Wed 1 Jun 2005
I have always believed that abortion is one of the worst topics to debate because it is one on which people’s feelings are almost entirely immutable, but here I am wandering into this dangerous territory.
My feelings on abortion are very complicated, but the argument I currently favor is stolen almost entirely from Judith Thompson and runs as follows: if you have the option to support the life of another human being, but it requires considerable sacrifices (medical, economic, personal, and professional), are you therefore required to do so? Well it seems like, under this argument, abortion wouldn’t be an especially nice thing to do, but it would not be approximately equivalent to murder. Certainly people of different faiths (and certainly of my own faith, with whom I am currently in crisis) will disagree with this assessment, and I am not sure . Is abortion a sin? I’m pretty sure it is. Does that mean it should be a crime? Absolutely not. I can sense the hate mail coming already.
Since college, when I heard speakers from both Right to Life and Planned Parenthood, it has been my belief that Pro-Choice people were easier to get along with because at the base of our argument is the fact that we don’t want to argue with you. Get an abortion or don’t, it’s your decision. Believe what you want, I understand. Just stay the heck off the law books. The difference, I asserted, was that for Pro-Choice activists this is a social issue. For Pro-Life activists, this is a moral issue.
I’ve changed my mind.
Choice is absolutely a moral issue. All these years, I’ve believed that the “Pro” titles were ridiculous propaganda on the part of everyone involved. Everyone has to be in favor of something, rather than against. No one mentions abortion. Now I see, however, that the titles are so different because the movements are based on entirely different moral principles. For some, the issue is life or death. For me, the issue is choice.
What is feminism, what is liberalism, what is democracy about if not choice? I have the choice to work or not, to raise children or not. I have the choice to speak in public about whatever is on my mind, be it politics, religion, or sexuality. I have the choice to worship whoever or whatever I want, in whatever way I choose. I have the choice to pursue happiness in whatever way I see fit. As my theory of morality has evolved I have come to realize that choice is necessarily at the center of any moral theory.
The 2004 election was decided more than any election prior on the subject of “values.” Liberals see this as cause for concern, which I believe is hogwash. We have values. These are our values. We are the choices we make.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Their values do not concern liberals, it is their determination to enforce their “values” that concerns liberals.
June 2nd, 2005 at 6:05 am
But don’t we all want to impose our values on others in one way or another? My point was more one of semantics and the use of the word “values”: rather than being concerned about a shift in culture that would make people use “values” as a determining factor in choosing leaders, we should embrace it and put our best foot and values forward. After all, the Democratic party is the party that more than anyone espouses that great anti-Christian ideal of “giving” and “sharing.” We get attacked by the right for being immoral and instead of countering, we lie down and take it, or complain that it isn’t a fair meter stick on which to judge us. I dont’ know about you, but I bet I have more morality in my little finger than Bush has in his whole body.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I do not believe that I seek to impose my values upon others nor do I think this is a moral way to approach social issues. However, I must question someone who seeks no compromise on their values, I see this as a very selfish way to pursue governance. It is one thing to have beliefs, but a wholly different thing to impose them.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I’m not sure I wholly understand what you’re saying, nor am I sure we’re defining “impose” or “values” in the same way. Are you suggesting that the government not regulate any social issues?
As I suggested in the article, my *value* is choice. That is in essence what I want to impose. If you are suggesting it is irresponsible to impose any values, I would wonder who one can govern without insisting upon *anything*. That doesn’t sound like governing to me.
I don’t mean to argue or to criticize. I’m just trying to understand.
June 3rd, 2005 at 6:11 am
To clarify my previous comment when I say choice, I don’t mean abortion. I mean the freedom to make choices in general
June 3rd, 2005 at 10:15 am
Oh okay, I interpreted impose as defining the one true way to do something. Choice is something I can absolutely agree with.
June 3rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Bill Hicks, a brilliant but deceased comedian, once made this statement, which I think applies to the theme of this article:
“It’s not a War on Drugs, it’s a war on personal freedom, ok? Keep that in mind at all times.”
There are basic decisions that the government has no right to interject themselves into, I feel. And the choices regarding your own body and what you do to it or put in it or take out of it are some of those basic decisions. It may sound crazy and conspiracy-theorist, but after drugs and abortion, what’s next? Piercings? Tattoos? Liposuction, breast augmentation, plastic surgery? I hate the slippery-slope argument, but one has to wonder, if you let the government get started at taking away freedoms (which we’ve already done), where will it end?
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:26 pm
I am pro-choice. But I have no illusions about the moral gravity of this position.
I do not doubt that we are snuffing out human lives with abortions. I don’t think there is any way around it. I do think viability may play an important factor in defining life, but I’m not sure pre-viability is necessarily much less of an onerous act.
I believe a variety of factors, including the choice of the woman, may outweigh the life of the in-utero child. These other factors are not glamorous, more utilitarian. If the mother does not want to raise a child, then she should be allowed to get rid of it pre-birth. Unwanted kids may turn out to have bad lives, unhappiness spread to them and the parents, which may spread out to others.
Some may say the mother will probably change her mind if she delivers the child, but we can see the motherly biological influence as moving her position somewhat irrationally (i hate to use the word, but you understand my meaning).
Then we have general over-population considerations.
Also, the child can be killed fairly humanely and without the child’s knowledge (and by humanely, I mean painlessly… I don’t care how gruesome an abortion procedure is or how late it occurs, so long as there is enough morphine to make it painless).
Furthermore we have not invested much in the child yet, nor has the child invested anything in itself. It certainly has vast value in itself, in that it is a life, but this is exactly what I’m trying to show we are willing, perhaps rightly, to undermine for other reasons, one of which may be the lack of investment/development/etc.
