Search
Abortion: Reconciling Important Values
Sometimes you meet someone you like and respect and can talk to, but don't always agree with on every issue. The best part about such encounters is it gives you a chance to hone your arguments in a respectful environment.
Argue abortion with Sarah Palin and it is useless because she is an idiot. Argue abortion with an intelligent, respectful opponent and you get the chance to refine your arguments.
Which is what I am doing now.
The fight over abortion comes down to two fundamental, and in this case seemingly (but not necessarily) opposing, values: the value of life and the value of a person's right to have legal jurisdiction over their own body. Both are important values, so in many debates over abortion where people are not respectful of eachother, it appears that one of these two values is being neglected by each side. I believe this does not have to be true.
Ignore for the moment typical Republican hypocrisy which claims to be pro-life but acts in every way to devalue life. Some who claim a pro-life stand when they are anti-abortion contradict this claim when then free with declarations of war, eager to give the death penalty at the drop of a hat, disdainful of the rights and lives of immigrants and minorities, and eager to deny healthcare and living wages to poorer people. This is the standard Republican platform that is full of hypocrisy, elitism and outright disdain for people and for lives. I am not talking to these idiots.
To me the right of a woman to have complete control over her own body is so fundamental, it is hard for me to understand the anti-choice movement. Particularly when it is represented by the fools I describe above. But when I do encounter a reasonable, intelligent, progressive individual who expresses a "pro-life" view, I want to understand that person's view better and discuss my view with them.
So I am talking to those who hold basic progressive values (even when they don't necessarily CALL themselves "progressive") but find abortion difficult to accept because of the value they place on life. In their eyes they may FALSELY assume that people who support abortion do not value life to the same degree they do.
The fundamental position of the pro-choice side is a recognition of the rights of an individual to make decisions about their own body, in essence to have jurisdiction over their own body. It comes down to the values of equality and liberty.
The fundamental right to control one's own life and physical person is as basic as you can get in a free society. Slavery was a clear infringement on this. For women, the history of rape, treatment of women as property, denial of the right to vote, forced marriage, honor killings, forced abortions, forced sterilizations and forced hysterectomies all are part of a long and despicable history of denying women equal rights with men and even basic human rights. For many women, the relatively recently gained control they have been allowed on their own lives and bodies is a precious commodity. It is as if they only now have true personhood within society.
Pregnancy is not a simple state where a woman is merely a passive vessel for a growing life. Biologically, pregnancy rearranges a woman's body (quite literally, even to the degree of creating an entirely new organ from scratch, the placenta), affects every aspect of a woman's life, and PERMANENTLY alters her body chemically and physically. In a strict biological sense, the fetus is a parasite on a woman and often creates serious (though usually manageable) nutritional deficiencies in women as their own bodies are very literally used as a source of nutrients for the fetus. A woman's bones are partly salvaged for calcium for the developing fetus. Her iron is used, often creating anemia. Pregnancy is always a risk to the health of a woman and is psychologically very overwhelming (in BOTH good and bad ways). I think few men have much of a clue the physical and psychological impact a pregnancy has on a woman.
It is a constant, very intimate interaction, cooperative and competitive, between the woman's body and the developing fetus. It is physically, emotionally, mentally and in any other way you can think of both intense and exhausting for a woman. For the man it is nothing. In many ways he is left out by biology.
For the government to have control over such an overwhelming (both positively and negatively), life-changing, intense, important part of a woman's life is horrifying to women. Regulation of a woman's right to choose to continue or not continue a pregnancy is regulation of almost every aspect of a woman's body, her mind and mental state included. This is a level of control that men, short of outright slavery, will never feel from society. Since a man is barely affected by pregnancy, giving government this level of control over a woman's body when the man is largely unaffected creates a severe imbalance within society where a woman's body is never completely her own while a man's body is.
Government does have some control over our bodies. Laws regulating suicide, drug use, etc. limit our control over our bodies. Civil libertarians argue against such laws BECAUSE they give government control over our personal, physical bodies. But these laws also regulate the bodies of men and women equally.
Abortion laws are government control over a woman's body without an equal infringement on a man's liberty. That is inequality under the law.
