Empathy (part 4)

"What's the matter with Kansas?" Thomas Frank asks.

That's a good question, and a fair one. The majority of Kansans, after all, continually vote against their own economic self-interest. That's how Frank puts it, anyway.

I would put it somewhat differently: The majority of Kansans continually vote against the economic interests of the majority of Kansans. I don't really care whether or not you cast your vote in your own economic interest, but when your vote betrays the interests of most of your neighbors, well, that's a sin.

Solidarity is a moral duty. You vote against it at your own moral and mortal peril. These Kansans, in other words, have some splainin' to do. They had better have a very good reason to be voting with such disdain for the economic interests of so many of their fellow citizens.

As Frank shows, they think they do. To try to understand what that is, we're better off asking not, "What's the matter with Kansas?" but "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?" ("us" here meaning us liberals or us Democrats).

What sparked all this was a post at The Poor Man on a wholly different topic.

The Editors were responding to the claim that one could support a pro-torture administration without actually supporting torture oneself:

Right now, America tortures people. You live in a country where the president has declared an effectively permanent state of war, and can, and does, as a matter of policy, and on a global scale, engage in torture. Morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly: this is wrong. It is worth being upset about. It is worth overlooking the use of literary devices you don’t agree with. It is worth forgiving minor policy disagreements. It is even worth telling people you otherwise agree with that, when they defend, excuse or minimize the situation, they are wrong -- morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly, even -- and they, through deed or inaction, disgrace America. Because they do.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I agree completely. Torture is, indeed, "morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly" indefensible. This is a line that cannot, ought not, must not be crossed.

I hope you agree as well. If you don't, I'm afraid I'll regard you as suspect. It would make you one of those people I don't get, one of those people -- like Fred Phelps -- that I fear I'll never be able to view with empathy, never be able to understand. In short, I would no longer be able really to trust you, or to trust your moral judgment.

I haven't written nearly as much about torture as I should have. In part, this is because I can scarcely even believe this is something we need to say. Every time I look at this page and see that icon there on the right for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture I get this sinking feeling in my stomach. I can't believe we've sunk to this level as a nation, as a people. I can't believe that "torture is wrong" is a statement I now need to say out loud. I can't believe that torture -- freaking torture -- is an "issue" on which I am now forced to take sides. I can't believe we're even talking about this.

And I agree wholeheartedly with The Editors that torture is not something that can be defended, excused or minimized. When someone is pro-torture I cannot regard this as merely one of many political stances I should factor into the mix.

And let's be clear: this is not a hypothetical situation. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are all, emphatically and unambiguously, pro-torture. So are senators Wayne Allard, Kit Bond, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions and Ted Stevens.

These are bad men. Monstrous men. As The Editors wrote, they are wrong and they disgrace America. They do.

As it happens, I also disagree with almost every other political stance these men embrace. But even if that were not the case -- if you could show me some issue-guide checklist that indicated that Kit Bond and I agreed on the other 99 out of 100 issues -- I still could not overlook the fact that Bond is pro-torture. When you're in favor of sodomizing prisoners, I really don't care what your position is on ethanol subsidies or, well, anything else. When you're pro-torture, you will never get my vote.

But it's not just a matter of casting votes, not just a matter of whether Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions and Stevens are allowed to remain in office. They ought to be voted out and tried for war crimes (not in the Hague, but here in America, to prove that the Constitution they regard with such contempt still matters). But this goes beyond these particular morally stunted politicians.

When I consider that America is now governed by an administration that excuses and practices and defends torture I fear for the future of our country.

Now let's go back to Kansas, home state of the despicable Sen. Roberts, and let's try to imagine the world from their perspective.

Let's try to exercise a bit of empathy and consider that question, "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"

The answer, frankly, is that we're baby killers.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm not trying to articulate or to engage their argument. I'm not concerned here with the merits or demerits of that argument, and I'm not concerned here with trying either to refute or defend it.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm not trying to articulate or to engage their argument. I'm not concerned here with the merits or demerits of that argument, and I'm not concerned here with trying either to refute or defend it.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm not trying to articulate or to engage their argument. I'm not concerned here with the merits or demerits of that argument, and I'm not concerned here with trying either to refute or defend it.

What I'm getting at here is that this is how we are perceived.

For American evangelicals and many Catholics, abortion is the trump card. Everything I have just said or quoted from The Editors about torture parallels exactly how these folks think -- and, more importantly, feel -- about abortion.

Again, please don't get distracted by thinking about responses to their argument(s), or by the statistics that show evangelicals and Catholics have pretty much the same abortion rates as everyone else. Those things aren't the issue here.

The issue here is that this is how we are perceived.

Re-read everything I've said above about pro-torture politicians. I distrust them. I view them as morally stunted, morally suspect. I believe they bring shame and disgrace to America. And I don't care what else they may say about any other issue.

This -- precisely this -- is how all supporters of abortion rights are perceived by those so-called "values voters."

Recognizing that means recognizing that lame euphemisms like "values voters" are misleading and confusing. It's not about generic "values," it's not even about religion -- the whole liberals-and-spirituality sideshow is an irrelevant distraction. It's about abortion. Period.

