August 19, 2010
-
Serena Vs. the Fetus
I was reading Serena’s post about her wishes versus the rights of a “clump of cells.” Here is her post: Link
So I asked Serena if we could vote on what is more important.
What is more important, Serena’s wishes?
Or the rights of a clump of cells?
Comments (430)
Her wishes, without a doubt. An egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree, and a bunch of cells are not a person. A woman should have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body, and nobody should be able to tell her otherwise.
Serena’s. Seeing as how she’s fully developed and the clump of cells wouldn’t give a damn.
Since those cells would actually be much more complex and child like, I’d say the cells have rights equal to Serena’s. In which case, they cannot be destroyed without repercussions.
i really want to stick my cock inside her now.
a clump of cells? you mean, before 3 weeks into the pregnancy, right? well, if it’s prior to the third week, then Serena’s wishes are more important. after the third week? definitely the fetus’ rights.
ya’ll go ahead and vote. Me and my girls are gonna sit on the sidelines and watch the ensuing explosion and enjoy our coffee.
Interesting question. Too bad we can’t allow for both to be important.
@TheThinkingPerson - A fertilized egg, though, does contain a growing chicken, and an acorn that has sprouted is a tree, if only a small one.
Serena.
Serena’s wishes. Because she’s prettier.
I think I’m with Starshine_Faerie on this one. *sips tea*
Clump of cells. Let them grow, and then ask the result who he or she would like to vote for.
Human being > blastocyst.
RE: anyone saying the cells have MORE rights….that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. I get why some people would argue equal, but MORE is absolutely silly.
Both equally.
Serena was a “clump” of cells. A very lucky “clump”…. obviously.
@greenbird321 - You’re seriously saying that an unborn fetus has more rights then a living, breathing human being?
@TheThinkingPerson - Preach!
@TheThinkingPerson - unless the mother’s life is at risk, yes.
I don’t think I can vote on this.
@TheThinkingPerson - Agreed. Honestly, if we gave rights to cells, wouldn’t we have to punish people for quite a lot of regular things? Scratching your skin, sneezing, anything that might kill cells. Hell, considering cells die in the body CONSTANTLY, wouldn’t that pretty much just make us perpetual murderers? (hyperbole, but I do actually agree with you)
Ironic that you post this today. I defriended Serena a year ago and this week she came crawling back friend requesting me.
Serena is way hotter than the clump of cells.
The cells, obviously. Serena’s life, by going through with the pregnancy, is not at stake. She’d just lose some of her previous unattached life because she didn’t use contraception or the condom failed. Her choice to have sex. You’re talking about an abortion which ends a life entirely.
I find it interesting that the post is titled “Serena and the Fetus”, but the question refers to “a clump of cells”.
@TheThinkingPerson - wow you’re all about 16 and you’re already a know-it-all…wait, you’re just the typical teenager.
Serena.
@seeker_nyc - I don’t see anything wrong with the manner in which he wrote his comment, but even if I did, being an adult and an asshole is no better (in fact, probably worse), than being a teen and an asshole.
Serena
Isn’t Serena just a clump of cells?
@hollowhopes - how am I an asshole, exactly? I just pointed out his age and his behavior towards greenbird. Relax. Stop assuming my intentions or I’ll assume you’re taking his side because you’re both on Serena’s
@seeker_nyc - ”I can’t think of a good argument, so I’m going to insult someone based on their age in the hopes that they might realize how right I am.”
Serena has boobs, the cells don’t. Case closed.
@TheThinkingPerson - hey, guess what? I’m just doing to you what you do to other people. Thanks for pointing out your hypocrisy though I’m sure the irony is lost on you.
@TheThinkingPerson - I’ll explain further in case you can’t get it. Instead of engaging greenbird respectfully, you disrespected her by acting as if she’s unworthy of proper dialog.
@seeker_nyc - You’re #1.
they’re equally important.
@CombinedEffort - you’re right, but how do you settle that matter in court? I’m just glad I’m not a judge.
For the “clump of cells” (which, by the time anyone actually notices those cells they are far more than a mere morula) it’s a matter of life and death. For Serena, it is not. So the fetus wins.
Serena’s.
Serena vs The Fetus is a dead horse that is on auto-beat at this point.
@bakersdozen2 - Agreed.
@bakersdozen2 - was and still is.
@nidan - Sweetheart, I’m mass-friending people. I’m so sorry I friended you along with many others – believe me, it was not intentional. Also, I love the mass message you sent out =) Very classy. And I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible.
Lol, this isn’t exactly what I expected
But I love it, and I seem to be winning! Haha ;D
@LSP1 - i think this comment is the best
I choose, like Shiva, not to permit the destruction of this Shakti-danced multiverse…yet. And thus I reconcilingly embrace your false dichotomy: hence, Both, and One.
@TheThinkingPerson - Agreed
@nodnarbassoon - Yeah you’re right. Complete misnomer huh?
@RazielV - lol, sneezing! But we don’t sneeze fetuses! Human beings are always clumps of cells, just organized better later. A clump of cells referring to an unborn child is not the same as a booger, even though it’s not the same as a fully developed infant. A fully developed infant isn’t the same as a fully grown human being though.
As to the general question… equal rights! It’s not “part of” the woman’s body. Serena is a lovely individual, and in a strange way that “clump” is as well. It needs time, just like babies need time to develop into individuals. However, I can’t expect women to give up the ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy while we still don’t have enough societal structures in place to support the ones who would need it. If we as a society can’t give them care, I don’t see how we can ask them to give up this (so-called) right.
@seeker_nyc - Regardless of anything, calling out a 16-year-old on the internet seems a little low. I’m done here, though.
Obviously the Xanga Hottie Contest is most important. Forget that those cells might one day be the key to an enhanced existence.
@exhale_whispers - Yes, you’re absolutely right. She is also made in the image of God.
@secretxxkeeper - :D
when life starts is debatable. But let’s try and use reason and science rather than superstition and myth to determine this point.
@hollowhopes - okay but before you go, just realize that for a person who calls himself “Thethinkingperson” he’s a bit close minded if he shuts off another person in conversation because he already has all the answers? What 16 year old has all the answers? I’m doing him a favor and he was being a dick to greenbird321. Bye bye.
That clump of cells is a very dishonest representation of what would be murdered. I just lost a lot of respect for you, Dan. Not that you care. But a LOT.
@bakersdozen2 - I agree
Technically, Smaranda is just a clump of cells.
AWWW. That clump of cells is so cute! Is it a boy or a girl?
@TheThinkingPerson - You saw that picture too?
It’s Serena’s uterus. Only she gets to decide to whom she loans it.
What if the cells contained the potential for multiple births? Wouldn’t that supersede one person’s wishes?
On both logical and ethical grounds, a fetus’ right to live should outweigh another’s personal preference.
The clump of cells. At least it doesnt auto friend request everyone after it blocks you.
A person is way different than a tree or a chicken. With that being said, a clump of human cells is way different than an acorn or a chicken egg. I wish people would see that.
@airbornerose - Absolutely correct.
@ShimmerBodyCream - I wish xanga had a like option
Like other people are saying, the fetus’s life is in danger and not her’s. Rights vs wishes? Really, people? Everybody deserves the right to live.
I’ve yet to come across a single person who can give me actual reasons to abort a child, other than when the mother’s life is in danger. Instead people keep throwing retard scenarios at me e.g. alcholic mother, child-molesting adoptive parents, etc. I’m genuinely interested in some facts as to why people opt for abortion when there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy, or you could just give your newborn to a good family after you give birth to it. Please message me if you can provide some information. =)
@mtngirlsouth - He probably only said a clump of cells because that is what she originally called the picture in her blog. It’s in quotes at the top after all. I’m interested in Dan’s answer, though.
@kuzianik - I doubt you will get his answer. And if he were the man I thought he was, he would be much more honest about what it is that is versing his/her own mother.
@mtngirlsouth - Well to be fair, if he called it an unborn child or something, people would get angry and say that he was trying to sway our opinions, you know? It was probably done for the sake of fairness with this topic since Serena called it a clump of cells and it’s referring to her blog. I could be totally wrong and he could be pro-choice, but I wouldn’t get mad at him for saying a clump of cells since that’s what the author of the blog this is about said.
I could wish to shoot you….you could wish to be safe….who’s more important? Hey, you said “wish”…. What is the law? And are we going by presiding government law or moral law? Some governments stone women who even have sex outside of marriage. I don’t think everything is run by “wishes”. Even libertarians generally say do what you want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Abortion hurts the mother, whether mentally or physically, it hurts the child( and if as the evolution advocates say, we all came from a mass of goo in the beginning, then that goo must be pretty important), and very often but not often mentioned it also hurts the father. Many abortions are legal in this country, and we are a country of laws. But if the citizens have no regard for life, law won’t mean much to them either. Look how our country has changed since abortion has been legal. Should we always get what we wish for even if it’s legal? Morally, no. Man needs to judge by the law he has made, God will judge by the law he has made. If we didn’t believe we should be able to do whatever we felt like doing we wouldn’t even need a law for or against abortion. It’s called being unselfish and thinking first about the consequences.
Rob of the Sky
if there is a burning building and you only had the time to save one thing, what would you save? serena or a clump of cells?
what if there were 500 test tubes of cells in one room and a baby in another? who would you save?
woman > cells
cells =/= baby
note that the above equations say nothing about what’s more important, the baby or the woman.
@kuzianik - Well, the blog this was all about is dishonest. And God forbid he upset Serena, right? And the picture he chose is misleading the other way, and so it is dishonest. In an abortion, by the time the mother is aware she is pregnant, the baby looks very different from that picture. But let us just show that dishonest clump of cells so people won’t get so mad or feel guilty about what they are having chopped up. Let’s make him resemble a cancer. Let’s not give her a face. But let’s give her self centered mother a face we can look at. That won’t sway anybody, now will it? And that is honest? I think it is spineless and dishonest!
Her wishes, definitely
Serena’s wishes are more important. She is a fully-fledged person, but the clump of cells or embryo or fetus is not — it has no capacity for consciousness, self-awareness, pain, pleasure, volition, etc.
I vote Serena!
@unabridgedtales - Got room for one more?
:: brews a cup of Earl Grey Lavender and sits down to watch the fireworks ::
@ZombieMom_Speaks - How is that stuff? I wanted lavender green tea, and my friend picked up lavender earl grey for me, but I haven’t had it yet… It’s waiting for me, currently in West Virginia.
Cells? Or “I don’t give a shit”, you decide.
@unabridgedtales - I thought it would be weird because I’m not a tremendous fan of floral teas, but this is the most delicious tea I’ve ever tasted. It’s a black tea blend so you’ll get a mild boost of caffeine, which is great for those of us who have to give up coffee. It also smells wonderful. The scent of the bergamot mingled with the scent of the lavender flowers is exquisite.
@ZombieMom_Speaks - Fantastic. Thanks. =)
@unabridgedtales - You’re welcome – I hope you like it!
@Rob_of_the_Sky - Agreed.
Her wishes come before a fetus and it always should.
Serena’s no doubt.
Also, if every time someone had sex, a baby was conceived, we would have a HUGE population problem. Sometimes sex is just for fun.
Birth control.
SerenaBoinkme is generic for barbarian. Picturing her next to an innocent human being is a new low for a place devoid of theology and devoid of humanity.
Well, she made the choice to have sex, so she already chose what to do with her body. End of discussion. The primary purpose of having sex is to reproduce.
Not to mention… Everyone forgets what 2 different rights are at stake here.
Right to not be inconvenienced by her own actions < Right to life
Abstinence is the only sure fire way to avoid pregnancy.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I wouldn’t answer.
She is a clump of cells!
therefore, I say clump of cells! Both win!!
I am certain the cells can make more coherent arguments in a post about abortion.
Pro-choice all the way.
Their rights are equal, but I don’t think that anyone has the right to take another’s life, so I don’t believe that Serena has the right to end the life of the fetus.
they arent a clump of cells, they are a human being. i think the fetus or the baby should matter more because serena was already living she has already lived her life while the baby hasnt
@randomneuralfirings - Took the words right out my mouth. A life is worth more than someone’s wants.
@mtngirlsouth - A woman can get a positive pregnancy test as early as 8 days post ovulation. At this stage, the fertilized egg has implanted into the uterus, but is still simply that – essentially, what Serena posted. Here (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Human_embryogenesis) is a step-by-step walkthrough of human embryogenesis if you’re interested. The confusion comes from the fact that “4 weeks pregnant” actually means the weeks since the last menstrual period. Even if a woman did not use an early detection home pregnancy test, and tested on the day of or day after her missed period, she may be “four weeks pregnant” but the embryo is no more than two weeks old. I understand this does not change your opinion on abortion, but the photo posted is in fact close to what is present in the uterine lining at the time of a positive home pregnancy test for many women, so in that regard it is not deceiving.
Serena’s wishes
@airbornerose - She isn’t fully developed either.
The unborn baby is more important than Serena’s wishes. She needs to learn to keep her pants zipped and her legs closed. It’s bad enough being a slut but adding murder on top of that only compounds things.
@sorrybabydoll - That’s why 1) you don’t have sex during certain times of the month. 2) don’t have sex outside of marriage, sex is for marriage. 3) Get sterilized if you don’t want to get pregnant. You don’t just snog anytime anywhere and then kill the baby because being pregnant messes with your mojo.
@SoapAndShampoo - Oooo very clever answer. I wish I had thought of that.
That picture is misleading. The baby already has a heartbeat by the time a woman realizes she’s pregnant. A woman’s desire to be selfish should never be granted over her baby’s right to life. What a sad, despicable culture we live in where such a twisted mindset is not only permissible, but encouraged.
she chose to have sex and create a fetus… if she didnt want that “clump of cells” to invade her oh so precious uterus she should not have taken action to create a fetus. it was her choice all along.
Hmm, I don’t know. Serena is a selfish, sex obsessed, porn addicted, dumbaSS. The so called “clump of cells” has just as much of a right to live as she does. But whatever. I hope she either stays permanently on birthcontrol or goes sterile. God-willing, of course.
she has a right i guess
I believe in a woman’s right to choose….in the first trimester.
@radicalsounds - The photo presented is NOT an accurate portrayal of what is being murdered 4000+ times a day in America. There is a heartbeat by three weeks after conception. That picture is not accurate AT ALL. But it does dehumanize the baby. Just like Hitler did the Jews. Makes it seem less barbaric to rip them apart and vacuum them out. And the pictures of what is left are very clearly a tiny human.
@mtngirlsouth - Do you have photos of an embryo 8-20 days post ovulation/conception? Truly curious. Also, I’m not saying anything one way or the other on the actual abortion debate, simply that from what I’ve read and studied, that photo isn’t necessarily inaccurate. But if you have legitimate contradicting evidence I’d truly be interested – I’m always willing to consider new information.
Ooh, controversy. *makes popcorn*
@mtngirlsouth - http://www.umm.edu/ency/animations/Cell-division.htm – this is the best progression I can find; I guess now I realize maybe when you say that it is not an accurate portrayal you mean not in the literal sense? Or that most if not all abortions occur further along in pregnancy? I guess I’m just wondering if you mean that a blastocyst cannot convey the idea of a new human life, or if the science itself is not factual. Clarify for me? I think I may have misread your comment initially if that’s the case, and if so I apologize.
Serena’s definitely a prettier picture to look at… But at the same time I think that only if there were complications/if the baby had a high risk of something terrible/other equally good reason then it wouldn’t be fair to abort it. It is, after all that person’s fault that they got pregnant in the first place.
At three weeks old, I think it’d be okay… But the issue is that most women don’t know for sure if they’re pregnant at 3 weeks since they’re probably looking for a missed period. After a month or so, I think that’s when the clump of cells starts to develop into something more.
@radicalsounds - Here is a real photo of a baby five weeks after conception. And on this site, it goes week by week, the development. At week five, (Three weeks after conception) you can hear a heartbeat. A heartbeat! This is right around the time that the woman is discovering she is pregnant. Abortion stops a beating heart.
@mtngirlsouth - Okay – thanks for the links. I guess my confusion was that Serena’s photo reflected a blastocyst, which is the state of the baby at the time some women will receive a positive on a home pregnancy test (probably not a lot of women, but I can’t take hormonal birth control and have multiple health issues, so it’s extremely important that my husband and I be aware of any pregnancy as soon as possible, so I do a lot of research on that aspect of things). I am definitely aware that the embryo develops rapidly in the first few weeks, and so while it is at the blastocyst stage at the time of a pregnancy test (for some) it would not be at the time of abortion – I suppose it COULD be, but from what I understand even medication abortions usually don’t take place that early (but can’t verify that for sure). But yeah, thanks for clarifying, now I get what you were saying
Clump of cells
call me whatever names you like, I’m in this for the innocent party involved. There is always the “risk” of pregnancy with having sex. If you’re not ready to face the consequences then don’t play with fire. Now as for the whole death penalty thing, I think that is a bit steep. The problem obviously comes from differing understandings of when life begins.
…isn’t this just a vote on pro-life vs. pro-choice? *shrugs* I vote for pro-choice/Serena.
What if the baby ended up being Hitler Jr? HOW ‘BOUT THOSE “ABORTION = HOLOCAUST” METAPHORS NOW!
@unabridgedtales - same here, only I’m drinking cocoa. let’s watch…
@mtngirlsouth - “Abortion stops a beating heart”
So does swatting a fly.
Nothing is worse than being born into a family that doesn’t want you. I’d say Serena’s wishes are more important.
abortion is not a replacement for contraception. However, shit happens, and if it does, a woman should be able to choose.
@MidwesternShenanigansIN - your answer wins.
Um, I didnt read the comment but Basically I think if you skipped the morning after pill- emergency case only- then too bad too sad.
The result of intercourse is reproducing. Thats life. We humans cheat alot of things, and we have managed to manipulate alot about our lives- not just childbirth.
I think the ‘clump’ has equal rights. MAYBE more, because now it is in eixstance
Serena HAD HER CHANCE- she had the right to have sex or not to have sex. She chose sex, and just because man’s product hasnt worked, doesnt mean the rights of the ‘clump’ should suffer.
So now she has to suffer the consequences.
Unless of course, she or the baby could die, then an abortion (to me anyway) is ok
@Maverick83 - She was talking about at a certain amount of weeks.
If you are going to compare a fetus and a fly I hope you damn well treat them the same aka either treat flies like they are more precious than you, or go and murder children.
