Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away...
Whoo hoo! Hello first post! I’ve been following the abortion ban bill in South Dakota the past few days with trepidation. If this passes, wait for a Supreme Court case about a year down the line that could roll back women’s rights in this country. Now, we’ve had somewhat of an abortion debate on this blog, so I generally know where most of you stand on this. Here’s my question: South Dakotans, and anti-abortionists everywhere, seem to firmly believe that if they outlaw abortion, this will stop it from happening, which will inevitably lead to a religious utopia where everyone has babies in wedlock and raise them with the right values. I’d like to think most of you realize that simply banning a procedure will not make it go away, nor will it do much to address the underlying societal issues that often lead to abortion. I feel this could also apply to a lot of things that have been outlawed within this country, most notably our sad War on Drugs that spends more time and money criminalizing certain drugs and the people who take them, rather than cutting off the demand where it starts, with helping the addicted person.
Anyway, here’s my question: Is there a vice or immoral act that it is more effective to combat by either banning it or criminalizing it, versus treating as a societal or economic problem? I'm sure there are, but I can't think of any outside of maybe kiddie porn. The two best examples I can think of for a 'no' argument are drug addiction and prostitution, but I’m sure there are others. Thoughts? posted by Kelly @ 11:14 AM
8 Comments:
Well, censorship comes to mind, if simply because it only occurs in morality-free situations, or one in which the perpetrator believes themselves to be morally superior anyway. Also, the peretrators are ones in a position of power, so the check must be legally mandated. Mind you, the pro-lifers look at their issue in a similar way as I look at censorship, i.e. 'the people who do this will never understand why they shouldn't, blah, blah, blah, the only thing to do is make it illegal..." But I wonder how much the South Dakotans are intent on stopping the practice, and much they simply want the ability to punish those who practice it.
I think you're completely missing the point as to why government bans certain practices. It isn't always the result of some illusory optimism that the offending practice will cease, rather it is often a declaration of where society (according to the legislature) stands on an issue. Nobody really codifies speed limits or homicide statutes with the assumption that speeding and murder will be eliminated (although maybe that'd be great). Rather it makes official the intent that society (government) will not tolerate the offending practice.
FWIW, I believe that abortion bans should only be coupled with comprehensive protections for mothers, and you're right, its banning doesn't address the underlying reasons for it (which should also be addressed). However, as the underlying reasons are amazingly complicated and will never be completely eradicated (come on utopia!), there is no reason why society should tolerate a (to them) morally offensive practice while they wait for those underlying reasons to be solved.
Like it or not, the legislature in South Dakota was elected by its people, and can be assumed to be an extension of their voice (especially in South Dakota!)
B
I do understand that people make laws knowing that that alone won't make it go away. This is why they have governmental deterrents in place - for violent crime, they have police patroling, they remind average people to lock their doors and don't get in cars with strangers, and have social workers monitor families for potential problems (unforunately not very well). What interests me here and has always interested me about those who are anti-abortion is what deterrents they would put in place to negate people wanting to break the law to get an abortion. Your average citizen is one thing; they're generally more worried about the principle than the actual policing of a law. Government, however, needs to (or should) consider the realities and the side affects of a law before they put it in place. A juvenile hall for delinquent scared teenage girls I don't think would work very well. I'm curious if South Dakota will do anything in addition to their ban to prove how 'pro-life' they are. Build more shelters for young mothers? Give universal health care to pregnant women without insurance?
Also, the issue of abortion for me plays on several other societal woes (I keep harping on drug addiction because I really do think they're similar), in that I feel it's a symptom of a problem in society, and we'd be much more affective in achieving fewer abortions in this country if we'd fix the problems itself instead of just a symptom (by problems I mean poverty, lack of good birth control, and extremely bad sex education in many areas, just to name a few).
Anyway, you're right about why people pass laws. It's just as a realist it irks me that things could be solved much more practically if politicians didn't always let emotion or morals (or trying to score political points) dictate what they do. It also irks me that a decision by the legislature of freakin' South Dakota is going to lead to an inevitable court case that could affect my life directly.
First off, welcome to Habeus Dorkus and "B". It is always exciting to get new voices on Optimates and I hope both of you continue to add your insight and arguments to our discussions.
