Monday, March 27, 2006

Pro life or anti woman?

Alas, a blog, has elicited responses from a number of other blogs with the essay on whether the anti-abortion crowd was really pro-life, or just wanted to punish women for having sex, and the charted positions that concluded it was actually the latter. I believe that conclusion came from having either misunderstood or misrepresented pro-life positions in that chart, and is erroneous.

The pro-life position that life begins at conception comes from a simple syllogism: A. The object of the discussion is a life form of some nature. B. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as to the nature of tissue presented in evidence; from conception, it is genetically human. C. Both science and the courts accept DNA evidence as proof of identity, and from conception it has a unique DNA signature, different from the Mother’s. It is, therefore, a new, individual human being from conception. Immature, yes; but the courts have granted status to immature beings before- an eagle’s egg is considered to be an eagle for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act; smashing the egg is legally killing an eagle.

This does not mean that abortion is never acceptable, however- there are times when it is legal and ethical to take human life. If the mother’s life is endangered, it’s self-defense, just as much as shooting someone attacking you in the street. This is also true in the case of the mother’s health; you may legally use lethal force to prevent an attack that will not kill you- for example, you don’t have to submit to being kneecapped by a terrorist. Many pro-lifers will also include as acceptable the abortion of the severely deformed, seeing it as a different discussion more akin to the Schaivo case than to abortion.

This groundwork was necessary to explain one of the errors in the “Alas” chart; not even the most strict pro-lifer is against contraception that actually prevents conception. (Many Catholics are, but not all pro-lifers are Catholic) The problem they have is with pills like “Plan B” that work by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb; they see this as just a very early abortion. Any birth control method that prevents conception from taking place is perfectly acceptable; there is no inconsistency.

Those pro-lifers who oppose public school sex education don’t see any inconsistency in their stance because their position is that such classes increase the teen pregnancy rate, not decrease it. They argue from empirical evidence: 50 years ago, when there was no sex education, no birth control, and no abortions the illegitimacy rate was in the single digits; today, even with abortion, it has increased ten-fold. There are now entire neighborhoods where the child conceived in wedlock is statistically nonexistent. You may argue that there is no causal relationship here, that “b” following “a” does not prove that “a” caused “b”- but you cannot prove it… so it’s not inconsistent for them to believe that there is such a relationship.

Lastly, it was argued that if they really believed lives were at stake, they’d all be out there throwing bombs. Pro-lifers are not that stupid; they know the battle is for hearts and minds- individual action would at best, even if you believed the ends justify the means, (which people of faith generally do not) be throwing bricks into the Grand Canyon. John Brown’s revolution didn’t free slaves, it only killed at lot of people; the lesson has been noted.


My conclussion: the statement that pro-lifers just want to punish women for being sexual is indeed an unworthy accusation; the evidence is that pro-lifers are trying to save lives.

But there is an inconsistency here- being pro-choice while claiming to believe in the inherent dignity and worth of mankind. Most UUs believe in acquired worth- some believe it’s acquired in the second trimester, some in the third; some believe worth is acquired along with “viability”, and some attach no development stage at all, believing dignity and worth are acquired only when the mother decides she wants the child. Some, judging by their harsh rhetoric, seem to believe dignity and worth are acquired when one registers as a Democrat. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only UU I personally know who believes in the inherent dignity and worth of the individual.

10 comments:

UU-Mom said...

I appreciate your perspective evidently based on study.

Some, judging by their harsh rhetoric, seem to believe dignity and worth are acquired when one registers as a Democrat.

That's harsh!

To the best of my knowledge, I am the only UU I personally know who believes in the inherent dignity and worth of the individual.

I've seen comments by other UUs that they are pro-life also. I have trouble with the stance as evidenced in many of the bills which are produced, because I remember the history. It did originate to save lives, because women were desparate and would seek illegal abortions which too often killed them. I also have seen too many unwanted children - this is tragic. Better they not be born than to live a life of being unwanted.

The population growth rate was much higher 50 years ago than it is now. What would it be if we didn't have various methods to help alleviate this problem as we do now? We are not an endangered species - far from it! The population growth will probably only be limited by our resources which means by people starving to death due to lack of food and other means of survival. That means a LOT of suffering. 50 years ago the population was about right for adequate survival of the existing population per resources. How do we get back to that number?

Have you read about the problems with population growth? Have you read about the poor children and children of means who are unwanted? The latter population in the U.S. use up a lot of resources. I truly feel for them. Most population experts agree with multiple types of birth control methods and comprehensive sexuality education.

