Overwhelmed by healthcare and the Gates fiasco, breaking news in the abortion debate went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media last week. For the third straight Congress, though, Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro introduced new abortion legislation that would, among other proposals, improve access to contraceptives and finance comprehensive sex-ed programs.
The bill’s first component, sloppily categorized as “prevention,” would increase funding for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, a government program that provides contraceptives and other reproductive health services (excluding abortion) to low-income women. Another proposal would establish a grant competition for “high-achieving” states whose performance in decreasing unintended pregnancy exceeds a national benchmark to be set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a whole, this portion of the bill targets the systemic factors often leading to abortion—factors like ignorance and irresponsibility regarding sexual activity and parenthood, the absence of involved parents, and the inaccessibility of contraceptives.
Part two of the bill—the “support” section—would provide financial, medical and other support for new mothers and women who, without such resources, would be more likely to receive an abortion. It would drastically expand access to food stamps and would allow states to expand Medicaid’s coverage for low-income mothers and their children. It would increase the adoption tax credit by $5,000, improve access to ultrasounds, and subsidize educational institutions that financially support pregnant students. As opposed to the bill’s first half, which adopts a structural, preventive approach, part two employs a more last-ditch effort to dissuade a woman from receiving an abortion.
In designing the legislation, DeLauro said the intention was to “broker a détente” and “turn down the volume on the culture war.” Such comments illuminate the critical political context underpinning the Ryan-DeLauro legislation. For one thing, a similar bill has died in committee without a single Republican co-sponsor for the past two Congressional sessions. If the bill is to have any chance of survival, it needs support from conservative moderates who have rejected similar Democratic overtures in the past. Secondly, Congress is working with a President who sees the abortion debate in less absolutist, zero-sum terms than his predecessor, pushing instead for a more conciliatory legislative agenda on the issue. Republicans who oppose the bill will therefore run the risk of being labeled ideologues and obstructionists, despite the historically partisan nature of the bill.
Not surprisingly, this hasn’t kept fundamentalist Christian organizations from slamming the bill’s support of Planned Parenthood and its promotion of comprehensive sex-ed programs and contraceptives. At the same time, however, the bill has already earned the support of some moderate conservatives like pro-life evangelical Rev. Joel Hunter, who serves on the White House Faith Based Advisory Council and hailed the legislation as a “landmark bill for the culture wars.” The legislation’s growing bloc of moderate support would indicate that by targeting unintended pregnancies, the bill’s authors have largely bypassed the moral complexities of the abortion procedure itself.
The bill’s logic is not above reproof, however. There is an important distinction, after all, between actually eliminating the underlying cause of abortion in the long-run and merely reducing the number of abortions in the short-run. Measures that target promiscuity, irresponsibility, ignorance, and the inaccessibility of contraceptives will achieve the former aim; spending money to prevent abortion after a woman is pregnant, however, will only achieve the latter. If legislators rely too heavily on this last approach, they neglect the underlying conditions that lead to unintended pregnancy and abortion. Perhaps it is even the case that by mitigating the burden of irresponsible decisions with the hope of reducing abortion—as the bill’s “support” component does—the government unintentionally subsidizes the culture that fosters unintended pregnancies in the first place.
Of course, a bill that uses federal dollars exclusively to fight unintended pregnancy at the expense of those already hurt by poor decisions and an oversexed culture would never get passed. And neither should it, for the culture that has spawned rampant promiscuity and irresponsibility must be dealt with patiently and incrementally. But as the government’s labors to prevent unintended pregnancy begin to bear fruit, legislators must begin replacing short-term solutions that cultivate dependence on government with more long-term programs attacking the cultural structure at the root of the problem.
20 responses so far
1 joemarier // Jul 27, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It’s not just fundamentalist Christian organizations, unless you think Catholics are fundamentalists.
