Yesterday was Blog for Choice day. I didn’t get to participate, as I spent the whole day in meetings and airplanes. I had no choice! But at the end of the day, checking up on Bloglines from a hotel in Tucson, I found moving posts from Bitch Ph.D., Shakespeare’s Sister, Litbrit, and Lizardbreath from Unfogged, among numerous others.
Conventional wisdom among liberals and feminists is that being anti-abortion has little to do with a desire to protect helpless little blastocysts, and is really about denying women control over their bodies and lives. I always had trouble believing this, as I went to a nice Catholic school in which joining the “For Life” group was just as respectable a public-service move as joining Amnesty International. My friends at Villanova (including a large number of women) really, honestly, and in good faith did believe that fetuses were people with souls, and they needed to be protected. This didn’t quite amount to a well-thought-out and consistent philosophical position, admittedly; you’ll find very few such people who really want to punish abortionists just like we punish murderers, or who would save a petri dish of fertilized eggs from a burning building before saving a breathing baby, or who believe that heaven is filled with the souls of embyos that failed to implant in the uterus. But they really were just trying to do the right thing, according to social justice as they understood it. And they weren’t necessarily overly dogmatic about it; I helped organize a panel discussion on abortion that featured priests, biologists, and philosophers, which ended up being quite interesting (although it somehow failed to solve the world’s problems).
Ultimately, free of my protective collegiate cocoon, I realized that the conventional wisdom among liberals and feminists is completely correct! Although some people have anti-abortion feelings for straightforwardly moral reasons, for many more people (especially the most vocal), it really is about denying women their own agency. Curse those liberals and feminists, right again!
But I still remember my friends who were not like that, and I recognize that for many people abortion really is a clash of absolutes. You can say all you want that it’s the pregnant woman’s body, hands off, etc.; but if it were actually true that a fetus was a person with a soul who was entitled to all of the protections that any post-birth person was entitled to, none of that would matter. The heart of the matter is: people who believe that are wrong.
Which is why my favorite blog-for-choice post was Lindsay’s. She puts it pretty straightforwardly:
To me, it’s just obvious that fetuses aren’t people and that real-live people who have become hosts to unwanted pre-people should be able to take the necessary steps not to become the parents of actual people. Who the hell gave anyone the idea that this choice is a view that needs defending, as opposed to common sense? I don’t write posts explaining that you shouldn’t torture your dog, or steal from your employer. Shouldn’t it be obvious that you shouldn’t consign an innocent person to incubate a hunk of protoplasm until it becomes a baby?
It does seem pretty obvious, unless you really think that hunk of protoplasm is a person with all of the rights of any of the other people you meet on the street every day. Which, when you think about it, isn’t obvious at all. The only reason anyone thinks it’s true is because their definition of a “person” is completely divorced from common sense, and is instead informed by a supernatural notion of personhood in which a soul enters that single cell at the moment of conception. A notion that would seem completely absurd if it weren’t for religion.
Steven Weinberg famously said, “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” This is a little bit harsh, of course, and I’d rather not get into the tiresome argument over whether the net effect of religious belief is to make people do more good things than bad things. But when squishy-liberal religious people ask why atheists bother making noisy public proclamations against their supernatural beliefs, it’s worth pointing out that such beliefs often do have consequences in the real world.
The idea that religion is the sole source of morality is silly — morality is invented by human beings, who are trying to negotiate their conflicting and incompatible desires in a world that doesn’t always play fair. The reason why it’s important to make the case that religious beliefs are false, even if adherents can point to examples where those false beliefs led people to be nice to each other and do other good things, is that false beliefs can just as easily lead people to treat each other badly. Given untrue hypotheses, it’s trivial to reach all sorts of untrue conclusions. Abortion is the perfect example. My friends back in college, with all of the good intentions in the world, would happily condemn a young and unprepared woman to an unwanted eighteen-year commitment, all because of their own misguided beliefs about nature and the supernatural. If we really want to make the world a better place, telling the truth about how it works is a good place to start.
The fact that most pregnancies and consqueent abortions are a result of two consenting adults decision to have sex makes the situation much different than ‘waking up one day and finding yourself forced to support another grown human-being’.
