Abortion Post the First: The LAME Arguments

[raefinlay]

I was a card-carrying pro-lifer. I made the signs and walked the “Walk of Life” and cowered slightly when pro-choice, militant feminists yelled obscenities and threw rotten peaches at me. I donated money to anti-abortion programs.

 

It felt like the right thing to do. Human life is sacred, right? And everyone I loved and trusted most was convinced that the pro-life view was the only right one, the only moral one, the only Godly one. There were “proof texts” in the Bible used by all my pastors that, as far as I could tell, only peripherally related to abortion, but those guys were smarter than me and what did I know?

 

A few years ago, I finally started asking myself the tough questions. It was hard to distance myself from the emotion of it. In fact, emotionally, I will always be anti-abortion. Though I’ve never had an abortion myself, dear friends of mine have, and it was hard to watch and experience their pain. Abortion is not an easy answer, no matter what one’s views, and even when one is completely convinced that it’s the right thing to do, the social excoriation is excruciating.

 

I’m going to write this out in two parts. This part could be subtitled: Some LAME Arguments Used in the Abortion Debate. The next post, later this week and hidden under a heavy-lifting cut tag, will be: Why Current Christian Biblical Proof Texts are LAME and Why a Bible-Thumping Fundamentalist Could Be Pro-Abortion.

 

So, for today, the LAMENESS of two major, current arguments.

 

 

L.A. from the left: A woman has the right to do what she wants to her own body. OMG, just stop already. A fetus is not part of the woman’s body. An itty-bitty zygote is not part of the woman’s body. It has its own set of DNA, completely unique from the mother’s. It meets every scientific definition for life all in its own right.  Actually, if we want to get technical and precise, then the correct definition for an unborn baby is “parasite.”

 

However, even if a fetus were part of a woman’s body, a woman does not, never has, and probably never will have the right to do anything she wants to it. If I went to the doctor and asked him to please, please, please cut off my arm, he would think I was a crazy person. No matter how much I wanted to cut off my arm, he would not do it for me. Here’s a key point: Abortion is possible, legal, and safe precisely because a fetus is not part of a woman’s body.

 

Accepting that a fetus is life all on its own leads us to the essential question that should be at the forefront of the debate: Does a woman have the right to make choices about her body and her future when another potentially-human life is involved and may die as a result?

 

Slight aside: A pro-lifer would insert “innocent” right before human life in that question. But that adjective assumes human sentience and rights. Here’s what we have so far:  Is a fetus part of a woman’s body? No. Is it “life?” Yes. Is it human life? Absolutely (it can be no other kind of life.) Is it sentient human life deserving of all the rights of a human member of society? Ah, now THERE is a good question. That question might be worth a third post. *sigh*

 

L.A. from the right:  Abortion is unsafe. It causes great physiological and emotional trauma to the mother. *dies of the dumbness* Abortion is one of the safest procedures in the world. Maternal mortality in the U.S.—in other words, the number of women who kick the bucket due to pregnancy and birth related stuff—is approximately 21 for every 100,000. (Article 1, Article 2) Here’s the kicker: Maternal mortality from UNSAFE abortion in the U.S. is only about 1 in 100,000. Maternal mortality from SAFE abortion is comparable to getting a shot of penicillin. This means that in the U.S., a woman is 20 times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy/birth than of an abortion. Abortion is SAFER than full term pregnancy.

 

In developing countries, the mortality rate for UNsafe abortions climbs as high as 100 per 100,000, but that is still fairly comparable to the maternal mortality rate for those countries in general.

 

As far as the emotional trauma is concerned, I have not been able to find a study comparing post-abortion depression to post-partum depression. I have also not been able to find a study comparing post-abortion issues among pro-choicers to those of pro-lifers who did the secret abortion thing. I suspect that pressures and beliefs from one’s social circle could influence this heavily, but I’m just not sure. So I can only theorize. But that’s all anyone can and should do until such studies are done. Also, the possible side effects of abortion are widely touted as being omg awful (uterine scarring, infertility, bleeding, infection, etc.), but nowhere do I see this compared to the side effects of full term pregnancy (*copy/pastes* uterine scarring, infertility, bleeding, infection, etc.) Again, the pro-life side is making arguments without anything to back them up.

 

So there you have it, two of the lamest arguments ever. I’m currently learning about the psychology and brain patterns of babies and fetuses, trying to determine at what point a baby becomes sentient. I think it’s safe to say that with modern technology, a fetus becomes viable at about 6 mos gestation—but only if the mother has great health insurance.

