It is hard for a liberal to realize she is not as liberal as she thought she was. Why? Well, because we live in a society that is liberal, and part of being in a liberal mindset is to embrace the idea of everyone just fitting in and getting along. And that's a comfortable feeling. Unfortunately, it's about as realistic as jelly bean trees and candy mountains.
I have never approved of abortion. It has always been wrong in my mind. But previously, I have felt that making abortion illegal would be a step backwards for women's rights, especially those women who find themselves pregnant in non-ideal circumstances- ranging from poverty to rape.
I began to seriously reconsider my views on the legality of abortion after looking at a protest poster on my friend Joe's facebook- it read simply, "Women deserve a better choice."
Finally, a pro-life motto I can wholeheartedly support. An abortion has two victims- a child and a mother. Abortion is not a neat way to tie up loose ends. It is a very, very messy way to do so.
Up until now, I have relied on my feelings to dodge these questions. I feel that women should have a
In order to have any dialogue about abortion, we have to start on common ground. For example, everyone must agree that the sanctity of life is a fundamental Truth of humanity. That is, we must believe that life is sacred. If we don't start with this fundamental premise (and some don't) we can very logically arrive at the conclusion that newborn babies are not significantly different enough from fetuses to warrant protection under the law. Take a look at this article written by a former Princeton professor of ethics, for a very logical and well-reasoned utilitarian defense of infanticide. If you do not, fundamentally, believe in the sanctitiy of human life, there is no point in engaging in debate with someone who feels differently. There is simply no common ground to start from. So for the sake of this post, I will assume that if you are still reading, you have a fundamental belief that life is sacred.
Now, we must determine only whether or not a fetus is alive and human. For me, separating these two aspects was also what helped me take firm footing on the pro-life side, and I'd like to thank a blogger friend of Hafsa's for her post about "ensoulment". For some reason, pulling this into two pieces and looking at them separately helped me reach a logical decision on my stance.
Certainly, a fetus is alive at 5 weeks, when their heart begins to beat. Yes, a fetus is still dependent wholly on its mother (as is a full-term newborn), but it is alive. However, plants and lower life forms are living, even without hearts to beat. A beating heart is not the only indicator of life. Another definition is that of something "having self-sustaining biological processes". We know that a fertilitzed egg can live and grow quite well in a petri dish (IVF), and that the placenta of a normal embryo does not complete growing and start functioning until 6 weeks or so- before that time, the blastocyst is self-sustaining.
There seem to be a lot of hairs that can be split here, so let me try an analogy. You are out hunting in the woods. You know that your child is out in the woods as well. Would you ever fire a shot, if you were not 100% certain your child was out of range of the bullet? In a life or death situation, we must be absolutely sure that we are NOT taking life. Since there is still some question in some minds as to whether or not a human is alive based on number of cell divisions it has undergone, we must err on the side of caution and assume that life begins at the moment of genetic independance- conception.
And when does that life become human life? Many people draw the line at viability- 24 weeks. Viability is an utterly arbitrary measurement, showing only our progress in NICU technology, and completely unrelated to any magical transformation of fetus to child. Similarly, "first trimester" versus "second trimester" is meaningless, as the terms are convenient for breaking up the monotony of pregnancy, and not much more. A 13 week old baby is not so much more developed than a 12 week old baby to warrant moving from non-human to human. Trying to determine the magic moment, if such a moment exists, when a bundle of cells becomes human is a matter of philosophy, not science. So again, when in a life and death situation, we must err on the side of caution and assume life. We must assume that our humanity as well as our life, begins at conception.
After coming to the conclusion that life and humanness begins at conception, I had no more legs to stand on for remaining stubbornly in the pro-choice group.
Let me define my pro-life - Abortions for the sake of saving a mother's life are a sad but real necessity, and I won't oppose them in any way. An OB nurse, whose blog I read regularly, posted recently about just such a situation, and I couldn't do anything but agree with all the decisions made by everyone.
But here is what abortion actually looks like according to the US Center for Disease Control:
- For every 1000 live births, 246 abortions are performed. That is, 20% of viable pregnancies are voluntarily terminated.
- Less than 1% of these abortions are obtained by girls aged younger than 15 years.
- 50% of pregnancies in black women end in abortion.
