Reoccurring nightmare: I am pregnant and cannot find an abortion clinic.
There seems to be a trend on either side of the abortion fence. Anti-abortion advocates are extremely outspoken about the reasons they do not support abortion. Pro-choice advocates, however, often take for granted that their position is understood: "It's a woman's choice."
Yes--but why?
Anti-abortion advocates continuously up the ante. They are committed, determined, and often militant in their beliefs. Students and children are fair game. Propaganda and lies are encouraged. Sensationalism and appeals to emotion are common tactics.
I am fearful that pro-choice advocates (like myself) are doing a disservice by reducing our stance to sound-bites, catch phrases and sarcasm. I worry that we are reluctant to engage in real discussions about our motivations, our logic, our morality, our philosophy. I am terrified that the propaganda and lies are so numerous and so loud, our voices have become nullified.
Where do I stand?
I am married. We are childfree, and interested in sterilization.
In the meantime, I am an unwavering supporter of early abortion. I would seek abortion immediately if I became pregnant. I am unsure of my stance on late-term abortion, but do not believe anyone should mandate a woman grow something inside her body--particularly when it could potentially kill her or cause lifelong health problems.
Why do I support abortion?
It is not a question of "when life begins"--the answer bears little weight on my personal stance. Rather, I accept that life may very well begin at conception. I also believe this life form is inconsequential.
In my experience, anti-abortion advocates are extremely concerned with the idea of "human potential". A zygote, embryo or fetus is granted special status due to it's "potential" to eventually become an upstanding member of society--preferably white, and from a straight, two parent home. Additionally, anti-abortion advocates seem to believe that every potential human will cure cancer--feed the homeless--or discover world peace.
I am a realist. I recognize any of these scenarios could possibly occur. However, I also recognize the flipside is just as likely (or unlikely, depending on your vantage point). These potential humans could also become abusers, pedophiles, school shooters, or serial killers.
Meanwhile, the world is overly abundant with billions of humans--not 'potential' humans, but tangible, autonomous, sentient beings. Worse still, most of these individuals (whose status as human is not debatable) are currently experiencing excessive amounts of suffering.
I find it difficult to understand the perspective that a 'potential' human being, who may or may not be sentient, somehow "counts" for more than one of the thousands of children living on welfare, in residential treatment centers, in foster care, or in abusive home environments. I find it difficult to rationalize the perspective that an inch-long growth warrants more compassion than thousands of soldiers and civilians slaughtered during warfare, millions of individuals dying of HIV, and billions of animals put to death each year.
That said, I feel similarly about abortion as I do spaying and neutering. Given the surplus of human beings on this planet, the surplus of human suffering, the surplus of abusive home environments, I find it unconscionable to bring additional, unwanted human life into this world.
Yes, unwanted. I realize anti-abortion advocates claim adoption is a viable option for those who do not wish or cannot afford to carry the pregnancy to term. However, they seem to forget that adoption is a difficult, expensive, emotionally taxing enterprise, and very few individuals are prepared to undertake the endeavor. Furthermore, few would-be-parents are interested in adoption, and prefer the idea of biological offspring. This includes anti-abortion advocates, who frequently produce far beyond the replacement rate.
Given the difficulty of adoption and international reluctance to adopt, suggesting adoption as an easy alternative to abortion is both dangerous and irresponsible. Children are rarely matched with grateful, loving parents. Instead, the already overwhelmed foster care and adoption networks are quickly becoming a receptacle for discarded children.
Pro-choice advocates: The recent situation in Aurora, Illinois is a grave reminder of how dangerously close we are to losing this fight. Anti-abortion advocates strongly believe they are fighting against "murderous baby killers", waving about pictures of toddlers and suggesting that aborted fetuses are turned into lipstick. It is our responsibility to combat these myths and manipulations, strengthen our own voices, and reach out to those who have been misled. For many, anti-abortion and abstinence-only advocates are their only source of information.
I hope that you will find the strength to begin a dialogue. Please, speak openly. Discuss your reasons, your philosophy, your personal ethics, and your journey to this stance.
We are fighting an emotional tornado, and it is of desperate importance that we work to repair the damage left in it's wake.
14 comments:
Wow. What an article. It's really enlightened me to the pro-choice argument. However, I must strongly disagree with your stance on this issue.
To quote:
"It is not a question of "when life begins"--the answer bears little weight on my personal stance. Rather, I accept that life may very well begin at conception. I also believe this life form is inconsequential."
That has got to be one of the most selfish things I have ever heard anyone say. Simply replace "life form" with the politically-correct name for the racial group, sexual orientation, religious group, or whatever of your choice, and the argument falls totally flat.
I fully support your decision to be childless. My wife and I made that decision as well, and are unbelievably careful not to concieve a child. However, if it happens, it happens and we would never dream of aborting.
The key is responsibility vs. rights. You have an absolute right to your life and whether or not to reproduce. However, that right ends when balanced against the right of anyone, even unborn, to enjoy the same right. It becomes a responsibility to see the pregnancy through to completion, at which time you may choose to keep the child in your family or give him/her to another family for adoption.
