| SHARED SACRIFICE PROGRESSIVE POLITICS AND CULTURE 4 June 2009 |
| SHARED SACRIFICE ON BLOGTALK RADIO M-F 8:00-9:00 PM MT Saturdays 12:00-2:00 PM MT |
 | |  | |  |
The thinking of those who would murder doctors who perform abortions, and bomb their clinics, has an undeniable
internal logic. Their arguments cannot stand up to external scrutiny, but they are internally consistent. Suppose for
a moment that there really were places that killed babies (real babies, you know, the ones that have been born). If
such a place existed, slaughtering thousands of innocent infants, I would absolutely be in favor or bombing that
place or killing the baby murderers. Only the most devout and dedicated of pacifists would refuse to resort to force
to stop the murder of babies. As a utilitarian, I would consider it unconscionable to refuse to kill a baby murderer to
prevent the death of more infants.
When pro-choice advocates concede that it may even be possible that life begins at conception, we have already
lost the debate. After the murder of George Tiller, the message of many in the pro-choice camp to anti-choicers
was generally “its okay if you believe abortion is murder, but you surely cant believe that it is alright to kill doctors
who provide abortions!” The conclusion is that we can agree to disagree about whether or not abortion should be
illegal but we can agree that murdering those we disagree with is wrong. Such a position is tantamount to admitting
defeat and cedes the moral high ground to the anti-choice movement. If our argument to those who would outlaw
abortion amounts to “it's murder, but we want to keep this form of murder legal” then we will lose the debate and
abortion will become illegal.
At the same time, tacitly acquiescing to the claim that abortion is murder while still claiming that those who perform
abortions should not be murdered is asking anti-choicers to make a serious moral oversight. Asking them to only
act through slow, bureaucratic, legal channels in the face of (what they believe to be) the murder of thousands is
asking the impossible. I would in fact be much more worried about someone who strongly believed that the murder
of thousands of infants was occurring right on their proverbial doorstep and was content with engaging in piecemeal,
reformist efforts. Assuming that abortion is murder, the assassination of Tiller is justified.
The ridiculousness of Tiller's murder arises from the fact that abortion is not murder and is instead a valuable
medical service. The pro-choice movement must not concede defeat on this question and fall back to simply
condemning murder. The line in the sand we must draw is that abortion is not murder: even so-called "late-term
abortion." Only by unequivocally standing against any characterization of abortion as murder or any definition of life
that places its beginning before birth can the right of access to abortion be protected. Life begins at birth and that
must be the stance of the pro-choice movement. Anything else, anything less, will lead to an inevitable rollback of
abortion rights and an eventual criminalization of all abortion.
Suppose we go with one of the most popular answers: that life begins as viability; a fetus is alive when it can be
delivered and survive. This definition is riddled with problems. Viability is determined by knowing how long the fetus
has been growing. That requires knowing when the fetus was first conceived. The time of conception is often not
known with any precision which often makes determining how long the woman has been pregnant educated
guessing. Moreover, when a particular fetus is viable differs from fetus to fetus. There is no objective bright line
which denotes viability for every single fetus. All this adds up to the impossibility of determining viability. Is viability a
100% chance that the fetus would survive if delivered? A 51% chance? A 1% chance? It is in the interest of anti-
choicers to push back the criterion of viability to the smallest possible number. After all, if there is any chance that a
fetus would survive being delivered, why would they let it be aborted and kill a human being?
The twin problems of not knowing what viability is and not knowing when a particular fetus is viable create serious
philosophical and ethical issues. Not only is it inherently problematic and undesirable to not know when we start
being alive and start being persons, it creates serious ethical problems for the abortion debate. Using viability as
the beginning of life yields vague personhood. We would not know when life begins and so when we become
persons. Fetuses would spend much of their development time in a weird Schrödinger's Cat-like state where they
are both persons and not persons at the same time. Not only is this inherently philosophically undesirable and
problematic, it creates more pressing problems for ethics and politics. If we don't know precisely when a fetus
reaches viability, then in order to prevent the possible unintentional killing of living, in utero, infants we would
undoubtedly restrict abortion to the earliest definition of viability. At best, access to abortion becomes so restricted
that it becomes effectively outlawed, even if it is still technically legal. Moreover, when a fetus is viable changes with
the technology that is available. As medical science advances and fetuses can be delivered earlier and earlier,
when an abortion is permitted will be pushed farther and farther back.
Life begins at birth. Any other definition is arbitrary and leads to an inevitable rollback of abortion rights until there
aren't any. Making any concessions on this issue yields both the legal and moral high ground to the anti-choice
movement. If we concede that a fetus is or even might be alive the argument that a fetus has legal rights becomes
much more compelling and murdering doctors who perform abortions becomes much more easily justifiable. The
rhetorical and physical violence against doctors who provide abortions and women who seek them will never end.
We cannot expect those who believe abortion is murder to act in a respectful way, to not bomb clinics, to not
stigmatize women who get abortions, and to not spread misinformation about abortion. The only way to fully protect
women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy is to win the debate that life begins at birth and not at any other
point.