 

Next post: How Surprised I Was To Learn that The Bible Argument Against Abortion is LAME

 

More reading:

The wikipedia entry on maternal mortality. It’s a bit outdated—the pertinent study was done in 2000, and m.m. has been on the rise since—but it’s good reading.

 

And here is a really great study the religious right uses to draw crappy conclusions. (Pro-lifers never ever cite other, peripheral reasons for the findings, such as social ostracision and pressure, religion-induced guilt, the burden of keeping a secret, etc.)

 

Comments

[therinth.livejournal.com]

Oddly, if they were SO FREAKING CONCERNED with mother-infant health, we would have NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE already.

Perhaps then we would get to have the same infant mortality ratios as, oh, i dunno, EVERY SINGLE OTHER first would country?

(I feel a bit strongly about this. Sorry. *ahem*.)

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

Thank you, yes.

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

Perhaps while you're going through the bible looking for lame abortion arguments, you can find the places where Jesus says that people who follow his teachings should spend as much of their time as possible telling other people what to do.

[hkneale.livejournal.com]

Right on, Rae.

The arguments they use are indeed quite lame.

Me, I believe abortion should be legal, safe and rare. When one decides how legal abortion should be, one must take into account all reasons for an abortion.

I myself feel that abortion should be legal and freely available in cases of rape, incest, where the mother's life is in danger, or where the baby has some sort of medical condition that will make it unviable outside the womb.

I do NOT like it being used as a form of birth control when a woman has been irresponsible about sex. That just smacks of immaturity.

As for the actual procedure(s) itself, I would like to see it be as medically safe as possible. Here in Australia, the most common procedure is one called Dilation & Curettage (D&C), and is done under general anaesthetic. It is not just for "killing these poor, innocent lives before they've had a chance to be born." It has other, necessary, medical reasons.

When my first baby died in utero at eight weeks, my body did not dispel it. I had to go in and have an D&C. Believe me, I'm so glad it was a safe procedure.

Personally, I'm into early-prevention. I'm in the camp that a woman should make the sorts of choices and conduct herself in a way that she will be unlikely to have to be faced with the decision of whether or not to have to get an abortion.

I tend to lean towards the Pro-Life camp, but I'm also into the Every Child a Wanted Child frame of mind.

[therinth.livejournal.com]

But is a woman who is immature enough to require abortion as a form of birth control the type of woman who will go on to become a well educated and brilliantly skilled mother?

[silkpajamas.livejournal.com]

One big problem with abortion being against the law is that women don't get support they need when they do get pregnant. A woman will be shamed for giving her baby up for adoption. A woman will be criticized (less these days) for having a baby at young age. She surely isn't supported much.

Please notice, I'm not saying whether abortion is right or wrong. I'm saying the whole setup is wrong. Those who are against abortion (religious right groups) don't want condoms handed out either.

IMO, the religious right wants to close their eyes to the problem and hope unwanted pregnancies will just go away. The religious right (as a stereotyped group) doesn't support condoms, welfare, or even birth control.

I could possible agree to no abortion or strict laws on abortion if all birth control was supported by the government. Why isn't it when both sexes engage in sex to complete a pregnancy. Why should a woman foot the bill and the responsibility?

One last thing: (sorry I can't use a cut on your blog) Many people (church people or not) who frown on abortion have engaged in sex outside of marriage. Since sex outside of marriage can potentially cause a pregnancy, I vote that anyone who has engaged should abstain from voting against abortion.

Obviously, we need a paradigm shift, but I think (and you may correct me) that strict Christians aren't even allowed to engage in dialogue about this subject.

Note: I've never had an abortion. Several of my friends have had them. I have three friends who gave up babies when they were very young. These babies are probably looking for their parents now. This topic is HUGE.

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

Feel free to write as much in my blog as you want to, anytime. :-)

In my experience, Christians do discuss this a lot, but there's no room socially or culturally for middle-of-the-road positions.

And yes, this topic is HUGE. Giving up babies for adoption could be a whole 'nother post or two.

[janeorben.livejournal.com]

Adoptive parents are the kids' parents. I know people who've been adopted who could look up their birth parents and chose not to. And I've known adopted people who developed a relationship as an adult with their birth parent or parents. But the parents are the people who do the hard work of lovingly raising and a child.