So what about the value of life? Do we have two fundamental, very important, ultimately irreconcilable (regarding this issue) values at odds here? The equality, rights, and liberty of half our society vs. the life of a developing fetus?
To me the solution to this ideological difficulty is not through ideology. I value life, equality and liberty and am unwilling to seriously compromise any of these fundamentally American values. When such important values are in apparent conflict, I don't think it is right to make one value subservient to the other. There are practical ways to approach abortion that solidly validate both values.
What practical policies are most effective at preserving life and preventing abortion without limiting the rights and equality of women?
It comes down to two statements by two politicians.
Steve Harrison: "Pro-choice IS pro-life,"
Hillary Clinton: "I want to keep abortion Safe, Legal...and Rare."
As Steve Harrison points out, for a law to be fair across racial and economic classes, abortion has to be available to everyone or banned for everyone. Abortion that is only legal in cases of rape gives police a certain control over whether a woman has the option for an abortion. Is an accusation of rape taken equally seriously when made by a poor woman or wealthy woman, a black woman or a white woman or a Native American (see Amnesty International's report on rape perpetrated by outsiders on Indian Reservations)? Abortion only in cases of risk to the health of a woman gives doctors control over a woman's rights. Do people have equal access to healthcare in America?
Steve Harrison went on to point out that when abortion is limited by law, women die. This is historically a correct statement.
Legal limitations on abortion historically have NOT seriously limited the number of abortions, just like Prohibition didn't really reduce alcohol consumption much. What it does is give wealthy people far more access to abortion than poor people (with all the racial issues that raises), gives others (police, doctors, politicians) more control over a woman's body (particularly poor women) than it does on men's bodies, and it leads to an increase in women dying, both from dangerous pregnancies and from illegal abortions.
Remember, ALL pregnancies are risky. The physiological changes it requires, the physical changes and the risks of childbirth itself always put a woman at risk. These risks are manageable under MOST circumstances, with proper access to nutrition and healthcare. Without adequate healthcare and nutrition, risks not only increase, but detection of those risks become harder. Only if the woman herself has full choice over continuing the pregnancy or not is the risk to her health minimized. Historically, limitations to abortion lead to an increase in the death of women, particularly where inequalities in nutrition and healthcare exist.
So, historically, what IS the best way to reduce abortions? It is NOT by making abortion illegal. Widespread, inexpensive and easy availability of contraception does more to limit abortion than ANYTHING else.
This brings up the argument from the anti-abortion side that they object to the use of abortion as a form of birth control.
This objection is a straw man argument UNLESS contraceptives are unavailable. Abortion is pretty much never the contraceptive method of choice for women. As a form of birth control it is lousy. The risks, discomfort and emotional strain are higher than with any real method of contraception. No woman would use it by choice if they have other options. Giving them those other options reduces this anti-abortion argument to nothing. As long as legitimate methods of contraception are available, women use those and the need for abortion is reduced to a minimum. This is across the board, in every country I have seen looked at. Also remember that NO method of contraception is 100% effective. To see how effective "abstinence only" is, just look at the new addition to Sarah Palin's family.
Practically speaking, and ideology aside, easy and affordable contraception combined with giving a woman complete choice over having an abortion is the best way to keep abortions as rare as possible and to protect the life, equality and liberty of women. The combination is the most viable and responsible policy, is pro-life AND pro-choice, valuing both life and an individuals jurisdiction over their own personhood. Any limitation placed on contraception or abortion leads to a compromise of BOTH the value of life and of liberty. The combination of these two practical policies maximizes the value of both life and liberty.
reasoned? non idiot?
To the unreasoned idiot who wrote this op/ed said:
"Ignore for the moment typical Republican hypocrisy which claims to be pro-life but acts in every way to devalue life. Some who claim a pro-life stand when they are anti-abortion contradict this claim when then free with declarations of war, eager to give the death penalty at the drop of a hat, disdainful of the rights and lives of immigrants and minorities, and eager to deny healthcare and living wages to poorer people."
Gee, and you said you wanted to be reasonable.
Many are agsinst abortion because they find it an intentional taking of an innocent life.
Obviously, a just war is undertaken to stop an injustice.
