 |
Time for Republicans to denounce extreme anti-abortion rhetoric–and past time to hear real women explain why they needed late-term abortions |
 |
Hilzoy recommends a number of eminently reasonable steps that should be taken to make abortion safe, both for women who need this medical procedure, and for doctors who provide it. It certainly makes sense to repeal the irrational ban on dilation and extraction (the medical procedure inaccurately desecribed as “partial birth abortion”) and to enforce our laws in an effort to stop terrorism. But there’s another step I’d like to see elected officials take, especially Republicans. As I noted yesterday, a plank in the Republican party platform charges that “abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life.” That’s another way to claim that abortion is murder.
Given that doctors are being killed, it is past time for supposedly responsible leaders to make clear that there is no place for rhetoric that provides a justification for killing doctors. I’d like to see Republican leaders remove this extremist, incendiary language from the party platform. I’d also like them to make clear that there is no place for rhetoric equating abortion with murder.
The traditional media has a role to play here, but so far, the results are not encouraging. CNN had Michael Steele on this morning and did not ask him one question about Dr. Tiller’s murder. Here’s what I’d love to have seen them ask: (1) are you aware that the Republican party platform suggests abortion is murder? (2) do you believe abortion is murder? (3) do you think it is appropriate for anyone to equate abortion with murder, given that this creates a logical justification for those who kill doctors (if abortion is murder, then doctors who provide abortions are mass murderers, and killing a doctor can be justified as saving hundreds or thousands of other lives)?
There is a lot to talk abouit here, and a lot of work ahead for the traditional media, if they care about making a contribution here. One other problem is the discussion of late-term abortions. Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted that “it’s very troubling” that some women would seek late-term abortions. He didn’t note that late-term abortions are usually precipitated when the woman’s life or health is in danger, or when the fetus has serious defects that would doom it to a short, painful existence if carried to term. he made it sound like women in the seventh month of pregnancy wake up one day and think “hey, I’d like an abortion”.
Something that would help enormously on this front would be hearing from real women who have had late-term abortions. It’s rare to see any woman involved in the abortion discussions that have appeared on cable TV in the last day and a half, and it is unthinkable to hear from a woman who can actually explain, first-hand, why she had an abortion and why it mattered that she was able to get competent medical care. There seems to be a misperception that women who have abortions are uncaring monsters making frivolous decisions. This is an outrageous slander, and it’s time to hear from real women who can set the record straight.
I take issue with your headline that so called extreme rhetoric needs to be toned down in favor of abortion. If you believe abortion is murder then why would an individual %u201Ctone down%u201D his rhetoric? I am in favor of abortion in limited circumstances. However, I am deeply concerned about Tillers 90,000 late term abortions and the validity of defending that psychologically overwhelming figure. I find it hard to believe 90,000 were medical emergencies. I would like to see a study detailing his practice. I too would like to hear from women who have had abortions. My anecdotal evidence is the vast majority of women feel it was a mistake. I have met one that didn%u2019t feel it was a mistake but she was so far left I think it was her way of covering the pain she really felt. Only anecdotal evidence%u2014would like to see a real unbiased study addressing the issue.
well, we have a very stark choice here. Doctors are being called mass murderers and are being killed. People are offering justifications for these killings–including Megan McArdle in a bizarre piece in the Atlantic where she writes: “if you actually think late-term abortions are murder, then the murder of Dr. Tiller makes total sense.”
That is why I find it incredibly dangerous for people to equate abortion with murder. As I have said, this creates a justification for killing doctors who perform abortions.
It is surreal to me that i have to argue this point, that anyone considers it ok to create a rhetorical justification for the murder of doctors, but that’s where we stand after decades of incredibly irresponsible rhethoric.
As for your allusion to anecdotal evidence of women who feel their abortions were mistakes, of course it is impossible to know what to make of that without actually making a comprehensive study. Let’s keep one thing in mind though. Many women who have abortions aren’t “choosing” to do so–they are compelled by health reasons, by a life-threatening pregnancy, by bearing a fetus that is dead or dying. These women don’t feel their abortion was a “mistake” any more than anyone else who had a life-saving medical procedure feels that was a “mistake”. The language of “choice” has created a misimpression that women frivolously choose abortions. Many, perhaps most (as you say, hard to know without actual studies–which may be out there, I just don’t know) want to have children and have an abortion because it is medically necessary. That’s not a “choice” in any reasonable sense of the word.
