Why I'm Pro-Choice
Monday January 22, 2007
Background: Roe v. Wade (1973)
Before I go any further, let me take this opportunity to make a pledge to you, my gentle readers. I will never have an abortion. Not a surgical abortion. Not a drug-induced abortion. Not an abortion in a case of rape or incest, not an abortion to save my life or protect my health. Not a late-term abortion. Not a first trimester abortion. Not a second trimester abortion. No abortion. Ever.
I suppose the fact that I have no uterus could be relevant to this decision, but I prefer to see it as a reflection of my deepest moral values. After all, "moral values" in this culture is all about making the bold decision to condemn acts that we're physically incapable of performing anyway. Men condemn abortion, heterosexuals condemn gay sex, and we refer to this rather easy process under the heading of "moral values." When women struggle with the decision to have a legal abortion, or a gay couple pledges fidelity, we call that licentiousness, the culture of death.
Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and this year's Blog for Choice topic is "Why I Am Pro-Choice." My answer to that, I suppose, begins with the realization that the abortion debate is not actually about abortion.
In much of Latin America, abortion is illegal. It is also lucrative. Black-market pharmaceutical abortifacients are in hot demand. Law enforcement can't keep these pills off the market; they can't even keep cocaine off the market. What they can do is ensure that women who take these pills to induce abortions, and then have a negative reaction to them, will bleed to death.
According to a 2004 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 73 percent of women who have had abortions listed "can't afford baby now" as a factor, and 23 percent of women listed it as the primary factor. U.S. women, like Latin American women, are unlikely to be deterred by abortion laws anyway--so if the objective is really to reduce the number of abortions, then why not address some of the financial burdens that come with having a child, particularly as a single mother? Why is it that the same people who want to ban abortion also want to cut social services so that more women are forced to have abortions?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
Fetal development is a gradual process. Terminating a pregnancy during the first weeks means terminating the development of something that is smaller than a grain of rice, that has no real neurological development, that is not discernibly anything but a cluster of developing organic matter in a woman's uterus. These early abortions are not especially problematic from a bioethical point of view. So why do those who want to ban abortion promote stalling techniques, such as parental notification laws and waiting periods, that force women to wait until later in the pregnancy, when the fetus has developed further? Why do these protesters stand at the doors of abortion clinics and intimidate women into rescheduling their appointments for a later date? Why, if it's really about the fetus?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
Condoms, if used correctly, are 98% effective in preventing pregnancies. Modern birth control pills, if used correctly, are 99.5% to 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies. State of the art IUDs are 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies. Use of redundant prophylaxis can make the odds of pregnancy prohibitively low, and that's before we introduce the possibility of emergency contraception--which is 89% effective in preventing fertilization of an egg even if other birth control methods have failed. So why are abortion opponents fighting all of these medical alternatives to abortion, working as hard as they can to ensure that sexually active women will have unplanned pregnancies and face the dilemma of abortion?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
So what is the abortion debate about? Simply put, it's about increasing the consequences of sex so that more people will choose abstinence. If everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy has to choose between a dangerous illegal abortion and giving birth, then by golly, that'll show them, won't it? Is sex really worth the bioethical consequences of abortion, someone might ask? Is sex really worth all that? Better to be abstinent and not have to deal with these problems.
But women will still deal with these problems. The same women who make up 73 percent of abortion patients now will still not be able to afford to have a baby, and whether they choose to have a baby they can't afford or seek out an illegal abortion, they will make a choice. Except in a rhetorical sense, the abortion debate is not strictly about a woman's right to choose because a woman will choose, regardless of whether abortion happens to be legal or not. The question is whether the government is going to deprive her of safe choices and force her to risk her life if she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
There are some very good people who want to ban abortions. I know many of these people. Most seem to ground their belief in the religious doctrine that God implants a fully developed soul in the fertilized egg at the precise moment of conception, and that he is forced, through mechanisms unknown to us, to do this even when he knows the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, even when he knows the pregnancy will turn out to be ectopic and kill the woman if not terminated, even when he knows the woman will have an abortion. Such decisions on the part of the Almighty might seem strange to the rest of us, but central to this concept of God is the belief that the will of God is to be feared, not analyzed. It is grounded in what Rudolf Otto called the Mysterium Tremendum--a holy fear grounded in the terrible cosmic power of the divine, of a being who has sent billions to unimaginable torture for all eternity and will send billions more to meet the same fate. It is not an easy faith, but it can be a very honest faith.
