Reply #37: I disagree

[ant]

Well, I agree that the positions you've given are the two that dominate the moral discussion of abortion, but I think the legal discussion is quite different.

The positions I see in the political debate are, or should be:

1. Outlawing abortion would have a devastating effect on women's health issues overall. Consider, for instance, the consequences of having the government shadow a doctor in the operating room or trying to actually enforce such a ban. (Will women's medical records be made publicly available? Will we all be forced to undergo monthly pregnancy tests? What if I have two doctors disagreeing over whether or not my health/life is at risk - will a government panel of non-doctors make the final call?)

2. The consequences of outlawing abortion are worth making the symobolic statement that this society - or some group within it - is opposed to abortion. (I say symbolic because it will not have any practical effect. Those who can have abortions now will probably always be able to get them, either by traveling somewhere or paying the right doctor enough money. As usual, it's the poor women who get screwed.)

You can be morally opposed to abortion and still understand that the policy issue is a different matter. (And yes, I know women - it's almost always women - who understand the distinction.) After all, I'm morally opposed to adultery, but I don't think we should be throwing adulterers in jail or anything. What's funny is I would guess the overwhelming number of people in this country would say that adultery is immoral but should not be banned. Abortion, however, which we have less agreement on in terms of morality, is still somehow an issue for debate in terms of public policy.

In any case, my point is that just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. I think the pro-choice side would be wise to shift the debate from one of morality to one of public health policy.