I think you’ll have a hard time finding women who really want to talk about having an abortion because it is a very difficult and personal decision to make. It’s not that completely different from miscarriages, which are also tough.
One woman who has written about her decision to have an abortion is Ayelet Waldman. I think she had amniocentesis which indicated that her fetus had a greater chance to be born with a severe birth defect.
true, PM. I came across one piece from 2004 where a woman describes why she had a late term abortion. The fetus had a neural tube defect that would result in paralysis and would require countless surgeries that might or might not allow the baby to live, but would not repair the damage. Sounds similar to the story you mention regarding Ayelet Waldman, but it’s a different person (Gretchen Voss) I hope more will speak out–this is a piece that is very much missing from the discussion and will make clear (sad that it needs to be made clear) that this is not about a frivolous “choice”, but a serious medical procedure.
You are bringing up a couple examples and assuming those are typical of abortions. I don’t know if there are more current studies but a 1988 study by Family Planning (a pro abortion entity) found the following reasons for abortion:
21% can’t afford baby
21% Unready for responsibility
16% baby would change life
12% Relationship issues
11% feels to immature
8% enough children
5% other
If you take todays abortions of over a million per year, applying these stats does not yield a lot of medical emergencies. I support emergency abortions– I don’t support sanctioned killings for convienience.
I’m not assuming anything–I noted that it is hard to know how to size things up without actual studies. Before I respond to your comment, note that we’re getting away from the initial point, which is a very important one: when people equate abortion with murder, they are creating a justification for those who kill doctors. That’s why I wrote my post–to argue that supposedly responsible leaders need to reject this extreme rhetoric–unless they think it’s ok to create a justification for killing doctors.
On your reference to the study from 1988. Let’s make sure we’re not mixing apples and oranges. In your first comment, you were talking about late term abortions. I don’t know whether the 1988 study you cite was asking about these, or about abortions in general (I’m guessing the latter). I couldn’t find any studies about the reasons why women have late term abortions, but I think you are making a cynical assumption about women–that a woman who has been pregnant for 6 or 7 months will suddenly decide to “kill for convenience”. I have found some specific examples of women who had late term abortions because the fetus had a terrible medical condition (see my comment above re: Gretchen Voss) or because the pregnancy was putting the woman’s life or health at risk. Maybe you’re right, maybe there are millions of bloodthirsty women walking around who casually decide to terminate pregnancies in the 6th or 7th month. I really doubt it–having seen what it is like for a woman to be pregnant I find it hard to accept your cold blooded killer theory.
sorry, my comment didn%u2019t show up because I included a link%u2013here%u2019s what I said, minus the link to the study by the Guttmacher Institute:
here’s a more recent study, from 2004 (link omitted%u2013you can find it online by searching for 2004 Guttmacher Institute study reasons for abortion)
This study did not focus on late term abortions, so we still cannot cite data on that question–I don’t know if it’s out there. The Guttmacher study found that 3/4 of women said that they couldn’t afford a baby or having a baby would dramatically change their life. About 40% said they had finished their childbearing (i.e. they had previous children– note that women could give multiple answers for why they had an abortion.) 13% cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus and 12% cited concerns about their own health. I don’t think any of these are frivolous reasons and I think it is off the mark, to say the least, to call this “killing for convenience”.
One point I should make but haven’t before is that pregnancy is, of course, unique to women. That doesn’t mean women have a monopoly on truth here, but I would think men (I am one, and from your name I assume you are too, but sorry if I am wrong–just guessing) should be especially careful about making conclusions about what it is like to be pregnant or to have an abortion. I think my view is consistent with this: I would leave the decision up to the woman.
I just gave you an actual study by a pro abortion group. No- it did not address late term vs “regular”, however the implications are clear– 95% of abortions are not medically necessary. My other issue is that we are not willing to admit what abortion is– certainly not murder but rather sanctioned killing. To deny that its killing defies all logic. You are definitely killing something that is a human being especially in late term abortions. The Life magazine articles showing a human very early on in the pregnancy was a mind turner for me.
I also do not understand the logic that abortion is OK but waterboarding a terrorist that is going to kill hundreds is wrong. The logic is illogical and appears to be one of advancing an agenda regardless of facts and common sense.
we disagree–I don’t think a woman has to show medical necessity in order to choose an abortion.
what is the difference between murder and sanctioned killing? sounds like a euphemism to me. You are not definitely killing a “human being” when you have an abortion. I don’t think an abortion is a reason for celebration, but it is not killing a human being, it is terminating a pregnancy. As i have said several times, if you think abortion is killing a human being, you are giving justification to those who kill doctors — by definition, it is better to save the hundreds or thousands of human beings that the one doctor would otherwise kill, in your terms.