It doesn’t really change anything IMO–you’d have a legal right to take yourself off the life-support machine even if you somehow got hooked up to it through your own carelessness (maybe you signed a document in a hospital without reading the fine print) or even if you had originally agreed to it but changed your mind. The decision to take yourself off the machine would certainly be even more immoral in these cases (and I agreed that abortion is morally questionable after the brain starts working, although before that I think it’s no worse than killing a plant), but I don’t think the law can ever obligate you to use your body to support someone else.
This has alway been a hard topic for me.
Is there some “clear presence of thinking” when you have not held a child in your arms that allows intellectualism to speak from what is, “about life?” “A professionalism” detached from the emotion of not having done child rearing?
I am a grandfather again this morning, and she’s beautiful. I cut the umbilical cords of my own children. I watched this grand child move in her mother’s stomach.
I know what science can do because of the ability a disease can cause and not allow, to what can now begin in the petri dish thirty years ago, became a common place, and has become my grandchild today. “The death” of a grandchild “being born.”
Something “human” had to be added here, that may seem to have been lacking? Aspects of consciousness, that are defined by some “intellectual measure?” This may have been “my fault?” WE are all still very happy. 🙂
jw:
Would you apply a Turing test to a newborn?
If he/she fails it, can you just kill it…?
I am a pro-choice myself (rather, I believe that it is none of my business to tell a woman what to do with an undesired pregnancy) but I find it troublesome whenever someone attempts to find ‘scientific’ criteria with which to justify abortion.
Pro-life people that use religious arguments to make their point are at the same level as pro-choice people that use science to justify what is essentially a personal decision with very complex moral, economic, emotional, and legal consequences….
I am sure that many—most?—women that do have abortions do not go over religious, philosophical or scientific arguments to justify their decisions, so why bother?
Perhaps the strongest argument is that, unless you are the unwilling pregnant woman, it is none of your business to decide what is best—this is even stronger for us men…
Raymundo, I don’t think anyone is saying science alone can lead to a moral conclusion. Rather, the idea is that if you start with a non-scientific moral premise, like “the immorality of killing something has to do with its capacity for consciousness”, then scientific facts about brain development become relevant.
As an analogy, when making the decision whether to pull the plug on someone in a long-term unconscious state, don’t you think medical questions about whether the brain has been too damaged to make recovery a possibility would play a role in many people’s decision-making?
It is not the case that in developing countries, birth control methods are universally available and affordable. Nor is it the case that birth control methods are 100% pregnancy-proof, even when used correctly. I would guess that when men have birth control available to them and can share an equal 50% of the responsibility for a woman’s pregnancy, many of these arguments will change. I’m with spyder. I don’t tell people what they should do with their body, so please don’t tell me what I should do with mine.
Does anyone know what percentage of unwanted/unintended babies are actually adopted? At what age on the average?
Abortion is a complex issue, not just religeous or scientific. Economic reasons and inmaturities of mothers-to-be plays a major role. If biological fathers are irresponsible, will the government help them raise those children? Not as dirt poor but with decent housing and education? Unless the babies are adopted right after birth, there are a host of dangers and adversities to the well being of the unwanted ones. Particularly if they are institutionalized or go through an unmerry-go-round of host families, some emotional scars may be permanent.
It seems one sided to discuss the morality of aborting or bringing a new life into the world without discussing what kind of environment we can possibly provide for them.
As an analogy, when making the decision whether to pull the plug on someone in a long-term unconscious state, don’t you think medical questions about whether the brain has been too damaged to make recovery a possibility would play a role in many people’s decision-making?
Not a very good analogy I think. I do remember reading something about the brain being able to “rewire” itself around damaged area.
No, the analogy is quite good. The human brain is able to use some parts for new functions, ie. to do functions which can’t be performed by the damaged part anymore, but this is essentially quite limited. So, for example if someones frontal lobe is destroyed (I wonder if somebody could survive that anyway?) it would be absolutely impossible to restore its function anywhere.
To me, it’s just obvious that fetuses aren’t people…
…It does seem pretty obvious, unless you really think that hunk of protoplasm is a person with all of the rights of any of the other people you meet on the street every day. Which, when you think about it, isn’t obvious at all.
