Safe, Legal & Early -- A New Way of Thinking About Abortion
The political debate on abortion has for several decades focused on the wrong moral question: Does life begin at conception? Those who believe it does, oppose abortion. Those who don't, or think the question is unanswerable, believe the pregnant woman should make that choice.
Yet consider this statistical couplet. According to a 2007 survey commissioned by a progressive think tank called Third Way, 69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the "taking of a human life," but 72 percent believe it should be legal.
Let that soak in. Most people think abortion is taking a human life and yet most favor the procedure being legal. How grotesque! Are we Americans utterly immoral?
Actually, what the data proclaim is something that politicians and activists can't: Most Americans believe there are gradations of life within the womb. Some living things are more alive than others, and so the later in the pregnancy it gets, the more uncomfortable people become with the idea of ending it. But in reality they believe both that a life stirs very early on and that a one-week-old embryo is more "killable" than a nine-month-old fetus. For them, determining whether "life" begins at conception really doesn't determine anything.
A handful of surveys get at this. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, 29 percent of the people surveyed believed abortion should be illegal in the first three months of pregnancy, 68 percent thought it should be illegal in the second trimester, and 84 percent in the third trimester.
Many women who have had abortions wished they could have the procedure earlier. In a 2006 survey of 1,209 abortion patients by the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice but widely respected nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues), 58 percent said they would have preferred to have done it earlier--including 91 percent of those who had abortions in their second trimester.
Surely part of the reason for this preference is that later abortions are more complicated, dangerous and expensive. But that's not all. Consider the reasons offered to researchers in that study by this 21-year-old, low-income woman:
"I do [wish I had had the abortion earlier] because when I came here last Friday and they told me, like, 'You're in your second trimester,' and I'm like...'Goodness, now what am I going to do?' Because I didn't want to go into my second trimester, because it's like, basically, really becoming a baby, you know. I just really didn't want to do it that late."
She did have the abortion. Her failure to get the abortion right away didn't lead her to carry the pregnancy to term but rather to end it -- uncomfortably -- when her fetus was, in her own eyes, "basically, really becoming a baby."
This belief that life within the womb is on a continuum is not explicitly reflected in the political debates about abortion. We debate whether we should have parental notification--not when we should have it. We question politicians on whether they'd provide government funding for abortion, not ever asking whether subsidies should be provided for early abortions but not late.
The debate has evolved that way in part because of the fundamentally religious nature of the pro-life activist position. The essential point about the position of pro-life activists -- including the Catholic Church and conservative evangelicals -- is not that they believe "life" begins at conception. It's that they believe a life that God creates on Day One is morally equivalent to a life at month one or month nine or 18 years. "The whole point of pro-life reasoning," says Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, "is to encourage people toward intellectual, ethical and scientific consistency: A life is a life, no matter how small."
Meanwhile, many pro-choice leaders have embraced a mirror image of this approach. The woman has a right to choose, whether the pregnancy is in its first day, first month or ninth month.
Instead, an abortion policy matching the values implicit in the polls would focus less on rights or numbers and more on timing. Success would be measured on the basis of moving abortions earlier in the gestational cycle -- even if that conceivably means more overall abortions. It would be not about whether, how or how many, but when. Not "safe, legal and rare" as Bill Clinton once said, but "safe, legal and early."
In a longer piece that first appeared on PoliticsDaily.com, I argued that:
--Some pro-life policies actually lead to more abortions in the second and third trimesters
--Some pro-choicers have abandoned the true spirit of Roe v. Wade, which did not envision an inviolable, 9-month-long right to choose
--Policies should be geared toward shifting abortions earlier in the cycle.
Please read the rest of the piece here and let me know what you think.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Personally I think that Plan B will render much of this moot. Prevention is the best possible scenario for all involved. Now that we are back on track w/prevention education we will see the rate of unwanted pregnancies decline again.
But Plan B isn't just prevention.
If conception has already occurred, it works to (abort) stop the implantation of the embryo.
It is certainly not the best scenario for those who get aborted.
It takes it away from the arena of religion which many of us do not subscribe to. It allows it to be even more private as it should be. It goes to the writers point of early if at all.
The problem with so many people who are against abortion are also against prevention.
If it's not implanted, it's not a pregnancy. That's why they have to place several fertilized eggs when they do the procedure octomom underwent, because the chances of it implanting are very small. A woman's body sloughs off these cells naturally all the time, without the woman even knowing it is happening. All Plan B does is ensure that that is the outcome. To take it even further, nature spontaneously aborts implanted embryos all the time, often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. What is wrong with making rational decisions about when the time is right to continue on with what nature could well have done away with anyway, instead of leaving it all either to some mystical realm that has no basis in fact, or to cruel nature that could care less if you are ready to nurture and care for a child or not?