- When giving the reason for the abortion, less than 1% of the women indicated they were raped.
Close to 1 million pregnancies end in abortion each year in the United States.
Abortion is so much easier to ignore when we don't know just how big the industry really is. And I use the word industry because abortion also happens to be a very profitable business to be in.
The idea of "reproductive freedom" is nonsense. How can we possibly attempt to be free from our own biology? What's next, digestive freedom and elimination freedom? Sleep freedom? Emotional freedom? Unfortunately, some or all of these ideas are already being sold in pill form. What is the point of living, if we are not going to EMBRACE THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE US ALIVE? All of these freedoms are just band aids to eliminate personal responbility for our actions.
Women deserve a better choice. They deserve a society that doesn't whisper behind their hands at seeing a pregnant belly without a wedding ring, but instead offers a warm smile of support, or even an offer of help. A society that tells a teen mom that she has every single motherly instinct a 30 year old woman has, in addition to the biological advantage of youth, and who offers a system of social structure to help the mother care for her child. We need a society that embraces both abstinence and sexual education as culturally acceptable means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. We need a society that accepts children, yes loud, dirty, wild children, as a necessary and beautiful part of life, and not as a disease. They deserve adoption services that treat biological mothers with honor and support.
And we need mothers to share the word with their friends, their daughters, their families, that pregnancy, birth, and motherhood are beautiful things to be cherished as valuable, not something to be tacked on at the end of a long list of other accomplishments. What could possibly be more important than participating in the continuation of our own species?
There are so many things wrong with society. Abortion doesn't fix any of them. Not one. And so I'm voting against abortions used as a birth control method. And I'm offering my services as a doula for free to teenage mothers. And I hope everyone who reads this can find a concrete way, pro-life or not, to support mothers and the miracle of birth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Monica - I don't disagree that women need a better choice, and I think we should all work very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and to create a society which supports people in need (which I would argue is a pretty left-ist view in the US)
BUT I only have to look at what happened when abortions were illegal to believe that they should be kept safe and legal. Many women died or were seriously injured as a result of illegal abortions, sometimes performed with coat hangers. Studies estimate 5,000-10,000 per year in the US.
As long as we give women a better choice, they won't choose abortion, but until we provide that as a society I believe we need to keep it there to save the lives of the women who are alive today.
Making them illegal won't automatically make the better option appear, and history, as well as current events in countries show that making abortions illegal does not stop them from happening, at great risk of harm to the mothers.
So my conclusion is 180 degrees different, yes we should work hard to make changes, to birth control, to the conditions for single moms, to the way adoption works, but once we have done so successfully then abortions will become happily unnecessary. And in the meantime we need to keep them legal to save the lives of the women who are clearly so desperate and so i need they would risk their lives.
one other minor point, but i find it a bit of a one sided view to say "What could possibly be more important than participating in the continuation of our own species?"
Of course having children is important, and im sure very meaningful, but there are many things that need to happen in the world to make our species continue to survive, and while I don't think we should judge those as being more important than having kids, they are all necessary if we want to continue to inhabit the earth.
Hi Sara,
I should have clarified that participating in the continuation of the species was a personal view, not something I expect everyone to agree with. And yes, there are many ways besides reproducing that protect our species as a whole.
I am very conflicted about the possibility of back-alley abortions, especially after reading Cider House Rules. However, the number of abortions is staggering- over 850,000 reported abortions per year in the US. Again, if we start from the same standpoint that fetuses are living humans, then we are comparing 850,000 deaths to 5-10,000 (nonetheless) tragic deaths.
Currently, if you go to the Planned Parenthood website, they warn women against going to Crisis Pregnancy centers (pro-life centers that help women having unplanned pregnancies). They warn against such organizations, since they don't present women with "all her choices". While abortions remain legal and profitable, there is a real impetus on the part of abortion providers to actually keep women from seeing "all the choices", including the choice of life.
Women who feel forced to have dangerous, illegal abortions are indeed a horrible, sad reality that needs to be addressed. All I can say on this point is that two wrongs do not make a right. I hope our systems of social support are capable of being better than they were even 50 years ago, and that illegalizing abortion again wil not put such a large number of women back into such a terrible position. In addition, making abortions illegal makes it easier to prosecute the "doctors" who are offering back alley abortions to desperate women. People who are, once again, profiting from a woman's desperation, in the same way that current abortion clinics do.