[affinity8.livejournal.com]

I read a very interesting article a few years back about people who do find doctors and pay them to amputate perfectly good limbs. These people have a sense of "wrongness" in their complete bodies and though you and I would say they're nuts, the article was careful to explore it from a balanced perspective.

I want to say it was The Atlantic or New Yorker but I'm not sure, and this was in the years before del.icio.us.

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

Wow...I didn't know that.

I tried to convince a doctor to give me hysterectomy. But she refused, so certain was she that I didn't really know what I wanted. I still wish I could have one.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Likewise, some people would say that some radical plastic surgery or radical facial tattoos and piercings are more disfiguring than cutting off an arm.

[java-fiend.livejournal.com]

Well, quite obviously I support a woman's right to choose. I don't think the state has any right to tell a person that they can't make decisions regarding their future, their health and yes... their bodies. I'm probably a little more extreme than you in the personal liberties department considering I believe that if a person went to a doctor and wanted a testicle removed, then they should be allowed to have that sucker lopped of then and there. I support a person's right to end their life if they so choose. I think what the state did to Jack Kevorkian is criminal. He provided a service that people obviously wanted. It infuriates me that the state of Oregon has passed a "right to die" act multiple times only to have the Feds cut it down. I think that's wrong. If I want to end my life, that is my right. Period.

My opinion on abortion is... well... to use Bill Clinton's words, I think that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I think we need to stop with all of this "abstinence-only" bulls**t and actually start teaching REAL sex-education to the children which yes, incorporates abstinence as a viable alternative. But we need to get over this Victorian mindset about sex and realize that if we actually teach sex, if we teach proper contraceptive methods, teach the risks and dangers of disease, dispel the myths and taboos surrounding sex and offer viable alternatives to abortion... like say fixing a badly broken Children's Services system, then the abortion is going to pretty much be a moot point.

What really kills me about these rabid pro-lifers is that you'll see the same people on the picket line outside of planned parenthood in the morning and then outside of a pro-death penalty rally in the evening. Every life is sacred? Yeah right.

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced that Kevorkian was not an insane sociopath. I suspect he couched his homicidal acts in terms of helping people. He might even be the hero of his own story. But anyone on a "mission" to help people kill themselves is suspect.

I could be convinced otherwise if, say, you had some good arguments and were willing to share. *hints subtley*

[geniusofevil.livejournal.com]

why do you have to throw the word "rare" in there? Why not just safe and legal?

[janeorben.livejournal.com]

I went through the same type of thinking you have in college, except that I started out vaguely pro-choice. I started thinking more deeply about the subject when a young hard-core feminist friend of mine got very emotionally and insisted that a woman should have a right to have an abortion in the fourth week of the last month of pregnancy for whatever reason. I knew all the good reasons why abortion needed to be legal, but I hadn't studied the other side, so I hadn't figured out where I ethically drew a line.

I went to Catholic HS and a priest at my school once said that abortion was a "black and white issue," but little could be farther from the truth! When I looked into the Roe v. Wade ruling, I found out that it was in fact full of subtly and attention to both the health of the women in the different stages of pregnancy and the development and viability of the unborn at the different stages.

I am convinced that there is a middle ground on this issue. Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat in Pennsylvania was asked about this, and he said that for starters, people on both sides want there to be less abortions and less unwanted pregnancies. If we started making policies based on what we agree on (such as policies that support poor women who are pregnant, and better sex education and access to birth control before kids become sexually active) then we'd be able to do something that really helps people, as well as have civil and intelligent conversations about these hard issues.

Anyway, one of my dear heroes, Carl Sagan, wrote this essay about the middle ground on the abortion issue with his wife. The latter part especially deals with the specifics of fetal development:

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

That is a GREAT essay. Thank you.

[sarahbrand.livejournal.com]

I think I'm about to get kicked out of the computer lab, so for now I'll just say that I'm about where you are (emotionally pro-life, logically pro-choice). IMO Obama hit the nail on the head at the Saddleback thing, when he said that women don't make these decisions lightly. Ironically, that seems a more conservative view (in the "limited government" sense) ... trusting people to control their own lives.

But as you said, it's not just the mother's own life. Another stupid left argument is that if you protect a zygote, you'd have to protect eggs and sperm... when really, potential life and eventual life are two utterly different things.

I think, although I may be totally making this up, that countries where abortion is legalized actually have fewer abortions (per capita?) than countries where it is illegal. Although I imagine legalized abortion probably goes hand in hand with a more enlightened approach to birth control, which would account for the difference.

