In case you missed it, Jon Stewart recently hosted former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on his popular Comedy Central program “The Daily Show.” Huckabee had previously been a guest, and Stewart invited him to return to discuss and issue of his choice.Mike chose the abortion issue. Click here to watch the entire unedited interview. (If you haven't seen it, I would encourage you to consider watching it before reading this article.)
First, as inflammatory as the title might be, I actually am a fan of the Daily Show. It’s funny, and I think Jon Stewart is probably one of the brightest political commentators in the country. I also believe that pro-lifers need to stay in touch with how we’re perceived by the other side. (Sometimes it's deserved, and sometimes it's not.)
Second, in general, I think this was a great discussion. Both Jon and Mike went into the dialogue with the mindset that this is a tough issue and not all people on the opposite side are wackos. Neither side was demonized and the discussion was very respectful.
That said, people have been attacking Mike for having the gall to even talk about this issue, so I’m going to balance this out a little, not by attacking Mr. Stewart, but by analyzing Stewart's arguments a little deeper. I recognize that Mr. Huckabee couldn't have used all of my talking points since time is a major factor in settings like this, but I will offer several for your consideration. Let’s take a look.
#6. Attempt to push Mike into being inconsistent
Jon's comment in full context
“To carry the argument in terms of its logical conclusion, if you were to suggest that at conception it’s life, then having that [abortion] is murder, and that the person who did it, then you would have to put women in jail, the man who got her pregnant would be an accessory to that crime, would it not? They would have to be criminals.”
What Mike said
“There’s one of the arguments that’s often made to sort of end the real argument, the real discussion is, I hear people say all the time, well let’s reduce abortion. Ok, let’s do that, how about parental notification laws? Shouldn’t everybody be for those?"
What Mike could have said
So Mike sort of dodged this question, as do a lot of pro-lifers that are posed this question. I don't think we need to dodge this question though. Here are some talking points:
To be clear, no one is considering a law that would retroactively punish women that had abortions before it became illegal - only after it became illegal in whichever states chose to make it illegal after Roe is overturned. This isn't just me saying this; it would be unconstitutional to attempt to do that. It's called ex post facto.
What's wrong with a law that says that if you take the life of a defenseless human being without justification, there should be consequences? (This is the first question Scott Klusendorf asks when this is brought up. Hear him discuss this issue at the LTI podcast episode 11.)
I hope that we could all agree that there should be some penalty for killing innocent human beings. However, I also believe that because abortion has been legal for the past 36 years, it would be unreasonable to lock up women and throw away the key for having an illegal abortion. As far as specific legal penalties, I believe it should depend on the circumstances of each individual case. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all penalty in child abuse or manslaughter cases, and I think pro-life advocates would be unwise to advocate one for illegal abortion.
I would support much harsher penalties for doctors performing illegal abortions. Doctors understand that the unborn are living human beings that abortion directly kills, knowledge that many women don't have when they choose abortion.
Interestingly enough, before Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal in all 50 states, if a woman were caught after having had an illegal abortion, she was usually given legal immunity as long as she turned in the abortionist. I wouldn't be surprised if this were done should abortion become illegal, at least for a while.
#5. Arguments concerning women's bodily rights
Jon's comment in full context
#1: (In response to Mike saying that if we allow some human lives to be taken because it inconveniences us, one day our kids might look at us and say we’re too expensive to live.)"But you’re not at that point living inside your kids.”
#2: "If the government can say to you, because pregnancy is not without peril, women die in childbirth, they have terrible complications, it is not a zero sum game. To say to a woman, the government says that no matter what or when, you have to carry that to term, they [the women] have now lost sovereignty over themselves."
#3: "Can the government totally own the mother?" (in response to Mike asking if the mother totally owns the child.)
What Mike said
#1: Mike didn’t respond because audience clapped and Jon went to his next statement.
#2: "I don’t know of a pro-life person who believes that if the mother’s physical health is in jeopardy, that you just let the mother die in order to save the child."
#3: "No, I don’t think the government should totally own anybody."
What Mike could have said
I think this is really the main issue for Jon Stewart. He brought this up several times, and I've noticed it coming up more often when discussing the issue with abortion advocates lately myself. Obviously everyone agrees that the right to control your own body is a very important one, but not without a few exceptions. The most important exception is this: you can do what you want with your body as long as you don't harm someone else.
If the unborn is human, and abortion harms that entity, then bodily rights arguments don't trump the baby's right to life, unless the mother's own life is at risk.