And there are plenty of other reasons to have emotional reservations about abortion. Personally, I hate abortion. I don't know anyone who has had an abortion and refers to it as an enjoyable experience. It's an unpleasant medical procedure, even independent of the social stigma and bioethical debates associated with it. I look forward to the day when most abortions have simply been rendered obsolete--and if birth control technology continues to improve, and continues to become more widely available, then that day will inevitably come.
But in the final analysis, abortion is a fact of life. The only question is whether it will be safe and legal, or unsafe and illegal. I favor safe and legal. That makes me pro-choice.
There were many blog entries today that made the pro-choice case well. Jessica at Feministing has linked to a few. This one, posted by Jill at Feministe, is my personal favorite (this is just an excerpt; be sure to click and read the whole thing):
See also:
|
I suppose the fact that I have no uterus could be relevant to this decision, but I prefer to see it as a reflection of my deepest moral values. After all, "moral values" in this culture is all about making the bold decision to condemn acts that we're physically incapable of performing anyway. Men condemn abortion, heterosexuals condemn gay sex, and we refer to this rather easy process under the heading of "moral values." When women struggle with the decision to have a legal abortion, or a gay couple pledges fidelity, we call that licentiousness, the culture of death.
Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and this year's Blog for Choice topic is "Why I Am Pro-Choice." My answer to that, I suppose, begins with the realization that the abortion debate is not actually about abortion.
In much of Latin America, abortion is illegal. It is also lucrative. Black-market pharmaceutical abortifacients are in hot demand. Law enforcement can't keep these pills off the market; they can't even keep cocaine off the market. What they can do is ensure that women who take these pills to induce abortions, and then have a negative reaction to them, will bleed to death.
According to a 2004 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 73 percent of women who have had abortions listed "can't afford baby now" as a factor, and 23 percent of women listed it as the primary factor. U.S. women, like Latin American women, are unlikely to be deterred by abortion laws anyway--so if the objective is really to reduce the number of abortions, then why not address some of the financial burdens that come with having a child, particularly as a single mother? Why is it that the same people who want to ban abortion also want to cut social services so that more women are forced to have abortions?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
Fetal development is a gradual process. Terminating a pregnancy during the first weeks means terminating the development of something that is smaller than a grain of rice, that has no real neurological development, that is not discernibly anything but a cluster of developing organic matter in a woman's uterus. These early abortions are not especially problematic from a bioethical point of view. So why do those who want to ban abortion promote stalling techniques, such as parental notification laws and waiting periods, that force women to wait until later in the pregnancy, when the fetus has developed further? Why do these protesters stand at the doors of abortion clinics and intimidate women into rescheduling their appointments for a later date? Why, if it's really about the fetus?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
Condoms, if used correctly, are 98% effective in preventing pregnancies. Modern birth control pills, if used correctly, are 99.5% to 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies. State of the art IUDs are 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies. Use of redundant prophylaxis can make the odds of pregnancy prohibitively low, and that's before we introduce the possibility of emergency contraception--which is 89% effective in preventing fertilization of an egg even if other birth control methods have failed. So why are abortion opponents fighting all of these medical alternatives to abortion, working as hard as they can to ensure that sexually active women will have unplanned pregnancies and face the dilemma of abortion?
The answer is that the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion.
So what is the abortion debate about? Simply put, it's about increasing the consequences of sex so that more people will choose abstinence. If everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy has to choose between a dangerous illegal abortion and giving birth, then by golly, that'll show them, won't it? Is sex really worth the bioethical consequences of abortion, someone might ask? Is sex really worth all that? Better to be abstinent and not have to deal with these problems.
