February 13, 2007
Choosing On Choice
EJ Dionne offers a interesting tidbit:
Making abortion a party issue has also encouraged dissembling. In Britain and Australia, a politician's stand on abortion is accorded "free vote" status, disconnected from party discipline. After all, it's perfectly consistent for a progressive committed to broad public provision for the poor to believe that abortion is wrong. It's equally consistent for a conservative opposed to government meddling in the marketplace to support a woman's right to choose.
As to his larger point about the puzzling insincerity politicians display on abortion, I'm not certain this issue really does bring out their inner panderbears more intensely than any other. Rather, what I think you're seeing is something of a social networking effect: The deeper a pol gets into their party's national apparatus, the more time they'll spend with intense, committed, eloquent, hardline advocates of their party's position on the issue, and the more likely they'll end up buying into at least some of their ally's premises and looking with increased skepticism towards some of the other side's arguments. And abortion, more so than most, offers two fundamentally compelling, diametrically opposed narratives. It's the best-framed issue in American politics, and it offers the least in the way of middle ground.
Think of it this way: On health care, liberals and libertarians don't disagree about premises, we disagree about solutions. We both believe the system costs too much and delivers too little, we both believe there should be wider access to care, we both believe reform is necessary, etc. We part ways in the prescriptive portion of the conversation. Abortion is just the opposite. Here, it's the premises which divide. Is a first-term fetus a human, or a dumb clump of cells? Can the federal government tell women they must carry a child to term without irreparable harming their autonomy? Does abortion murder, or does banning it enslave? Make the decision to ally with one or the other side, buy into even some of their premises, and you'll naturally and probably sincerely drift into what Dionne is identifying as a sort of dogmatism.
February 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
That seems kinda weird. If you divide arguments into ones based on "premises" and "consequentialist logic" I'd say that the practical logic arguments are fuzzier and much more likely to end up with you being eventually swayed than the premises ones. You know, which is why in these other countries abortion stands out as the a-partisan issue. And why people are more likely to switch political affiliations than religious.
I'd rather say that politicians dissemble on it because most people who seriously study the interconnected problems of society (right or left) give very little weight to abortion, and are much more willing to sell that out so they can accomplish their goals to fix other problems. Like every other "hot button" issue the right drum-beats up.
Posted by: Tony V | Feb 13, 2007 1:52:07 PM
I think in one sense there's a settled divide on abortion and litle middle ground; but in another sense - perhaps just a purely emotional one - nothing's really settled. If it were, the discussion around abortion would not be as painful and unpleasant as its been, I don't think. If we could simply agree to disagree, we'd be done with it, really, wouldn't we? But we can't, because in some sense, this is not settled.
And frankly, I disagree somewhat with Dionne's premise - I don't find many "progressive[s] committed to broad public provision for the poor" who don't understand why a woman has a right to decide for herself about abortion (usually extrapolated from birth control arguments, which play a big part in discussing our public concern for the health and loves of the poor). And I don't think the kind of conservative who opposes abortion on the right is best described by his "minimal governemtn intrusion" discussion - frame it instead as "conservative concerned about social fabric and culture issues" and you'll be hard pressed to find deviation. I think Dionne's reflecting Washington's conventional wisdom, as if we've all agreed to his terms. And I don't think we have.
Posted by: weboy | Feb 13, 2007 2:18:18 PM
Ezra, this post threw me for a loop. Do libertarians agree with liberals on the basic premises of health care? I thought the libertarian position was that the state has no business providing health care to the public. The provision of medical services simply doesn't fall under the province of legitimate obligations of the state. Is that wrong?
N.
Posted by: Nate W. | Feb 13, 2007 2:22:36 PM
Nate, here is what Ezra said:
"On health care, liberals and libertarians don't disagree about premises, we disagree about solutions."
The difference you mention is in the solution. Libertarians likely believe that tax breaks to health providers would partly fix the problem. But the point is, they generally agree that there is a problem.
Posted by: Adrock | Feb 13, 2007 2:36:02 PM
I mean analytically. When we both survey the issue of health care, long before you get to who should provide it, there's a lot of agreement on what's going on. But when you get to solutions -- should it be publicly offered? -- then the disagreement kicks in. Fundamentally, though, we both see the same things. We have a largely -- though not entirely -- empirical disagreement over how to fix it.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 13, 2007 2:36:19 PM
Like Tony, I'm not sure positions on abortion are being shifted so much by who one hangs around with (could be), but I think the distinction between disagreements on premises and those on means is interesting. It does make for a different kind of divide. A similar divide can appear in connection with means too, though. A Nate says, libertarians have different premises about how to do things than typical liberals do.