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/07/usccb-official-slams-ryan-delauro.html
2 SFTor1 // Jul 27, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Catholics do fundamentalism just fine. They cry quite loudly about abortion, but once you bring on the alternatives they are against that too.
Opposition to birth control? Come on. This is Taliban stuff.
3 barker13 // Jul 28, 2009 at 7:43 am
“…increase funding…”
Amazing, isn’t it? (*SNORT*)
“…establish a grant competition…”
Grants. (*SHRUG*) (You can’t make this stuff up, folks…)
“…provide financial, medical and other support…”
I seem to detect a theme here. (*SMIRK*)
“…drastically expand access to food stamps…”
Yep. It’s a theme alright.
“…expand Medicaid’s coverage…”
(I’m not taking anything out of context am I?) (*SHRUG*)
“…increase the adoption tax credit by $5,000…”
(*SIGH*) The problem is that we have a system that sends Americans OVERSEAS to adopt FOREIGN children because the LAWS make it almost impossible to adopt an AMERICAN child here.
I know. I have not one, but TWO friends who have adopted Russian children. Believe me, they didn’t spend tens of thousands of dollars just on airfares, visas, hotels, car services, translators, etc. because they couldn’t think of any other uses for the money.
My God… the inmates are running the asylum. (Washington DC and New Majority!)
May God have mercy upon our children and grandchildren. Remember that episode of the Soprano’s where Tony and the boys took over Tony’s neighbor’s sporting goods store and deliberately bankrupted it? Well… look to Washington… look to state capitals like Albany…
(*SIGH*)
BILL
4 sinz54 // Jul 28, 2009 at 9:39 am
sftor1: Kathryn Jean Lopez, now editor of the National Review, opposes birth control because she says it removes unwanted pregnancy as a major deterrent to premarital sex:
“The pill, by breaking the link between sex and reproduction, also broke the link between sex and marriage in the minds of many young Americans, including Amanda’s mother and, later, Amanda herself. The sexual revolution was officially on.”
“Not only has birth control torn apart traditional notions of family life, but it has taken a personal toll on young women…, who learn the hard way that when sex is readily available, people have a hard time making romantic commitments.”
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/klopez/05358.html
Ms. Lopez isn’t just about to prevent pregnancies. She’s out to restore the value of chastity among single women. As she put it, the real goal of social conservatives should not be to just reduce the number of pregnancies, but to reduce the amount of sex that unmarried people are having.
5 Cforchange // Jul 28, 2009 at 9:51 am
No Bill what you miss that the entire issue is not one of a conservative matter. The pro life movement has hijacked this conservative tag and that’s truely where the Rhino dispute begins. For many reasons delving into reproductive issues violates classic conservative principals.
I agree foreign adoption should discouraged by simplifying our processes. I know of a case where a set of Peruvian twins have been dumped on NYS because they are frighteningly schizophrenic. So not only did the “parents” dump alot of money outside our economy, now the taxpayers are on the hook for very expensive citizen care.
6 joemarier // Jul 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
And Planned Parenthood’s goal is to increase the amount of sex that unmarried people, including minors, are having (have you ever seen Teenwire?). And to elect Democrats, by the way: I got all kind of pro-Obama stuff from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year.
Which is why trying to find common ground is silly. The status quo IS the common ground; both sides are trying to move us off the common ground to someplace else.
7 joemarier // Jul 28, 2009 at 10:56 am
Taliban stuff, you say? Never heard that one before. Grow up.
8 Cforchange // Jul 28, 2009 at 11:21 am
Taliban really is not a silly anology.
I have a question, are blacks involved with the Pro Life movement?
9 joemarier // Jul 28, 2009 at 11:23 am
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveda_King
10 barker13 // Jul 28, 2009 at 11:31 am
Re: Cforchange // Jul 28, 2009 at 9:51 am –
“No, Bill, what you miss is that the entire issue is not one of a conservative matter.”