... yup, getting kicked out now, which is good because my brain was moving on to abstinence-centric sex ed, which would be a long rant and a bit off-topic.

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

If you really wanted to get into the "human potential" argument, you could outlaw NOT having sex. Or make it illegal to scratch your armpit. (All that destroyed DNA!)

I think this is at the heart of the Catholic Church's traditional stance against contraception, though thankfully that is changing.

[aimeempayne.livejournal.com]

My thoughts on abortion are that it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human with full rights of citizenship, it doesn't have the right to use my body. If can't be forced to donate a kidney to save (theoretical) offspring, why should I be forced to donate my body to incubate (again, theoretical) offspring.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

it doesn't have the right to use my body

And this, I think, is what's really at the heart of the "A woman has the right to do what she wants to her own body" argument. It's not (sorry, Rae) about the fetus being a part of that body; it's about the question of whether or not the fetus has a claim to the use of that body to further its development.

(See also Judith Jarvis Thompson's work on abortion, the violinist problem in particular. Which is not without problems--ah, philosophy!--but does provide opportunity for some nifty wrangling.)

Which isn't to say that the question Rae ends up with isn't a more useful restatement of the problem; I think that it is. But "A fetus is not part of the woman’s body" isn't the reason why.

Rae, you might be interested in checking out a book called The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life (by Jeff McMahan). We dug through it in my senior seminar and it's a thoughtful, accessible look at abortion and similar problems. This isn't to say that I heartily endorse everything it has to say--but it was a good testing ground for some of my beliefs, and well worth spending time with. (Actually, I still have my copy around somewhere. I'd want it back eventually, but would be happy to send it along if you're interested.)

[silk-noir.livejournal.com]

I appreciate you talking about this but I decided I will not read much or through the comments because I will just lose my temper and I don't need that.

Having worked at an abortion clinic for over a decade, having talked to women in all stages of abortion counseling, experiencing personal harrassment, having testified before a grand jury--augh.

Carry on, women.

[fixed-air.livejournal.com]

Rock on. Great arguments.

The best pro-choice article I ever read was an essay assigned in my bioethics class. It compared unwanted pregnancy to a person waking up one day with a dangerously ill world-famous violin player attached to his/her body and feeding off of his/her healthy organs. All the violin fans in the world would say that the violin player was a valuable person and only needed to be attached to someone else's healthy body for nine months; couldn't the healthy person suck it up and take one for the team? Odd, odd concept - but brilliant.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

I am strongly, adamantly and unshakably pro-choice. And the issue for me is the woman's right to make the choice to remain pregnant or not herself.

Not the state, not the church or the courts, not Fred on the corner or her great Aunt Mabel. Her and her alone, after consulting with her doctor and her partner if a stable, long term partner is part of the mix. No one else should have the right or the power to make those decisions for a woman.

Back in the day, when you were a babe in arms, this is how the argument was framed by pro-choice advocates. It was about a woman being allowed to make her own informed decisions. It was about women being treated as autonomous, grown-up human beings with power over their own lives and the direction their lives took, and not eternally forced into and kept in a childlike role where people who "knew better" had the power to make decisions for them. There is nothing more patriarchal than being told you don't know your own mind and having that power of decision taken away.

That is where the argument should have stayed, but as these things do, it devolved in anger and emotion to 'I have the right to do anything I want with my body'. Which, you know, is not the same as I have the right to make my own decisions.

I know where that anger and emotion comes from, having felt some of it myself. It comes from having your teenage daughter run a gauntlet of Operation Rescue people in front of her school every morning and at lunch time for months. Why? Because they assumed every teenage girl gets pregnant and aborts her fetus. Shoving pictures of dismembered babies in their faces was supposed to shame them. That anger was fed by being swarmed in a medical center parking lot that also held the offices of planned parenthood, because any teenage girl, her infant brother and her mother must be at that center to kill unborn children.

Those incidents changed my perspective and my attitude toward the anti-choice movement. Before that I was willing to let them have their opinions, let them make the decisions they felt were right for themselves. I wasn't going to picket churches and urge the women leaving to run down to the nearest clinc and abort their pregnancy. No pro-choice advocate ever would.

They were unwilling, sometimes violently unwilling, to allow me or my daughter the same respect or the same rights. Their entire focus was forcing their beliefs on others. My tolerance ended.

Then they started shooting clinic doctors, whose lives, apparently, weren't as sacred as the life of a zygote. It went beyond not having tolerance and for a time was out and out hate for the anti-choice crowd. I'm not sure the hate is entirely gone, but I'm working on it.

