let's talk about abortion
in my last post, i noted the strangely undemocratic way that certain debates -such as abortion- get played out in the supreme court, thus creating the impression (if not the reality) that the lives of millions are in the hands of very few. upon further reflection, i am inclined to say that what is strange about the current situation is not just the undemocratic nature of the supreme court, but also the way in which the court has now become so politicized. as i understand it, the court's undemocratic nature is meant to work in tandem with it being above the fray of legislative politics; its unique power is meant to be balanced by a unique objectivity and a unique disinterest. what is odd about the current situation, however, is that supreme court appointees seem increasingly to be treated as political players, and thus the court gets drawn into the political fray, while still retaining its undemocratic powers. it is at this point that the situation seems odd: after all, if there is debate and disagreement over issues, then let's debate and disagree and vote and make laws, rather than spend so much of our energies to acheive our ends in a back-door way by trying to get our people onto the court.
and the point here is not that the court hasn't and won't do good things, or that the δεμος is especially reliable. rather, the point is about the way in which we believe that decisions ought to be made in a democracy, and how the mode (not just the result) of the decisions does (or does not) reflect our self-understanding and commitments as a democracy (or, democratic republic if you prefer). perhaps this will seem naive and 'un-political' to many, but i am unsure about the end-justifies-the-means reasoning that seems to be accepted by many people of good will with respect to the court.
that said, i also suggest that those of us who believe that abortion is wrong have special reasons to avoid a situation in which the supreme court distracts us from a broader discussion of abortion. the core of those reasons is this: 1) we (pro-lifers) are chiefly interested in women not having abortions, and in not doing so for the right reasons. 2) we do not need a supreme court decision for this to happen, and it is not even clear what impact a supreme court decision would have in this regard. 3) we have the best arguments in the debate; our is the position with the clearest and most compelling reasons.
what follows from these points is that we who oppose abortion ought to resist anything that will table an actual discussion of the practice and morality of abortion, even if that thing is a discussion of abortion and the courts. we ought to try to get people to talk about abortion, to consider the nature of the situation, to examine critically the positions of both sides. and we ought to do this with the hope that, eventually, our position will win acceptance among many people, including many women who might otherwise have decided to have an abortion. we ought always to remember that our goal is not a supreme court decision, but a sea-change in people's thinking and attitudes about abortion -just as our country has had not only a series of political decisions about race, but a phenomenal shift in mindset and orientation (not to say, of course, that this shift is perfect or complete).
one organization that seems to be engaging in just the sort of debate i am commending is feminists for life.
of course, if our actual goal is to reduce the number of abortions, and to do so for the right reasons, what is needed is not only debate but action on a number of fronts -e.g. providing financial support for pregnant women without means to support a child, offering flexible schedules and childcare so that women will not have to choose between a child and a career, etc. in this post i have focused on the importance of debate and discussion as something of unique value for the issue of abortion, but not of exclusive value, and certainly not at the exclusion of other pro-life activities (which, of course, may well form a type of argument in their own way)
and the point here is not that the court hasn't and won't do good things, or that the δεμος is especially reliable. rather, the point is about the way in which we believe that decisions ought to be made in a democracy, and how the mode (not just the result) of the decisions does (or does not) reflect our self-understanding and commitments as a democracy (or, democratic republic if you prefer). perhaps this will seem naive and 'un-political' to many, but i am unsure about the end-justifies-the-means reasoning that seems to be accepted by many people of good will with respect to the court.
that said, i also suggest that those of us who believe that abortion is wrong have special reasons to avoid a situation in which the supreme court distracts us from a broader discussion of abortion. the core of those reasons is this: 1) we (pro-lifers) are chiefly interested in women not having abortions, and in not doing so for the right reasons. 2) we do not need a supreme court decision for this to happen, and it is not even clear what impact a supreme court decision would have in this regard. 3) we have the best arguments in the debate; our is the position with the clearest and most compelling reasons.
what follows from these points is that we who oppose abortion ought to resist anything that will table an actual discussion of the practice and morality of abortion, even if that thing is a discussion of abortion and the courts. we ought to try to get people to talk about abortion, to consider the nature of the situation, to examine critically the positions of both sides. and we ought to do this with the hope that, eventually, our position will win acceptance among many people, including many women who might otherwise have decided to have an abortion. we ought always to remember that our goal is not a supreme court decision, but a sea-change in people's thinking and attitudes about abortion -just as our country has had not only a series of political decisions about race, but a phenomenal shift in mindset and orientation (not to say, of course, that this shift is perfect or complete).
one organization that seems to be engaging in just the sort of debate i am commending is feminists for life.
of course, if our actual goal is to reduce the number of abortions, and to do so for the right reasons, what is needed is not only debate but action on a number of fronts -e.g. providing financial support for pregnant women without means to support a child, offering flexible schedules and childcare so that women will not have to choose between a child and a career, etc. in this post i have focused on the importance of debate and discussion as something of unique value for the issue of abortion, but not of exclusive value, and certainly not at the exclusion of other pro-life activities (which, of course, may well form a type of argument in their own way)
posted by micah at 1:38 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hey joel. thanks for your thoughtful post.
from what you've said, i suspect that we probably have divergent views on what counts as a 'public argument' or a 'pubic reason' for doing something.
leaving that aside, however, i think perhaps you've under-estimated the nature of pro-life arguments. as i see it, the pro-life position need not be grounded in any religious view, and certainly not grounded in the religious views of a particular sect. moreover, i see no reason that a point about precisely when human life begins (e.g. at conception) need be the cornerstone of any pro-life position. in fact, to start with a question about conception or when life begins seems misguided to me. such a question is pretty difficult to answer, and its hard for many of us to find the concepts to even begin answering the question. rather, i think we should begin from the clearer cases, and we should frame our discussion using our most helpful terms moral concepts -in particular concepts connected to what it means to live a distinctly human life, what are the distinctly human needs and capacities, and what it means to live a human life well. that is, we should resist any attempt to think about abortion that doesn't place a discussion of virtues and vices front and center.
this is not to say, of course, that religion can't or shouldn't enter the abortion debate. only that it need not for the pro-life position to be presented in a cogently and compelling way.
as far as your points about the history abortion jurisprudence, i don't think i won't to argue (or agree) with how you tell the story. the key point, i think, is to see that it is impossible to evaluate the supreme court's decisions apart from a taking a stand on the substantive issues at the heart of the abortion. of course i disagree with pro-choicers about that, and so i'm going to disagree with a pro-choice decision such as roe or casey. to see this, just imagine that the abortion decisions were about child abuse, and it becomes pretty clear that the talk of 'privacy' or 'due process' or women's liberty is entirely misguided and out of place. and if the pro-lifer is right, the comparison to child abuse is apt.
also, i suppose that i'm just more optimistic than you are about the possibility of a massive change in public opinion. after all, it seems to have happened with people's views about slavery or the right's of women, so i don't see why we can't also expand our best moral impulses to include the unborn among us. i imagine that 18th century abolitionists, or 19th century feminists, were also told that the shift they hoped for would never happen. but now we are so thankful that they didn't give up hope.
Here's an article that strikes me as especially pertient to the conversation at hand on this blog: Gambling with Abortion: Why Both Sides Think They Have Everything to Lose by Cynthia Gorney (http://harpers.org/GamblingWithAbortion.html originally printed in the November 2004 issue of Harper's). It includes a survey of how the recent national conversation about abortion has been shaped by special interest groups and the courts. I'm only about a quarter way through the ink and paper version of the article, but I thought I'd recommend it to those out there interested in delving further into this topic.
Post a Comment
<< Home