Responding to Russell: more on Prop 73 and competing visions of the good -- UPDATED

There are few bloggers in the 'sphere whom I respect more than Russell Arben Fox.  In response to my post yesterday on parental notification, he's got this lengthy and thoughtful piece up today.

Russell begins:

Hugo plans to vote no on the proposition. His reasoning for doing so is heartfelt, thoughtful, and completely respectable. And also wrong.

Well, that's a sure-fire way to get my attention.  Would that all my critics were so generous!  In any case, Russell makes the persuasive case that in this instance, my culture has trumped my faith.  I wrote yesterday, about a hypothetical future daughter of mine, that I would want to know if she were pregnant, but would not want her to be compelled to tell me:

"Ultimately, it wouldn't be about me, but about her and her needs."

In response to that, Russell writes:

For many opponents of abortion, apparently including Hugo, the integrity of the individual's choice (even if their choice is a poor one) is a fundamental that must be protected at all costs, because otherwise the risks are just too painful to imagine (foolish teen-agers with mean parents clearly being the absolute least of it)...  Nonetheless, it's not my position. I recognize that a whole lot of people--and specifically, young women--out there face terrible, unjust, ugly choices. But I do not understand how the problem that their choices pose to society are made any easier by refusing to allow any kind of social consensus, any kind of deterrence, any kind of interference, to present itself in between the individual and their choice.

He goes on:

If, I suppose, you think that the pain and harm and burden of abortion is ultimately, and solely, the province of the person having the abortion--that is, if your baseline reading of the situation is, "Who's the chooser here?"--then of course you musn't attempt to complicate or interfere with her choice; that would be oppression. But if, on the other hand, your basic framing of the problem is one that denies that abortion is wholly within the realm of the private, then the (limited, carefully legislated, intelligently enforced) expression of mild public concern--and compared to the actual disciplinary powers of the state, what could be more mild for 99% of those minors who seek abortion then to oblige parental involvement?--is a no brainer, assuming support for such exists.

Well, gosh, that's exactly where I'm stuck.   This is what makes me an unreliable ally to any side in the abortion struggle; it's what lies at the root of my often-annoying inconsistency on some of the most fundamentally divisive social issues of our time.  What I'm stuck on is that I am equally convinced by two competing and ultimately incompatible visions about the body, the individual, and society. 

On the one hand, like so many Americans, I am moved and compelled by the notion of the paramount importance of individual rights.  In this, I am a child of the Enlightenment, a true secular liberal.  Oddly, there's an almost libertarian tone to this.  When Margaret Thatcher said something like "There's no such thing as society, only collections of individuals", part of me said "Yes!"  (Never mind that around the time I first heard her say it, I was in the Socialist Workers Party.)  There's something very persuasive to Yanks like me about the argument that a good society ought to be one where we are each granted maximum freedom to pursue our own individual happiness.  Naturally, in this world view, we will have conflicting notions as to what constitutes happiness.  We are all, to borrow Stephen Carter's happy phrase, just "bundles of desire" anyway -- and it's not the state's business to make judgments about those desires.  The only role for society is to keep one individual's desires from interfering with another's.  (For example, traffic lights are necessary.  If we all want to fulfill our desires to go through intersections without stopping, chaos results.  But such examples are, in this vision of society and the individual, rare.)  In this world view, abortion is the "choice of the chooser" as she is making a decision based on her desires about her own body.  No one else needs be involved.

Of course, I'm moved by the socialist vision as well.  Socialism points out that the freedom to act on one's desires is largely a function of class; those who have more have more choices, and are frequently able to act on their desires at the expense of the working class.  So, over the years, I developed a typically liberal vision:  I began to believe that the state should not regulate people's private choices in the sexual arena, but ought to work to redistribute wealth so as to maximize the "choice-making potential" for the greatest number of folks in society.    (Conservatives often howl at the apparent inconsistency here.)

Then, of course, I am compelled by the Christian vision of society that informs Russell's work.  The vision of Christian community is one in which the notion of the "purely private" is a fiction.  Everything we do affects everyone around us.   Like the socialists, this vision suggests that we are accountable to those around us for how we use our financial resources.  But we are also accountable for our intimate lives.  The fall-out from a chaotic sexual life (break-ups, divorce, infidelity) impacts far more people than were originally involved in the act.  How we make love and procreate (or not) always impacts the wider community.  Ultimately, as the final commandment (thou shalt not covet) shows, even our private thoughts have social repercussions!  In this vision of the world and society, it's imperative that important choices, like whether or not to have an abortion, be made in consultation with one's family and even one's broader community.

Folks, I don't blame you if you get tired of Hugo's waffling. I know --and maybe this is a function of being an ENFP Gemini with a Scorpio moon -- that I often write as if indecisiveness was a high virtue!  While it is admirable to make the effort to see all sides of an issue, it is not particularly impressive to remain permanently incapacitated as a result.  Too often, stuck in limbo is where I end up, and it's where I've ended up again here.