But women will still deal with these problems. The same women who make up 73 percent of abortion patients now will still not be able to afford to have a baby, and whether they choose to have a baby they can't afford or seek out an illegal abortion, they will make a choice. Except in a rhetorical sense, the abortion debate is not strictly about a woman's right to choose because a woman will choose, regardless of whether abortion happens to be legal or not. The question is whether the government is going to deprive her of safe choices and force her to risk her life if she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
There are some very good people who want to ban abortions. I know many of these people. Most seem to ground their belief in the religious doctrine that God implants a fully developed soul in the fertilized egg at the precise moment of conception, and that he is forced, through mechanisms unknown to us, to do this even when he knows the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, even when he knows the pregnancy will turn out to be ectopic and kill the woman if not terminated, even when he knows the woman will have an abortion. Such decisions on the part of the Almighty might seem strange to the rest of us, but central to this concept of God is the belief that the will of God is to be feared, not analyzed. It is grounded in what Rudolf Otto called the Mysterium Tremendum--a holy fear grounded in the terrible cosmic power of the divine, of a being who has sent billions to unimaginable torture for all eternity and will send billions more to meet the same fate. It is not an easy faith, but it can be a very honest faith.
And there are plenty of other reasons to have emotional reservations about abortion. Personally, I hate abortion. I don't know anyone who has had an abortion and refers to it as an enjoyable experience. It's an unpleasant medical procedure, even independent of the social stigma and bioethical debates associated with it. I look forward to the day when most abortions have simply been rendered obsolete--and if birth control technology continues to improve, and continues to become more widely available, then that day will inevitably come.
But in the final analysis, abortion is a fact of life. The only question is whether it will be safe and legal, or unsafe and illegal. I favor safe and legal. That makes me pro-choice.
There were many blog entries today that made the pro-choice case well. Jessica at Feministing has linked to a few. This one, posted by Jill at Feministe, is my personal favorite (this is just an excerpt; be sure to click and read the whole thing):
I am pro-choice because "pro-life" policies kill and maim women. I am pro-choice because abortion rates are no higher in countries where abortion is legal than in countries where it is outlawed — but countries where abortion is legal see lower maternal mortality rates, lower infant mortality rates, greater economic prosperity, and greater gender equality ...Defending a woman's right to choose is not always popular, but it is the right thing to do. I urge those of you who have not already done this--I don't think it matters if you're a day or two late--to blog for choice or, if you don't have a blog, to post to the comments field here. Let your voice be heard. We all need to hear it.
I am pro-choice because illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa ...
I am pro-choice because it’s the pro-choice movement that has advocated for policies which actually decrease the need for abortion, and which make it easier for women to have children: comprehensive sexual health education, affordable and accessible contraception (including emergency contraception), pre-natal and well-baby care, social support for pregnant women and women with children, affordable child care, fair pay for working women, supporting pregnant girls, and gender equality. Comparatively, the "pro-life" movement has no interest in actually lowering the abortion rate; their ultimate goal is sexual control of women ...
I am pro-choice because it is life-affirming. I am pro-choice because it is fundamentally just. I am pro-choice because to be anything else is to devalue and harm women, children, families, and my country.
See also:
Comments
I am pro-choice because the strongest of my beliefs is that each person is the owner of their own body and no-one else is. For that reason, being pro-choice is and should be the fundamental and quintessensial libertarian cause. The natural, logical, and terrifying extension of “pro-life” policy is something much like Brave New World. If the government tells you when to have and when not to have an abortion, one day it will tell you when you can and when you cannot live (compulsory euthanasia will probably, ironically, touch the old men who oppose abortion first).
I am pro-choice because “pro-life” policy treats women as nothing more than the property of the state and the old men who run it. No-one would ever accept policies that made the same of blacks or Native Americans - and such policies were rejected outright decades ago. Yet when it comes to women, who are not even a minority, some people find it disturbingly easy to accept. It is a sad indictment on our society that some (men) can still say with a straight face, “Women should reject the argument that ‘it’s my body and I can do what I want.’”
