I always thought that the line from "Not a Pretty Girl", by Ani DiFranco, said it really well:
"Every time I say something they find hard to hear, they chalk it up to my anger and never to their own fear"
very well-put. i'd say more, but nursing and typing are difficult simultaneous pursuits.
When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, "I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]" then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances.
Not necessarily. I am uncomfortable with third-trimester abortion, with sex selection, with women who have multiple abortions, and with women who have abortions for "convenience," but I don't claim that that discomfort trumps the woman's right or ability to choose. The individual woman and I disagree, but I concede to her rights. And I really don't think that makes me a sexist.
We entitle society and government to impose SOME morality on us. Why is murder for hire illegal? Does banning murder for hire not constitute "control over someone else's decision"? Why is tax evasion illegal? Don't you trust me to make my own decision and pay my taxes? Some decisions DO get to be controlled. Again, I reiterate, abortion should not be one of them, but "control over someone else's decision" happens all the time, and I think that we can all agree that it should happen. So that alone can not be an argument for or against anything.
The problem is that while the right will tell you that an unborn fetus at any stage of development since conception is a human life, the left won't tell you that an unborn fetus is a dead, inanimate object stuck inside the womb. We all have this vague notion of a fetus as semi-human, and we believe that the mother's right to control her body supercedes the "rights" of the fetus. But there is a disquieting notion that something semi-human has been lost; after all, how many people will tell you that they like that there are a lot of abortions? So while I acknowledge a woman's right to have as many abortions as she likes, I don't think it makes me a bad person or a sexist if I don't give her a thumbs-up of approval when abortion #3 rolls around.
No. First, no one is asking for your thumbs up: the short, bitchy answer to that is, "get over yourself." Feel free to be "uncomfortable," but that's not a political position--any more than, say, my discomfort with country-style kitchen decor gives me the right to seriously argue that people ought not to put cow-themed crap in their houses.
Second, murder and tax evasion are not illegal because they are immoral; they are illegal because evading taxes and killing people are socially destructive. For the most part--and laywers, feel free to weigh in if I'm wrong--the law isn't there to compel us to behave morally.
"And he said, "I'm a great teacher." And I said, "wow, no woman would say that," and--though hyperbolic--I think that's largely true."
Really? You think that? Wow, right back at you. Wow.
I do think that women are far less likely to baldly state, without qualification, that they are great at something, yes.
No. First, no one is asking for your thumbs up: the short, bitchy answer to that is, "get over yourself." Feel free to be "uncomfortable," but that's not a political position--any more than, say, my discomfort with country-style kitchen decor gives me the right to seriously argue that people ought not to put cow-themed crap in their houses.
That was exactly my point. Your post equated "discomfort" with a political position. To quote you exactly: "...what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances." My response was to contend that it is not one, that my discomfort indicates nothing more than that I am experiencing discomfort. YOU asserted that "discomfort" indicates "desire for fascistic control over women." It doesn't.
Second, murder and tax evasion are not illegal because they are immoral; they are illegal because evading taxes and killing people are socially destructive.
1. Could one not argue that abortion is socially destructive? I do not believe that it is, but I don't think it's a ludicrous position per se.
2. I never studied philosophy, so I don't know what name you would give it, but surely there is a camp that would assert that "immoral" and "socially destructive" are the same thing.
"I do think that women are far less likely to baldly state, without qualification, that they are great at something, yes."
Is this an intrinsic difference between the sexes, or a societally induced difference? Perhaps men are brought up--by society, of course--being told that they have to be this way.
This has been Wolf's hobbyhorse for a while--I think she wrote a Harper's article with a similar argument. (I'll try to find it.) Amy Sullivan is just following in her footsteps...
DA, I think the answer to your question is addressed in my actual post, in the very paragraph referred to.
OotLM, let's not only quote me accurately, but IN CONTEXT. When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, "I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]" then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances. It's that "pro-choice, but" part that is the rub. The second you qualify your pro-choice position, your right to pass judgmenet is asserting itself politically.
As to the rest of your post, one can argue any damn thing one wants. But the point is, if your abstract arguments are more important to you than my real life, then you are not a friend of mine.
Hi Dr. Bitch,
I agree with your major point--that many who argue for limits to abortion are assuming that women are morally incapable of making their own decision.
But people should be explore out loud what they are uncomfortable with and why without being denounced as enemies of choice.
Can't I say "I'm against prohibition, though I believe drinking to excess is morally wrong"? Indeed, implicit in this sentence is the acknowledgement that other people have different moral views on this topic and should be free to live in accordance with them (or not) as they see fit.
I would say yes, that people should be able to talk their ideas through. On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge that prohibition is a solved argument; entertaining prohibionist ideas is not likely to have much political effect nowadays, in most places. Entertaining anti-choice arguments, on the other hand, does have very obvious political effect, and women are going to react angrily because, to a lot of us, this is a crisis situation. In a perfect world, people ought not to "denounce" those who are thinking through an issue. But in a world where thinking through an issue out loud amounts, directly or indirectly, to a public discourse that has very real consequences for people's lives, focusing on the injustice done by those who immediately and definitively say "NO," without recognizing the problematic nature of such theorizing, demonstrates that such theorizing isn't a neutral act.
The second you qualify your pro-choice position, your right to pass judgmenet is asserting itself politically.
What do you mean by "qualify"? If by it you mean being pro-choice but wanting to see bans on "third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc." made into law, then I agree with you: that's wrong, and that's not a position that I hold.
If by it you mean being pro-choice but merely being disquieted by the idea of "third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.," then I can't agree. I don't think it is wrong or sexist to be uncomfortable with these things while admitting that women have the right to choose them anyway. If that doesn't constitute "getting over it," what does?
I think we are only "fighting" because of a misunderstanding, really. I suspect that we are in agreement, but can you clarify?
I fully believe in a woman's right to end her pregnancy, but I recognize that doing so means sometimes supporting a foolish woman's bad choice.
Divorce should be legal, but that doesn't mean that every couple who decides to end their marriage made the right choice.
And the temptation is strong to try to stop those wrong decisions by trying to fit them into neat categories which can then be banned. For instance, Naomi Wolf's first trimester only theory - but young, sexually ignorant girls often don't realize they are pregnant right away, nor might a woman with irregular periods. Medical abnormalities would not be detectable at this point. What about that, Naomi?
There are people whose decisions to become parents I am deeply ambivilent about. Can't I feel the same way about someone else's abortion?
Thank you, Marysquito; you've said it far more eloquently than I have been so far.
Dr. B, intentionally or unintentionally, implied (at least in my reading) that having an opinion about someone else's decisions makes you bad. I think that she meant to restrict this condemnation to those--from both sides of the political aisle--who are actually attempting to exercise control over those decisions. But you won't convince me that I'm a bad person or a sexist because I think that what you have done with your life was wrong or unwise.
I think we're fighting because you felt the need to quibble with a position you say you agree with. I don't care how you feel about my having an abortion. But I think that saying, "oh, voicing my own personal discomfort with it is something I have a right to"--surely you do have that right, I never said otherwise--insisting on your right to your discomfort, without acknowledging the fact that voicing that discomfort has real political consequences, does make me question whether or not you're on my side.
In other words, why are you turning a post that did *not* say "you have no right to have any feelings on this issue" into an argument about your feelings?
"I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]"
I'm a pro-choice guy and I'm not uncomfortable with any of this. I feel a vague societal pressure to feel uncomfortable, but I plan to hold my ground until society changes, for better or worse.
Background: grad student in philosophy, interested in Kant's practical (social/political/ethical) philosophy at the moment, hetero male
This post dovetails nicely with a certain realization I had not too long ago. (last week? maybe the week before?) Kant's practical philosophy is grounded in respect for autonomy: the basis for dignity and morality is respect for the freedom of ourselves and others. I had been trying to come up with a pro-choice argument along these lines, and my sudden realization was that a completely unqualified pro-choice argument was the only position consistent with autonomy. The only way to respect the freedom of a pregnant woman to decide what's right for her is exactly that: to recognize that she has the right to decide what's right for her particular situation, up until the end of the pregnancy. The only rights a foetus has as the ones its mother chooses to grant it.
