A modest proposal

Remove all ads!

Alexander Sanger is my kind of guy. Here's an excerpt from the WSJ's review of his latest book, "Beyond Choice":

At last, someone has come out and admitted the obvious truth: Abortion is a positive social good. It lowers crime, decreases poverty, increases freedom, preserves privacy, liberates women, and lowers the costs of male sexuality. All it costs is the death of a few million babies who seem to be little more than cute parasites.

Given the enormous good wrought by abortion-on-demand, I think it's time we expanded the program.

First, we kill the old and sick - those with brains and bodies wasted away by age and disease. The money and time we would have spent preserving these unwanted liabilities can be better "invested" in the wanted children of today.

Second, we kill the permanently disabled. Think how much money we could save - not just in hospital bills, but in the millions spent complying with disability regulations (like wheelchair ramps beside stairs). The money saved can be better "invested" in the young and healthy - people like us.

Third, we kill the criminals. No one asks to be robbed or attacked - why should we have to pay for their legal fees and years of housing in taxpayer-funded jails? New rule: if you break the law, you forfeit your life. That way, the money we currently waste on the justice system can be "invested" in law-abiding citizens, like you and me.

Fourth, we kill the poor. What right do these unwanted parasites have to drain resources from hard-working taxpayers? The poor commit most of the crimes, they have outsized unemployment rates, and they're undereducated. Kill 'em all, and the average safety, employment, education, and wealth of the society increases.

Fifth, we kill anyone who ever dares to encroach upon our personal space and imposes unwanted responsibilities upon us. The happy result will be to rid our society of busybodies and intrusive weaklings, and forever banish the idea that maybe, just maybe, an unwanted responsibility could trump a wanted freedom. Remember, unasked-for dependency awards the provider the power of life and death.

End result? A society of independent, educated, sophisticated, liberated supermen.

Three cheers for Mr. Sanger!

 

There is a little bit of straw left in that man. Let me prop it up so you can take another swing.

Well written though. Swift would be proud.

Edit - This deserves an explanation. So, here is my explanation of why it is a strawman.

To the extent that you purport to attribute this position to anyone other than Sanger, it is a strawman, or at least a huge looming strawman. If all you wanted to do was respond to Sanger, fine. However, I suspect you wished to make a broader point - hence the strawman.

I'd also say your argument begs the question. Your comparisons make draw an analogy between the old and sick or the criminal etc with the fetus. This analogy begs the question.

One side says these comparisons are entirely invalid. You might say they are valid. The other side will say they aren't. You might say they are.

It'll get real technical like that.

[ February 18, 2004, 02:27: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Let's also kill roleplayers, who already are out of this world

Let's kill the drunks.

And coffee junks.

Hmm....

 

Good thread, Grey. And I could not agree more with your sarcasim. It's not that I am completely opposed to abortion, but the kind of position that Sanger illustrates, which goes even beyond abortion on demand, nullifies any rights that the fetus has to its humanity.

Strawman or not, I don't think I can improve on your satire, so I won't even try.

[ February 18, 2004, 04:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Careful Grey, don't be putting words in peoples' mouths. He hasn't said anything about the old, the disabled, the criminal or the less financially secure.

What he says does have some merit. Not in every case but certainly in many cases. Teenage pregnancies and rape victims are the main aborters. He also mentions how in the past thing was delt with. Unwanted children 'were' killed, not in the womb either, often after birth. Indeed we live in a happy day and age where morality is a major power but try being in a teenage mother's shoes.

Of course we could take it the complete other way, Grey. Making abortion illegal soon 'the mourning after pill' will be made illegal as will contraceptive pills. Sperm will be considered half-human and thus entitled to life. Male masterbation will be a crime with the same penalty as mass murder!

 

I think that was satire.

 

@ Abomination

Masturbation = mass murder.
Indeed, that's how it seems to be heading nowadays.

Absolute madness.

