no existence and therefore no protection
under the law. The only thing a husband could not do was kill her.
“The earliest feminist battles were fought against the legal chattel status
of women. Many feminists were among those who overturned the U.S. Supreme
Court decision of 1857, that a black slave was ‘property’ and not entitled
to the protection of the Constitution.
“Feminism totally rejected the concept of ownership in regard to human
beings. Yet when the Court ruled in 1973 that the fetus was the property of
its mother, and not entitled to the protection of the Constitution,
‘liberated’ women danced in the streets.”
----
The arguments about "choice" and/or "a woman's right to choose" don't go
anywhere, either, as recognizing the rights of another class of beings
limits our freedoms and our choices, and requires a change in our personal
lifestyle.
Pro-life feminist Juli Loesch wrote:
"Each woman has the right (to contraception)... But once a woman has
conceived, she can no longer choose whether or not to become a mother.
Biologically, she is already a mother... the woman's rights are then
limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being
who also has rights."
Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and
our choices and requires a change in our lifestyle — the abolition of
(human) slavery is a good example of this.
Are whites free to own slaves or lynch blacks?
No! Because of the civil rights movement, we've corrected that injustice.
Is domestic violence tolerated?
No! Because of the women's movement, domestic violence is unacceptable.
Should hate crimes against LGBTs be permitted under the guise of "choice"?
No! LGBTs have rights.
This isn't rocket science, but if animals have rights, then our freedoms and
choices to commit crimes against animals are similarly limited.
"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for
entertainment," insists People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
As the animal rights movement continues to influence mainstream society,
humankind is finally ending millennia of injustices against animals.
----
The abortion debate focuses on the personhood or moral status of the
unborn...
...which is weakened when species membership is no longer the deciding
factor -- if it ever was!
When this country was founded, blacks were three-fifths of a person, women
were the property of their husbands, Native Americans were killed for
"sport," etc.
Historically, personhood never encompassed the entire human species.
(And even now, humans hold widely differing views on when it is acceptable
to kill other humans -- consider the endless debates over abortion, capital
punishment, euthanasia, war, etc.)
Why, then, should personhood end with the human species?
Apart from personhood, the abortion debate focuses on the extent of
individual and/or marital privacy.
Can we protect human zygotes and embryos without violating a new mother's
privacy and civil liberties?
The directly related issues of privacy and civil liberties occur in issues
other than contraception and abortion.
In his 1992 book Visions of Liberty, Ira Glasser, former Executive Director
of the ACLU, points out that electronic surveillance technology was
developed during the Prohibition era, and was used in the 1960s to target
gambling.
(Electronic surveillance is currently being used in the war on drugs, and
nearly 75 percent of the drug war is directed solely against marijuana,
which is safer than alcohol and/or tobacco.)
Even pro-lifers demand privacy for themselves when they pee, defecate,
copulate, engage in fellatio, masturbate, etc... but conservative pro-lifers
ridicule the "privacy" argument used to justify abortion-rights.
Calvin Freiburger on the Live Action News blog writes, "Privacy: the dumbest
argument for legal abortion."
(Will Calvin Freiburger protest or speak out if he finds himself living
unwillingly under electronic surveillance?)
Conservatives claim the right to privacy (e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut and
the subsequent Supreme Court decisions on individual and/or marital privacy)
is only an implied right, not clearly spelled out in the Constitution...
...the Constitution only protects us against unwarranted search and seizure
(Fourth Amendment), e.g. going through one's personal belongings, like one's
diary, one's record of memorable quotes, one's porn, etc. and broadcasting
them everywhere, and/or making them public (even before the Internet!).
At a Respect Life conference several years ago, I asked Kristan Hawkins of
Students For Life if Roe v. Wade could be overturned without overturning
Griswold v. Connecticut as well.
She gave me a confusing answer, first talk about chastity, and then saying
Griswold is "settled law."
But that's what Justice John Roberts said about Roe v. Wade, too!
Whether or not Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned is debatable, especially
when Justice John Roberts refers to Roe as "settled law."
(When I was younger, I contributed $1,008 to the ACLU Foundation, not
because I've suddenly become a huge fan of partial-birth abortions, but
because having lived unwillingly under electronic surveillance, like a
political prisoner, with persons around me wired for sound, and my past
probed to a degree no real life political or religious figure has had to
endure, it's my conviction we have a right to privacy.)
I think rape is a fairly accurate word to describe an electronic invasion of
privacy (e.g., Erin Andrews), whether it happens in the bedroom and/or
bathroom, whether it happens to a minor or an adult, and whether the victim
happens to be female or male.
----
"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of
life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and
those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the
handicapped."
--Hubert H. Humphrey
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion.
(Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking
abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)
Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions.
(Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)
Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that
abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December
2004)
Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider
abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton
College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter
limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)
Kristen Day of Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) said:
"Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not
call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with
liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and
providing a social safety net."
----
Again:
I appreciate your concern for already born children and your views.
James Tunstead Burtchaell, a Catholic priest and author of Rachel Weeping:
the Case Against Abortion, accused Jimmy Carter of "waffling" on the
abortion issue.
Abortion is a human rights issue, but there ARE valid reasons for liberals
to be lukewarm about criminalizing abortion (privacy and civil liberties
concerns; the debate over the personhood of the unborn; the endless debates
over when it is acceptable for humans to kill other humans; even many
opposed to abortion say criminalization won't work or they don't want to
impose their religious beliefs upon others, etc.)...
...the argument about the unborn child being part of its mother is not one
of them!
Remember, there are *two* bodies present during pregnancy.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building,
Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-3066ext
Go on to: Many Issues have Moral Overtones
Return to: Articles