Marysquito, yes, you can feel ambivalent about other people all you like; that's not my point. My point is instead, as you say in the beginning, that being pro-choice means supporting people's right to choose whether or not you feel "uncomfortable" with their actually exercising that right.
The second point is what you say about "the temptation [being] very strong to stop those bad choices." THAT is where things cross over into not trusting other people to make their own decisions, and that is what I have a major problem with. As I think you're saying.
Fascinating post. The way that the “pro-life” organizations play on a crypto-misogyny (when they’re not being openly misogynistic) is nauseating. (Pollitt has been tireless in exposing that sort of rhetoric.)
However, I wonder if your formulation takes the reasoning a bit far.
You write, above--"murder and tax evasion are not illegal because they are immoral; they are illegal because evading taxes and killing people are socially destructive."
I’m not sure “socially destructive” quite captures it. Surely murder is illegal because it hurts another person, because we imagine that the murder victim had a right not to be killed, not because of "society." To take another example: surely animal cruelty (in some forms) is illegal (some places) because we think causing unnecessary pain to living things is wrong.
On the other hand, permitting sex-selective abortions could be “socially destructive”; individual decision-making might lead to bad, even nightmarish outcomes at the social level. This might or might not be a reason to regulate abortion—I would say not, but one could certainly argue otherwise.
Surely, too, the question of “trusting women” is an important one, but I’m not sure it can be used as an all-encompassing frame for the abortion question. We generally “trust parents” to make decisions about their children’s welfare, for instance; I might not like the style of discipline my sister uses with her kids, and she might not approve of the way I allow my son to eat Ho-Ho’s for breakfast. But we trust a parent’s decisions, within certain parameters. But there are, nevertheless, parameters; parents who go beyond (or sink beneath) those limits are recognized as negligent, abusive, or what have you. Society and/or the state determines, and must determine, those limits. We can argue about where the lines get drawn, but most of us would agree there should be lines drawn.
The analogy is not exact. But it seems to me that to frame the question as a simple matter of trust--of guaranteeing an absolute sovereignty over care of a fetus--excludes, from the get-go, the question of whether or not a late-term fetus can be said to have a “right to life,” or a right to be free from pain, or what have you. To say, as you say here, that “If you're pro-choice, you have to give up the right to have a "say" in someone else's choice,” seems to beg the question. Perhaps I believe that a nonviable fetus has no rights, but that a viable fetus does. I don’t happen to hold this position, but it’s not one that strikes me as prima facie absurd. And it is certainly a position that would be consistent with Roe, and therefore, it would seem to me, pro-choice.
--ML
Wait, you're a graduate student in philosophy and you only realized the connection between Kant's moral theory and autonomy now? The third formulation of the Catagorical Imperative ('reject all maxims that are not consistent with the will's own legislation of universal law' or something like that) is called the Formula of Autonomy! And the second formulation (of Humanity) requires us to value humanity (animated practical reason) as an end in itself!
But, um, on to something that Dr B said above - "For the most part--and laywers, feel free to weigh in if I'm wrong--the law isn't there to compel us to behave morally."
It strikes me there's something odd going on here - I do see that you're making a careful distinction, but I think you might want to make it differently. It's hard to see - at least for me - that murder wouldn't count as, um, immoral. In fact, as far as I know laws generally divide roughly into the "arbitrary but we needed to pick something" sort (like 'drive on the right side of the road), and the "x is morally obligatory" sort (like not murdering). So certainly plenty of laws are there to compel us to behave morally.
However, there are certain areas where the law is generally understood to have no place (at least by good liberals). And some of those places also fall under the basic umbrella of 'legislating morality' -- a law that banned people from being sarcastic about sincere yet deeply stupid people might compel us (er, me) to be a morally better person, yet I'd find it a little bit of an imposition. Perhaps you meant something along the lines of 'morality not based on public reason'?
ML and Dr. P., yeah, I'm not real happy with that formulation, actually. I don't follow "morality not based on public reason." So, rather than trying to articulate something in language I'm not comfortable with, let me take a specific example and see if I can clarify.
Abortion for purposes of sex-selection. I'm not comfortable with that, but not because of the abortion part. I don't think my discomfort matters a rat's ass in terms of whether or not a woman should be allowed to do it: I can easily imagine situations where someone is having abortion for sex-selection purposes that would be more okay with me than the way I generally think about it, which is that people abort female fetuses because boy children are more valued. The problem, of course, isn't the women having abortions; it's the valuing of boys over girls.
So, if a society says, "we don't like sex-selection abortion, so therefore we are going to choose to change things so that boys are not more valued than girls" I would say, ok, that's the way to go about it; but the reason for taking those steps is still all wrong. The reason to change things so that boys are not more valued than girls is because that state of affairs is unjust and destructive. Abortion for sex-selection reasons is merely a symptom of that, and if "abortion" is more of a problem for you than "systemic discrimination against women to the point that people actively abort girl children" then yes, your reasons for addressing sexism are still sexist. I mean, good for you, as far as it goes; but recognize that it doesn't really go to the end of the road.
And on the late-term abortion/right to life of a viable fetus thing, Sozialismus's formulation is the correct one (and yes, it does go farther than Roe v. Wade). The fact of the matter is that the fetus is inside a woman's uterus. It may be viable outside the uterus, but it is up to the woman whose uterus it is to decide what to do about that. And I think that, culturally, our "discomfort" around that issue is silly. Women who have third-trimester abortions--which are dangerous, expensive, painful, and extremely intrusive--hardly do so on a whim. They do so, the vast majority of the time, for "good" reasons: rape, fetal non-viability or extreme birth defects, sudden health problems, etc. Yes, it is "uncomfortable" that these things happen. It is, for the people involved, tragic, even. All the more reason that the women making those decisions shouldn't have me (or anyone else) breathing down their necks making a difficult situation harder by yammering "but have you thought about...?"
Dr. B., elegant as always. I had a guy say to me on a long drive once, "I don't think men should have a say in the choice argument." I was shocked. It had never occurred to me that this was absolutely a woman's issue; men have never been pregnant, never will be. I've modified my thoughts on that because there are plenty of men with close attachments to women who have some experience with pregnancy.
Anyway, I think the way you frame this as leaving the choice entirely up to the woman without any queasiness is the right frame. And I think for those of us (myself included) who are uncomfortable with late-term abortions or multiple abortions or whatever need to think about earlier intervention--sex education, morning after pill, etc. I hate how the pro-life people don't want abortions, but they don't want any of these early interventions either. There's got to be a better way to handle that argument.
I am uncomfortable with people having children they really don't want. But I don't plan to try to make it illegal . . .
Every right comes with the inevitability that some people will choose to exercise that right in a manner we find personally distasteful. That's why it's called a right. I don't think it helps to make this a gender-based argument; both sexes sit on both sides of the abortion question. After all, Phyllis Schlafley isn't anti-female, she's just anti-freedom.
It wasn't the relationship between Kant's ethics and autonomy that I suddenly saw. It was that the only position on abortion consistent with autonomy is the pro-choice one.
Yes, absolutely (to the post -- haven't read comments).
I adore you, Dr. B., for posts like this. As an undergrad, I found feminism. As a grad student, I have been pushed further and further away from it. As I finish the Phid, I read what you write and come back to feminism.
You help more than you know.
In British Columbia, where I live, abortion is fully covered by government health care. In fact, you can look up "abortion" in the Yellow Pages and see 3 or 4 clinics listed.
There is a growing Chinese and South-Asian population here, and hospitals were seeing large numbers of sex-selective abortions--that is, female fetuses being aborted.
So, instead of enacting a ban on sex-selective abortions, the lefty NDP government outlawed telling parents the sex of the baby until the 3rd trimester--when abortions are only allowed in cases of medical danger to the mother.
I know this is only one of the "uncomfortable" situations being discussed, but it's one I actually do feel discomfort about, and I think this is a great solution. It elmiinates the behaviour but without any removal of abortion rights.
ah, Naomi Wolfowitz WTF?
Apostropher, how can you say this isn't a gendered issue? Men don't have abortions; and our cultural failure to recognize women as fully autonomous agents has a lot to do with abortion being an "uncomfortable" subject for people.
I mean, I agree with you that a right is a right, regardless of whether or not people feel uncomfortable; in that sense it's not gendered (or shouldn't be). But the fact that a lot of people don't see it that way is surely not unrelated to the fact that the particular right in question is one that only women can exercise.