Russell has me thinking this morning.  I'm still voting no on 73, but I'm more aware than ever that my reasoning is rooted in a certain secular individualism that I think is, perhaps, a flawed and lonely philosophy.

UPDATE:  DJW responds to both Russell and me here, and Russell weighs in the comments section.

Comments

[Russell Arben Fox]

Many thanks for your kind response, Hugo; I'm sure (time allowing) we'll both have more to say in the days to come. One quick point though (I just came back from class, and I'm off to another one): I would have collapsed your "socialist" and "Christian" paragraphs. Of course they aren't identical worldviews, but when it comes to matters such as these, it's important for leftist Christians like ourselves to never give our fellow lefists reason to doubt that they can (and should, if they are so inclined) make use of Christian arguments as part of their agenda...and, of course, to never allow our fellow Christians to get away with ignoring the need to socially respond--through educational and economic support, along with public dissuasion--to grave harms like abortion.

[Amanda]

I'm compelled by the fact that people who aren't women continue to think they know better than women what women's rights should be.

[Camassia]

But if only women voted on this, there wouldn't exactly be agreement either. There's a difference between "women" and "the individual who's pregnant."

[Hugo]

That's true. Amanda, you know perfectly well that most pro-choicers are no more likely to give credence to a female right-to-lifer than a male one; your own posts about feminists-for-life have made that fairly clear!

[mythago]

Russell's response is rhetorically weighted: either the issue of minors having abortions is "wholly private," or we must allow the public to intrude on families and force a particular model of parent-child relationship, but we'll call it a "mild public concern" rather than admit that fact. (An expression of "mild public concern" would be a peaceful protest, Russell.)

If the answer to "Who is the chooser?" is not "The minor, alone," then we also have to admit that we believe it's OK for parents to force their daughters to have an abortion. Either she gets to choose or she doesn't, and if she cannot override her parents' decision, that goes both ways.

[NYMOM]

"If the answer to "Who is the chooser?" is not "The minor, alone," then we also have to admit that we believe it's OK for parents to force their daughters to have an abortion. Either she gets to choose or she doesn't, and if she cannot override her parents' decision, that goes both ways."

NYMOM said: Exactly...that can ultimately be how it breaks out...

Since if it's a purely medical issue and a minor is involved; then just like in every other medical issue involving minors, parents are the ones who decide on treatment, surgery, etc.,

I mean you can't give an aspirin in public school to a child (supposedly) w/o parental okay...so this could wind up becoming the same sort of 'medical' situation...

BUT again, prolifers will support this thinking it will mean FEWER abortions, when in fact, it could eventually mean more...

[Russell Arben Fox]

"Either the issue of minors having abortions is 'wholly private,' or we must allow the public to intrude on families and force a particular model of parent-child relationship, but we'll call it a 'mild public concern' rather than admit that fact."

You're right that a peaceful protest is one example of expressing public concern, mythago. But why should the expression of this particular sort of concern (the concern over the moral harm of abortion) be framed as something outside of and in response to the legal, public norm? Why can't, within appropriate constitutional limits (as I emphasized in my post), such public concern be embodied in the law? As "forcing a particular model" upon those having to make the decision, well, if there is strong support for, and persausive arguments for, an expression of concern which presumes the relevance of such a model, why not make use of it? Is it really a matter of forced intrusion, or rather a matter of families seeking recognition and support for their role in both society and their childrens' lives?

"If the answer to 'Who is the chooser?' is not 'The minor, alone,' then we also have to admit that we believe it's OK for parents to force their daughters to have an abortion. Either she gets to choose or she doesn't, and if she cannot override her parents' decision, that goes both ways."

I think you are importing a notion of "force" and "intrusion" into a continuum that, in at least as many cases, will be more a matter of mutual concern and persuasion. That said, you're certainly correct that it could go both ways--you could have situations where a girl would rather keep the baby, but the parents convince her to abort. I think that's unfortunate, but I also think it's an outcome that at least takes seriously the community and family, rather than one that thinks society needs to bury it's head in the sand whenever one of these tragic decisions arise.

[Anthony]

Russell writes: "you could have situations where a girl would rather keep the baby, but the parents convince her to abort".

First, the immediate point: How would Prop 73 change the fact that this already happens?

Second, the general principle: Like anything else involving near-adults, there are very few absolutes when it comes to parental power over the child. It is not unprincipled to say that the law ought to require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion, but not allow a parent to require a minor to have an abortion. There are many actions a parent may forbid their child, which we would consider child abuse if the parent *required* it; our reasoning along those lines will change as a child gets older. For example, should a parent be allowed to require a teenager to have plastic surgery or cosmetic orthodontia? Why or why not?

