posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 12:58pm on 29/11/2005 under armchair philosophizing, feminism and sexism, reproductive rights
sigelphoenix at 12:58pm on 29/11/2005 under armchair philosophizing, feminism and sexism, reproductive rightsAbortion: Trouble in Numbers? by Jennifer Baumgardner:
"For many women, though, getting pregnant when you don't want to be is because you made a mistake. Often the mistake is not your own fault -- Alix was not told by her doctor that diaphragms could slip out of place, Marion got depressed on the high-dose pill and found it almost impossible to take. But if an abortion is meant to correct that mistake, is it anti-woman to presume a learning curve? I don't know."
(Jennifer Baumgardner, by the way, is the co-auther of Manifesta, so yay.)
The article is basically an expression of the same sort of worry I have about multiple abortions. On the one hand, is it unethical to need to have two, three, six abortions? If not, is it irresponsible, and thus reprehensible? On the other hand, if I believe the choice is legal and moral -- or, at the very least, not immoral -- what difference should it make how many times that choice is exercised?
Part of the problem, for me, is my own grappling with the morality of abortion. When I was younger, I was pro-life, except, as the line goes, in the case of rape or incest. And I think this stemmed from immense naivete -- I didn't even think about the dangers of illegal abortions, and I also thought you could separate the "good" reasons for abortion from the "bad" reasons -- the "good" women from the "bad" women. Now, I unquestionably support the legal status of all abortions at any time of the pregnancy -- I think women are going to have them anyway, I'd rather not see women maim or kill themselves doing so, and I think it's a private matter that shouldn't be dictated by an outside source.
But for myself, and my own morals? I dealt with this in philosophy, and we covered the usual grounds of debate for abortion -- the personhood of the fetus, the significance of responsibility, how far the obligation of saving another life goes. The best I can come up with is that I think the woman, a fully grown and autonomous person, will necessarily trump any possible personhood of the fetus. I don't think the responsibility of having engaged in sex can translate directly into responsibility for pregnancy and/or raising a child. And saving a life, of course, is commendable, especially when it involves some sacrifice -- but it's hardly something I'd dictate as a requirement in the case of every unintended pregnancy.
But what does this mean? Is a greater significance in personhood a justification for ending the life of another? In what circumstances? Are there any limits besides, say, not inflicting undue pain? At the core, the act of abortion always ends a life, so what are the moral implications of that? Should I be as indifferent as I am to the deaths of animals that I eat? I don't think abortion in itself is immoral, but does that mean the choice to have one is unquestionably ethical?
I haven't been able to stop asking these questions for as long as I've taken up the pro-choice label. However, each and every time I do come down on the side of pro-choice, regardless of any lingering uncertainties. Even if I question this or that abortion, these circumstances or those behaviors, I can't imagine taking the option away from women altogether, whether through a legal block or blanket moral condemnation.
I also unwaveringly oppose the opposition to abortion. The reasons given to justify forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies are repugnant: It's the woman's fault for having sex (because the cute widdle babies we want to protect are a punishment for your DIRTY SATAN-LOVING BEHAVIOR). It's a woman's duty to have children (except if you're a government-leeching welfare recipient or one of them dirty furriners). Abortion is evil according to the Bible/Torah/what-have-you (because religious edicts should be the basis of national law, doncha know). It's only allowable in the case of rape or incest (because the life of the fetus we protect as holy can change in worth according to circumstances ... but only circumstances we say are OK). And my favorite, of course, is that it's bad for the woman -- when no one, anywhere, can say that having or not having children is good for every woman, and you're ten times more likely to die in childbirth than during an early abortion.
I don't know if I'll ever feel completely comfortable, or if I'll always regard abortion as a necessary evil. The careful balance I've maintained involves supporting the legality of abortion in conjunction with comprehensive sexuality education and the availability of contraceptives. With thinking and reading and pondering and arguing on the side.
"For many women, though, getting pregnant when you don't want to be is because you made a mistake. Often the mistake is not your own fault -- Alix was not told by her doctor that diaphragms could slip out of place, Marion got depressed on the high-dose pill and found it almost impossible to take. But if an abortion is meant to correct that mistake, is it anti-woman to presume a learning curve? I don't know."
(Jennifer Baumgardner, by the way, is the co-auther of Manifesta, so yay.)
The article is basically an expression of the same sort of worry I have about multiple abortions. On the one hand, is it unethical to need to have two, three, six abortions? If not, is it irresponsible, and thus reprehensible? On the other hand, if I believe the choice is legal and moral -- or, at the very least, not immoral -- what difference should it make how many times that choice is exercised?
Part of the problem, for me, is my own grappling with the morality of abortion. When I was younger, I was pro-life, except, as the line goes, in the case of rape or incest. And I think this stemmed from immense naivete -- I didn't even think about the dangers of illegal abortions, and I also thought you could separate the "good" reasons for abortion from the "bad" reasons -- the "good" women from the "bad" women. Now, I unquestionably support the legal status of all abortions at any time of the pregnancy -- I think women are going to have them anyway, I'd rather not see women maim or kill themselves doing so, and I think it's a private matter that shouldn't be dictated by an outside source.
But for myself, and my own morals? I dealt with this in philosophy, and we covered the usual grounds of debate for abortion -- the personhood of the fetus, the significance of responsibility, how far the obligation of saving another life goes. The best I can come up with is that I think the woman, a fully grown and autonomous person, will necessarily trump any possible personhood of the fetus. I don't think the responsibility of having engaged in sex can translate directly into responsibility for pregnancy and/or raising a child. And saving a life, of course, is commendable, especially when it involves some sacrifice -- but it's hardly something I'd dictate as a requirement in the case of every unintended pregnancy.
But what does this mean? Is a greater significance in personhood a justification for ending the life of another? In what circumstances? Are there any limits besides, say, not inflicting undue pain? At the core, the act of abortion always ends a life, so what are the moral implications of that? Should I be as indifferent as I am to the deaths of animals that I eat? I don't think abortion in itself is immoral, but does that mean the choice to have one is unquestionably ethical?
I haven't been able to stop asking these questions for as long as I've taken up the pro-choice label. However, each and every time I do come down on the side of pro-choice, regardless of any lingering uncertainties. Even if I question this or that abortion, these circumstances or those behaviors, I can't imagine taking the option away from women altogether, whether through a legal block or blanket moral condemnation.
I also unwaveringly oppose the opposition to abortion. The reasons given to justify forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies are repugnant: It's the woman's fault for having sex (because the cute widdle babies we want to protect are a punishment for your DIRTY SATAN-LOVING BEHAVIOR). It's a woman's duty to have children (except if you're a government-leeching welfare recipient or one of them dirty furriners). Abortion is evil according to the Bible/Torah/what-have-you (because religious edicts should be the basis of national law, doncha know). It's only allowable in the case of rape or incest (because the life of the fetus we protect as holy can change in worth according to circumstances ... but only circumstances we say are OK). And my favorite, of course, is that it's bad for the woman -- when no one, anywhere, can say that having or not having children is good for every woman, and you're ten times more likely to die in childbirth than during an early abortion.
I don't know if I'll ever feel completely comfortable, or if I'll always regard abortion as a necessary evil. The careful balance I've maintained involves supporting the legality of abortion in conjunction with comprehensive sexuality education and the availability of contraceptives. With thinking and reading and pondering and arguing on the side.