What about 'Hot Potato'?

Alrighty, Laurie. You axed for it! :-) Not really, but I did feel a couple of your things warranted a response, and I just can't bear looking at that stupid Fellowship app. for another minute.

*Speaking of which, mad props to everyone who helped out with reading those interminable essays. They really started coming together once you guys got ahold of 'em, even in the instances where you didn't make any specific suggestions.

Laurie, I so enjoyed your approach to responding that I will mimic it as well. Here goes:


T: ...It's a little trite, but there's been a great line thrown around: How can pro-lifers only care about the fetus UNTIL it's born, and not thereafter?

L: That’s an over-generalization, Tim, and you know it. Are you trying to tell me that only pro-choicers are educators, counselors, medical professionals, volunteers, etc. etc., many of whom dedicate theirs lives to helping children? I know you know that’s not the case.

Laurie, you're right--it is an overgeneralization. However, you neatly side-stepped the point of the statement, which refers to the provision of social services, NOT to whether there are people out there who love kids. Nobody would be so foolish as to imply that only pro-choicers fill those roles, and I think YOU know it.:-P

On the other hand, I should have made clearer the fact that it doesn't represent my perspective in its entirety, and I failed to do so. It DOES serve a useful rhetorical purpose, namely to point out that pro-lifers of the particularly vindictive variety (and, really, those are the ones with whom I have a problem) seem perfectly content to browbeat women who are facing difficult circumstances, excoriate them for DARING to think differently than the pro-lifers would, make it illegal for them to do something that really is no business of the protesters...and then stand in the way of funding and developing the social programs that would help make abortion largely unnecessary. THAT is a position I have a fundamental problem with. As I said in the original post, if you care SO MUCH about the life of the child, put your money where your mouth is. I'm sure the protesters have no natural right whatsoever to control what a woman does in the even of an unwanted pregnancy, but they definitely lose any moral and rhetorical high ground if they refuse to help find alternatives.

I know bringing up the AntiChrist to support my position is hardly a winning proposition, but here is a pithy statement which I will support 100%: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." (Actually, she later went on to say "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.")

See, it's possible to be completely pro-choice and yet completely anti-abortion. I am, and it seems like Ry may be as well. The point is, the gov't just has no business in this. I would never want an abortion, and cannot conceive of any circumstance in which Anna would either...but I cannot be raped (at least not in such a way that I face pregnancy); I am not poor, and I have a family that could help care for the child; I am educated, and so will almost always be employable; I am not facing life-destroying addictions; and I come from a sufficiently forgiving family and faith background that I would never be disowned, even were I [we] to become pregnant out of wedlock. How can I, with all these benefits, presume to make a decision for someone else about something so incredibly profound and personal? I can't bring myself to do it. I may be a know-it-all, I may be arrogant, but I know that's not my place. And I'm not sure it's anyone else's, either.

L: In the case of rape or incest, I want to agree with you. I would find it hard to want and love a child who was the result of something so horrible. If, however, a woman is not emotionally or financial unprepared to care for a child, why not consider adoption? For nine months of difficulty, a woman unable to care for her child can give that child a wonderful life with a family able and thrilled to provide it. I have personal experience with this, as my cousin was the child of an eighteen-year old mother who chose life for her, and chose my aunt and uncle as her parents.
Regarding your statement of, “Why should they have to?” I counter: why should they not have the opportunity? Why should we assume children from challenging backgrounds do not have the ability to fight their way to greater things? How many adults do you know who overcame apparently insurmountable odds to go on and make our world a better place?


I'm afraid it's just too easy to talk about "nine months of difficulty" in a flippant way (not that you were, but I've heard it done) when you haven't experienced it. We were lucky in that Anna was mobile and able to work until the very end--in many cases, women are bedridden, suffer horrid morning sickness, etc. If they are unmarried, or at least unattached, there's still a degree of social stigmatization/ostracism they will experience. Should they have to bear the brunt of all that ON TOP of knowing that this child is the product of a rape, or incest? I say "No." That said, I think you were probably referring more explicitly to just the 'ideal case' of a financially and socially secure woman who simply doesn't want this baby RIGHT NOW. Should she bear it to term, and give it up for adoption? Yes. Absolutely. IF she wants to.

I think even pro-choice Americans as a whole have a stronger moral compass than the pro-lifers want to believe. I don't know of many people who have HAD abortions who did so wantonly, and didn't feel some sort of emotional grief over it. Perhaps if, as you suggest, adoption were a more-developed option, more people would take it. But making it such an appealing option that people choose it over abortion does NOT require making abortion illegal.

L: In the case of abortion, I don’t believe the government would be making a decision on behalf of an individual woman. I believe the government would be making a decision on behalf of a child who cannot make a decision for him or herself. So many laws are designed to protect minors, and while I understand pregnancy is a bit of a gray area because it directly, physically effects the mother, when we’re talking life vs. nine months, I choose to believe an entire life holds more weight.

My physics professor in high school tried to get me to see things this way, and while I concede that the government's role IS to protect those who cannot protect themselves, I still couldn't weigh a fetus (or, early on, a blastocyst) equally with a woman's life. And let's not kid ourselves here: the scales aren't weighing a baby's life versus 9 months. Even if you concede that it IS a baby (which I'm not sure I'm ready to do), you would be weighing a baby's life vs. a mother's life. Take this from someone who is still struggling to figure out how this whole business of parenthood works.