Alec Baker is a political writer living in Bellingham, Washington.
internal logic. Their arguments cannot stand up to external scrutiny, but they are internally consistent. Suppose for
a moment that there really were places that killed babies (real babies, you know, the ones that have been born). If
such a place existed, slaughtering thousands of innocent infants, I would absolutely be in favor or bombing that
place or killing the baby murderers. Only the most devout and dedicated of pacifists would refuse to resort to force
to stop the murder of babies. As a utilitarian, I would consider it unconscionable to refuse to kill a baby murderer to
prevent the death of more infants.
When pro-choice advocates concede that it may even be possible that life begins at conception, we have already
lost the debate. After the murder of George Tiller, the message of many in the pro-choice camp to anti-choicers
was generally “its okay if you believe abortion is murder, but you surely cant believe that it is alright to kill doctors
who provide abortions!” The conclusion is that we can agree to disagree about whether or not abortion should be
illegal but we can agree that murdering those we disagree with is wrong. Such a position is tantamount to admitting
defeat and cedes the moral high ground to the anti-choice movement. If our argument to those who would outlaw
abortion amounts to “it's murder, but we want to keep this form of murder legal” then we will lose the debate and
abortion will become illegal.
At the same time, tacitly acquiescing to the claim that abortion is murder while still claiming that those who perform
abortions should not be murdered is asking anti-choicers to make a serious moral oversight. Asking them to only
act through slow, bureaucratic, legal channels in the face of (what they believe to be) the murder of thousands is
asking the impossible. I would in fact be much more worried about someone who strongly believed that the murder
of thousands of infants was occurring right on their proverbial doorstep and was content with engaging in piecemeal,
reformist efforts. Assuming that abortion is murder, the assassination of Tiller is justified.
The ridiculousness of Tiller's murder arises from the fact that abortion is not murder and is instead a valuable
medical service. The pro-choice movement must not concede defeat on this question and fall back to simply
condemning murder. The line in the sand we must draw is that abortion is not murder: even so-called "late-term
abortion." Only by unequivocally standing against any characterization of abortion as murder or any definition of life
that places its beginning before birth can the right of access to abortion be protected. Life begins at birth and that
must be the stance of the pro-choice movement. Anything else, anything less, will lead to an inevitable rollback of
abortion rights and an eventual criminalization of all abortion.
Suppose we go with one of the most popular answers: that life begins as viability; a fetus is alive when it can be
delivered and survive. This definition is riddled with problems. Viability is determined by knowing how long the fetus
has been growing. That requires knowing when the fetus was first conceived. The time of conception is often not
known with any precision which often makes determining how long the woman has been pregnant educated
guessing. Moreover, when a particular fetus is viable differs from fetus to fetus. There is no objective bright line
which denotes viability for every single fetus. All this adds up to the impossibility of determining viability. Is viability a
100% chance that the fetus would survive if delivered? A 51% chance? A 1% chance? It is in the interest of anti-
choicers to push back the criterion of viability to the smallest possible number. After all, if there is any chance that a
fetus would survive being delivered, why would they let it be aborted and kill a human being?
The twin problems of not knowing what viability is and not knowing when a particular fetus is viable create serious
philosophical and ethical issues. Not only is it inherently problematic and undesirable to not know when we start
being alive and start being persons, it creates serious ethical problems for the abortion debate. Using viability as
the beginning of life yields vague personhood. We would not know when life begins and so when we become
persons. Fetuses would spend much of their development time in a weird Schrödinger's Cat-like state where they
are both persons and not persons at the same time. Not only is this inherently philosophically undesirable and
problematic, it creates more pressing problems for ethics and politics. If we don't know precisely when a fetus
reaches viability, then in order to prevent the possible unintentional killing of living, in utero, infants we would
undoubtedly restrict abortion to the earliest definition of viability. At best, access to abortion becomes so restricted
that it becomes effectively outlawed, even if it is still technically legal. Moreover, when a fetus is viable changes with
the technology that is available. As medical science advances and fetuses can be delivered earlier and earlier,
when an abortion is permitted will be pushed farther and farther back.
Life begins at birth. Any other definition is arbitrary and leads to an inevitable rollback of abortion rights until there
aren't any. Making any concessions on this issue yields both the legal and moral high ground to the anti-choice
movement. If we concede that a fetus is or even might be alive the argument that a fetus has legal rights becomes
much more compelling and murdering doctors who perform abortions becomes much more easily justifiable. The
rhetorical and physical violence against doctors who provide abortions and women who seek them will never end.
We cannot expect those who believe abortion is murder to act in a respectful way, to not bomb clinics, to not
stigmatize women who get abortions, and to not spread misinformation about abortion. The only way to fully protect
women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy is to win the debate that life begins at birth and not at any other
point.
Alec Baker is a political writer living in Bellingham, Washington.
| Any other definition is arbitrary and leads to an inevitable rollback of abortion rights until there aren't any. If we concede that a fetus even might be alive the argument that a fetus has legal rights becomes much more compelling and murdering doctors who perform abortions becomes much more easily justifiable. |
LIFE
...BEGINS AT BIRTH
4 June 2009
by Alec Baker
...BEGINS AT BIRTH
4 June 2009
by Alec Baker
| ALL CONTENT COPYRIGHT 2009 SHARED SACRIFICE MEDIA |