The Abortion Debate, Respect, and Michelle of the Resistance

Kirsten Cooke as Michelle of the Resistance

Of late, Curmie and Beloved Spouse have watched a couple of episodes a week of the old (1982-92) British sitcom “‘Allo ‘Allo!”  Curmie generally doesn’t think stupid equates to funny, but in this case he’ll make an exception.

The show is set in France during World War II.  One recurring character is Michelle of the Resistance.  If imdb.com can be trusted, she’s in 82 of the 85 episodes; whereas he can’t be sure of this, Curmie would bet that she utters her catch-phrase, complete with music-hall French accent, in all 82 of her appearances: “Listen very carefully.  I shall say this only once.”

And that, Gentle Reader, is how Curmie begins this essay on abortion.  I shall say this only once, albeit, unlike Michelle, I’ll say it loudly: SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ABOUT ABORTION IS NOT INHERENTLY EVIL.  If, to use the euphemistic terms applied by both sides, you’re pro-life, your neighbor who’s pro-choice is not a baby killer.  If you’re pro-choice, your pro-life neighbor is not a fascistic misogynist. 

Curmie need hardly tell you, Gentle Reader, that someone leaked a copy of a draft of a SCOTUS decision, drafted by Justice Alito.  This document could be word-for-word what the actual ruling will be when it’s officially announced, or there could be significant changes—significant enough, indeed, to totally flip what is now regarded as “the script.”  Curmie will read the final document in its entirety (which is more than most commentators on either side of the issue will do), but reads drafts only if at least one of two conditions are met: the draft document is in Curmie’s area of professional expertise, and/or he’s getting paid, directly or indirectly, to read it.  The Alito draft meets neither of these criteria.

If, however, that leaked draft remains essentially unchanged, it would overturn the half-century-old Roe v. Wade decision and, presumably, a host of other cases decided on the basis of that precedent.  Regardless of what the final document will say, the leak has precipitated a flurry of memes, rants, and other variations on the theme of demagoguery from both sides, with epithets flying faster than English arrows in a movie version of Henry V (Olivier or Branagh, take your pick). 

What’s notable about these outbursts is that they are uniformly without the slightest hint of nuance.  Curmie does not suggest here that decisions about abortions are ultimately anything but disjunctive—you can’t “sort of” have an abortion—but there’s no suggestion of “I see your point, but…” emanating from literally anyone.  Even those who purport to respect all perspectives lapse pretty quickly into variations on the themes of accusations of infanticide or serial misogyny. 

Curmie’s own view aligns reasonably well with prevailing national sentiment on this issue, but it doesn’t matter, as this is a deeply personal issue, affected by one’s own life history as well as world view.  Your point of view is likely to be different if your mother considered abortion but ultimately chose to give birth to you than if you literally would have died had you not been able to abort a pregnancy gone wrong.  Either way, you’re alive because abortion was or was not considered the least bad option in a difficult situation.

There are, to be sure, a couple of side issues at play here—what if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? how do we handle an ectopic pregnancy? are we considering the life of the mother, and, if so, what level of threat to her life is sufficient to perform an abortion at what point in the pregnancy?, etc.  Ultimately, however, there is really only one issue: at what point can we say we’re dealing with a human “baby” rather than simply a collection of cells?

There would seem to be two reasonable endpoints: at fertilization and at birth.  No one seriously believes in the literality of the “masturbation is murder” signs that have turned up at rallies in the past fortnight.  Monty Python’s “Every Sperm Is Sacred” song is satire, not advocacy, and the shtick is funny precisely because it’s so absurd.  Nor does any sane person believe that babies who have been—you know—born are anything less than human beings.  If anyone positions themselves outside the fertilization/birth range, Curmie encourages you to run, do not walk, away from this person.

There are major religions which align themselves at both polls.  Catholic policy, which purports to be unchanging, erm… isn’t.  Southern Baptists, too, now condemn what they accepted without demur in the wake of the Roe decision.  Are these changes of direction cynical?  Or is Curmie cynical to point them out?  Yes, to at least one of those questions.

In all, Curmie counts no fewer than seven positions which have been suggested as the beginning of human life. 