Great article, and great reader comments, especially Carl Caroli.
I agree that emphasizing the goal of early terminations is the pragmatic approach that would keep abortion legal.
Regarding the motivation of the right in it's virulent anti-abortion stance -- IMHO if you peel back the veil it is easy to see that it is really about S E X. While there are, of course, some Kansas housewives who protest abortion clinics and who truly just love babies, and maybe have even taken one or two crack addicted foster children into their homes -- God bless them -- they are not hypocrites.
but sadly, that is the minority.
The "pro life" population is, generally speaking, a sexually frustrated group (mostly MEN) who are angry at women, teenagers and gay men who appear to be having great, happy, lusty, spiritually fulfilling sex lives. They are so angry that this must be stopped -- preferrably by getting these sexual hedonists pregnant as soon as possible, so they can join their ranks of the sexually frustrated.
This also explains why they are so interesting in enacting laws against gays, etc.
Lastly, if they were really PRIMARILY about preventing abortions and "saving babies", then logic tells you that they would want to INCREASE access to contraception and sex education. The fact that they clearly DO NOT -- a stance which clearly causes MORE abortions to happen...proves this uncomfortable fact:
these people simply need to get laid properly.
Pro-birth control!
although I am pro-choice because anti-abortion laws basically apply only to poor women who can not afford to travel out of the country to get a medically safe abortion, depriving a unique human being, with unique DNA that will not be created again on this planet, of that person's life because of a woman's/man's mistake in fostering a pregnancy in the first place is an inherent selfish and immoral act.....
The last part of your post is well written. Bravo. You understand and cherish each life. And understand that ending it is selfish.
But how do come to the conclusion then that you are pro-choice?
What difference does it make that the rich can always avoid the law? That doesn't invalidate a just law.
It makes no difference whether the mother was rich or poor. When their fetus is killed, it is still a dead fetus.
a poor distraught woman should not be forced into an option involving a wino in a dirty hotel room with a rusty coat hanger that could likely end her life. I agree this represents a contradiction in my thought. We obviously need much better prenatal and child care for poor women and children and all women and children in this country to absolutely minimize the choice to abort. I would go so far as to ban abortion for women of means but that would discriminate in the other direction and they could just leave the country at will anyway. terrible choice...i completely rule out as abhorrent the notion that it is my body and i can do as i choose.....
The term 'abortion' should be replaced with 'induced miscarriage'. And the need for one would be very rare if men actually got past the toddler stage sexually and became aware of where they put their sperm.
(Or did not put it, as the practically nonexistant sexually mature male is proficient in nonejaculatory tantric intercourse. The question is, who benefits from the inability of male humans to grow up sexually, and how, and why?)
Like "War on Terror" should be replaced with "Overseas Operations against Man-Made induced acts of Destruction".
Much cleaner that way.
Hear hear!!!! Finally, a rational and well written article about the abortion debate. Kudos to you, Mr. Waldman. Thank you for properly framing the abortion debate. People who are "pro-life" do not want to control other people's sexual/reproductive choices. They believe that a fetus is a child and, thus, abortion is murder. People who are "pro-choice" are not child murderers. They just don't believe that a fetus is a human life.
We can make a lot more progress in the abortion debate if everyone would understand both sides of the argument (as Mr. Waldman does) rather than exchanging venomous and inaccurate accusations against the other side.
The question we need to focus upon in the abortion debate is "When does human life begin such that an abortion should be prohibited?" Maybe it is not as simple as just "at conception" or "at birth." Maybe, there is a gradation during pregnancy such that life does not start precisely begin at any one particular second but, rather, it slowly develops over time. We need to answer this question because it truly is the only question that matters in the abortion debate.
yeah but the anti-choice crowd think it is at the sperm level. so there is no way to compromise. they are against birth control so there is no way to reduce unwanted pregnancies- abstrinence doesn't even work among the true believers. remember sarah palin's daughter believes in abstenence and look where it got her. an iud or pills which an abstainer doesn't need would have solved her problem.
Your post is gibberish.
Who thinks it is at the sperm level? Show me some evidence.
No body is trying to protect sperm. That isn't the basis of being against birth control.
This is just an ad hominem attack.
Something that is never mentioned in these discussions is how we regarded abortion in the past. Historically, up until the mid 1800s, women were legally free to abort prior to quickening (movement of the fetus at about the middle of gestation.) And the public did not have a moral problem until after 1840, when there came to be a growing awareness that it was not just unmarried girls "in trouble" seeking abortions, but also married women of the middle and upper class. Abortion was painted as a way that women could limit their fertility without a man knowing, and the women having them as aggressive social climbers to lazy to care for children that might impede their social progress. By understanding this history, we can see that women's rights to choose what happens in their bodies has been a longer struggle than we often realize, and it can help give perspective to some of the arguments that we hear today. IMHO, we need better birth control, better, easier access to birth control. While abortions should be available, better yet not to need one!