Let’s say a woman has intractable nausea and vomiting, and insists on taking thalidomide to help her symptoms. After having explained the horrific risks of birth defects that have arisen due to this medication, she still insists on taking it based on the fact that the fetus has no right to her body anyway. After being refused thalidomide from her physician, she acquires some and takes it, resulting in her child developing no arms. Do we believe that she did anything wrong? Would we excuse her actions based on her right to bodily autonomy? The fetus after all is an uninvited guest, and has no right even to life let alone an environment free from pathogens.
When the abortion advocate objects that the woman was obviously wrong to take the thalidomide, I ask this question: “So you think that it’s wrong for the mother to harm her child with drug use, but you don’t have any problem with her killing it with an abortion?"
#4. Bringing up the absurd logic of Roe vs. Wade that even the Supreme Court has abandoned
Jon's comment in full context
"Isn’t it the decision that’s been made, [Roe vs. Wade] or at least tried to be made, is that the progression of that life, there becomes a point where the state has an interest in protecting that life, but at a certain point on a cellular level, there is time built in, for those types of decisions."
What Mike said
"There’s a heartbeat at 21 days. Many abortions happen long after that." [Started to talk about late term abortions when Jon interrupted him to ask about in vitro fertilization.]
What Mike could have said
Jon is referring to Roe vs. Wade here, which set up differing abortion rights for each trimester. Abortion rights were pretty much guaranteed in the first trimester and each state was given the right to limit abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, particularly once the fetus is viable. Legal scholars on both sides of the abortion debate have pointed out several major flaws in this logic.
First, what happens to a fetus at precisely the beginning of the 2nd trimester that should warrant a state from limiting abortions? (Why not the day before? Why not a week before?) The line drawn here is obviously arbitrary, and if we're going to draw a line that limits abortions on one side of fetal development, that should not be an arbitrary line, but one that is based on the status of the unborn. My belief is that the only line that really makes sense once you study embryology is fertilization.
If viability makes one a valuable human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers and insulin would have to be declared less valuable. What about siamese twins who are dependent on each other' circulatory system? Surely they don't forfeit their right to live. Not to mention the fact that WE are non-viable in relation to our environment. (Place us in our street clothes on the moon and we'll quickly figure this out!)
Also, if abortion should be limited or even banned post-viability, what happens as viability keeps getting pushed back? As medical technology advances, we've already seen this happening. Premature babies used to be in grave danger if born before 26 weeks. Now a 24-week old baby has a fighting chance to live, as do babies as early as 22 weeks. So would abortion advocates that hold Roe up as a brilliant decision be okay with abortions being banned post-viability? What if our technology gets to the point where we can save ALL premies after fertilization? May we then ban abortions that are not performed to save the mother's life?
The logic of Roe vs. Wade and its companion case Doe vs. Bolton was so bad, that when the Supreme Court readdressed the abortion issue in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, they abandoned nearly every argument made in Roe and Doe, even rejecting Roe's trimester framework, that had already been abandoned in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services. Instead the Casey court made arguments about precedence and surprisingly kept the viability standard, although it was defined more specifically.
#3. The moral relativist's tired talking point
Jon's comment in full context
“I just don’t feel personally that that’s a decision I can make for another person.”
What Mike said
Mike didn’t respond because Jon went to his next statement.
What Mike could have said
Try this: "I just don't feel personally that I can tell my neighbor not to beat his wife. I can't make that decision for another person."
If this unborn entity is a living human being, then we ought not kill her, and we should try to pass laws protecting her from those that would want to kill her.
Why are you personally opposed? If the fetus is just tissue or a clump of cells, why be opposed at all?
This is like saying “I personally oppose the dismembering of an unborn child, but you can do it if you like. I won’t force my morality on you.”
Isn’t the woman who has an abortion forcing her morality on her unborn child?
#2. Asking Mike to give up his fundamental argument
Jon's comment in full context
“Do you see what I’m talking about is, sort of the place where both sides dig in. Both sides dig in. If you believe that it’s murder, it’s murder, and nobody’s going to move you off that, but if you believe that you should have, not the government, some control of your own reproductive system, and some familial input into these decisions, you’re not moving off of that, so maybe the idea is to stop that argument, cause it ain’t going nowhere, and work together to, make it, to be smart about, because it seems like by demonizing both sides, which is I think what happens, a: crazy people can kill people, and b: you don’t get the desired result which is still a million abortions in this country, which is too many, and needs to be stopped.”
[emphasis mine]
What Mike said
"50 million abortions since 1973, and that’s a staggering number."
What Mike could have said
I don't have a problem with working with the other side IF what we're working on will actually reduce abortions. I'm not convinced that what Planned Parenthood sayswill reduce abortion actually will accomplish that.