More proof that a person having technical smarts is no guarantee of philosophical smarts.
Now, if I was an atheist, I think I would still be able to differentiate between a technical fact, like what defines a person biologically, and a philosophical notion, like what rights a person deserves.
Like I say, if I was an atheist, I think I would acknowledge that a fetus is person, and then decide apart from that what rights a fetus deserves.
If there’s no Big Guy telling us what to do, why do we have to give a fetus any rights when it inconveniences us? But if I was an atheist, I would at least want to be biologically consistent. I guess it’s just easier for an atheist to push the atheist philosophy by twisting the basic facts.
You get to make the rules if there’s no Big Guy. It’s just a atheist free for all. No reason to endure any pain.
Here is thoughtful, reality-based essay on abortion by the late Carl Sagan, along with Ann Druyan. The manner in which it addresses the issues of the slippery slope, the spectrum of viability, and the essence of the soul feels as close to right as anything I’ve read.
You don’t have to be religious to be against abortion. It seems to me that people who believe that nature is sacred would be against abortion in that it is such an unnatural act. Of course you could argue that we have no compunction about terminating other forms of life using insecticides and what not else to control our environment. But isn’t that what we are trying to change about the way we deal with our environment? Aren’t we trying to live in a more earth-friendly way? So we are trying to be more earth-friendly but we also want to give a woman the right to do something as unnatural as terminating a pregnancy. Seems contradictory to me.
Since almost all of the pro-life voices in the comments are coming from men, wonder if those could still think the same if tomorrow morning someone turned on a switch and gave them a female gender and a couple decades of female experiences.
Amara: Although that’s a favorite argument to go to (since it can never be conclusively proven or disproven – a reason that scientists should eschew such an argument), statistics from an LA Times poll in 2000 are suggestive: 44% of women support Roe v. Wade vs. 42% of men. Similarly 44% of women were against Roe v. Wade vs 39% of men. Evidently, more men were undecided, possibly because they didn’t feel they had a right to have an opinion. So, if those numbers are any indication, the answer to your supposition is that, no, changing someone’s gender and male/female experiences is unlikely to have a profound impact on their pro-life/pro-choice viewpoint.
Observations on the genders of the comments, Ashlie. Please take care: US statistics are not useful in a world view.
Amara: Actually, if I were to find fault with the statistics I provide, it would be that they are most likely not reflective of the type of people contributing opinions here. To wit: no one has made a religious argument about the pro-life position. That said, I see no reason to believe (other than “faith”) that changing someone’s gender or male/female experiences would change their position on this.
You comment makes me wonder: are you aware of a larger male/female discrepancy in the “world view”? (I’m not.) I suspect that your (unstated) opinion on this is based off your gut instinct and not off actual data. Stephen Colbert would approve. 😉
Amara: As for the genders of the commenters, I’m not aware of any females who have posted pro-life or pro-choice. I’m assuming you’re female (and pro-choice), but otherwise I see no other data. Jesse (who also seems to identify as pro-choice) is clearly male. I don’t think one can make much of a statistical gender inference from the presence of a single identified female. (Granted, some of the other user names might be female as well, but I see no indication one way or the other.)
When we are talking about early-term abortions; the issue is clearly one of women’s rights vs domineering fanatics. However, as a pregnancy continues, the fetus eventually becomes clearly human, and no discreet event marks this change. Birth is not a good event to mark this transition considering that a child is developed equally immediately before and immediately after being born. The best way to deal with this is to make morning-after pills and EARLY term abortions easily accessible, and gradually increase the obstacles to abortion with increasing fetus developement, until a point where only severe medical complications can be used to justify an abortion (third trimester). I certainly agree that religious arguments add nothing but confusion to the issue. It is also worth noting a strong correlation between strong, vocal anti-choice (“pro-life” if you prefer) and anti-contraceptive views.
“If we really want to make the world a better place, telling the truth about how it works is a good place to start.”
These words should be engraved on stone plinths 100 feet tall and placed outside every center of government in the world.
I am pro choice as it is not for me to tell a woman how to live her life or what to do with her body even though I do have difficulty with the idea of late term abortion for all but absolutely necessary medical reasons.