The death penalty is used against guilty murderers, and not "at the drop of a hat". The death penalty has superior due process protections, over all other sanctions. Some hat drop.
Of course, no one should be "disdainful of the rights and lives of immigrants and minorities".
With regard to "healthcare and living wages to poorer people."< i think the discussion offers many reasoned views at to what the standards should be.
Well
Clearly I was not talking to you since you are so far outside the mainstream, which consistently supports at least moderately pro-choice positions and reject the kind of Republican, draconian laws that protect a rapist's right to choose who should have his baby.
Seriously, I can understand the value of life arguement. But most right wing extremists only value the life of the unborn and to hell with the lives of anyone already born. Since you seem to place YOURSELF in that category (you took it to apply to yourself, I didn't say it!) most people would just see you as an extremist.
We can discuss death penalty if you like. But it wasn't the main thrust of this diary. You almost certainly have little clue either my view on the death penalty nor how it is applied in America, but if you want to discuss it, so be it.
Not the point
mole333, the point was not the death penalty. The point was you wanted a reasonable and thoughtful exchange, yet you couldn't even achieve that when writing within your own post. You made a bunch of thoughtless inaccurate accusations, instead.
Actually no...
You are the one who made thoughtless and inaccurate accusations. I specifically did not have any interest in talking to those who believe what people like Palin and McCain (whose "finger quotes" moment about women's health in the debate probably was the moment that finally lost him the election) believe and stated as much. I was addressing a far larger, far more mainstream group of people than Palin.
Pro-death
Dudley, I thought I saw that you once donated $5000 to a Republican pro-choice campaign? Am I wrong?
To: Dahn Shaulis - of course you are wrong
To: Dahn Shaulis, aka Vegas Quixote or vegasquixote or theamericaninjusticesystem
It is unfortunate that you continuously follow me around the web to distribute dishonest and unconstructive posts. Certainly, one would hope, you can do better.
So...
Then, is this your son? And it looks like $4500 to me.
I'd be surprised if there were too many Dudley Sharps out there who are politically active Republicans, though it is possible.
Abortion is Usually a Selfish Choice
Easily available and affordable contraception is out there. That's not the problem. The problem is people don't use it and even when they do, they often don't use it properly. This leads to unwanted pregnancy, with the key word being "unwanted." We now have a woman searching for options. What are the options? There aren't many good ones. This puts the woman in a bad spot. Abortion is the easiest way out--for the woman and the man. She doesn't want a baby and he doesn't want to pay child support. An abortion looks good to her and he's rooting for her.
Abortion is usually a selfish choice.
In fact, based on all available information, roughly 98% of all abortions are because of “personal choice.” They have nothing to do with rape, incest, a threat to the mother’s life, mental health, fetal health, or anything else. Abortions are usually performed because the mother is choosing not to have a child for a personal reason.
The problem is the mother is making that choice and decision a little too late. It’s kind of like jumping off a cliff and then deciding you didn’t want to jump–it’s a little too late. The only difference is the mother chooses to sacrifice her child to fix her mistake.
People can do what they want with their own bodies as far as I am concerned. It’s their choice, their body, and their life. However, I disagree with anyone’s right to do what he or she wants with someone else’s body.
Arguably, there are exceptions. I believe the authorities have the right to detain someone suspected of a crime against others until the facts have been gathered and a decision according to law has been made. I believe criminals who pose a threat to the well-being of others, should be incarcerated. I believe doctors should have the right to treat patients incapable of making their own decisions. I believe children should be subject to the care of their parents. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
However, I DO NOT believe women should have the right to do what they want with another human’s body. Argue as you might about stages of development, personhood, viability, the term “human being,” a woman’s right to choose, and so on… It makes no difference. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body, but not with the body of another.
Science has proven without exception, that once human conception has taken place, a human life has been created and its human body begins to develop. It makes no difference how big or small, shaped or misshapen that body is, it belongs to that individual and science has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that new life is an individual just as much as you and me. Moreover, it has a body–even if it’s only two cells–it has a body. This new individual has a body that will continue to develop or change every day for the rest of its life. It will never be a different individual and it will never have a different body.
Attached or not attached, physically or emotionally, by will or by law, there is a separate individual with a body, and other than to provide care, the mother has no right to do as she wishes with the body of that new individual.