I am pro-choice because illegal abortion kills women. “Pro-lifers” should be ashamed to call themselves by that term with a straight face. Their only answer to that demonstrable fact is to tell women to keep the baby - because to them, a woman who had sex outside of marriage or who wants an abortion is not really a human being.
So what is the abortion debate about? Simply put, it’s about increasing the consequences of sex so that more people will choose abstinence.
YAY, Tom!
My favorite reason for being pro-choice was Rox Populi’s:
If I had no right to self-determination, I’d be a slave.
not all pro-lifers are as horrible as you jsut described. i am very much agaisnt abortion, but there are some pro-life beliefs that i do not agree with, one being that the morning after pill causes an abortion. it doesn’t. if anything it prevent more abortions.
comprehensive sex education could also prvent more abortions if proper birth control methods (not abortion) are taught. sex should not be seen as having consequences because it’s bad, because it isn’t.
i also don’t like how it seems like a fetus has more rights than the mother, because once that baby is born, it won’t have as many rights.
also, you can’t call yourself pro-life if you stand outside of an abortion clinic with a loaded gun. that just totally defeats the purpose
I would like to see this same philosophy applied to people who make the choice to murder an adult. I have heard of cases where by-standers were killed by stray bullets, cases of victims experiencing slow agonizing deaths that could have easily been avoided by a simple medical procedure. The most disturbing of all are the stories of the murderers, themselves, being killed or maimed. I call on the state to do something about this. Maybe they could sell over the counter lethal injections. Tom, you are so wise. How dare these religious freeks call children a blessing.
Why do people give themselves high-fives for agreeing with this kind of stuff. Women are so gullible. Why does everybody run to the arms of this lie, do they think it will embrace them, comfort and love them? It will just destroy them, tear them to shreds and ruin everything they think they are going for.
Is self-determination always a good thing? Maybe sometimes, it’s the one enslaving.
There are crazy and demented women out there. They are the ones that shoved coat hangers up themselves to kill their baby. Why would we want to be like them? Women instead go lay down and use anestesia and isopropal achahol, it’s no less demented.
Millions of people would be alive if it weren’t for Roe v. Wade. Only a few of them would be dead because they happened to have an insane mother.
Is self-determination always a good thing? Maybe sometimes, it’s the one enslaving.
You don’t trust women with their own bodies?
While I hope never to be in the position of having to make the choice to have an abortion, I am very pro-choice. My views on this issue were affected the most by my dicussions about abortion with my 84-year-old Grandfather, a retired Southern Baptist minister, who is pro-choice because he also realizes that the debate about abortion is not really about abortion, but about much more. While we aspire to ideals, we live in the real world where tough choices must be faced and tough decisions arrived at. Sometimes this choice involves terminating a pregnancy. This option should be kept legal and safe.
I know women who have gotten pregnant using almost every kind of birth control. This is why I would like to think if I was married to a “pro life” man, I would choose abstinence. Of course, in real life I wouldn’t be with such a man, and am happily married to someone (19 years) who wouldn’t force me to endanger my health (my health is permanently changed for the worse after my first pregnancy. Although I don’t regret it to get my daughter into the world, I wouldn’t do it again).
I advise all women who don’t want to get pregnant and are married to a “pro-life” man to choose abstinence until menopause.
I am “pro-choice”. Women have a choice to use birth control and practice safe sex or abstinence. If you ignore that choice and get pregnant, then you no longer should have a choice. The pregnancy is now a consequence of your failure to make wise choices.
If I drink and drive, there is a chance I will get home safe. There is also a chance I will get pulled over. Once I get pulled over, I no longer have a choice. Unless you consider killing the cop (the innocent person in the equation; like a baby) as an option.
The author of this mess, contradicts himself! First he says :Condoms, if used correctly, are 98% effective in preventing pregnancies. Modern birth control pills, if used correctly, are 99.5% to 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies. State of the art IUDs are 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancies.