No, Ashlie, just take care where you apply statistics. The US is 6% of the world’s population. In the larger view, women all over the world (including the US) daily live with the issues of managing (or trying to manage) their reproductive health, and so my comment about the nonuniversal access to, and the affordability of birth control etc. is relevant. Worldwide.
Please be aware that abortion is an issue that people in the European countries do not get worked up about, perhaps because 1) the laws are set in Parliaments rather than the U.S. Supreme Court (where issues of individual rights get involved), 2) Europeans are much more secular, and 3) abortion is considered a private matter that is not anyone’s business but the woman’s. If you would like data about this, go to The Economist web site and use the search word: ‘abortion’ and you’ll see that the issue of abortion (and “when life begins”) is a peculiar feature of the American political landscape compared to the political issues in other countries.
And yes, my other comments about genders is based on anecdotes; in the circles I move in (academic, research, technical in several countries including the U.S.), I’ve never met a woman who was ‘pro-life’, while, on the hand, I occassionally meet men who are. If you want to state that therefore my circles are not broad enough, then so be it, but I do find this facet very odd. So therefore, yes, I do wonder if, after those men who had a few decades experience of managing their baby-machine bodies, they would still think the same.
@Amara
If you have never met a woman that is pro-life I suggest you get out more. Theres plenty of them. In fact I have met far fewer woman who are pro-choice than the other way round. I know a few woman who after having had a abortion are now pro-life.
Oh by the way I am not either/or officaly. But I am a christain. (lots of woman are too).
greg: I think I get out a little bit too much (I really should not travel so much), but I’ll keep your suggestion in mind.
Amara: Based on your web-site, and my knowledge of the Astronomy field (I have an MS in Astrophysics), I would guess that you don’t know many pro-choice people in “your circle”, period. I.e., I’d guess that your circle isn’t very different from my circle. The only person I know well who is more pro-life than me is a woman (not including my relatives). Obviously, that’s not a very large sample to be drawing conclusions from, and I would never try to claim that my experience is typical. (Also, there are obviously a lot of people of both genders who are “more” pro-life than me.)
I would therefore humbly suggest that you reconsider your belief that changing someone’s gender (or male/female experiences) would change their pro-life/pro-choice view-point, as it appears to be based on a lot smaller sample size than the admittedly flawed poll statistics that I provided. At the very least, I think you should remain agnostic with respect to said belief. (Perhaps you are, but it certainly doesn’t come off that way.)
Daniel: I’ll agree that you’ll find a lot of pro-life people who feel the way you describe. However, you’ll also find a lot of people like me who are very pro-contraception. This includes responsible uses of the morning-after pill – where the only thing that concerns me is a throw-back to the thalidomide disaster. For the record, I’m also pro-enviroment (and a vegetarian). In fact, my pro-environment views are a much stronger motivator for me with respect to candidate selection than my views on abortion.
People, you’re all missing a very important point: even if the foetus is “human,” even if it has a “soul” – so what? so does the woman who is pregnant, and her life takes precedence. No one should ever be forced to provide life support for another human being unless they fervently so desire.
I do not consider myself either pro-life or pro-choice. Both are dogmatic. There are other considerations.
Let’s say a woman is pregnant, and considers abortion for whatever reason. Having met people who’ve done this, consider that the woman who has the abortion (assuming it was done properly) then goes through emotional hell. If there is a partner still involved, he’ll go through hell too. So, let’s say she decides to bring it to term, and put it up for adoption. More hell, though some adoptive parents may be happier (whatever that means).
Another issue. Do we need more people? By some estimates the 6,000,000,000+ we have is too much, endangering life on the planet. We’re certainly not desperate for more.
Let’s say that at six months pregnancy, it’s discovered that the child has some horrific genetic deformity, and this person will never be whole. Then what?
Let’s say that the child reaches 40 years old, but has turned out to be Hitler. Is retroactive abortion justifiable?
In all these cases, society needs to set guidelines. But bringing heated absolutes to the debate is not very helpful.
Humans have no natural preditors, and have reduced evolutionary pressure. Should breeding programs be set to advance human evolution? If so, should those not in the breeding program be sterilized?