January 22, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Apparently, it's Blogs for Choice day. In a related development, the New York Times Sunday Magazine investigates "post abortion syndrome". Both seem to spend a lot of time exploring the question of how bad women feel after having an abortion.
Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, I don't see how this is a relevant policy question. People feel bad after doing all sorts of things, yet it is not illegal to say hateful things to your spouse or major in Comparitive Dance. On the other hand, people have a tremendous ability to rationalise how something that they really, really want to do is therefore something that they can acceptibly do, and indeed something they ought to do, as anyone knows if they have ever lived through a friend's extramarital affair.
I am sure that if theft were legal, very few people would feel guilty about it at the time, or later, and yet theft would still be wrong. And some things, like jaywalking across an empty street, are not morally wrong no matter how drastically proscribed. I know it's a rather tired metaphor, but was slavery right just because most of the slaveholders died believing that they were entitled? After all, without slaves, they had a sucky life being subsistence farmers, instead of a fun and glamourous life being plantation owners! How could you ask them to give that up because the darkies, who weren't even legally, or as far as they were concerned, morally people, didn't like it?
Which is not to say that this metaphor means abortion is wrong; we're back to the same old arguments about personhood, or partial personhood, or pre-personhood, or whatever you want to call it. But declaring "My conscience is clear!" doesn't really influence my opinion on the matter.
Posted by Jane Galt at January 22, 2007 5:02 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"Both seem to spend a lot of time exploring the question of how bad women feel after having an abortion."
I presume you meant "badly", rather than being judgemental about the women.
After all, what is "bad" about disposing of a "clump of cells", even if they might, at some point, develop into a full-fledged human being, like my adopted son or my daughter-in-law?
I suggest that it is an example of being able to medicalize a political issue in order to move the ball for your particular side.
Although I'm sure depression results from abortion (presumably the situation itself is depressing), I liken this to the CDC commenting on gun violence.
Say you think that foetuses have some sort of interest in being born, but that this interest is capable of being overridden by a sufficiently strong interest on the part of the mother. Then whether (and under what circumstances) abortion actually turns out to be in the mother's interests would potentially be relevant to one's views on whether abortion should be permitted (and under what circumstances). Insofar as regret seems to be an indication of having misjudged one's true interest in having an abortion, it doesn't seem all that strange to take it into account.
For any medical question OTHER than abortion, if non-trivial percentage 'x' of persons who participated in 'y' tended to experience a clinically-identifiable period of grieving and/or depression, it would be standard practice to warn all seekers before allowing them to sign up for the medication or procedure.
anony-mouse: I agree with your assessment. I will trot out the political saw that it seems that abortion is the one constitutional right that cannot be interfered with, no matter what, come what may.
Klug: Well, a large number of the people who want to forbid it are alarmingly ignorant and vicious asshats. (Cf. Dakota.) Also, the question of whether abortion is moral doesn't track well to whether it should be legal, a point that one should think genuine "conservatives" should appreciate -- if any of their supposed convictions were matters of principle rather than tactics. But by now, we know what the answer to that often is.
The "pro-choice" side of the debate doesn't have things all its own way, though. The number of people who think it's logical and moral to describe fetuses as the equivalent of a cancer, or as dead cells that won't be missed, is disturbing. And the concern with defusing abortion as a "moral" choice is disturbing, too. Mostly, these people skate by on the fact that their opponents in the debate are even more ethically incoherent than they are.
Mostly, these people skate by on the fact that their opponents in the debate are even more ethically incoherent than they are.
"Ethically incoherent?"
That sounds suspiciously like a sophisticated troll...
We all are trolls lurking under one another's bridges, anony-mouse.
"Well, a large number of the people who want to forbid it are alarmingly ignorant and vicious asshats."
This discussion alone, and pretty much any discussion out there between people who disagree on the issue shows how emotional both sides are. Of course, it's a bit easier to ignore asshattery when it's coming from the team we're rooting for.
Anonymous: Pot calling the kettle black. So far, I've see you say little that's not trolling. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We'd be hurting ourselves if we avoided people who disagreed with us and never got into a debate, and as much as you fancy it up with pointless vocabulary and pseudo-logic, most issues are emotional at their core (especially abortion): Bickering is going to happen no matter what.
Also, fuck.
DS:
We're not gonna settle this here and now. (Obviously) I think my point remains: both sides think they're right. Therefore, they'll throw the kitchen sink at it. In this case, the anti-abortion side is using the "x is bad for you medically" argument. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alan Guttmacher Institute has a study showing that abortion prevents cancer and tooth decay.
I am sympathetic to the pro-life side. However, that does not overcome my natural skepticism of all new medical conditions.
"Both seem to spend a lot of time exploring the question of how bad women feel after having an abortion. Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, I don't see how this is a relevant policy question."
It is relevant, though. Proponents of legal abortion often argue that it is an essential component of women's liberation. If abortion were illegal, many women would resort to "back alley" abortions, and those who did not would be compelled to carry to term fetuses they didn't want. In other words, pro-choice people are arguing that legal abortion is good for women.
If it turned out that abortion had coorosive psychological effects on women, one would at least have to reconsider whether legal abortion has been good for them. One might still favor legal abortion but wish to require abortion clinics to warn women--especially young and inexperienced women--of the potential dangers.
So, while it's true that one cannot reasonably say "Abortion has bad effects on some women therefore it ought to be illegal," neither can one simply dismiss abortion's harmful effects as "irrelevant." After all, government does frequently interfere when it believes people are harming themselves--as for examply by imposing "sin" taxes on cigarettes and requiring warning labels on cigarettes and many other products.