Speaking at religious gatherings, or making a show of religiosity, or some half-assed Saletan-style triangulation to "moderate" (i.e., abandon by degrees) support for abortion rights does little to alter this perception. I have some thoughts on what might, but I will save those for another post. I don't want to get into a discussion here of how we can convince these folks that we are not monstrous because I don't want to distract from this main point:

They see us as monsters.

(Edited: Fixed Kit Bond's name. He's pro-torture, a disgrace to America and to the great state of Missouri, but that's no reason to get his name wrong.)

(BOLD added: Along with some repetition to highlight, again, that nothing in this post advocates any particular remedy for the situation it attempts to describe. That it is solely descriptive and not at all prescriptive. Not. At. All. Not explicitly. Not implicitly. Not even in the hidden between-the-lines gnostic code that only the Enlightened can read.)

Comments

[JS Bangs]

This is very true, because I am one of them.

Like you and most readers, I think that torture is reprehensible and indefensible. I think that our president is the most immoral and un-Christian person to disgrace the office in living memory. The whole administration should be impeached and tried.

But I ALSO think that abortion is infanticide. I think that the procedure should be outlawed in nearly every form and that doctors performing abortions should be hunted down and locked away.

So who am I supposed to vote for? And how do you propose to talk to me? Since I sit on both sides of the divide, I can say confidently that little argumentation is going to do much to move me away from my positions on either torture or abortion, no matter how much Bush and abortion activists try to convince me otherwise.

[Ray]

This is probably the most useful contribution to my understanding of the national debate that I have read in the past year.

Thanks, Fred

[Djur]

JS Bangs: The normal approach is psychiatric treatment.

[perianwyr]

I've always figured I had more than a little monster in me, so it doesn't necessarily make me uncomfortable. Doesn't make me agreeable, though, sadly.

[Robert A. Rodger]

Thank you, Fred.

But while you’re at it, how about considering the liberal-to-moderate East Coaster who also happens to believe that an unborn child should have protected rights. I can’t believe I’m the only one. Perhaps you shouldn’t. I think the only way I get by being me is not thinking about it. But imagine having to decide to support candidates who support “baby-murder” because the alternative is actually worse.

The rationale I’ve given is, I hope, similar to the arguments given by our anti-slavery Founding Fathers. It is, at this time, better to live with the will of the country than to fight it. But it’s still very hard to do. And it makes it very harder to dismiss Kansas and the right.

Now, if only they didn’t give so many other reasons to be dismissed.

[John H.]

Cool, insightful and well-reasoned as always. Good job.

[Dave Lartigue]

Well said, Fred. I tried to wrap my head around this a while back at my blog:
http://slithytoves.sytes.net/~dave/wordpress/?p=879

"The PARs [Pro-Abortion Rights people] will gladly tell you what other issues — economics, gender roles, religious, and corporate — radiate outward from the core issues, but for all their pontificating on the subject, they have missed a single and critical point that renders all their other arguments moot. If someone believes an act results in the murder of an innocent person, there is nothing you can say that’s going to make that okay. Because so many PARs reject the reasoning behind the moral belief, they assume the belief has no reality. This is an irrecoverable error. When is rape okay? In your opinion, under what circumstances would it be permissible to bludgeon a person chosen at random? This is how AAR [Anti-Abortion Rights people] people see abortion. The refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of their belief not only prevents any kind of resolution, it only intensifies their rejection of both your point of view and the people who hold it."

(I also tackled empathy as well: http://slithytoves.sytes.net/~dave/wordpress/?p=737 )

You're absolutely right in how this debate has been framed (one might suggest purposefully) in a way in which it is impossible to extricate ourselves. I've often heard liberals say that they belief Roe v. Wade will never be overturned because that would take away the promise of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Pro-choice activists have many good points, but the fact of the matter is, abortion is the new slavery, and how much slavery is going to be acceptable to an abolitionist? A little? Only slaves up to a certain age? Only allowing people to have a limited number of slaves?

[pharoute]

Monsters, "the other", non-human, thus not afforded protection under that whole "Thou shall not kill" thing...a denial of one's humanity: Hitler was just as human as Gandhi; Stalin and Mr. Rodgers kin; gays and baby killers, torturers and homophobes...
Jesus, flesh and blood but to those around him, in a time of war and suffering and torture, who could hold so much Love? Only God...

[Jack Grey]

"But I ALSO think that abortion is infanticide. I think that the procedure should be outlawed in nearly every form and that doctors performing abortions should be hunted down and locked away." ~JS Bangs

You've actually made two points here. "I ALSO think that abortion is infanticide" is the first one, and you know what? I'm not going to argue it with you. I think that abortion is, in fact, the ending of a human life. Whether you consider that life fully developed, independent, deserving of rights - to what degree - doesn't really matter; those are side issues. That being the case, I think that abortion should only be used as a form of triage, and (ideally) never as a form of birth control.

(Most of the pro-lifers I've talked to basically agree with this. They're willing to make allowances for medical issues, and often for children conceived as a product of rape. It seems to be an acknowledgement that no matter how bad a choice an abortion might be, sometimes the other options really are worse.)