Sara, also, I forgot to say thanks for commenting. I think your perspective is also very important on an issue that can have so many shades of gray.
Setting aside the question of morality and when life begins, as this is a personal view, I just don't see how making abortions illegal in the US now will change things for the better.
I don't believe that most people who have an abortion do so lightly, or do so because they don't know about other options. (Planned Parenthoods page on abortion clearly says one should consider all the options of parenting and adoption). I think the system of support in the US is pretty poor currently, with limited or no paid leave for mothers, limited unemployment benefits, etc.
It will do more to widen the gap between the poor and the wealthy.
People who are poor will be forced into illegal abortions, or have children they can't care for, because the current system doesn't provide for them. They may be kicked out of their homes if they are still children themselves whose parents don't approve of their situation.
Those that are wealthy will be able to afford so called illegal abortions that are safe, if its in the US or by going to other countries, for example in Canada there is essential no debate anymore, like in many Western European countries.
Also, Planned parenthood is a not for profit organization, so no one is profiting from the services they provide. They work very hard to try to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I do think its great that you are providing your services for free to teenage mothers, we should all work to make things better for all mothers.
I think its one of those things people have to agree to disagree on.
Planned Parenthood does make a profit. Planned Parenthood made ovre 85 million in "excess of revenue over expenses" (another way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. See here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm
Sorry the above comment was from me. I didn't mean to be anonymous.
It should also be noted that Planned Parenthood has participated in the coverup of countless statutory rapes, including of girls younger than 13.
This is well documented. I could flood you with sources, but here is just one.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05121602.html
Women, and young girls, do certainly deserve better.
--Marc
the annual report shows the income from the health center was 374.7, and the expenses for medical services was 635.1, far greater than any income received. The difference, made up for by grants and contributions, when it is more than expense would be reinvested the next year, meaning it does not pay out a profit to anyone.
once someone has a better solution for young girls that works, im sure it will be embraced with open arms, but the statistics show clearly that abstinence only education does not work. so pp is providing a much needed service for young girls, who for whatever reason, dont feel safe talking about these issues with their parents.
Sara- Honestly, this isn't about the vote for me. This is about creating a cultural and social attitude change.
I do believe that making abortion illegal is the correct move, but I don't believe it is the most important part of the fight to eliminate abortion. For that, I agree with you that social change and sexual education is the most important part of preventing abortion in the first place.
Whether or not women consider abortions seriously before undergoing them is hard to know. I'm not sure if there is any statistical surveys that have been done about the weight women give to the abortion decision. There are two possibilities-
- women give significant though to abortion before undergoing one, and then probably live with long-term psychological problems afterward, since the decision to have an abortion was obviously not clear-cut for them.
- Or, women undergo abortions thoughtlessly, as a form of "oops" birth control.
Neither of these are good scenarios. Considering the extremely high rate of abortion (1 in 5 pregnancies for white women, 1 in 2 pregnancies for black women), we have a lot of women wandering around who are a mixture of psychologically wounded victims of abortion themselves, or women who have decided not to value life if it is not wanted. Again, neither one is good for society.
Abortions have two victims. Regardless of how you vote, I think the important thing is societal and cultural change, and I think we can agree on that aspect at least. Thanks for your thought provoking comments.
On page 18 (the same page you got those numbers) it says, in the fourth row from the bottom,
Excess of Revenue Over Expenses 85.0
How do you interpret that number?
Revenue - Expenses = profit
You are right they do receive a lot of money from grants, and especially the government.
Also, one of the ways that revenue is reinvested, is to use it for lobbying purposes.
It does not seem fair, when a significant percentage of the public oppose abortions, to require them to pay through taxes, and then, to add insult to injury use some of the profit to lobby at the state and federal level on behalf of PP.
I also want to say that I appreciate the tone in these discussions. I don't want to harp on this, but since numbers are being quoted, we should strive for accuracy, especially since it involves, by some people's reckoning, human lives.
About "back alley abortions: One is terrible, but is it true to say that "Studies estimate 5,000-10,000 per year in the US?"
I guess studies can say anything. Can you provide those studies? According to this website in 1972 (one year before Roe v. Wade) the CDC reported 39 deaths.
