Michael Bérubé - American Airspace

One important difference between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade

Dred Scott was viable outside the womb at the time his case came before the Supreme Court. Pass it on.

And you liberals: don’t let the theocrats conflate potential persons with actual living persons. And when you’re debating stem cell research, absolutely, absolutely do not genuflect before fundamentalist extremists when they equate five-day embryos with living persons and refuse to allow scientific research on the former in order to relieve pain, suffering, and disease among the latter. Yes, these people have a “morality” underlying their beliefs, but it is not the only plausible form of morality on the block. Insist in the face of their religious fundamentalism that the conflation of actual with potential persons does harm to actual persons (including, notably, pregnant women) in both substantive and consequentialist senses (that is, it violates a principle of care for living persons, and it has nasty effects to boot). OK, rephrase that if you’re running for office. Get yourself a pollster to figure out how best to frame the injustice to living persons. But stop pretending that religious extremism on this order actually possesses the moral high ground it claims. And don’t say, “I personally oppose abortion, but I will respect the law of the land upholding a woman’s right to choose,” because that’s precisely what got the religious right started on the whole Dred Scott analogy in the first place: they argued that liberal politicians who mouthed this line were no different from Northern Whigs who said the same about slavery before 1860, and this is one of their best debating points. Take it to them on the merits: granting full personhood and full human rights to entities that cannot survive outside the womb does a profound injustice to actual living persons. And likening fetuses to slaves is simply obscene.

That is all for now.

Posted by on 10/11 at 03:46 AM

Michael,

You’re right. They’re not “pro-life.”

They’re pro-coathanger.

Posted by tristero on 10/11 at 06:13 AM
Yep, that’s one of those “consequentialist” senses. And you know what? When the religious right gets all anti-"slavery" on us, why don’t we reacquaint them with the Sherri Finkbine case? (That there’s a hyperlink for any of you who may be unfamiliar with Ms. Finkbine, Thalidomide, and American abortion politics before 1973.)

Posted by Michael on 10/11 at 06:50 AM
Another maddening aspect of the Dred Scott analogy is that it elides the role of conservative Christianity in supporting slavery - for instance, by developing Bible-based arguments to prove the innate inferiority of African(-American)s. Slavery, after all, is the reason there are Southern Baptists in the first place.

Sigh. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see the right wrench history out of context, much less to see them ignore the details which would put the lie to their lies, but it’s still annoying to watch them do it. Again. Without any real reaction from the Democrats…

Posted by Christopher Tassava on 10/11 at 06:52 AM
Yow. I forgot about thalidomide. In light of that, you’d think the tort reform crowd would be all behind abortion.

Posted by on 10/11 at 07:33 AM
Yeah, thalidomide.

But bottom line is this:

Abortions will be performed in the US regardless of what happens. The rich and the middle class will always be able to find a decent doctor to do them: price is not really the issue. If abortions are banned, tho, the poor go back to coathangers.

A ban on abortion is an assault on decent healthcare for the poor.

And that’s all it is. The rest, the “moral” arguments and so on, are just a cheap hairpiece.

Posted by tristero on 10/11 at 07:48 AM
Another difference is that the Abolitionists did not speak in code so as not to alarm the neighbors. Okay, there was that one issue of The Liberator calling for more Doubletalk and a hopeless propos’d Amendment bouncing around for twenty Years in order to fill the Democratic Purse, but Garrison had had a bit too much poppy elixir that evening.

Posted by on 10/11 at 07:52 AM
Excellent, Michael! I have long ripped into anyone who makes these “slavery equals abortion” or “Holocaust equals abortion” arguments. The slaves were not growing inside their masters bodies and are not embryos or fetuses. And the Jews were not growing inside the German Christians and were not embryos and fetuses.

If someone wants to say it’s a metaphor, and I’ve heard that one, too, then I say it’s time to rethink such a metaphor.

Even if the fetus is a baby, putting women and their doctors in jail or treating them the same as murderers--or even akin to murderers--violates the common sense morality that the religious right is suppposed to be all about. There is no monopoly of morality in the abortion debate on one side or the other.

