Posted on 05/14/2022 4:22:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
For about a half-second after the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in the case that may throw out Roe v. Wade, people who support Roe dropped the talking points and told the truth. California Gov. Gavin Newsom tweeted that if men could get pregnant, of course abortion would be legal. Joe Biden talked about the right to abort a child. The dropping of the filter was a refreshing reprieve from the typical euphemisms.
For most of my adult life, we haven't heard the a-word. The National Abortion Rights Action League became NARAL Pro-Choice America when I was in my 20s. But that seems to be changing as of late. A makeshift sign protesting a pro-life prayer vigil in a lower Manhattan Catholic church recently asked us to stop harassing "abortion patients." (By "harassing," they meant that once a month, a group of us gathers for Mass at Old St. Patrick's Cathedral Basilica and then walks the almost-block to Planned Parenthood to pray across the street. We pray for the women and girls who find themselves there and for the conversion of those who work there.
That dropping of the euphemistic veil didn't last all that long, however. According to Politico, the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress sent House Democrats a brief list of "Abortion Messaging Do's and Don'ts." The previously preferred word "choice" is now out of style, in favor of "decision."
The Pro-Choice Caucus wants us to move beyond Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" to "safe, legal and accessible." That language change marks a hardening of ideology in the Democratic Party, if not in the country.
Interestingly, the Pro-Choice Caucus also wants to move away from the word "unwanted" pregnancy in regard to a woman seeking an abortion. Instead, it suggests the word "unexpected." No doubt, that is to make sure the girl or woman is seen with sympathy. But I see that word, and want a woman faced with an "unexpected" pregnancy to know that she has options, that there is support out there for her and her child. Instead, too often, all signs in her life point to an abortion clinic.
The Pro-Choice -- will they change to Pro-Decision? -- Caucus also wants to sow a hostility toward doctors who want to opt out of abortion and pharmacists who don't want to be part of providing abortion pills. Abortion in America is increasingly carried out by pills, sometimes pills delivered by mail.
Anyone who does this is "refusing or denying care," according to the new language, never mind claims of conscience rights. Gone, or at least minimized is the talk of back-alley abortions and coat hangers, with the focus shifting to "criminalizing health care." But we pro-life workers want to make sure that pregnant women have more, not less, health care -- that they have all the information and support they need to become mothers, even if their pregnancy ends in adoption.
The first Saturday after the Supreme Court leak, abortion enthusiasts (there's no other way to describe the people I saw and heard) blocked our way out of church, with the typical obscenities and particularly grotesque displays (a performance artist, simulated an abortion with dolls in front of the church, for just one example).
What I want to do is find common ground: a focus on the welfare of the mother and the child. As much as I want everyone to work to protect the innocent unborn, how about making some small steps toward civility? Aren't you tired of the screaming and pouring of salt into open wounds, too?
This shift actually happened 30 years ago. Naomi Wolfe wrote openly about hos abortion was infanticide but should remain legal.
Wait a minute! If men can get pregnant, why can’t they have abortions? /s
And DNA tests can technically be done very soon after conception.
I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular
written by Steve Jacobs
Shortly after being awarded my Ph.D. by the University of Chicago’s department of Comparative Human Development this year, I found myself in a minor media whirlwind. I was interviewed by The Daily Wire, The College Fix, and Breitbart. I appeared on national television and on a widely syndicated radio program. All of this interest had been prompted by a working paper associated with my dissertation, which was entitled Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate.
As discussed in more detail below, I reported that both a majority of pro-choice Americans (53%) and a majority of pro-life Americans (54%) would support a comprehensive policy compromise that provides entitlements to pregnant women, improves the adoption process for parents, permits abortion in extreme circumstances, and restricts elective abortion after the first trimester. However, members of the media were mostly interested in my finding that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.
It was the reporting of this view—that human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are biological humans—that created such a strong backlash. It was not unexpected, as the finding provides fodder for conservative opponents of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court had suggested there was no consensus on “the difficult question of when life begins” and that “the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, [was] not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
* * *
The U.S. abortion debate has raged for generations, and remains divisive to this day. As a lawyer, mediator and researcher, I sought to assess whether there is room for compromise. I believed that such an approach could help Americans on both sides develop a shared understanding of the main issues—particularly surrounding the question of when life begins. My approach was similar to that implemented by Yale Professor Dan Kahan in his 2003 gun-control debate manifesto, in which he declared his objective as “not to take any particular position on gun control but instead to take issue with the terms in which the gun control debate is cast.” I was being idealistic, yes, but this approach was not without precedent.