Joel Monka said...

*I* agree with multiple types of birth control methods and comprehensive sexuality education- but not from fear of overpopulating the planet. There is no real danger of that ever occurring, an issue I will address in the near future.

The real problem with abortion as an issue is that no one, as far as I know, has ever managed to write a law that would not be abused by one side or another... this really is an issue that can only be settled by winning hearts and minds. In fact, a lot of social justice issue are not amenable to legal solutions; I wish more churches would realise that and adjust there tactics accordingly.

I'm sure there must be other pro-life UUs out there; it's just that I've never met one to date. It is, of course, possible that I have and didn't know it.

Jess said...

I think you missed the main point of Amp's post, and of the pro-choice movement in general.

We're not pro-abortion. No one wants more abortions. We want support for women in all stages of their reproductive lives, and support for motherhood. What we don't want is desperation, which is what happens when one doesn't have choices. When you do have choices, education, and support, there are fewer abortions. And fewer deaths from illegal abortions.

Criminalizing abortion only harms women. It doesn't save babies.

Read this. Abortions have been happening in one form or another for as long as sex. As someone committed to eradicating abortions, you should be trumpeting women's right to their own reproductive choices from the rooftops, not justifying methods which obviously not working, and in fact are doing measurable harm to women and children.

The pro-life movement as it exists in this country is demonstrably anti-woman. There's really no way around it.

You may believe in the inherent worth and dignity of mankind (your word), but I don't see any respect for the inherent worth and dignity of women and the difficult choices we face in words such as these.

Joel Monka said...

(I think you missed the main point of Amp's post, and of the pro-choice movement in general.)

It looked to me like the point was that pro-lifers don’t really care about saving lives, they just want to punish women. That was expressly stated; that was the entire purpose of the chart juxtaposing the reactions of the two camps.

(We're not pro-abortion. No one wants more abortions.)

I never said different anywhere in my essay. I never challenged your motives.

(Criminalizing abortion only harms women. It doesn't save babies.)

Nowhere in my essay did I call for criminalizing abortion. In fact, in the comment directly above yours I specifically stated that the issue was not amenable to legal solution. I specifically called for winning hearts and minds in lieu of legislation.

(...not justifying methods which obviously not working, and in fact are doing measurable harm to women and children.)

The one and only method I endorsed anywhere in the essay or in the response to UU Mom was winning hearts and minds. While it is true that it obviously isn’t working, I ask you to show the measurable harm resulting from respectful dialogue.

(The pro-life movement as it exists in this country is demonstrably anti-woman. There's really no way around it.)

I just showed you ways around it. You did not refute any point I made. Did you actually read the things *I* said?

(...of mankind (your word), but...)

Yes, yes, I committed a heinous sin, using hate-speech like “mankind”. My only defense is that I am an old man who was taught, even in college, that when speaking in the general, the masculine includes the feminine, and I have not yet been able to train my inner ear to catch such hideous transgressions in all circumstances. “Humankind” sounds so Star Trek, and “Man and Womankind” sounds so clumsy and contrived... but I’ll try to be more careful in future.

(...I don't see any respect for the inherent worth and dignity of women and the difficult choices we face in words such as these.)

Leaving aside my use of the “m” word, exactly what did I say that was disrespectful towards women? Seriously, can you point out the sentence, or even a subordinate clause that is disrespectful towards women?

Jess said...

The main point of Amp's post is that the pro-life movement, as a whole, is anything but. And the facts are with her, though you may find them distasteful. I'm not going to go point by point with you, because I'm looking at the bigger picture.

By identifying with the national pro-life movement, you tacitly support their policies - which are demonstrably anti-woman.

If you truly want to reduce abortions, you would work for the rights of women and mothers everywhere to make medical decisions for themselves, with the best information and resources available to them. You would work for support programs for underprivileged families and children and for comprehensive sex education in the schools. These are not things that the pro-life movement does, on any level.

Bickering about when life begins doesn't save lives. That's about ideology, not about the real world.

And, calling all UUs who don't believe what you believe "when life begins" hypocrites (implied, though not explicit), alienates the very people who work for what you claim to want - fewer abortions.

Joel Monka said...