Hardass, that's a wonderful compliment; thank you.
My impression was that those who would ban abortion would prefer not to give choices about anything to any people -- it's all about dogma and thinking for you. As for women vs men, I guess those same types would trust women less than men, sure, but it's not a sex thing -- it's an "I know better than you, and I will help you even if you hate it" thing.
I don't think it helps to make this a gender-based argument
This particular right is all about gender, since, you know, only women can get pregnant. De-genderfying the discussion is silly and seems like a power move.
It's interesting how uncomfortable pointing that out makes some people feel.
That'll teach me to wait too long before hitting post. B. said what I meant.
Isaac, I'd agree, except that it's not just the anti-abortion folks; it's everyone in the middle who says, reluctantly, "well, I'm pro-choice, but..." Which is why things like bans on third-trimester abortions pass, why "conscience clauses" for pharmacists even get debated, why people say things like "it should be safe, legal, and rare," why parental notification laws get passed...
A-fucking-men.
Apostropher, how can you say this isn't a gendered issue?
Sorry, bad phrasing. Of course abortion is a gendered issue. What I meant was that I don't think it's helpful to see this issue as a argument between genders. There are too many pro-choice men and too many anti-abortion women for it to make sense as such. It is an issue of the nature of rights. If abortion is a right (and I believe it absolutely is), then it is a right. Moving into gender wars seems to me to distract from the main issue, in the same way that arguing whether homosexuality is innate or learned distracts from the basic argument that homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as everybody else, regardless of the origin of their homosexuality.
Can't agree (and please note that Wolf was the catalyst for my posting it, specifically because she is a woman). Yes, both men and women fail to see women as fully human in the same way that we see men as fully human. I mean, I basically agree with you. But pointing out that it's a fundamental right doesn't get anywhere with people who insist on saying, "I agree, but I'm uncomfortable with...." Pointing out the sexism underlying that statement might make those who are well-intentioned but unaware of their own internalized sexism have a li'l epiphany.
Or maybe not. But it was an epiphany to me when I figured this out.
To be more concrete, I don't find Naomi Wolf's discomfort with abortion any less (or more) offensive than any man's because she isn't packing testicles - and for all the same reasons you list in this post. As for hubris, I know tons of people whose judgement is worse than my own. So do you. So does everybody here. Again, that isn't a matter of gender, it's a matter of judgement and it really isn't hubristic. If you have any doubt that we live in a world full of idiots, just work retail for a month.
Anyhow, when it comes to somebody else exercising their rights, my or your or their better/worse judgement doesn't matter a whit. Their rights are their rights. The folks who are out trying to ban abortion have plenty more freedoms they'd like to revoke as well. It's not so much that they don't trust women as they don't trust anybody.
Dr B - Public Reason is, to steal the entry from WikiPedia because I'm too lazy to bother defining it myself, "the phrase used by American philosopher John Rawls to refer to the common reason of all citizens in a pluralist society. Public reason is contrasted by Rawls with the nonpublic reason employed by citizens as members of religious associations or as adherents to particular moral and philosophical doctrines."
Note: the above was to the post, not the previous comments. 
Dr. P., you've lost me. I understand the definition, but not the relevance.
apostropher, I think you're missing something. I think it *is* that, collectively, we tend to second-guess women's judgment more than we do men's. Working moms are selfish; are working dads? Stay at home moms are freeloaders; sahd's, dedicated fathers. Single moms are irresponsible; single dads, heroes. Pharmacists aren't arguing that they have the "right" not to dispense viagra. And so on, and so on, and so on.
unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I'm engaging right now)
I would not be surprised if many liberals who are opposed to late-term abortions in particular fall into the category of people who oppose the death penalty, work for justice, etc. In particular, I imagine this exception might apply to Naomi Wolf and to One of the Liberal Guys.
If that were the case, would that change your reaction to their views?
My discomfort with Naomi Wolf's essay is not about being a woman, but that she is a purported feminist saying the women aren't trustworthy enough to make their own health decisions.
Molly, no, because the crucial distinction is that late-term pregnancies are still in utero; convicted murderers are not. And as I said somewhere upthread, late-term abortions are such a major medical procedure that the last thing women who find themselves in dire straits need is the rest of us tut-tutting over their shoulders.
I completely agree with you on the rape/incest exception. It makes me crazy. If you think abortion is killing a baby and avoiding killing babies is the number one priority, then it shouldn't matter how that baby came into being. And I'm surprised that people aren't called out on this more often, from either side of the debate. On the other hand, I do know women who say that they are great teachers...
1. Naomi Wolf isn't all that coherent a thinker. Let's keep this in perspective.
2. B, are you saying something different from what you said on Half-Changed World, then?
The me/B exchange on this at Half-Changed World:
Me:
Yeh, I think you're right. But. I may be naive about this, but I suspect the main reason we're talking about women as moral actors in this discussion is not widespread fear of women's dark power and slattern sinfulness, but the biological reality that only women get pregnant. We've got a whole bunch of other debates centered on control that ask "do we trust individuals to ____", and I am not convinced that the default, unreconstructed individual in most debaters' minds is still male.
I'm not suggesting that there's no moral component to the "when are abortions OK" debates. But I think it shows up after the fact, so to speak. We're talking about public control of private action, and the private action is all women's, so now we stick moral fairytales about women to the debate in support of whatever we're after. Why? Because people find those stories familiar, satisfying, and persuasive, and because most people aren't terribly imaginative or students of rhetoric. I don't think it's conspiratorial. Just unfortunate.
B:
Yeh, I think you're right. But. I may be naive about this, but I suspect the main reason we're talking about women as moral actors in this discussion is not widespread fear of women's dark power and slattern sinfulness, but the biological reality that only women get pregnant.
Agreed, completely. It's the fact that only women get pregnant, for sure. Though I do think that, not on the "slattern sinfulness" front, but on the "not-quite-seeing-women-as-fully-human" front (women need protecting, women are the second sex kind of thing) that we really do, culturally, have a huge problem recognizing women as autonomous moral agents. Hell, I think I have a hard time with that occasionally, with attributing more individuation and full humanity to men than to women. Sometimes it takes a conscious effort to think of women as not "just" (wives/moms/girls/pretty/feminists/whatever).
3. I can't help people who are still concerned with what strangers think of them. If you're 35 and still thinking like you did in jr hi, that's a problem by itself. It's time to worry when what you say has a realistic chance of making people lock you up or stop you from eating and taking care of your kids. Otherwise, there's no guarantee of love. Really, this "discomfort with bitchy women" worry makes me think of the mistaken indie-press notion that "free speech" means "guaranteed access to markets".
More to the point, I think the kind of concern you have over "angry woman not taken seriously" is not a concern about intrinsic legitimacy, but about power. Who cares what the talk-show host or reporter or committee scheduler or other figure with access to vital audiences thinks of angry women personally if you're powerful enough that he or she must grant you access?
(If your concern is about intrinsic legitimacy, then seriously, why do you care what a lot of morons think of you?)
Re. 2: I think I'm saying exactly the same thing--am not clear on where it seems I'm contradicting myself. Clarify?
Re. 3: I think it's both intrinsic legitimacy and power. First, even though yes, if you get power, people must grant you some access, it isn't that simple: look at how many women appear as guests on op-ed shows, for instance. Getting power is difficult precisely because pursuing it is seen as "bitchy." And even if you get on the show, you have to watch your rhetoric because if you sound too angry, what you are saying will be dismissed. Hence, I care about what people think because I care about public opinion on these issues.
Also probably because I am a teacher.
unless you have an absolute position that all human life [...], then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women.
No. Wrong. Back to Logic 101. You've left off the end of the sentence: "...to make decisions on abortion that accord with your views on when abortion is allowable."
This != a blanket mistrust of women. It has nothing to do with trusting women to drive cars, wear tampons, vote, have their own money, etc.
Also, you're implying that mistrust on people's ability to reach moral or ethical decisions on abortion extends only to women. I have zero faith that the father of a pregnant 16-yo girl will come to a moral or ethical decision about whether or not she may have an abortion.
I think you have a romantic view of humanity, B. Left to themselves, it seems to me people manage to behave abominably both in private and en masse. I'm very happy to legislate. If I were the right kind of asshole for handshaking and telling morons I thought they were absolutely right, I'd do my damnest to do it from public office, too.