“This dissertation seeks to explain why the abortion debate persists and whether it can be resolved,” I wrote in my dissertation’s introduction. “While the U.S. Supreme Court was able to end the national segregation controversy with its holding in Brown v. Board [of Education], the Court has twice failed to end the national abortion controversy [in the landmark Supreme Court cases of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992]. The controversy has been resilient for decades, and it grows as some states pass laws to ban abortions throughout pregnancy, and other states legalize abortion throughout pregnancy. [T]his dissertation aims to understand whether the national controversy surrounding abortion is trivial or insurmountable.”
I employed a theoretical approach that was recently codified by graduates from my department: “[A] proposal to have a synthetic approach to social psychological research, in which qualitative methods are augmentative to quantitative ones, qualitative methods can be generative of new experimental hypotheses, and qualitative methods can capture experiences that evade experimental reductionism.” In practice, this meant going back and forth between qualitative and quantitative methods, leading in-person mediations with small groups, reviewing literature, and conducting surveys of Americans and the experts whose opinions they respected. My research timeline was roughly as follows, with each step being guided by what I already had learned from the previous steps:
I led discussions between pro-choice and pro-life law students. Little progress was made because both sides were caught up with the factual question of when life begins.
I surveyed thousands of Americans using Amazon’s MTurk service. I found that most Americans believe that the question of “when life begins” is an important aspect of the U.S. abortion debate (82%); that most believe Americans deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to give informed consent to abortion procedures (76%); and that most Americans believe a human’s life is worthy of legal protection once it begins (93%). Respondents also were asked: “Which group is most qualified to answer the question, ‘When does a human’s life begin?’” They were presented with several options—biologists, philosophers, religious leaders, Supreme Court Justices and voters. Eighty percent selected biologists, and the majority explained that they chose biologists because they view them as objective experts in the study of life.
I consulted with biologists, including a female University of Chicago Ph.D. genetics student; a female University of Chicago Ph.D. graduate; and a male professor—the biology expert in my department, who later served on my dissertation committee.
I reviewed aggregated lists of biologists’ views in this area, studied the opinions of experts who testified before a 1981 Senate Committee on a Human Life Amendment, and the 2005 South Dakota Abortion Task Force. I also reviewed polls of Americans’ views on the question of when life begins.
Since these sources suggested the most common view was that a human’s life begins at fertilization, I designed a survey to understand biologists’ assessment of that view. I emailed surveys to professors in the biology departments of over 1,000 institutions around the world.
As the usable responses began to come in, I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%). In the case of Americans who expressed party preference, the majority identified as Democrats (92%).
These data were not as surprising as some might imagine. Philosophers such as Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thomson have outlined abortion defenses that recognize a fetus’ humanity, while also rejecting the argument that fetuses have rights, or arguing that a pregnant person’s right to abort supersedes a fetus’ right to life. Unfortunately, that did not stop some academics from being angered by the very idea of being asked about the ontogenetic starting point of a human’s life. Some of the e-mails I received included notes such as:
“Is this a studied fund by Trump and ku klux klan?”
“Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!”
“This is some stupid right to life thing…YUCK I believe in RIGHT TO CHOICE!!!!!!!”
“The actual purpose of this ‘survey’ became very clear. I will do my best to disseminate this info to make sure that none of my naïve colleagues fall into this trap.”
“Sorry this looks like its more a religious survey to be used to misinterpret by radicals to advertise about the beginning of life and not a survey about what faculty know about biology. Your advisor can contact me.”
“I did respond to and fill in the survey, but am concerned about the tenor of the questions. It seemed like a thinly-disguised effort to make biologists take a stand on issues that could be used to advocate for or against abortion.”
“The relevant biological issues are obvious and have nothing to do with when life begins. That is a nonsense position created by the antiabortion fanatics. You have accepted the premise of a fanatic group of lunatics. The relevant issues are the health cost carrying an embryo to term can impose on a woman’s body, the cost they impose on having future children, and the cost that raising a child imposes on a woman’s financial status.”
Given those responses, one might suspect that I had asked loaded questions such as: “Since the human life cycle begins at conception, isn’t abortion tantamount to murder?” But I didn’t. I asked an open-ended question to ensure that respondents were able to fully express their views on when life begins. Moreover, I asked respondents to assess the following elements of the view that “a human’s life begins at fertilization”:
“The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.”
“The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
“A mammal’s life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete unites with a female gamete to form a single cell called a zygote.”
“In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human’s life, since that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop in the first stage of the human life cycle.”
“From a biological perspective, a zygote that has a human genome is a human because it is a human organism developing in the earliest stage of the human life cycle.”