Most important, it is ridiculous for the pro-choice crowd to ever cede the moral position to people who, when cornered, often see pregnancy as a punishment. You know the line, “Well, if she didn’t want the baby, she should have thought of that BEFORE she messed around!” That’s not a pro-life position. That’s vindictive and sadistic.

Posted by on 10/11 at 09:24 AM
Thank you.
I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by mrgarza on 10/11 at 09:53 AM
Michael,

Nice idea but I’ve tried exactly that approach with my religious acquaintances - making detailed and rational arguments about the rights of the living vs. the rights of the unborn - only to have it fall on deaf ears. The problem, I eventually realized, is that reason and logic have no pull with these people - these are the same folks who ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution and global warming. Try to cite evidence and they come back with conspiracy theories about scientists lying to protect their grants (and we all know what greedy bastards those scientists are). You might as well be arguing with a flat-earther.

And I agree with tristero that this is another front on the “war on the poor”. Note that the pro-lifers seem to have nothing to say about in-vitro fertilization, where several of the less viable “pre-embryos” are typically discarded. One has to wonder if the fact that this is an expensive procedure available only to the wealthy might have something to do with that…

Posted by on 10/11 at 11:38 AM
bush’s moral ‘philosophy’:
abortion = slavery
death penalty = something jesus would agree with
dead us soldiers and iraqi civilians = hard work

Posted by on 10/11 at 12:51 PM
Just to weigh in here briefly on the ambiguities of Dred Scott… (I’ll skip my complaints about the “pro-life” position for now)

I think the larger problem is using terms like “judicial activist” and “strict constructionist” as if they mean something self-evident and easily definable. Basically, conservatives decry ALL liberal justices as “judicial activists"… but the Rehnquist court has been about as “activist” as they come (just usually in a pro-Republican direction). Similarly, “strict constructivism” is incredibly subjective. Like the Dred Scott case itself, apparently, these terms serve as codewords --usually for the right-- to criticize ANY decision that challenges conservative politics.
(Someone made this point already, but it bears repeating: Bush v. Gore was the flawed product of an activist court—this was the complaint of the dissenters-- yet you never hear conservatives complaining about those damn “activist” judges on that one!!!)

Posted by on 10/11 at 12:58 PM
Dallas:

Thanks for agreeing. One point:

“Nice idea but I��ve tried exactly that approach with my religious acquaintances - making detailed and rational arguments about the rights of the living vs. the rights of the unborn - only to have it fall on deaf ears.��”

I know plenty of very religious people who find the notion of forcing poor people to use coathangers immoral. They believe, like most of us, that abortion should be legal.

This is not a religion vs. secular argument. This is a right wing fundamentalist fanatics vs normal Americans argument.

Posted by on 10/11 at 01:52 PM
I’ve always liked George Carlin’s summation of the radical right’s worldview: “If you’re pre-born, you’re golden. If you’re pre-school, you’re f@#$ed.”

And tristero makes a valuable point: the problem is not religion; it’s fundamentalism, a way of thinking that seeks simplistic explanations for everything, refusing to acknowledge the existence of ambiguity or uncertainty.

It is this way of thinking that is causing the wingnuts to crow triumphantly upon the occasion of Jacques Derrida’s death.

It is this way of thinking that drives our current president to say with a smirk, ”I’m trying to decipher that” in response to his opponent saying we must be “smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.”

Posted by George Williams on 10/11 at 02:29 PM
tristero,

Good clarification. In my own meek defense, I did say ”my religious acquaintances”. But after giving it some thought I did come up with a few that were “neutral” on the issue. Wrong of me to stereotype like that. Of course, the fundamentalists would have us believe they are the normal Americans, and the rest of us are either Godless commies or untrue to the faith. But, after another decade of propaganda and “faith-based intiatives”, this claim will be true (as far and fundamentalism being the “norm” for Americans)…

Posted by on 10/11 at 03:02 PM
Unoriginal but true: I agree. But what this post and thread really make me want to say: man, I loved Romper Room. Anyone who messed (or messes!) with Romper Room lady is no damn good.