We can argue all da about the numbers, but I think the number quoted above was inflated by proponents of legalization. This link provides more nuances info, and is not from a pro-life source.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions
Sorry the two anonymous comments were from me again.
The argument that if abortion is illegal, then there will be back alley abortions is fallacious. It is a false dillemna or "either or" fallacy.
It assumes, among other things, that our culture has not changed and that women believe these are their only two choices.
Maybe some women do believe this, but I would arguge that based on the amount of young, unwed mothers, much of the societal pressure that may have contributed to those numbers (dubious as they may be) in the past are no longer present, or their force has been lessened.
Women do have a choice. They can go to a crisis pregancy center, get prenatal, and postnatal care for free and give their babies up for adoption, or keep them. It is their "choice".
P.S. Even if we granted that the above argument was valid, it seems analagous to saying, "Whether murder is illegal or not, people will still do it. So, we should provide murderers with the tools of lethal injection, so that at least their victims die cleanly and with as little pain as possible."
--Marc
I think, Marc and Sara, that before we can continue a debate, we have to decide if we are all standing on the same ground. I know Marc and I both believe, based on both scientific data and opinion, as well as personal opinion, that:
1. a person is both human and alive from conceoption onward.
2. innocent life is sacred. (sanctity of life) This is a philosophical Truth for me, and a religio-philosophical Truth for Marc. The right to life is also normally considered a secular human right.
Can you agree with those two statements Sara? If not, can you clarify where you disagree and support it?
I think if we can't all start from those two basic statements, then we will be unable to continue a dialogue on abortion. If we disagree on those two points, then we can either debate them individually, or, as you said, agree to cast our votes where we feel they best belong.
In the mean time, we have to try to work with whatever factual evidence we have available. That means setting aside our cultural caricaturizations of the other party. Prolifers are not women haters or oppressors, and prochoicers are neither baby haters nor women's liberators.
I agree with you. I would just say that if anything I've written came off as characterizing pro-abortion people as baby haters, then I am sorry. I have tried to stick to statistics that did not need a philisophical starting point. I agree though that your question is a good starting point for debate and discussion.
--Marc
I wasn't talking specifically about either of you, just that both sides in general tend to have a caricaturization of the opposition in their mind, and, knowing both of you (and myself), none of us fit the caricature.
I think if we can all agree on the two points above, then there can be no logical opposition to the legal protection of unborn children.
We can say, "Sheesh, unwanted pregnancy sucks.", and we can say, "Women are devalued as a general rule by society and deserve a better lot in life.", but we can't make murder (which is what abortion is if we are in agreement on the two points) legal in some bizarre attempt to compensate women for getting the short end of the stick.
Keeping abortion legal because it will help stop women from having babies they don't want and can't easily care for is an argument that can easily be translated to families in India t
who abort their girl fetuses, arguably one of the greatest crimes against the female sex occurring in our lifetime.
Laws cannot be made based on feelings of compassion for women in difficult circumstances. They must be based on fundamental truths of humann rights, and the hard logic that can be deduced from those truths. This does not, in any way, impact our ability to feel compassion for women. It simply puts the breaks on moral relativism that feels so good, but makes little logical sense.
And I'm not being sarcastic about feelings. I have supported pro-choice laws for a long time, based on my feelings of compassion for women. It is only recently when I allowed myself to put those feelings aside and take a look at my (and our society's) ethical/moral truths, and the scientific knowledge we have at our disposal, and use cold logic to lead me to a change of sides on the abortion issue.
Again, if you or anyone reading this is in agreement with my two statements of necessary common ground, I think logic can only lead to one conclusion- the illegalization of abortion. There is room for compassion in these tough cases, but not room for the taking of innocent life.
If you don't agree with those two statements, then that is where the debate must begin.
Monica, this paragraph is amazing:
The idea of "reproductive freedom" is nonsense. How can we possibly attempt to be free from our own biology? What's next, digestive freedom and elimination freedom? Sleep freedom? Emotional freedom? Unfortunately, some or all of these ideas are already being sold in pill form. What is the point of living, if we are not going to EMBRACE THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE US ALIVE? All of these freedoms are just band aids to eliminate personal responbility for our actions. >
Post a Comment