[NYMOM]

"First, the immediate point: How would Prop 73 change the fact that this already happens?"

Immediately it won't change that fact. It will have no impact. Down the road probably, yes it will. It appears we are heading to a point where all abortions will be seen as a medical procedures where minors are subject to parental consent as well as veto power for and against; like every other medical procedure regarding children.

It's the slippery slope theory.

The point I was making is that someone said prolifers support parental notification laws. I am thinking they support them since they can see eventually down the road a parent being allowed veto power over an abortion, not just a notification. Probably under the assumption that MOST Christians will encourage their daughters to have the children and give them up for adoption.

Some of us are saying they could be wrong. As some Christians, to keep face in their community, might force their daughters to have a quiet abortion so no one in the church or neighborhood ever finds out...

[mythago]

you could have situations where a girl would rather keep the baby, but the parents convince her to abort

Or where the parents say "You're going to have an abortion, period" and march her into the clinic. Parents a certain amount of control over their children's health care; my ten-year-old can yell all she want about how she doesn't want to see the dentist, but at the end of the day, the law is not going to lift a finger if I drag her, kicking and screaming, in for a checkup.

Is it really a matter of forced intrusion, or rather a matter of families seeking recognition and support for their role in both society and their childrens' lives?

It's a matter of forced intrusion.

[Anthony]

Mythago says: "It's a matter of forced intrusion."

But does that make it wrong? In a case involving responsible adults, it would be. But non-adults aren't given complete autonomy nor do they bear complete responsibility for their choices. Forced intrusions by the parents on the choices of the child are fairly common, and quite often morally and legally required.

I don't get why abortion is treated as more privileged than any other optional medical procedure. Nor, for that matter, why contraception is, also - I recently saw a posting complaining that "Plan B" won't be approved for OTC status, at the same time that pseudephedrine is being removed from OTC status. There's an argument that emergency (or regular) contraception ought to be available OTC, and that abortion ought to be readily obtainable, but I fail to see the logic in treating either as less needful of government or medical oversight than other drugs or procedures which have fewer potential side-effects.

[mythago]

Forced intrusions by the parents on the choices of the child are fairly common, and quite often morally and legally required.

Then let's admit we're also allowing parents to force their pregnant child to get an abortion.

I don't get why abortion is treated as more privileged than any other optional medical procedure.

That's because you assume abortion is an 'optional medical procedure', along the lines of breast implants. A pregnant minor who does not get an abortion stays pregnant, and will (barring something like a miscarriage) give birth. If you don't get this, then I guess I can see why the idea that abortion is not like ear piercing would baffle you. (It is not illegal for minors to buy condoms without their parents' permission, by the way; contraception is a red herring here.)

Pseudoephedrine is being removed from OTC status for *everyone* because it is used to make methamphetamine. Again, not getting why you are dragging in the comparison.

The bottom line is that 73 will not force children to get their parents' permission for abortion. The only real reason for it is the hope that it will scare teens into refraining from abortion until it's too late and they have to give birth.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Nor, for that matter, why contraception is, also - I recently saw a posting complaining that "Plan B" won't be approved for OTC status, at the same time that pseudephedrine is being removed from OTC status.

A) There's a huge difference between being obliged to suffer stuffed up nasal passages until you can get a prescription filled and being obliged to become pregnant (maybe even pregnant from rape, though pregnant from a broken condom would be bad enough) because you couldn't get a prescription and get it filled within the very narrow time window in which Plan B works. B) Pulling pseudoephedrine because it can be used to make methamphetamine just isn't the same thing as withholding OTC status from Plan B because you're afraid teenagers will be promiscuous if it's available. I don't want teenagers to be promiscuous any more than the next person (in fact, I'd rather people not be having sexual intercourse at all until they're old enough to marry and support a child if a pregnancy results), but preventing people from having sex is not a medical reason for withholding OTC status. C) Not being able to get Plan B in a timely fashion is particularly bad for all those women for whom abortion is not a morally acceptable option, but contraception is. D) Pharmacists in various states are now refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions on moral grounds. Which makes it even more critical that the drug be available OTC, so that any employee in the pharmacy that carries it can give it to you, rather than, perhaps, suddenly discovering that you can't get it from a pharmacy that normally carries it, because their substitute pharmacist suddenly expressed moral qualms.

If Plan B had actual drug safety problems which were driving the decision to withhold OTC status, that would be one thing; drugs should of course not be exempted from normal safety regulation just because they're contraceptives. But it doesn't look to me as if that's what's going on here.

[Anthony]

Mythago -

Considering that the pregnancy rate soared after abortion was legalized, something which places a psychological barrier in the way of getting an abortion will likely cause teenagers to be significantly more careful with their sexual behavior, and result in less teen pregnancy and fewer babies born to teenage mothers.