Thanks, that is good info. Most people are not aware that abortion and even infanticide have been around as long as there have been human beings. When the resources to care for another child are not available, the parents are faced with the impossible choice of which children to provide for. It is a wrenching decision. The parents are more likely to continue to care for the older children because they have a greater chance of surviving and do not require the same investment of time, energy, and resources as an infant. This is true in pre-industrial and very poor societies, and right up the spectrum to our own. The reason Roe v. Wade is notable is because it is an acknowledgement that a) women do have to face these decisions sometimes, and b) when a woman exercises her right to abort, she should not have to endanger her life and future fertility by doing it in a back alley or with a coathanger.
As to women having control over what happens to their bodies, that applies to more than just being compelled to carry a child to term. It is only recently that there has been a legislative recognition of a little thing called marital rape. You're right, the struggle has been long.
Here's the real problem - republicans, in general, prefer to approach issues in terms of black and white, always trying to avoid the fact that pretty much all issues are a continuum with shades of gray that would require serious discussion and serious compromise. They do not like or want intelligent discussion or compromises. They want to dictate to the rest of us, and the only way to get to their lazy, ignorant constituency that do not want to read, learn, discuss and compromise, is to create bumper sticker slogans, which can only be black or white. This works beautifully with their "pro-life" label, as if those of us in the pro-choice camp are actually pro-death and can't wait for the next abortion. It's very hard to whip up the masses with "well, it's complicated". They refuse to acknowledge that most pro-choice folks are really pro-life and would much prefer someone put their fetus/child up for adoption, but respect the decision of the mother and do not want to criminalize for for making an incredibly difficult decision. They also refuse to accept that most pro-choice folks would willingly adopt bans on late term abortions (short of being dangerous to the mother) in exchange for a more sane policy overall. Compromise is not the republican way - your either with'em or agin'em.
I thoroughly agree with your article. However I couldn't read past "A life is a life, no matter how small." without wondering why pro-lifers don't spend as much time and energy protesting the wars we are involved in. Do 1 million Iraqi lives not matter? I think we need to make the people already on this earth a bigger priority than the unborn when it comes to protecting lives.
I think everyone agrees that killing another person can be justified depending upon the circumstances (e.g., self-defense). However, opinions on justification differ depending upon the situation. "Pro-lifers" who did not oppose the war in Iraq presumably believe that the need for war justified the resulting causalties, whereas "pro-lifers" presumably believe that the reasons women give for having an abortion do not justify the abortion.
Safe, legal, and early - I like it!
However, there are medical cases that develop after the "early' stage has passed, and accomodation needs to be made for that, to protect the life of the woman.
Abortion is never safe. Somebody dies.
Statistically speaking, about one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most spontaneously abort before the woman even realizes she has conceived. Whenever a sexually active woman has a slightly late extra heavy period that just may be a spontaneous abortion happening. I don't want to make your head explode or anything but but do you realize how many potential "persons" are flushed down the toilet every single day? If pro-lifers cared as much about all the poor unwanted babies already here as they profess to care about fetuses and fertilized eggs then, just maybe, I might take them seriously.
This is an interesting piece. People always say there is a middle ground on this issue and I've honestly not been able to see what it is. I think this is it. I am pro-choice. Truly, genuinely, and completely pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to choose and feel NO moral ambiguity about it at all. If I needed one, I would have one and wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.
But, I think this could be a place where I could compromise. I wouldn't like it, but in a true compromise...everyone has to give something up. I think it is fair to say that abortion should be completely unrestricted in the first trimester. Slightly more difficult to get in the second. Extremely difficult in the third (for instance, if the life of the mother is in danger or very, very serious birth defects are detected.)
The problem is...I don't see the pro-lifers being willing to take this step as well. I think they will continue to say that life is life and there is no compromise. Please prove me wrong but, as always, I think the hardcore right are unwilling to compromise and the left is far more willing.
You are correct that there is no compromise.
A person is a person no matter how small. Killing them for convenience is always wrong.
The left is more willing to compromise because they make their decisions based on their interests, not their morals.
You can come up with any reason you want to refuse to compromise...but you have to accept then that people will just bypass you and deal with reasonable people instead.
By the way, one less kid on this planet IS moral. A fifteen year old not having a kid IS moral. Not having a kid you can't afford IS moral. Our morals may be different from yours (in that ours come from reason rather than fairy tales) but they are still morals.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