Weboy, how would people who disagree about whether abortion should be seen as murder or freedom over one's own body just agree to disagree in the political process? I think Dionne's premise is that there is no logical conflict between the pro-welfare and pro-life positions.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 2:44:43 PM
Second point first Sanpete - if pro-welfare and anti-abortion don't logically conflict, where are these people? I'm not sure the Caseys of PA - everyone's favorite example - are necessarily that pro-welfare (and some on the right wonder if Casey the younger is really that opposed to abortion, as well). Are there others? I really don't know of any. I'd be curious to hear about them.
First point second: the "pro-choice" position is designed to encompass just such objections - believe what you want about abortion, but understand that each woman will decide for herself. I think that's the problem with the notion that this "two sides" thing really describes what we have - one side thinks there are two sides. The other side thinks there's one side and the other group is morally bankrupt. Makes having a debate on the issue somewhat difficult, doncha think? :)
Posted by: weboy | Feb 13, 2007 2:56:52 PM
Okay. I see what you're saying, Ezra. (And thanks for the clarifing comment Adrock.) But I think you're stretching.
Evaluating the economic state of the U.S. health care system results in agreement between liberals and libertarians not because it's liberals and libertarians doing the evaluating, but because evaluating the economic state of U.S. health care isn't a particularly value-laden enterprise. There's nothing value-laden about comparing U.S. health outcomes and expenditures with those in Japan or Sweden.
Another way to express my point is to ask WHY liberals and libertarians disagree about solutions to the health care mess. One reason they disagree is because many of the methods the liberal views as legitimate ways to solve society-wide problems are illegitimate in the eyes of the libertarian. But that's not the ONLY reason. Just as important is that the libertarian fundamentally disagrees with the liberal about WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so what looks like a solution to the liberal doesn't look like a solution to the libertarian. To the liberal, non-universal coverage is a problem. To the libertarian, non-universal coverage is no problem at all. If you can't afford the market price of health coverage, too bad. No one's ENTITLED to health coverage below market price.
Posted by: Nate W. | Feb 13, 2007 3:13:00 PM
Okay. I see what you're saying, Ezra. (And thanks for the clarifing comment Adrock.) But I think you're stretching.
Evaluating the economic state of the U.S. health care system results in agreement between liberals and libertarians not because it's liberals and libertarians doing the evaluating, but because evaluating the economic state of U.S. health care isn't a particularly value-laden enterprise. There's nothing value-laden about comparing U.S. health outcomes and expenditures with those in Japan or Sweden.
Another way to express my point is to ask WHY liberals and libertarians disagree about solutions to the health care mess. One reason they disagree is because many of the methods the liberal views as legitimate ways to solve society-wide problems are illegitimate in the eyes of the libertarian. But that's not the ONLY reason. Just as important is that the libertarian fundamentally disagrees with the liberal about WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so what looks like a solution to the liberal doesn't look like a solution to the libertarian. To the liberal, non-universal coverage is a problem. To the libertarian, non-universal coverage is no problem at all. If you can't afford the market price of health coverage, too bad. No one's ENTITLED to health coverage below market price.
Posted by: Nate W. | Feb 13, 2007 3:14:28 PM
Ezra,
I think you've gotten this dead wrong. The pro-choice position is one where even if one is ambivalent or wouldn't actually have an abortion, you still believe that it is a decision to be left in the hands of the individual.
I think the anti-choice side is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. If you truly believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder, you don't spend your time with 24 hour waiting periods, or trying to ban certain procedures, you call for the jailing of the women who commit these murders. What the wingnuts understand is that if they did this, they would have little support in the society. Tens of millions of women in this country have had abortions. Calling each of them a murderer and suggesting that they should be put behind bars is the fast road to oblivion for this issue.
The anti-choicers do not revere life -- they simply believe that sex that they do not approve of should be punished by child bearing. After all, these are people who by and large are completely comfortable with our current war, capital punishment, and the use of violence for political ends. Don't let the high minded sentiments fool you.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Feb 13, 2007 3:16:00 PM
Oops. I posted twice. My apologies. Please feel free to lash me indiscriminately.
Posted by: Nate W. | Feb 13, 2007 3:16:52 PM
Weboy, the proper question in response to Dionne's premise is whether there is a logical conflict between the positions, not whether some people hold both. I don't see a conflict. Do you? Anyway, Harry Reid is pro-life.
the "pro-choice" position is designed to encompass just such objections - believe what you want about abortion, but understand that each woman will decide for herself.
This seems to illustrate a basic deafness to the pro-life view. We typically don't allow women, or anyone, to decide on a personal basis whether persons should live or die. The pro-choice position doesn't encompass that objection, at least not typically. It usually either denies or ignores it. Maybe you could explain how the pro-choice view as you see it encompasses the objection.
I think both sides tend to think the other is morally bankrupt (see the post a couple above this one for an example).