Nevertheless, I'm pro-choice. I can't make the leap from your first point - "I ALSO think that abortion is infanticide" - to your second point: "I think that the procedure should be outlawed in nearly every form and that doctors performing abortions should be hunted down and locked away." I don't believe that just because something is bad (or evil, or even repugnant) that it should automatically be illegal. (Alcohol/Prohibition is a poor analogy, but still the best one I can think of.)

Mainly, I think the energy that's currently being invested in trying to make abortion illegal would be better spent in helping people avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Unfortunately, both sides of the "abortion debate" (or at least the ones that get the most airtime) are too busy demonizing each other to look for that sort of common ground.

~Jack Grey
Running for President in 2008
or when H*ll freezes over
whichever comes last

[Jason]

For those who were as out of it as I was in regards to who Thomas Frank is, or his book "What's the Matter with Kansas," might find this synopsis of the book helpful:
http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm

[Chris]

Fred, thank you for a wonderful post. I want to speak briefly to the two commenters who feel as if they are caught in a quandary because they oppose both torture and abortion. First, yours is not an anomolous position. I think the evangelical Jim Wallis (of Sojouners & God's Politics fame) would advocate a similar position. Borrowing from a decidely Catholic position, he calls it a "consistent ethic of life." Second, though many politicians may in fact support "baby murder" and "infanticide" it seems to me that a good many pro-choicers don't necessarily support abortion, they support the right for someone else to support abortion. I suppose it doesn't really matter though. If you see them as baby murderers, baby murderers they are. Personally, though I would love to see abortions eliminated, I think there is a lot more room for empathy for those who support it than for those who support torture. I also think there are better ways to eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) abortions than "hunting down and locking away" doctors who perform them.

[Lucia]

Fred, I think this is your best post yet (at least of the ones I've read, and I've been reading you for a while).

I've been pro-life, and I've been pro-choice, and I don't know which is better. I am and have been for many years pro-choice but queasy (and my "pro-choice" means rape, incest, life or health of the mother any time, and abortion on demand up until about week 20: after that my queasiness multiplies with each week). I've heard pro-choicers call the developing embryo or fetus a parasite or a tumor or "just a ball of cells," and I cringe. I can empathize (but not agree) with your prototypical Kansan, and I think your analysis is exactly right.

I also agree with the other commenters that there may be common ground in trying to reduce the number of abortions. I've seen some glimmers of this in the blogosphere. The big problem on the pro-choice side is not wanting to admit that there's any moral dimension at all to abortion, apparently out of fear that this would be a slippery slope to agreeing to restrictions and then an outright ban. To say that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing is to admit that at least some abortions are bad.

I think you might call my position (such as it is) half-assed. You might even be right. But it is where I am.

[kim]

I think your point is key in the abortion debate - how can one bridge the enormous gap between those people who think a 10-week old embryo is as fully human and valuable as me, and those people who think that, while a 10-week embryo is certainly more than a clump of cells, it certainly isn't the same as someone who has been born? I recently wrote about how the pro-choice side has effectively abandoned any attempt to place moral value on fetal life but the pro-life side refuses to consider the practical side of this ethical debate. Those people who support preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing abortions seem to be the only ones who examine both the ethical and practical aspects of the debate, but both the pro-life and pro-choice sides seem too dogmatic to support any compromise on the issue.

[misa]

I've also been both pro-life and pro-choice, but I stand as pro-choice today. And not because I think that abortion has no moral implications -- I'm horrified of abortion, and horrified of murder of a baby including a baby before birth.

I think it boils down to the old question, When does human life begin? This is a hard question and there are lots of ways to try to decide this. But honestly, I have to say that my answer is, I don't know (although if I had to guess, I pick a time having to do with brain/central nervous system development). And given that I just don't know, I don't think the state should pick the answer "immediately after conception" (or whenever that bit happens when Plan B ceases to work).

So pro-lifers think the answer is the immediately-after-conception answer. But how can they be sure? And why do they think they have to decide this for everybody else out there? That's what I don't get.

[Duane]

Kit Ballard?

[Jim]

Fred, This is a profound piece of writing. And it brings the problem of the Red vs Blue states into crystal focus. I am absolutely positive that there is a block of people who will vote first and always based upon their perception of a candidate's stance on abortion. And this block of voters is large enough in many of the Red states to swing an election.
My faith requires me to be pro-life, but it also requires me to be pro-choice. I believe that God has given us the terrible blessing of free will and free choice. We need to know how to exercise that choice. I have been party to two abortions in my life. The first I had no knowledge of until after the fact. I was party only so far as I was one of the parents. However, since I had no part of the decision, I pretty much wash my hands of any potential guild. The second instance, though, was entirely different. I was intimately and profoundly involved in the whole process. Basically, I made the choice based upon my wife's medical condition at the time. There was a greater than 50% chance that neither fetus nor mother would survive the pregnancy. Given that, I readily agreed that an abortion was called for. At the same time I got a vasectomy so that I would never put my wife in that position again. It is one of our great sadnesses that we never had children together (we do have three between us all from first (failed) marriages,) but I am also comfortable that I was never faced with making that particular decision again.
I look at my experience, and I see myself as having saved at least one life. I'm sure that the anti-abortion activist would still see me as a baby killer. The problem here is that there is no middle ground in this. Either you are a baby killer or you are not. There is no gray area. When this happens, there is no room for politics, no room for debate, no room for accomodation. And when there is no room for any of the above, the process breaks down. There is no room to argue: either life (and the infusion of the soul) begins at conception or it doesn't. Those who believe the former will forever be incapable of finding common ground with those who believe the latter. Therefore, the only hope I see for the continued existance of this country as we now know it is for one side to completely overwhelm the other. Personally, I hope the pro-choice side wins, but I am not screamingly optimistic.
Anyhow, thanks for a great piece of writing and the thought that went behind it.

