As a non-American (but yes I have the nationality and I vote) I am amazed how someone can use so many words and not state the main point first: what does the woman want, what are her circumstances, how does she feel about it? Can she become a Mother? Half of all pregnancies are a surprise and logically, a large portion of all pregnancies are not wanted. A good portion of pregnancies must be dangerous to the woman's body or her mind. What a doctor believes of wants is unimportant, if he cannot handle the psychiatric part of his job, he should talk to a colleague. Then make a decision, serving the Mother's well being.
The answer certainly becomes a lot more clear when you frame the argument the way you do (mother's well being is paramount). I would suggest not all would frame it as such.
This is not a veiled statement on my personal position but rather just highlighting that perhaps it is not as clear as you outline and, hence, the need for "so many words." The author (and a large number of people) is clearly wrestling with a competing moral interest.
I think it is important for people who want to persuade to acknowledge the foregoing (even if we don't want agree with it) and address it in our arguments. Otherwise, we are just talking past each other.
Any answer, and from the following comments as well, that does not start with the well being of the Mother is worthless. Morally, medically and socially. The number of marriages of adult males (over est.25 years of age, to older men who made them pregnant, in America specifically in North Carolina, is staggering. The well being of the Mother comes first, above all only that. The child age marrying so rampant in this so moral USA needs to be stopped. Serving the Mother's well being is the only criterium.
I'm not sure I am completely understanding the support for your position in your post. I do, however, believe I get the gist that you believe there is only one correct answer on this issue. That is certainly important to understand.
That said (and why I think abortion is so illustrative) and, as Jeff Dewey highlights in his comment above, there is period of time at which the competing interest for most(?) people tips in the favor or something other than what you deem the "only criterium."
Given that, I would just propose that in order to persuade one can either argue that such a period of time never exists or you can acknowledge that it does and that there is a balancing that needs to be done in order to get to the best answer. Just from an effectiveness perspective it seems better to acknowledge this alternate belief, empathize with why someone might believe it to be true and prove out why your answer is better than their's based on the evidence you feel supports your position.
Otherwise, we will continue to talk past each other.
Honestly, a great piece that underscores the balancing necessary to reconcile complex moral decisions. This is spot on -
"My own tentative answer, I realize, comes from within my parents: a dad who taught me moral complexity, and the limits of government policy; a mom who granted me the moral urgency to fight for children. When young, all I wanted was moral certainty. With age, I must accept complexity."
Add in the fact that humans are inherently flawed, society is a compromise and intellectual humility (IMHO) is the best approach we've come up with and you understand that the tension never goes away (nor should it). Better to acknowledge the tension, leverage your morality as your north star but adjust as best you can taking into consideration both your own and other's interest and make a call (always leaving the safety valve to adjust as new information/experiences cross your transom).
Fantastic piece - this to me is more the "true" human experience than the automatic conflation of the ought begets a singular "how" pervading our discourse today.
Missing from most hopelessly polarized discussions on this issue, and from your piece, is to address the thorny ethical, even ontological question, "when does life begin?" Polls have consistently shown that the majority of people oppose late term abortions of viable fetuses, yet the same majority are in favor of the mother's right to choose very early in the pregnancy. I don't pretend to have a good answer, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of most, those two hypothetical abortions, the first viable and sensate, the second unviable and insensate, are not ethically equivalent.
I congratulate you on raising this subject, and for the courage and thoughtfulness it required.
I'm glad you're no longer in favor of banning abortion, but you seem to have little to say about women who have abortions. Do you really expect these women, the majority of whom already have children, to go through pregnancy and childbirth only to give up their baby to some anti-abortion couple? You don't mention health care, sex ed or birth control, or poverty, or violence against women. All these are part of the abortion story. Having a baby is a huge big deal, physically, emotionally, socially. Very few women bear a child in order to give it up for adoption, and there are good reasons for that.
The fundamental premise though, that we are "a complex country", should lead one to believe that Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned. Afterall, all this would do is punt on abortion as a federal issue and make it a states issue. Like most "complex " issues, they should be handled more locally than federally. This point seems to be missed though.
Great point. I'm a small government conservative, so federalism, originalism, etc. are all in my wheelhouse. One can have a certain view on the policy question and a very different view on the constitutional question. Not missing the legal question--this is an oped and you can only tackle so much in one article.