If you're pro-choice, you have to give up the right to have a "say" in someone else's choice. If you're pro-feminist, you have to give up the right to expect your personal feelings to be more important than women's public rights--including the right to be unpleasant, if, in her judgement, unpleasantness is called for
Great. I take it you'll be supervising the windmill construction.
I disagree with both of these, b. I intend to keep on enjoying the right to have a say in others' choices. It's called voting and involvement in public affairs. I see no reason at all why "pro-choice" must mean "through all 40 weeks of gestation." I sure as hell don't see that "pro-choice" means "I must have a blissy view of all people's ability to make clearheaded, thoughtful, ethical decisions about abortion."
Nor do I see any reason to give up discretion when it comes to promoting one's own views of good and bad in public affairs. Doesn't matter if that's to do with women's rights or parking rights.
I think it's both intrinsic legitimacy and power. First, even though yes, if you get power, people must grant you some access, it isn't that simple: look at how many women appear as guests on op-ed shows, for instance. Getting power is difficult precisely because pursuing it is seen as "bitchy." And even if you get on the show, you have to watch your rhetoric because if you sound too angry, what you are saying will be dismissed.
Few women appear as op-ed guests (not as true as it used to be, btw) because of limited power, not because the hosts don't personally think much of them. They'd put monkeys on if the monkeys were powerful and influential.
Ann Coulter does a good job o hurting that second idea, I think. She sounds like she's foaming, and the Fox blox love her. There's an awful lot of ranting righty men who love to see a woman put the boot in effectively. And respect them for it.
I think you might consider more seriously the idea that retail politics is theatre. You cannot possibly walk up there and expect to be yourself and win. I don't care who you are. If you're not going to be yourself, and you're up to your neck in shit anyway, why do you care which mask you're wearing to get the job done?
Also, I suspect that power has not so much to do with demeanor in this society as it does with money. If you have it, other people have no choice but to listen. In the 30 years we've been able to call our money our own, we've done a pretty poor job of accumulating and using it. I think this is a problem all the way down the line, with women in general showing little education or focus when it comes to building serious money. And I'd address that first.
ps. I'm a teacher too, sometimes. I tell students their first job is to find their teachers, and I may well be the wrong teacher for them. The academy might like to institutionalize & package for marketing, but it doesn't change the nature of learning.
Amy, it's my understanding that the vast majority of women who have abortions--especially late-term abortions--do so after much thought. After all, it is they who are having the abortion. And saying we trust women to drive doesn't mean that we trust them as much as we trust men.
Ann Coulter is popular because she is angry AND ANTI-FEMINIST. Sure, a woman who disses feminists is going to do well in an anti-feminist society: "see? This woman agrees with us. That proves you're wrong!" The free market argument simply isn't that simple: one reason women don't get access to the media is because of a preconception that women's issues are marginal, that no one will listen to a woman, etc. To some extent this is even true: since the society is sexist, women's views ARE seen as less important. Which is precisely my point.
Dr. B,
Can't disagree with this --
"The fact of the matter is that the fetus is inside a woman's uterus. It may be viable outside the uterus, but it is up to the woman whose uterus it is to decide what to do about that."
-- much less your comments that follow. Yet I'm not sure these observations bear out your claim that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they don't trust women. Or that disagreement in itself constitutes that distrust. It seems to me that if you believe that the fetus at viability enters the sphere of rights and law--that it has some claim to legal personhood--then the state does have a role in adjudicating that position. It's at this stage that the question of "trust" would become problematic--the state would have some legitimate powers to regulate extreme cases, just as it does with children. This is, as I understand it, more or less the stance of the Roe decision.
To say that someone taking this position could not be described as pro-choice, or that they are acting upon or enacting a fundamental mistrust of women seems wrong to me. It seems more like an acknowledgement of the fact that some minority of people will make bad decisions with regard to other people, and that the state exists in order to set some limits on that. This seems totally compatible with a pro-choice position that casts no judgment on women's choices about the non-viable fetus before that fetus enters the sphere of rights.
(As it happens, I agree that regulating late-term abortions isn't a good idea, and your comments on that point are convincing. I'm just not sure how accurate and helpful it is to lump someone who takes a Blackmun-style stance together with Falwel and Dobson and that lot, which would seem to be the logical conclusion of the argument.)
--ML
Second, murder and tax evasion are not illegal because they are immoral; they are illegal because evading taxes and killing people are socially destructive. For the most part--and laywers, feel free to weigh in if I'm wrong--the law isn't there to compel us to behave morally.
Absolutely incorrect in at least a quarter of the cases. Do you think anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in some states because sodomy is seen primarily as "socially destructive?" Rape, murder, child abuse, etc.—while of course socially destructive—are certainly less so than they are immoral.
Tax evasion, perhaps, but a plausible case can still be made for such laws on moral grounds—is it moral for some members of society to contribute to a common good while others (who also benefit from said contributions) do not?
...then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances. That you don't think that women who have abortions think through the very questions that you, sitting there in your easy chair, can come up with.
How about this proposition then: continued age restrictions and parental consent on abortion. Because, to be honest, while I trust women to exhibit the (agonizing) self-assessment you describe, I do not trust girls to do so. At all. And just so you understand I am consistent, I do not trust teen boys to competently make any rational decisions, either.
Even most college students. Christ, have you been to a club near a university lately? Girls Gone Wild? I wouldn't trust any person under the age of 24 to make any important decision, which is why my interns follow my instructions to the letter.
Marty, if you don't trust girls to make moral decisions about pregnancy, why do you trust them to become mothers?
ML, you may have a point. Still, I think the strong and absolute point I am making is important, precisely because it is strong and absolute: I am increasingly uncomfortable with making legalistic distinctions of the kind you're making--however valid--on the grounds that, as you admit, the distinction cannot have any effect unless one is willing to deny a pregnant woman in the 8th month the right to decide what to do with her body. And I can't see how anyone could deny that without it basically amounting to a position that their judgment about her situation is more important than her own.
I am the someone else who argued that Dr. Bitch "had said men had no right to an opinion about abortion, and that men who object to abortion do so only out of a desire to control women." Unfortunately, this exchange took place in a chat room, so I have no record of it, though my account has been confirmed by two people who were present but do not have a favorable stance toward my position. I also want to be clear that in the exchange in question, I was most definitely not taking an anti-abortion position; rather, I was simply interested in discussing the morality of aborting a fetus, in a completely non-religious sense (I am atheist-leaning agnostic).
Dr. Bitch, what I distinctly remember from the conversation - and this is the part that has been confirmed by two others - is that you said, more or less, "but what you have to realize is that in the end, your opinion as a man doesn't matter on this issue." At the time, in context, I don't know how I could have interpreted that statement any way other than the way I did - particularly given your, let's say, somewhat harsh tone. Basically, I thought you were doing little more than dismissing me with a red-herring argument rather than addressing what is generally considered to be the center of the abortion debate - its morality in terms of the life (or potential life) of the fetus. Since that time, I've had a conversation about this with a female family member whose judgment I value greatly and who was able to approach this from a slightly different, much less confrontational, angle, and help me to understand a little better what you meant to say (and I think this post confirms that angle).
This new understanding puts a lot of other statements I've seen from you in a very different light, so while I still don't agree with your worldview or approach to debating, I do think some of my statements in the more recent argument (at Unfogged) were too unequivocal and clearly misrepresentative (though not intentionally so) of your actual positions, and so for that I sincerely apologize. My initial comments there (not about the abortion conversation) were glib and not well-thought-out, and I really ended up having to defend a fairly weak position that I set up for myself by trying (and failing) to be humorous through exaggeration. I just want to re-iterate that I am not anti-abortion in the legal sense, as I certainly do not believe the government should be the party with final say in whether a woman continues a pregnancy.
Finally, I do somewhat understand your frustration with my position (and positions similar to mine), but I think your criticism of "supposedly well-meaning" liberal males tends rather sharply toward the unfair end of the scale, and may in fact contribute (as it did in my case) to a "defensive" interpretation of some of your stronger statements. But that's no excuse for being unfair to you, and I think, unfortunately, I was. So again, I apologize, and wish you the best.