Then he claims: I look forward to the day when most abortions have simply been rendered obsolete–and if birth control technology continues to improve, and continues to become more widely available, then that day will inevitably come.
So now 98%+ is not effective enough? Not widely available? Condoms are available EVERYWHERE and they are cheap (a whole lot cheaper than an abortion). Plus there a bunch of govt programs out there to help people procure free birth control.
Abortion is not birth control! Be responsible with your choices and you won’t need to consider and abortion. Sure there are rare exceptions, and those would have to be argued on a case by case basis.
99% of abortions are the result of negligence and/or selfishness on 1 or both of the participants!
Children aren’t vile. Aren’t unworthy of living, no matter how they were conceived. To condone the killing of people who can’t fend for themselves no matter how small or how big is a scary place to be. We are suppose to help the helpless.
Pregnancy is long and hard, but has it’s good times, even in terrible circumstances. Labor is terrifyingly painful, but not long. Still, nothing is more rewarding. No day or year at the office, working late, meeting deadlines, workout regimens, travel experiences, sexual experiences… Nothing is as rewarding or important as giving birth and lovingly raising and teaching a child.
I was pregnant at 17, I made it. Now, I have a 7 year old who I’ve never regretted, even though I got myself in a situation over my head. I’ve worked hard for him, laughed with him, sang to him, danced with him. At soccer games, I cheer him on. At 23 now, what else would I be doing? Partying? Traveling and Partying? Entering and exiting serious relationships over and over? Working all the time? Going out with my friends? I still do that. Ofcourse not like I would if I didn’t have him. Everybody knows I’m not missing out on much.
Men who actually believe that women will be happier if they have this choice are sadly mistaken. A man who does anything to save his child, even if the mother wants to kill it is a man that I would be proud to have. Women complain about there not being good men out there anymore. They just don’t know what a good man looks like. A man with a spine? wow. What a concept. If I was a man, and was dating a woman who was would even think about killing my child, I would kick her to the curb.
Whitney, it’s good to know that with your last statement (I’d kick her to the curb) you are an advocate of violence towards women. Very nice.
When I was a kid I went elk hunting. The cow elk I killed had a baby. After the mother was dead the little baby elk inside of her kept moving. He was only a quarter of the size he would be at birth, about as big as a your foot. He tried to hang on for several minuets before giving up and dyeing with his mother. I guess this wouldn’t make anyone sad.
That was a very funny statement Des.
Anti-life, Yours was funnier
The thing is Anti, people probably would be a lot more sad with your story than they would when a mother has saline injected into her uterus to burn the baby’s skin off before he slowly dies.
BTW Anti, are you serious on your first comment? hahaha.. errr, I hope not.
Tom,
Why did you edit my comment? I was just stating the truth.
It is almost comical that people are fighting for the right to have an abortion. Sickness and weakness or strength and resolve are seen when one enters into a difficult situation…like becoming a mother, or father, before it is planned. The decision made as a result brings to fruition who that person really is…weak or strong. The issue is simply…nobody wants consequences to anything. How in the world can killing an underserving human baby be an option in a “civilized” nation? People like “Anti-life” seem to be bitter at the world they live in so much they must find some way to kick back by being ridiculous and anti-”religious”. It just proves your bitterness more by your consistent inconsiderations. Fact is, hurting people, hurt people…more “arguements” about abortion isn’t going to make it any more right…when is there going to come a time when people see what it is for real…and make a right decision?
By the way “anti-life” the “murder” as you call it of adults is a consequence to wrong done or a failing medical procedure, whichever the case may be…the baby has not had enough time yet to be considered by our judicial system as a “wrong-doer” or enough time to need a medical procedure has he/she?
Matt,
I am talking about victims of murders. The people who are murdered on the street by muggers, angery husbands, etc.
As far as your last question, no, babies are not wrong doers and yes, they do need a medical procedure to be killed.
Wait a minute… Anti-life, is that you?
good points Matt.
