Pro-life Democrats

Today is, of course, the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Among those marching today in Washington D.C. at the annual March for Life will be Democrats for Life, whose members once included (but, alas, no longer) the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt. For those who think "pro-life liberal" is an oxymoron, Mary Meehan produced this history of anti-abortion Democrats. It's worth the read.

And from a year ago, here is an article in Counterpunch by Green activist and secular professor, Carl Estabrook; it's entitled "Abortion and the Left". Here are his concluding remarks:

Some recent defenses of the moral legitimacy of abortion have shifted from arguments based on the non-humanity of unborn children (i.e., that the fetus is not human enough to have rights) to what in the US are called libertarian arguments -- e.g., "I have the right to do what I want with my body (including the contents of my womb)." Defense of abortion on the basis of the ownership of one's own body is then similar to the right- wing account of "takings," which resists governmental attempts to limit what can be done with real estate.
But I don't own my body; I am my body. Talking of owning one's body arises from a malign mix of factitious capitalist theory and debased Christianity: I am then regarded as an immaterial mind/soul related to my body as the bus driver is to the bus -- a ghost in a machine, in the classic phrase. (Some Christians seem to forget that the fundamental Christian doctrine is the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul.) It's finally this distancing, dualist, indeed Manichean idea of the self that casts abortion into the capitalist discussion of ownership.

Defense of the general acceptability of abortion on the basis of one's ownership of one's body is a capitalist position that the Left should be skeptical of, on its fundamental principles. But it's certainly correct -- if a little oddly put -- to say that every person has rights over her or his body: inalienable rights indeed (which means you can't even give them away), to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The abortion argument reduces to the question of how many persons are involved.

Strong stuff, Carl. But right on.

I don't post about abortion lightly. I know how it -- above all issues -- tears at the soul and at the heart. I am well aware (as a professor who teaches gender studies) that for a man to declare himself a "pro-lifer" is inherently problematic. I've had a long and painful journey on this issue, a journey that has been informed as much by science as by my faith. And because there are so few genuine progressives who are consistently pro-life on topics ranging from capital punishment to abortion to war, I just had to blog on this, today of all days.

Peace.

Comments

[John]

Indeed. As a 'disabled person' myself, the cause of the weak is dear to my heart. The unborn are the weakest and most voiceless of all, and while all abortions are a tragedy, you are right to be 'speaking up for the voiceless, for those condemned to die' (Prov. 18:something)

[John]

Oh, I meant to add 'Thanks'. I mean it. ;-)

[The Angry Clam]

He's very right that people have no property rights in their own body.

That's why you can't sell a lot of body parts or have a financial interest in cells derived from your body.

The seminal (heh heh. It didn't actually involve the homophone...) case is Moore v. Regents of the University of California.

[The Angry Clam]

He's very right that people have no property rights in their own body.

That's why you can't sell a lot of body parts or have a financial interest in cells derived from your body.

The seminal (heh heh. It didn't actually involve the homophone...) case is Moore v. Regents of the University of California.

[Hugo]

You are welcome, dear brother John... and mollusk, I shall look up the Moore case.

[The Angry Clam]

You won't like it.

Essentially, some scientists at UCLA were treating Moore, who had this rare disease. They started harvesting his cells (if I recall correctly, it was spleen cells) without his knowledge (his spleen did need to be removed, but he never said that they could keep it) and then proceeded to have him repeatedly come back in for "check ups" which were really just further genetic tests.

These cells, after the study, turned out to be insanely valuable- in the billions of dollars.

Moore wanted his cut, and was pretty much flatly told "no."

[Xrlq]

If opposition to abortion and the death penalty makes a person "consistently pro-life," I guess that makes me "pro-death." That said, I can respect the view that an unborn fetus deserves certain legal protections that a convicted murderer does not. If we start with the presumption that anything potentially human should be protected, at least an innocent fetus hasn't done anything to rebut that presumption.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

XRLQ --

The problem with both abortion and the death penalty is that they both involve a failure to recognize the full and complete humanity of what is being killed. Pro-choice advocates refuse to recognize the humanity of the embryo, denying the child its place as a protected member of our society; pro death-penalty advocates believe that some folks, through extraordinary sins, have somehow forfeited their humanity and thus their right to live. Consistent pro-lifers reject both strategies of "dehumanization." And I would NEVER call you "pro-death", but use the label that you are comfortable with!