CfC – if I’m following you… (*PURSED LIPS*)… you seem to be criticizing where I place my focus. Is that correct…???
Sorry… but I’ll stick to my previously made points.
If you want to focus on trying to make the case that abortion on demand is a bedrock of “true” conservative belief… (*SHRUG*)… good luck to you.
BILL
11 balconesfault // Jul 28, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“Another proposal would establish a grant competition for “high-achieving” states whose performance in decreasing unintended pregnancy exceeds a national benchmark to be set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. ”
Big surprise – this would end up being primarily a handout to Blue States.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/TeenPregStates.htm
12 Famous Amos // Jul 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
First, we must back off the troubling and troubled assumption that people who are pro choice are pro-having-sex-with-as-many-people-as-possible-without-considering-the-consequences. This is a false dichotomy. Recognizing the incredibly physical, emotional, psychological and social burden of childraising, those in the pro-choice camp may feel that, until both culpable parties are held accountable, women should not have to wear the scarlet letter in our culture.
Second, do a little reading into Red Sex Blue Sex and articles and books like it–the facts are there: states that promote comprehensive sex education and don’t beat children over the head with the Bible about sexuality have STAGGERINGLY lower rates of STIs and unwanted pregnancies, particularly among teenagers. Working on cultural change is a long-range effort (particularly if you want to pretend we’re going back to 1950 in terms of sexual mores), but this bill is an important step in stopping the hemmoraging of $$ to support largely conservative states and their quest to pretend abstinence-only messages work.
Third, the majority of Americans support reducing abortion, as they should. No one believes abortion should be birth control and that we should all be having them like we get manicures or something. However, the far right (Kathryn Jean Lopez and the psycho drum beaters) needs to acknolwedge that the left is trying to meet them part-way, and attempt not to plug their ears and put on their science-blinders when presented with overwhelming evidence in favor of strategies to reduce abortion like comprehensive sex education and access to contraception.
13 MSheridan // Jul 29, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I believe I understand the irreconcilable nature of the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate–it comes down to whether people believe a foetus is fully human from the point of conception or not, something not subject to logical analysis but a matter of faith, religious or otherwise. But the pro- and anti-contraception debate baffles me, as I cannot understand the anti-contraception arguments at all.
I almost could understand why some anti-abortion advocates oppose funding for contraception, if they were consistent. Some few forms of contraception do depend on preventing implantation in the uterine wall of the fertilized egg rather than the prevention of fertilization, so they could conceivably be considered equivalent to abortion. However, this is not true of all forms of contraception and I have not seen any distinction made between types of contraception. Only Catholics, so far as I know, have a blanket opposition to all forms of contraception (aside from the rhythm method) that is based on religious faith–an opposition I don’t share but that at least is explicitly embedded in their doctrine.
Abstinence-only education absolutely DOES NOT WORK. It could hardly be clearer. States and schools depending upon abstinence-only sex ed have higher rates of teen pregnancy than those that don’t. Theoretically, conservatives oppose government programs that don’t work and cost a lot of money. I know many conservatives also oppose the idea of single-parent families, but we know that single motherhood (as well as abortion) is a common result of unintentional teen pregnancy. In addition, the argument that access to or education about contraception will make teens more likely to have sex seems to me rather like arguing that gun safety classes make hunters more likely to fire their weapons. At some point in their lives, almost all people will engage in sexual relations. Bizarrely, people who oppose contraception seem to want them to do so in the way most likely to be dangerous to themselves, to society at large, and to the potential children of those unions.
14 torourke // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:34 am
Christian,
“In designing the legislation, DeLauro said the intention was to “broker a détente” and “turn down the volume on the culture war.” Such comments illuminate the critical political context underpinning the Ryan-DeLauro legislation. For one thing, a similar bill has died in committee without a single Republican co-sponsor for the past two Congressional sessions. If the bill is to have any chance of survival, it needs support from conservative moderates who have rejected similar Democratic overtures in the past. Secondly, Congress is working with a President who sees the abortion debate in less absolutist, zero-sum terms than his predecessor, pushing instead for a more conciliatory legislative agenda on the issue. Republicans who oppose the bill will therefore run the risk of being labeled ideologues and obstructionists, despite the historically partisan nature of the bill.”