I don't see how the prospect of having a baby magically makes abortion somehow not optional, and your sneer at me for "not getting it" has no logic behind it. Most abortions are not performed for the health of the mother. The choice isn't between having an abortion or dying or remaining chronically ill, it's between having an abortion or having a baby. While I believe that women should be able to get abortions early in pregnancy, I can't see making a "right" out of an optional medical procedure.

I dragged in contraception, because the same attitude of entitlement and "rights" are present there. In an ideal world, Plan B (and regular bc pills, which can be used to subsitute for Plan B) would be available OTC, along with most other drugs which are currently prescription. But I don't get why contraception should be more privileged than other drugs, relative to the level of side-effects of those drugs.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

But I don't get why contraception should be more privileged than other drugs, relative to the level of side-effects of those drugs.

Contraception isn't more privileged; it's less privileged. If Plan B weren't a contraceptive, with its actual rate of side effects, it would probably be approved for OTC status. What's being argued on the Plan B front is that we shouldn't have an especially difficult track for OTC approval, forty years after Griswold vs. Connecticut, just because a drug is a contraceptive.

[Anthony]

Lynn -

my understanding is that Plan B is essentially a "megadose" of ordinary birth control pills, and that women who have regular bc pills but don't use them can duplicate the effect by taking a certain number of bc pills on a certain schedule. Birth control pills have lots of side effects, and taking large doses of them can have more. So long as regular birth control pills aren't OTC, it's not treating Plan B unfairly to keep it prescription-only.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

In the first place, Anthony, I fail to see how the fact that birth control pills are prescription only proves that Plan B is being kept prescription only because of its medical risks, rather than because of moral concerns related to its contraceptive use. After all, we're comparing two forms of contraception, right?

In the second place, though, there is a reason that there's an effort to make Plan B OTC, and not regular birth control pills. FDA decisions are based not only on the risks of the drugs involved, but also on their benefits. For example, drugs which are used in terminal illnesses sometimes get faster approval (for prescription use, obviously, not OTC use) than drugs with similar risks (or similar levels of research) for non-terminal conditions. Now, it should be obvious why a very time sensitive contraceptive, and one which is the only contraceptive that you can use if you have been raped, would be a drug where you'd get more benefit from OTC availability than a drug which you need, in any case, to start at the right time in your cycle and to take for at least a month before you want to rely on it. Birth control pills are a long term plan, and Plan B is an emergency contraceptive.

In the third place, the FDA has stated why it is stalling on deciding whether Plan B can be approved for OTC use, and the reason it gave was not the medical risk, but concern about teenagers using the drug. The stated concern, it's true, was about teenagers' ability to read the label, but, frankly, given that most teenagers can read approximately as well as adults, but many make rash sexual decisions, color me skeptical that label reading was a bigger concern here than teenage sexual activity.

Fourth, given that the FDA's unwillingness to grant OTC approval for Plan B has been widely criticized by doctors, and ob/gyns in particular, I have trouble buying that it's a medically sound decision.

Despite all of these reasons, I personally would be willing to shut up about OTC approval for Plan B, were it not that opponents of Plan B are simultaneously trying to prevent women from having access to it by prescription, by persuading pharmacists to get between a woman and her doctor by refusing a prescription, not for an abortion medication, but for birth control, and then by passing laws to allow said pharmacists to do this with impunity (i.e., not get fired for such a refusal, even if their decision is contrary to the policy of the pharmacy where they are working). I figure, pick one or the other: either women should be able to get their emergency contraception prescriptions filled in a timely fashion, while the drug can still work, or else the drug should be made available OTC so that, if a woman encounters a pharmacist with moral objections to contraception, she can purchase the drug from another store employee who is more accomodating. To both make sure only a pharmacist can give out the drug and make sure the pharmacist can turn the woman down even if her doctor has prescribed it is unacceptable.

And I take this personally because, as someone who does not wish to ever be in a position of having an abortion, and also as someone whose normal contraceptive method has been "wait till you find the guy you're actually willing to have a baby with and who will stick with you," emergency contraception really would have been my only recourse, if I had ever been raped. (Though, as with any contraception, people should also be free to use for regular old sex, as, for example, if a condom breaks.)

[mythago]

Considering that the pregnancy rate soared after abortion was legalized

You have numbers for this, I assume? Or are we just playing "correlation equals causation"? But thanks for admitting the real point of Proposition 73 is not to give parents a role in their children's lives, but to scare those bad girls into keeping their legs shut, and punish them with babies if they don't.

While I believe that women should be able to get abortions early in pregnancy, I can't see making a "right" out of an optional medical procedure.

Inconsistent much?

[Felauero]

Thomson holiday Thomson holiday

[Ljwoyero]

Thomson holiday Thomson holiday

[Karuqero]

bawley beach holidays aids beltone hearing