[Dave Lartigue]

So pro-lifers think the answer is the immediately-after-conception answer. But how can they be sure? And why do they think they have to decide this for everybody else out there? That's what I don't get.

Isn't it better to err on the side of saving a life than not?

[Lucia]

There's an appealing clarity and consistency to the fully-human-at-conception position. I know because I used to hold it myself, when I still believed in moral absolutes. If a zygote is fully human at conception, then every abortion is the killing of a human being, no ifs, ands, or buts. Thus it is justifiable to save the life of the mother (self-defense), but in no other circumstance.

Fred's prototypical Kansan would say that a zygote has a unique set of human DNA that deserves to reach its full potential as much as you or I do. She might also point out that it's all very well to say that an embryo or fetus can't survive outside of its mother, but an infant can't for long either, so that's an invalid criterion. She would ask how you know that a zygote is not human, and if you can sleep at night knowing that you permitted this slaughter of the innocents.

[Mabus]

Interesting discussion. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure Kansans really believe they are voting against their state's economic interest--but that's not really the topic, I guess.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood have recently begun running "Pro-Prevention" ads in USA Today. My own reaction was not good, I'm afraid. Do I object to "prevention" as such? No, I think it's a good idea. The problem is in the way it's phrased and in the mindset it shows. Imagine if I came in here pontificating about how people who believe in torture and people who object to torture could both get behind "reducing the need for torture". I might suggest a good many desirable political changes; I might support empathy toward terrorists and the communities they come from--but my position would be tainted by the suggestion that there is ever a need for torture.

[Ray]

Christians certainly seem to think that it is okay for the omniscient, omnitpotent, creator of the universe to send his adult child to death in an effort at self-glorification and then have his followers come along and drink his blood and eat his body.

It hard to empathize with anyone who would think that that was ok, yet it wasn't ok for some poor, terrified, alone girl kill a mass of cells inside her body.

[Lucia]

I think you're making a false analogy, Mabus. Fred equated abortion with torture in the first place to put us, specifically those of us who are pro-choice, in the shoes of the prototypical pro-life Kansan (hereinafter PK).

If no pregnancy exists, for most people the moral question of deciding the status of the unborn life doesn't exist, because no life exists. If you wanted to you could substitute "reducing the need to deal with unwanted pregnancies" for "reducing the need for abortion," but in either case the way to do it is not to create the pregnancy in the first place.

In the case of torture, the hypothetical Very Bad Person Who Might Have Life-Saving Information already exists, and you have to decide what to do about it. Not creating the VBPWMHLSI isn't an option.

[Duane]

I don't think pro-lifers actually view abortion with the same degree of horror that good Americans hold for torture. I think for them it's more of a short-hand way of voting that encapsulates all of their other sectarian "values". How else to explain their reluctance to hold women who have abortions accountable for murder? How else to explain the (relatively) short prison terms suggested for abortion doctors?

Frankly, it seems like a more useful political football for Republicans than anything else. Look at the S.D. law. It was constructed in such a way to be guaranteed to be struck down by an appeals court. Then the Supreme court will refuse the case. After lots of time nothing will have changed except pro-lifers FEEL like they are that much closer to an overturn of Roe v. Wade and be that much more likely to vote Republican next time around.

Regardless of how cynical pro-lifers use the "killing" of innocent babies for political hegemony, the Pro-Choice position is the only clear-conscience position. That is, I may personally abhor abortion but I'll recognize that others may not share my BELIEF SYSTEM about when life begins and not be so inclined to force breed for the benefit of me and my God.

[bulbul]

Christians certainly seem to think that it is okay for the omniscient, omnitpotent, creator of the universe to send his adult child to death in an effort at self-glorification and then have his followers come along and drink his blood and eat his body.
Ray, is this really how you see Christianity's basic dogma?

In the case of torture, the hypothetical Very Bad Person Who Might Have Life-Saving Information already exists, and you have to decide what to do about it.
Just a remark: to most people who really know something about this stuff, torture is not an option, since it simply doesn't work. Especially in that "One terrorist - one bomb - one hour" variety. I recommend this for almost exhaustive review of the question.

[Lila]

Why is it that the abortion debate never seems to get around to considering the implications of a human life INSIDE ANOTHER HUMAN? How can that not be significant to the ethics of the situation?

(By the way, put me down for a big check mark beside "reduce/eliminate unwanted pregnancies".)