There are a lot of problems with this paragraph. First of all, you are completely ignoring the context of this legislation. The health care bill working its way through Congress includes tax-payer funding for abortion, a provision which would effectively overturn the Hyde Amendment, and lead to more abortions. Heck, even pro-choice organizations admit that tax-payer funding for abortion would increase the abortion rate. Isn’t this a critical part of the political context, much more so than a recycled bill that may or may not reduce abortions, but will certainly increase subsidies to liberal social welfare groups?
And given that Obama supports such tax-payer funding for abortions, doesn’t this call into question how serious he is about actually reducing the abortion rate? You seem to have accepted his pitch about what a reasonable guy he is on this issue, looking for common ground and all. Much more so than that bull-headed President Bush! But why won’t Obama state clearly that he won’t sign a bill that includes tax-payer funding for abortion? Again, even pro-choice groups acknowledge that such funding would increase the abortion rate. Furthermore, how a guy like President Obama, who thinks there is a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion, who repeatedly voted against the Illinois BAIPA legislation while a state senator, who supports tax-payer funding for abortion, strikes you as less absolutist on this issue than President Bush requires quite a bit of creative thinking.
15 torourke // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:10 am
MSheridan,
“I believe I understand the irreconcilable nature of the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate–it comes down to whether people believe a foetus is fully human from the point of conception or not, something not subject to logical analysis but a matter of faith, religious or otherwise. But the pro- and anti-contraception debate baffles me, as I cannot understand the anti-contraception arguments at all.”
Actually, the question of whether a human fetus is an actual human being is a question of science, and given that embryologists all agree that fertilization marks the beginning of a distinct member of the human species, then it would appear that those who disagree are the ones who are discarding the scientific consensus due to something else–ignorance or just plain stubbornness. The question of whether a human fetus is a human person with rights is one of philosophy. People of faith or no faith can and do come down on both sides of this question. Personally, I find the arguments that there are human beings that do not qualify as human persons bordering on the irrational.
Furthermore, pro-choicers frequently paint paint pro-lifers as opposed to contraception, when in fact in the realm of public policy, they are opposed to the government funding of contraception and comprehensive sexual education. I don’t see legislators trying to ban condoms or anything. What makes this whole debate surreal is that pro-choicers who go this route act as if contraception is really hard to obtain or prohibitively expensive, especially because of those nasty pro-lifers. In reality, contraception is not that hard to get.
William Saletan wrote an article not long ago where he quoted from an Alan Guttmacher study taken years ago asking women who had abortions why they didn’t use contraception to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Only ten percent responded that they didn’t have the money or didn’t have access. The rest said that they forgot, or didn’t think they would need it, or hadn’t planned on having sex, or their partners objected, and so on. And yet to hear pro-choicers, the abortion rate would drop dramatically if it weren’t for pro-lifers objecting to throwing more money at various social welfare agencies. How on Earth is some sort of government program going to convince these women that, hey maybe you will have sex this month, so maybe you should use contraception?!? Furthermore, nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have already had one before. What is a woman going to learn in some government workshop that she didn’t learn in her previous experience of an unwanted pregnancy?