 

Strap in, boys, I'm taking this slippery slope all the way to the bottom.

Like Mr. Sanger, I presume that the fetus is human. It's philosophically convenient, but scientifically untenable, to suppose otherwise. So that's not the question I'm begging. The real beggar's question is, "What gives a human the right not to be killed by those on whom it is dependent?"

Abomination makes this point explicitly:

Abomination makes four arguments here:

1) Abortion has merit for many teenage pregnancies.
2) Abortion has merit for rape victims.
3) Abortion is better than infanticide.
4) Morality is a major power but is trumped by pragmatic reality.

Let's jump through 'em one at a time.

If a teenage girl gets pregnant, it can stunt her life forever. Period. Take a sixteen-year-old inner-city girl who is seduced by a smooth-talking cad ("he said he loved me, I don't understand why he doesn't anymore"). She drops out of high school to take care of the kid - poof, there go her college dreams. She has to work at a mediocre minimum-wage job - poof, there go her career ambitions. She has to live at home - poof, there goes her independence. Her unwanted baby has taken all her dreams and crushed them underfoot. Plus, statistics suggest that her kid, growing up in a single-parent home, will (if a boy) grow up to be criminal or (if a girl) get pregnant out of wedlock like mom.

Pretty bleak, no? Then we return to the question that we begged: "What gives a human the right not to be killed by those on whom it is dependent?" This barren tableau is swept away with a single child sacrifice. The mom reaps incredible life benefits, all at the cost of one human life. A teenage mom gets the most bang for the bloody buck. Trouble is...once you grant the principle, it's tough not to draw the parallel with euthanizing ailing relatives. What about the sixteen-year-old girl who has to drop out of school to take care of her sick parents? Or the girl who has to say goodbye to her career ambitions to take care of a disabled sibling? What gives THEM the right to hijack her life?

But what about rape victims? The woman is brutally assaulted, and the pregnancy not only paralyzes her life, but the kid will mean a lifetime of dredging up memories of the horrible experience. Abortion not only frees her to get on with her life, but vengeance is served by sacrificing the kid for the sins of its father. Oh, wait...neither law nor morality allows us to punish one man's crimes by executing his offspring. Justice is served by executing the rapist, not the innocent byproduct of his guilty act.

But what about infanticide? If we made abortion illegal, we would undoubtedly see an increase in the infanticide rate, as immature moms dispose of their unwanted kids. But look at it this way - the fact that we don't kill all the poor people means an increase in the murder rate. If we just killed 'em all early on, they wouldn't survive long enough to be murdered! Same with infanticide - an uptick in the infanticide rate isn't a reason in favor of abortion.

And as for morality being trumped by pragmatism...well, THAT principle can be used to justify any wrong on the planet, be it murder, rape, theft, or slavery. There's no question that the poor, unwed teenage mother would be greatly benefited if her kid, once born, become her slave-for-life. Then the slave-kid can do the chores and work in the sweatshop for extra cash, while the mom gets her education and career. But wait...if it isn't reasonable to spare the kid's life even at the cost of lifetime slavery, then why is it reasonable to execute the kid instead?

Now for dmc's questions:

Justifying abortion for the Tay-Sachs kid works on the same principle as death for the severely disabled, or the idea that it's cruel to let unwanted children be born into unloving homes. ONE person decides that ANOTHER person's life is not worth living - whether because of sickness, or poverty, or frailty, or lovelessness. My question is: What is the suicide rate for the severely disabled or perpetually poor? I think it's a ways short of 100%. Which means that, given a choice, even the badly hurting and helpless tend to think that life is worth living. I think we should defer to them rather than deciding that death is justified because of our misplaced compassion.

This is the lifeboat principle - two people in the boat, only enough water for one, and both will die if one isn't removed. I don't know any way to answer a lifeboat question outside of its case-by-case context. Which is to say, if the kid is doomed regardless, then abortion probably would be justified to save the life of the mom - but the details are critical.