If somehow the pregnancy was putting your life at risk, then it's justified to terminate for exactly the same reason it is legal to use deadly force to defend against a mugger. Barring that, I can not see where the balance of rights favors the abortion position.
Use contraception, sterilization, abstinence, or even "morning after pills" that prevent fertilization. All those options are effective and totally within your rights, as they don't kill the "life form".
Great post!
Simply replace "life form" with the politically-correct name for the racial group, sexual orientation, religious group, or whatever of your choice, and the argument falls totally flat.
No it doesn't. Your argument is a red herring. The illustration at the beginning of the post illustrates that perfectly. An early term fetus is not the same thing as a person. It's more like a tadpole.
The key here is that a fetus is physically part of a woman's body - totally dependant. It has no independant life. And, like it or not, people can do what they want to with their own bodies.
To use your mugger example, a random stranger (or family member) says, "Hey. I need to physically connect myself to you with tubes for the next nine months in order to survive. You'll have to eat for both of us and haul me around everywhere. And, when they disconnect me, it's going to be painful and dangerous for you."
How would you like to be legally required to do that?
When an individual is involved in a car accident, outside observers do not tell them: "Well, now you're burdened with an injury that will cause you incredible physical, emotional and financial strain. Sorry--It doesn't matter that you were wearing a safety belt, that you researched your vehicle to make sure it was safe, that you regularly took your car in for inspections and checkups, or that you invested hundreds of dollars into drivers education courses. You knew the risk when you got in the car. Now you have to live with the consequences, potentially for the rest of your life. You don't deserve any help."
Yet, this is precisely how anti-abortion advocates respond to sexually active, pro-choice individuals: ""If you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex." or, "You knew the risk."
Modern resources allow us the privilege to engage in sexual activity, free of procreation. As such, the vast majority of sexually active individuals in industrial societies do not engage in sex with a desire, intention, or thought of pregnancy. Sexual activity and procreation are no longer irrevocably bound as a package deal.
Yes, there is a risk of pregnancy when you engage in sexual activity. This risk is dramatically reduced via birth control or abstinence (driving safely or not driving at all). We all do our best to safeguard our lives, but a small fraction of the time, our efforts are unsuccessful. It is at this point that we seek outside help.
Suggesting that a woman is obligated to 'carry a pregnancy to term' is extraordinarily flippant. Pregnancy is not akin to carrying around a backpack for nine months. Pregnancy is dangerous, painful and complicated--potentially fatal, and certainly the cause of many lifelong health problems. It is an incredible physical undertaking that alters the entire foundation of the individual's life. It is also financially and emotionally taxing, and for some, crippling.
I addressed the notion of adoption as a so-called "cure all" in my original entry. Foster homes and adoption networks are already overwhelmed with discarded children. Even so, anti-abortion advocates seem to suggest that all unwanted pregnancies should result in unwanted children, regardless of the quality of their life. This notion is both repugnant and irresponsible, as the idealistic belief that all children will be matched and raised in healthy, loving homes is clearly false. In response, I welcome all anti-abortion advocates to personally tour the foster care system, residential treatment centers, adoption networks and abusive home environments.
I am glad your wife is comfortable with the idea of carrying a pregnancy to term, as that is her right and choice. I, however, am not. I will not offer my uterus as host to an organism, during this lifetime.
Dee, thank you for your positive response. I recognized when I wrote this piece that it would likely provoke strong opinions. It is not my intention, however, to alienate members of the pro-choice community.
I listened to you on Ourmedia and I agree that most pro-choice people aren't as vocal about why they believe what they believe. I wrote about it on my blog and I don't hesitate to give my opinion when ever the topic comes up. Keep up the good work!
Smooches,
Glamour Diva
Pro-Choice blog entry here: http://sexandthesushi.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-am-pro-choicedeal-with-it.html
Are we equating "life" with "consciousness"?
I won't speak for my peers, but if you are asking whether I equate "life" with consciousness, my answer is: no.
In the case of an embryo or early fetus, I acknowledge that it is a multicellular organism with the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond to external influences, etc. As such, an embyro or developing fetus fulfills the biological definition of a living organism, and therefore, is alive.
However, plants, fungi, bacteria, insects and small animals also fulfill these criteria. In fact, many of these life forms surpass the embryo/fetus in their ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to their environment. As such, it is my conclusion that the embryo/fetus is an inconsequential life form in the 'grand scheme of things'. In fact, the only notable distinction (and subsequent source of debate) seem to be the organism's "potential" to one day, given specific circumstances, become an autonomous human being.
Personally, I don't see the ethical quandry here. If you ask me whether a "potentially" sentient creature has a right to develop and perhaps kill a provably sentient host, my answer is: No.