That’s why much of this debate is so dishonest. If you are really serious about lowering the abortion rate, at some point you are going to have stop pretending that there is a constitutional right to the procedure at every stage of the pregnancy. Arguing that of course abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy is a right that is on par with freedom of speech, but we would be well on our way to reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions if it weren’t for those blasted pro-lifers blocking comprehensive sex education simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
16 MSheridan // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm
torourke, we have some differences in opinion, although possibly not so many as you think. Addressing some of your points in order:
“Actually, the question of whether a human fetus is an actual human being is a question of science, and given that embryologists all agree that fertilization marks the beginning of a distinct member of the human species, then it would appear that those who disagree are the ones who are discarding the scientific consensus due to something else–ignorance or just plain stubbornness. ” I would agree that “fertilization marks the beginning of a distinct member of the human species.” I think the beginning of a process (pregnancy) is not at all the same thing as the middle, or the end point (a baby). I think many people who are pro-choice agree with me, which is why opposition to late-term abortion is much more common than opposition to morning after pills.
“Furthermore, pro-choicers frequently paint paint pro-lifers as opposed to contraception, when in fact in the realm of public policy, they are opposed to the government funding of contraception and comprehensive sexual education. I don’t see legislators trying to ban condoms or anything. ” I don’t think, or assert, that all people who are anti-abortion are anti-contraception. Neither does the author of this post. He was speaking of a minority of anti-abortion advocates who dominate their side of the debate. I cannot recall ever having seen a measure attempting to ban condoms, but I know I’ve seen instances of foreign aid legislation killed specifically because they contained funding for condom distribution, as well as at least one instance of sex ed education funding killed because it addressed how to use funding.
As for the constitutional right thing you’ve mentioned, I’ll be very honest. I haven’t read the legal reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision (or behind very many other SCOTUS decisions, for that matter) and thus do not know whether I would agree with the the majority in that case, although I’m certainly not discounting the possibility that I might. However, I do not base my personal views on abortion on the Constitution or the rights contained or said to be contained within it. I hate the very idea of abortion, actually, and would do everything in my power to convince a woman I had impregnated to carry my child to term, even if she didn’t wish to care for it herself. I do not consider myself anti-baby–I have 4 adopted siblings, several adopted cousins, and hope to adopt at least once someday myself. As a man, though, I feel decidedly uneasy about laws forcing women to bear children they don’t want (that in some cases might even have been forced on them). I don’t think my views in this matter rest upon a solid enough foundation that I can confidently call them absolute truth, valid for all people in all circumstances. I tend to suspect people who do have absolute certainty. I know our current President has repeatedly said he would support the right of states to pass laws restricting third trimester pregnancies (a tiny minority of abortions in any case), so long as exceptions for the safety of the mother were built in. I think that is reasonable.
Although, as I said, I have no desire to be part of an abortion myself, my personal view is that abortions should be legal before the point the foetus in question would be viable outside the womb because that is the point I consider reasonable for marking the beginning of full humanity (in a legal sense) and also in cases in which the mother’s life is genuinely at risk or the foetus has been determined to be anencephalic. But again, that’s my personal view, not one I feel comfortable imposing on others.
Finally, I never said, nor would say, that we could eliminate all unwanted pregnancies and abortions if we had comprehensive sex ed. However, I did say that the evidence clearly shows we’d have fewer, and I think that should be a good thing from anyone’s point of view.
17 MSheridan // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Typo above–should have read, “as well as at least one instance of sex ed education funding killed because it addressed how to use condoms.”
18 torourke // Jul 31, 2009 at 9:53 am
MSheridan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’ll respond in order:
“I think the beginning of a process (pregnancy) is not at all the same thing as the middle, or the end point (a baby). I think many people who are pro-choice agree with me, which is why opposition to late-term abortion is much more common than opposition to morning after pills.”
Fair enough, but here is something to consider. You agree that abortion kills a living human being that for many has not achieved the status of personhood. But why would you exclude an entire category of living human beings from the status of personhood and thus any legal protection at all? We no longer rule living human beings outside the realm of personhood because of arbitrary criteria such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, so why should age, size, ability to immediately exercise the innate ability to reason, ability to survive outside the womb, etc. be impediments to legal protection? Why can’t we give all living human beings legal protection? Those who argue that certain living human beings are outside the realm of legal protection cannot seriously claim to believe in human equality.
