Two questions about the efforts to pass "personhood" amendments:
1. Is there a reason the pro-life definition of a person has to be as unclear as "any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death"?
I'm not an expert in the legal requirements for the language of initiatives, but the above seems to imply, for one thing, that a person continues to be a person after unnatural death. Unless "natural death" has some other meaning?
More importantly, for the purposes of supporters, the definition hinges on "biological development," which I know is supposed to mean the fertilization of an egg, but couldn't it also be extended backwards, so that "biological development" also meant the biological development of the egg and the sperm separately? If not, isn't it because the "biological development" is of "that human being," but doesn't that just recapitulate the debate about when life begins, meaning the definition is tantamount to "life begins when life begins," and not actually very helpful?
In Mississippi, the personhood amendment kind of doubles the ambiguity by declaring a person to be a person "from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
If there's any explanation of what the functional equivalent of fertilization and/or cloning is, I have not seen it, nor can I imagine what it might be.
Contrast it with the Catholic definition given in the Donum
Vitae, presumably acceptable to pro-life advocates and remarkably clear: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person
from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights
as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the
inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."
The initiatives definitions of personhood seems to be very ambiguous, badly worded, and kind of self-confoundingly vague. But maybe I'm missing something?
2. Wouldn't efforts to criminalize abortion be more successful if they were more modest? Politically, why not take a gradualist approach?
However absolutist one is on the morality of an issue, politics are pragmatic, and require coalitions. I understand the ethical arguments of opposing all abortion, and why compromising seems abhorrent, but, presumably, fewer abortions would be better than more, and one could make common cause with those who, say, are opposed to abortion after the first trimester, or fetal viability, or "quickening," or opposed to abortion after implantation, thus allowing for the forms of birth control that stop the zygote in the process of cell division.
My question isn't about the argument opposing all forms of abortion vs. the arguments opposing most but making exceptions. My question is about the politics of it. Given that these measures have failed in number of places, and at least in part, like in Mississippi, failed because the efforts alienated otherwise sympathetic allies who felt the measures "went too far," why not stake a step back?
After Mississippi, why didn't the personhood movement recalibrate for Oklahoma, where an initiative was struck down by the courts before it was passed, or for Georgia, where efforts are just beginning?
Is there a strategic advantage to losing that I just don't see?
To be clear: These are not questions about abortion, per se, but about process and strategy. And they are real questions I'm saying I don't know the answer to: Is there a reason the definitions aren't clearer and simpler? Are their political benefits to not taking a more gradualist, coalition-building approach?
"...presumably, fewer abortions would be better than more..."
ReplyDelete"Are their political benefits to not taking a more gradualist, coalition-building approach?"
Two thoughts:
Per the first quote, there's an attractive moral purity to rejecting compromise. Compromise means getting your hands dirty. I genuinely there are people who, perhaps not consciously, prefer a clean, spotless conscience to reducing abortions.
There's a kind of ideological utopianism going on of sorts--the kind that transformed pacifist evangelicals into some of the loudest voices in favor of a longer, more destructive war in 1915 and beyond in pursuit of the kingdom.
On top of that, people who compromise to pursue moderate reforms of presumably wicked systems tend not to do well in history. Anti-abortion folks might point to the stained reputations anti-slavery delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 who pursued what they thought was a gradual but steady path towards slavery's demise. Or you could talk about the plummeting reputations of Atticus Finch and Big Jim Folsom. And then of course there's poor Neville Chamberlain.
Per the second quote, the cynical part of me thinks that some Republicans would be crestfallen if abortion were outlawed and they lost a key issue to cudgel pro-life Dems and such.
So perhaps the rhetoric and the re-telling of certain narratives make compromise practically impossible, even when it would mean the difference of making a difference or not?
ReplyDeleteI think the definitions are bad because many of the people who support them simply do not know enough about human biology. Even the clearer definition in Donum Vitae has substantial problems. The biological reality of implantation failure really isn't taken into account and neither is the fact that human behavior can greatly increase the rate of implantation failure (See Natural Family Planning).
ReplyDeleteThe implications of such legislation would not merely criminalize surgical and chemical abortions but potentially criminalize certain sexual behaviors themselves.
There's also the issue of framing. It would be much easier to simply criminalize surgical and chemical induced abortions on a practical level but on the level of leading a diverse movement such an approach would fragment the movement.
While there is consensus around the issue of "life" I think if you actually spelled out for people what would and would not be prohibited you'd actually see at least three movements. One for the criminalization of surgical abortions, one adding chemical induced, and yet another also against chemical birth control due to its claimed abortifacient qualities.
"The implications of such legislation would not merely criminalize surgical and chemical abortions but potentially criminalize certain sexual behaviors themselves."
ReplyDeleteIs it your impression this implication would be problematic to the Catholic hierarchy? Because I don't get that impression at all ... but maybe you're referring to specifics of NFP I'm unaware of.
The framing point is very good. That helps me.
If one follows NFP to avoid pregnancy you're more likely to experience implantation failure. You reduce the risk of implantation failure if you have intercourse during peak times of fertility. I don't really understand the logic of using NFP to avoid pregnancy if you simultaneously hold to the belief that,
ReplyDelete"The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."
Caffine also increases the rate of implantation failure. So any attempt to protect human life from conception is going to involve behavior significantly beyond the scope of abortion itself.