The argument about abortion has always been about choice, autonomy, and decision making power. Being pro-choice means believing women should hold those things in their own two hands and use them as they see fit.

That pretty much scares the shit out of the anti-choice crowd. They dress it up in sanctity of life and all their other catch phrases, but it comes down to control. They don't want women to have any, not even over their bodies.

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

I totally see your point, and I currently agree with it.

But, if we are to engage these folks in meaningful dialog, it is ESSENTIAL that we understand this: They believe that abortion is murder. They believe that taking yourself to a clinic to have your fetus removed is the moral equivalent of taking your 3 year old child inside to be put down. Believing this, they conclude that we are in a WAR to save lives, and in wars, one fights. To the death if necessary.

Their position, though misguided, is at least intellectually honest. Frankly, if people were taking 3 yr old children into a clinic to be shot up with saline or vaccuumed to pieces, then I might blow up clinics too. I would have zero tolerance.

So, from their perspective, we are demanding that they tolerate murder. By calling them "intolerant," we continue to misfire our communication. What we need to do is demand that they justify their position that abortion is murder.

[crimini.livejournal.com]

As my dad very wisely said during a heated argument I was having with my mother, "You're not arguing about the same things."

The Pro-Life movement is about a moral belief.

The Pro-Choice movement is about a woman's right to make decisions for herself concerning her own medical care.

You can be Pro-Choice and anti-abortion, but many of the pro-lifers equate the pro-choice with pro-abortion, and that's not it at all.

I should be the only one to make decisions about my own medical care. And that is why I stand on the side of Pro-Choice.

[malkatsheva.livejournal.com]

The Rabbis addressed this issue far differently 2000 years ago. They differ from Christian thinkers in that they don't really care when life or sentience begin. They do have opinions about these things, of course -- along with everything else -- but they don't make their ruling based on that. They say that in cases where the mother's health is endangered, the baby is regarded as a Rodef, an attacker, and therefore maybe terminated RIGHT UP UNTIL THE HEAD CROWNS(!), at which point it legally becomes its own person and may not be terminated, as that would be a murder.

The Rabbis rank dangers to mental health as highly as dangers to physical health. A Beis Din will grant an abortion in cases where severe postpartum depression is known to be a danger. This means that, like many things in traditional Judaism, you aren't really supposed to decide for yourself. You are supposed to ask your local Jewish Honchos -- the Beis Din -- for a ruling, which you then follow. Luckily, one often has a choice of Beis Dins. . .

Many Rabbis also support abortion in the case of birth defects such as Tay Sachs. I do not distinguish between long-dead Rabbis and living Rabbis because that how we roll in Judaism. Once you've acheived Mega-Rabbi-Hood, you're forever in the pantheon, basically. Also, this is why it takes Judaism soooooooo long to make new decisions. . . a living Mega-Rabbi has to basically out-argue 2000 years' worth of other Mega-Rabbis. Very involved process. . .

Buddhists, I think, might argue that you're lightening the baby's karmic burden at the expense of your own, something I think I agree with.

And for myself, I agree with others here: the polarization of the debate has cut us off from useful solutions. Why not make motherhood more attractive, rather than how it is nowadays? Where's my social security credit for parenthood, where's my 12 months of parent-hood leave with pay, where's my nationally subsidized daycare? These are things other nations have right now.

But go farther: where's my tax credit for giving a baby to adoption or my social security credit? Or how about free mental and physical health care for a year. . . or paid gestation leave? Or free medical care for gestating mothers who plan to give up their babies? Something? And don't tell me that people would get pregnant just to get the benefits. Puh-LEEZ!

And how about rewarding people who struggle bravely through the process of adopting an American baby, which is apparently a process designed by Kafka during a bad acid trip?

[malkatsheva.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I just can't shut up!

How about free State college attendance for mothers who gave up their babies? Education helps to prevent a recurrence of stupid behavior.

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

Well, the arm argument can be countered -- Removing an arm is quite invasive, extreme and will affect the way the person's body operates for the rest of their life. A zygote? Not so much.

If anything, I'd compare it to -- and I'm sure mothers will love me for this -- a wart or something extraneous like that. Well, probably something a little grander than that, but you probably get what I'm saying. people have surgery to remove or 'fix' things all the time, and the argument used in those cases is that it is their body. Without that line of thinking, the plastic surgery industry just wouldn't exist.