Sunday, April 21, 2013
Douthat on "Gosnel and the Politics of Abortion"
Just a bit, from what I thought was a good piece by Ross Douthat, commenting on the argument one is hearing in some quarters that the Gosnell case confirms the merits of the pro-abortion-rights side's arguments:
The only things missing from this clean, airtight, entirely consistent argument are, well, all the dead babies in the Gosnell clinic — or the dead “precipitated fetuses,” to employ the language Gosnell and his associates used to euphemize their practice of delivering and then “snipping” rather than aborting in utero. Their absence is not necessarily a problem if you’re willing to argue that those babies were non-persons before delivery and became persons immediately after (in which case Gosnell is guilty of infanticide but a more competent late-term abortion facility wouldn’t be), or if you’re willing to argue, with Peter Singer and some others, that personhood is something that emerges gradually at some indeterminate time after birth (in which case Gosnell’s “snipping” wasn’t murder at all). The former, I think, is the more common form of pro-choice absolutism, and the latter belongs to the more philosophically-inclined fringe (although the debate over “born-alive” bills has moved the official consensus fringeward). But if you’re already committed to absolute support for abortion rights, either argument will suffice to justify treating Gosnell’s conduct as irrelevant to the broader abortion controversy.
What neither argument seems likely to do, however, is do much to persuade the many, many “pro-choice but …” people who aren’t already so committed, and whose support for abortion rights tends to waver most when they’re confronted with the reality of what abortion actually does to fetal life — in clean, well-funded facilities as well as filthy ones, and in the womb as much as on Gosnell’s operating tables. This is, of course, the central reason why the pro-life side assumes that mainstream reporters didn’t particularly want to cover the trial: Because the mainstream press leans pro-choice, because mainstream journalism is pitched to readers in the mushy middle on abortion, and because the practice of “after-birth abortion” makes fetal humanity manifest in ways that almost inevitably push that middle in a more pro-life direction. . . .
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/04/douthat-on-gosnel-and-the-politics-of-abortion.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
It is somewhat disturbing that either pro-choice or pro-life advocates try to use Gosnell and his trial to bolster their positions. But it seems to me that both sides agree that late-term abortions are particularly troubling. I think those who are pro-choice who are comfortable (or relatively so) with early abortion become increasingly uncomfortable the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, and I think those who would support abortion up to the final minutes, or days, or even weeks of pregnancy are very few, except in cases where there is a truly serious threat to the mother. For most who are pro-choice, I think, birth is a very significant dividing line, but they do not believe that in the latest stages of pregnancy, anything that would be a heinous crime to perpetrate on a newborn five minutes after birth is perfectly neutral if done five minutes before birth.
I think what would be an obvious response to the Gosnell horrors—aside from public health authorities regularly inspecting abortion facilities and investigating all complaints against them—would be tighter regulation of late-term abortions. As I understand the constitutional issues, late-term abortions cannot be flatly prohibited. But there are a number of states that require a second physician to be present at all late-term abortions to attend to the needs of an infant should it be born alive. The right of states to require this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Some states also require doctors performing late-term abortions to use the abortion method least likely to result in the death of the infant. As far as I know, there is no constitutional problem with that requirement, either.
One of the problems with the battle over abortion is that to a large extent, those who claim to be interested in making it safer are actually trying to regulate it out of existence. Gun-rights advocates are (in my opinion) often paranoid in believing gun-control advocates really want to take all their guns away. But pro-choice advocates who believe that pro-lifers want to completely prohibit abortion are correct. It is the goal of pro-lifers to come up with as many restrictions on abortion as they can think of, and eventually eliminate any right to abortion at all (even in cases where the mother's life is in danger). So it is no surprise compromise to do something like put more reasonable limits on late-term abortions would be so difficult to achieve. Pro-lifers believe in an absolutist position—no abortions for any reason. Few who are pro-choice would argue for abortions for any reason, at any gestational age. But there is little incentive to compromise with pro-lifers, who would look at any deal as a step toward their ultimate goal of banning all abortions.