” I tend to suspect people who do have absolute certainty. I know our current President has repeatedly said he would support the right of states to pass laws restricting third trimester pregnancies (a tiny minority of abortions in any case), so long as exceptions for the safety of the mother were built in. I think that is reasonable.”
If you really do suspect people who have absolute certainty, then you should be advocating for an overturning of Roe. Here we have seven unelected judges, followed by five unelected judges in Casey, stating that the right to obtain an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy and for any reason, is a Constitutional right. There can be no democratic debate on the issue. It is settled once and for all, and the nearly half of the American people who would like to see more restrictions on the practice are not just wrong, they are in fact un-American in opposing something such as a fundamental as a Constitutional right to abortion. This is the abortion license of the last thirty-six years, and one that with the possible exception of Canada, is the most extreme in its permissiveness out of any developed nation on Earth. No country in Europe allows what we allow, for the basic reason that their laws were settled democratically, and ours by judicial fiat.
It’s also important to note that several highly-regarded liberal legal theorists–who are personally pro-choice–have admitted the Roe was a horribly-flawed case. Laurence Tribe, Walter Dellinger, John Hart Ely, Benjamin Wittes, Edward Lazarus–all pro-choicers, and every one of them has written as to the terrible opinion that was Roe. Lazarus clerked for Justice Blackmun, and later wrote in 2002, that: “as a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on indefensible…Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms. Instead…the friends of Roe seek to find other constitutional bases to defend its outcome.” Keep in mind that Lazarus was thrilled with the abortion license created by the ruling–he called it the “Emancipation Proclamation for women.” But even he recognizes that the opinion was simply terrible.
Furthermore, President Obama is firmly committed to Roe and its abortion-on-demand license (and its lesser known sister Doe vs. Bolton). Obama quickly backtracked on that statement you mentioned, saying that he would only support restrictions on third-trimester abortion if there were health exceptions for the mother, knowing full well that the health-exceptions end up swallowing any sort of restrictions in the first place.
“Although, as I said, I have no desire to be part of an abortion myself, my personal view is that abortions should be legal before the point the foetus in question would be viable outside the womb because that is the point I consider reasonable for marking the beginning of full humanity (in a legal sense) and also in cases in which the mother’s life is genuinely at risk or the foetus has been determined to be anencephalic. But again, that’s my personal view, not one I feel comfortable imposing on others.”
Fair enough, but for the last thirty-six years, we have had the pro-choicers imposing their metaphyscial beliefs on the entire country through Roe. Why can’t we stop pretending that there is a constitutional right to abortion-on-demand and let people settle this issue democratically? Bluer states would allow most abortions, while redder states would restrict most abortions while probably allowing women who became pregnant via rape or incest to abort in the first trimester and possibly beyond. That would be the real way to find common ground, and it would do more to reduce the tension of the culture war. Europe doesn’t have the sort of tension on this issue that we do, because their laws were settled democratically. Imagine that!
“Finally, I never said, nor would say, that we could eliminate all unwanted pregnancies and abortions if we had comprehensive sex ed. However, I did say that the evidence clearly shows we’d have fewer, and I think that should be a good thing from anyone’s point of view.”
I haven’t seen this evidence. The evidence I have seen shows that comprehensive sexual education, like abstinence education, makes no difference in the sexual behavior of teens and has any appreciable impact on unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates. Please provide it and I’ll consider it. Thanks.
19 MSheridan // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:46 pm
torourke: “You agree that abortion kills a living human being that for many has not achieved the status of personhood. But why would you exclude an entire category of living human beings from the status of personhood and thus any legal protection at all? We no longer rule living human beings outside the realm of personhood because of arbitrary criteria such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, so why should age, size, ability to immediately exercise the innate ability to reason, ability to survive outside the womb, etc. be impediments to legal protection? Why can’t we give all living human beings legal protection? Those who argue that certain living human beings are outside the realm of legal protection cannot seriously claim to believe in human equality.”
