On December 28, 2018, The New York Times published a 13,500-word article attributed to its editorial board. A comprehensive critique of that article is in the works. Here I will just offer a list of some of the specific falsehoods, and instances of poor logic, in the article:
That long attack on fetal personhood nowhere directly addresses the question, Is the unborn in fact a person, and thus entitled to rights? In terms of any direct examination, the question remains an elephant in the room throughout the article. But the article strongly suggests that the unborn child is actually a zero as regards moral importance. According to the authors, any ostensible belief in fetal personhood is mainly a ruse to mask social reaction . . . to a perceived new permissiveness in the 1970s.
That implication by the authors that those who champion fetal personhood do not really believe in it is overwhelmingly false, and they seem to be trying hard to avoid the elephant in the room, the obvious question right under their noses – which would be a form of intellectual dishonesty. Only in one sentence near the end do the authors address at all whether it is possible that a fetus is, in fact, a person. That sentence is, And it reflects a tragic reality: There are circumstances in which the interests of a fetus and those of a pregnant woman collide. But if the death of a fetus is truly a tragedy, then why the authors’ sly (or unthinking) suggestions to the effect that any “tragedy” is just a ruse employed by neurotic personalities, and that Ronald Reagan was only convinced by cynical “Republican strategists” to deem it a tragedy?
Another example in the article of misrepresentation of facts –
Right in the second paragraph is this claim:
In fact, a fetus need not die for the state to charge a pregnant woman with a crime. Women who fell down the stairs, who ate a poppy seed bagel and failed a drug test or who took legal drugs during pregnancy — drugs prescribed by their doctors — all have been accused of endangering their children.
The first sentence (in the context of an article about “a relatively new [legal] concept”) implies that the woman who fell down the stairs broke some Iowa law by doing so. An actual glance at the linked article is enough to show that that implication is false. And the “poppy seed” article linked to does not actually use the word “accuse” nor report any accusations in any legal sense of the word. The same with the “legal drugs” article.
Two examples in the article of poor logic –
What if, as many opponents of abortion hope, the court rules that the fetus has “personhood” rights under the Constitution?
In that event, all abortions would be illegal
This does not follow logically. The statement is arbitrary. Their premise seems to be that it can never be legal to kill a person, but we know that that is not true.
The doctrine of fetal personhood represents a sharp break from the great traditions of Western law that, at their philosophical core, seek to preserve space for the individual to live free from the tremendous power of the state.
If we’re going to appeal to the great traditions of Western law, women won’t be allowed to vote or own land.
Here are some further examples in the article of falsehood, misrepresentation of facts, lack of supporting evidence, or poor logic. I won’t explain the problems with these statements unless requested. Probably those who have read the article can see the problems –
Some common forms of birth control could become illegal if personhood becomes accepted law. And, for many anti-abortion activists, that’s the goal.
the feticide law and increase the maximum penalty for feticide to 20 years, which prosecutors apply to. . . . convict Purvi Patel of feticide and child neglect after she took pills to induce an abortion at least 23 weeks into her pregnancy.
a dead woman was kept on life support against her wishes
the anti-abortion movement’s determination to establish the legal “personhood” of fetuses — and to make sure that their rights supersede those of the women who are carrying them. In 1984, the conservative activist Paul Weyrich, the founding president of the Heritage Foundation, explained: “I believe that if you have to choose between new life and existing life, you should choose new life. The person who has had an opportunity to live at least has been given that gift by God and should make way for new life on earth.”
A pregnant woman would cease to exist as an autonomous person.
In the unimaginably hard, profoundly intimate moments when a pregnant woman must weigh her own needs against the possibilities of a fetus growing inside her
Political ambition has also played a powerful role.
(c) 2019
P.S. January 14, 2019: The above-mentioned comprehensive critique of the Times article is now ready: “A Look at a Major New York Times Article”
You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published. Back up your work as you type, in case of accidents.
Some future posts:
Life Panels
A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature
Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party
The Motivations of Aborting Parents
Why Remorse Comes Too Late
The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill
Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation
The Woman as Slave?
Abortion and the Map of the World