Marty, if you don't trust girls to make moral decisions about pregnancy, why do you trust them to become mothers?
FIne, if we are going to wander into this particular sphere: mandatory adoption for all babies born to teen mothers. And sterilize the teens, while you are at it. Happy?
Your question is ridiculous on its face. Obviously, I don't trust them to mother children. I also don't trust teens of either gender to make informed decisions about engaging in sexual behavior. Recent research demonstrates the clear majority of teens can't make reasoned decisions as adults do.
Hence, parental involvement.
Walter,
Your account wasn't confirmed--people said (as I am saying here) that they could see why you took that position, but that doing so amounted to a misrepresentation of my tone.
And when I said your opinion, as a man, doeesn't matter, I was (and i said this at the time) stating a fact. If you are pro-choice, then you have to accept that if a woman decides to have an abortion, that that is her decision, and you don't get a vote. Because you're not the one having it. Also as I said at the time, I reject the argument that the central issue is the "morality" of abortion in terms of the fetus: precisely because, as I said (and am saying, and have always said), because any argument that rests on that is effectively an argument that whoever is making the moral judgement has more of a right to do so than the pregnant woman.
Having said all that. I understand from glib. And I know that my criticism of liberal men can sometimes be sharp. It is frustrating to be told, repeatedly, by liberal men claiming to be "impeccable feminists" (you were not the one who said this), that one must be nice in order to be heard. Because often being nice means one is, actually, ignored. So, for instance, the loud and public furor over Drum does seem to have made a difference; earlier incidents of the same kind on his very blog, raised less of a stink, and no changes were made. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
However. All that aside. I truly appreciate what you are saying here; I think it takes guts to say it; and thank you. Sincerely. If I could, I'd buy you a beer.
Marty. Oh. So it's okay to make girls into petri dishes. Also, it's okay to force them to run the health risks of pregnancy (which are significantly higher than the risks of abortion). And it's okay to legislate parental involvement because, obviously, your judgment about how parents will react to that situation is better than the judgment of a girl who knows her own parents?
In fact, I believe that the evidence shows that most young people, given good sex education and access to birth control and treated with respect by their parents and teachers do make decisions about sex that aren't, on the whole, any worse than the decisions adults make. In point of fact, I know a number of women who got pregnant very young and who made very mature and intelligent decisions, ranging from abortion to adoption to motherhood.
But even if they didn't, I don't think that justifies forcing them to serve as incubators or risk their health or well-being, just to make you feel less uncomfortable.
If I could, I'd buy you a beer.
Wait, shouldn't I be the one paying...?
This is a fascinating discussion.
Nothing to add except that I and many of the women I know really don't hesitate to own our fabulousness. There are things we do better than anyone else we know, and we're not too shy to speak the truth. Though we don't go around volunteering the information to everyone we meet—that would be a bit heavy-handed, male or female.
...your judgment about how parents will react to that situation is better than the judgment of a girl who knows her own parents?
Your tone is overly emotion and, therefore, can't be taken seriously. But statements like this one make exactly my point. Teens—male or female—do not "know" their own parents, especially in moments of anxiety or crisis.
Day to day, teens do not make rational choices, and the problem is exacerbated the moment "anxiety" (and by that, I mean a heightened sense of imbalance—think adrenaline-induced "fight or flight" reflex—whether caused by friction on his cock, a positive pregnancy test, or even just inferred peer pressure) takes hold, both mentally and physically. Science demonstrates that their reactions are much more often than not irrational and based completely on impulse.
And yes, I can provide personal anecdotes to the contrary, as well. But read the research on teen brain chemistry, then get back to me.
"If you're pro-choice, you have to give up the right to have a "say" in someone else's choice."
Is it safe to say that the strain of feminism you profess is built on a view of personhood as radical individuality?
Marty -
I know several young women who were raped as teenagers, became pregnant, went to term and kept the child. Except for the one who completely bought into the worldview of the religious right, I have never understood why they made the decision they did. But I've realized I have no moral ground to stand on from which to criticize their decision. Oh, and every one of these amazing young women has worked her ass off to be both an excellent mother and a well-rounded person with the potential for a real education and extra-parental career of her own once her child is in school.
Walter, you can buy the first round, I'll buy the second. How's that?
Marty, you are totally kidding about this: Your tone is overly emotion and, therefore, can't be taken seriously.
The issue of teen brain chemistry is beside the point. The point is that even if kids do sometimes make rash decisions, that fact does not justify legislating their right to access abortion, particularly in light of the realities of many young people's lives. When my sister had her abortion, she did not tell my parents, or me. She still has never told my father. I think she could have done so without severe consequences, but I don't think it would have changed the fact that abortion was the best choice for her at the time.
Orange, kudos to you: I actually have a hard time saying, "I'm great at X" without qualifying it or saying something like, "I don't wish to brag." Not always, but often enough.
Anthony, I'm afraid I don't speak the language you're using, so I can't really say for sure. I wouldn't, for instance, say that my feminism means that *any* choice a woman makes should never be judged. Just that, by definition, being pro-choice means that it's the woman who is pregnant who has to make the decision; anything short of that isn't pro-choice. Abortion is a special circumstance, precisely because it is bodily; because men do not get pregnant; and because pregnancy, at its most basic, is not something that can be shared.
Walter, you can buy the first round, I'll buy the second. How's that?
As long as I get to hold the door open and pull your chair out for you
Bitch,
Please clarify how abortion being bodily makes it a special circumstance? All actions are by nature bodily, so I don't see how this makes abortion a special circumstance. I understand that men, as of now, cannot become pregnant, but how is it so abundantly clear that pregnany cannot be shared? It seems that if we say this, we are saying that no experience is able to be communicated to anyone, ever.
An experience can be communicated; but pregnancy cannot be shared in the way that carrying a heavy burden can. Like pain, it is, in the end, untranslatable.
So the body is a special circumstance because puncturing or harming someone's body is not a hypothetical or theoretical harm: it is absolutely real. Property and rights are legal constructs: bodily integrity is irreducible.
Which is probably not quite the word I want, but hopefully conveys my meaning.
Anthony -
If a woman is pregnant, then the only way for the foetus to not be biologically dependent on her is for the pregnancy to end, whether by birth, miscarriage, or abortion. And, while she is pregnant, this dependence becomes quite physiologically demanding on her.
Say the young woman I'm involved with (who's still an undergraduate) becomes pregnant, and I'm ready for a child, but she kind of feels she's not ready for the inconveniences of pregnancy, what with the hectic life of an undergrad engineering major and all. There's no way for the pregnancy to somehow be transferred from her to me, or even from her to a female willing to `help out'. Consequently, if I respect her right to decide what's right for her body and her life, I have to abide by whatever decision she makes, even if that means I have to wait a few years for the daughter I have the occasional daydream about. There simply is no way to compromise between keeping and terminating a pregnancy.
Oh yeah. And even if there were a way such a transfer was possible (say it's the future, and we have artificial gestation), such a transfer would involve some level of ... (hunting for neutral language) ... medical intervention with the body of the pregnant woman. Such intervention without her consent would clearly be immoral.
(This is why I would say post-'viability' abortion is morally permissible.)
Absolutely.
(And not only "inconveniences" but actual risks: Here are the stats, which I got here.)
# 1 in 10,000 risk per pregnancy from continuing a pregnancy
# 1 in 263,000 risk from terminating a pregnancy before 9 weeks
# 1 in 100,00 -"- between 9-12 weeks
# 1 in 35,000 -"- between 13-15 weeks
# 1 in 10,000 -"- after 15 weeks
Those are the risk of death, by the way, as opposed to any other kind of morbidity (preeclampsia, diabetes, etc.)
Pain may be untranslatable, but lack of translation does not mean it can't be experienced. That seems to assume that sharing an experience is ultimately about language, this isn't something I'm sure of.
"Property and rights are legal constructs: bodily integrity is irreducible."
I don't think this is correct. Bodily integrity, as a moral issue or a legal issue or whatever issue you want to make of it, is by nature a human construct. I'm not of the opinion that constructs are bad things (quite the opposite, I think they are basically neutural), but the right to have a body protected is a construct. So it is far from irreducible.
"while she is pregnant, this dependence becomes quite physiologically demanding on her."