I firmly believe that is the woman’s choice all the way around. I’ve been with many friends, family, and even a couple of partners as they’ve made their decisions. It’s not my body and it’s not my decision, so I support whatever my friend/family or partner decides. I’ve never regretted supporting them in each and every decision.
It’s not my body.
@SupperMick - do you know the effects on most women that get an abortion?
@New_dog - I agree with you that you should support them. i would. It wouldnt be my choice but I love my family and friends and I would never argue with them about this if it was their choice.
But yeah I do have my opinion. =)
@sweetestsunnydayz - No I support them either way. Some have decided to have the baby, and some have decided not to have the baby. Either way, I support them.
As a result, I have fewer children than I would have had I pushed them into having the baby, or, on the other hand you could say, I have more children than I would have had I pushed them not to have the baby.
Likewise my friends/family who are female. Some decided to have the baby, some decided not to. I supported them and offered no bias. I feel it’s not my body and not my decision, because I’m a man.
I never have regretted not trying to exert any kind of influence on any of the women. I feel it was the right thing to do.
Serena’s, not because the fetus isn’t human but because it doesn’t matter.
Let me ask you another question — which is more important, your right to walk around free or the life of a man with kidney failure who could benefit from the use of your kidneys?
This question is ridiculous. Even though the man in question will die without your help, no one has the right to strap you down to a gurney and use your kidneys for his benefit. If you volunteer, that’s swell, but it’s also your right to pull the plug and walk away at any time.
The state may not enslave a person. A person may not enslave a person.
Enforced prenancy is slavery. No question.
Can we feature something that dosen’t have to do with abortion, faith, or trash talking a xangan for freaking once please? This is a very tired old subject.
@BobRichter - I dunno, did i cause the failure of his kidneys? Bad example…
@Yoru_Kendo – Is it really a bad example? Would you actually advocate slavery in the case that you were responsible for the kidney failure?
Conception is not a crime. Enforced pregnancy can not be justified. There is simply no leg anywhere for this argument to stand on.
@sweetestsunnydayz - I know what she was talking about. The fetus, like the fly, does not meet the criteria for what I consider to be human. You can choose to equate an organism with the most basic semblances of human bodily functions to the fully developed human being that is born after 9 months. It is an inaccurate comparison, but it’s yours to make, and your decision. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. I’ve made a different comparison: Fetus does not equal child. Granted, nor does it equal a fly. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that having a beating heart does not automatically make a fetus the same as a baby.
That’s what this whole debate is about: When does a human life begin? No matter how either side tries to distort reality to fit their answer (and both sides are equally guilty of that), there is no clear correct answer. This is another symptom of mankind’s depedence upon clear, individual distinctions in a universe in which matters such as this exist as a gradient, one element blending almost seamlessly into the next. We can agree that a baby which has been born qualifies as a human. We can agree that a sperm or an egg does not. In between, there exists a gray area. And at the very least, we should acknowledge that it is a gray area.
Serena how many abortions are too many. think when it comes to life something so important. You should have been more responsible person and used protection, by the way you once were just a clump of cells.
@seeker_nyc - Life doesn’t start until the fetus is born.
@tata_on_the_roof - that doesn’t make any sense.
Fetus. Serena had a choice she just chose poorly. The baby didn’t have a choice.
Serena
@SoapAndShampoo - Agreed:)
Serena’s wishes, definitely.
I am anti-abortion….pro life….but I would not be throwing Serena in jail for havin an abortion. I know that a lot of her blog on the subject is tongue in cheek and meant to elicit emotional responses. I will not react emotionally….
Serena…and ALL of us were “merely a clump of cells”….but that “clump of cells” has no one to speak up for it’s “rights” or defend it from destruction. Some women legitmately find themselves in a situation where the baby that they are carrying is not going to be cared for and nurtured…because of financial, emotional, other situations that the Mother finds herself in. BUT that doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone out there that WILL love and care for and nurture that little baby and let him or her grow into the person that God intended them to be!!! My middle daughter, 10 years ago, placed her precious little baby girl for adoption because, at the age of 16 she was not ready to be the proper parent that her child deserved. It would have seemed SO much easier at the time to simply opt to end the “nuisance” of the pregnancy and move on with her life. But she would have been dealing with the emotional baggage that she would be carrying because of that…for the rest of her life. I applaud her strength and the love she had for her child…to lovingly place her in the arms of parents who would raise that precious little girl to reach her full potential in life.
All that being said…sorry Serena…the Clump of Cells trumps your desires in this case !!!
Ruth Ann
I’m not sure I understand the question…
If the woman’s life is in physical danger if she continues to carry the unborn child, the life of the woman should of course take priority. Otherwise, the child, and it is a child, should be given a chance to live.
Serena.
most people say that all life is precious. if so, then why wouldn’t “a clump of cells” that one day will walk and talk be just as precious?
Serena. Women should have the right to choose. I get that some people have unprotected sex and then use abortion as a form of birth control. That I don’t agree with. But if you are having protected sex, whether you are on the pill or using condoms, I believe that a woman most definitely should be able to choose what happens to her body because she is trying to protect herself. Accidents do happen, but no high school or college girl or any girl for that matter, should have to have a baby if she protected herself.
I’m 22 and protect myself, but if I was to get pregnant my only choice would be abortion. I am not ready to have a baby in so many ways. I don’t have a steady job, I barely have money to support myself. How could I support a child? Even my bf would struggle to pay for a baby. The bottom line is that it wouldn’t be right to bring a kid into the world if I can’t give it a good life at this point.
Isn’t Serena just a clump of cells, too?
D’oh, looks like @Redlegsix beat me to it.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - You’re kidding, right? I’d say she’s much more ahead of the game than the clump of cells.
@SexyGamerGirl - Just a little story about one of our Justices of the Supreme Court:
“When Clarence Thomas was a child, the town lacked a sewage system and paved roads. Thomas’s
mother worked hard but was sometimes paid only pennies per day. She had
difficulty putting food on the table and was forced to rely on charity.
After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers
were taken to live with his mother’s parents. Living with his grandparents, Thomas enjoyed amenities such as indoor plumbing and regular meals for the first time in his life.”
Wouldn’t it have just been easier for that mother to abort her child…she was only making pennies a day? Why isn’t adoption even considered as an option?
Serena’s.
There are truths on both sides of the **abortion debate**, but it’s about time it was ended. IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM. So let other people get abortions–no one’s forcing you to!
I find it ridiculous how people keep pretty much eluding to the idea that a mother is just a host for the parasitic fetus to grow and thrive on, and nothing else while she is pregnant. So what, are all females just hosts? Is that all we’re good for? We don’t even matter on our own?
Xanga is too ignorant for me.
@RazielV - The difference is the cells you speak of are yours, as in they have YOUR DNA embedded in them. The “clump of cells” in question has it’s own DNA.
The clump of cells is not a fetus–it is an embryo. And another question: Is the male who helped create this clump of cells willing to pay child support for the next 18 years?
technically, serena is a clump of cells. We’re all clumps of cells. Clumps has no quantity measurement to it.
The only people that’s more than a clump of cells are those with implants.
@LSP1 - Win.
Only Serena has import. Everything else is in the imagination.
i say go serena, after all, she has life, the fetus doesnt.
Pro Choice, Serena.
I’m with the cells. peace, Al
Really, I would have to say that the “fetus” or “cells” or whatever you will, deserve to grow. It was her choice to have sex, her choice to be insufficiently protected. If it is no harm to her, I say deal with the consequences. At least be decent enough to give the child a chance and put it up for adoption if it is unwanted. As an acorn is a not-yet-grown tree and an egg is a not-yet-grown chicken (provided we give them the chance to grow), that clump of cells is an un-born baby.
considering serena is also a big fat clump of cells…..the fetus gets the vote. serena made her choice by having sex. if you’re not ready for any and all consequences, don’t involve yourself. common sense.
All Serena is, is a clump of cells. Whats the difference?
The clump of cells. But then, I don’t have much respect for “Serena’s” wishes. The fetus may or may not be a person, depending on when you’re talking about it (although he/she almost definitely is by the time the would-be mother knows about him/her) but Serena definitely doesn’t count as a person. So…yeah.
hers. i don’t care about cells; i manipulate them all the time. not embryonic cells, but i would if i worked in that sort of lab.
@BobRichter - Indeed it is a bad example. Firstly because you can live with only one kidney
But seriously, I’m not sure what I would or would not advocate in this case. What would justice be if someone told you, “Yeah, I know you would like to live but I just have to get my sex on….too bad for you.”……forced pregnancy and dangerous birth for the mother are (or course) separate circumstances from my example and require further consideration.
@Yoru_Kendo – It’s difficult to find a good analogy for one human being using another as a means of life support against their will. That’s the best one I’ve stumbled across. If you can do better, let me know.
But now you’ve moved from questioning the validity of my example into a completely bizarre tangent. The choice isn’t between “let you live” and “get my sex on.” The choice is between “keep you alive despite your independent non-viability” and “be free to engage in other pursuits.” There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Pregnancy has an opportunity cost, even if you ultimately “give it up for adoption.” That opportunity cost makes compulsory pregnancy (that is, an abortion ban) no less than a form of slavery and as such fundamentally indefensible.
Dangerous birth does not require further consideration because the basic case (the idea that anyone has the right to enforce pregnancy) has not been made. Slavery cannot be justified, and accidental (reckless, negligent, what-have-you) conception is neither a crime nor a tort.
@Starshine_Faerie - Mmm! Coffee!
Fetus FTW!
Who knows, perhaps by some magnificent feat of freak genetics her baby could actually become a pretty awesome, intelligent person… instead of a cretin attention whore who posts strategically-angled myspace shots, Captain Obvious sex advice, and whatever else she feels like brain farting that day.
I still wouldn’t have wanted even Serena to be aborted.
@Megan@revelife - Favorite answer yet =)
And, TheologiansCafe, I echo mtngirlsouth’s sentiments… my respect may not mean anything to you, but you’ve officially lost it.
I understand being controversial, but you’ve sold out.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - i can’t even convey how much win is packed into this comment.
@sweetestsunnydayz - i think i love you.
rights > wishes. wishes =/= rights.
every day around the world millions of women and children have their rights violated by men who’s wish to get laid and make money override their right to choose what they do with their bodies and with whom, and morons who have the good fortune to be free to make said choice bitch and moan about how their “rights are being violated” by the natural consequences of the choices they made of their own free will. pathetic.
@BohemianLotus - I second this.
The fact is that Serena is the one in control of both the fetus and her body she has the right to decide what is done with both of them. I don’t think any of us would take kindly to other people trying to dictate what we can and cannot do with out bodies. It’s the womens right, end of story.
That said, just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. And with every right, comes a responsibility. In this case the right to terminate a pregnancy comes with the responsibility to do everything in your power to keep from getting pregnant in the first place.
Both are very important. I do feel that after that first cell division, a new unique human life has been created. I know not all people feel that way though, but that is my belief based on logic and scientific data. I feel that all human life is valuable. Therefore I believe that life deserves protection and safety. Why is abortion so often one of the first choices when an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy occurs? I know that thousands and thousands of families look to adopt as they have troubles conceiving, I know several in my church and neighborhood alone.
I absolutely understand the feeling of not being ready to be a mother, but why does that mean that fetus is not ready to be a child?
@seeker_nyc - Not true whatsoever.
@explosive - what’s not true?
@seeker_nyc - The mother’s life can be in danger during the pregnancy and it can very well affect the fetus negatively. And then both the mother and unborn child would be negatively affected. Is that really the best thing for the both of them? I don’t think so.
Serena
and no one can change what matters to her most… so people who say the clump of cells are more important will continue to be wrong in her and my mind
enjoy.
@explosive - but can a doctor tell that in the first stage of her pregnancy? I think you’re reaching here. She’s asking who is more important, she’s not talking about potential medical crisis.
It’s her RIGHT to have an abortion. It’s arguable that a “clump of cells” is even alive. Serena’s life could be in danger if something goes wrong during the pregnancy. Complications arise all the time. There could be birth defects, etc. She’s not hurting a person so it remains a right, not just a “wish.” And how can you ensure fetal health when the mother’s health is in danger? Good thing it’s not up to men to decide not to have an abortion. Unless they’d like to have the baby, too. Especially if they were impregnated by their rapist. pro-life men really irk me. So you value the life of a fetus more so than the mother? You’d have to value the well-being of the mother as much if not more so than her unborn child. It is the mother who sustains “life” of the unborn child until it comes into this world. If anything, your concern should be for the mother.
Not to mention, let’s think of the quality of life after birth. If Serena can’t provide the proper life for her child that she thinks it should have, then she can have an abortion if she wants to.
@seeker_nyc - I don’t, at all. Because you’re spewing falsities. Complications can arise at any stage of pregnancy, to the mother or unborn child or both. How can you value a clump of cells more so than the mother? How can the baby even be born healthily or at all if the mother’s health is in danger? At least if the mother survives, she has a chance of having more children. The baby could be born with downs or cerebral palsy or something like that. Is a poor quality of life really that much more important than the mother’s life?
I’m going to ask what you think of miscarriages. I don’t see how they’re any different than abortion, other than they were an “accident.” Or maybe they’re not.
@explosive - my mother had several miscarriages so your comment disgusts me. You really seem to not value human life at all.
The choice is being made for the unborn child by a government. For the government to be able to do that, Serena’s body belongs not to herself, but to the government. That means whatever products are produced by the use of her body also belong to the government. It is a slippery slope.
@seeker_nyc - I value the mother’s life more so than an non-living thing, unlike you. Miscarriages are God’s abortions. If abortions are so wrong, explain how miscarriages are alright.
@explosive - I think you should try speak to people with down syndrome or cerebral palsy first before you go on making assumptions about thier quality of life, or whether it’s worth it for them to have ever been born.
@Ayliana87 - How do you think a Downs person would answer? Are you saying you have Downs? :p
What if the parents are unemployed, living in poverty, and can’t even afford food? Is that the kind of life you want for a child? It’s not what I’d want for my child.
@explosive - “Miscarriages are God’s abortions. If abortions are so wrong, explain how miscarriages are alright.”
You are disgusting.
God’s abortion? When did I bring God into this? Are you trying to justify abortion because miscarriages are God’s abortion? You are…wow
@seeker_nyc - You’re the one who thinks a fetus is more important than the mother’s life. How can the fetus survive if the mother doesn’t? You’re completely illogical. You and your kind usually are, though. You’d rather have a fetus live than the mother live. But if the mother doesn’t, how can the fetus? You’re killing two people instead of just one. That’s not very “pro-life” to me.
@explosive - Are you insane? The question was about who is more important, Serena or the clump of cells. Go back to what I originally wrote. My God, you’re troubled.
@seeker_nyc - You think a clump of cells are more important than the mother? And I’m the troubled one? Wow. How hypocritical of you indeed. Just so long as the fetus survives, who gives a damn about the mother.
@explosive - Not everyone with T23 is so severe that they can’t speak. Many of them can function with proper education. They can hold jobs, live semi independantly, and contribute to society much better than some of the ’regular’ people I’ve met.
Also, just because the parents are in poverty doesn’t necessarily mean that the child will suffer, especially in America. You seem to be convienently forgetting the fact that unemployed parents in this country can apply for a mryiad of social services, from food stamps, WIC, job training, unemployment insurance and medicaid. And if that doesn’t work, a mother in this country can always give the child up for adoption. Hell she doesn’t even need to go to an adoption agency, she just needs to drop the kid off at a fire house or leave the baby at the hospital after she gives birth. Children under five rarely spend more than a few weeks in foster care.
What you seem to be implying is that there are certain groups of people in this world (the poor and the disabled) that are better off never being born, should be aborted. That line of thinking borders on eugenic. And as someone who was born into poverty, to a family of alcoholics and drug addicts, to a mother could’ve easily died during the pregancy (as she nearly did in the one before) you disgust me.
It’s one thing to support a womans right to choose; It’s completely different to advocate that certain populations are better off being aborted than helped to achieve self actualization.
@Ayliana87 - You don’t advocate for women’s right to choose. You seem to think a clump of cells is more important than an actual living person. Ridiculous.
@TheThinkingPerson - um…an egg contains a chicken if its fertilized, and an acorn isnt germinated when its attached to a tree…sorry, i dont follow.
@explosive - hey if the doctor determines a fetus or the mother’s mortal life is in danger, I think the mother should go ahead with the abortion. You’re looking for a fight where there is none. I care about the mother. I’ve stated on Serena’s site that she can go through with the pregnancy just fine and sure she might experience difficulties in raising a child but such is life. Motherhood won’t kill Serena, unlike abortion which kills the child entirely.
But seriously, seek help
@explosive - Don’t put words in my mouth, I never said that. Supporting choice and supporting eugenics are two completely different things.
Perhaps one day someone will unknowingly imply that you should’ve never been born because you didn’t come from the right circumstances in life. Then you’ll know a little of how I feel right now.
A clump of cells isn’t a fetus. This should be titled “Serena vs. The Clump”.
@Ayliana87 - Oh quit taking things so personally. The quality of life is much more important than just being alive. You honestly think every baby should be born? What a fucked up world we’d live in if every teenager who got pregnant had a baby.
@polygemi - We’re all just clumps of cells.
@explosive - Again, I never said that. What I said was that advocating abortion as a means of controling and downsizing certain populations (as opposed to actually helping them) is disgusting.
You’re no different than the people 100 years ago who used to advocate forced sterilization of the mentally ill and handicapped.
@seeker_nyc - If the unborn child is even alive, which it isn’t. And therefore there’s absolutely no problem with abortion. What if she simply just doesn’t want to have the baby? That’s not up to you, sorry! And it’s not up to the baby.
@explosive - wow, three ton’s of crazy in a two ounce bag. you’re projecting so called “complications” onto the question. the question never mentions any complications at all. so, it is an equally valid assumption that the pregnancy is a perfectly healthy baby which will have the side effects of strange cravings, morning sickness and bigger boobs. and yet, you insist on psychoticaly insisting that every baby on the planet is going to be born with every imaginable birth defect(which you seem to think is cause enough to kill them) if the mother lives long enough to pop them out just before dying. the question AS IT WAS PUT. was the RIGHTS of the “clump of cells” vs the WISHES of serena. looking at it again, i was wrong… you’re six tons of crazy in a half ounce bag.
@Ayliana87 - i think she makes a compelling argument for forced sterilization, if you know what i mean.