Tis is starting to sound like a prolife page instead of a pro-kill page. oh wait.. Tom, is that too true to stay unedited? that’s what I thought.
Same ole same ole. Old and tired. Pro lifers don’t support the already born and want to cut social services. Blah. Blah. Blah. Pro choice is life affirming. Yeah, Right! Last I heard abortion always 100% unequivocally ends in death. That’s life affirming.
Life affirming is supporting life from conception to death with dignity and love. Period.
You can always tell who the “pro-lifers” in a comment thread are. They’re the ones who don’t make any sense.
I am late finding this, but I think your blog was great. I have posted about being pro-choice on feministing. It seems that you attract a lot more anti’s than other blogs that I have seen. I just wanted to lend support saying that your blog was well thought, articulate and made many excellent points.
I am a young woman, I am a Christian, I am a survivor of sexual abuse, I am pro-choice. One reason I am pro-choice is because the pro-life movement has got so much garbage stuffed into their message that I abhor and cannot tolerate. Abstinence only sex ed DOES NOT work. I don’t know a single person under the age of 45, including myself, that has not had sex out of wedlock. But the pro-life movement to a VAST degree approves of abstinence only sexual education. Pro-life websites decry the use of birth control. I really don’t understand - if you hate abortion then birth control should be your best friend, but that’s hardly ever the case. Pro-lifers say that birth control is degrading and demeaning and increases abortion. Apparently education and facts also increase abortion, since I’ve seen so many inconsistent statistics and flat out lies on pro-life websites that it makes me want to scream. The majority of pro-lifers also hate the Emergency Contraception pill. Another reason I am pro-choice is because twelve year old girls who are raped shouldn’t have to bear their rapist’s child. But finally, and mainly, I am pro-choice because I have not walked in the shoes of every woman who’s had to decide whether or not to have an abortion. And until I’ve done that, I can’t bring myself to think that I have a right to dictate every other woman’s life. To “Whitney” I sincerely hope that nothing in your life comes along that is traumatic enough to change your ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant opinion. I suppose that it would be perfectly acceptable to you for a man to rape a woman, impregnate her, and hold her hostage until she gave birth to his child. After all, that would be showing he had a spine.
Awesome. Truly awesome. You are absolutely right that the abortion argument is not about abortion or babies or anything like that. Most of the time, I’d say it’s about women’s sex lives and pro-lifers not being able to stand the fact that women have and enjoy sex. That’s always what it comes back to.
In any case, happy Blog for Choice Day to you. Yay for Roe vs. Wade and continues freedom for women!
Thanks for this post. I think you made your case very well.
It’s interesting that these “Christians” who are “pro-life” are the ones who support capital punishment, are war hawks and want to cut back on social spending for poor kids and their moms. Go figure.
Hm. I have disagree with you, Tom old boy.
I’m prolife. And. I want kids to choose abstinence. But that’s not the REASON for being pro-life. I want kids to choose abstinence because I think it’s healthier for them, plain and simple. But, it’s up to the kids what they actually do.
To give all y’all a different perspective - coming from the perspective of a Christian on the Right - ever since I was a little kid, I thought the sexual revolution people were just saying, “I’m going to have all the sex I want and you can’t stop me.”
And, even as a little kid I thought, “Fine. Do what you want. Go jump off the cliff and kill yourself. It’s a free country.”
I’ll tell you what I’m for. I’m all for giving people the tools to be responsible with the precious Freedom we’ve been given in America. You can go have all the sex you want, but I’m going to use my Freedom of Speech to say, “Promiscuity will most likely hurt you.” And then you have the Freedom of Speech to say, “Get lost.”