Right, of course. I still don't think this makes it axiomatic that the sole decision for what to do with a baby rests with the women, simply because of the social unconcious drives that run all individuals decisions. My first question, and I operate on the assumption that everything can be questioned even though these debates tend to be between axioms, is why does being an undergrad trump bearing a child for either of you? What does this say about the way we value things (and I'm trying to use the word value in a very technical sense, I may fail)?
And when I said your opinion, as a man, doeesn't matter, I was (and i said this at the time) stating a fact. If you are pro-choice, then you have to accept that if a woman decides to have an abortion, that that is her decision, and you don't get a vote. Because you're not the one having it.
But, you're not the one having it either. So why does Walter's opinion "as a man" not matter? Shouldn't it be that his opinion doesn't matter because he's not the person who is pregnant? And there are plenty of anti-choice women out there. Do their opinions matter more than those of anti-choice men?
And do you really mean that his opinion doesn't matter, or just that it's merely an opinion, but doesn't/shouldn't limit or affect the right in question? I fully accept that "if a woman decides to have an abortion, that that is her decision, and you don't get a vote", but isn't "getting a vote" a different thing than "having an opinion"?
No, my whole point is that it isn't about language: by "untranslatable," I was using a metaphor.
How is bodily integrity a human construct? There is a body. It is not a construct. It is real. The right to protect it is a construct, but it seems to me that it is the most fundamental right, from which all other rights flow.
Of course it's axiomatic that the sole decision rests with the woman. If, say, we live in a place where abortion is illegal, or where I need my husband's permission, and he doesn't give it to me, then I can and, if necessary, will still obtain an abortion. And we know what the results of that were.
Mitch, in context, Walter's argument was, "what if I am the man who caused the pregnancy."
The rest of your questions, I think, are clearly answered in the post itself: women who have moral objections to other women's abortions are likewise failing to respect other women's moral autonomy; people are entitled to have opinions (try and stop them), but they are not entitled to have their opinions take precedence over the realities of other people's lives.
The right to bodily integrity is the right to property, as a body is the first form of capital. So the right from which all other rights flow is the right to property. Also, to be a dick about it, a body is a construct since all knowledge is constructed and ones experience of a body is knowledge. I don't think one can build a case for the absolute right to abortion from property rights.
Yes, as rights are currently constructed. I am interested in making a case for abortion from property rights, or at least not exclusively so (although given that property rights are fundamental to our society, it is a common and I think strong case). The idea that "the body is a construct beccause one's experience of a body is knowledge" is perhaps correct within one framework: but, ok, I'm not a philosopher so I don't have the correct language here, but that is not the only way to look at it. The body is the seat of knowledge, not the other way around. Without bodies, there is nothing; without knowledge, the material world still exists.
Hmm, let's take this back a bit...
I take B's main point to be, basically, that abortion happens in particular situations, those formulating the law and seeking to control abortion empirically lack experience in those situations in various ways (either not being women, or being the kind of women who get elected), therefore they are not equipped to make effective judgements over what should or shouldn't happen. That is an absolutely different order of inability when compared to parking rights or most other social issues.
The concept of "life" as a property of the fetus in law is ridiculously limited/abstract/unreal compared to the actual experience of the livingness of the fetus known by the mother who is goddamn giving it whatever life it has 24/7. I think that is the point that needs to be rammed home in all these discussions and B that part of your post does it well (even if the link with bitchy women is a little loose). "How do you even have any fucking idea of what it's like? How can you pretend you're talking about something you understand?" would be my first response to the Liberal Man, Anthony and co.
"Property rights" are not given by god, they are a mechanism of political organisation in certain political systems, and a brief review of the economic history of the United States (hint: it's why the black people are there) should point out that those rights are always granted differentially in reality, and this is constitutive of democracy rather than an aberration from it. Anyway, the property rights issue is a red herring compared to the above, not worth getting distracted by. Go to a clinic and see who wants to talk about proeprty rights.
Exactly, Danny.
Except that I'd say that even a woman who has had an abortion, or several, can't know what the situation is of another woman who wants or needs one. The variety of human experience is pretty broad. And what's tolerable or possible for me may not be for someone else, and vice-versa.
True. I'm just not wanting to draw a hard line on "no law could/should ever apply" because I think it then gets returned by the usual suspects with "well societies regulate protocols with respect to moral issues, you've got to accept that" and the argument gets abstract again. At this point I prefer - strategically :7 - to just point out the gap between those making the law and those subject to it. I don't think this is in danger of vanishing soon. And I also think it is a reasonable fit with the populist politics of "keep the government out of my house". But I don't disagree with you that the entire legislative process is screwed up.
I guess to clarify what bugs me about the discussion - and this is why i think that liberalism is a problematic itinerary for dealing with the whole thing - is the constant denial of the radically different stakes for people commenting on abortion and women having them, which are vividly highlighted by the mortality statistics above. There's this assumption that someone can just pass moral judgement on something - anything - and it's important even if they're never implicated in the effects.
Ok. First ever delurking.
1. Dr B is right on the button. That stuff someone quoted about public reason and private morality was apropos. Isn't the reason you lot are all so anti-Bush that they are trying to push a private religion-inspired agenda onto people when public reason may not agree with them?
2. And yet you are trying to push your concept of The Right Thing onto women in a crisis situation. Because you do not trust these women to make the right moral choice. Because they are only women.
3. Whichever man up there objected to Dr B's "tone" - phooey on you. Women's anger still make you uncomfortable? Ever consider why this is?
4. I am personally sick of the "tone" of liberal men. All this competititve arguing in oh-so-reasonable tones. This is not a my-argument-is-more-irrefutable-than-yours game for men to play. This is womens lives we are discussing. Not discussing - getting fucking angry about control over. Feminism is a political movement for women - not another aacademic playground for the oppressors.
5. I am a woman ; I have had two legal abortions and I am fucking angry with you allegedly pro-choice men.Just admit we know more about being women, being pregnant and making the tough decision than you do. Your dicks won't shrivel and die.
dr. b., what would your position be on the following:
the aborted third trimester foetus' (as in the foetus' that are viable outside of the womb) are not aborted in the traditional sense of the word, but are excavated alive.
the original or biological carrier has no moral obligations or rsponsibilities to the child, she is not the carrier / mother (sorry, can't think of a better word) in any legal sense and, for all intents and purposes, the excavated foetus is dead to her. it does not exist in the same sense as an aborted foetus does not. but, the foetus remained alive because it could exist without her, is put up for adoption and blah blah blah...
in this scenario, it would seem that the woman is allowed free will and ultimate moral judgement about her decision to end the pregnancy and not become a mother and yet the foetus' which are argued as viable outside of the womb, are given that viability.
superficially it seems like a win-win, although i'm not sure it is. what do you think?
"Without bodies, there is nothing; without knowledge, the material world still exists." Yes, but not as material world. Further, the body is that which knows itself, being both a thing known and the place of knowledge.
""How do you even have any fucking idea of what it's like? How can you pretend you're talking about something you understand?" would be my first response to the Liberal Man, Anthony and co."
First off, I'm not 'Liberal Man', I'm Anthony Smith. Please don't pretend to know my political and ethical orientation from short sentences found in comment boxes on the internet. I am employing the same skepticism you are, except I think it can be applied equally to everyone such that BitchPhD cannot know if I share in her experience.
"Anyway, the property rights issue is a red herring compared to the above, not worth getting distracted by. Go to a clinic and see who wants to talk about proeprty rights." Maybe abortion rights is the red herring. The next sentence is not a serious arguement, since no one wants to talk about property rights. It's part of the groundwork of our understanding of society now and thus a literal non-issue, it is never present to us. That doesn't mean it's not forming every value we form.
I guess to clarify what bugs me about the discussion - and this is why i think that liberalism is a problematic itinerary for dealing with the whole thing - is the constant denial of the radically different stakes for people commenting on abortion and women having them, which are vividly highlighted by the mortality statistics above. There's this assumption that someone can just pass moral judgement on something - anything - and it's important even if they're never implicated in the effects." I completely agree, though perhaps for different reasons.
Property rights are fundamental on certain accounts of morality and right, like Locke's for example. But not on all accounts; for Kant, property rights (and all other rights, like all our moral duties) are grounded in our basic freedom and autonomy, the necessary assumption of our free will. I've been maintaining a Kantian pro-choice position.
