Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where Do We Draw the Line on Abortion?
A few weeks ago, the California Legislature voted down the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, basically a ban on sex-selective abortion, on party lines. Because the California legislature has a Democratic supermajority, this bill didn’t have a prayer.
This bill was similar to the one introduced in Congress by Trent Franks back in 2011 (which won a majority in the House — that vote was pretty much down party lines as well)
If pro-life and pro-choice folks can find common ground on anything it should be not allowing abortions where the child’s gender (usually because it’s a girl) is the sole reason for seeking an abortion. Obviously, the feminists don’t want to touch this one.
Back in 2006, Zogby did a poll that found that 86% of respondents opposed sex-selective abortions and said they should be illegal, while only 10 percent said they should be permitted. This is a line that the American people seem willing to draw. Some states already have sex-selective abortion bans in place, but it seems that democrats in California and those in the House of Representatives don’t support this reasonable restriction.
Democrats in California blamed racism for their opposition to the bill, because some cultures are more likely than others to engage in this practice (although the ban was universal and did not mention any particular race or culture). They also argued that there were privacy concerns, with the danger that government would get between the doctor/ patient relationship. This from the people who don’t mind when doctors ask if you own a gun or not.
This may be the one area where the California Legislature wants the people have total freedom. You can’t build anything without 400 permits, and endless environmental impact assessments. You can’t smoke a cigarette except in a secluded bunker with a ventilation system that sends the smoke into space. But abortion? Go to town.
Personally, I think that this issue should be used against Democrats in debates. The American people can get behind this and we have Democrats on record voting against a sex- selection abortion ban, Make them defend this, especially since the main target for sex selection abortions are girls.
What do you think?
Published in General
So wait, do you still dissent from my point? Because a ban on sex selection abortions would would be incremental law. As I too would like to see a universal ban on abortion but that won’t happen right now. Our society won’t go for that. Right now several states already have the ban Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Dakota, Kansas, North Carolina and South Dakota. In those states the abortionist “would have to ask a woman seeking an abortion whether she was doing so because of the gender of the fetus”. Yes those women can lie, but the abortionist will have to do their due diligence and would be liable if gender is the reason.
Even if it did not reduce the number of abortions (due to being unenforceable), wouldn’t the political victory be significant?
It’s only incremental if it’s going somewhere. With prohibitions on late-term abortions there is a logical progression in banning abortions increasingly earlier in the pregnancy as the point of viability moves earlier. There is no next logical step following banning sex-selective abortions. It doesn’t go anywhere. It isn’t an incremental step, it’s a side-step. It’s only incremental if you consider any restriction on abortion to be an incremental step toward the ultimate goal. I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, but I tend toward the view that if you attack everywhere you diffuse the strength of your message. As I’ve stated above, my primary opposition to banning sex-selective abortion is on grounds of unenforceability and its morally dubious underpinnings, but I also don’t think it’s a step toward anything greater.
Not if your actual concern is for the sanctity of fetal life. This law sends the message that stopping sexism is more important than protecting the life of an unborn child.
No. It skews the natural distribution of male and female demographics. China is looking at a nightmare scenario with their excess males. If you’re saying there currently isn’t a moral reason to ban sex selection, then we have to create that reason. Changing nature has to be done with caution. Unintended consequences can bring on a dystopia.
Firstly, I dispute the characterization of altering sex demographics as a moral question. Secondly, I do not think that the effects of sex-selective abortion in California will be anywhere near what they are in China. Thirdly, I think that banning sex-selective abortion rests on a highly repellent moral assumption; that protecting unborn human life is an insufficient reason to infringe on “a woman’s right to choose,” but that concerns over sexism or demography is a sufficient reason. Basically, I think from the perspective of those concerned about fetal life and opposed to the “culture of death,” the moral logic of such a ban is at best incoherent and at worst evil.
I’m for it. I’ll take the ban on abortions on Tuesdays, too.
While it wouldn’t be enforceable, it might cause second thoughts. Even if the law fails, make them vote on it on the record. They campaign as if all abortions are due to rape. They want voters to think abortion is only an act of desperation for women in distress. This can shed some light on what our laws allow.
I’m just telling you what a pro-lifer thinks. They want the vast majority of abortions outlawed. If they have to take a little here and a little there, they’ll take it. It may be bad strategy, but the goal is there. No pro-lifer in favor of banning abortion on the basis of sex will stop pushing should that become law. Whether it works or not is another question.
I still dissent because I don’t believe that it will have any effect. I actually agree with Sal, that it is a distraction from the cause.
It is my opinion that abortion will never be made illegal again without Christian revival. We aren’t going to win this at the polling place, nor in the halls of Congress nor in the assembly houses across America. We are going to win it soul by soul. We must change the hearts and minds of people on this issue.
I started my first comment in this thread by saying I am against all abortion. I completely agree with you there. I want all abortions banned. The unborn human has a right to life. However I agree with Matede that incrementalism currently is our only approach.
Stopping sexism is a pretext, obviously. I’m trying to imagine how embracing that pretext on this issue would be harmful to the pro life cause specifically and conservatism generally over the longer term. You mentioned that you thought the moral logic was possibly evil. Will you elaborate on that point?