Does it impact the argument to distinguish between "life" and "consciousness"? By that, I mean life does begin at conception, if we define life as just cell reproduction and metabolism, but that can occur without the existence of sentience, self-awareness, and all that good stuff that comes with consciousness. So does the argument change if one is aborting a conscious being vs. just a simple, living entity? And if it does have an impact, what factor(s) determine that exact moment of transition from life to life-plus?
For the record, I'm pro-choice in all circumstances; it would be stupid of me as a male to dictate anything regarding women and their bodies. I'm merely asking because it is something that I sometimes grapple with when I think about abortion.
sorry i didnt realize my first comment had gone through, didn't mean to pose the same question twice
In response to your comment about an ethical quandary; in one regard, the quandary itself could be circumvented entirely by making abortions illegal after, say, cell differentiation begins, or a heart starts beating, or the formative stages of the brain, or whatever else one might consider the first incidence of a sentient or self-aware creature's existence.
Another argument might be that the possible existence of the sentient creature can be avoided with 100% certainty outside rape and incest, where sex for pleasure is an unnecessary luxury that does not, contraception notwithstanding, outweigh the termination of a self-aware, feeling being (not to be confused with just the simple life form).
I've told you that I'm pro choice in all circumstances; I posit these ideas to help solidify my own thoughts, which more or less agree with yours, and to attempt to answer specific arguments with specific answers in my own mind (perhaps selfish to ask, considering you have no such reservations in your position, so I hope you do not mind).
I don't mind at all; rather, I think this an excellent illustration of one of the common misconceptions about pro-choice advocates. That is, the notion that pro-choice advocates do not, or are unwilling to consider the moral implications of their stance. Which you and I both know is patently untrue.
Regarding sentience: "So does the argument change if one is aborting a conscious being vs. just a simple, living entity?"
My short answer is "no", as I tend to disregard hypothetical scenarios. Factually, we do not know if the embryo/fetus is sentient. We cannot prove that it is, or is not. All we know is 1) it is a living organism of comparable cellular value to many other living organisms that die/are killed every day, and 2) it is growing inside a provably sentient, autonomous creature. I base my stance on what I know, which is why I do not believe a developing organism takes precedence over a developed one.
However, even if we allow for the idea that the embryo/fetus is sentient, I do not believe this changes the argument. The analogy I'll defer to is one of self defense. Say you are with a loved one, and an unknown individual approaches, threatening your loved one's life. This stranger may be a decent person who is unintentionally causing a threat, a mentally unstable person having a bad day, or a person of genuine moral apathy. These facts are irrelevant, however--you don't know which is true. All you know is that your loved one may die if you (or they) don't act.
Self defense is considered a right, a legally permissible act. That said, while the embryo or fetus may be sentient, their sentience, their life, is now threatening the life of another person. It is that person's right to defend their own life.
You also raise an argument that I've seen many anti-abortion and abstinence-only advocates use: "Sex is a luxury". This argument obviously disregards Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which states that sexual intimacy and sexual interaction is a necessity.
And in fact, it is a necessity. Without sex, the human race would cease to exist. Sexual interaction is a biological instinct that allows our species to survive. Circumventing the intended result of that instinct (via birth control) does not mean the instinct ceases to exist.
I'm not sure if my conclusions will help clarify these questions for you, but I do appreciate the discussion.
They did help me; it is easier for me to clarify thoughts when I suggest arguments that I don't necessarily agree with. The response I would put forth for myself and hear from others helps solidify uncertain aspects, if that makes any sense. Sort of a self-imposed dialectic of sorts. As for your argument on self-defense, let me know when you're out walking with a loved one so I can be elsewhere for my own safety. Keep up the good writing.
Great piece!
I thought I might share my own.
i am Pro-choice.
I believe it is a womans choice. there are so many variables that make abortion right and wrong.
For me. I would not have a child until I was emotionally and financially able to support that life with or without a father. that beging said, I have unfortunately have had to have an abortion three times in my life.2002,2004 and 2007.
I always practiced safe sex. Condoms as well as birth control pills.
but shit happens.
And I still feel awful about all of them. I was very depressed for a long time. On anti-depressants at one point too. And I will always feel sad for it, BUT. It was the best thing to happen for us all.
Adoption could never be an option. the adoption system is terrible, you never know what kind of life he/she may live.
I have been able to carry on in my life. I spent time in the Canadian Military(AirForce) as an engineer, I have traveled round the world. Met so really amazing ppl and know I am going back to school for a trade.
How could I bring a life into this world without being able to care properly? Who can anyone.
Ultimately, my own justification is all I need. I would never questions another womans choice. As it is her own.
I remember my first time there though. In the clinic. I met a girl who
was in for her sixth abortion. I was so curious how it had happened like that. what was going on with her. Maybe she was a prostitute, or just didn't practice safe sex.
anyway, cest.la.vie, I like how you put it with the car accident example. excellent comparison.
Pro-coice is a lousey excuse to have sex and not have any consequences. if you cant handle the consequences then dont have sex!!!! destroying an innocent life because of your selfishness is rediculous.
Post a Comment