NB I'm not necessarily a Kantian; I've just been in a seminar on his practical philosophy this past semester. I will admit to finding more of interest in his system than Locke's. The rather absolutist pro-choice position I defend here is mine, even if I'm not so committed to the Kantian defence of it.
I doubt seriously the possibility of building a radical pro-choice ethic from the categorical imperative. More due to the failure of the categorical imperative to get its pure reason around the problem (how would you even formulate the question).
I haven't slogged through all the comments, but thank you, B, for presenting this argument in this way. Great, great post. One of the clearest defenses of an unambiguous pro-choice position I've ever come across.
tank green, "excavation"?!? A woman is not a mine.
The problem with your modest proposal, as someone has pointed out, is that getting a late-term fetus out of its "carrier" is no easy task. How do you propose to do this? Wave a magic wand? Or do you intend to require the woman to have a cesarean? Scroll down here for information on the risks associated with cesarean section. One reason that banning dilation and extraction is so heinous is that it compels women to give birth to a late-term fetus whole, which is more dangerous and difficult: see, for instance, this. If a woman is ill, or has a medical emergency, this is a major imposition. Even if she is not ill, there are reasons for late-term abortions in which requiring her to bear the child would be a major imposition: see here.
In other words, your hypothetical scenario has almost nothing to do with the realities of women's lives. Which is the entire point.
As suezboo, who posted immediately above you, points out.
Hi suezboo. Thanks for delurking 
Anthony -
I don't see the problem. We're talking about a right, not a duty, so the corresponding law would be something like 'The right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time shall not be restricted'. It's justified as the only possible abortion law consistent with universal external freedom, including that of pregnant women.
Maybe you could lay out the problem you have in mind a little more explicitly?
Bitch-
Thanks for articulating my beliefs better than I could. Your very existence gives me hope...
Well the categorical imperative is that which founds the law, not the discursive way of formulating a law. So, depending on your view of personhood, this hypothetical universal maxim contradicts the seond categorical imperative. As such it isn't a rational law. Futhermore, universal freedom for Kant is only the freedom to thought. In the public space he thinks such freedom must be restricted.
I'm not a Kantian, so I don't buy the above, but I don't think you'll find many Kantians who are radically pro-choice in the way you think they can be.
obsoletepostergrrrrl, Thank you.
Excellent post -- I'll be saving it to point people to.
more delurking!
at a fundamental level, i agree with the post and the argument for an absolute right to choice therein. i've always found the roe decision sort of problematic in that it asserts a fundamental right to privacy, but then says that that right can be abridged in the third trimester. from a purely logical standpoint, this position appears to be insupportable. however, i give credence to the judicial process of "strict scrutiny" that the court (usually) employs when analyzing fundamental rights cases.
strict scrutiny acknowledges that there are fundamental rights of life, liberty and property as embodied in the 14th amendment. however, these rights aren't absolute; it is merely that the government can't infringe upon them without, to put it colloquially, a really fucking good reason. not just a reason that is sort of related to some governmental end, but essential to the accomplishment of that end. the infringement of the right also has to be narrowly tailored to that end (for example: some right-wingers might argue, say, in the lawrence v. texas case, that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing the spread of AIDS, and thus a reason to legislate gay sex. however, this argument won't pass strict scrutiny, because a prohibition on gay sex will also prevent individuals who aren't at risk of transmitting AIDS from having sex).
so, as a roundabout way of getting to my point, the only part of the roe decision that i think even provides a halfway-decent argument (though not completely convincing) for regulation of late-term abortion is the one that looks at the state's perspective of protecting the woman's health. according to the court, it is this interest in protecting the woman's health from which the state's ability to infringe on possible fetal life flows; women are less likely to die from first- and second-trimester abortions than they are from giving birth (not so, at least as i understand it, with third-trimester abortions). so, from this point of view, the state's interest in protecting possible fetal life is overriden by the interest in a woman's health during the first and second trimesters. bphd, what would be your response to this argument?
in truth, i find the "bodily integrity" rather than "woman's health" argument much more compelling, particularly because it is not subject to the criticisms i've outlined above, and seems to be much stronger. though i find the roe decision puzzling because of its contradictions, i too have been guilty of thinking that women needn't have access to abortion at all points in the pregnancy in order to protect their right to choose.
this post has made me reconsider my justification for that position ... thanks. fascinating ideas.
dr. b., i think you misunderstood my comment. i didn't ask you to critique the scenario i articulated, (not mine incidentally), but i asked you, a woman whose opinion i respect, to give your opinion on the morality scenario. as in, would it be antithetical to the pro-choice stance you are arguing from? and what do you think about the fact it would seemingly override the anti-choice people's problem with ending a late term pregnancy?
i think this particular hypothetical situation has a lot to do with with abortion issues, especially because of the increasing likelihood of exogenetic wombs. (read the abortion myth by leslie cannold for more on this.)
as a woman, it certainly has everything to do with the reality of my life. as does your hypothetical posturing here.
I don't think I follow. Is this like some argument that if babies could be created in test-tubes, would my pro-choice position change? Not for fetuses in utero, no; I don't see how you think a late-term fetus could be "excavated" with no risk to the mother, nor how mandating such activity would not violate a woman's right to refuse medical intervention/to determine what happens to her own body. If fetuses were grown in test tubes, or whatever, then fine; make it illegal to unplug them (or whatever). From the point of view of the *abortion* argument, I don't care--although in terms of things like stem-cell research, defining the termination of embryos as "unlawful death" or whatever the latest strategy is, etc., I think there are serious problems.
I have no idea, however, if that has much to do with what you're saying.
Sylvana, I'm not sure I follow you, either. Are you saying that the argument in favor of limiting third-trimester abortions is that it protects women's health? By encouraging them to abort earlier? If not, I'm confused. If so, however, I think this isn't the case; first, it's paternalistic (although to be very strict, I suppose there are other instances in which I don't mind the state "encouraging" certain behaviors through incentives or whatever, but in this case, that's a bit of a red flag). Second, I think it's wrong: the state limits late-term abortions because the line between "fetus" and "baby" is blurrier, the longer the pregnancy progresses. I understand why this bothers people, but my understanding of the facts is that late-term abortions almost always are done in order to *protect* the woman's health, because giving birth to a fetus at that stage of development is more difficult and dangerous than abortion.
i'm not sure where i said i believed a late-term foetus could be excavated without harm to the mother. it was merely a situation i asked your opinion on. being as how most positions regarding the abortion issue can only be arrived at via pure hypothesis and speculation, i thought i would attempt to discover your feelings about certain hypothetical bioethical situations i have come across.
can you not at least pretend the removal (better?) of a late-term foetus is possible without harm to the mother, the way you can pretend that, say, one might need a late-term abortion in the first place?
i'll have another go and try not to be so unclear this time:
imagine that, instead of abortion, the option available to women for the late-term termination of a pregnancy was the safe removal of the foetus, alive.
the conditions of this situation are, of course, her consent, (because she has chosen to end the pregnancy), that she has no legal or moral responsibility toward the foetus once it leaves her body and that the foetus, can never, and will never, locate her as its biological parent. for all intents and purposes, she has aborted the foetus, except that, in this situation, it is still alive.
my questions then, are would this fit into the pro-choice stance you are currently arguing from? would this be a viable solution to you and your convictions? if not, why not? she is no longer pregnant and is not a mother, so it would seem to serve the pro-choice argument well. and, as i previously mentioned, the foetus is kept alive, so it would seem to serve the anti-choice movement well too.
Honest to god, no, I can't pretend that it's possible, and I don't think I'm pretending that one might need a late term abortion.
Women DO need late term abortions; I've linked to at least two first-person accounts of different reasons why in this very thread. It is NOT possible to "excavate" a late-term fetus without harm to the mother (and I am still totally horrified by that word). My position on abortion is that I just can't engage in hypothetical or imaginary scenarios because abortion isn't a hypothetical or imaginary situation. And it seems to me that we almost always talk about it as if it is, and that doing so enables the kind of abstractions that allow people to ban procedures that women need on the ground that it merely creates "inconvenience," because as long as the material reality of the thing isn't right in someone's face, they can ignore it and pretend that it's just about convenience. Which it isn't.