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 3:24:37 PM
The reason most radical abortionists hang with the left is cuz the left itself has a perverted view of the world in general.
The left want the ability to kill unborn babies for any reason including convenience.
The left wants gays to be allowed to marry to stick it in the face of normal America who still consider marriage a somewhat sacred institution. Why else would the left so blatantly go against the will of the people(gay marriage has been defeated every time the people vote on it). If it was really just to show love for each other and legal/financial reasons, the queers and left wouldn't insist on the word "marriage". They want to redefine the word. The left says not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory, yet the left doesn't think poligamy should be legal, the left doesn't think a brother and sister should be allowed to marry, a father and son, etc. Only the perversions the left approves of.
The left believes it is OK to stifle free speech if the speech comes from someone they don't agree with. The left actually defends and justifies the assaulting of conservatives on college campuses.
The left approves of discrimination based solely on race, cuz the left doesn't think black people are smart enough to compete against whites.
The left doesn't want anyone to have guns, which may be noble if it is cuz of gun violence. But these same people would take guns from honest citizens while leaving the guns in the hands of criminals if they had their way, because whether they like it or not, this country is full of guns and the criminals will not give their guns up willingly. The left doesn't care, they would still pass laws making citizens turn in their guns knowing that criminals wouldn't, leaving normal people defenseless.
The left thinks we should just leave Iraq, even tho there would be millions of deaths. Dead innocent men, women and children.
The left wants no mention of God in public, nor the celebration of religion in public, because their souls are so vile and hate filled, it offends them to see the joy someone else experiences thru their religion.
I could go on, but the point is that wacked out people hang together, regardless of their particular version of wackiness. All the gays, abortionists, terrorist supporters, etc. will migrate to the Democrat party.
Kind of like a mental institution.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 13, 2007 3:25:17 PM
There's plenty of intellectual dishonesty to go around on arbortion. Neither side adequately deals with the strong points raised by the other, but typically focuses on the other side's weak points. How many liberals have a consistent view on how to decide who should be a person, one that excludes infanticide in as strong a way as most people feel necessary? Most liberals aren't even aware of this problem, probably because intellectual honesty is the first casualty of war.
You know, Toke, if you bothered to drop your slash-and-burn persona and post more measured and careful comments, you might actually make some points here.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 3:34:38 PM
The difference in UK/Australia is that abortion is a legislative, not a constitutional issue. See Cynthia Gorney's Gambling With Abortion for more, including a discussion of the healthcare framework in which foreign debates take place.
Because abortion is a constitutional issue in the US, it factors into the choice of president, since that influences the choice of judges. At the moment, it also factors into partisan legislative elections, since it's those laws which end up on the desks of those judges.
But Dionne also identifies party divisions that aren't really as evident -- or at least weren't that evident on the UK right until the Tories realised there was room for a libertarian critique of Blair.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 13, 2007 3:36:01 PM
(And better trolls, please.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 13, 2007 3:38:02 PM
:I think the anti-choice side is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. If you truly believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder, you don't spend your time with 24 hour waiting periods, or trying to ban certain procedures, you call for the jailing of the women who commit these murders."
In fairness to the pro-lifers - they cannot pass a law that would lead to the jailing of women. It would be struck down upon passage.
I do think there is something intellectually dishonest about the ban on certain procedures, but remember - they can't ban all the procedures in the second term.
Finally, the 24 hour waiting period is one of the few things they can do, and it does discourage some women from having an abortion. Of all the laws they have passed, this one actually does seem to serve the purpose of discouraging abortion.
Posted by: MDtoMN | Feb 13, 2007 4:08:37 PM
Oh yeah, and I would ask for better trolls too.
I would also like to say - not everything the Left done is motivated solely by a hatred for the right (perhaps unlike the right in this way?) Seriously - the Right is actually a backlash movement, born out of hatred and repugnance for Liberals. But that doesn't mean the left is the same thing.
2 Simple things:
1) Maybe gay marriage isn't about trying to hurt average Americans - maybe it's about letting Gay people get married. Maybe it's about letting them have equal rights. Wow! Also, maybe it is about changing culture, with an aim to make life more pleasant for gay people - have you seen the suicide rate for homosexual youth?
2) National Democrats no longer fight for gun control. But I find it highly amussing that your argument - criminals will not follow the law, so anyone pushing for a law is just trying to restrict good citizens out of hatred - is actually an argument against having laws at all. Which most of us think is silly. Murder doesn't NEED to be illegal to stop me from murdering people, but I don't perceive homicide laws as an unfair attempt to restrict my freedom while allowing criminals to break the law willy-nilly.