Hardly - sperm is no more "half-human" than a severed torso is "half-human". It's a building block for the human being, but not the human being itself. This is real life, not a Monty Python song.

So, how many trees did I hit on my way down the ski slope?

 

He's not putting words in anyone's mouth. He is, however, simply taking Sanger's argument to it's logical conclusion. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being consistent with the precepts laid down by Sanger.

 

Abortion has become another form of birth control for the practice of unsafe sex. IMO, there is something hideously wrong with the principle of abortion-on-demand as just another way to avoid an unwanted pregnacy. I wish the answers were as cut-and-dry as in Grey's arguments, but they are not, although some of his points are certainly vaild.

But, is that Newt Gingrich I hear coming over that hill. Really, Grey, you sound like it is the purpose of women everywhere to be pregant and concieve, almost like cattle. That is the problem with this whole issue: each side gets caught up in seeing only one side of the "human" question. You are really asking a lot of a woman who has been raped to carry a rapist's baby to term for nine months and then care for it for the next twenty years. Ultimately, that kind of situation is the woman's choice, because you are talking about the woman's humanity. I watched my wife carry my two girls to term, and it gave me a whole new appreciation for the whole child-bearing thing. That kind of decision can only be made by the woman, IMO.

Let me ask you a really hard question: would you still feel the same if it was your wife who was raped, and if she had to carry the baby of her rapist for nine months?

But I'm getting a bit carried away here. My point was that abortion is not as neat an issue as most would contend. It comes down to education and judgment. Young girls should not be educated in that abortion is the ultimate solution for birth control; just as women are entitled to be treated with the respect and dignity that THEIR humanness requires.

[ February 22, 2004, 06:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Wait a sec, that ride ain't over yet GM! Here comes the black diamond run!

They have no right what-so-ever. However the girl is not legally obliged to take care of any of those family members either. She can simply say 'no', it would be her choice and nobody can stop her. However the girl's unborn child is different to her brother (unless she's from the south where they could be one and the same ) and/or parents. The child is not born yet. It's not exactly in a state of awareness. It doesn't have a mind of its own (not in the literal sense). It's unwanted!

Hardly. It's not about vengence. It's about the woman not being forced to change her life because of the actions of somebody else that were illegal. What should be done with the child? Hand it over to the rapist and force him to raise it? You can be sure the child will get a good education can't you? The last person who should have to take care of the child is the mother.

There is a rather not-so-subtle difference between abortion and the killing of poor people. An unborn child has no affiliations outside of the womb. These poor people have families, still have jobs and aren't all murderers. The difference between infanticide and abortion is that you are punished for infanticide. Do we really want jails full of women who had to kill their children in order for them to survive?

Because the child isn't a slave. In fact it's quite the opposite. The mother is a slave to the child. If the child dies, the mother is accountable. The child will damn the mother's life because of its existance. If you 'nip it in the bud' then no more damage is done to the victim. If the government agreed to take care of all rape victim's children (concieved by rape) then it's fair for everyone. The government is making sure nothing unjust happens because of a law it passed (if, hypothetically [sp?], abortion was made illegal).

Actually a severed torso isn't human at all. It's a corpse. When does something 'become' human? It's agreed that humans are made up of one part sperm, one part egg. Is it human when these two things are finally joined (conception)? One month into pregnancy? Because sperm is still life. Sperm still contains the human genetic code. Sperm is just as aware as an unborn child. What's the difference? An egg? When is something deemed human?

 

Quick! Hide the interns!

Take off those shoes! Back in the kitchen!

Seriously, I don't mean to make it sound like women are cattle or chattel or pick-your-sexist-put-down. Nor, if I were (theoretically) to claim that men have a moral obligation to defend their families and nations with their lives, would I mean to sound that men are just killing machines. Childbearing is a unique part of a woman's identity, but only a part.