There is nothing illogical about saying women have the legal and moral right to control the bodies but it is both illegal and immoral to torture. They are two very different situations. You are assuming that anyone we torture is a terrorist who is going to kill hundreds. That makes no sense. First, we have detained and/or used extraordinary rendition to send innocent people to be tortured. I am speaking of Maher Arar, a Canadian who was not a terrorist, but who was stopped at Kennedy Airport while returning from a family vacation and shipped off to Syria, where he was held for several months and tortured. The man was guilty of nothing and was not going to kill anyone. The Canadian government has acknowledged it made a mistake in telling the U.S government that Arar was a terrorist. It also makes no sense to say that someone in custody, even if a terrorist, is going to kill hundreds of people. They’re in custody, not on the loose—that’s why we’re able to torture them. The argument for torture is that it could prevent attacks by others who are not in custody. The problems are (a) we don’t know if it works (people being tortured are apt to confess to anything to stop to torture–whether it is true or not) (b) we can make mistakes, as with Arar, and torture someone who is guilty of nothing (c) torture is barbaric and inhuman (d) intelligence experts tell us that torture is ineffective and, perhaps most importantly (e) torture is illegal–we prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded Americans during WWII (and executed some of the Japanese–for waterboarding). As recently as 1983 a sheriff in Texas and deputies were prosecuted for waterboarding a suspect. The sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
The thread connecting support of torture and killing doctors is that each act is illegal. Even if you dismiss all my arguments against torture, you can’t escape the fact that it is illegal–under US law and international treaties we have signed. If you think torture should be used, then you should change the law. I would argue against you, but this would be the mandatory first step for anyone who believes in torture. Otherwise, you are simply advocating breaking the law.
Thank you! An excellent article. This should be done, for many reasons, and quickly.
thanks very much thinker–I am really hoping that someone will start asking Republican leaders about this. I was disappointed that CNN missed an opportunity to ask Michael Steele, as noted
You have an extremely narrow circle of aquaintance. Your posts are moving out into a larger world where few agree with you.
The difference between sanctioned killing and murder is significant and not an euphemism. One is legal and the other is not. Our basic difference is your euphemism that an abortion is terminating a pregnancy. It is a killing, legal but still a killing. What are you doing when you “terminate a pregnancy”? Something is dying and it is human. Any argument to the contrary is purely an euphemism and to call it anything else is dishonest.
The reason why I call sanctioned killing a euphemism is because it does not change the logic I have discussed. Whether you believe abortion is murder or sanctioned killing, either way you are creating a rationale for those who kill doctors who provide abortions. If you truly believe abortion is the killing of a human being, no different from killing a living, breathing person, then it doesn’t matter that abortion is legal, there is still an argument to be made that killing a doctor who provides abortions saves lives. I completely reject this argument, but, sadly, it is clear that some do not–that is why I think it is so dangerous and so irresponsible to speak of abortion as murder or killing.
You are touching on some very difficult philosophical and scientific questions: when does a fetus become human? You suggest that it is always human. It is far from clear that this is the case. Here’s how I look at it. A fetus is a developing human with the potential to become a person. It develops within a woman, who is an actual, existing human being. This is not an easy thing to say and I do not delight in it or say this easily, but if you have to choose between a developing fetus and a living, breathing woman, I will defer to the woman every time. The unfortunate reality of abortion is that it forces you to choose which is more important: the woman or the fetus. Sometimes, resolving this balance is clearer than at other times: for instance, when the woman’s life or health is threatened, or when the fetus is doomed to a short, painful life, or when a 12 year old girl has been raped by a relative. That doesn’t mean it’s easy: I have never heard that women (or girls) who have abortions for thse reasons rejoice in it. But they ought to have the right to a safe medical procedure. In other cases, I can understand that the situation is more difficult–for instance, when a healthy woman chooses to have an abortion during the first trimester because, for instance, she is 37 years old, already has three children, and did not plan to have additional children, or because she is 20 years old and not ready to have a child. I don’t see those as frivolous choices, but I can understand how opponents of abortion see those as more difficult situations (though I hope they will at the very least acknowledge the need for access to abortion in the first category I described–life, health of woman, life/health of fetus, rape/incest).