[Scott]

I don't really care whether or not you cast your vote in your own economic interest, but when your vote betrays the interests of most of your neighbors, well, that's a sin.

Two people don't have an absolute right to something of mine simply because they outnumber me (i.e. my giving it to them is in the economic benefit of "the majority" of us three).

Solidarity is a moral duty. You vote against it at your own moral and mortal peril. These Kansans, in other words, have some splainin' to do.

No they don't - you aren't the Moral Judge Of The Universe. Your every belief about economics isn't proven fact, as nonquestionable as a round Earth. Get over yourself.

[Lucia]

I know, bulbul -- I was merely trying to point out (perhaps not very well) that although how we feel about torture and how the PK feels about abortion may be equivalent, and thus may help us understand what it feels like to be the PK, abortion and torture aren't really equivalent cases.

Duane, I respectfully disagree. If I shoot you in cold blood, there's clear agreement that that's murder, and that the state should punish me for it. My getting up in court and saying, "I don't share your belief system about its being wrong to kill Duane, and I don't want your beliefs imposed on me" will merely get me labeled callous and/or crazy. This is where the PK is coming from (and I agree with you about most politicians' real attitudes toward abortion, but there are genuine pro-lifers out there who need to be recognized).

[Lucia]

Lila, the PK is utterly unimpressed by the bodily-autonomy argument. What about the bodily autonomy of the unborn child, and where was the parents' bodily autonomy when they decided to have sex?

[Scott]

I would put it somewhat differently: The majority of Kansans continually vote against the economic interests of the majority of Kansans.

But I thought the majority was how we collectively decide things. Now you give me this dichotomy between "the majority" merely at the ballot box and what is evidently the real majority, for whom you unilaterally assume the right to speak. Shades of Falwell's "Moral Majority" or Nixon's "Silent Majority" - screw the actual votes, we speak for the majority, so what we want is by defn legit no matter what those damn voters say.

Come on, admit you're the vanguard of the proletariat, fit to rule in their name.

[Duane]

Lucia:

You are comparing an illegal act of murder to abortion, which is neither illegal OR murder. And early reports of the types of laws pro-lifers are trying to pass against abortion do not define it as murder. So if you got up in court and tried to make that defense, then you should rightfully be considered crazy.

[Lopp]

Yes, yes, yes. You have given both a wonderful illustrating parallel in the torture reaction by compassionate liberals or conservatives (myself included) even those who vote Republican becase of the abortion issue, and you have presented an understanding of the pro-life mindset that rings very true to my experience.

The other commenters (as always on this site) bring very refreshing viewpoints to the discussion, on the abortion issue morally, personally, and public policy-wise.

My parents are liberal Catholics, I have been morally opposed to abortion since a young age, but since I reached voting age I have opposed outlawing it entirely. My position is basically Lucia's:

'pro-choice' means rape, incest, life or health of the mother any time, and abortion on demand up until about week 20: after that my queasiness multiplies with each week."

Week 20 is probably beyond that I would offer, 5 month premature births are becoming more possible. I personally think Row vs Wade provides the basis for the solution, as "viability" moves earlier I expect the specified unencumbered access through the end of the first trimester to be the reasonable legal hard line, and points past that significantly increase my queasiness. I know I'm being somewhat callous to the women in the audience when I say that that is a reasonable compromise on the timeframe to make a decision with rape or economic or general health or unwanted reasons to seek an abortion.

I don't think framing it in terms of "when does life begin" is helpful to either side: "conception" and "40" are both valid _opinions_ to this red herring principle. While conception and birth are the most solid. I am not a proponent of abortion, just of its availability: I look forward to the day when my queasiness meter can start rising at 3 weeks, because contraception and access to very early abortions has become universal. But we simply cannot get to that point (or your chosen compromise timeframe) through any conception-forward outlawing.

Widescale education and unencumbered (free?) *access* to contraceptives and early abortion etc, along with a significant reduction in timeframe except for life of mother. But back to the message of your post today, any compromise to monsters you just can't trust is impossible. I certainly have friends and friends of my parents who opposed "Partial Birth Abortion Bans" because Democrats would surely stuff twice as many babies through the now more legitimized abortion process, nothing but a 100% ban properly reflected their moral position, and agreement with anything less impugned on their own moral standing. Similarly, I have other friends for whom accepting a ban on just the final week of pregnancy would open the floodgates for further restrictions by the Republicans, and contradicts their moral compass for necessary privacy and personal autonomy.

I challenge you to phrase any acceptable compromise between those two (apparently) mainstream factions.

[Lopp]

I have say, my comment about agreeing with Lucia is really just about the first comment (only one when I started composing). I mean no offense by that, later comments just do not reflect my own position anywhere near as closely. Some of the later comments by Lucia still have solid understanding of the pro-life arguments I grew up around, such as:

My getting up in court and saying, "I don't share your belief system about its being wrong to kill Duane, and I don't want your beliefs imposed on me" will merely get me labeled callous and/or crazy. This is where the PK is coming from.

and

utterly unimpressed by the bodily-autonomy argument. What about the bodily autonomy of the unborn child, and where was the parents' bodily autonomy when they decided to have sex?