After assessing the above statements and answering an essay question, the respondent biologists were then told that the survey “relates to the controversial public debate surrounding abortion.” It was at this point in the procedure that I received hostile responses, some of which are excerpted above.
In my dissertation, I proposed three possible motivations for these hostile reactions:
Motivated Reasoning: Respondents experience cognitive dissonance when they recognize that their view of a fetus as a human complicates their political convictions in regard to abortion policy.
Cultural Cognition: Respondents fear that public recognition of the scientific views they are expressing could lead to other people supporting abortion restrictions.
Identity-Protective Cognition: Respondents fear that expressing their views may serve to estrange them from pro-choice liberals, on whom they might rely for social, emotional, or financial support.
I understand the subject of my research might have political ramifications. But, as neuroscientist Maureen Condic has noted, “establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins.” Yet the reception to my research suggests that many are going to ignore my findings out of fear of political repercussions.
I have concluded that one of the biggest reasons the abortion debate can’t be bridged is mistrust. I think this is primarily due to the stakes being so high for both sides. One side sees abortion rights as critical to gender equality, while the other sees abortion as an epic human rights tragedy—as over a billion humans have died in abortions since the year 2000.
Despite the one-sided stance of the majority of 2020 presidential candidates, my research indicates that Americans on both sides agree that the nation’s abortion laws should both ensure some abortion access while also providing some protections for humans in the womb. Indeed, I found that a majority of both pro-choice and pro-life Americans supported a compromise that restricted access after the first trimester of pregnancy, as described at the outset of this essay. This combination of policies is quite similar to the law of the land in many of the most socially liberal countries of Europe, which tend to balance abortion rights with fetal rights.
In my research, I was not advocating for such a compromise. However, advancing my own preferred outcome was not the point of my academic project. My goal was to use my training to establish common ground, learn whether a compromise was possible, and report on the most likely form such a compromise might take. An important takeaway is that both sides do agree on the arbiters of the question of when life begins.
While the justices in Roe could not answer the difficult question of when life begins, the U.S. Supreme Court might well revisit this question in the future. The Court can trust the uncensored viewpoints of biologists and acknowledge that scientific experts affirm the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization—even if some would prefer that this fact be hidden from view.
Steve Jacobs Tweets at @drstevejacobs.
Featured image: Stop Abortion Bans Rally, St. Paul, Minnesota, May 21, 2019.
I was wondering about that.
BTW, I personally prefer the term "fertilization" over "conception", which implies religion. Arguing against abortion on religious grounds is a losing argument.
I’ll argue against abortion on religious grounds and scientific grounds.
Of course, argue however you like, but if you're trying to convince an abortion supporter to change, you (we) might be successful using scientific grounds, but highly unlikely using religious grounds.
I think Norma McCorvey, the original Roe in Roe v Wade, converted to christianity and became a prolife activist. That’s just one very high profile example.
Gosh, did you actually write all of that in the 7 minutes between my post and yours? :)
Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful response and I’ll get back to you with a thoughtful response later.
Thanks again for a very thoughtful response/essay and I won’t pretend that my response will be as polished as yours. Also, some of my response is in response to your essay, but other parts are not.
You wrote that, “I found that a majority of both pro-choice and pro-life Americans supported a compromise that restricted access after the first trimester of pregnancy …”
However, the pro-choice signs in the photo at the linked article do not reflect that view at all. Some read: “Not the church, not the state … “, “Stop Abortion Bans”, “No abortion bans EVER”. Clearly, this group of people don’t want ANY restrictions EVER, and I don’t accept the first trimester either as the timeframe where abortions should be allowed.
Re setting policy based on the first trimester of pregnancy: The recognized point where a unique human life begins should be marked by what I call a Significant Biological Event. The problem with using the first trimester for policy is that there is not a Significant Biological Event at that point. The development of the fetus the day before the end of the first trimester is virtually identical to the development the day after. Similar to a due date, there’s only an estimate as to when the first trimester comes to an end. There’s no event.
I only see two Significant Biological Events related to pregnancy and a new and unique human being. Those two are fertilization, and birth. Recently, many pro-choice advocates have argued that abortion should be legal up until birth, and in California, it has been proposed to extend that point until AFTER birth.
Another point of proposed limitations on abortions is the point of viability. But, like using the first trimester as a marker, viability doesn’t work either. The problem of using viability as the marker is that it moves, it’s not constant, it moves in time, and it moves in location. A well-chosen point would be both timeless and placeless. Viability is neither.
The point of viability is now much earlier than it was at the time of Roe. A premature baby born in or near a modern neonatal medical center today has a much better chance of survival than a similar baby born at the time of Roe.