To me, the reason why a woman has the right to an abortion even when her life or health is not at risk is because a woman has a right to control her body. I don’t accept the idea that we ought to be able to force women to be pregnant for nine months, against their will. I am not saying these are easy choices, but that’s where I come down: on the side of living, breathing women, who I trust to control their own bodies.
I understand that you disagree and I do not claim a monopoly on truth here. What I think you have to confront, though, is the context for your words. Given that there are people who believe doctors providing abortions are mass murderers, given that there are people who have killed these doctors and others who work with them, when you say abortion is killing–whether you call it murder or legally sanctioned killing–you are supporting a rationale for those who would kill doctors. Some people are comfortable with this–and I find that terrifying and hard to grasp. If you are not comfortable with doctors being killed, then I hope you will consider whether your choice of words supports a rationale for these killings.
A very reasoned and well put together response. I totally agree with your premise of providing abortion in medical emergency. However, as we see that apparently comprises less than 5% of abortions performed. 95% are for matters of convenience. We as a society restrict what you can do with your body all the time, i.e. drug use, suicide etc. I also notice that you did not tell me what we are killing when doing an abortion. I assume you will say it%u2019s a fetus and therefore not human. If it%u2019s not human then at the very least it%u2019s a developing human. What is the differentiation between that and a developing adult? Can we abort that process?
Finally, your charge that rhetoric like mine and other anti abortion proponents leads to killings of abortion doctors is without merit. It is typical in today%u2019s society to shift personal responsibility from the individual to others. Neither I nor others had anything to do with this wacko killing a man for doing something legal. To say that one can%u2019t speak out against what he perceives is an injustice for fear that some dirtball will take extreme action is ludicrous. I don%u2019t think you want that for this country because it is flat wrong.
Thanks Antoin, and i appreciate your taking the view that abortion must be allowed in at least some circumstances. I think that’s what most people think–of course, it becomes a question of what circumstances.
This is all, of course, very hard to talk about, as I readily acknowledge. I don’t claim to have all the answers–I think it’s very hard for anyone to definitively say when life begins and when a fetus becomes a human being. As I said, I see this as a balance between the fetus and the woman, and my resolution is to trust women to control their bodies. As noted, I disagree that women who choose to have an abortion when their life or health is not at risk are doing so for matters of “convenience”–I think this is a cynical view of how woman make decisions.
In terms of society restricting what we do with our bodies in other cases, I think drug use and suicide are different cases–though I would note that I don’t think drugs should be illegal anymore than alcohol should be illegal, and I don’t see the point in making suicide illegal. I don’t support either drug use or suicide, but I don’t think criminalizing either is the best solution (would anyone who wants to kill themselves be deterred by a law against suicide?). I should emphasize, though, that I think prohibiting someone from using drugs or prohibiting suicide is very different from requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for nine months.
I didn’t say that your words directly led to any specific killing: what I said is that when people say abortion is murder or killing, they are creating a justification for those who would kill doctors. Of course people have the right to speech–I ardently defend that and am not suggesting you or anyone should be punished for their speech (though I would note that free speech is not an absolute or unlimited right–Justice Holmes’s famous example that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater is one way to illustrate this point).
Here’s what I’m really saying: I’m asking you to think about your words, to consider what it means to call abortion killing, thereby suggesting that a doctor who provides abortions is engaged in mass killing, given that there are people who are kill these doctors. Of course you’re not responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death, and believe me, I am not excusing, in any way, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller–but I really hope that you, and anyone who calls abortion murder or killing, will think about how others might take your words as a justification for killing doctors.
I think there is a hole in this argument. By the same token, if people said that cigarettes are killers, then the tobacco manufacturers would be mass murderers. Does that mean anti-tobacco lobbyists are suggesting that someone should in turn murder Philip Morris and Joe Camel?
There’s a big difference between what is happening with abortion and what is happening with cigarettes. There is a dedicated, well-organized anti-abortion movement that expressly (and continually) describes abortion as murder and doctors who provide abortions as mass murderers. These doctors (including Dr. Tiller) are compared to Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Mainstream politicians and media types (e.g. Bill O’Reilly) repeat this rhetoric (it’s even in the Republican party platform, as I noted). Anti-abortion groups have developed “hit lists” of doctors who are targeted (and some of these doctors have in fact been killed). By contrast, I have never heard anyone call a tobacco executive a mass murderer, I have not heard anyone use the term murder at all in fact when talking about cigarettes, I don’t know of anyone trying to kill a cigarette executive because they believe he or she is a murderer. The only phrase that comes to mind is “cigarettes kill”. That’s not quite the same as the rhetoric used in the context of abortion and used against doctors who provide abortions. Doctors like Tiller have to take extreme security precautions and many decide not to provide abortions at all, because they are understandably concerned for their safety. I have never heard of a cigarette company having to take security precautions because there are concerns someone would kill cigarette executives or employees.