Most if not all laws have morality at the heart of them. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You shouldn't speed, not because the gov says so, but because you run the risk of recklessly indangering someone else....right and wrong. Morality.
You shouldn't dodge your taxes because then you are consuming and benefiting from government services that you didn't pay for.
It's wrong to falsly shout fire in a crouded theater because your actions may lead to people getting seriously hurt in the rush to the door.
I can't come up with a single rule imposed or that we impose on ourselves that dosen't ultimately deal with morality or what you could label "right" or "wrong".
With that in mind, it doesn't mean we should make lying to your mom illegal, but it also doesn't mean that abortion shouldn't be outlawed or strictly curtailed simply because there are morals involved. People need to stop trying to make this a secular vs. religious issue and see it what it really is...a caring for and respecting for life that is more vunerable than you vs. a it's my party and i'll cry if I want to attitude. Oops, framing it in that way, rather than the big bad church vs. the rennaissance man sounds a lot better.
If you think having an abortion is sometimes depressing and frustrating, you should try raising a child.
"People feel bad after doing all sorts of things, yet it is not illegal to say hateful things to your spouse or major in Comparitive Dance."
Except abortion is irrevocable, but you can always apologize to your spouse or go back to school for something else. Unless you can clone the aborted fetus, you will never be able to carry that baby to term.
As long as the pro-abortion forces keep on glossing over the fact that abortion = killing a baby, then foolish women will continue to have abortions and then find themselves overcome with emotions they weren't prepared for.
This is not to say that I believe abortion should be illegal. I don't. I just think that abortion is a very drastic choice that shouldn't be taken lightly.
So far, I've see you say little that's not trolling. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And it is a lucky thing for ya, mate.
Most if not all laws have morality at the heart of them.
But obviously not all morality can, practically speaking, be codified into law. I can well understand someone thinking that the use of alcohol is immoral, for instance, without being sympathetic to Prohibition. Sometimes the social and economic costs of trying to outlaw an activity make the enterprise unworkable.
Abortion is a particularly complex case. Most of us don't really have a home in either of the two extreme camps that form the core of the abortion polemic (I refuse to call it a "debate"). Most people can see circumstances in which abortion is fully justified and trying to withold or prosecute it is wrong and immoral, and most people can likewise see circumstances in which abortion itself is immoral. I'd certainly characterize my own position this way.
However, I really don't trust the would-be legislators about abortion to be able to see the shades of gray or to be able to make moral judgments on behalf of pregnant women. This is particularly so given (a) the massive complexity of any such personal decision and (b) the alarming frequency with which actual, real-world anti-abortion legislation bears out the very worst suspicions of feminists about the real issue being control over women's bodies, and not "life" at all. I don't think all pro-lifers are extremists or fools, quite the contrary -- I know some personally who are anything but. However, I do think the extremists, the fools or the simply naive have way too much control over the pro-life legislative agenda for it to be workable. As long as that's true, being pro-choice and anti-legislation is the only workable and moral alternative for me.
That said, the pro-choice movement often drives me batty. I think many people get so caught up in trying to aggressively refuse any possible foothold to pro-lifers that they don't understand how alienating their rhetoric becomes. A morally persuasive position like Naomi Wolf's is seen by many, unjustly, as an embarrassment. Unfortunately, this paranoia is understandable -- but that doesn't make it sympathetic or practical.
While this debate gets very tedious after many years, I for one am glad to see more women stating that they had abortions and were not traumatized by the experience. I am one of those women with zero desire to have children, but managed to get pregnant twice (diaphrams...boo..hiss). Each decision was made swiftly (really a foregone conclusion - "decision" is stretching things a bit), the appointment made asap, the procedure done asap, and I went on with my life - no regrets to this day (tubes were tied soon after abortion #2). I've come to terms with how unusual I am for a female, and completely understand how a more maternal woman would feel regret. But throw us non-maternal types a bone here...you may not like it, but women like me exist. It was high time experiences like mine were acknowledged and put into the mix.
Problem is "your experiences" do not justify destroying a life simply because you find it inconvienent.
"Problem is "your experiences" do not justify destroying a life simply because you find it inconvienent."
Problem is "your personal beliefs" do not justify denying me the right to destroy the clump of cells I created, simply because it violates your own personal beliefs.
ALP, if we're going to put your "experiences" in the mix, then we might as well put in mine:
I cried 10 times more when my second child miscarried at 8 weeks or so than when my grandmother died. Ditto for my wife and her grandmother. We even gave our "clump of cells" a name.
Voila! Abortion should be 10 times more illegal than shooting your grandmother. QED.
Or...maybe Jane's right, and some personal emotional anecdote is of minimal relevance to the public policy question.
There are instances in which the law sanctions killing besides abortion. Self-defense, the death penalty, a properly sanctioned war are examples. So the question should be whether abortion is one type of killing which we will legally permit. It is a tough call and the country is pretty evenly divided. In most instances I would bet that when put to a vote the right for a mother to abort would be sustained, at least for reasonable period of time into gestation. Will C.
When "feeling bad" arises to the level of a mental disorder, it is certainly an appropriate policy topic. We talk about PTSD in abundant variations. Post-abortion trauma is PTSD with an additional cluster of symptoms. Government policy absolutely affects the number and timing of abortions, so let's not hide our faces from a serious set of policy questions.
Comments are Closed.