For example, right now they're talking a lot about the need for more access to birth control. "As long as everyone has access to birth control, abortion rates will drop dramatically, and we'll all get what we want," they say.
After I point this out, I ask about the abortion advocates that have gone on the record agreeing that birth control access will NOT greatly reduce abortion rates:
According to the CDC, “Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception.”
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, “54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 13% of the pill users and 14% of the condom users reported correct use.
According to abortion advocate and feminist Katha Pollitt, abortion will always be “needed.” “The fact is, there will never be zero abortions. Half the women who abort are using birth control already. Even in small, tidy, prosperous Sweden and the Netherlands, there are abortions.”
According to abortion advocate Jane Galt, access to contraception is not a major factor in teen pregnancy, and she uses Planned Parenthood’s own research to back up her argument. “And that’s the best study Planned Parenthood can come up with, the one that is probably the outlier on the normally distributed bell curve of such study outcomes.”
That reminds me of another study in which women were given free emergency contraception with education on how to use it. At the end of the study period, the pregnancy rate compared to the control group did not decrease at all.
Common ground is a wonderful thing. If I can find common ground with someone who disagrees with me on something, it helps move the dialogue further so we can continue talking about it. But the kind of common ground President Obama often talks about and what Jon Stewart is advocating here is NOT common ground. It is an appeal for pro-lifers to give up and help abortion advocates with the projects THEY have been talking about for years, like increasing birth control access, that have proven to have little effect on abortion rates.
So I would have said this: First, it's completely arbitrary to just ask me to give up my fundamental case. I could just ask you to do the same: why don't you just give up YOUR case?
Secondly, I started this debate by making the case that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being. So no, Jon, I'm not going to give up my fundamental argument because you haven't proven my argument to be false! You seem to be ignoring all the scientific facts I've brought up and instead are skipping those arguments and trying to get me to just give up my entire scientific and philosophical case! I'm still confident my case is valid and compelling, and if I AM right that abortion kills an innocent human being, then I will continue to work to stop the killing. Why don't we talk about the fundamental argument here, and if you can't tear the argument down, would you consider abandoning your position and joining me?
#1. Rejection of basic scientific facts within minutes of being reminded of them
Jon's comment in full context
[Responding to the back and forth in #2]
"I’m not arguing that it’s not a staggering number, it’s staggering, but I think that if you want to get to the place where we move off of the two points, because I think both sides in that, have fundamental value in their arguments. I don’t necessarily agree with the, it’s life at conception, and I don’t agree that it should be completely unregulated, I’m one of those squishy middles..."
[emphasis mine]
What Mike said
Mike made a joke advising Jon to take another drink.
What Mike could have said
Mike wisely pointed out at the beginning of the debate that scientifically we know the embryo/fetus in question is a living human being. Virtually every embryologist agrees on this simple fact: whether a person is conceived through natural or artificial means, the result is a living, human being. It will exhibit the four signs of life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and cell reproduction.
Science has so clearly answered the question of when life begins that the intellectual elite of the pro-abortion-choice side concede this point:
Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine: (May/June, 1997)
"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus."
Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes in The New Republic:
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death."
Embedded below is Ward Kischer, PhD., Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology & Anatomy at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, stating that ALL embryologists know when life begins.
Click this link and scroll down for quotes from 8 medical textbooks on embryology/prenatal development that ALL state that biological life begins at fertilization.
Conclusion
I'm really glad this discussion took place. I think there should be more discussions like this on mainstream TV, forcing us to consider our positions yet again on one of the most important issues of our time. So, I commend Mike Huckabee for choosing abortion when he could have picked an easier, less controversial topic for the show. I commend Jon for allowing it to happen and not attacking the entire pro-life community, which many media personalities do instead of attempting to have an intelligent conversation like Jon did.
What should you do after reconsidering your own position? Use the video from this debate as an opportunity to dialogue with those around you. Send the link to your friends, many of which already like this show, and after they watch it, take them out to Starbucks and chat about it. Use Steve Wagner's book, "Common Ground Without Compromise" to move the dialogue further. Listen to my podcast to make sure you don't fall into the trap of making faulty arguments that other pro-lifers often make.
In short, go out there and actually do something! It's not enough to read a good article about the issue. Without action, the knowledge you gained in this very article is entirely academic. So take what you've learned here and talk to your friends about the issue, using one of the most relevant shows on TV right now to springboard your conversation. YOU can make all the difference in the world to a little human being one day who doesn't die because of something YOU said to her mom or dad.
Comments: We don't have a comments feature on this website, but you can discuss this article under the Facebook version.