We dont go killing mentally handicapped people despite their dependence on us, we dont go killing teenagers for leeching off us, we dont go killing newborns for being completely useless and in fact doing us a dis-service by making us change their diapers. WHY? id say because they have a combination of potential and DNA that labels them as human. A handicapped person has potential to make other people happy and even overcome their disability. A teenager has potential to become a fully functional member of society, and a baby has all the potential of taking care of us when we grow old. I fail to see where the logic is capable of making the jump to allow killing the clump of cells that has the same DNA and potential as the former three simply based on “wantedness” of that clump of cells…
@michell - Newborns aren’t embryos. wow.
@ionekoa - I posed the situation, IF it there are complications. And the baby doesn’t get to choose if it gets to be born. And you don’t get to choose for the mother, either. It’s the mother’s decision. She’s the one having the baby if she chooses to. But she doesn’t have to. I don’t see how an embryo’s right supersedes a woman’s right to choose. Ridiculous.
@explosive - and adults arent newborns, skeletally, mentally, or immunologically….please do continue with your logic because im still not getting how the DNA somehow became non human.
I think that brett favre should decide for me
serena herself is “a clump of cells”. just because she can survive on her own doesn’t give her the right to kill another “clump of cells”. a baby should not have to die for the convenience of the mother. she chose to have sex; she can choose to give the baby up for adoption or keep it herself. the death of a child should not be an option.
@michell - Well it’s a good thing an embryo can’t make the decision to be a parasite to its mother for nine months without her consent. She doesn’t have to have the baby if she doesn’t want to. I fail to see how an embryo’s “rights” are more important than that of a living person’s. That’s imbecilic.
@danaenicole - She can also choose to abort it. You don’t have to, but she can.
@explosive - she shouldn’t be able to, is my point. she should not be allowed to kill her child because “she’s not ready”.
@explosive - yeah, instead of answering the question given you imposed your own parameters on it, i already acknowledged that and berated you for it. here’s the thing. i dont have the “right to choose” whether or not to kill someone for their money(more money would definately improve my life) or to “choose” to kill someone who makes my life miserable through verbal harrassment and abuse on a daily basis. the “right to choose” does not apply to the life of another human. when you chose to participate in the act that created that life, the choice was made. im not sure why i even bothered typing this out, it’s obvious that you lack the mental capacity to understand it. maybe someone a little saner than you will read it and understand.
@danaenicole - It’s not up to you. So if you don’t like abortions, then don’t get one. But that’s not your prerogative to decide for someone else.
@explosive - gee good thing babies CAN make the decision to need human help to survive either. Good thing people with mental disabilities CAN choose to not need help with daily activities. oh wait. they cant. i fail to see how embryo’s rights are unequal to that of a handicapped person, newborn or child. And i never said greater. itd be silly of me to claim that a newborn persons right to life is equal to that of an adult or handicapped person, and then claim that a smaller version of that newborn has MORE worthfullness. Just like it would be silly of me to claim that an adult has more right to live than a newborn…or say a smaller version of the newborn with exactly the same DNA structure and potential.
it’s not like Serena was ever a clump of cells….
@nodnarbassoon - agreed!
@ionekoa - oh yes, berating me really shows your intelligence. I still don’t understand how you think an embryo is more important than a living breathing fully functional person. It will never have more rights than a self-sufficient human being. I really loathe pro-life men. The entire reason that abortion is such a hot topic is because what’s debatable is if the embryo is even alive. and to me it isn’t. And to lots of other people, it isn’t. And that’s why it’s a right, and why it’s LEGAL. Duh! How am I insane for thinking a woman has more of a right to decide what will happen to her body than a third party does? Or even an unborn child? It’s not up to the child or you. It’s up to the woman. Unless YOU want to have a baby. There are plenty of things that could go wrong in a pregnancy. Even if everything’s fine, the woman doesn’t have to have the baby. And your input isn’t required.
@fatal_mess - Are you saying she wasn’t a clump of cells?
@danaenicole - observe, @explosive - is clearly a fetocidal maniac. in her own words
“Well it’s a good thing an embryo can’t make the decision to be a parasite to its mother for nine months without her consent. She doesn’t have to have the baby if she doesn’t want to. I fail to see how an embryo’s “rights” are more important than that of a living person’s. That’s imbecilic.”
so even if the embryo were fully formed in a mental sense and able to make decisions and act and choose on it’s own(granted having the need of the mother to survive) she would still advocate killing it.
@explosive - It doesnt. Neither Ionekoa nor myself are saying that. But saying that people born either into poverty or with physical/mental handicapps would ‘suffer’ too much to justify them living is not the same thing as abortion. You do not have the right to look at someone, thier situation or thier health and determine for them whether or not it was worth it for them to be born as opposed to aborted., Not everyone with born with a disability is incapable of living a productive life.
And certainly not everyone born into poverty, which is a man made condition, is doomed to wallow in substandard conditions thier whole life and repeat the mistakes of thier parents. What you advocate is more than just free choice. It’s eugenics dresed up to look like compassion.
@explosive - eh, it was sarcasm. kind of hard to “read” sarcasm though!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
@ionekoa - I believe you’re talking about late-term abortions, which ARE illegal. the woman could’ve had an abortion when she had the chance, before the 20th week. Because the fetus is considered more developed and sometimes, viable, e.g. it can survive outside the womb. If a woman wants to have an abortion in the first trimester, who are you to stop her, or judge her?
PS. babies don’t think, they just react.
@ionekoa - now now, lets not go diagnosing her with maniac tendencies. she just cant (like many many other people) see how something that doesnt LOOK like a person IS one. she thinks it has to breathe and be functional ( thats what she said a few times anyway. wow, paralyzed people on ventilators and infants would be pissed. They cant do those things…Theyre totally dependent on individuals to take care of them. sort of like embryos. huh. weird.)
@michell - And you can’t see that it’s not up to you to dictate what someone should do with THEIR body since it’s really none of your business at all.I may just go out and get pregnant and have an abortion. But what can you do about it? NOTHING! You won’t even know if I’ve ever had an abortion or not. It makes no difference to you, really.
@Ayliana87 - What you want is for a baby to be born to parents who don’t want it. You care nothing for the health of the mother or the baby. If a baby isn’t wanted, it shouldn’t be born if that’s what the mother wants. It’s not up to you to decide for someone else. You can have a baby if you want to, but if I don’t want to, I’m not going to. And that’s a right that every woman has.
Pro-choice isn’t forcing abortion on every pregnant woman, unlike pro-lifers who want to take the right to choose away.
@explosive - you clearly do not know what the word “alive” means.
@seeker_nyc - Apparently neither do you. There has to be brain activity, and a heart beat. Buddhists even believe that there is no soul until the baby is actually born and therefore alive. And you don’t know how to respect other people’s rights and minding your own business when something doesn’t pertain to you whatsoever.
Do you think all babies should be born? Even babies born to women who were impregnated by a rapist? There are exceptions of course, but even in a normal pregnancy, a woman doesn’t have to have the baby. And it’s not up to you to decide for her. You value the embryo more so than the mother. And you can’t have a viable fetus without a host, e.g. the mother.
@explosive - i can’t tell you what makes you insane. maybe it’s a chemical emballance, maybe it’s chemical abuse, perhaps it’s a genetic defect. i dont know, but i can tell you a few of the indicators.
1) you are incapable of answering a simple question without imposing your own “worst case scenarios” as though they were a given.
2) you believe that one persons convienience overrides another persons right to live(you constantly speak of the embryo as a person saying that “it isnt the embryo’s choice” implying that you see the embryo as a seperate complete entity with full personhood even calling it a child). and elevate the matter of convenience to one of life or death.
3) you believe that birth defects are a perfectly valid reason to kill a child.
4) you repeat an argument that has been refuted, then get upset when it’s brought to your attention that it’s already been called out as being rediculous.(no, it doesn’t make me intelligent to berate you for saying something stupid, i never said it did, i was informing you that said argument had already been addressed)
5) you seem to think that being a “fully functioning breathing person” trumps being on life support(which, if we are talking in the technical sense is the “service” the mother provides to the embryo) so, let’s release all the rapists, murderers and thieves from prison and pull the plug on anyone who’s on life support, regardless of their chances for recovery of contributions to society. being fully functioning and breathing and “self sufficient” is after all the measure of worth right?
im sure if you need more it wouldnt be hard to come up with them. but im growing bored right now. im sure i’ll come back and find some amusement in this later.
@ionekoa - A woman’s right to choose is not up to you. She doesn’t have to have the baby, and I doubt she cares what you think about it. Good thing it doesn’t matter either way. And too bad men can’t get pregnant or they might actually gain some perspective.
What do you think of when you look at the cross and the crucifix? Do they hold sacred and religious value for you?
After reading Ogechukwu’s book, your perception may change; the church’s use of these symbols has, for centuries, concealed facts regarding their true origins. Ogechukwu reveals those findings in this stunning expose.
His research includes historical accounts of Christianity’s conspiracy and divulges the true meaning of the cross—a satanic symbol.
Ogechukwu states:
“For centuries after Christ, the church and other religions that use cruciform symbols have misrepresented the physical nature of Christ’s death with a satanic symbol (cross), and a pagan idol (corpus). This secret has been concealed by the church for centuries after Christ.”
What reason did the church have for shifting the cross’ meaning from one of evil to one of goodness?
This easy to read, enlightening and academically sound book regarding the symbolism and meaning of the cross leads to a stunning conclusion. Learn more about the real nature of Christ’s death and religion’s role in the change in symbolism. Ogechukwu wants to reveal the truth in hopes of releasing humankind from what he calls the “painful knowledge bondage” of cruciform propaganda.
at
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TheSecretBehindTheCrossAndCruifix.html
It’s not a fetus…
Yeah, I definitely vote Serena.
@michell - ”…i might just go out and get pregnant and have an abortion…” i rest my case.
@explosive - Again, for the third time, I did not say that. You can keep trying to put words in my mouth all you want, it doesn’t mean I’m going to swallow them. I have never said that a woman doesn’t have the right to terminate a pregancy if she doesn’t want it. I have supported a womans free choice to do whatever she wants with her body.
What I don’t support, is self rightous fucks like yourself pointing to groups in the human population (one of which I belong to) and playing the ‘pain and suffering’ card as a cause enough for thier mothers to abort them. You’re not looking for uphold a womans right to choose. You’re looking for a convenient method to get rid of certain people you don’t think you should be bothered to help. It’s classist, racist (since people below the poverty line in this country are either black or hispanic) and downright disgusting. And not amount of backtracking or false accusations is going to change what you originally said, and what you still refuse to acknowledge as wrong.
@Ayliana87 - HAHA I think YOU’RE the racist. I never said that only blacks and Hispanics are below the poverty level. You said that, which leads me to believe that YOU’RE a racist. And if you’re that much of a bigot, who should listen to YOU?
@ionekoa - And you can’t do anything about it
Too bad! You just don’t understand a woman’s RIGHT to choose. That means you can tell me not to do it, but I sure as hell am not going to listen cause I don’t have to.
@explosive - you’re such a racist since you clearly support the systematic genocide of African Americans.
@explosive - oh noes! you sure told me… whatever will i do?!
@ionekoa - Keep spewing your bigoted BS, probably. Which is useless since it has no effect on anyone having an abortion at all.
@seeker_nyc - I’m not the one who said that only blacks and hispanics are below the poverty level. Because that’s not true either.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Well, 1) Some people (such as me) have extremely irregular cycles and cannot keep track that way, 2) Sex being just for marriage is your personal opinion, and besides, just because you’re married does not mean that you are ready for children. 3) Just because you aren’t ready to be pregnant now does not mean you never want kids.
If a woman does not want to give her body to another human for nine months, it is her right not to have to and to have access to abortion clinics instead of having to do it the old “coat hanger in the bathroom” route.
@seeker_nyc - @ionekoa - @Ayliana87 - a peace offering.
@explosive - Really? How does my acknowledging that most people below the poverty line are minorities make me racist. Have you seen some of the socio economic data on the subject? White people make up 60% of the total population but only 10% of those under the national poverty line. Who do you think the rest of the 90% are?
Again, fasle accusations and total ignorance do not give you upperhand in this arguement.
@explosive - Thats where we differ. I wouldnt mess up a handicapped guy, I wouldnt mess up someone with some crazy disease that doesnt allow them to “look” or act human. By that logic, I wouldnt passively sit and allow someone else to. And by the logic that a human embryo has the same DNA and potential as a handicapped man or woman, I wouldnt mess that person’s life up either. So far, no one has given me a logical argument or opinion that an old person who cannot think for themself is less valuable than a young one, or a paraplegic who cannot feed himself or breathe alone less valuable than an olympian, or an embryo less valuable than a newborn. So strictly by my observed logic, it would not make sense to form an opinion of that arbitrarily because an embryo doesnt “look” human enough (yet).
Legally, no, i cant do anything about it like call the cops. But who said im not doing anything about it at all? im talking to you arent i? if youre really that indifferent, and really have a strong faith that i CANT do anything about it…i dont see why youre here.
@Ayliana87 - racist (since people below the poverty line
in this country are either black or hispanic)
You said it, I didn’t. You said they’re either black or hispanic. Which is not true at all. BIGOT. RACIST.
@michell - You can keep talking, but it won’t do any good. That’s the beauty of the RIGHT to choose. Operative word: RIGHT. It’s a right. Not a privilege.
@explosive - i have the responsibility to protect human life if it is within my power. [i'm guessing] you wouldn’t tell me i have no right to save someone from a burning building. so how do i have no right to do what i can to protect the life of a baby?
@explosive - you can keep talking as well, but it merely makes me doubt your logic on the actual topic at hand since you still cant give me something reasonable to go off. And while it may not make any difference to YOU, since you dont know who else is reading these conversations, i will be so bold as to say it might make a difference to someone else. If nothing else, it has solidified my own take on things, which always feels nice.
@explosive - someone needs to invest in a dictionary. do we not know what the word bigot means or are we using some obscure crazy-town definition?
@danaenicole - Where are you getting this nonsense where I’m forcing abortions onto people? I explicitly said that pro-choice doesn’t force anyone to have an abortion, whereas pro-lifers do not allow people to have abortions. pro-choicers believe in the RIGHT to have an abortion. pro-lifers want to abolish this right. A living person in a burning building is different than an embryo. If you think they’re the same, you’re deeply affected. Why do people continue to liken an embryo to a living, breathing, self-sufficient viable human being? They’re not the same at all.
@ionekoa - You mean a racist isn’t a bigot? That’s news to me. Funny how a racist thinks it’s so wrong to kill something that’s not even alive.
@explosive - for the record, there USED to be a “right” to own slaves as well. well that sure changed cause of someone’s talking huh?
@sweetestsunnydayz - Probably not as bad as a woman who was raped. A person who is having consentual sex should be mentally prepared for all the possibilities, unless they already decided that they’ll keep it before hand. I will admit a woman who has an abortion in her second or third trimester would probably have a harder time dealing with it than a woman who has it a week or two after conception. I think if Serena is already talking about having an abortion I’m pretty sure she’d be able to handle it with minimal, if any, psychological repercussions.
@michell - They were living breathing people. I think that’s a little different than an embryo. something you fail to see. And what you also fail to see is that it’s a woman’s right to choose, not an embryo’s right. The embryo isn’t viable and has no choice in the matter. And neither do you, quite frankly. So stop acting so self-righteous, like it’s so wrong to have an abortion, like it’s killing something. because the thing isn’t even alive.
@explosive - ”Buddhists even believe that there is no soul until the baby is actually born and therefore alive.” So it’s okay to kill an 8-month old baby that is still in the mother’s womb. Way to put this on the Buddhists. You really have no moral center.
@michell - hmmm, why does it matter that a pro-life MALE is saying a woman doesn’t have the right to get an abortion, and favors an embryo more so than a living person? Gee, I’ll let you figure that one out, since it’s self-explanatory. It’s not your place at all to say what a woman can and cannot do. An embryo has no say in this issue. It’s not alive.
@seeker_nyc - Oh so now Buddhists are illogical because they don’t think like you do? That’s what they believe, so what if it isn’t what you believe? Do you want to dictate everyone’s religion, too? I thought that’s why the Puritans left England and settled here.
@explosive - Look at the data bitch, most of them are!
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
Black children people make up around 15% of the total us population, yet 30% of those under the poverty line. Pointing out the obvious isn’t racist. Afterall, I’m not the one advocating that poor mothers abort thier children (of which most will be non white) so they don’t ‘suffer’ in poverty.
@Ayliana87 - you pwned her.
@explosive - Are you a Buddhist? because I didn’t insult them. I insulted you. I’m sorry if you’re confused but that’s your fault.
@Ayliana87 - You said racist (since people below the poverty line
in this country are either black or hispanic)
Are you backpedaling now?And swearing doesn’t really help your argument.I’m sure some teen parents live below the poverty line too, regardless of race.
@explosive - what makes something alive and viable? breathing? paralyzed people dont do that. thinking? babies dont do that. Reacting to stimuli? okay, What kind? touch? well i personally have nerve damage that prevents that. Sound? What about deaf people?
Give me something LOGICAL to go off of and ill reconsider. Until than, I will NOT go against my logic that not a single person has been able to refute on here and begin believing that something with human DNA and potential to become something more than what they are now is not human, because frankly, that is the only thing that i see that all people OUT of the womb have in common, so i dont have any reason to think that it ceases because a uterus is in the way.
You have continued talking, and still…no logic. Im beginning to think you fear that all my talking may actually change someone’s views.
@seeker_nyc - I’m not confused. It’s up to the individual to do what they want with their bodies without any restrictions imposed on it by others.
@explosive - since i never mentioned race, we’re gonna call that 7)
@michell - Are you daft or just illiterate? It would have to survive outside the womb, as I’ve stated before. It has to have a heart beat and brain activity. An embryo before it becomes a fetus is not viable. Do you understand yet? It’s not up to you to determine what a person can do with their body. If you don’t want an abortion, then don’t get one. But you can’t make that decision for anyone else.You have more respect for something that isn’t even alive than you do for the mother. And that’s just sad.
@explosive - “It’s up to the individual to do what they want with their bodies…”
I never get why abortion proponents say this when it’s really the unborn-child that ends up paying the price for the abortion.
@ionekoa - You said I didn’t know what a bigot is. A racist is a type of bigot.
see: racist (since people below the poverty line
in this country are either black or hispanic), that Ayliana87 said. I’m not the racist.
@seeker_nyc - is it? If you had your way, the mother would be suffering, if she has to listen to your kind who has no right to interject with any kind of opinion whatsoever. Would you rather the woman not have access to abortion clinics at all? She’d still have an abortion, with a coat hanger in a back alley somewhere.
What gave any of you the right to decide for anyone besides yourself?