To steal a phrase, “let me be clear.” I did agree that “fertilization marks the beginning of a distinct member of the human species” and I’m not backing away from that statement. I do not classify that beginning stage of the human organism as a human being, however, because at least initially I believe it is human only in its genes and potentiality, rather as a sprouted acorn is an oak tree only genetically and in potentia. I don’t think most other people do, either–if we considered them fully human, then the tragedy of miscarriages (something I sadly DO have personal experience with) would be compounded manyfold. An estimated 35% of pregancies end in a miscarriage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage) We do not prosecute mothers (so far as I know) for risky behavior during their pregnancies, although that behavior often affects their pregnancies, not only causing some to end but frequently harming children whose pregnancies were brought to term in ways that can be permanent. Incidentally, because I do love kids and have two siblings who have been so harmed, if I thought legislation would actually diminish this type of behavior I might well support it. I consider it a greater sin to deliberately commit acts that could result in a child being born with grievous and avoidable damage that child will then have to live with for the rest of his or her life than to abort a pregnancy before it reaches a viable stage.
Once “human being” status is granted, then I agree nothing whatsoever should mitigate or remove the legal or ethical rights such status should confer. That is why I try to respect the views of most anti-abortion advocates–I recognize that the only thing that separates them from me on abortion is a small difference of opinion on when that human status should be granted. I believe my opinions are valid, but so do they of theirs and if I accepted their starting premise, I would be one of them. I realize the two of us are not almost certainly not going to agree on this matter, however.
As to the efficacy of sex ed programs, there is lots and lots of stuff online, but here are a few links:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1403498
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/901590/study_abstinence_classes_dont_stop_sex/index.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3813424 (abstract only, unfortunately)
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0S0kAahwrgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false (see section starting on p.83)
20 torourke // Aug 2, 2009 at 9:51 am
MSheridan,
We seem to have fallen off of the main page, but no matter.
“To steal a phrase, “let me be clear.” I did agree that “fertilization marks the beginning of a distinct member of the human species” and I’m not backing away from that statement. I do not classify that beginning stage of the human organism as a human being, however, because at least initially I believe it is human only in its genes and potentiality, rather as a sprouted acorn is an oak tree only genetically and in potentia.”
This is partly a semantic issue. You prefer the distinction between human organism vs. human being whereas I would classify it as human being vs. human person. Either way embryology shows that even at the embryonic stage, a human being possesses its own genetic template, which enables the embryo to direct its own growth through the embryonic stage into the fetal stage, where the brain develops, and then beyond. A human embryo is simply a human being at the embryonic stage of development, or in other words, a very tiny human being. So my question still stands, why should size be a criterion by which we measure a human being’s status as a person with rights? Do really tall people have a stronger claim on a right to be not be killed than midgets?
“I don’t think most other people do, either–if we considered them fully human, then the tragedy of miscarriages (something I sadly DO have personal experience with) would be compounded manyfold.”
I’m sorry to hear about your personal experience, but I think your example cuts against your argument. People grieve quite a bit about their miscarriages–my older siblings did. If what was miscarried was not a human being at the earliest stages, but only a potential human being, then I submit that there would not be much grief at all. Of course grief by itself can hardly be a criterion in terms of how we weigh a person’s dignity. After all, we may not grieve as much about a elderly person who has passed away after a long bout with cancer as we would over a teenager killed tragically in a car accident, but that would not mean that the elderly person dying of cancer was less of person with fewer rights than the teenager.
” An estimated 35% of pregancies end in a miscarriage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage) We do not prosecute mothers (so far as I know) for risky behavior during their pregnancies, although that behavior often affects their pregnancies, not only causing some to end but frequently harming children whose pregnancies were brought to term in ways that can be permanent.”