In response to several of the above comments– I am pro-life. However, it appears a lot of people think that pro-lifers are a bunch of zealots who don’t believe in any social services for new parents, etc., who don’t believe in birth control, and who care more about an unborn baby than it’s mother or women in general, or want to control women and their sex lives. That is ridiculous. I use birth control (I have used the pill, condoms, and currently have an IUD). I am a firm advocate of policies that help mothers and babies (I am referring to those listed by blogger Jessica at Feministe– although, as a civil libertarian, I am also at odds with a lot of government programs, not because I don’t think people need help, it’s just the principle of where the help and funding for it should come from, but that is a different topic for a different day), and I believe that no one, except me, (and especially not the government), should have control over my sex life. I am pro-life because I believe in the principle of consequences. I believe that we all have a choice, and that is to engage in sex or not, and to engage in it unprotected or not (which is why I also make exception to my beliefs about abortion regarding rape victims and when the life of the mother is in danger— in those cases, the woman did not make a choice, and so she still has that choice to make). Those of us who willingly engage in sex take a risk. With birth control the risk is low, without it is much higher, but we all know the risk of sex. We make our choice. But once that baby is created, the choice is no longer ours, to choose whether he lives or dies. Because then we are taking away his ability to choose. To choose anything. To choose to live, to choose to grow and love and ultimately choose to engage in sexual activity himself. And that is why I am pro-life. It simply is not my right to take away the life of another human being, no matter how inconvenient or expensive or what have you, that human being is, and ESPECIALLY because I made choices that resulted in that human being’s existence.
And just a note to Fleurdeciel– abstinence works sometimes—now you can say you have at least heard of someone (me) who has not had sex out of wedlock. I have been married for 5 and 1/2 years, and gasp! I was a virgin when I got married.
And a comment to Tom– on a more philosophical and far less practical level, referring to civil liberties in general, I found your final argument a bit weak— that you are pro-choice because you favor legal and safe over illegal and unsafe– everybody’s doing it anyway, so why not let the government regulate it? not sure I’m in favor of that approach—additionally, on one hand I am with you because I’m also not sure I’m in favor of the government legislating morality or ethics, I think as a people we should just be moral and ethical, and keep the government out of it. But on the other hand, I’m not sure government should be involved at all. This is just one more thing that by making it a legal (or illegal) issue, we allow the government to regulate it. People complain about government’s far reaching hand into a woman’s uterus, if you will, in any attempt to oppose abortion, but by allowing it is not the government’s hand still there?
To Aimee: The reason pro-choicers say those things about pro-lifers is because it’s true–and you know it.
Tom: A key part of your position comes awfully close to an ad hominem argument. If one accepts the premise (and I’m not saying you should) that a worthy-of-protection human life begins at conception, does it really matter what the motives are of those who are making the anti-abortion argument? I think not. The argument the pro-lifers make should be viewed on its merits, not the motives of those who make it. All that said, I find myself torn on this issue politically. So I’m probably pro-life, but not enough for the pro-lifers, and I’m probably pro-choice, but not enough for the pro-choicers. I believe there is a time before birth where the state has an interest in protecting innocent life. I just don’t think that time begins at conception. So I’d probably allow early-term abortions, but not late-term ones. But that’s a position that seems not to be taken seriously in today’s polarized debate.
To Whitney: No, kids aren’t vile, but they are a responsibility, a responsibility that a lot of people aren’t ready for. Have you seen or heard what happens to kids who are born unwanted? Abuse, neglect, sexual molestation, and worse, murder. One 16-year-old girl here tried to kill her baby boy because he was “ruining” her life. And we also have incidences of kids being left in locked cars on hot days by parents who were too irresponsible to take them with them or leave them with sitters.
Before you start with your “right to life” rhetoric, you might want to think about what kind of lives these kids will be living. There’s a reason why women have abortions: they don’t want kids. And considering the horrible way some people treat their own kids, they’re better off not having them.
“Right to life” is not enough. Quality of life is important, too.
the abortion debate is about abortion - i’m embarrassed for you that you missed that. let me quote you:
Terminating a pregnancy during the first weeks means terminating the development of something that is smaller than a grain of rice, that has no real neurological development, that is not discernibly anything but a cluster of developing organic matter in a woman’s uterus.