Kelly, as a resident of New York for the foreseeable future, you are in little danger of a court case that will affect you directly with respect to abortion. Abortion is and almost certainly will remain legal in New York, regardless of whether or not the S. Dakota law sets off a series of events leading to an overturn of Roe. v Wade (which is what I assume you are predicting)
As for the more general question, I think Kelly's frustrations illustrate the difficulty of assessing complex societal problems like abortion or drug abuse (although I think drugs are less tricky in an imporatnt way). The problem is that it is very difficult to make policy concerning one aspect of such a problem without also knowing what the reality and legislation is concerning its other aspects. For example, deciding the restrictiveness of abortion laws is difficult if you don't have a handle on who is having abortions, why they are having them, how effective sexual education programs have been etc. One of the problems that Kelly pointed out is that the same people advocating restrictive abortion laws are also opposing better contraception and sexual education programs.
Even when we can look at many aspects of a given issue like abortion, it is still very difficult to strike the right balance between understanding and mitigating the social factors that contribute to the problem and holding individuals accountable for their actions whatever their unfortunate situation. As Galenblade points out, there is a danger of robbing people of their agency, legally speaking, and therefore of their responsibility for their actions.
I mentioned that drugs were a simpler matter because I feel as the central "crime", ie screwing up one's body/mind with substance abuse is something that can be partially, and meaningfully isolated from some of the other negative criminal externalities that often go along with it (drunk driving, theft, murder etc). If someone wants to hurt themselves, then we can by all means try and help them (most doctors agree that drug abuse is best dealt with as a medical problem) while still sanctioning (and punishing) criminal activities that arise as a result of their abuse. Locking people up for smoking weed, or doing coke for that matter, is pointless. Selling is another matter, as is killing 3 people because you were coked up and driving. But with abortion, the act itself cannot be separated from the crime. To some it is murder and therefore clearly deserves sanction and punishment, to others, it is a medical decision and should be between the woman and the doctor. The problem is that its not an issue that can be decided by further evidence (as, say, our ideas about drug abuse might be changed by comprehensive studies into the effectiveness of trial decriminalization and medical drug abuse counseling).
People on the pro-choice side are not pro-abortion. No one likes abortions. But, and I think this might be Kelly's point, holding an absolute position where abortion cannot be anything but murder limits your ability to approach the problem in as practical and as effective a fashion as can one who is willing to concede that abortions might be the right thing in certain cases. In other words, both sides have the same goal: fewer abortions. But the argument is that by concluding that all abortion should be illegal, you might actually be hobbling progress towards that shared goal.
Another thing worth mentioning from my childhood with the pro-lifers of Houston and Oklahoma - and it's a fairly divisive issue there, as well - is the more-vocal-than-you-might-think reasoning that the pregnancy is punishment for having sex, and that abortion is a ghastly way of trying to avoid God's judgment. I know that little will change the overriding "sex-is-evil" puritanism that pervades American culture, but as long as the sex is consensual (and as far as I'm concerned, when it's not, it's better described as assault) I don't think that religion-based morality should have any place in the law.
Now, of course, the Supreme Court Justices won't judiciate directly from the Bible, but not only will it steer their consitutional interpretaion, but such an interpretation was the promise made in order to confirm the last two. If Roe is overturned, it'll be on the grounds that the original ruling had shaky constitutional foundations, but the sentiment will be of taking back the law for Christ. So what can be done about the church-and-state issue when there are so many ways to draft religious legislation without using religious words, and so many ways to interpret that legislation to fit your own dogmatic law?
I just wanted to quickly follow up on Socratic's excellent posting, particularly his ending comment that: "by concluding that all abortion should be illegal, you might actually be hobbling progress towards that shared goal." The pro-choice side can be accused of the same sort of counter-productive actions, especially by fighting to support partial birth abortion - or Dilation & Extraction, if you prefer. Most Americans are against it, while being in the murky middle as to exactly when life begins, and by fighting to uphold the right of a small minority of women to have access to such a controversial procedure that is so very difficult to defend, they only give the right-wing a very useful issue to rally around and with which to win over many moderates.
Very good article in Harper's about the history of the partial-birth abortion/D&X debate:
http://www.harpers.org/GamblingWithAbortion.html
Thus, at the end of the day, I think Voltaire had a point with his "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."
I think that all here are making great points. I especially appreciate Kelly and Socratic who logically reason how both "sides'" goal is, at the end of it, really to limit abortion, with nobody (well...) really lobbying for a legalized slaughterhouse.
While tragically true that most "anti-abortion" laws limiting or attempting to eliminate the practice have not included realistic provisions to address the underlying reasons for abortions, not even to mention adequate protections for the mother, they still deserve passage (in my opinion) if abortion is equatable with murder.