@explosive - Well excuse me for forgetting to place the words ‘vast majority’ in my previous sentence. Because that 8.6% of poor white people is such a distinction.
Enough with the semantics. You’re just trying to throw everything you can against my arguement and it’s not working. You still have not done anything to refute your earlier comments. And I doubt you will.
@explosive - Like I said previously but you keep on ignoring, if a mother is put in jeopardy and the abortion is the way to avoid that, then fine. But if a mother simply doesn’t want the responsibility of raising a child and aborts it, then while it may be her choice it’s pretty callous of her.
I just don’t get what you are trying to say. My kind? I’m making someone suffer right now? Who? Are you suffering because you’re so stupid that your brain is imploding? Please argue like you have some intelligence.
Let’s say a woman like Serena, against her initial wishes, decides to go through with the pregnancy and she’s healthy and so is the baby. For the sake of argument, she’ll face a tough battle raising another human being but that’s life. Serena will no doubt be inconvenienced. But the life that Serena might lose is clearly an abstract one, while an aborted child loses…its actual life.
But you clearly don’t give a shit so why bother engaging in dialog with you. I’m not anti-abortion but I am pro-conscience and if you think people should abandon their conscience so they can do what they want, then that’s just sad.
@explosive - Why heart and brain waves? Sounds kind of arbitrary. Why not make it the presence of bones? People cant live without those. Or oh, how about cell differentiation? Oh wait, embryos have that. Hmm. maybe the presence of lungs? People arent viable without scientific intervention without those either. The presence of a brain is actual absent in some babies, yet they live at least for a short while, get names, and are considered human. All without brain waves.
@Ayliana87 - Why would I want to REFUTE my earlier comments? That means I’d be contradicting myself. So you’re right, I won’t.
What right do you have to do make any decision for me, when it doesn’t affect YOU? You have the right to choose, but so does everyone else. Too bad if you don’t like their choice. There’s nothing YOU can do about it.
@michell - Yeah, why not? Isn’t it arbitrary? I didn’t make up the definition though. And even non-living things have response to stimuli. So what makes it alive? Who knows when a fetus IS a fetus and not an embryo anymore? You can’t live without a brain or a heart though!
Again, it’s not your decision to make for anyone. good thing, too. Otherwise any girl who got pregnant in middle school would have a baby.
@seeker_nyc - If you could make a decision for a woman who doesn’t “need” to have an abortion, you’d make her keep the baby. And what right is that of yours? Oh wait, it ISN’T.
@explosive - i never said you were forcing people to have abortions. please don’t put words in my mouth. and you never said that to me so don’t assume i read it. i don’t really have time to sit here and read all these comments. i believe in abolishing this “right” because it’s wrong. it is murder. it is killing my fellow human beings. since “pro-choicers” are all about rights, what about the “right” to rape a little girl? what about the “right” to push grandma down the stairs? what about the “right” to take your own life? i am against all these “rights” as they destroy lives. human lives. an embryo may not be self-sufficient, however neither is a newborn. neither are many elderly. neither are many mentally and/or physically handicapped people. is it okay to kill them too? just because someone cannot survive on their own does not mean they are not human.
p.s. what do you mean by “you’re deeply affected”? aren’t we all affected by many things? i’m sure this was meant to be an insult but i really don’t understand the point.
@danaenicole - My point is, it’s not up to you to make a decision for Serena or anyone else. If she wants an abortion, she can get one. She doesn’t care what you think.
@explosive - nice try, small-minded one. Stop trying to lecture me on rights when you clearly have little respect for life, minorities, poor people, and Buddhists.
@explosive - and you said to me, “@ionekoa - Keep spewing your bigoted BS, probably. Which is useless since it has no effect on anyone having an abortion at all.” calling me a bigot. my point stands.
@seeker_nyc - I’m not the one who said that only blacks and hispanics are living in poverty. Ayliana87 said that. But you don’t want to regard anything that would make you wrong or look stupid. Whoever wants an abortion can have one. It’s not your decision to make for them. It doesn’t affect you whatsoever. A woman does have the right to choose. You don’t have the right to control her body. Do you think Buddhists are wrong?
@explosive - You keep coming back to this same non issue that I’ve already addressed at least half a dozen times. I don’t care what you do with your body. I have never once said that a woman shouldn’t be able to abort a child if she really dosent want it.
What I do care about is people who think that they know what’s best for others and advocating the use of abortion as a means of diminishing certain populations they don’t like, under the condescending blanket of ‘they suffer too much while alive.’
Repeating the phrases ”You don’t care about the mothers rights” Or “You don’t like thier choice” Isn’t going to chance the fact that I never said those words, and that what I’m really against is your eugenic mindset that prefers to abort the poor and the handicapped rather than expend the effort to help them.
Choice =/= Genocide. Or at least it shouldn’t.
@ionekoa - I didn’t call you a racist though. I called Ayliana87 racist. Because she thinks only blacks and hispanics are living in poverty. And I said that’s untrue. So….yeah. You’re a bigot because you think you have the power to control women and their bodies but you don’t. Women can have all the abortions they want to. Sorry if you don’t like it, there’s nothing you can do to change that.
@explosive -Exactly, who knows? So why do you think its logical to consider an embryo less human than a fetus when there is no evidence as to otherwise?
@explosive - you seem to be the one who supports the abortion of a child if its going to be born into poverty. Ayliana87 was simply pointing out the statistical fact that if you’re a Hispanic or Black in America you have a far higher chance of being born into poverty than white children.
@ionekoa - I just want to refresh people’s memory that to explosive, the definition of being alive is when there has to be brain activity, and a heart beat. She keeps on changing her arguments because she can’t win any. It’s really sad.
@Ayliana87 - I didn’t say I didn’t like anyone. It’s up to the mother if they decide that they can’t give their child a better life, or if the baby is going to have a birth defect. Maybe the mother doesn’t want that life for the child because it’s a LOW quality of life. OR MAYBE SHE HAD SEX WITH A BLACK GUY AND THE BABY WILL BE BLACK AND LIVE IN POVERTY, RIGHT?!
They’re equal, although I don’t like Serena very much – I find her annoying.
@seeker_nyc - What did I change it from?
@seeker_nyc - I support abortion if the mother wants to have an abortion because the baby is going to be born into poverty, or she can’t provide the right life for her child. Which isn’t your decision or choice to make. Because it doesn’t affect you. So she’ll have an abortion, and you’ll just have to get over the fact that abortions happen every day and they’ll keep happening. If you’d rather women have an abortion with a coat hanger in a back alley, she’s still going to have an abortion. Like it or not, they really don’t care.
@explosive - i refer you back to the dictionary.
@seeker_nyc - I already told her that babies are born without brains and survive at least for a short while outside the womb. They get HUMAN names and everything! All without the hope of ever living for more than a few weeks (tops). So she had to admit that no one knows when life begins and begins to be human….so…oh seeker, im so very confused. Please advise!
After reading her post, I was reminded of a situation which I
experienced once at a friend’s restaurant. There was a woman who ate but
did not want to pay afterward. Abortion of unwanted pregnancy is the
same. Of course, it’s another story if the pregnancy resulted from rape
or anything similar.
Funny how she’s intelligent enough to ask for liberty, but not enough to
practice safe sex. Not to mention that complete liberty without
responsibility is just a chimera. The kind of liberty that she wanted
never exists, at least in a moral society. And morality is what discerns
us humans from less intelligent life forms. Unlike “animals,” we humans
take responsibility for our actions. I think it’s safe to say that at
this point of our human civilization we all know that sex leads to
pregnancy. We have the liberty to choose to or not have sex. Anything
happens thereafter is mere consequence of our choice making.
So it’s not about give Serena liberty or give Serena death, nor is it
about Serena vs. a cluster of cells. But it’s about can Serena take
responsibility for the kind of liberty that Serena wants?
By the way, emotionally, mentally, physically, medically, and theoretically, when it comes to whom to save, it’s always kill the fetus and keep the woman.Unless the woman is dying anyway.
@ionekoa - Refer yourself back to the dictionary. You’re a bigot because you think you can control women who have abortions and you dislike them because they don’t think how you do. That’s a bigot. Sorry if you didn’t know that, but now you do. Women are still going to get abortions, no matter how much you bitch about it. So keep bitching, it’s all for nothing.
@michell - You can’t be born without a brain, because it’s the brain that tells the heart to beat and the lungs to breathe. Either way, it’s not up to you to dictate what women do with their bodies. They’re going to have abortions, whether you like it or not. So too bad for you. Maybe you should get pregnant and have a baby.
@explosive - Please stop it with fearmongering with the alley abortions. As for your attempt to paint me as an anti-Buddhist I honestly don’t know when the human soul enters a body or that we even have souls. I don’t care about the theological aspect. Morality exists outside of religion and religious beliefs.
@explosive - https://health.google.com/health/ref/Anencephaly
Hi. I’m studying to be a doctor. And had brain surgery. Please stop trying to tell me things about brains.
Either way, I’m allowed to argue that their current “right” (again, slavery USED to be a right) is not morally correct and you cant stop me so meh for you too.
@seeker_nyc - But what makes your morality right and not someone else’s? A woman is going to have an abortion, regardless of how. So you may as well get used to her doing it the healthy way. Because you can’t stop her from doing it. No one cares how much you dislike it.
@michell - Women are going to have abortions if they want to, and there’s nothing you can do about that. so “meh” to you. Because that’s so scholarly of you to say.
hmm…a tough one. on one hand, it’s serena’s body, so she should be able to decide what she want to do but at the same time the future of a person is at stake…that future could one day be just like serena’s…
@explosive - saying that a person has the absolute right to abort a child because they feel like it is condoning immorality. I’m sorry you can’t see the wrongness in ending a life just because one legally can.
@seeker_nyc - And for you to favor an embryo over a living self-sufficient person is immoral of you. Women are going to have abortions if they want to, and there’s nothing
you can do about that.
@explosive - “The baby could be born with downs or cerebral palsy or something like that. Is a poor quality of life really that much more important than the mother’s life“
Since Down Syndrome is genetic and Cerebral Palsy is either genetic or caused by doctor mal practice the issue of the mothers life is moot. If the mothers life really was in danger I would support her right to have an abortion. But few birth defects cause harm or are even noticed until after the baby is born, long after abortion becomes a viable option. Moving on…
“What if the parents are unemployed, living in poverty, and can’t even afford food (<— assuming the parents don’t apply for state aid)? Is that the kind of life you want for a child?”
In this line, you imply that poverty and unemployment alone are reasons enough for a woman to abort her child.
@Ayliana87 - Women are going to have abortions if they want to, and there’s nothing
you can do about that.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion. In
Roe v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe that human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy, the Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to find quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation, have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v. Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus legitimate
government interests. The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and fetuses do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously, known human persons. They make up
the majority of known human persons. Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons, the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term survival. The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting the potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not have rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist in the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v. Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing homicide would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically called a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws prohibiting death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s free speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a fetus is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the Supreme Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”), it would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons prior to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the Constitution does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about her own reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to not only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so chose. The state would be given absolute
authority to determine whether or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There is also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure generally apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even under state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for other purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer drug misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive, easy to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a manner that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally. These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by the World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short, abortion is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to make decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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 …
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.
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.
@explosive - And for the nth time that’s not what I’m arguing about. Thank you for reading
Edit: Congratulations, you know how copy and paste large amounts of text. Can you please tell me what Roe V Wade (The womans right to choose) has to do with the fact that advocating abortion of the poor and handicapped is a disgusting positiion.
@Ayliana87 - No one cares if you don’t like abortions. They’re going to have them if they want them. You don’t have to and that’s up to you. But women who want them will make their own decision. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t have to have an abortion, either.
@explosive - I know plenty of people who have changed their mind about having an abortion, so
what makes you think I havent “done” anything about it in regards to speaking with them I will never know.
Youre resorting to grammatical and intelligence insults and are becoming petty. I think I’ve made my point enough here as your deterring from my request for logic again.
I’ll give you the last word. In fact I’ll even fill it in for you:
“Women can do whatever they want with regards to their embryo and since I’m on the side of what the law is currently, I must be correct in believing this despite my lack of empircal evidence and the historical fact that laws aren’t always correct. You also forgot the apostrophe in the contraction haven’t. And babies can’t be born without brains because I said so. I don’t care how many anencephalic babies are in existence to prove me wrong.”
@explosive - Again, that’s not what I said. Please try again.
@Ayliana87 - No one cares if you don’t like abortions. They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an abortion, either.
@explosive - As I’ve stated many times to you, I don’t favor an embryo over a living self-sufficient person. But whose life ends after an abortion? the fetus. Whose life will end after a baby is born? (barring any tragedy) Will the mother die? No, she’ll be inconvenienced.
@michell - No one cares if you don’t like abortions. They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an abortion, either.
@seeker_nyc - The EMBRYO isn’t alive. Once it becomes a fetus, it becomes a viable organism. No one cares if you don’t like abortions. They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an abortion, either.
@explosive - … when I said ‘please try again’ I didn’t mean copy and paste your previous comment into a new one.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true, at least not to everyone else anyway. It is however a sign of insanity.
@Ayliana87 - No one cares if you don’t like abortions. They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early 1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons. Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops, and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival. The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose. The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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 …
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.
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.
@explosive - You’re repeating the same mantra and it doesn’t make it right. Too bad you think it so.
@explosive - lol, you’re pathetic. You can’t argue against me anymore so you’re just repeating the same line over and over again.
@seeker_nyc -
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
@Ayliana87 - You’re not even reading what I’m typing.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
@seeker_nyc - I love the response that “you cant do anything about abortions even though you are totally capable of changing some peoples’ minds by speaking with them.” I gave up on her. That’s her last resort. She already admitted she doesn’t know when life begins and that viability is an arbitrary definition, so the ACTUAL argument of why a blob of cells is any less valuable than an adult was kind of already resolved by that statement. I suggest you do the same, as from here on out she begins with the grammatical insults and insisting there is no such thing as anencephaly
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
@michell - She talks about what Buddhists believe, as if she’s a really sincere Buddhist…I think any Buddhist would be shocked to see her co-opting their beliefs to justify abortion when Buddhists believe that all life is sacred.
She’s probably some immature 20-year old, just like Serena.
@Ayliana87 -
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
@explosive - Actually, I have read your comments. And putting words in my mouth doesn’t make them true because I’m not the one who said them. You lost. Get over it. And stop screwing with the indentations on that article to make three times longer than it really is. You’re just being a spammer at this point.
@explosive - never said i didnt like women, nor did i say anything about controlling them., 9) and 10). put down the jug of LCD and find a padded room.
@sweetpeppery - brilliant analogy. im curious, the last bit, is that your answer or an observation you’re making about how people generally answer?
@Ayliana87 - I lost because I’m saying things that are true? In this case, the majority doesn’t mean you’re right. The right to choose is a right women have, and women are going to keep having abortions because it IS their right. You don’t have to like it, but that’s just the way it IS. the sooner you realize that the better.
No one cares if you don’t like abortions.
They’re going to have them if
they want them. You don’t have to and
that’s up to you. But women who
want them will make their own
decision. You don’t have to like it, but
you don’t have to have an
abortion, either.
And in this case, it does make it true. Because
women will have abortions, that’s their right. You don’t have to, but
you can’t stop anyone either.
During the 1960s
and early
1970s, U.S. states began to repeal
their bans on abortion.
In
Roe
v. Wade
(1973), the U.S. Supreme
Court stated
that
abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state,
legalizing
abortion throughout the United States.
For those who
believe
that
human personhood begins during the early stages of
pregnancy,
the
Supreme Court’s decision and the state law repeals that
preceded
it may seem horrific, cold, and barbaric. And it is very easy
to
find
quotes from some pro-choicers who are completely unconcerned
about
the bioethical dimensions of even third-trimester abortions, or
who
have a callous disregard for the plight of women who do not want to
have
abortions, but are forced to do so for economic reasons.
As a
member of the pro-choice movement, I have committed to the idea that
abortion
should be legal. But even I have doubts, significant doubts,
about
where my movement is sometimes headed. As we consider the issue
of
abortion–and all American voters, regardless of gender or sexual
orientation,
have an obligation to do so–one question dominates: Why is
abortion
legal in the first place?
In the case of
Roe v.
Wade
,
the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus
legitimate
government
interests. The government has a legitimate
interest in
protecting
the life of an embryo or fetus (see “Does
a Fetus Have Rights?”), but embryos and
fetuses
do not have rights
themselves unless and until it can be
determined
that they are human
persons.
Women are, obviously,
known
human persons. They make up
the majority of known human
persons.
Human persons have rights that an
embryo or fetus does not
have until its personhood can be established.
For various reasons,
the personhood of a fetus is generally understood
to commence
between
22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the
neocortex
develops,
and it is also the earliest known point of
viability–the
point
at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and,
given the
proper
medical care, still have a meaningful chance of
long-term
survival.
The government has a legitimate interest in
protecting
the
potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does
not
have
rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central
thrust
of
Roe v. Wade
is this: Women have the right to make
decisions
about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not
have
rights.
Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of
its
own, the woman’s decision to have an abortion takes precedence over
the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the
decision
to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a
privacy
right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there
are
other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate
her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that
citizens
have “the right to be secure in their persons”; the Thirteenth
specifies
that “{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall
exist
in
the United States.” Even if the privacy right cited in
Roe
v.
Wade
were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional
arguments
that imply a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive
process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then
preventing
homicide
would constitute what the Supreme Court has
historically
called
a “compelling state interest”–an objective so
important that
it overrides constitutional rights. The government may
pass laws
prohibiting
death threats, for example, despite the First
Amendment’s
free
speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide
if a
fetus
is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be
persons
until the point of viability.
In the unlikely event that
the
Supreme
Court were to overturn
Roe v. Wade
(see “What
if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned?”),
it
would most likely do
so not by stating that fetuses are persons
prior
to the point of
viability, but instead by stating that the
Constitution
does not imply a
woman’s right to make decisions about
her own
reproductive system.
This reasoning would allow states to
not
only ban abortions, but also to
mandate abortions if they so
chose.
The state would be given absolute
authority to determine
whether
or not a woman will carry her pregnancy
to term.
There
is
also some question as to whether or not a ban
on abortions would
actually prevent abortions. Laws criminalizing the
procedure
generally
apply to doctors, not to women, which means that
even
under
state laws banning abortion as a medical procedure, women
would
be free to terminate their pregnancies through other
means–usually
by taking drugs that terminate pregnancies but are
intended for
other
purposes. In Nicaragua, where abortion is illegal,
the ulcer
drug
misoprostol is often used for this purpose. It’s
inexpensive,
easy
to transport and conceal, and terminates the pregnancy
in a
manner
that resembles a miscarriage–and it is one of literally
hundreds
of options available to women who would terminate pregnancies
illegally.