The mother does not have the right to harm that individual or its body in any way.
The mother and her sexual partner made a choice and their actions resulted in the creation of a new human individual with a body, but in no way should that give either of them the right to do as they please with that individual and in no way should society then, be asked to share the burden of their choice.
Unfortunately, few if any of these points carry any weight with those in favor of abortion, because abortion is usually a selfish choice, performed because the mother is choosing not to have a child for a personal reason.
Not so selfish
If you're 17 and weren't properly instructed in the ways of sex and of contraception, and you end up pregnant (or your girlfriend is pregnant), you might actually be concerned about your ability to raise a child, especially if you don't have a proper support team. Chances are, if you're in this position, it's precisely because you don't have a proper support team. So you decide not to bring the fetus to term, and have a baby you cannot raise, and nobody around you can help raise. That's not selfish, it's remarkably thoughtful, especially for someone so young and so unprepared for the real world.
If your properly-used contraception fails (and it does, regularly -- even the pill fails occasionally), your marriage is falling apart, and you have no idea where you'll be or what you'll be doing, you may not want to be in charge of caring and/or providing for an infant without the time/money resources, or the psychological fitness to do so. It's not selfish to have an abortion then either.
These "personal reasons" for having an abortion are not selfish, nor are they doing more than scratching the surface of possible choices. They are situations that occurred to people I have known, people who are not selfish or stupid, people who care about children (at least one of them has children, and is raising them with great love, care, and personal sacrifice).
Regarding the "science" of an embryo/fetus, all we know definitely is that it goes through the entire evolution leading up to humanity as gestation proceeds, and in early-to-middle stages it most closely resembles what we generally call "lower orders" of animal. You may call that human, and believe it, but you cannot say that it is "proven without exception," because that is simply not true.
Taking your argument further, by reductio ad absurdum, one could suppose you favor punitive action against a pregnant woman who eats something that is less than perfectly healthy (a brownie, for instance), since she is making that choice for the fetus as well. Come to think of it, you could then also arrest a parent for feeding his/her children a brownie, since those relatively empty calories could lead to obesity and diabetes. No, I don't believe you would go that far; I simply want to point out that when you talk in absolutes you leave yourself open to attack on that front.
My main point is that "personal reasons" do not necessarily involve selfishness, as you seem to claim here.
Facts?
Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that 90% are a personal choice having nothing to do with health of the mother, rape, etc? Seriously, if you want to make such claims, please give citations. Personally I don't have figures, so I am making no claims along those lines, at least not yet. But please back up your figures.
As to the life of the fetus, technically it is indeed a living thing, but as many as 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week of pregnancy (Fertil Steril 79 (3): 577–84 (2003)). That means almost a quarter of conceptions are not viable. Probably many more since even before that point many conceptions (possibly as many as 60-80%) do not ever implant, so are never technically pregnancies. So somewhere between 70-85% of all conceptions never make it for perfectly natural reasons.
I say this merely to point out that defining life at conception isn't really as clear cut as you may think. You do get a zygote (the combined sperm and egg), nothing more. Most never implant. A quarter of those that do never properly develop and so miscarry. So most are never viable living organisms. So how is it meaningful to define all conceptions as living humans (as you seem to) when most will never develop to viability?
By the way, I am currently in Developmental Genetics, so I have some idea of the development of organisms after fertilization (though mostly I study later stages of development). So I am not just making this all up.
But again, it is not necessary to approach the problem this way. Availability of abortion prevent women's deaths and preserves their choice, while availability of contraception (which is NOT as easily available as you suggest in all parts of America to all women) COMBINED WITH good sex ed for kids (which I failed to mention in the diary) correlate better than any other factors with reducing abortions. Of course contraception does fail, though at a low rate. But if you are the one it fails on, you are the one that does need options. Practical solutions are the best ones, and the combination of available contraception, good sex ed, and pro-choice abortion policies are the most practical if your goals are to a.) preserve the most lives (mothers as well as avoiding abortions), and b.) limiting teen pregnancy (another issue, but related). So why not take the most practical approach, the one that actually best limits the number of abortions without compromising the rights and health of women?