HOWEVER. I must add the caveat that, although being against abortion myself, if I were a governor or the President faced with an anti-abortion law, I would veto it if comprehensive protections for the mother were not included and given AT THE VERY LEAST as much importance as the statutized abortion limitations. If an anti-abortion stance is fundamentally about life, then the mother's should be guaranteed as much as possible, with the baby taking a very close second (tough choice have to be made).
As far as not passing abortion-limiting legislation that doesn't address the underlying causes of abortion; well, I believe that no single piece of legislation could ever achieve this monumental goal, and this fact should not pre-empt the law's passing.
As an imperfect example, racial discrimination and prejudice will likely always be a part of our society, and it will remain commensuratly damaging to all of us to the degree that it exists. However, we pass laws making it illegal to discriminate under most conditions. This is, of course, an incomplete attempt to stop discrimination from occuring, even though it is intended to be part of the remedy. What must follow then (and does in some circles), is an intentional effort to limit the causes that allow racial discrimination to fester in the first place (the debate goes on as to the best way to begin this), but is the realistic social response that MUST accompany such anti-discrimination laws in order to reduce or eliminate the practice. There are many ways to discriminate without doing it illegally. My point in all this is: we pass laws against racial discrimination without the appropriate framework to actually remdy the problem, but the law can begin the proces of building that framework that can (hopefully) eventually transform society away from it practice as much as possible. Or maybe I'm being naive.
Similarly, the societal problems leading up to abortion are many and complex, and I believe their remedying requires fundamental shifts in how our society treats everyone across the board. I don't imagine there would be enough space in a library to expand on this, but I think my point remains clear.
Are we to wait until these social realities have materilaized before we attempt such legal sanction on abortion? In my opinion, no. But if we on the "anti-abortion" side of the debate wish to both declare our dislike of such a practice, while really caring enough to see its resolution, then a more creative environment would need to be initiated and nurtured in order to achieve our aim.
In short (I should have put this at the beginning, huh?) I believe that laws limiting abortion are worthwhile as a declaration against its practice. But I believe just as much (maybe even more so), that laws such as these are naive and cruel unless accompanied by distinct and assiduous efforts to remedy the problem in ways that will work, ie through social process that address the "why." I understand the reasoning behind the "right's" general philosophy of personal responsibility in this situation. But I think it is quite obvious that if the intent is to end/limit abortion, then much, much more must be done. Otherwise, it merely sets many people up for failure, without adequate alternatives or chances to succeed.
If the Christian Coalition (among others, but the CC is prominent here) really assigned the elimination of abortion as a priority, I believe they should spend a lot more time/money on remedying the underlying causes in addition to statutized limitations, and a lot less on more political while less morally repugnant issues like tax reform.
thanks for sticking with me this far,
B
Kantian,
I enjoyed your post, and thank you for helping to illuminate some of Kelly's concerns that I missed.
I also fully agree that, for the most part, preventative care is usually a more logical and cost-effective route than treating the manifest problem afterwards. As a Christian, it can be frustrating to talk to other Christian colleagues regarding abortion and finding them (usually, but not always) so focused on making abortion illegal, without giving adequate thought to the massive (and I might add, Christ-like) social remedies that would need to follow in order to approach a real solution.
To go off topic (or maybe I'm not), it seems imperative that we as a nation orient ourselves more towards prevention than reaction. To relate a (I'm sure) familiar example that highlights short-sighted lack of prevention, I can remember in middle-school being so excited that we finally had a Coke machine next to our gym (next to our gym no less!) so that we could charge ourselves with caffiene and sugar whenever we wished. I won't even go on with this one, because I think that its path of discussion is obvious. It is worthwhile to note however, that the Coke machine, while a problem in itself, is indicative of public school budget pressures as well, which is a whole other enchilada.
Oftentimes, whether regarding international relations, health, technological innovation, personal relationships, etc., measures of prevention will greatly affect our chances of success. Witness our current international standing with regard to human rights. I truly believe that the current lack of determined prevention against lowering our human rights standards is, and will continue to, hamper our international efforts to build coalitions and by extension, build relationships that will help us in the long run.
Well, I know that I went somewhat off topic here. But like Kantian and others, I feel that issues of prevention are critical to our national survival, and are quite relevant to the abortion debate in general. Sorry if I strayed too far off course, maybe because I'm back at work again (after being here until 1:00 AM the last two nights), I'm subconsciously venting other frustrations as well.
Ok, back to work!
B
PS-ribs sound really good right now!
Post a Comment
<< Home