These options are so effective that, according to a 2007
study by
the
World Health Organization, abortions are just as likely to
occur
in countries where abortion is illegal as they are to occur in
countries
where abortion is not. Unfortunately, these options are also
substantially
more dangerous than medically-supervised
abortions–resulting in an
estimated 80,000 accidental deaths each year.
In
short,
abortion
is legal for two reasons: Because women have the right
to
make
decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they
have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
“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
…
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.
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.
@seeker_nyc - Aw gee. I’m a 20 something year old. Hopefully not coming accross as immature. (Besides my grammatical errors that she pointed out, of course.) Hope thats okay with you haha
@explosive - spammers are pathetic hun. Niether your words nor your actions are going to convince a third party reading this that you’re right.
@ionekoa - You don’t want them to have abortions, and as a pro-life male, you think you can wield some power over pregnant women who want abortions.
@michell - At least you know how to indent properly.
@michell - you certainly don’t seem immature.
@Ayliana87 - The right to choose is a right women have,
and women are going to keep having abortions because it IS their right.
You don’t have to like it, but that’s just the way it IS. the sooner you
realize that the better.
@explosive - Saying the same moot point over and over again isn’t making your point. You know damn well that’s not what my arguement was about. Give up while you’re ahead.
@Ayliana87 - It’s not moot. It’s a very valid point. Apparently SOMEONE thought women should be afforded this right, hence why it’s legal. You don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. But the only person you can make that decision for is yourself. Unless you get raped, and then you might actually want to have an abortion if you get pregnant. Won’t that be ironic? oh yes, it will be.
@explosive - No it’s moot because you know damn well that I support a womans right to choose. I never argued against it. I argued against you using poverty and disabilities as reason enough to abort children, which is a eugenic line of thought.
You can keep repeating the same few paragraphs, or even that shitty article about roe v wade all you want. It’s not going to change that fact that your a horrible disgusting person who advocates abortion to lower poverty and rates of genetic defect in our population. You’re no better than the doctors 100 years ago who forcefully sterilized the mentally ill and the handicapped. Different method, same intent.
Good night.
To avoid beating around the bush, I’d wager that abortion saves just as many lives as it takes in the long run. Why cry over the facts of life?
I’m a member of the regressive party.
I’m against abortion, but for killing babies.
@BobRichter - Ummm… This makes no sense at all because the woman CHOOSES to have sex… remember? It would be more like someone robbing a bank and then saying they can’t go to jail because it would cramp their style and they don’t want to deal with the inconvenience. However, they CHOSE to rob the bank. As careful as they may have been wearing disguises and killing all witnesses sometimes you get caught and you have to take the consequences.
If you don’t want a baby, KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED. The primary purpose of fucking is to reproduce, not to have a good time. So, if you don’t want a baby then do something else.
You act like women are forced into pregnancy, when in reality almost all abortions are just done out of convenience when a woman chose to have sex but didn’t want the resulting product (the baby).
@TheThinkingPerson - An egg has a chicken growing inside it, an acorn becomes a mighty tree. You should actually start thinking properly.
@Ayliana87 - Im proud of my indentation skills. Thank you for noticing
@explosive - The so-called “Roe Vs Wade” decision has proven to be one of the most evil, duplicitious, corrupt, and Satanic, ever. NO-ONE has the “right” to kill an unborn baby.
@S_K_O_T - ahaha i said the same to the thinking person. He is comparing a fertilized, differentiating embryo with that of JUST an egg. Ah well. I guess biology can be complicated…?
ALL human life requires the period of growth in the womb. Most life involves some gestation period. How have people gotten to the point where they doubt that the time they spent forming in the womb is part of life??? The MOMENT of conception, is the conception of LIFE! As we cannot run without walking, and first crawling, we cannot live without forming from a foetus into a child.
All lies, myths, hyperbole, and attempts to gloss over what happens aside…when anyone kills a foetus, they are killing a person!
Oh, I do love a good shitstorm. Look at them dance….
Calling them “Serena’s wishes” makes it sound like this is her personal opinion, not a woman’s right to choose.
@the_peach_assailant - I think that was a device Dan employed on purpose to get all these pro-lifers on board, ranting about how women don’t have the right to choose and that a fetus is more important than the woman. Dan is manipulative like that.
@Ayliana87 - I’m not a racist. You are. Abortion is legal, so if you don’t like it, don’t have one. Everyone else is free to, and you’re going to have to deal with it, even if you don’t like it, because that’s the way it IS. All you can do about it is make your own choices, but leave everyone else alone because they’re not going to act and think like you. A woman has the right to choose, and you may choose life, but that’s not for you to decide for anyone else. Abortion is legal and that’s how it’s going to stay. Sorry if you don’t like it but that IS what it is. You can’t deny that.
@S_K_O_T - But they DO. So you don’t haive to like abortion, but it’s not going to stop women from having them. And you can’t do anything about that. I suggest you get right with God before you judge others’ actions and beliefs.
You make it sound like Roe v. Wade never happened, like the Holocaust or something.
an embryo’s rights are not more important than a woman’s rights. And you can’t make a woman carry a baby for 9 months and then have it if she doesn’t want to. What gives YOU that right?
Serena herself is a “clump of cells,” so that’s really not the issue. Since Serena is the one hosting that clump of cells (I assume, since your title uses the term fetus), then she has to decide whether she (one clump of cells) should/could/will/won’t host the other clump of cells. The issue is whether anyone but Serena can make that decision. The answer is no.
@explosive - Of course it was. It still pisses me off, though.
@the_peach_assailant - That’s exactly WHY it pisses me off.
The fetus is a human not yet born, who has no way of voicing its opinion. The fetus wants to be born. When someone gets pregnant, it was their choice not to be safe. Everyone deserves a life outside of the womb. Abortion is murder, and even worse, it’s the murder of your own child. If, today, I found out I was pregnant, I would already, in my heart, love the child that wouldn’t even be big enough for me to see it. When a woman is pregnant and has a miscarriage, she usually is upset by it, is she not? And that death was unintentional. Abortion is choosing that you would rather not have your child. It’s disowning the baby before you ever even get to see its face.
Oh Xanga, don’t debate abortion. It’s not your place.
OK. Consider this. The main purpose of life is to ensure the survival of the species. Fact 1 – Serena is a functioning and independent living organism capable of reproducing for many years. She is in a position to advance the future of the species in a direct manner. Fact 2 – The ‘group of cells’ in not a functioning organism and without gestation followed by a long nurturing will not reach the same level of existential independence as Serena for many years. If there was a nuclear hollocaust, say, in the next 12 mimutes which of these entities would offer the best avenue to ensure the survival of the species?
I think if someone gets pregnant and it is unplanned they need to suck it up and deal with it. Maybe they should have kept their legs closed and they wouldn’t have gotten pregnant. It doesn’t matter who has what rights. People get abortions because they obviously are not responsible enough to prevent something they don’t want to happen.
A clump of cells does not have a brain, and does not have a central nervous system so a clump of cells cannot feel anything. A woman needs to be free to determine when she is ready to have a child and should not be forced to ruin her life for the sakd of “a clump of cells”.
And I would say the same about a guy. He should not have his life destroyed in order that a clump of cells can develop.
@sorrybabydoll - OK, then you have the option of having your husband get a vasectomy, which is reversible. Can’t afford it yet? Don’t get married then, and don’t have sex. At the very least you could have him put a plastic bag or something on his dingy. You just want to go around doing whatever you want without having to face the consequences, which would be nice, but life doesn’t work that way. Sex being for marriage is God’s opinion, and the opinion of anyone with sense. You wait until it’s economically feasible and then you marry. Not only will you avoid unwanted pregnancies but you will also avoid a whole mess of potential STD’s plus the emotional/psychological baggage that comes with having sex outside of marriage. Also you need to keep in mind that in most societies in the world, even in western countries where most people are sexually active it’s not considered respectable for women to be non-virgins. So if you ever break up with your boyfriend you’re options are going to be a bit more limited, although maybe not significantly enough in your case for you to care.
You views on abortion indicate that you are either ignorant and/or do not believe that human life has any objective value. The unborn baby is alive at conception, and human. The haploid cells are just parts of the parents bodies, but the zygote is a new human being with a life of it’s own. Humans give birth to humans, so it’s not a non-human thing, and if it wasn’t alive it wouldn’t be growing. You cannot justify killing someone just because their existence is an inconvenience for you. At the very best that sort of behavior puts you in the same category as certain types of animals which eat their young. But to me it puts you more in the same category as Hitler or the psychotic Moslems who are always trying to blow themselves up. Abortion is not acceptable, and it should not be a legal procedure.
@ionekoa - Haha, thanks man. I just tell it like it is. Liberal women make me sick. I’d rather go to a Vietnamese prison camp than ever marry one.
@airbornerose - You completely missed my point. My point was that she’s not done developing either, so if someone not being fully developed is grounds for killing them then anyone under 25 is fair game.
@autumn_cannibal76 - Well I’m all for allowing people the freedom to kill themselves if they really want to do that, but not for allowing them the freedom to kill others, and that’s the issue at the heart of the abortion debate.
@thedommediaries - True that.
@FugueStateKnits - So at what point does it become someone else’s decision? Can she still kill the kid when it’s 2 if she changes her mind later?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - And you’re missing my point. She may not be “fully” developed, but she’s quite close to it. She’s more of a person than a group of cells. But that argument is not one I feel like getting into, since I can respect both sides. I was pointing out that your retort of her not being fully developed is quite weak.
@explosive - What pisses me off is how you would rather kill a baby than use a little discretion.
@airbornerose - I didn’t miss your point, the fact is you dodged my point and you still are. Let me clarify, you’re being subjective and that’s a slippery slope. I could take you’re subjective argument and apply that same logic to excuse other behaviors, like killing babies after birth. After all, a newborn baby doesn’t know anything more than a baby still in the womb. Or why not kill a 2 year old? How about allowing parents to kill their older kids who move back in with them? You’re just drawing a line at some point based on nothing concrete and you could really draw that line at any point. I don’t do that, murder is murder, and killing a human who hasn’t done anything wrong is murder regardless of how old they are.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - When they’re a group of cells, one could argue that they’re not even human. They’re not capable of feeling, thinking, or acting as a citizen of this society and world. One of these two subjects is capable of doing all of that, and does. The other does not know the difference; it’s killing potential, not the person. I am not dodging your point – I am disagreeing with it.
@airbornerose - It’s the exact same argument that you’re using, and yes, it is a weak argument. They are indeed human, humans do not give birth to non-humans. It’s not going to be a non-human at conception and magically become one at birth. You don’t know that they aren’t capable of feeling or thinking. Lots of adults still aren’t capable of acting as a citizen, and neither are most children. You’re still using subjective arguments. Maybe you’re not a person because you’re less educated than I am, and younger, and still developing. My guess is that your IQ is somewhere around 100-110, maybe you should be put down because you don’t have an IQ of 160.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - But it can be non-human at conception, and gradually develop into one. Wait…did I say “can be”…I meant IS! To me, anyway. Yes, in this context, the criteria which defines a human life IS subjective. And yes, we could certainly use any criteria we wanted, in the same context. IQ, age, gender, ethnicity, you name it. There are reasons we don’t use that criteria, though. There are consequences that arise from using such criteria which we want to avoid. A fetus is a life form inside a woman’s body, entirely dependent upon components of her internal anatomy, and in the stages when abortion is usually performed, has barely developed what would eventually be a brain. Quick question, without any snide remarks, is the same true of a two year old, or of an adult with a low IQ? Do I know it can’t think or feel? No. All I know is what medical science tells us is responsible for human thoughts and feelings, and that the fetus does not have it, in the necessary capacity. Hey, those last few sentences of mine didn’t even sound all that subjective, did they?
@thedommediaries – Yes, laying aside occasions of force and coercion, she does choose to have sex, but in doing so she does not choose to conceive. That’s not a conscious action.
*Most* sex does not result in conception. People actually do have sex just to have a good time, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that (and if you disagree with that, you can shut up — I’m not in the mood to listen to that bullshit at the moment.) and people can be surprised when normally effective contraception fails to function or when their diagnosed sterility proves not to be as advertised.
So the odd unexpected and unwanted blastocyst is an occasional result of sex, much like debilitating injury is an occasional result of driving (which, yes, is often done for recreational purposes rather than in service of its purported purpose, travel) What isn’t a consequence of sex is being forced to provide life-support to that blastocyst until it turns into an independently viable human being several months later. There is a medical procedure that ends the parasitic relationship between the blastocyst and its host. We call that procedure an abortion.
A woman doesn’t choose an accidental pregnancy any more than you’d choose a debilitating car accident. Expecting you to live with the consequences of that action rather than to receive appropriate medical treatment just because you chose to drive would be absurd.
And so is your argument.
You argue convenience versus life. What you don’t understand is that you are arguing that the life of any one person is more important than the freedom of another. (Unless of course, you’re a sexist asshole, in which case, you’re only arguing that the freedom of a woman is less important than the life of any blastocyst.) We as a society, however, don’t accept that position. A person who kills a kidnapper in order to escape is blameless. The assault on freedom justifies the homicide.
Believe it or not, that’s also the justification for deaths caused by military defense against invasion.
@explosive - ”I’m not racist. You Are”
Say’s the person who just implied that the holocaust never happened.
“You make it sound like Roe v. Wade never happened, like the Holocaust or something.”
Keep going hun, you’re really making your case for your not being a racist eugenicist really strong.
@Ayliana87 - I didn’t imply it. It was sarcasm. You’re the one who said only blacks and Hispanics live in poverty. My grandparents are holocaust survivors. But if someone wants to insist that the holocaust never happened, who are you to argue about it? It’s their belief and they can believe what they want. Do you think anyone who allows people to think for themselves and have their own beliefs to be racist and bigoted? It’s called tolerance. I suggest you get some.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Well be pissed off but it’s not up to you to decide for ME.
Liberal women make you sick? Should we not be able to vote or speak unless spoken to as well?
I loathe pro-life men. Because they think they can control women’s bodies when it’s not their place at all. You think an embryo has more rights than a woman does? How ridiculous.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - I’m pretty much completely with @Maverick83 on this one. And insulting intelligence doesn’t win you any points.
@explosive - That wasn’t sarcasm, that was a freudian slip. If it was then you suck at writing and should quit while you’re ahead.
And as I said before. Facts are not racist. Over 90% of people below the poverty line, those who you advocate should get abortions, are not white. The 8.4% of poor people who are white is not that much of a distinction compared to the multitudes who aren’t.
You can keep throwing the race card at me all you want. It doesn’t change anything of what you have previously written, all the ad hominem, the repeat comments you made (which is basically the internet equivelent of pluging your ears and screaming “La La La La La!” at my arguement), or your callous disregard for the poor and the handicapped.
And you’re right, everyone has a right to thier beliefs. However, if a person airs those beliefs in public, then I have a right to challenge and show them to be eroneous, disgusting and bigoted.
@Ayliana87 - Says the person who says only blacks and Hispanics live below the poverty line. Too bad you can’t stop anyone from having an abortion. How would you feel if you HAD to have an abortion? You wouldn’t like it, would you? That’s why a woman can choose. And you can only make the decision for yourself, no one else. An embryo does not have more rights than a woman. And if a woman doesn’t want to have her baby, that’s her prerogative.
And I used it as an example for people who believe the holocaust didn’t happen. That’s what they want to believe. And who are you to say otherwise? Just like who are you to dictate what I want to do. And as a suggestion that you probably think it didn’t happen, just like you claim Roe v Wade didn’t happen. But it did and that’s what gives me the right to get an abortion if I want it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Because that’s what I believe. And you’re going to have to get used to the fact that people believe what they want to believe and you can’t force your restrictions on others.
Would you rather I call you a hypocrite and a flip-flopper? ‘Cause you’re all of them.
I suck at writing? Haha, you told me that I can’t refute my own comments. When refuting means to dispute, disagree, disprove, falsify. Why would I want to do that? You’re awful at arguing. And you don’t know anything about the English language or how to use it to your advantage.
When will YOU accept the fact that even if you don’t like abortion, women have the right to it. And there’s nothing you can do about it other than not get one yourself. And stop worrying about everyone else. For you to say that an embryo has more rights than a woman is ridiculous. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby she doesn’t have to. You can rail against it all you want, but women will still have abortions. It’s their right. You can’t take rights away.
@explosive - You suck at writing and debate because you outright refuse to acknowledge the fact that my issue has never been with a womans right to choose but with you deeming the poor and disabled as not worthy of living, and your arrogant holier than thou attitude towards the disabled, particularly those with down syndrome
If this were a real debate, either on television or on a college campus you would’ve been kicked out for your lack of logic, and rude behavior. But since this is the internet, you get to keep trying throw the same shit at the same wall to see if it sticks. It hasn’t, and that’s fine. Like I said, this is the internet. People can act like total assholes as much as they want. But that doesn’t mean that acting like an asshole is going to win the arguement.
@Ayliana87 - But a woman DOES have the right to choose. What choice does the embryo have in the matter? None! It’s that simple. That’s what Roe v. Wade was all about. Maybe you should do some research before you spread your ignorance like a plague. What you think is that it ISN’T a woman’s right to choose. That’s what you believe should be the case,but it’s NOT the case. A woman does have the right to choose and that’s the way it is, whether you think it SHOULD be or not. And you’re delusional if you think otherwise.
The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother’s current trimester of pregnancy:
* In the first trimester, the state’s two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way.
* In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
* In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
And no, i don’t think an embryo’s rights supersede a woman’s rights. How ridiculous of you to think so.
@explosive - You don’t understand do you? I agree with you. An embryo doesn’t have the same rights as a mother. I have never argued that.
You keep walking in circles, trying to make an arguement out of something that’s not an arguement in an attempt to avoid what you know I really have issue with and what makes you such a horrible person. There is a difference between saying “A woman has a right over her body” and saying “Poor mothers and those carrying disabled children should abort because the children might ‘suffer’; Or in other words ‘live a quality of life that I don’t approve of but don’t want to be bothered to help improve either.’
If after two days of arguement you can’t see the difference between those two view point’s, and more importantly what’s wrong with the second one, then you’re fucking stupid. And there is nothing I say that is going to change that, because stupid is an incurable disease.