Posted by: MDtoMN | Feb 13, 2007 4:13:08 PM
I dunno Toke, along the lines of what Sanpete's saying... you seem so angry about everything these days. Makes it hard to have a political discussion, is all I'm sayin'...
Anyway Sanpete, my point is if there's isn't a conflict, I think you'd see more people who hold such a position making a more valiant argument for it. That you don't (and really, even Harry Reid doesn't) to me says that what looks compatible apparently turns out not to be. Instead I think what one finds, as Dionne says, is that being a small government free marketer actually tells you nothing about where one will stand on abortion. Which, it strikes me, has everything to do with why antiabortion folks don't win a lot of these debates: their position is a minority position even among what are ostensibly the people on their side.
Also we've had the long argument about personhood already, about which I'd say we'd, um, need to agree to disagree. I also don't agree with your premise that people don't make life and death decisions for themselves or others in various circumstances. People do, and often times it is a woman (since women often wind up caring for the sick and the elderly). The trouble with absolutists (life begins at conception, taking a life is always wrong) is that life doesn't come with a lot of absolutes. Another reason why pro-choice (which I'm not), which leaves room for many different points of view, tends to appeal to the widest cross-section of people - and people are comfortable with the notion that a decision they might not aprove of for themselves is a decision that others have to make for themselves. That, I think, is accepting the notion of free will.
Posted by: weboy | Feb 13, 2007 4:31:15 PM
It's worth noting that the number of people who actually, consistently believe that life begins at conception--no emergency contraception, no birth control pills, no stem cell research, no fertility clinics--is just a small minority. Also, the number of people who are willing to accept very late term abortions is a small minority. So, really, there is a middle ground, and most people are in it.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Feb 13, 2007 5:14:47 PM
Weboy, why give a valiant argument that there's no conflict when no one can even suggest one? No valiant argument is called for in such a circumstance. There are other ways of explaining the division between the parties on this, having to do with religion, polarization, party power blocs, etc.
You can agree to disagree on the other point, but I prefer for now to give additional reasons I think you're wrong. The question is how the pro-choice view encompasses the pro-life view that the fetus is a person. I think it pretty clearly doesn't, but you resist that, apparently because it allows you to think you don't have to deal with the question of personhood. That doesn't hold up. If the fetus is a person, killing it is usually murder. Being pro-choice can't encompass that; it's incompatible with pro-choice policies. (Since you seem not to like absolutes, there are views in between. One such view is that we don't know when a fetus becomes a person, so we should err on the side of caution, protecting what might be a person.)
What I said is that we don't *typically* allow people to decide whether another person lives or dies. There are cases in which we do, obviously, but you would have to show that such exceptions are relevant to abortion. I think any effort to do that will show obvious problems with bringing up those exceptions. Bringing up free will doesn't advance anything either. We don't allow free will to warrant people taking lives for their own private reasons.
Did you mean to say you're not pro-choice?
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 5:32:05 PM
Second point first - if pro-welfare and anti-abortion don't logically conflict, where are these people?
Well, to name one big group, that is the official position of the Catholic Church.
Posted by: SamChevre | Feb 13, 2007 6:27:02 PM
I think that it's not really true that pro-choicers are deaf to the objections of pro-lifers. You might get the impression, from a casual glance, that pro-lifers care about fetal life and ignore a pregnant woman's autonomy, and that pro-choicers care about a pregnant woman's autonomy and ignore fetal life, but that's not true. Pro-choicers frequently address the issue of the value of fetal life, and their conclusion is that it isn't worth worrying about, and that even for people with clearly valuable lives, those people don't have the right to enslave people to support their lives.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Feb 13, 2007 7:05:41 PM
Julian, you're right that many pro-choicers address the issue of fetal personhood. I was referring to weboy, in particular, who seems to me to have shown a resistance to seeing the significance of this particular point.
The argument you attribute to pro-choicers isn't as strong as it may seem, since it treats the fetus as though it has demanded to be present in the woman, ignoring what has led to that. It's a stronger argument in the case of rape.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 7:36:49 PM
The argument you attribute to pro-choicers isn't as strong as it may seem, since it treats the fetus as though it has demanded to be present in the woman, ignoring what has led to that.
Wrong. Pro-choicers hold that what has "led" to the pregnancy is irrelevant, as a matter of principle. We don't "ignore" it.
What I said is that we don't *typically* allow people to decide whether another person lives or dies.
We don't *typically* deal with situations where one being is living inside another being's body, either. This is where abortion is different from other issues of life-taking.
And pro-choicers are well aware of the "she had sex so it's her own damn fault" argument. We reject it as nonsensical. If you'd like to know why we do so, there are plenty of pro-choice philosophers who will explain that to you. But don't blame your ignorance of these arguments on us.
Posted by: Laila | Feb 13, 2007 8:07:38 PM