Such statements really are about Fred's identified reaction, the callous/crazy and autonomy arguments are the statements of monsters to a pro-lifer, and as such barely merit more than a look of shock and a heartfelt prayer for your soul, let alone the "obvious" logical rebuttals above.

[Doctor Science]

I am honestly appalled by how many people, Fred included, have been able to post here without mentioning the word "woman". But to my mind that's kind of the point: the woman is invisible, just a container, a place where important life, innocent life, happens to be.

Yes, your stereotypical Kansans may call me a "baby-killer", a "monster". But what they're really thinking is slut. And as we know empirically, sexual misbehavior (by a President, say) is much more important to Americans than torture (when ordered by a President, say).

*deep breath* To get back to the topic, can you empathize with a woman?

For instance, I know a woman who was just over 20 weeks into a twin pregnancy when one of the twins began to die. As even the text of the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" bill notes, getting a dead or dying twin out while leaving the healthy one to grow to term is best done by this method, which is admittedly pretty grim. But you know, life or death medical procedures often *are* grim, and they're always messy.

So tell me, when you have three lives bound together like this, how does it feel? Can you be all neat & tidy and say, "it's always wrong to do something that disgusting, even if it's the only way to save the other twin's life. Even if it's the only way to save the mother's life, too. They should all have died rather than be party to a murder." Can you say that you can't empathize, that anyone who would choose to save one child when the other was doomed was a monster?

The abortion debate and the torture debate are alike in that both often make real, palpable human beings (a woman, a detainee) less important that something hypothetical (the baby that isn't there, the information that isn't there). We talk about what might be, but not about what *is*.

As one of my favorite philosophers (or at least headologists) likes to say:
"You got to learn three things. What's real, what's not real, and what's the difference."

[Duane]

Only a monster would want to control the cells in someone else's body. Dr. Frankenstein, for instance.

[Ray]

Ray, is this really how you see Christianity's basic dogma?

Yes.

I don't believe that there are any factual errors in my statement.

We might agree on the facts, but still have a different point of view on those facts. It is my point of view that child abuse is the central organizing theme of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Isaac on the Rock -> Jesus on the Cross -> John Wesley and James Dobson advocating beating your children for the Glory of God

If I told you I was going to take my teenage son out to the rock to sacrifice him to God, or I told you that I was sending my adult son out to die to save my creation and to glorify myself, I hope you would lock me up.

Jews and Christians aren't the only ones to hold such beliefs. I also hope you would lock me up if I told you I was going to sacrifice my daughter to the volcano, but I don't know how followers of Pele come down on abortion.

The point is, I don't see how anyone can be pro-Life and Christian. Clearly it is ok for the Father to kill the child. Is it only problem if it is the mother?

[Mandos]

I too am fascinated, like Doctor Science, with the emphasis in this discussion. And frankly, as someone pointed out, very few pro-life people seem to be willing to charge a woman and her doctor with full premeditated homicide and punish them forthwith! Worse, they are very often willing to make rape and incest exemptions, which very immediately indicate that the life of the unborn is not the actual principle here, but the unapproved behaviour of the woman.

So it's hard to take it seriously when Frank says that "they see us as monsters". It's rather that the Prototypical Kansan likes to THINK that he sees liberals as monsters so that he can justify his beliefs about women. If he likes to THINK that he sees American liberals as monsters, then it's NOT about overcoming this perception of American liberals, and it's NOT equivalent to torture at all, but a much less honest thing.

[Raven's Star]

Well, of course they see us as monsters. The fundamental problem here is that misogyny is so ingrained into our culture that the concept that the rights of an already born woman or girl not to have to be forced into a painful, risky - even a possibly fatal - takeover of her body in order to become a mother against her will elicits no empathy or sympathy from anti-abortion people. They have more sympathy for a zygote than for a woman. And those who spin this crowd into fury with their utter lies on the topic - such as constantly referring to 3 week old fetuses as "babies" - are able to get people to have more sympathy for the three week old fetus than for a woman, because they have no ethics or sense of honesty and will stoop to anything to take away women's rights, whereas pro-choice people simply do not do this. Anti-abortionists simply do not see women as human beings, therefore any attempt by women to secure a position for themselves in which they are not treated as brood mares and slaves is seen as monstrous, murderous selfishness on their part.
Now how we are to go about changing this, I have no idea.

[Jack Grey]

Raven's Star: go a little easier on the generalizations, please. Hyperbole is an effective rhetorical device, but it is also, by nature, inaccurate - even when the point it makes is valid. What you are saying may be true of some, many, or even most people who oppose abortion, but I can say with absolute certainty that it is not true of all of them.