Stop #1 is fertilization.  This is a logical position in that it is the first moment after which birth can (not to say will) occur without any volitional action.  A number of birth control strategies—condoms, spermicide, contraceptive implants, etc.—seek, therefore, to prevent fertilization.  When Curmie was a lad, the Catholic Church forbade even these approaches, advocating instead for the “rhythm method,” in which couples predicted, based on menstrual cycle, the days on which the woman was most likely to conceive, and avoided sex on those days.  Needless to say, this was not a foolproof process.  As the late, great, George Carlin put it, there’s a word for couples who use the rhythm method: parents. 

Stop #2 on our journey is implantation.  This occurs roughly a week after fertilization.  The distinction is important, as a fertilized egg must penetrate into the uterus for the birth process to continue.  If and when this process occurs, the body releases hormones, begins to build up the placenta, etc.  One could legitimately argue that pregnancy actually begins here, when the body prepares for the process, rather than at fertilization, which is simply the conjoining of two cells.  A number of birth control methods—the “morning after pill,” for instance—seek to prevent implantation, as fertilization may have already occurred. 

And so we move on to Stop #3: “Fetal heartbeat,” which generally happens at about six or seven weeks. (It’s important to note here that this and subsequent dates of pregnancy refer not to the period since fertilization, but since the last menstrual period; this is how such dating can be as exact as it is.)  “Fetal heartbeat” may be the least reasonable of our stops along the path to birth, more for its name than anything else.  First off, it’s still an embryo (see below), not yet a fetus.  Secondly, it’s pretty damned difficult to have a heartbeat without a heart to be beating.  (There’s a reason for Curmie’s use of scare quotes for the term.)  The opening and closing of valves that constitute a heartbeat per se can’t happen because those valves don’t yet exist.  Rather, a cluster of cells generates electrical activity; what is heard on an ultrasound machine is generated by the machine itself.

“Fetal heartbeat” legislation is thus literally nothing more than an emotion-based attempt by anti-abortion politicians to move the cut-off point for abortion from the standards established by Roe to a much earlier moment, a point at time in which a woman may not even knows she’s pregnant in time to get a legal procedure.  And let’s face it, “fetal heartbeat” sure does sound a lot more baby-like than “embryonic pulses.” Being a few days late for a period can happen for a wide variety of reasons; pregnancy is on the list, but nowhere near the only possibility.  

Stop #4.  Ensoulment.  First off, what a lovely term!  This refers to the moment when, according to whatever religious or philosophical position one follows, the soul enters the body.  Of course, since we’re dealing with a spiritual rather than medical/anatomical phenomenon, different cultures place ensoulment at different points in the process—as early as 40 days after conception (perhaps eight weeks or so after the last period) or as late as quickening, the moment the mother feels the fetus move, which may not happen until as late as 21 weeks.  Note: according to some religious traditions, a human being doesn’t have a soul, it is a soul.  Curmie just thought he’d throw that in there, because the topic isn’t complicated enough, otherwise. 😉

Ensoulment is a fascinating concept, since if a fetus isn’t really human until that moment, and we can’t decide when that happens, then we’re really casting about, looking for answers.  Of course, this leads to where it always leads: the recognition that we have a natural tendency to translate and interpret to fit our own pre-conceived notions. 

Curmie is not a scholar of Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, and suspects that you aren’t, either, Gentle Reader.  That means we’re not really in a position to decide if Genesis 2:7 says that human life begins at first breath.  And even if you do happen to be such a scholar, you were taught what words mean and what grammatical structures suggest by someone who may or may not have had an agenda in placing a particular spin on a passage… and who was taught by someone else who may or may not… you get the idea.

More to the point, whatever this or that religion may currently say, or may once have said, about ensoulment, it’s impossible to base a secular policy decision on such a basis.  We reject this rationale as emphatically as we do “fetal heartbeat,” albeit for different reasons.

Stop #5.  Fetus.  This occurs at roughly ten weeks, and marks the transition from “embryo” to “fetus.”  That is, all the major organs, though immature, have been formed.  This strikes Curmie as a far more reasonable signpost than the bogus “fetal heartbeat.”  Whatever your views on the morality and ethics of abortion, it seems reasonable to grant that something significant occurs at this point in a pregnancy.

