Anti-abortion forces have often focused on what one may simply call the anti-killing argument. Killing a human being without justification, mitigation, or excuse is murder. A fetus, or even an embryo, is in relevant respects a human being. Thus [insert obvious conclusion here.]
Bracket that argument for a second. My point in bringing it up now is simply to contrast it with a very different argument one has also often encountered in recent decades. I think of it as the natalist argument. It is not pro-life or even anti-killing. It is pro birth. The higher the birthrate the better.
In recent years this has often gone hand-in-hand with arguments over social security. "To make social security work, we have to have new young people entering the workforce in a regular basis -- the more of them do so, the more fiscally sound the system is for another generation. The prevalence of abortion (or ready availability of birth control for that matter) limits the number of people entering the workforce with less than a two decade gap. Thus, those anti-natalist things are bad and at the least states must be empowered to oppose them."
The important points about the merger of arguments over IVF and abortion right now is that (a) the above two arguments lead to exactly contrary conclusions in the subject of IVF, (b) the Republicans have not really figured that out, and that (c) hilarity should ensue.If you've got a rather dark sense of humor.
Look to Senator Tuberville. His immediate comments on the Alabama decision against IVF were justifiably ridiculed as confused. His initial response was that he was "all for it." He then proceeds to talk the talk of a natalist anti-abortionist. “We need to have more kids. We need to have an opportunity to do that, and I thought this was the right thing to do."
Of course, a consistent natalist should want to make it easier for infertile couples to avail themselves of this technology, and as a consequence "have more kids". Tuberville seems to have come around as that has gradually dawned on him, or someone has briefed him on what he was TRYING to talk about.
IVF means we DO get those babies born so they can go on to become productive citizens and pay in to the social security system. Goooo ... IVF!
Watching the circus as the clowns try to figure this out has its plus side.
If "a consistent natalist should want to make it easier for infertile couples to avail themselves of [IVF], and as a consequence 'have more kids,'" then shouldn't a consistent natalist, in addition to wanting the government to force pregnant women to give birth against their will, want the government to force women to get pregnant?
ReplyDeleteYes, but I don't know of any natalist who is being quite that consistent as of yet.
DeleteRepublicans are moving in that direction. The New York Times reports, "One month after the Supreme Court struck down the right to an abortion, Democrats who then controlled the House pushed through a bill aimed to ensure access to contraception nationwide. All but eight Republicans opposed it." The bill would have protected "the right to purchase and use contraception without [state] government restriction."
DeleteThe bill was called The Right to Contraception Act, and, after it passed the House, it was blocked in the Senate. Also, Clarence Thomas called for a reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for the government to ban contraceptives.
Delete