My point was that Amp- and now you- are painting with far too broad a brush. Saying, ”By identifying with *THE* (my emphasis) national pro-life movement, you tacitly support their policies - which are demonstrably anti-woman.”, is just like saying “”By identifying with *THE* anti-war movement, you tacitly support their policies - which are demonstrably anti-American.”- in both cases, there is no “THE” movement. A few anti-war activists are in fact anti-American, and a few pro-life types are in fact anti-women, but the majority of both are not. You tell me what I “would” do, “if” I truly wanted to reduce abortions- without ever asking if I am in fact doing these things or even noticing that I had explicitly endorsed one of them. You assume my methods and tactics because you know what “THE” pro-life movement would and wouldn’t do.

And isn’t it a bit disingenuous to challenge the motives of anyone who disagrees with you, to put words in my mouth and then condemn me for what I never said and positions I had never taken- and then take offense at my pointing out a perceived hypocrisy?

Steve Caldwell said...

Joel wrote:
-snip-
"Those pro-lifers who oppose public school sex education don’t see any inconsistency in their stance because their position is that such classes increase the teen pregnancy rate, not decrease it. They argue from empirical evidence"

Joel,

The problem here is that many so-called "pro-life" folks here would make this arguement against comprehensive sexuality education without looking at the positive results with comprehensive sexuality education in Western European democracies.

You may want to visit the Advocates for Youth web site and view this report:

Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the U.S.—Why the Difference?
http://advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm

Each summer since 1998, Advocates for Youth sponsors a study tour to Europe to learn about their successes with these sexuality education and public health matters.

Here's some of their observations:

"In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany."

"In the United States, the teen birth rate is nearly 11 times higher than that of the Netherlands, nearly five times higher than the rate in France, and nearly four times higher than that in Germany."

"In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France."

"In the United States, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young men ages 15 to 24 is over five times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, and about 1 1/2 times higher than that in France."

"In the United States, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young women ages 15 to 24 is six times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, and is the same as that in France."

"In the United States, young people typically initiate sexual intercourse at the same age or even earlier compared to young people in the Netherlands and France. Data are not available for Germany.

Finally, the proportion of sexually active teenage men and women ages 18 to 19 that had two or more sexual partners within the past year is substantially higher in the United States than in France. Data on number of sexual partners are not available for Germany or the Netherlands.

Having two or more sexual partners increases youth's potential risk of becoming infected with HIV and other STIs."


You're probably asking yourself how do our Western European friends end up with more positive outcomes than the United States.

Here's the recommendations from Advocates for Youth that our nation could follow:

'Unfortunately, there is not a single, 'silver bullet' solution. Yet, the United States can use the experience of the Dutch, Germans, and French to guide its efforts to improve adolescents' sexual health. Indeed, the United States can overcome obstacles and achieve social and cultural consensus respecting sexuality as a normal and healthy part of being human and of being a teen by using lessons learned from the European study tours.

** Adults in the Netherlands, France, and Germany view young people as assets, not as problems. Adults value and respect adolescents and expect teens to act responsibly. Governments strongly support education and economic self-sufficiency for youth.

** Research is the basis for public policies to reduce unintended pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Political and religious interest groups have little influence on public health policy.

** A national desire to reduce the number of abortions and to prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, provides the major impetus in each country for unimpeded access to contraception, including condoms, consistent sexuality education, and widespread public education campaigns.

** Governments support massive, consistent, long-term public education campaigns utilizing the Internet, television, films, radio, billboards, discos, pharmacies, and health care providers. Media is a partner, not a problem, in these campaigns. Campaigns are far more direct and humorous than in the U.S. and focus on safety and pleasure.

** Youth have convenient access to free or low-cost contraception through national health insurance.

** Sexuality education is not necessarily a separate curriculum and may be integrated across school subjects and at all grade levels. Educators provide accurate and complete information in response to students' questions.

** Families have open, honest, consistent discussions with teens about sexuality and support the role of educators and health care providers in making sexual health information and services available for teens.

** Adults see intimate sexual relationships as normal and natural for older adolescents, a positive component of emotionally healthy maturation. At the same time, young people believe it is "stupid and irresponsible " to have sex without protection and use the maxim, "safer sex or no sex."

** The morality of sexual behavior is weighed through an individual ethic that includes the values of responsibility, respect, tolerance, and equity.

** France, Germany, and the Netherlands work to address issues around cultural diversity in regard to immigrant populations and their values that differ from those of the majority culture."


Joel ... when I see our so-called "pro-life" neighbors promoting comprehensive sexuality education, full access to sexuality information and education, and sexuality research grounded empirical observation, then perhaps one can say that they are trying to reduce the abortion rate in the US. Right now, the so-called "pro-life" view increases the number of abortions and unplanned pregnancies in the US.