Stop #6.  Viability.  This represents the point at which there is a reasonable expectation that the fetus could survive outside the womb, with or without medical intervention,  This is, roughly speaking, the status quo established by Roe, albeit a number of states have drastically lowered the threshold to well under the most optimistic interpretation of viability.  But, like the other moments already listed, this is impossible to pinpoint exactly.  And that word “reasonable” complicates things, too.  What, after all, is “reasonable”? 

Curmie knows and loves someone, now well into adulthood, whose birth was extremely premature: to the point that the infant weighed less than three pounds a month later.  The chances of surviving the first night were placed at 1 in 1000, of ever walking, at far longer than that.  As an adolescent, this youngster was the weakest member of the high school cross country team.  Let me say that again: the weakest member of the cross country team.

Of course, we can reasonably assume that the medical community’s ability to care for such patients is at least as good as it was a generation ago.  The accepted standard for viability seems to be at 22 weeks, with the smallest baby to survive even for a few weeks having been born at 18 weeks.  So, Gentle Reader, if viability is your criterion, that’s your range; Curmie, for personal as well as ethical reasons, urges you to err on the side of early rather than late.

Stop #7: Birth. Some religions, including, for example, some forms of Judaism, insist that birth per se is the beginning of human life.  Still, adopting such a standard for abortion is not only ethically problematic at best, it’s politically impossible except in cases where either the mother’s life is seriously imperiled or the fetus has literally no chance of survival.  Even these exceptions, along with exceptions for rape or incest, are anathema to some conservative politicians. 

There are those who argue, as Pete Buttigieg does, that the overwhelming majority of third trimester abortions are for pregnancies that were intended to go to term.  The argument goes that anyone seeking an abortion for frivolous reasons would have already had the procedure.  Therefore, there had to be something that went wrong—with the mother or the fetus—to change direction.  That’s a compelling argument.  Of course, absolutists would counter that “overwhelming majority” is insufficient, and that even if 99% of late-term abortions are for good reason, that leaves 1% that constitute, in their minds, sanctioning murder.

The problem gets even more complex when we start talking about the health of the mother.  Defining that term is akin to grabbing a handful of mercury.  Does mental health count?  Does the threat need to be chronic or acute?  Both?  There are times that Curmie is quite fine with letting other people decide the details; this is certainly one of them.

Closing thoughts #1:  Curmie is not an obstetrician, a lawyer, or a religious leader.  He may be misinterpreting what’s he’s read.  If so, he asks forgiveness and correction. 

Closing thoughts #2: The Democratic Party, as usual, fucked up royally in their response to the leaked document.  They could have put forward a bill in Congress that would have guaranteed abortion rights a significant majority of Americans agree upon, eliminating “fetal heartbeat” bills, protecting victims of rape or incest, etc.  This would have led to one of two results: either those rights, at least, would be guaranteed or the Republicans would have had to go on record to fail to protect even rape victims seeking a first-term abortion.  That wouldn’t play well with the electorate at large.

Instead, the Dems put forth a bill, laden with Woke platitudes and jargon, which actually would have extended abortion rights beyond what Roe ensured.  They can blame Joe Manchin all they want, but it was the party leadership that snatched political defeat from the very jaws of victory.  It’s also bad form (to say the least!) for both Democratic politicians and, worse, left-leaning news media, to blame the defeat on a Republican filibuster which, of course, never happened.  Of course, it’s also a bit of a stretch to call the bill’s defeat “bipartisan,” as the right-leaning press would have us believe.

Closing thoughts #3.  You are, of course, free to choose whichever you choose of these steps along the process of creating a human life as your personal definition.  Curmie would argue, however, that it is impossible to make good public policy (a different thing) based on religion-specific ideologies (#4) or pseudo-science (#3). And option #1 does seem misogynistic, as “Plan B” would seem to be a means by which to protect victims from being further punished while not, in fact, interfering with a pregnancy (at least in one definition of that term). 

But that still leaves options 2, 5, 6, and (in narrowly defined cases) 7 as viable possibilities.  If that’s where you are, Gentle Reader, then Curmie respects your opinion.  He may disagree, but that’s another matter.  Diogenes famously went in search of an honest man.  In terms of policy-makers in whatever branch of government and at whatever level, Curmie would settle for a grown-up.