Alright, so if I may just try to understand here. You use the analogy of the “thing” being no larger than a grain of rice - I can only conclude from your including this in your blog that you consider the size to be relevant to whether we can kill it or not.
I’m 5′2″. I’m guessing I’m smaller than you. Even if I’m not, I’m smaller than a lot of people. Do I count less as a human being? You might say this isn’t the same, but it is. Because you are talking in principle here. “we should be able to kill it because it’s no bigger than a grain of rice.” You’re saying size is what’s relevant. If it is, I guess no one would be alive but Shaq.
The other thing you’re saying in that statement is that the “thing” in a woman’s womb is not a person but a cluster of cells. There is a Law of Biogenesis that says that living things can only reproduce living things of their same species. Two cows can produce only a cow; not a bear, not a toad, not a human. The “thing” in a woman’s uterus was created by two humans. What is it? Cells, yes - but so am I sitting here typing, so are you sitting there reading. HUMAN cells. They can’t be anything else.
I don’t want to be harsh or obnoxious, but I hope I can make you think.
The debate is about abortion - about killing something that is human (that is, a human). If it’s not about that, our society is so far gone that I may as well not even try.
You’re not being harsh or obnoxious at all. But for purposes of analogy:
I had my annual checkup today, and as part of that checkup I had three tubes of blood drawn.
The blood in those tubes is made up of living human cells. But I would call the blood an it, a thing, not a person. Even though it’s human, and even though it’s alive.
Size is not the only consideration, of course, but we need to look at what makes a person a person. If it’s identity, the ability to think and feel and be conscious of oneself, then it’s hard to see how anything the size of a grain of rice could reach a level of neurological development as to make that possible.
Self-awareness, cognitive sentience, becomes possible, neuroscientists believe, with the development of the neocortex. This happens around the beginning of the third trimester. Until we have proof of the presence of something like a neocortex, then I don’t believe we have legal grounds to deprive a woman of the right to choose to have an abortion.
My personal views? I’m a man who practices abstinence. If I had sex, I would practice safe sex. I will never be pregnant, and I have never caused an unintended pregnancy. Personally, I’m not comfortable with the idea of abortions after about 8 weeks–but unless I can prove that the entity being aborted is a he or she and not an it, a human being and not just a potential human being, then I don’t think I have any right to pass a law that forces women to carry pregnancies to term.
You know, Maria, I think one thing you got right is that the abortion debate is, in fact, about abortion. It’s not just about increasing the consequences of sex–not for most of the people who want to ban abortion, anyway, and it’s churlish of me to reduce the discussion to that.
I apologize. The abortion debate is indeed about abortion. It would be much easier for me as a pro-choicer if it weren’t, but it is.
I’ve been actually mulling today on doing an updated piece on abortion. Serendipitous timing, that. Can’t promise anything really soon, but if you’re saying my blog entry from January year is a little simplistic, I concur. It is simplistic, and I appreciate the fact that you’ve called me on it.
With great power comes great responsibility. The power of procreation is awesome and wonderful, and it should not be taken lightly. When one chooses to create life, one chooses the responsibility that comes with that decision (and that responsibility does not include killing the life that one has created…aka abortion). Living life without regards to the consequences of one’s actions is not only wrong but immoral.
Tom, why is it ruled double-murder when a pregnant woman is murdered? Is it because her mind makes that fetus a human? Interesting.
It is not about the right to privacy. The right to life is far more important.
“What about the mother’s health?” Well, go look up the percentage of abortions that happen due to the concern for the mother’s well-being. Then, look at the number of abortions performed each year. Do the math, and look at the number of abortions each day. There’s an abortion about once every 30 seconds.
That’s a baby. Ask Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe.
Hi, Brian –
I write about fetal homicide statutes in my “Does the Fetus Have Rights?” piece, which you may find interesting.
I personally don’t oppose these statutes, but some folks in the pro-choice movement do precisely because they’re concerned that it sets a legal precedent for fetuses to be treated as human beings. I respect that concern, but I don’t personally see a conflict between fetal homicide statutes and abortion rights.