~Jack Grey
more and more certain
that I should never run for office

[Quinn]

As a Kansan - admittedly one on the "left" - I'll offer this: There's no easy way to explain what's "wrong" with most people here. Part of it is isolation. Part of it is feeling derided for being from Kansas - treated as if we all had that "golly-gee-whiz" attitude of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, or that we were somehow all victims of a kind of regional Down Syndrome. Kansans are, at times, very self-conscious and I suppose, for some, the rise of the far-right with its superficial focus on "family values" (even though everyone else can see right through the bullshit ruse) gave most "conservative" Kansans a feeling of being part of the "in-crowd," and having some influence on the state of the nation. Now, everyone in every state has the potential to be a naive rube about something. Kansans are suckers, historically, for moral activism.
Has anyone heard of Bloody Kansas? The pre-Civil War confrontation between KS and Missouri over whether Kansas would enter the union as a Free state or a slave state? Kansas won and entered the Union as a Free state - but somehow that good moral foundation - that clear eyed vision of equality got mutated into something else; something like exclusion.
I've often wished to be out of Kansas and, in fact, lived in Boulder, CO for five years. I hope to be in San Francisco by the end of this year; however, there is part of me that wants to stay here and fight the good fight against neo-conservatism and forced religious adherence. And that's what often gets overlooked when people ask "what's wrong with Kansas" - there is "good" here. There are people here, camped out on the left (and the reasonable center), fighting. We're small in number, we might be doomed, we're always overlooked, but we're here. We could use a little help.
By the way, nearly everyone in Kansas hates Phelps too. We think of him as a blight on our state, we just can't figure out how to get rid of him. Our legislature is considering bills and ordinances to restrict his access to funerals.

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Anyone who thinks that pro-choice people are unwilling to talk about abortion being icky or wrong missed the 1990s. "Safe, Legal, and Rare" ring any bells?

There has already been an appeal to work on reducing unwanted pregnancies - Harry Reid and abortion rights groups signed on, but not anti-abortion groups. Why? Because the actions that result in reducing unwanted pregnancies are anathema to most abortion foes - there's a reason why Lubbock, Texas has such high teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates.

Far from reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies, if abortion were outlawed many of these groups would crusade against contraception, because they believe contraception is abortion.

The thing is, people who think that the birth control pill is an abortion, or that emergency contraception causes an abortion are wrong. And they're just as wrong as people who say that everyone in Guantanamo is a terrorist, or that everyone there was picked up on the battlefield.

But how can you have a debate when one side refuses to accept reality?

[Doctor Science]

Ray is not alone in his view of Christianity.

In the Shadow of Moloch: The Sacrifice of Children and Its Impact on Western Religions, by Martin S. Bergmann is a scholarly and psychoanalytic exploration of the points Ray brings up. Like other psychoanalysts, Bergmann is erudite, broad-minded, and just a little bit whacked, but he makes points other people have been afraid to make. For instance, he points out how the Blood Libel makes sense as the flower of repressed Christian anxiety about the cannibalistic implications of Transubstantiation.

I used to think Freudians were kind of loony -- logical up to a point, then *whoa, man*; I now think many developments in American society are Sigmund's Revenge, when he comes back from the grave to say "Sex really *is* the most important drive, you yokels, and if you don't talk about it it just comes bustin' out all over!"

[NBarnes]

Scott: Your assertions are in direct conflict with some of the most basic teachings of Jesus. Fred was speaking from the perspective of a dedicated Christian who takes the teachings of the Bible on the subject of charity and the poor very seriously. You obviously disagree with those teachings, but that wasn't really Fred's point. Fred was very certainly saying that if you consider yourself a committed Christan, you are most certainly bound just as he describes.

As it happens, I am not particularly a Christian, but have come to agree with Jesus on the subject of duty to the poor and disadvantaged; in my opion, in my moral sense, you don't, in fact, have more right to the labor of your hands to buy yourself an XBox 360 than your neighbor has the right to be fed by your labor. You do not 'own' your productivity to the point where you may, morally speaking, spend it on frivolity before other human beings are fed and housed.

[Stephanie]

Lopp:
you say "as "viability" moves earlier"
Whee is the evidence for this idea that viability is moving anywhere?
Otherwise, if abortion is MURDER, we already have laws against murder. Not just for the person hired as the the hit man, I mean, to perform the medical procedure (the doctor), but also for the person hiring the murderer (the Woman), who I agree is being left out of this whole discussion.

[Mnemosyne]

JS Bangs --

Were you able to read the posts by Jim and Doctor Science and understand at all the difficult choice that had to be made? Or do you think that Jim and his wife are murderers for choosing her life over that of her unborn fetus? Was Doctor Science's friend wrong to choose her living fetus over the dying one?

If abortion is ALWAYS murder, is Jim a murderer? And Doctor Science's friend? Should they be in jail?

[Ross]

Fred:
I *almost* agree with you on this point, but I've got one big reservation. I think -- and I've actually seen this attitude -- that for a fair percentage of these "values voters", the abortion issue is less about us being baby-murderers, and more about not wanting women to "get away with" promiscuity. I think this isn't just a fringe view because I often see it in its watered-down form even among *pro-choice* advocates, who will say things like "Abortion is definately okay in cases of rape or contraceptive failure, but I think that it's wrong when people use abortion to avoid taking responsibility for their actions."