That is a lot to ask. Even if she puts it up for adoption, she still has to endure nine miserable months of pregnancy, the painful labor, and the physical scars any woman gets from carrying a child. It's not her fault, and she's paying the price for the rapist's evil action. The question is, whether or not it's morally all right to trade the child's life to obviate the costs of pregnancy. The baby is an innocent victim of the rapist, too - it is abhorrent to execute the child for the father's sins.

The woman is human, and so is her child. Because individuals are caught in webs of mutual dependency, like it or not, we all encroach upon each other's humanity just by dint of living day by day. We are constantly sacrificing for each other - by working eight-hour days, by doing the family chores, by following the traffic rules, by just getting up in the morning and restraining our impulses to kill our neighbors or ourselves. Our very humanness requires trade-offs - but never trading a child's life.

And statistically, sex-selection abortions overwhelmingly favor killing girls instead of boys. There is something fundamentally dehumanizing when a woman will kill a future woman purely because of that womanness.

Would I still feel the same? I can't vouch for my feelings, but I'm pretty sure I'd ride a nine-month roller coaster of rage, grief, despair, bitterness, and frustration. It would be like a toxic poison in the relationship. But my anger would be, I hope, directed against the rapist and not his direct victims - my wife and her child. I can't say whether I would keep the kid or give him up for adoption. But I can say that I wouldn't sacrifice the kid to appease my fury.

Amen, brother.

 

Grey, my friend, you have struck a resounding note of sanity in an increasingly insane world. Your proposal is worthy and insightful...but I must say...you stop too soon!

Summary execution for those groups who insist upon serving only as a drain on our society is short-sighted and wasteful.

The elderly and the infirm should be utilized for scientific and medical research. There is so much more knowledge that can be gained from a reasonably responsive specimen than a cadaver, rabbit or computer model.

Unwanted children (at least those already born) whould serve as a tremendous organ farm for us already established and useful members of society. Imagine the years that could be added to my life if I had a steady supply of young, healthy hearts, kidneys and testicles. Of course, we will have used the elderly and infirm or forward our knowledge of transplant medicine.

Convicted criminals, at least those of moderately sound mind and body, could option between a slow, torturous execution or to serve our Great Nation by killing our enemies in combat. Surely war will always be with us, and the chance to "live another day" is a much greater motivator than silly patriotic ideals.

A note of restraint on the poor, Grey. They are unfortunately as numerous as cockroaches, and I fear as difficult to exterminate. I would advise against too heavy a hand with this ubiquitous bunch. Work factories and poor houses are the way to go with this rabble. Imagine an economy where the labor forces worked for 35 cents an hour. The cost of U.S. made goods would plummet, our trade deficit would turn into a surplus overnight and us worthwhile members of society would enjoy tremendous buying power. The poor would gladly stay in line...indeed feel fortunate for their protected position relative to the other leech elements of society. Oh, and don't worry about the economic impact of building these poor houses...we would simply remodel the existing Public School buildings in the slum neighborhoods...the buses are already there to transport to the factories and concertina wire is very cheap.

And finally...by all means keep the abortions coming...but it is an act of criminal folly to dispose of those spendid little pristine bodies (although slightly mangled) as medical waste. That tissue should be saved, accumulated and processed into an elite high-protein snack for us enlighted, superior members who seek to reduce our carb intake. Perhaps we could even cash in on the "Atkins Choco-Fetal Crunch Bar".

Now we have done Jonathan Swift justice.

Ah, the profitable joys of living in a world which has lost the value of life and has embraced a culture of death .

Three Cheers for Grey. Lead on.

 

Agreed. That is the question being begged. The fundamental question of the entire debate. But more basic than that even.

First, let me be honest, I haven't read everything above so I'm not replying to it all. I'm replying merely to the quote about humans etc.

Clearly a human fetus is human. Certainly it isn't, say, a pig fetus. However, there is no necessary connection between being human and having a right to life. To argue otherwise would be to argue that a human sperm can't be killed because it is human.