@Ayliana87 - That’s a choice women have. You can either accept it or live in denial that woman have that right. Either way, the right still exists and I support a woman’s right to choose in any case. You obviously don’t believe that a woman has a right over her own body in every case. But who’s to say when a woman should have an abortion and when she shouldn’t? Only that woman can make the decision for herself.
The majority opinion is organized into twelve sections preceded by a brief preface. In the Preface, Justice Blackmun begins by describing the nature of the case: two separate “constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation”. He notes that that the Texas statutes are “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” whereas “[t]he Georgia statutes [from the companion case of Doe v. Bolton] in contrast, have a modern cast”.
Next, he writes that the judges recognize the “sensitive and emotional” nature of the controversy; asserts that the difficulty is further complicated by “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones”; and describes how the court should approach a problem of this character: “by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection”, but also (because “[w]e seek earnestly to do this”) by “medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.” He concludes by noting Justice Holmes’ famous Lochner dissent:
“ [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. ”
Section I briefly outlines the challenged Texas abortion statutes.
Section II characterizes the factual and procedural backgrounds of Jane Roe’s and Mary Doe’s litigation, including the District Court’s rulings regarding the procedural questions (here, justiciability, standing, and abstention) and the merits (here, the requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief).
Section III is a single paragraph resolving that under federal procedural law, the opinions in Mitchell v. Donovan and Gunn v. University Committee do not foreclose reviewing a case of this kind when it is properly on appeal under § 1253.
Section IV issues the court’s decision on the procedural questions described in Section II.
Section V is a single paragraph introducing the discussion of the merits, led by the following:
“ The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras … or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment … ”
Section VI surveys the history of abortion regulations, in eight subparts:
1. Ancient attitudes (including those of the Persian Empire, Greek times, the Roman era).
2. The Hippocratic oath.
3. The common law.
4. The English statutory law.
5. The American law.
6. The position of the American Medical Association.
7. The position of the American Public Health Association.
8. The position of the American Bar Association.
According to the Roe Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” Before 1821, when Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion, abortion in the United States was sometimes considered a common law crime.[13] Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[14] However, the court concluded that it could not find a sufficient historical basis to justify the Texas statute.
In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:
1. an interest in discouraging women from engaging in “illicit sexual conduct”, which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
2. an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
3. an interest in protecting prenatal life.
Blackmun rejected the first interest out-of-hand, writing that “no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously” and that in any event it could not be cited in support of this statute, which failed to “distinguish between married and unwed mothers”. Accordingly, the only valid state interests are reducing medical risk and protecting prenatal life. (In Section X the Court reiterated, “[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.”) Thus, “arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive”.
In Section VIII, the Court identified a countervailing right that would have to be weighed against these state interests: namely, a Constitutional right to privacy: “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.” The Roe court located this “right of privacy” in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights—directly (in several provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment) as well as indirectly (in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights) — most recently in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut.
In Section IX, the Court adds that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn, according to the Court. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins:
“ We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. ”
In Section X, the Court explained that the trimester of pregnancy is relevant to the weight of the factors in this balancing test. Thus, during the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way; during the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”; during the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
Section XI summarizes the Court’s legal conclusions, explaining that a Texas-style criminal statute was unconstitutional, and recapitulating the permissible extent of state regulation in each of the three Constitutionally relevant time periods of pregnancy (i.e. divided by “approximately the end of the first trimester” and “the stage subsequent to viability”).
Section XII resolves the dispute by striking down the Texas statute and characterizing the relief that should be accorded to Roe.
@explosive - Once again, you go into the same circle. You’re an idiot. And there is nothing I can do to chance that.
@Ayliana87 - You ignore the facts and disregard every piece of evidence I supply. Even the ruling itself. And the ruling states that a woman has a right to have an abortion if she wants to, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. Regardless of embryonic health. You may not agree with it, but that’s the way it is. You don’t have to get an abortion but you’ve no right to decide for anyone else what they’re to do. You can believe what you want, but you can’t make a decision for another woman. Apparently you think you have that right. I don’t know what made you think so, but you’re wrong. If a woman can’t give her child the life she thinks it deserves, she can have an abortion. That does not support eugenics in any way. It supports a woman’s right to choose and to be tolerant of her choices. Not being tyrannical and withholding rights she’s afforded by the US Supreme Court.
@explosive - What evidence? You’ve repeatedly posted the same shitty article about Roe V Wade at least half a dozen times. I know what Roe V Wade is bitch, I’ve read the court ruling myself.
This isn’t about Roe V Wade, this is about you taking it upon yourself to decide that there are certain groups of people in this world that she be aborted.
@Ayliana87 - It’s up to the woman. And if you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one. But it’s a woman’s right to decide if she wants one, if she thinks it’s best for her. If a woman can’t give her child the life she
thinks it deserves, she can have an abortion. That does not support
eugenics in any way. It supports a woman’s right to choose and to be
tolerant of her choices. Not being tyrannical and withholding rights
she’s afforded by the US Supreme Court. No one can dictate why a woman can have an abortion. Only the woman can do that. If she wants to abort a pregnancy because it has a severe birth defect that IS her right. And I support that. It’s legal. Sorry if you don’t like it. That’s the way it is.
You didn’t even bother to read the actual ruling. You’ve dismissed it as mere opinion that doesn’t agree with you, not the last word in abortion legality. It’s up to the woman to decide if she wants to abort a pregnancy if the baby would have a poor quality of life. I support her right to choose, you want to dictate that she doesn’t have a right to choose under certain circumstances. But that’s not up to you. It’s up to the woman.
I’d have an abortion simply because I don’t want a baby. But I’m taking every precaution short of abstinence to make sure that doesn’t happen. Does that make me irresponsible if I get pregnant when I tried not to?
What say you about miscarriages?
@explosive - ” If a woman can’t give her child the life she thinks it deserves, she can have an abortion.”
That’s not what you originally said. You said that poverty, unemployment and physical/mental defect were reason enough to abort a baby, you never mentioned a womans right in your original comment. You added added that after I took issue with your disgusting opinion.
You keep trying to make this an issue between myself and all the women out there who want to have an abortion. It’s not. This is an issue between me and you. The fact that you keep trying to deflect this issue only shows your cowardice.
@Ayliana87 - That is a reason to abort a baby. Women use that reason all the time. I agree with it. If that’s what they want to do, they can. How is it between you and me? Am I the only one who can’t have an abortion for any reason I want to? I’ve been saying it’s a woman’s right to choose in any situation, this entire time. You can’t force abortion on anyone, just like you can’t withhold the right to have one. It’s a reason, not necessarily a requirement. And if she wants to have the baby, that’s fine too. I said I respect a woman’s right to have an abortion and I agree with her if she chooses to have an abortion. Because that’s what I would do, too. You don’t have to, but that’s your decision. And it’s all women’s decision to make for themselves. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. The supreme court agrees with me. Don’t like abortions? Then don’t get one. What you do with yourself is not my business. And what others do with their bodies is none of your concern. This entire issue is about women’s rights. You think they shouldn’t have an abortion if the child has a severe birth defect. But they can and that’s how it is. You don’t have to like it but that won’t change the way it is. A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason they want. It’s not up to you to decide what reasons are alright and which ones aren’t. You can only decide for yourself. This is why I keep repeating myself. You just don’t want to acknowledge the way things are.
@BobRichter - “…accidental (reckless, negligent, what-have-you) conception is neither a crime nor a tort.”
This is your opinion, now I understand, yet I fail to see where your coming from.
The fetus. I can’t support killing a fetus, that’s already a life. If you don’t want kids, don’t take the risk, meaning don’t lay down with someone. If you are going to, then at least take every possible precaution to keep from creating a life. I’m not knocking you if you do, but if you do, take care of your responsibilities. One thing that we all should be able to agree on, is that there are too many people in this world who feel like they can have all the unprotected sex they want because abortion is always an option.
@BobRichter - First off, don’t call me sexist when you didn’t take the time to look at my icon. I’m clearly female. I understand the “assault” on freedom better than you do, as I got pregnant and had a kid at 16. I know exactly what is at stake here. It’s not an assault on freedom so much as other women just being selfish.
What you and all the other pro-choice supporters fail to recognize is that the primary purpose of having sex is to reproduce. The pleasure we receive from it is just nature’s incentive for us to do. That’s all. There are plenty of other ways to make yourself feel good, but there’s only one way to make a baby (without unnatural methods, that is). When you open your legs you’re opening yourself up to the possibility of pregnancy, everyone knows that. Also, everyone knows that birth control doesn’t work 100% of the time. So every time you have sex, even protected sex, you’re taking a gamble with your uterus. It’s just like playing a slot machine. If you pull that handle you have to deal with whatever comes your way, win or lose.
I’m not saying that people should never have sex or anything, but I am saying that if you choose to do so then you should man up and deal with the consequences of your actions. When you have sex you directly cause that fetus to be in your uterus. Moreso, YOU put it there. It didn’t ask to be in your uterus, so don’t try to make it sound as if the fetus is assaulting the woman.
Further, with your attitude toward this I pray to God that you never have children. I may not agree with it, but at least you’ll abort your babies before you can have an effect on them.
Oh, and YES. I do think that someone’s LIFE is more important that someone else’s FREEDOM. LIFE VS. FREEDOM… Really? Is that even a question for you? So it’s okay for the baby to not have a life (it’s undeniable that left to develop most all aborted babies would be full term and problem free) so a woman can not get stretchmarks? It’s okay for it to not have a life so the woman doesn’t have to stay up late taking care of it? All while the WOMAN was the one who had sex and caused the it’s existence in the first place? I’m sorry, but no. That’s not okay to do.
From the opinion of a mother of a baby who was almost aborted, the way you describe abortion is the most disgustingly self-centered act I have ever heard in my life. That, sir, is why I do not think that women should be able to get abortions for no damn reason.
@Maverick83 - You’re still being subjective, a day before birth the baby is still completely connected and dependent on the mothers body. After birth the baby is no longer connected but it’s still completely dependent for a good long time. Guess what happens if you just leave the baby in place and don’t do anything with it, for a day. Your criterion is shaky and subjective, but at least you acknowledge some of that. I think that the people you are really listening to are politicians who have arbitrarily drawn a line about when abortions can occur just to make liberals happy.
@explosive - I’m not deciding for you, you have the option of keeping your legs closed and your pants zipped like a proper lady. You already made your decision when you spread your legs for that man, now you have to live with the consequences. The problem with liberals is they don’t believe in self ownership, which not only means that you don’t mind trampling over the rights of others when it is convenient for you but you also refuse to take responsibility for yourselves. You’re a bunch of spoiled overgrown children, just like in the Rucka Rucka Ali song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdJtS3DGZcY Or if you’re just absolutely determined to be a slut you can at least get your man to put some plastic over his dingy. The fact is you are the one who wants to make a decision for someone else, killing a baby just so that you can continue to be irresponsible.
I don’t believe in Democracy, I’m an anarcho-capitalist and not everyone has the intellect to make decisions for government. No no, you have the freedom to rant on about whatever mindless tripe you want, freedom to be a slut, get your tongue pierced, be gay, cut yourself, and whatever nasty things angsty liberals like to do so long as it’s not trampling on the rights of anyone else. But your problem is that you do trample on the rights of others when you kill unborn babies. I dislike liberals because of their attitude, lack of morals, and the fact that you get divorces, have sex outside of marriage, etc. You drink and do drugs, and a lot of you are gay and/or androgynous. You’re disgusting people, and not good wife material. Would you believe that sometimes liberal women try to hit on me? I would rather go to a Vietnamese prison camp than marry a liberal woman.
Also it’s interesting that you have family ties to holocaust survivors. Kind of sad because liberals have killed way more people with their abortions than Hitler did with his concentration camps. Not saying that Hitler was a nice guy, but neither are you.
@explosive - No, it’s up to you, but once you’ve done it then it’s time to face the consequences.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - It’s not up to you to decide whether I’m going to have sex or not, either. What “rights” are those? An embryo doesn’t have any rights. It’s not even alive. I have the RIGHT to choose. That is a right. So you can keep railing against a woman’s right to choose, but it won’t change that I can do whatever I want to. And you can complain about it but that doesn’t mean women are going to stop having abortions, so you may as well get used to it. That’s the way it is. If a woman doesn’t want to have an abortion, that’s fine too. But she can if she wants to. Even people who have responsible, protected sex get pregnant, but they don’t have to have the baby. That’s their decision to make, not yours. So I suggest you stick to minding your own business. The point is, it’s up to the woman, and not anyone else’s decision to make. You may not agree with it, but that matters not.
The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[12]
The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court’s Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the “right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Stewart in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.” Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution’s due process clause.
The majority opinion is organized into twelve sections preceded by a brief preface. In the Preface, Justice Blackmun begins by describing the nature of the case: two separate “constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation”. He notes that that the Texas statutes are “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” whereas “[t]he Georgia statutes [from the companion case of Doe v. Bolton] in contrast, have a modern cast”.
The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother’s current trimester of pregnancy:
* In the first trimester, the state’s two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way.
* In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
* In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother’s current trimester of pregnancy:
* In the first trimester, the state’s two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way.
* In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
* In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
And no, i don’t think an embryo’s rights supersede a woman’s rights. How ridiculous of you to think so.
And no, i don’t think an embryo’s rights supersede a woman’s rights. How ridiculous of you to think so.
Next, he writes that the judges recognize the “sensitive and emotional” nature of the controversy; asserts that the difficulty is further complicated by “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones”; and describes how the court should approach a problem of this character: “by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection”, but also (because “[w]e seek earnestly to do this”) by “medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.” He concludes by noting Justice Holmes’ famous Lochner dissent:
“ [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. ”
Section I briefly outlines the challenged Texas abortion statutes.
Section II characterizes the factual and procedural backgrounds of Jane Roe’s and Mary Doe’s litigation, including the District Court’s rulings regarding the procedural questions (here, justiciability, standing, and abstention) and the merits (here, the requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief).
Section III is a single paragraph resolving that under federal procedural law, the opinions in Mitchell v. Donovan and Gunn v. University Committee do not foreclose reviewing a case of this kind when it is properly on appeal under § 1253.
Section IV issues the court’s decision on the procedural questions described in Section II.
Section V is a single paragraph introducing the discussion of the merits, led by the following:
“ The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras … or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment … ”
Section VI surveys the history of abortion regulations, in eight subparts:
1. Ancient attitudes (including those of the Persian Empire, Greek times, the Roman era).
2. The Hippocratic oath.
3. The common law.
4. The English statutory law.
5. The American law.
6. The position of the American Medical Association.
7. The position of the American Public Health Association.
8. The position of the American Bar Association.
According to the Roe Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” Before 1821, when Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion, abortion in the United States was sometimes considered a common law crime.[13] Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[14] However, the court concluded that it could not find a sufficient historical basis to justify the Texas statute.
In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:
1. an interest in discouraging women from engaging in “illicit sexual conduct”, which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
2. an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
3. an interest in protecting prenatal life.
Blackmun rejected the first interest out-of-hand, writing that “no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously” and that in any event it could not be cited in support of this statute, which failed to “distinguish between married and unwed mothers”. Accordingly, the only valid state interests are reducing medical risk and protecting prenatal life. (In Section X the Court reiterated, “[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.”) Thus, “arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive”.
In Section VIII, the Court identified a countervailing right that would have to be weighed against these state interests: namely, a Constitutional right to privacy: “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.” The Roe court located this “right of privacy” in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights—directly (in several provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment) as well as indirectly (in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights) — most recently in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut.
In Section IX, the Court adds that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn, according to the Court. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins:
“ We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. ”
In Section X, the Court explained that the trimester of pregnancy is relevant to the weight of the factors in this balancing test. Thus, during the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way; during the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”; during the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
Section XI summarizes the Court’s legal conclusions, explaining that a Texas-style criminal statute was unconstitutional, and recapitulating the permissible extent of state regulation in each of the three Constitutionally relevant time periods of pregnancy (i.e. divided by “approximately the end of the first trimester” and “the stage subsequent to viability”).
Section XII resolves the dispute by striking down the Texas statute and characterizing the relief that should be accorded to Roe.
If you don’t agree with democracy, I suggest you move to Africa, where many tribes cut off young girls’ clitorises between the ages of 6 and 15. Maybe that’s more your style.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - No it isn’t. I don’t have to. I’ll have an abortion if I want. That’s the beauty of choice.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Arbitrarily? I don’t know exactly how they determined when an abortion can be performed, but if I had to guess, I’d say it had to do with the level of the fetus’s development (that is, is it even comparable to a human, at that point? And in what sense(s), to what extent?) and the risks it poses to the mother’s health. Granted, it’s subjective. But a much more legitimate case can be made that a fetus without a brain or nervous system that are developed enough to function does not qualify as a human being than one that is ready to be born, or any person who has been born.
I’m not listening to any politicians, about this issue. I’m looking at the data and forming an opinion. I don’t consider a fetus any more human than an insect, by the criteria I feel matters.
Serena’s wishes. In my opinion, every woman has the right to get an abortion.
@kuzianik - Why are the scenarios you spoke of “retarded”? Also, the adoption option isn’t always that easy. There are tons of orphanages/foster homes in the US and Europe that are full. (I use US and Europe only because I don’t know about other places.) If adopting was so wide-spread and easy, and such a great option, why do all those children still not have homes? Considering our world is becoming vastly over-populated, it may be interesting to consider the fact that there aren’t always enough families for the babies that are born.
@Just_For_Shits_And_Giggles - It’s retarded because it’s manipulating the question into something else entirely. We’re assuming about a healthy mother allow a healthy child to grow inside of her until a healthy birth. And adoption agencies don’t usually take in newborn children. Newborns are usually the first to go to couples wanting children, but are unable to conceive. Couples who cannot conceieve even go to great lengths to visit fertilization centers which involve fertilizing the mother’s eggs, and sometimes freezing successful embryos for later use. If more newborns were available from the people who failed to sufficiently protect themselves from pregnancy (Rape, broken condoms, pill babies — pretty rare circumstances and those reasons are not why most abortions are performed so people should just not bother bringing them up during the debate. Once again, we’re dealing with a healthy and normal situation.) then less people would depend on those centers. Children will always be stuck in orphanages, but does that mean that others need to be aborted? When one finds out their pregnant after trying to conceive, they tell people that they’re having a “baby” and not a “clump of cells,” “fetus,” or “zygote.” Why does terminolgy change just because the child is unwanted? Adoption isn’t “easy” you say, so are you implying that abortion is? So why do pro-choice people get pissed when pro-lifers refer to it as an “easy out”? How does the world becoming over-populated affect you? If people want to go off with that argument, why not suicide (non-pregnant people, of course) instead of abortion? You have charge of your own life, not of another’s. Serena does not have the right to end the life inside of her that she created. It has the right to live and grow inside of her womb because she made it that way. People expect sex without consequences, and abortion is making that option seem available. Lives are being taken from it. 1.37 million lives a year, but that’s okay because adoption isn’t easy and the world is over-populated anyway. I can keep going on and on, obviously. Nobody will ever have a valid argument for me. Most are aborted after the baby resembles just that — a tiny, human baby with a heartbeat. It’s fucked up. It’s murder. People saying it’s better off dead than with a family who doesn’t want it, or in a crowded orphanage — who the fuck are you to decide? Can’t we wait until he/she is fucking born and see what he/she might want?