If the US attempted to duplicate the Netherlands approach to these sexuality issues, the US would experience 657,000 fewer teen pregnancies, 441,000 fewer teen births, 215,000 fewer teen abortions, and a $921 million savings for the taxpayer.

What the conservatives are promoting with millions of federal taxpayer dollars in the US today (abstinence-only until marriage education) isn't working and isn't as effective as the choices made in Europe.

Abstinence-only sexuality education appears to be driven by a sexuality-negative ideology and not facts. Until the so-called "pro-life" folks drop the harmful abstinence-only programs for comprehensive programs in our schools (like Our Whole Lives), they are doing our country more harm than good.

Joel Monka said...

Steve, your point that what we are currently using is not working is quite true, and I support comprehensive education- but also including telling them that the "fetus" is in fact a human being, an individual deserving of inherent dignity and worth, and should not be killed lightly. I also support making birth control more easily and universally available.

What do you think accounts for the change in the teen pregnancy and STD numbers in the US? The European numbers that are so dramatically lower than ours are about the same as they were 50 years ago, while our numbers started out like theirs in years past and then increased dramatically. What confuses is the rate of change- pregnancy and especially STD rates are ten times what they were in 1950. Am I to believe then that sex education was ten times better then than now? Was access to birth control ten times better back then? Clearly, there are things going on in our culture that are not happening in Europe that must be addressed as well.

Steve Caldwell said...

Joel wrote:
-snip-
" ... your point that what we are currently using is not working is quite true, and I support comprehensive education- but also including telling them that the "fetus" is in fact a human being, an individual deserving of inherent dignity and worth, and should not be killed lightly."

Joel,

The OWL curriculum presents the wide range of views and the medical facts on the topic of abortion so all participants can decide on this issue for themselves.

Whether the fetus is a "person" or a "potential person" is a values discussion and not a simple factual matter. This question and other related abortion questions are very complex values questions.

Even if one decides if a fetus is a person, that is still complicated by the fact that the mother carrying the fetus is also a person also deserving of inherent dignity and worth. Is forced pregnancy after rape, incest, or contraceptive failure in the best interests of the woman? Is forced pregnancy in the best interests of society?

When I taught OWL 7-9 two years ago, I left my opinions out of the class and taught the curriculum as written. The curriculum presents the wide range of views (as described above). The UU and UCC supplements provide information on the denominational resolutions that each religious body has taken with respect to reproductive choice. The UU materials also mention James Barrett (Lt Col, USAF, ret. and UU) who was murdered while performing abortion clinic escort duties in Florida. I also presented this supplementary religious material as written in class.

-snip-
"I also support making birth control more easily and universally available."

I'm glad to hear it. Unfortunately, most conservatives and most so-called "pro-life" folks would strongly disagree with your view.

-snip-
"What do you think accounts for the change in the teen pregnancy and STD numbers in the US? The European numbers that are so dramatically lower than ours are about the same as they were 50 years ago, while our numbers started out like theirs in years past and then increased dramatically."

Joel ... I suspect the difference between the US and Western European democracies comes from the greater role for religion in US politics. Religion (especially conservative religion) has less influence in Western European politics when compared to US politics. For example, look at the impact of religion on the same-sex marriage debate in the US vs. the impact in the Netherlands and Spain.

"What confuses is the rate of change- pregnancy and especially STD rates are ten times what they were in 1950. Am I to believe then that sex education was ten times better then than now? Was access to birth control ten times better back then?"

My opinionated guess here is that both the US and Western European countries have more teen sexual activity happening after the changes of the 1960s. The difference between the US and Europe is our youth are engaged in more sexual activity without the safety and public health sanity that European countries offer their youth.

A recent example of this lack of public health sanity is the reaction of some conservatives to the recently announced HPV vaccine because it might undercut the "abstinence until marriage" message promoted by some conservatives:

Will the Politics of Teen Sex Stop a Cancer Vaccine?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/cancervaccine.htm

Remember that folks who have attempted to research human sexuality and teach about sexuality outside the "boundaries" set by conservative religious and culture figures have been attacked for doing so. Just look at what happened to Dr. Kinsey at Indiana University and Dr. Dennis Dailey at the Kansas University.

Chalicechick said...

((("Humankind" sound so Star Trek)))

Oh, like sounding "Star Trek" is a bad thing...

CC