One of my biggest reasons for being pro-choice is that we do not have a world that is willing to take responsibility for children who end up without the support they need for a chance at a good life. If a child is born, the child should be guaranteed healthcare, equal access to education, equal rights, access to good adoptive parents, etc etc. There is so much potential for suffering without these institutions in place (and there is surely suffering with them, but far less unecessary suffering).
Once again, I get back to disingenuousness. Our society is pro-birth, not pro-life. Not even pro-birth, but simply anti-abortion. It really isn’t pro-birth or even pro-fetus, else all pregnant women (and non-pregnant, and men, since what happens to their bodies will affect their future babies) would have adequate health care and be protected as much as possible from environmental toxins.
Now, I might consider banning abortions (or at least post-viability, or some other stage) if we had a society that could guaranty all the things children and people really require; the things that would make being anti-abortion far less hypocritical, disingenuous, and short-sighted.
After quickly glancing over some of what I just wrote, I now disagree, or may disagree.
If we really consider the biological connection between mother and fetus, perhaps her rights should trump everything no matter what the state of the world. Does this have serious implications for the equality of the sexes? Don’t men get a say? Perhaps it is a trade-off. Men and women should have equal rights. But since women have the extra burden of carrying the child, their rights and their choices reign supreme during the period they carry the child in exchange for the burden. Even-Steven. We gave to accept that we value this arrangement more than we value the lives of the fetuses. We just have to deal with the fact that we’re condoning murder under certain circumstances, and maybe that it’s okay.
Then we have the slippery-slope of murdering the unborn to murdering the born… but I’ll stop.
Forgive the rant, it was fairly stream-of-thought.
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I just wanted to let you know Ben that I don’t disagree. I think abortion is a horrid thing to do. If you read the Thompson essay I linked to, her “Henry Fonda” argument is the one that I am most interested in. She ponders over whether carrying an unplanned child to term makes one a “Good Samaritan” or - and this is the part that really hits me - a “Minimally Decent Samaritan.” If there’s something remarkably easy to do to save a human life, shouldn’t one do it? Must one?
Here’s the thing though - it’s not incredibly easy. It’s dangerous. It’s emotionally and financially trying. It can destroy careers, destroy relationships and (watch how I pigeonhole myself into women’s issues here) it’s a situation men will never have to face.
Should we do it anyway?
Yeah. It’s the decent thing to do. But until the government starts requiring us to make significant personal sacrifices to save the lives of the billions of dying people already walking around this world, I don’t see how they have the right to tell women to sacrifice their bodies to support those who aren’t yet.
June 3rd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
And I think I would go further to say that if the situations you suggest were in place, such as adaquate health care (including reproductive health care) and child services, we wouldn’t need to ban abortions. I think the numbers would diminish rather quickly.
June 4th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I didn’t read the Thompson article yet, but I will. But yeah, Melissa, I think you’re right.
I think the point I most wanted to make was that we who support abortion need to recognize that we’re taking a very drastic position. But we can see that we do so in the face of a very drastic world, and for drastically important reasons.
The sad thing is that I do not believe I can argue against the anti-abortioner if they simply argue that a life is a life, and we have no right to end it, and we should not end it. We can make our argument more nuanced than that, and maybe more persuasive. But I can’t fault someone for sticking to their anti-abortion guns for this legitimate view, even in the face of everything we may have to through against that view, as nothing we argue really gets to the heart of their concern; that a life is a life (particularly if the view is religiously based).
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:06 am
Melissa: Looks as though you are thinking about the moral issues about as well as anyone on the planet, and I suspect that if we talked longer you’d agree it’s even tougher to find a “one size” solution….. ie life of mother? health of mother? rape? incest? et al. Unless one takes the position that ALL abortions, early or late ARE murder and all are banned with prison terms for all similar to other murders… (which brings up the spectre of the Mom of three others being jailed for a long time, with hubby? in too? at least as an accessory? Otherwise there are decisions to be made out in the land of the twilight grey? By someone?
And here we get to the practical discussion avoided AT ALL COSTS by those who oppose leaving the decisions in the hands of those most closely involved. Now if not a woman? a guy? a doc? parents? Then who?
Well, if a LAW exists there would have to be a court decision? a government agency? that could move quickly? and decisively? (Ha?) And, of course, enforcement? But in this era which is quite different from the back alleys of the 50’s when air fare to another country was a month’s pay.
So…….. if our pro-life (pro-goverment bureaucratic decison?) friends ARE able to design the perfect moral menu for all situations, what happens when the invidual doesn’t care for the menu choices?
Well, one truck load of smuggled RU-486 will take care of many and create yet one more underground business. Others would visit other states? (striking Wade would likely result in a patchwork of varying state laws, one assumes with some of those now “cashing in” on gambling finding a “new area of economic growth? or to other countries? Unless? well surely we are not going to resort to cat scans of women travelling? Or are we? And, for others, well the back alley option of the 50’s would be far less risky with todays tech, so, we’d be very likely to have yet one more underground “business”. And cops? and jails?
My conclusion? There is no practical way to “give” the decision making to others; we are stuck with making these decisions ourselves. And, human fallibility and all, my guess is no government process can possibly do a better job. Technology, freedom and time has put this issue behind us; its main use today, is by cynical pols who use it to split votes and distract us from focusing on the many issues where improvements must be made if our country and democracy are to survive.
In closing, if there is a “pro-lifer”/ anti-individual choicer? here, who would disagree, PLEASE include an outline of how your ban would be implemented, enforced, and how exceptions would be made. Jack