Contraception: that IS the problem,
as well as sex education. Or more accurately, the lack thereof.
The same people who believe that they will stop abortions by making them illegal are very often opposed to both contraception and sex education. The Bush administration, just two weeks ago, signed an executive order into law allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill any prescription that "violates their conscience". Do you really suppose that there are pharmacists whose consciences are offended by Lipitor? or penicillin? Where should those pharmacists' customers turn for their contraceptives? Parents who home-school often do it in an effort to prevent their children from receiving sex education (as well as accurate scientific information about other things). Do you think those children will be hearing about any contraceptive choice other than abstinence?
"Abortion is a selfish choice" is a moral judgment, made on a class of people whose individual motives and circumstances are not known to you. Outlawing abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions, it only reduces the number of safe abortions. Which means that you are in favor of punishing women whose situation is unknown to you, except for the fact that they are too poor to afford a safe illegal abortion, or too ignorant to know where to obtain one. You will be punishing some of them with the death penalty, some with sterility, and some, I presume, with jail time. If you're comfortable with that position, you're much less tolerant than you present yourself as being.
Are you old enough, as I am, to remember life before Roe v. Wade?
While we're on the sex ed question
A study at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) concludes, "Not only is there no credible evidence that these millions of dollars have any positive effect, there is reason to be concerned that young people who receive abstinence-only curricula in school will not have the tools to protect themselves in sexual situations."
Even the right-wing Heritage Foundation has a strident report in favor of abstinence-only. Their report, however, references an apparently nonexistent report in claiming that condom use often fails to protect against HIV transmission -- and doesn't even attempt to claim that it reduces the rate of teen pregnancy (hello, Bristol Palin!).
Meanwhile, an aggressive program of complete education on all matters regarding sex, including the biological aspects and the facts on contraception, works -- it reduces teen pregnancy rates and STD transmission rates.
And it lowers the abortion rate.
More info
The excellent organization SIECUS has quite a bit of info on the uselessness of abstinence only "education" and the effectiveness of quality sex ed. And perhaps I should plug my own state senator's efforts to get quality sex ed in NY State scools.
Should also mention
I should have also mentioned (thankfully a comment brought it up on the recent comment list) Liz Kruger's Daily Gotham article on sex ed in NY.
While canvassing for Mr. Obama in Pennsylvania,
I met a number of people for whom their opposition to abortion was the key voting issue. One young woman stands out in my mind. She moved in with the family of the father of her child. The grandparents and father seemed loving to her and the new baby. She couldn't imagine not having brought that pregnancy to term. She regarded the option of abortion as an attack on her choice. She didn't see that others mightn't share her view. As a result, she was a committed McCain voter. The rest of the adults in the household, by the way, were Obama supporters and they voted too. I conclude that, for those who are seized by the issue, abortion cannot be debated.
My suggestion is Hilary Clinton's: make abortion lawful, safe and rare. Engage those who oppose abortion on the effort to create the situation for pregnant women so that needed supports -- money, child care, education -- are available for those who elect to carry their pregnancy to term.
Cost of Birth Control
Mole, you addressed the issue of abortion with an immense amount of sensitivity. Thank you.
The real solution to prevent abortion is affordable, easily accessible birth control combined with proper sex education at home and in school (because let's face it I have encountered parents who are afraid to use the (medical) terms penis and vagina in front of their kids). Seriously.
The cost of "the pill" here in the US needs to be drastically reduced. One month supply is about 3 to 4 times the cost compared to European countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries. Dishing out $30 to $40 a month certainly doesn't pose a problem for a couple who has a substantial income, but for low income couples this presents a great challenge. One could argue that institutions such as Planned Parenthood are great resources for low income women/couples, but unfortunately they have been faced with drastic cuts thanks to the Bush Administration, something I hope the new administration will rectify.
And just a little story: my best friend works for Planned Parenthood in Texas, and of course demonstrators are always present. Apparently, one of the demonstrators is somewhat known in the community because he protests against anything and everything that even has a remotely liberal cause. Anyway, my friend knows the Assistant D.A. in her city who one day asked her if this guy protests in front of her clinic. Well, turns out that this anti-abortionist who wants to protect the unborn owes a substantial amount in back child support. Go figure!