This would change if an anti-cigarette movement developed that is similar to the anti-abortion movement, and if anyone started threatening cigarette executives or actually killing them. In that case, although smoking is different from abortion, I would certainly consider it irresponsible for people to call cigarette executives murderers. But right now, there is nothing comparable going on in the context of cigarettes.
Mr. Edelson,
It seems to me that you yourself have the utmost respect for life of people that are only normal.Your heart is beating,are you alive? If all things supporting your life funtions were taken away unvoluntarily would that be murder? Are you against the death penalty? Does a heartbeat somehow in your view not mean something is alive? You want to change the words because they are to harsh? What do you call it?
Was Tiller a friend of yours?
The way I see it he paid no mind to his oath. Maybe thats why he’s dead.
Sincerely
R.F Carrick
I am disgusted by your comment. Dr. Tiller helped women. he was murdered. Your suggestion that he deserved it is abominable.
As I have said before, no one celebrates an abortion, no one grows up wanting to have an abortion. This is not something that is easy to talk about. No one knows when life begins. Pregnancy and abortion are unique because they involve a woman and a fetus. Sometimes that requires a difficult choice–between a living woman and a fetus. That is not an easy choice, it is not a choice anyone enjoys making, but it is a choice that reality requires us to confront. I will defer to the living woman over the fetus. I trust women to make this often difficult choice and to control their bodies.
It doesn’t help to compare living, breathing human beings to fetuses who live inside and are dependent on a woman. They are simply not the same situation. When you talk about taking away the life functions of an independent, autonomous human being, that is simply a different situation from a pregnancy, in which a fetus lives inside a woman. As I noted above, sometimes a painful choice is required, between the woman and the fetus she carries. Though it is a difficult choice, to me, it is alao a clear one: a living, breathing woman must take precedent over a fetus.
This is not a happy subject. I understand that abortions can be painful, physically and emotionally. I also understand, from rading the stories of women Dr. Tiller helped, that women sometimes have no real choice: a woman in the third trimester who is told there is a 90% she will die if she carries the fetus to term; a woman who is told her fetus will not be able to survive once it is delivered; a woman who is told her fetus will live a short, painful life once delivered.
This is not an easy subject, and I acknowledge that. I hope you will, as well, and I hope you will think about what it means to suggest that murdering a living, breathing doctor, who had a family, is not a bad thing.
You stated “It doesn%u2019t help to compare living, breathing human beings to fetuses who live inside and are dependent on a woman”. Are you telling me that a “Fetus” in its 7 to 8th month is not a viable human being? What about it’s basic human rights. By your logic a baby could be killed at anytime (say before its 16th birthday) because its still dependent on his or her parents. You can’t use situational logic to justify a position. Don’t keep bringing up medical emergencies as justification. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of abortions are for so-called convenience. I gave you a valid study above by your own organization of Planned Parenthood. Are you saying they are lying? Furthermore, you have stated that its the woman%u2019s decision and she doesn’t have to justify the reason. (I’m paraphrasing you). Would executing fetuses be a more appropriate term than killing for you? Probably not but you can’t even truthfully define the act of what is being done (killing) because it offends your sensibilities. You call Tiller a hero but yet he became a multi millionaire providing late term executions. A real hero that the Left should support and is proud of. We are seeing another typical Liberal Philosophy that parallels the Nazi’s– Blame some one else rather than the individual that committed the act. O’Reilly, Limbaugh or whoever had nothing to do with the murder, but you know that and just want to use Tiller as propaganda - just like the Nazi’s did to the Jews.
The real tragedy here is that an individual was driven to such an extreme act as to commit murder due to the failure of the Justice system to stop Tiller — a man who was systematically killing unborn, viable babies for profit (how many Einsteins did he snuff out?). Think of what Scott Roeder gave up in his life to protect the rights of the unborn, because the pro abortionists and the justice system failed society. The justice system also failed Dr. Tiller by refusing to rein him in and thus making him a target for this murderer (Scott Roeder).