Similarly, location factors into the point of viability. A premature baby born in or near a modern neonatal medical center has a much better chance of survival than a premature baby born in, say, remote Wyoming, a hundred and fifty miles from a major hospital in the middle of a winter blizzard. Location and weather should not be factors to determine when an abortion should or should not be legal and thus viability should not be a factor.
Looked at properly, viability is merely a measurement of the local neonatal medical technology.
In your survey of biologists, you asked when human life begins, and you report that 96% affirm that human life begins at fertilization, yet 85% report as being pro-choice. This bolsters a belief that I’ve held for a long time: biologists actually know when human life begins, but they don’t have the courage to speak out for fear of aligning with a politically incorrect group that could lead to being denied tenure because of it, losing their jobs because of it, or even having their houses firebombed.
And I believe your statement also bolsters my belief when you wrote, “Yet the reception to my research suggests that many are going to ignore my findings out of fear of political repercussions.”
Your final sentence nails it, “The Court can trust the uncensored viewpoints of biologists and acknowledge that scientific experts affirm the view that a human’s life begins a fertilization-even if some would prefer that this fact be hidden from view”.
You asked which group is most qualified to answer the question of when human life begins and most replied that biologists are most qualified to answer this. I agree (if you can get truthful answers, which apparently, you did.).
You received some hate-filled responses. Some reflect an almost complete lack of morals with regards to human life. I wonder how they feel about waging war? Probably depends on which party holds the White House.
At human fertilization, there’s a single cell called a zygote. At that point, that’s your body. That’s all there is. No arms, no legs, no brain, but that one cell “knows” how to make arms, legs, and a brain-of a human! And it’s not going to make the arms, legs, and brain of a dog or a cat. No, it’s human from the very beginning.
During their lifetimes, humans are referred to by many names: new-born, baby, toddler, terrible two, youngster, child, kid, youth, adolescent, teenager, 20-something, 30-something, middle-aged, old, senior, ancient, elderly, and I’m sure others. I just want to put fetus back on the list where it belongs in ways to refer to human beings.
Choice: I believe a woman should have a choice as to whether or not she should become pregnant. But in almost all cases, the woman already had a choice at the point where an abortion might be performed. Mostly, she chose to have sex (with a male) which resulted in her becoming pregnant. She’s made her choice and killing the child that resulted from that sex is not an acceptable option to me. I have a name for it which I’ll share later.
However, some pregnancies, wanted or not, result in a medical situation that could be life threatening to the mother. Without medical intervention, the fetus will likely kill the mother. But a mother, like everyone else, has the right to self-defense, even if it’s her own child threatening yours. Therefore, I would allow an abortion in such a case.
I would also, reluctantly, allow an abortion in the case of rape, (but not consensual incest). As stated earlier, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. In the case of rape, she was not allowed to make that choice. Pregnancy resulting from rape is quite rare.
When it comes to choice over one’s own body, no one is more pro-choice than I. If someone wants to have their Gall Bladder removed, then it’s their choice and theirs alone.
I believe the use of DNA would be useful.
But a fetus is not really a part of a woman’s body. Obviously it’s inside her body, it’s attached to her body, but it’s still not a part of her body. I believe that to be a true statement and DNA testing would prove it. Using DNA samples, we could compare the DNA of the mother and the DNA of her fetus. I firmly believe we’d find that they do NOT match. People who know how to read these things would realize that one sample came from a mother and the other sample came from her child, but they would not match exactly.
Contrarily, a DNA sample from a Gall Bladder and a sample from inside the cheek of the person whose Gall Bladder was sampled would reveal that the two samples do in fact match exactly.
Except as noted above, almost all abortions are little more than convenience kills.
Pictures of mangled murdered babies should be shown.
Plain and simple show what abortion is
Oops. I accidently sent my response to myself yesterday.
Thanks again for a very thoughtful response/essay and I won’t pretend that my response will be as polished as yours. Also, some of my response is in response to your essay, but other parts are not.
You wrote that, “I found that a majority of both pro-choice and pro-life Americans supported a compromise that restricted access after the first trimester of pregnancy …”
However, the pro-choice signs in the photo at the linked article do not reflect that view at all. Some read: “Not the church, not the state … “, “Stop Abortion Bans”, “No abortion bans EVER”. Clearly, this group of people don’t want ANY restrictions EVER, and I don’t accept the first trimester either as the timeframe where abortions should be allowed.