I do agree with you that this country change in the moral fabric of this country, but I think on the issue of abortion that people can be persuaded. The distortion of language and the misinformation given about what an abortion is and what the realities of it are, have pulled the wool over many eyes so that they don’t think clearly about it. One of the producers of the Gosnell movie was at the trail of Kermit Gosnell and said that many of the jurors, and even the left wing local reporters in Philly changed their minds about abortion when faced with the realities of what it entails. Cases like that are purposefully hidden from the public and when legislation like a sex selection abortion ban is voted down by democrats pro lifers need to get that information out, make them defend their vote against it and show the public the evils of abortion, and what supporting the pro-choice position means. unfortunatly its a slow process, and right now this is how it can be done
Sure, though I think I’ve covered it in previous comments. Basically if you ban abortions which would otherwise be allowed simply because they were procured for sexist reasons you are taking the position that preventing sexism is more important than is protecting unborn life. I know that’s not what people backing the law generally think, but it is the logical foundation of the law.
The other evil aspect of the law is that it creates a thoughtcrime. Even if I believed a statutory prohibition on sex-selective abortion would actually be enforceable and reduce the number of abortions I would oppose it on the grounds that it is wrong to criminalize otherwise legal conduct because of its motivation. We should not allow the state to punish people for their thoughts.
Please bear with me as I play Devil’s Advocate to work through this. Under our current legal understanding, the legal presumption is that it’s illegal to kill people… unless it’s done in certain contexts, such as self defense. Is that the correct legal presumption? I’m going to assume it is. So let’s say I killed somebody. My reasons for doing so are going to matter to society. If I killed somebody in a fit of rage because they did something I didn’t like, this is a different reason than killing somebody in a genuine act of self defense.
Again, playing Devil’s Advocate: let’s switch the legal presumption, and say that the legal presumption is that it’s legal to kill people… unless the reasons are X, Y, Z, etc. I can certainly see how enforcement would more difficult. But I’m still not sure why it would be wrong or evil to criminalize otherwise legal conduct under this scenario. If the people who wish to restrict the killing of others cannot manage to change the legal presumption, what choices do they have?
There are a couple of problems with applying this analogy to sex-selective abortions. The first is that the law does not consider a fetus to be a person. The second is that self-defense is an affirmative defense with two general components. To successfully assert self-defense (which, along with defense of others, is pretty much the only circumstance under which homicide is permitted) you must not only personally believe it necessary to defend yourself from your attacker’s aggression. That belief must be objectively reasonable based on your attacker’s conduct. It is not a defense which is available solely based on your personal thoughts.
Basically, the problem with sex-selective abortion is not that it establishes an exception to a general rule; the law, as you have noted, is full of those. It’s that it the basis for the exception is a person’s thoughts independent of any act.
The point is that they should be directing their efforts toward changing the presumption that a fetus is not a person. Bans on late-term abortion do this. Bans on sex-selective abortion reinforce the assumption that a fetus is not a person and whose life is not entitled to legal recognition or protection.
I really think that you’re heading in the wrong direction by analyzing this through the prism of the law’s presumptions about what circumstances it is justifiable to kill a person. The law doesn’t consider a fetus to be a person. To think that this is a question of whether a homicide is illegal is to miss the point about the way the law actually treats abortion.
I’d like to elaborate a little on an important distinction which applies in this context. Laws frequently have intent requirements which involve an inquiry into a defendant’s state of mind. Thus, we have the Mann Act prohibits transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. In practice this means that to be guilty of violating the Mann Act a defendant must have intended for the woman he transported to engage in prostitution. Intent to engage in immoral purposes is an element of the offense. However, intent is not the same as motivation. A Mann Act defendant’s motivation is the desire to make money. The motive is not an element of the offense. In the case of sex-selective abortions we would be criminalizing a motive. When a woman who doesn’t want a baby girl seeks an abortion her intent is to end the life of her unborn child, her motive is a desire not to have a daughter.
Actually I think we should take this a different way. Abortion clinics that do not have equal amounts of abortions per race or gender (quotas) should be sued for discrimination or maybe predatory aborting practices.
Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, by Mara Hvistendahl really gives the lowdown on universal abortion, especially in China and India. This book changed my mind from ambivalence to Pro Life.
Just to be very clear: I’m not arguing that the law considers the fetus to be a person, because I know it doesn’t. I’m trying to understand the underlying mechanics of why bans on sex selection abortions are a bad idea. On the surface it seems counter intuitive, and so this is why I am asking a lot of questions –because I want to really understand it before I accept it. I appreciate your commentary very much. Please indulge me as I ask another question.
Motive is the underlying reason. Intent is the means by which the motive is carried out. A defendant can have his intent scrutinized but not his motive. Do I have that right?
Close, I think it’s more accurate to say intent is about what a person is trying to do and motive is about why he’s trying to do it.
I have no doubt that the Doctor wouldn’t be able to determine that the abortion request is related to gender selection, especially if it effects his pocket book.
I agree that it’s going to be hard to prove that an abortion is sex selection motivated. Maybe the feminists think that if there are more guys than girls, they’ll have better bargaining power! On campus, one reason why the girls “put out” so much is that 60% of college students are women competing for 40% men.