But most miscarriages are natural occurrences, and surely you are not suggesting that because so many human beings are lost due to natural occurrences, then that would justify deliberately killing human beings in the womb. This would be a version of the naturalistic fallacy, and a moment’s reflection is enough to recognize the silliness of this argument. Elderly folks die of natural causes all the time, but that doesn’t make it okay to burn down nursing homes, and so on.
If the mother or father intentionally did something to harm the fetus, then they may be subjected to punishment. Scott Peterson is an obvious example, but I am not aware of the various state laws about possible punishment to women who abuse alcohol and drugs while pregnant and cause damage to their children.
“Once “human being” status is granted, then I agree nothing whatsoever should mitigate or remove the legal or ethical rights such status should confer. That is why I try to respect the views of most anti-abortion advocates–I recognize that the only thing that separates them from me on abortion is a small difference of opinion on when that human status should be granted. I believe my opinions are valid, but so do they of theirs and if I accepted their starting premise, I would be one of them. I realize the two of us are not almost certainly not going to agree on this matter, however.”
Maybe so, but it seems to me that if you respect the arguments of pro-lifers (and clearly you do), then you should be willing to let them contest them democratically the way this country did for the first 197 years of its existence. The last 36 years has seen one side ram its views down the throats of their opponents in an undemocratic way, and the results have not been pretty.
“As to the efficacy of sex ed programs, there is lots and lots of stuff online, but here are a few links:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1403498
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/901590/study_abstinence_classes_dont_stop_sex/index.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3813424 (abstract only, unfortunately)
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0S0kAahwrgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false (see section starting on p.83)”
Thanks for the links.
I didn’t find them all that persuasive. The second is about how abstinence education does not delay sex, and I agree. That’s why I think funding for abstinence education is a waste. But your other articles don’t do much to show that comprehensive sex education works where abstinence education doesn’t.
The first one says that only a few found any sort of correlation between sex education and delayed intercourse, but it includes lots of caveats about how they weren’t sure if the education was a cause itself. The third one was hard to make much of since it was only an abstract, but I was able to read that comprehensive sex education programs do not increase sexual activity. Okay, but where is the data that these programs lead to a decrease in sexual activity or fewer unwanted pregnancies?
The fourth one appears to be the same same as the third, and it mentions that only a fraction of the studies involved show that sexual education programs led to a reduction in unwanted pregnancies or delayed intercourse, and that the various programs had different standards and methodologies, making it difficult to draw any ironclad conclusions.
Here’s another article to consider:
ttp://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/
I am a high school teacher by trade (religion specifically), and while I would love to think that what I taught in the classroom was a significant factor in how my students lived their lives, I would be foolish to do so. At best, I can complement what is already going on at home. The idea that teenagers are going to take to heart and consistently apply what some instructor said, or at that this instruction is going to overcome broken homes or terrible parenting, is laughable. Students are much more influenced by what they get at home. And that’s why I think any kind of education program is going to produce marginal results, if they produce them at all.
Furthermore, there is evidence that Roe v. Wade, and the sexually permissive culture it helped to engender, has increased the STD rate by one third, and it has contributed to the explosion of out-of-wedlock births we have seen since the 1960’s. 70% of black children are illegitimate, and these kids are much more likely to have sex at an early age, have unwanted pregnancies, and undergo abortions. Indeed poor black women account for a disproportionate number of abortions. Roe v. Wade made it much harder for poor women to extract any kind of commitment like marriage from their sexual partners before sex. With abortion-on-demand readily available, huge numbers of irresponsible men have concluded that the pregnancy is not their problem, and thus abandon the women they impregnate. To me, Roe was like creating a right to rob banks, and then its supporters coming back and saying that we need government funded education programs to teach kids that stealing is not the way to go. When you are committed to a legal culture that sees abortion as a fundamental right, it is going to be very hard to try to convince that same culture that, hey you shouldn’t be doing what I think is a fundamental right.
You must log in to post a comment.