Re setting policy based on the first trimester of pregnancy: The recognized point where a unique human life begins should be marked by what I call a Significant Biological Event. The problem with using the first trimester for policy is that there is not a Significant Biological Event at that point. The development of the fetus the day before the end of the first trimester is virtually identical to the development the day after. Similar to a due date, there’s only an estimate as to when the first trimester comes to an end. There’s no event.
I only see two Significant Biological Events related to pregnancy and a new and unique human being. Those two are fertilization, and birth. Recently, many pro-choice advocates have argued that abortion should be legal up until birth, and in California, it has been proposed to extend that point until AFTER birth.
Another point of proposed limitations on abortions is the point of viability. But, like using the first trimester as a marker, viability doesn’t work either. The problem of using viability as the marker is that it moves, it’s not constant, it moves in time, and it moves in location. A well-chosen point would be both timeless and placeless. Viability is neither.
The point of viability is now much earlier than it was at the time of Roe. A premature baby born in or near a modern neonatal medical center today has a much better chance of survival than a similar baby born at the time of Roe.
Similarly, location factors into the point of viability. A premature baby born in or near a modern neonatal medical center has a much better chance of survival than a premature baby born in, say, remote Wyoming, a hundred and fifty miles from a major hospital in the middle of a winter blizzard. Location and weather should not be factors to determine when an abortion should or should not be legal and thus viability should not be a factor.
Looked at properly, viability is merely a measurement of the local neonatal medical technology.
In your survey of biologists, you asked when human life begins, and you report that 96% affirm that human life begins at fertilization, yet 85% report as being pro-choice. This bolsters a belief that I’ve held for a long time: biologists actually know when human life begins, but they don’t have the courage to speak out for fear of aligning with a politically incorrect group that could lead to being denied tenure because of it, losing their jobs because of it, or even having their houses firebombed.
And I believe your statement also bolsters my belief when you wrote, “Yet the reception to my research suggests that many are going to ignore my findings out of fear of political repercussions.”
Your final sentence nails it, “The Court can trust the uncensored viewpoints of biologists and acknowledge that scientific experts affirm the view that a human’s life begins a fertilization-even if some would prefer that this fact be hidden from view”.
You asked which group is most qualified to answer the question of when human life begins and most replied that biologists are most qualified to answer this. I agree (if you can get truthful answers, which apparently, you did.).
You received some hate-filled responses. Some reflect an almost complete lack of morals with regards to human life. I wonder how they feel about waging war? Probably depends on which party holds the White House.
At human fertilization, there’s a single cell called a zygote. At that point, that’s your body. That’s all there is. No arms, no legs, no brain, but that one cell “knows” how to make arms, legs, and a brain-of a human! And it’s not going to make the arms, legs, and brain of a dog or a cat. No, it’s human from the very beginning.
During their lifetimes, humans are referred to by many names: new-born, baby, toddler, terrible two, youngster, child, kid, youth, adolescent, teenager, 20-something, 30-something, middle-aged, old, senior, ancient, elderly, and I’m sure others. I just want to put fetus back on the list where it belongs in ways to refer to human beings.
Choice: I believe a woman should have a choice as to whether or not she should become pregnant. But in almost all cases, the woman already had a choice at the point where an abortion might be performed. Mostly, she chose to have sex (with a male) which resulted in her becoming pregnant. She’s made her choice and killing the child that resulted from that sex is not an acceptable option to me. I have a name for it which I’ll share later.
However, some pregnancies, wanted or not, result in a medical situation that could be life threatening to the mother. Without medical intervention, the fetus will likely kill the mother. But a mother, like everyone else, has the right to self-defense, even if it’s her own child threatening yours. Therefore, I would allow an abortion in such a case.
I would also, reluctantly, allow an abortion in the case of rape, (but not consensual incest). As stated earlier, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. In the case of rape, she was not allowed to make that choice. Pregnancy resulting from rape is quite rare.
When it comes to choice over one’s own body, no one is more pro-choice than I. If someone wants to have their Gall Bladder removed, then it’s their choice and theirs alone.
I believe the use of DNA would be useful.
But a fetus is not really a part of a woman’s body. Obviously it’s inside her body, it’s attached to her body, but it’s still not a part of her body. I believe that to be a true statement and DNA testing would prove it. Using DNA samples, we could compare the DNA of the mother and the DNA of her fetus. I firmly believe we’d find that they do NOT match. People who know how to read these things would realize that one sample came from a mother and the other sample came from her child, but they would not match exactly.
Contrarily, a DNA sample from a Gall Bladder and a sample from inside the cheek of the person whose Gall Bladder was sampled would reveal that the two samples do in fact match exactly.
Except as noted above, almost all abortions are little more than convenience kills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.