Posted by Modern Kicks on 10/11 at 03:14 PM
I truly would like to know how the religious right reconciles its anti-abortion stance with its penchant for involuntary abortions performed by laser-guided bombs courtesy of the U.S. military.

I’ve asked this question numerous times in other settings, but I get nary a peep of an answer. I am not being sarcastic; I truly want to know how the RR addresses this.

Posted by on 10/11 at 03:19 PM
i totally agree blue iris. it’s not like all religious groups are monolithic about this, some of the best and most valuable aid work is done by religious groups. there might be a passive attempt at conversion in them, but still its work motivated by actually helping the least of us.

but i just don’t get the RR. shouldn’t they care that innocent people are dying by our righteous policies, or is that part of the overall fire & brimstone view, or do they just not believe innocent people are dying?

Posted by on 10/11 at 03:44 PM
The RR consists of people who are afraid: of change, of complexity, of difference (goodnight JD, wherever you are). I can’t see how they can think of themselves as Christians--they don’t believe in love, or forgiveness, or sharing. Michael is exactly right to say they have cornered the market on vileness. I wonder what it is like to get your kicks from hate.

Posted by on 10/11 at 06:27 PM
A 5 day old embryo needs only 9 months in the womb to be a person.

A sperm cell needs only an egg and 9 months in the womb to be a person.

It is my belief that each one is a person, and I intend to claim millions of them as dependents on my next 1040. Of course, I could be put away for a few million counts of child abandonment too, so it could be problematic.

Posted by on 10/12 at 06:01 AM
Don’t worry about the child abandonment thing-- the religious right isn’t terribly concerned about that. But definitely tell Grover Norquist about your plan, and see whether you can’t qualify for a sperm-cell-and-embryo-care tax deduction while you’re claiming the little buggers as dependents!

Posted by Michael on 10/12 at 07:17 AM
"A ban on abortion is an assault on decent healthcare for the poor.”

Tristero gets it *exactly* right.

Posted by Scott on 10/12 at 07:21 AM
>>And don��t say, ��I personally oppose abortion, but I will respect the law of the land upholding a woman��s right to choose,��

Well, what if that happens to be true? Wouldn��t be the first time that leftists swallowed their honor to toe the party line.

>>Insist in the face of their religious fundamentalism

In my experience, most people who oppose abortion are not religious fundamentalists; they are not particularly religious at all. Abortion moves against their moral being at a deep level, a sub-conscious rational level.

>> And when you��re debating stem cell research,

Correct me if I am wrong, but their already exist abundant embryonic stem cell lines to do research on. What is lacking is the research wherewithal to get anything going. We are just not smart enough yet to make much progress.

Hard cases make bad law; likewise, hard examples make for bad arguments. Let��s grant that in all cases of incest, rape, toxic poisoning, and severe malformation of the fetus we will permit abortions. Still the vast majority of abortions performed will be done to avoid the discomfit of the woman and man involved. There shall be no moral scrutiny of these, 98% of the cases? That is really rational, isn��t it.

Yeah, in China and India women abort perfectly healthy baby girl fetuses (who are any of us to judge?), so much so that there are imbalances of up to 120 boys born for 100 girls. Great society, great morality.

Posted by on 10/12 at 09:08 AM
>>And don��t say, ��I personally oppose abortion, but I will respect the law of the land upholding a woman��s right to choose,��

Well, what if that happens to be true?

Hey, freedom of conscience applies to having abortions, not opposing them.

I’m an opponent of the death penalty. I believe that, for instance, Timothy McVeigh was a human being with the right to life who should not have been killed by the state. Is that a profound injustice to people who’ve never blown up a building full of people?

I don’t feel devalued as a human being just because the humanity of embryos or fetuses or even killers is also recognized.