“When one finds out their pregnant after trying to conceive, they tell people that they’re having a “baby” and not a “clump of cells,” “fetus,” or “zygote.” “
Why do they tell people they’re having a baby, and not that they have a baby?
@explosive - So you’re an irresponsible slut, and a murderer. Typical liberal. Oh, and let’s not forget that your political party is trying to make me pay for your abortions. Well I think we’re done here.
@Maverick83 - The reason you don’t know is because it’s arbitrary, and it wasn’t determined by doctors it was determined by judges. I used to think that before the brain began to form there could be no room for consciousness as the brain is where it resides as far as we can tell. However, prior to the clear formation of nerve cells the cells of the unborn baby are generalized not specialized, so I don’t think that the argument of the brain hasn’t formed yet is enough to justify an abortion. Now, maybe if the brain never forms, like if the baby is missing it’s head, then by all means go ahead and get an abortion if that is the safest procedure. But these liberals are wanting to kill the baby just so that they can continue to be sluts, and that’s not right, and it’s not up to one person to determine whether another gets to live or die if they haven’t done anything wrong. To answer your question about when an abortion is OK, I think that if the mother’s life is threatened or the baby cannot be carried to term then an abortion is acceptable. Other than that, certainly not.
Humans only give birth to humans, you don’t have the capacity to give birth or impregnate someone with a non-human. Maybe if Star Trek were real you might, but in real life you can’t. So it’s human at every stage of development.
@kuzianik - That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying to them. I think we need to keep in mind that we aren’t dealing with rational adults or people with a functioning moral compass. We’re dealing with overgrown bratty children whose parents were either absent, overly accommodating, or who molested them as a child. They want to live without restraint and expect society to shelter them from the consequences of their actions. But you’re right on about the terms. They use words like “fetus” and “zygote” because those terms are dehumanizing, and if they just called it a baby (which is what it is) then they would have to admit to infanticide. And abortion IS infanticide. As for overpopulation, that’s as much a crock as global warming. In some parts of the world overpopulation is a problem but not in western countries where they have to allow immigration just to maintain a workforce because they have aging populations. White people, for example, are going extinct on a world scale because of the “overpopulation” scare, but also people just wanting to have fruitless sex without the strings attached. More abortion and less marriage equals mass extinction. The only white ethnicities with birthrates at replenishment level or higher are Irish, Berbers, and Iranians. Everyone else has pitiful birthrates. The east Asian countries are also having population crisis. Everyone still thinks that they’re overpopulated but Japan and China actually have low birthrates, and are faced with a demographic winter where the old retired people will very soon outnumber the younger people in the workforce. Sub-Saharan Africa and India are certainly crowded and have high birthrates averaging above the replenishment rate but that’s certainly not a world crisis. Liberals are just on drugs and they think people need to die so that “mother earth” can live.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - It was determined by judges, but that doesn’t mean there was no medical/biological data to serve as a basis. You calling it arbitrary doesn’t make it arbitrary. A point was not selected at random. A dart was not thrown, dice were not rolled, information was considered. Probably similar to the criteria I provided, but either way, that’s the criteria I’m going with, to determine my stance on abortion. Whether you agree with the information and analysis or not, that means the decision was not arbitrary. You using…basically your imagination…to equate a developing fetus halfway or less through a pregnancy to a baby at birth, does not amount to fact. And you are certainly entitled to the opinions you expressed, and to use those simplistic interpretations of the world around you to determine your own decisions. So by all means, don’t have an abortion. If you’re male, like me, (I assume you are?) that decision isn’t even relevant, but you know what I mean.
@Yoru_Kendo – You think you understand, but you don’t. That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact. Accidental conception is neither a crime nor a tort.
As a matter of the rules of civil society, there’s nothing wrong with it, and thus there can be no punishment imposed by civil society for it, especially not enslavement.
@thedommediaries –
First, take a look at where you are. Am I obviously a lightsaber-wielding bear? Then you’re not obviously a woman.
Second, sexism isn’t a problem confined to any one sex.
Third, I didn’t call you sexist, I offered you the option to claim it. Nice evasion, by the way.
No person has a right to enslave another. Not for nine months and not for ten minutes. Had I been forced upon my mother, it would shame me beyond any recovery, my only consolation being that I had not had a choice in the matter. That you can look at the situation any other way disturbs me, though I am too jaded by now to say it surprises me. I would have more concern for your children than for mine.
@BobRichter - lol so you say, just remember that the government takes more control over the private lives of citizens every year…that is a fact.
@Yoru_Kendo - No, that’s not a fact. It’s an opinion, it’s wrong, and it’s not even on-point.
As a retort it’s….what was that phrase…
Right.
Epic Fail.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - You can’t make my decision for me. I really loathe pro-life men, thinking they can control a woman’s body. I’ll do what I wish, and so will all women. It’s not up to you. So you’ll just have to deal with that. Whether you like it or not, that’s the way it IS.
And comparing pro-choicers to Hitler? You must be running out of arguments.
@BobRichter - The only thing that is an epic fail is your failure to live in the real world
but hey thats okay here is a coloring book and some crayons, have fun 
@explosive - I’m not running out of arguments, the fact is you have no morals and you think murder is OK when it’s convenient for you. As I said before, I really don’t care if you want to be a little emo slut and cut yourself. Believe me, I want nothing at all to do whatsoever with your body. You can ruin your own life as much as you want, get as many STD’s as you want, etc., but you don’t have the right to kill a baby just because they inconvenience you. Also, with your Demoncrat buddies trying to use tax payer money to facilitate your abortions then I absolutely have a say, because it’s my money that’s being spent on something I find morally objectionable. Also, it’s not up to me to correct your mistakes.
On the other hand, if every liberal got an abortion all the time then in about 50 years the world would be a MUCH better place. And honestly, I would probably encourage you to get an abortion were it not for the fact that it’s murder. I don’t know why you can’t understand that, the liberal mind is a limited thing.
@Maverick83 - ”It was determined by judges, but that doesn’t mean there was no medical/biological data to serve as a basis.”–It doesn’t mean that there was either. A lot of what the government says and does is just bullcrap anyways, designed to keep certain parties in power rather than provide a useful service that anyone needs. A dart wasn’t thrown but they arbitrarily drew a line at a point where they figured they could please the greatest amount of people. Fetus is just a word people made up to dehumanize unborn children so that abortions would sound less objectionable. I’m not using my imagination, and you have alluded to medical data in a non-specific way but you haven’t cited any. Your argument is based on innuendo. All I have done so far is stated facts, and
it’s a fact that during pregnancy the cells are generalized before they
become specialized. It’s definitely a baby that’s being aborted, perhaps you haven’t seen the pictures of actual abortions, most pro-abortion people don’t look at them. You probably also haven’t seen any actual photos or diagrams of child development before birth: http://lonelywanderer2.xanga.com/731852612/are-these-babies/#viewcomments
As for me personally, I would have thought that my gender was obvious. Abortion is not going to be something that anyone close to me engages in because if I ever do get married it will be to a woman who shares my religious beliefs and respect for life. But on the other hand I’m not going to stand around and do nothing or say nothing while mass murder is committed around me just so that people can be immoral and responsible.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - I really don’t think being pro-choice is anything like being HITLER. Sorry if you don’t like it, but a woman has the right to choose. That’s just the way it IS.
And now here you are, advocating FOR abortion of people who you don’t agree with. What a hypocritical thing for you to say. Too bad you don’t halt your own reproduction. How ironic would that be.
@explosive - You have the right to choose regarding personal decisions but not to decide whether or not another person should be killed. You can spread your legs and be a slut until you have to wear a diaper if you want, but you can’t just kill another person because their existence inconveniences you. Hitler thought he could kill other people because to him their lives were worth less than his, and because he felt that their presence was an inconvenience. However, he didn’t have any objective basis for making that decision and neither do you. So honestly, I don’t care if you want to be a slut, it’s a bad choice but it’s your choice, having a baby is a possible result of that choice. You don’t really have the right to kill the baby just because the government makes it legal, and that doesn’t make it non-murder or morally acceptable. Just like when Hitler and Stalin killed all the people in their countries it was still wrong even though it was legal.
So apparently you also can’t read. I said, “And honestly, I would probably encourage you to get an abortion were it not for the fact that it’s murder.” I clearly stated that abortion is murder and that I’m not actually encouraging you to get one. I don’t want liberals to have kids but I also don’t want them to be able to get away with murder. I recommend sterilization. If you go and get sterilized you can sleep around until you die without ever having to get an abortion. It’s really the best answer for you, because that way you won’t be committing murder or giving someone a horrible childhood. I have not yet begun to reproduce so there would be no halting. I don’t plan on getting married until I become financially stable and can safely afford to have children. Unlike you, I have morals, and I don’t go around snogging whatever I can like a dog.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_RexWhat right does a fetus have over a woman’s right? It IS her right, and you’ve no respect for her right to choose. it’s not up to you in any way shape or form so you can dislike if you must but it’s really none of your affair. And this is the way it is.
this is what gives the woman the right to choose:
The majority opinion is organized into twelve sections preceded by a brief preface. In the Preface, Justice Blackmun begins by describing the nature of the case: two separate “constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation”. He notes that that the Texas statutes are “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” whereas “[t]he Georgia statutes [from the companion case of Doe v. Bolton] in contrast, have a modern cast”.
Next, he writes that the judges recognize the “sensitive and emotional” nature of the controversy; asserts that the difficulty is further complicated by “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones”; and describes how the court should approach a problem of this character: “by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection”, but also (because “[w]e seek earnestly to do this”) by “medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.” He concludes by noting Justice Holmes’ famous Lochner dissent:
“ [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
Section I briefly outlines the challenged Texas abortion statutes.
Section II characterizes the factual and procedural backgrounds of Jane Roe’s and Mary Doe’s litigation, including the District Court’s rulings regarding the procedural questions (here, justiciability, standing, and abstention) and the merits (here, the requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief).
Section III is a single paragraph resolving that under federal procedural law, the opinions in Mitchell v. Donovan and Gunn v. University Committee do not foreclose reviewing a case of this kind when it is properly on appeal under § 1253.
Section IV issues the court’s decision on the procedural questions described in Section II.
Section V is a single paragraph introducing the discussion of the merits, led by the following:
“ The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras … or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment … ”
Section VI surveys the history of abortion regulations, in eight subparts:
1. Ancient attitudes (including those of the Persian Empire, Greek times, the Roman era).
2. The Hippocratic oath.
3. The common law.
4. The English statutory law.
5. The American law.
6. The position of the American Medical Association.
7. The position of the American Public Health Association.
8. The position of the American Bar Association.
According to the Roe Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” Before 1821, when Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion, abortion in the United States was sometimes considered a common law crime.[13] Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[14] However, the court concluded that it could not find a sufficient historical basis to justify the Texas statute.
In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:
1. an interest in discouraging women from engaging in “illicit sexual conduct”, which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
2. an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
3. an interest in protecting prenatal life.
Blackmun rejected the first interest out-of-hand, writing that “no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously” and that in any event it could not be cited in support of this statute, which failed to “distinguish between married and unwed mothers”. Accordingly, the only valid state interests are reducing medical risk and protecting prenatal life. (In Section X the Court reiterated, “[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.”) Thus, “arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive”.
In Section VIII, the Court identified a countervailing right that would have to be weighed against these state interests: namely, a Constitutional right to privacy: “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.” The Roe court located this “right of privacy” in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights—directly (in several provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment) as well as indirectly (in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights) — most recently in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut.
In Section IX, the Court adds that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn, according to the Court. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins:
“ We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. ”
In Section X, the Court explained that the trimester of pregnancy is relevant to the weight of the factors in this balancing test. Thus, during the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way; during the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”; during the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”)
Section XI summarizes the Court’s legal conclusions, explaining that a Texas-style criminal statute was unconstitutional, and recapitulating the permissible extent of state regulation in each of the three Constitutionally relevant time periods of pregnancy (i.e. divided by “approximately the end of the first trimester” and “the stage subsequent to viability”).
Section XII resolves the dispute by striking down the Texas statute and characterizing the relief that should be accorded to Roe.
The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother’s health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother’s current trimester of pregnancy:
* In the first trimester, the state’s two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way.
* In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).
* In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).
Abortion is a personal decision. One that is not yours nor will it ever be. Stalin and Hitler made laws so they could kill people. They had that power. This was a supreme court ruling more than 10 years before I was born, but it’s still a right of mine and all women, which we can exercise if we so choose. You can have your opinions, but you can’t change the way things are. And it is a right. It was deemed a constitutional right. If you’re that Un-American, go to Africa where I hear they cut girls’ clits off as young as 6 years old, and make them have sex.
I have protected, responsible sex with one partner. That doesn’t make me a slut. Most women who have abortions probably aren’t. You’re making up things now so you can justify your position. If a woman gets raped, and becomes pregnant, she can have an abortion. I really hope you don’t expect her to have her rapist’s baby. Ridiculous.
Adoption and keeping the baby are also options, but they’re not the only ones. it’s up to the woman what she wants to do. And if she chooses abortion, that’s her right. Anything she decides is up to her. Even sluts keep their babies. Some don’t even get pregnant. I’ve never gotten pregnant and I don’t have any STDs. I go to the gynecologist every year and get tested. So you can really stop with the off-base assumptions. They really don’t help anything at all. What would you call a pro-choice man? Something equally offensive and unfounded, just to be fair, I’d think.
I haven’t killed a single person of any kind in my life. So comparing me to mass murderers? Not so accurate. Unless you think that every masturbatory emission or every time a girl ovulates is potential for life, or that birth control is a form of abortion as well. Now that would really be insane.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - ”A lot of what the government says and does is just bullcrap anyways, designed to keep certain parties in power rather than provide a useful service that anyone needs. A dart wasn’t thrown but they arbitrarily drew a line at a point where they figured they could please the greatest amount of people.”
Yeah, who would have thought it a goal of democracy to please the greatest amount of people? (Granted, democracy should not be allowed to violate human rights, but whether or not a fetus is entitled to human rights is exactly what we’re discussing, here.) Of course, I won’t deny that a lot of what the government says and does is bullshit, usually for the purpose of making money or being re-elected. But then again, everything you’re saying now is a means to push your pro-life agenda.
“Fetus is just a word people made up to dehumanize unborn children so that abortions would sound less objectionable”
Says you. Good example of what I just stated. You’re inventing motives for others, to fit your agenda, and what you want reality to be.
“you have alluded to medical data in a non-specific way but you haven’t cited any”
Tell you what. Search for “Can a fetus feel pain” on the search engine of your choice, and take your pick. Frankly, there is a lot of controversy to deal with, especially since the information is bound to be skewed in one direction or the other, by each side of the abortion debate. The ability to feel pain tends to be a central point for this subject. General consensus, coming from those I assume to be the least biased, is that the ability develops after about 20 weeks. Larger point, the fetus is developing the functions and abilities that will make it a human. That’s why it stays inside the mother for nine months.
“it’s a fact that during pregnancy the cells are generalized before they become specialized”
That doesn’t sound so much like the functions that occur in a human being are occurring in the fetus, as that the capacity for those functions is developing. Has it crossed your mind that developmental distinctions such as that might play some part in categorizing it as a fetus, embryo, etc.? That these terms might not have been invented as a means for the pro-choice to justify murder? Again, the fetus is developing the functions and abilities that will make it a human. The stages involved in that process are what define it as a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, etc. Not anyone’s determination to humanize or dehumanize it.
“you probably also haven’t seen any actual photos or diagrams of child development before birth”
Actually, I have. And from what I saw, I have no idea how you can claim…
“It’s definitely a baby that’s being aborted”
…any sooner than two months, and for some time after that, I’d call it rather sketchy.
But in all honesty, we could debate this stuff forever. You and I have differing ideas on the answers to the questions at the core of this issue, that’s all. The question is, is it okay to kill the fetus/unborn child, whatever you want to call it, at a given point? For that matter, the question could just as well be, is it okay to kill any particular being? That depends on whether or not the being in question is entitled to basic human rights, or the equivalent. That depends on how we define human, for the purpose of bestowing human rights. And that depends on the reasons we feel human rights are to be bestowed in the first place.
@explosive - You must be very young, because even for a liberal your reasoning powers are extremely liberal. As I stated before, it doesn’t matter one lick what the courts say, because consensus and law is not what determines right or wrong. You know there’s parts of the world where the consensus is that it’s OK to eat people, and you also had most of the Germans going along with Nazi law and supporting Hitler. I could go on with many more examples. It’s not my concern if you want to be a slut. But, it is the concern of every civilized human being when you want to kill an innocent unborn child. All of us conservatives are going to continue working at rolling back those rulings. The court just makes stuff up all the time, the liberals are using it as a legislative body even though that is not it’s purpose.
It’s interesting that the left is citing general human trends even though that’s not what the legal system of this country was supposed to be based on. It’s also a bit ironic how they only do it when it suits their purposes, but when it doesn’t they either say nothing or scream against it. Like with homosexuality. No society in the world has ever considered homosexual relationships to be the same thing as normal man-woman relationships or has even considered a concept so outlandish as “gay marriage” which every sensible person knows is an oxymoron. But anyways, ancient people had a much more relaxed view of killing in general. The Spartans used to leave babies out in the field to die, and lots of other ancient people’s would abandon girl babies when it was inconvenient for them. There was a lot more killing in general. I noticed in another comment you mentioned your family is Jewish, you know in ancient times your ancestors and most other near eastern groups used to go to war with their neighbors at a regular time every year. There was literally a season for war, and that’s what everyone did. It was why polygamy was allowed back then, because there weren’t enough men for every woman to have one with all the seasonal combat. Taking women as war spoils was a common practice, as was slavery, and among other near eastern groups it was also popular to rip open pregnant women and watch both the mother and the baby die. Consensus isn’t what determines right or wrong. Either moral laws exist independent of humanity or there is no right or wrong and we may as well just do whatever.
