Friday, November 19, 2004

Abortions for the Religious Right

commentary from sheenid.blogspot.com
Abortion is a serious moral issue, but the prospect of making abortion illegal is also a serious moral issue, and I think it's important to have no illusion about its effects. It's not going to stop abortions. What it will do is increase health risks to poor women who cannot afford to have the procedure done safely. Having said that, women will continue to do with their bodies what they want; they are their bodies after all.

For any woman to face unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy no matter what way we want to look at it. There is no obvious solution besides trying to avoid the situation in the first place. But it happens, and has always happened. And women have always pursued abortion in response, legally or not. Roe Vs. Wade is important in guaranteeing that no woman has to lose more than she already is in pursuing an abortion--namely, her own life. I think a moral perspective on abortion dictates that we look not only at the objectionable acts we oppose but also at the practical effects of how we oppose them. I don't think any moral person would argue that losing both the mother and the child is an acceptable risk for trying to save the child.

5 comments:

lorraine said...

Ryan,
I agree. What often gets lost in the discussions of abortion is that pregnancy is still not a risk-free enterprise. Women still die as the result of pregnancy, thus the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is one that must remain a choice made by the woman herself. And outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion; it merely illegal and therefore more dangerous to procure or perform.
It used to be Catholic doctrine that if a choice had to be made between saving a pregnant woman or her fetus, the life of the fetus came first. I don't know if this is still the teaching of the church, but it reduces women to being expendable vessels. And that's not moral.
I have made the choice to bring children into the world. It is that experience: pregnancy, labor, and raising children, that has convinced me that no one should make that choice for another woman.

Chris Woods said...

Ryan, that post was amazingly powerful and right on target. I actually just had to write a positon paper for an Intro to PoliSci class on the right to privacy and whether abortion fell under it. Of course I agreed that it did.

However, what I wanted to point out to you was an article from tomorrow's NY Times. It should be up on their website right now, and I've got the link to it in my blog (http://politicalforecast.blogspot.com). Essentially, House Republicans attached a provision on to an omnibus spending bill (that MUST be passed for the government to operate) stating (from the Times) "It would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals."

Sheryl said...

If death is a moral issue, then maybe life should be a moral issue as well.

With what Bush has done to the economy, the idea of putting extra, unwanted people on this planet who are going to be wage and tax slaves for their entire lives in itself is a moral issue. Overpopulating the planet, so that we are so strapped for resources that we end up murdering people to sustain our own lifestyles is a moral issue. (All the while chastising homosexuals who put the least strain on the environment.) Treating the poor like criminals, while the countries that are the poorest are often the ones with the least effective family planning efforts is a moral issue.

How long does it take to terminate a fetus? Something that has no experiences to lose, no connections with anyone, no memories of life, no dreams, no ambitions. All it's known is the thud of a heartbeat and the occassional desire to wiggle and kick; that's it's reality. Is the suffering involved anywhere near the suffering of living in a culture where the supply of labor is so much higher than the demand that workers are considered disposable?

These are the hidden choices we make. No one thinks about the resources that that this future child will consume and how it will contribute to the demand on resources that lead us to murder a different child abroad. One who actually has been alive long enough to have a stake in life.

They were predicting a few years back that the world population was going to double within 15 or 20 years. And rather than containing our population, we are telling kids about abstinence rather than contraception. Telling them that abortion is immoral when they get pregnant.

It is not just a moral issue, it's a sanity issue. People don't think about the big picture. The causal relationships. Sheryl steps off her soapbox.

lorraine said...

Barbara Boxer has hinted that she's willing to filibuster the spending bill in order to fight the anti-abortion provisions (as referenced above). I'm not sure how one supports a senator in such a choice, but it's probably worth a letter to her to tell her that we've got her back.

Anonymous said...

So if you trust Frist, then when the house starts next year's session they will have an opportunity to re-examine the bill. If you trust Frist....
That said, what we protect with Roe v Wade is a women's ability to choose. What we lose when Frist, Tommy Thompson, or Bush legislates on abortion is not only our ability to choose abortion, but also our ability to choose life. The decision being made for us, women no longer need to think. Women lose any legal control over their own moral rectitude, because the Right has legislated it for us. It's not that I mind a waiting period, or forms, or mandatory chats with doctors to help you make decisions, I mind the lack of respect for my intelligence that these legislation afford me.
 The assumptions that a woman will be too emotionally upset to be able to rationally decide what would be in her own best interest.
 The assumption that abortion is so easy that it will become a form of contraception.
 The assumption that the doctor may lie or omit options so you need to sign a document in triplicate to keep the doctor honest.
These are the battles against my intelligence that I fight. Yes, an unplanned pregnancy can be a bit of a shock (I believe I spent the entire evening calling my boyfriend every half hour to tell him, when I learned of mine, and earned the nickname crazy among his room mates.) That doesn't mean that I can't calm down the next day and discuss my option rationally with my doctor or my boyfriend for that matter.
Abortions aren't easy. They are painful, unpleasant, and uncomfortable for weeks at a time. The emotional residue can stick with you for years. Very few women would choose this over the pill and a condom, or convincing your husband to have a vasectomy (it's easier then a tubeal ligation). And while doctors and nurses are very busy, they wouldn't omit options if you wanted to discuss them.
Legislating private health decisions means reducing personal responsibilities. If you don't want to be responsible for yourself, by all means give over unto Bush. Otherwise join your local or the national chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America.