Which brings me to what I say to the You-Guys-Are-Baby-Murderers crowd. It's something I struggled with myself, but in the end, I realized that the creation of life should be a wonderful thing, a source of joy. When it ceases to be that -- WHATEVER THE REASON -- it becomes perverse, twisted. An unwanted pregnancy is an affront to the very *idea* of pregnancy, and forcing someone to endure it -- even if it's "their fault" -- turns what should be a beautiful, wonderful thing into a punishment.

To me, that's just about as bad as torture.

I'll let you know if it ever works.

[Raincitygirl]

Actually, viability has stalled in the past decade. Up until approximately ten years ago, continually improving technology meant that more and more very early premature babies were kept alive. However, the threshold of viability has already been hit, unless there's a massive medical breakthrough very shortly. There's a point past which technology, however sophisticated, just can't substitute for a uterus.

And what's more, quite a few of the very early preemies who are kept alive are suffering major life-long health problems. There are lots of inspiring stories in the media about 'miracle babies' but very few stories like the one about the woman I know who delivered at 23 weeks. She and her husband decided to let the baby die after he was baptized, because he was hooked up to machines for survival, he'd already suffered major brain damage and his other organs were also in bad shape, and the doctors held out virtually no hope that he would ever lead a life where he wasn't dependent on machines, and wasn't in severe pain. Apparently that's not an uncommon scenario with micro-preemies.

Bottom line, the best indicators of a preemie's likelihood of survival and a healthy life are birth weight and how close it is to full term. That's not to say that every baby born below X weight or Y number of weeks will *inevitably* die or be severely handicapped, but statistically speaking, the odds in their favour aren't terrific.

[question]

To JS Bangs -
just a couple of questions, without having read any further comments -

1. What is 'infanticide?' As best as I can remember from research maybe a decade old, something like 2/3 of fertilized eggs do not become infants, but are simply 'flushed,' 'thrown away,' or what have you by the woman's body before it is generally recognized that the woman was pregnant. I am not trying to play any word games here, however - but if this roughly 2/3 average failure rate is God given (so to speak), it does pose some questions about infanticide and who performs it, I would think.

2. Do you believe in preventing pregnancy though effective education about birth control, and social encouragement of birth control? I will certainly agree that nothing in biology is 100% (including the idea that humans will abstain from sex), but do you favor an approach which attempts to avoid abortion, or one that simply opposes abortion without in any sense dealing with the realities surrounding it?

3. Are you a woman? If not, I think your place in this debate (like mine, being male), is essentially zero.

Just a couple of questions with my opinions added.

And I live in Germany, with an abortion rate easily 10 times less than America's, where the approach of point 2 is practiced (the condom ads in connection with AIDS/pregnancy are eye-catching, clever, and everywhere - this is just considered intelligent use of advertising to promote public health). I believe there is a connection, but of course, you are welcome to disagree - faith and facts do tend to have a certain inherent conflict in many minds.

[Raincitygirl]

To Question: Interesting statistical factoid. Did you know that Germany has the second-lowest abortion rate of any country in the entire world. The only country whose rate is even lower is the Netherlands. Oddly enough, there's a strong statistical correlation between states with few restrictions on abortion, and lots of commitment to education re: safe sex, and fewer female members of the population needing abortions in the first place. And the countries where abortion is outright illegal tend to have much higher abortion rates than anywhere else. But then, in places where abortion is illegal, there isn't usually comprehensive sex education in schools, easy (sometimes free) availability of contraceptives, a punitive view of sex which seeks to punish women who are sexually active with pregnancy and social disgrace (single motherhood is also more socially acceptable and the social safety net is more comprehensive in countries with low abortion rates. Well duh! If you're not aborting because you'll be ostracized for being pregnant out of wedlock, and you're not aborting because of economic pressures, then maybe you're more likely to carry to term), etc.

[Jesurgislac]

Jack Grey: What you are saying may be true of some, many, or even most people who oppose abortion, but I can say with absolute certainty that it is not true of all of them.

It is not a question of opposing abortion, Jack. For the so-called "pro-lifers", it is a question of opposing a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. The split is between pro-choice and anti-choice. The anti-choicers are capable of regarding a human being as not deserving of full human rights and legal standing just because she's female: just as the pro-torturers are capable of regarding a human being as not deserving of full human rights and legal standing just because he's a Muslim. They are, unsurprisingly, often the same people: once you take the step of regarding some humans as less than human, it becomes easier with every step on the downward path.

[Jesurgislac]

Fred: For American evangelicals and many Catholics, abortion is the trump card. Everything I have just said or quoted from The Editors about torture parallels exactly how these folks think -- and, more importantly, feel -- about abortion.

No, it's not. Really, it's not. You are confusing the issue. These people want the right to regard women with contempt, and they vote against their own economic interests in part because the media is very good at making people do this - remember that poll that discovered that 20% of Americans believe they're in the top 1% - but also because they want the right to treat women as less than human. The claim that abortion=murder is one that most anti-choicers don't believe in themselves: their strongest belief is that women ought not to have the right to make reproductive decisions about our own bodies, and that people who think women should have the right to choose are evil.

This is a really vile post, Fred, and unworthy of you. It's clever, but it really dodges the real question - why do so many Catholics and evangelical Christians publicly display such contempt for women?

[Jesurgislac]

Further comments on Fred's post on my journal.