It kind of reminds me of the argument that we can’t have same-sex marriage because that’ll devalue it for the hets. What good is a club if you can’t keep some people out of it, right?
I strongly oppose this attitude that there is only enough humanity to go around, so we have to exclude some human beings (def.: individual organisms of the species Homo sapiens) from “personhood”.

Posted by obeah on 10/12 at 09:32 AM
Er, “only so much humanity to go around”. Whatever.

Posted by obeah on 10/12 at 09:33 AM
"granting full personhood and full human rights to entities that cannot survive outside the womb does a profound injustice to actual living persons”

What happens when medical technology improves so that these entities can survive outside the womb? I am pro-choice, and I’m not sure how firm the ground is if the bottom line is whether the embryo or fetus is viable.

Posted by on 10/12 at 11:26 AM
Hah! I’ve got it!

A sperm cell needs only an egg and 9 months in the womb to be a person. It is my belief that each one is a person, and I intend to claim millions of them as dependents on my next 1040.

A developing fetus has brutally and selfishly elevated its own life above that of the lives of the millions of sperm that were vying for the egg. In other words, it is a mass murderer. I support the death penalty for these monsters.

Posted by on 10/12 at 11:26 AM
Lisa, there’s a limit to how much the technology can do-- “viability” is not a bright clear line, I admit, but it’s not a slippery slope either. And Daniel, I think there’s a rough general consensus-- in this society-- that abortion for gender selection alone is immoral, just as there’s a rough general consensus-- which, significantly, the anti-abortion extremists would traduce-- that prospective parents should be able to decide to terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with a truly horrific condition like Tay-Sachs.

But when you call for “moral scrutiny” of the 98 percent of abortions you yourself don’t approve of, who exactly is going to be doing the scrutinizing, aside from you? Personally, I would much rather persuade people not to abort in such conditions than coerce them to carry pregnancies to term with the power of the state, which is what you’re proposing.

Posted by Michael on 10/12 at 12:15 PM
Michael,

>>that prospective parents should be able to decide to terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with a truly horrific condition like Tay-Sachs.

I believe I stated that we (society) would not object to abortion in such circumstances.

>>But when you call for ��moral scrutiny�� of the 98 percent of abortions you yourself don��t approve of, who exactly is going to be doing the scrutinizing, aside from you?

Well, societal consensus. You know, someone who says that I respect your legal right to do so, but I despise your moral principles (hence you) that informed such a decision.

>>Personally, I would much rather persuade people not to abort in such conditions than coerce them to carry pregnancies to term with the power of the state, which is what you��re proposing.

Well maybe that is how the entire issue is going to end up. This is far from YOUR initial point that those who oppose abortion personally but believe that it should be legal should keep their mouth shut.

Here is a slogan we could work with, maybe, for the other 98%: Keep abortion legal, but immoral.

Posted by on 10/12 at 12:52 PM
This is far from YOUR initial point that those who oppose abortion personally but believe that it should be legal should keep their mouth shut.

I didn’t say that, Daniel. I said that people who take this line are inviting anti-abortionists’ objections that their position is analogous to the antebellum Northern Whig position on slavery. Once again with feeling:

“don��t say, ‘I personally oppose abortion, but I will respect the law of the land upholding a woman��s right to choose,’ because that��s precisely what got the religious right started on the whole Dred Scott analogy in the first place: they argued that liberal politicians who mouthed this line were no different from Northern Whigs who said the same about slavery before 1860, and this is one of their best debating points. Take it to them on the merits: granting full personhood and full human rights to entities that cannot survive outside the womb does a profound injustice to actual living persons.”

A chapter of Life as We Know It discusses what is now called “the ethics of selective abortion for fetuses with disabilities.” My position on the issue (if you don’t feel like buying my book) is largely seconded by the 1999 Hastings Center Report on the subject. And in my longer argument, as here, I don’t advocate shutting anybody up.