In the end, though, Ry said it much better than I ever could: "I would argue that the life of a being that is alive, sentient, and self-sufficient is more valuable than the life of a being that doesn't meet one or more of those criteria." Indeed.

And, yes, Dr. Dixon was DA MAN.

I'd like to explore a little further the implications of opposing abortion on the grounds that life occurs from conception, just so we can be clear on what being morally consistent about this would entail. You would have to be opposed to the morning-after pill: it contains progestin, the purpose of which is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This is NOT the same as the "abortion pill," which aborts an already-implanted egg, and which tons of people already oppose. But let's me honest here: if conception = life, it doesn't MATTER whether the egg has implanted already, or not.

But let's get away from the whole arena of sexual irresponsibility, because I get a sense that for many of the vindictive, venomous subset of pro-lifers the idea that a sin (premarital sex) might go unpunished might be just as compelling a reason to outlaw abortion as the idea that a collection of cells might die. (But maybe I'm being unfair.)

How about artificial insemination?

You would need to be categorically opposed to it as well. On the one hand, there's the stem-cell angle--all the leftover frozen embryos get thrown out. (Which, if they're being thrown out, they're being destroyed...so tell me how you get to hold the moral high ground by claiming that throwing them out is better than using them to try to cure disease? But nevermind, that's another argument...) On the other, there's the fact that several (a half-dozen or more) fertilized eggs get implanted at a given time. And, if life begins at conception, every single egg that you have caused to become fertilized but you do NOT then bring to term is a life that you have ended. Taken to the absurd logical conclusion, I suppose this means that we're all committing abortions every time we have sex which leads to a fertilized egg, but does not lead to a pregnancy...so perhaps the second point is nullified by the fact that luck has something to do with transforming a fertilized egg into a potential baby via implantation. I'll leave that to smarter people than me to figure out.

Some people oppose artificial insemination and similar attempts to conceive on the grounds that they're "unnatural." Fine, although I'd say that's a weak argument. But if you're going to accept that A.I. is good, I think you've got a bit of an inconsistency to clear up if you are a pro-lifer on the grounds of personhood at conception.

L: Would you consider, in the alternative, more funds and resources being focused on the adoption process? I’m not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of adoption, but that may be a more healthy option for the children. It would provide not only financial support, but a strong family structure and a sense of being wanted – none of which government funding can replace.


No, government funding can't replace that--but giving birth is not cheap. Although it varies by region, "first trimester abortions cost about $300 - $600. Second trimester, $500 - $5000." (Source here.) On average, giving birth is easily $8000+. (Source here--I tried to find the original, but it's no longer available in the archives.)

Now, suppose we outlaw abortion. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy by rape or incest, or a pregnancy incurred by someone who isn't financially prepared to have the child and raise it, who foots the bill? I would argue that unless you're trying to stick it to the irresponsible mother for some reason, the gov't should--so that's where gov't funding comes in. I can already foresee an argument from the 'personal responsibility' crowd that women would just get pregnant willy-nilly b/c they could toss the bill for their indiscretions on the Feds. And I don't buy it for a second.

L: Ryan, I like your take on this, but for reasons I covered in my responses to Tim’s comments, I think the issue of abortion is different than just a matter of telling us what to do or not do. I think we as a society do and should have something to do with the relationship between a parent and a child when a child’s well-being is at stake. That’s why we have laws against child abuse, after all.


Again, I default to Ry's response to your response on this one -- I'm not convinced it's child abuse.

L: I do believe that while pro-life citizens will probably not be able to change the legality of abortion, maybe they can help change things in a cultural sense. Rather than attacking abortion clinics or railing against the evils of abortion, maybe they can turn their efforts to the promotion of adoption. The impact of a positive, hopeful campaign can be long-lasting, especially when coupled with community education about adoption: the process, its benefits, etc. Maybe there are ways to make the adoption option more real and accessible in areas where abortion rates are highest. I could get behind that, and I daresay many pro-choice citizens could, too.


I agree wholeheartedly. I think part of it will come down to pro-choicers finally making the explicit statement that they recognize abortion is, in fact, a horrible thing. I don't know why they haven't done so very well up to this point -- perhaps they felt they didn't have the breathing room from the pro-life camp, maybe they were just too dumb, who knows -- but I think when the conversation shifts from "We're the GOOD GUYS, you're the EVIL BAD GUYS, and therefore you need to be STOPPED!!!" to "Look, we think this is horrible and unnecessary, you think it's horrible and necessary, can we get together and come up with a third option?" everything will begin to improve substantially.

To expand upon what Robin said, one of the keys to this is to improve sex ed. I'm sure we've all seen the surveys comparing rates of teen pregnancy in the U.S.--just in case you haven't, go here--and can all agree that it's not very reasonable to infer from those results that European teens are inherently any less sex-crazed that we are/were. And, honestly, faith-based abstinence campaigns just don't work, especially as they tend to be adopted IN LIEU of, rather than in conjunction with, sex ed. regarding contraception, condoms, etc.
I mean, c'mon: how many non-Christians do you know are suddenly going to decide they're NOT having sex just because church or some government initiative told 'em not to? Heck, I know plenty of Christians who take their faith seriously for whom pre-marital abstinence just didn't work out, in spite of their best intentions.

The point is, NOBODY benefits from keeping kids ignorant about birth control, UNLESS you think that's one of the ways you're storing up treasures in heaven. And if it is, I surely hope God wreaks righteous vengeance upon you for all the collateral damage you caused while on Earth.