Imagine for a moment that Yoda came down to planet Earth. We sit around and chat, have tea, and then we kill Yoda. Is this acceptable? I'd say that most of us have the clear idea that the answer is no, it is unacceptable.

But Yoda isn't human so, how does he have the right to life? I think that the above shows there is no necessary connection between being human and having the right to life.

So the human fetus is human. That isn't particularly interesting though.

So, your analogy/satire begs the question in that it presupposes some common relationship between the fetus and the poor etc. You've submitted that this relationship is that they are human. I'm saying that being human is irrelevant. The comparison invalidly begs the question to the extent that it implies a meaningful/significant similarity between the poor and a fetus. Whether there is a meaningful/significant similarity is the entire point of the entire brouhaha. And this aspect has been skipped in a rush to lump everyone together with Sanger (the strawman).

Thusfar this central question upon which the entire debate rests has been, in this thread, passed over I think.

A quick glance shows the other arguments may be primarily utilitarian. Utilitarian arguments like these are weird in that they are theoretically empirically verifiable but in practice impossible to resolve.

But that makes them just like the entire abortion debate. With the exception of perhaps Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument (which is very interesting but not particularly compelling; interesting in that she recognizes the central question to the debate is probably unresolvable so she chooses a unique strategy to side-step it) all arguments regarding abortion's morality eventually will devolve into - 'yes it is' vs. 'no it isn't.'

Also, and not addressed at Grey, when is the line between satire and ad hominem crossed?

[ February 19, 2004, 07:00: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I don't think you qualify as a human being until you can shuffle a deck of cards.


But seriously folks, a fetus is a fetus. Terminating a fetus(especially for medical reasons) is not analogous to murdering a homeless person. This is of course MY OPINION but until someone is able to apply scientific methodology to determine otherwise, I will stand by a woman's right to choose.

 

Careful Runequester...

your "scientific methodology" could determine that you were not an optimum specimen too.

Sad when we allow our lives to denegrate to rule by "scientific methodology".

Unless "scientific methodology" is governed by morality it is a cold, merciless tyrant. No one will be able to satisfy the ever narrowing focus of its gaze.

It is fine to speak of a "woman's" rights, but until you first recognize a "human's" rights...you are a clanging gong.

 

Here's some science if it helps the discussion.

When abortion is typically legal in the United States, the first trimester, the fetus brain has yet to function as one unit.

The human brain develops in three different parts which eventually grow togather and forms a single unit. Most notable of these is the Frontal Lobe - the center of what makes us "us".

When abortion is performed, the fetus has never had a thought, nor emotion, nor experienced any complex simuli.

It is human, but not yet a human being.

 

So independent brain function is the defining line of human life?

I'll be sure to remember that if you ever slip into a coma, Blackhawk.

I've had this arguement before...but as a scientist myself I understand that science has a purpose not to define life...but to describe it. Science is a tool that can enrich or demolish...kind of like a +4 warhammer...take extreme care how you apply it as "the" defining element of your lives.

 

For me abortion isnt as much a question whether it is right or not, it is a question whether it should be legal or not. I dont think I personally would ever choose abortion if I was in a situation where I would have to make a choice. I do think it should be legal though. I think there are cases where I wouldnt condemn someone for making an abortion and there are cases when I think it wasnt nescessesary. My reason for not thinking I would ever choose abortion has not really much to do with concern for the fetus but concern for myself. I think that someone who takes an abortion without very very strong reasons regrets it, or it will atleast be a burden on their mind for the rest of their lives. You dont really regret a child, not to the same extent.

I think abortion should be an option however, cause there are cases when it is the best choice for all involved. That is up to the parent/s to decide. Something I think is important though is to make it a prerecquisitive for someone wanting an abortion to talk to a therapist they can truly straighten out their reasons for doing what they do and think things over. This is not a means of putting guilt on the parent/s but simply a way to make them consider the implications from all angles.