Posted by Michael on 10/12 at 02:36 PM
I don’t think anti-abortionism is an assult on the poor, nor fear of change. I think the “innocent” life argument is absolutely key. What it means is, we value babies, who are innocent, over knocked-up women who do not want babies, because the latter, by definition, are clearly not innocent. It’s an assault on women as autonomous moral agents. Which is why it’s always framed as an argument about abstractions, rather than an argument about specifics, and why the pro-life people never even seem to concede the possiblity that women who choose abortion do so thoughtfully, not selfishly, precisely because women are cognizant of the importance of babies and children.

Posted by bitchphd on 10/13 at 04:01 PM
”...granting full personhood and full human rights to entities that cannot survive outside the womb does a profound injustice to actual living persons.”

Speaking as a non-fundamentalist--for that matter, as one of the non-religious--this is miles shy of being a satisfactory standard. Whatever else you might think of the pro-life movement, they have a rather cut-and-dried dividing point between what qualifies for “personhood” and what does not. From a logical standpoint, about the only dividing line that approaches the internal consistency of conception would be implantation of the embryo in the placenta.

“Cannot survive outside the womb,” on the other hand, doesn’t pass a reasonably rigorous laugh test. Would that be with or without the latest in medical technology? If the former, does it bother anyone that the definition of “personhood” that follows is subject to change due to technological advancement? This is not simply a matter of lacking a “bright, clear line.” It’s a matter of the morality of defining “personhood” using standards that are mutable, rather than immutable (even if, as inevitably occurs, exceptions can be found).

If the latter, does it occur to anyone that newborns are similarly unable to survive without constant care?

“Tristero” would have me believe that “The rest, the ‘moral’ arguments and so on, are just a cheap hairpiece.” All this shows is that the inability to listen to the other side’s arguments is not solely the failing of the pro-lifers. For the pro-life movement, the “moral” argument is the crux of the matter: is the fetus a person? They believe it is. Rather than blather on about possible motives--"assaults" on women, attacks on healthcare for poor people--you might spend a moment or two taking at least some pro-lifers at their word. If you believe that a fetus is a person, the rest of it follows quite rationally: abortion is murder, or at least manslaughter, and there are few situations that can be used to excuse it. Abortion will continue whether or not it is outlawed? So do murder and rape. Should we condone them as well, just because legislation alone is not sufficient to eliminate them?

If you can grasp this, then you might also see where the slavery/abortion analogy comes from. Greater moral latitude is always available when the subjects of the act in question are not recognized as human. The similarity arises if we recognize that the moral wrong of slavery was not the institution itself--we do, after all, enslave animals without too much remorse--but the outrageous notion that dark-skinned Africans were not human. By denying the humanity of the fetus, the argument then runs, the pro-choice movement seeks to rationalize murder for convenience in a manner similar to the rationalization of slavery. Like all analogies, this one breaks down if examined too closely, but I do think it has some illustrative power.

There is no amount of careful, “rational” argument that will countervail this mindset. To address it, you must address the founding premise: that a fetus is a human life. And to address that, you must come up with an answer to a single question: what is it, exactly, that makes you _absolutely_ certain that a fetus is _not_ a person? And can you frame your argument in a way that doesn’t make your average, moral individual even slightly nervous at the changes that might conceivably be wrought upon your definition of humanity?

Posted by on 10/14 at 08:14 AM
These are good questions, Mr. Bulger, and I do address them-- especially the metaquestion of whether one needs a bright clear line in order to make this argument-- in chapter two of Life as We Know It, where I go over the classic arguments (pro and con) made by John T. Noonan and Judith Jarvis Thomson. For the record, though, note that in earlier eras not even the Catholic Church itself would pass what you call a “reasonably rigorous laugh test,” especially with regard to its argument that “ensoulment"-- and the moral status that attends it-- occurs upon “quickening.”

Posted by Michael on 10/14 at 03:03 PM

Next entry: Christopher Reeve

Previous entry: All your Supreme Court appointees are belong to the base

<< Back to main

One important difference between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade

These Comments Are Aware of All Your Sublime and Funky Internet Traditions

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries

Syndicate