Another thing is that your liberal Democrats are trying to pass laws to use tax money to pay for abortions. So I want you to answer me strait this time, should people like me who find abortion morally objectionable be forced to pay for other people to have abortions? I want to see you answer that one, even though I can already guess what your answer will be.
@Maverick83 - That’s a flaw of Democracy. And personally I don’t agree with Democracy, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. Consensus and legal rulings are not what determines right or wrong, nor are they what determines human rights. Either natural rights and moral laws exist independent of human opinions or they don’t exist at all. Most liberals believe that they don’t exist at all. I don’t have a “pro-life agenda”, I just think that murder is wrong. As for consensus, most of the Germans thought that what Hitler was doing was OK, and it was also legal for him to do what he did. Same goes for the Assyrians, who used to ransack other people groups, cover their siege craft in human skins, connect people to chains with meat hooks and drag them off, relocate entire people groups against their will, rape women, rip open pregnant women and pull the baby out so they could watch both mother and child die, and carry women off as war booty. Or how about Islam where women are executed for being raped, can’t testify in court, and where men can have up to 4 wives which they can divorce at a whim for any reason? Does any of that offend you? That’s something I would like to know.
My point about generalized cells was simply that prior to specialization there could still be a consciousness residing in the generalized cells. Maybe there isn’t, but it’s better to err on the side of caution where taking an innocent life is concerned.
“Can a fetus feel,” please, that’s going to be nothing but liberal propaganda, and who knows what the unborn child can feel or think? People can only vouch for themselves and only as far back as their memory goes. Saying that the unborn child is not human is not logical, it has human DNA which is different than that of the mother and is a separate being. If not being completely formed is the basis for dehumanizing someone then the same could be said of everyone under 25, because the human body is still growing and developing up to 25. Your brain doesn’t even stop growing until you turn 25.
@explosive - Also in most ancient societies you wouldn’t have any kind of “choice.” It would just be arranged for you to marry some guy, probably someone 10 to 20 years older, and you would not only have to cook but also slaughter the animals yourself.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Of course those things offend me. In fact, they offend me so much, and I consider them such a threat to the well being of myself and every person in the society I exist in, that I believe a system should be set up to prevent them, in that society. And guess what? You shooting your mouth off about how wrong any of those things are, would not and does not do anything to stop them from happening! What does stop them from happening? Consensus! Such an overwhelming consensus that laws are set up and enforced, backing that consensus. If moral laws were objective, if any of those things you mentioned were wrong, in an objective sense, it would be impossible for anyone to do them. That is the nature of true, absolute right and wrong. Examples. The Earth is flat? Wrong! It is impossible to take any action or create any effect which relies on the Earth actually being flat. Two plus two equals five? Wrong! If you pour two gallons of water into a five gallon container, then pour in another two gallons, you will not fill the container to its five gallon capacity. It is impossible. Morals absolutely are human opinions. That is a reality we need to understand. And opinions do exist. Hitler wasn’t stopped because he was wrong (in the objective sense, I mean. Make no mistake, I absolutely think his actions were atrocious). He was stopped because enough people opposed what he was doing strongly enough to stop him. Moreover, if morals are objective, who is qualified to determine them? There is great dissent, even among those who believe morals are objective. Some of the things you mentioned are believed by some to be right, by an alleged objective moral standard. So who is right, and why? As for murder, I’m against it too. Strongly against it. I just don’t feel that killing a fetus is murder.
Sure, there could be some form of consciousness in those generalized cells. There absolutely is some form of consciousness in a house fly. But I don’t feel bad about swatting it. It’s not that the possible consciousness in the fetus isn’t completely developed, it’s that I do not consider its level of development to be comparable to that of any human, and certainly not at a level I feel to be crucial to the issue of human rights.
Serena’s wishes.
Serena used to be a clump of cells.
@Maverick83 - You almost have a point about comparing moral laws to natural laws, but, you still don’t understand. The entire reason you are able to feel indignation about the things I told you is because they violate the moral laws which you are instinctively aware of to some point. Moral laws were written in the hearts of humanity by the Creator, and that is why concepts such as good and evil exist. Were it not so then everyone would think of things only in terms of expediency vs. inexpediency. In a world like that if you tried to tell someone about right or wrong, or morality they would just think you were spouting gibberish. Just so that you can imagine, it would be like if I told you that typing two paragraphs in response to me with the first being longer than the second is zargash.
People do nasty things because they have evil in their nature, and the evil human nature is naturally at war with the laws of God. It’s also why people are conflicted a lot, and people who are spectacularly twisted often go insane. It’s also why a lot of the abortionist people hate seeing pictures of the aborted babies. They get told by the left wing politicians that “it’s just a clump of cells” because they know instinctively that murder is wrong. So they fall into believing lies in order to ease their conscience, but when they’re reminded of the truth they have a conniption fit, and they try to argue with people like me because they want absolution or approval. But they aren’t going to get it.
What Hitler did wasn’t any more atrocious than what Stalin was doing, it was just more publicized. Stalin just got by because he joined the winning side, same goes for Francisco Franco in Spain. Also I hear liberals complaining about Bush attacking Iraq but Saddam was also engaging in genocide against the Kurds, taking pot shots at Israel, raping and torturing lots of women and political prisoners. He had a Shiite cleric killed with a staple gun to the head, the sort you use in construction to nail down shingles on the roof. I could go on and about Saddam because there is more. My point is, consensus isn’t what determines right and wrong. Consensus can and does often lead to great evil, because people use consensus as balm to salve their conscience. The average Assyrians didn’t have any problem with what they were doing.
Honestly, I don’t think you know much about reproduction, because if you did then you would know that a unique individual is created at the moment of conception from the genetic material of the parents, but rearranged so as not to be identical with either one of them. The genetic sequence is fully formed at conception, and it’s fully human. Human DNA does not have the genetic potential to produce a non-human, it’s just not coded for in the DNA. Dogs produce baby dogs, humans produce humans, gerbils produce gerbils, etc. If you hate murder and are revolted by it then you ought to err on the side of caution. If there’s any chance that an organism is a sentient being you ought not to consider killing it in the absence of concrete proof to the contrary. The lines drawn by the legal system are not based on anything concrete, but conception is a concrete and specific point.
There was a good episode of STTNG where that very issue is dealt with. Maybe it will help you understand my point better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh8IDIOx2Y
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Where to begin? I would argue that magic is not the answer to everything one does not immediately understand. That though one has no idea where one’s perceived sense of morality came from, the first thing one can imagine does not an accurate explanation make. I think it’s more likely (and backed by evidence) that our morality is a product of our compassion, which itself is a product of evolved social tendencies. We abhor certain actions because they make us feel threatened. We create the labels of good and evil based on how things make us feel. Of course, I’m putting it as simply as I can. A full explanation on why we engage in certain behaviors, and why we call them good or evil, would take days, and consume several pages. Life, survival, billions of years of evolution in a competetive environment, and ever-increasing complexity. But if there’s one piece of generalized advice I could offer, it is this. The “evil” are not evil, they are fearful.
Watched the youtube clip you posted. If I understand correctly, the being in question was a machine, right? But was, for all effects and purposes, human. I would certainly argue that it should be given the same rights as any human. I assume you would, as well? And it seems that we agree that it is human, based on the very criteria I use to define a human, and in complete absence of the DNA and human procreation you repeatedly insist is what makes a fetus a human. To put it succinctly, I would call the machine in the clip more human than a fetus. Its level of consciousness and development is certainly more advanced.
And that’s where I’m coming from. To me, being the genetic product of two humans doesn’t make it a human. Having human DNA doesn’t make it a human. Having the basic semblances of functions that are not even unique to humans, but shared by all living things, does not make it a human. You are, and have been, right about one thing, though. I cannot state exactly when I believe the being in question qualifies as a human. Let me give an analogy, and I hope I don’t come off as condescending because of its simplicity, but it’s the best I can think of. Say you’re making a cake. And you mix together all the ingredients, and put it in the oven. Now, at what point, exactly, can you pull the product out of the oven, and call it a cake? There is an amount of time, from the beginning, where you could pull it out, and hand it to someone who was expecting a cake, and they would tell you, “That’s not a fucking cake!” The basic ingredients are all there, but it will not pass for a cake yet. There is an amount of time, from the end, where you could pull it out, and though it may not be completely baked, it would pass for a cake. Albeit not a very good one. In between, there is a lot of uncertainty. It is much the same, with a developing human being. And I feel halfway through the pregnancy to be a good enough point, where we can say, “After this, it starts getting a little too sketchy. But before this, it’s not developed enough.” I don’t know if I would call it human after 6 months, or 7, or 8. For me, that’s where the ambiguity lies. Before 5, definitely not. And absolutely not at conception.
@Maverick83 - I’m not talking about magic which is by tradition an anamistic and naturalistic force. I’m talking about the logical implications of the fact that morality can exist as a concept. If you’re an atheist then you probably are unwilling to acknowledge the divine, but the same hand that fashioned the physical elements fashioned the psychological elements as well. I personally do not believe in evolution for many reasons, ranging from the lack of empirical data to the impossibility of having an uncaused finite universe. However, if I were an evolutionist it would seem that a lust for death would be the natural and proper thing within that context, as death and suffering are what causes species to evolve and improve. Things like infant mortality and genocides would just be natural mechanisms that refine away the genetic dross. Believing in good and evil, morality, and opposing murder are incompatible with the evolutionary paradigm. But, I don’t believe in evolution which is why I tend to place objective value on human life. My point was that evil exists as a concept because of the natural laws which God has written in people’s hearts. If there were no God then evil could not exist as a concept. The concept of good and evil has been programmed into you which is the only reason you are even able to think that way. Everyone has a bit of evil in them, for example, no one has to be taught how to lie or steel, but at some point everyone has lied or stolen something. Anyways, it’s late and I’m getting tired, so I’m going to quickly address the rest of this.
I understand what you’re trying to say with the cake analogy, but we’re talking about human beings not cakes. There is no crime or murder involved in throwing out the cake during the mixing stage or after it has been cooked. In any case, I would say that once all the ingredients are in place you have a cake, it’s just an unfinished cake. And for reproduction all the ingredients are in place at conception.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Fossil records, DNA, and observable similarities between closely related species has sufficed for me, personally, especially considering that the amount of evidence for God is ZERO. As for the universe, we don’t know if it is uncaused or finite. If it is caused, there is no reason that cause had to be some kind of conscious being, with any kind of intent, and whether finite or infinite, it absolutely could have been uncaused. The universe itself is not bound by the laws that it has created. It could very well be the source of all causality. Much like God. Except we know the universe exists. We simply do not know enough, but that is no reason to insert an explanation we imagine just because it’s convenient. No offense, but your understanding of evolution is completely inaccurate. (It’s okay, that’s true for everyone I’ve ever seen who doubts it.) The basic goal of life is to survive. It’s established by a very simple principle: For animals, survival requires effort. Life that doesn’t want to survive, won’t. Only life forms that want to survive, will, and so very early on in the process, only life forms that want to survive will exist. Any life forms that actually seek death and suffering will die out very quickly. Death and suffering do not cause improvement, in evolution. You have it backwards. It’s not that adaptation is the goal, and so suffering is pursued as a means of achieving that goal. Death and suffering are unwanted, and adaptation is used to avoid them. Improvement is not the goal. Survival is the goal, and improvement is an ordeal undertaken, when necessary, to achieve that goal. The concepts of good and evil exist only in the human mind, but opposing murder is absolutely not incompatible with evolution. Life is driven to seek out a means of securing its survival. Which is more likely to ensure our survival, a cooperative environment or one in which we must constantly worry about killing others before they kill us? God is just an extension of one’s ego, and a means of attempting to explain what one does not understand. Why do you think everyone has a different interpretation of God? Not even two people following the exact same religion will agree on every aspect of the God they worship. The closest to reality that objective morality can be, is that there are certain goals which all living things share, there are circumstances which will allow all of us to strive for those goals, and there are actions which promote those circumstances (much of what we have labelled “good”), and actions which discourage them (much of what we have labelled “evil”). For the most part, it is easy to sense which one of those an action does, if it does either. For example, it isn’t difficult to understand that murder ultimately promotes a reality in which, as I stated above, we must constantly live in fear of being killed, trusting no one, and constantly killing others because of that fear. Not a comfortable existence. The problem is that when it isn’t that obvious, we get hung up on the labels, courtesy of the idea of objective morality, and distracted from the effects of the action.
And I know we’re talking about living beings, but that wasn’t the point of the analogy. You can call the unfinished cake a cake, if you want. The point is, it is incapable of doing what a finished cake can do. It needn’t be treated as a finished cake. What I’m concerned with is, what is it, effectively? It develops from being effectively a mess, a puddle, whatever one might call it, to being a cake. And what is being thrown out, at any given point, depends on the level of development it has reached. Similarly, I believe the fetus goes from being a clump of cells to being a human, over the course of nine months. And what is being killed depends on how much it has developed.
@explosive - and my point is, she should not have that choice because that choice is taking the life of another. and the one who dies does not have a choice.
@danaenicole - But it’s not your choice to decide for HER. And it IS her choice. Do I need to post the Roe v. Wade ruling again until you get it through your head?
@explosive - you can post the roe v. wade ruling as much as you want. it doesn’t change anything. the government is not perfect. i believe that the ruling of roe v. wade was that “it’s the woman’s body. therefore, she can decide whether or not to have an abortion.”? but it’s not the woman’s body. when sperm meets egg, it is the beginning of life. the life of another human being. not of the mother. technically, she has the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. i’m saying that that choice should not be legal. just like it is illegal for a woman to make the choice to kill her 3-year-old.
@Maverick83 - You realize of course that saying “Fossil records, DNA, and observable similarities between closely related species has sufficed for me” isn’t an actual argument. First of all, it’s just your belief that one kind of organism can be related to another when there is no inter-fertility. No one has ever seen one kind of organism give birth to another, all that gets passed on is the genetic information that the parents have, and there is no natural mechanism that allows for the addition of new genetic information. Even Dawkins admits that there is not a single recorded mutation which has led to an increase in genetic information. I could say that the “fossil record” and DNA support my beliefs (and they do) but without providing an actual explanation as to why or how you might as well be saying “blue sky, yellow dog, brown car, etc.” It’s also just a mutually agreed upon scientific fact that the universe is finite, even all of the evolutionists acknowledge that, so how you don’t know that is beyond me. The universe is bound by the laws, that’s why they’re called LAWS. It seems to me that you’re really a pantheist, and that’s the thing, atheism is technically pantheism because the creative power is ascribed to the universe. There are many religions and God concepts, but obviously only one of them can be correct. I have decided that the Bible offers the best explanation for the way of things, and that it has more corroborating evidence than other belief systems, including yours. Anyways, if you want to know about God, the basics of his laws are written into us, but the salvation message is in the Bible. To answer your question, the best way to understand the Bible is to take it literally, except in cases where a parable or metaphor is being used. But in all those cases an interpretation is provided for the metaphor and the metaphor is stated as such.
Again, I don’t believe in evolution, but I’m going to play devils advocate. If evolution were true than immortality would be the best means of survival, better than relying on just reproduction. You can’t say “reproduction allows things to evolve faster” as a reason for reproduction being favored over immortality because that’s circular. But at any rate, given the context of evolution it’s survival of the fittest (which is more individualistic) not survival of everyone and everything in a group. Obviously the focus of evolution is to clean out the dross and dead weight, which is where death comes on. Death is what cleans out the weaker specimens and that cleaning out is what causes organisms to get ahead.
Well if you insist on using that cake metaphor, then the baking period actually goes from conception to age 25 because you’re not done growing and developing until you hit 25.
@explosive - You can choose to keep your legs closed, and that’s your choice. Killing the baby is you making a choice for someone else.
@danaenicole - These people are seriously retarded. The choice comes when they choose to spread their legs for some guy. That’s the woman’s choice that she makes with her own body. Abortion involves making a choice with someone else’s body, the baby.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - That’s just plain amusing. I have no idea where to begin addressing all of the things that are wrong with that argument. It is pure wrongness, at its wrongest, and I don’t exactly have the energy to provide a full explanation. I’ll try to make a few brief points.
The way evolution happens, is not that one species gives birth to another. Change occurs very gradually, over many generations. You’re looking at it as each species being clearly defined and entirely independent. But life exists as a spectrum, each species gradually changing and blending seamlessly into the next.
“It’s also just a mutually agreed upon scientific fact that the universe is finite, even all of the evolutionists acknowledge that, so how you don’t know that is beyond me.”
The only thing that is mutually agreed upon, about the universe, is that we hardly know anything about it. How you don’t know that is beyond me. It could be constantly expanding and compressing, it could be a series of “big bangs” that keep expanding outward forever, it could exist among multiple universes. Or, yes, some sort of god could have created it. The full range of possibilities is unimaginable.
And finally, yes, immortality would be preferable. But, unlike God, we’ve never claimed that evolution was perfect. (And so there’s no need for us to make excuses for it, when it isn’t…) With only the environment and chance to guide it, what adaptations we develop is not based solely on what would be best. We don’t get to say, “You know, I think I’d like to be immortal.” and develop immortality. (But on that note, we are drawing ever closer to achieving it.) It isn’t based on what we think would be ideal, it simply is what it is. A being that dies, dies. A being that reproduces, reproduces. Naturally, only reproducing species with survival instincts would remain, after billions of years, without having developed immortality. And we do have the desire for immortality. (That’s a large part of why religion even exists.) That desire is a vital element in achieving it. Now we just need to develop a means. And we’re working on it.
“But at any rate, given the context of evolution it’s survival of the fittest (which is more individualistic) not survival of everyone and everything in a group.”
So, you’re saying that a kill or be killed environment is better than a cooperative one, for your survival, as an individual? You’re unable to see the clear benefits of compassion and cooperation, for both a species and the individuals within that species?
“Well if you insist on using that cake metaphor, then the baking period actually goes from conception to age 25 because you’re not done growing and developing until you hit 25.”
(sigh) But after nine months, I’m out of the “oven”, aren’t I? I never said that everything about the metaphor would coincide directly with a human life, in every conceivable aspect. Not many metaphors sync up that well, if you’re desperate to pick them apart. But the point remains. During development in the womb, it is unclear as to when, exactly, a being qualifies as a human being.