As a non-American (but yes I have the nationality and I vote) I am amazed how someone can use so many words and not state the main point first: what does the woman want, what are her circumstances, how does she feel about it? Can she become a Mother? Half of all pregnancies are a surprise and logically, a large portion of all pregnancies are not wanted. A good portion of pregnancies must be dangerous to the woman's body or her mind. What a doctor believes of wants is unimportant, if he cannot handle the psychiatric part of his job, he should talk to a colleague. Then make a decision, serving the Mother's well being.
The answer certainly becomes a lot more clear when you frame the argument the way you do (mother's well being is paramount). I would suggest not all would frame it as such.
This is not a veiled statement on my personal position but rather just highlighting that perhaps it is not as clear as you outline and, hence, the need for "so many words." The author (and a large number of people) is clearly wrestling with a competing moral interest.
I think it is important for people who want to persuade to acknowledge the foregoing (even if we don't want agree with it) and address it in our arguments. Otherwise, we are just talking past each other.
Any answer, and from the following comments as well, that does not start with the well being of the Mother is worthless. Morally, medically and socially. The number of marriages of adult males (over est.25 years of age, to older men who made them pregnant, in America specifically in North Carolina, is staggering. The well being of the Mother comes first, above all only that. The child age marrying so rampant in this so moral USA needs to be stopped. Serving the Mother's well being is the only criterium.
I'm not sure I am completely understanding the support for your position in your post. I do, however, believe I get the gist that you believe there is only one correct answer on this issue. That is certainly important to understand.
That said (and why I think abortion is so illustrative) and, as Jeff Dewey highlights in his comment above, there is period of time at which the competing interest for most(?) people tips in the favor or something other than what you deem the "only criterium."
Given that, I would just propose that in order to persuade one can either argue that such a period of time never exists or you can acknowledge that it does and that there is a balancing that needs to be done in order to get to the best answer. Just from an effectiveness perspective it seems better to acknowledge this alternate belief, empathize with why someone might believe it to be true and prove out why your answer is better than their's based on the evidence you feel supports your position.
Otherwise, we will continue to talk past each other.
Honestly, a great piece that underscores the balancing necessary to reconcile complex moral decisions. This is spot on -
"My own tentative answer, I realize, comes from within my parents: a dad who taught me moral complexity, and the limits of government policy; a mom who granted me the moral urgency to fight for children. When young, all I wanted was moral certainty. With age, I must accept complexity."
Add in the fact that humans are inherently flawed, society is a compromise and intellectual humility (IMHO) is the best approach we've come up with and you understand that the tension never goes away (nor should it). Better to acknowledge the tension, leverage your morality as your north star but adjust as best you can taking into consideration both your own and other's interest and make a call (always leaving the safety valve to adjust as new information/experiences cross your transom).
Fantastic piece - this to me is more the "true" human experience than the automatic conflation of the ought begets a singular "how" pervading our discourse today.
Beautifully written and reasoned. Thank you!
Missing from most hopelessly polarized discussions on this issue, and from your piece, is to address the thorny ethical, even ontological question, "when does life begin?" Polls have consistently shown that the majority of people oppose late term abortions of viable fetuses, yet the same majority are in favor of the mother's right to choose very early in the pregnancy. I don't pretend to have a good answer, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of most, those two hypothetical abortions, the first viable and sensate, the second unviable and insensate, are not ethically equivalent.
I congratulate you on raising this subject, and for the courage and thoughtfulness it required.
A level headed point of view on a complex issue, to hear this issue spoken about without any rancor was very welcomed. Thank you.
I'm glad you're no longer in favor of banning abortion, but you seem to have little to say about women who have abortions. Do you really expect these women, the majority of whom already have children, to go through pregnancy and childbirth only to give up their baby to some anti-abortion couple? You don't mention health care, sex ed or birth control, or poverty, or violence against women. All these are part of the abortion story. Having a baby is a huge big deal, physically, emotionally, socially. Very few women bear a child in order to give it up for adoption, and there are good reasons for that.
The fundamental premise though, that we are "a complex country", should lead one to believe that Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned. Afterall, all this would do is punt on abortion as a federal issue and make it a states issue. Like most "complex " issues, they should be handled more locally than federally. This point seems to be missed though.
Great point. I'm a small government conservative, so federalism, originalism, etc. are all in my wheelhouse. One can have a certain view on the policy question and a very different view on the constitutional question. Not missing the legal question--this is an oped and you can only tackle so much in one article.
Thank you for sharing this.