I have to take exception to your condemnation as sexist of the moral judgment that abortion should be illegal in some, but not all, circumstances. Now, personally, I'd rather society focus it's attention on preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place -- giving young girls better information and more options, giving anyone with an unplanned pregnancy more support and less condemnation and more realistic opportunities to consider adoption as an alternative. Making abortion criminal hardly seems a solution to me. But then, I think the criminal justice system is unduly draconian with respect to any number of acts(and unduly lenient with some others) and that is a rant for another day.
But to say it is sexist for people to seek to legislate their moral views on this issue goes too far. Sure, I buy the premise that legislating presumes the legislator believes s/he can exercise better judgment than the person seeking an abortion. But this does not unequivocally equate to a distrust of *women*. It could just as plausibly reflect the recognition that people in dire straits generally may not always be in the best position to make clear moral judgments. Because the people in dire straits with respect to abortion are predominantly women (though surely a few husbands and boyfriends have wrestled with the issue,too) does not mean their judgment is questioned basedon their gender.
Sure, there are almost certainly women who carefully analyze the situation and choose to abort or not abort for well-thought out reasons. But just as surely there are despearte women and girls, with poor support systems who face such decisions alone and in a frantic mental state. To implicitly question whether women or girls in such a state will necessarily exercise reasoned moral judgment is not sexist. It simply recognizes that any human being will be hard-pressed to make his or her best decision when caught in the midst of a crisis.
The body is the seat of knowledge, not the other way around. Without bodies, there is nothing...
Ah, existentialism. That explains a lot...
3. Whichever man up there objected to Dr B's "tone" - phooey on you. Women's anger still make you uncomfortable? Ever consider why this is?
The "man" who objected was me. Marty. That's short for Martha. So sorry to poo-poo your attempt at sexist slander... :
Just admit we know more about being women, being pregnant and making the tough decision than you do. Your dicks won't shrivel and die.
wow, suzeboo, i really hate having to say this, but you aren't much of a feminist. feminism is about eradicating sexism in favor of equality and civil discourse, not turning sexism around for use as revenge against those you think of as "oppressors."
Sing it, sister!
Anon, I would agree with that, except that it is SO OFTEN women's moral judgement that is called into question, and that in the abortion debate, particularly, people usually *don't* modify what they are saying in the way you have just done. What I'm going after here is a fairly particular, and very common, way of discussing abortion, which is to say, "I'm uncomfortable with X, Y, or Z," with the clear implication that this means that arguments to ban X, Y, or Z are reasonable. What I would say is, even if a woman is in a dire situation and therefore not thinking clearly, it is still her dire situation. And I still think that even if she is young, scared, whatever, she is still 1) the best judge of what she is and isn't capable of; and 2) unlikely to fail to consider any of the options that people who hypothesize about these issues might come up with; 3) if anything, likely to come up with a lot *more* issues than I can, sitting here on my couch.
marty, I don't buy that there is only one definition of feminism. And I think it is ENTIRELY feminist to say that, given that no man in the history of the world has ever been pregnant, that there is a certain experiential knowledge of that state that no man can fully understand.
Basically all this is saying is, "walk a mile in my shoes before you presume to know how I feel." And I think that that is a very valid point, and entirely consistent with feminism.
curious. are you saying then that you refuse to entertain any bioethical debate surrounding abortion, or just the particular one i raised?
do you think it wise to ignore advancements in medical research, especially those that pertain to women, simply because the advancements are not yet available for us to use? you think then, that we should debate them after they are in place as opposed to before?
and i would have to disagree and say that abortion is a hypothetical and imaginary situation. specifically for every woman that finds herself unexpectedly pregnant for the first time. we have to imagine the procedure, and its ramifications, to decide if we want to make use of it.
Just admit we know more about being women, being pregnant and making the tough decision than you do.
The more I read this sentence, the more I note how vile it is. The same arguments can be made thusly: "Just admit [men] know more about buisness, science, math, and making the tough political decisions than you [women] do."
How would you react to a statement such as that? You can't say the first is fair while my modified example is sexist and unreasonable.
Marty, I most certainly can. Because it is a physical fact that men do not get pregnant. It is not a physical fact that women do not do business, science, and math. Men lack uteruses. Women do not lack brains.
Tank, I really cannot answer that question. I think my point is that moving from real situations to hypotheticals is problematic, and I'm not willing to do it on those grounds.
New post on front page for discussing competing versions of feminism, folks.
that's a shame, but thanks anyway.
I didn't quite make it through the middle section of the comments, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but as pertains to the somewhat early statement about murder/theft/etc. and the source of law (morality/social good) the answer is that there isn't a stated source of the law. Some legislators propose laws written from a conception of laws as flowing from a higher moral truth set into practical effect. Some lawyers view laws as purporting to maximize some aspect of social good. There's no concensus and most laws can be thought of from several of these perspectives.
marty, an analog you might be looking for is as follows:
"Just admit that [men] know more about being men, having a penis, and making the tough penis-related decisions that they do."
i, and i doubt any other women, have no problem making such an admission. in fact, i will admit that i know nothing about being pregnant, as well.
The body is the seat of knowledge, not the other way around. Without bodies, there is nothing...
Ah, existentialism. That explains a lot...
This sounds more like materialism than existentialism to me.
Late on the other side of the world, but if anyone's still reading...
* Anthony, I said you AND Liberal Man. I wasn't assuming anything about your preferences, sorry for offence
* As Sozialismus points out, embodied knowledge is not equal to existentialism - and this is the sort of comment/move that I think is getting B's goat (it gets mine).
* tank green - your scenario of the foetus removed "live" would be an area where I think the property question is useful. From my understanding of property theory it's the investment of labour power in nature that gives rights of property. Hasn't the mother been doing this, therefore wouldn't she have some kind of property right in relation to the foetus?
Came across a good line by Thomas Nagel the other day: "Moral judgement and moral theory certianly apply to public questions, but they are notably ineffective.... [humanity and fairness] considerations also have to compete with the more primitive moral sentiments of honor and retribution and respect for strength."
I was a teenager until several months ago, and while I have not had an abortion or accompanied a friend who is getting an abortion, it is a situation that has come up in my social group.
I think that abortion is tragic. I do believe that it is to some degree the violent killing of a human being. In a perfect world, it would never happen, unless a health condition arose in pregnancy that made it vitally necessary. It would not happen because we would live in a culture where rape was as rare and sick and repulsive as cannabalism. It would not happen because there would be good, free or cheap, effective birth control methods for men (besides condoms). It would not happen because birth control methods for women would be universally availible and used. It would not happen because young people would be educated about their bodies, and their sexuality would be accepted and celebrated, not hidden or objectified and marketed back to them. It would not happen because there would no longer be race prejudices in adoption. It would no longer happen because women of all ages and marital statuses who became pregnant and decided to deliver and parent the child would be supported, and funded, and treated as valuable members of society.
We can legislate for most of these things. They would all decrease the number of abortions. They wouldn't eliminate abortion, because we _don't_ and never will live in a perfect world. But they would save women the sufferings of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. And yes, they would save the unborn what sounds like a pretty uncomfortable death.
Forgive me if I am overly optimistic. Perhaps it's the scrambled teenage brain chemistry an earlier poster mentioned. It just seems like it should be possible to hijack the whole pro-anti debate over to a nice civil debate on prevention.
Or it would be if the sexist pigs didn't also hate social programs.
I enjoyed delivering that little rant. Bring it on, philosophy majors! Rip me to shreds! I have no PhD!
Heh, Alex, you are welcome here (and not everyone here has a PhD, anyway).
Don't forget that even in an ideal world, birth control fails
Dr. B., my short answer: I agree with you. The primacy of a woman's, any woman's, control of her own body is, well, primary. (btw, I'm male. In a discussion like this, it's a fact helpful in evaluation of arguments.)
I followed most of your post and argument easily but for some reason I couldn't understand the following without reading it several times: "It is important to recognize that the ability to remain "civil" about injustice is a demonstration of power, and, arguably, is itself a kind of violence--more subtle than yelling, and for that reason, far more damaging."
My incomprehension then became an "Aha!" moment. It nicely illustrated your point. A man (me) seemed to have trouble understanding how being "civil" was a kind of power. It just didn't make sense at first; it seemed like an non-sequitur. What's wrong with civil discussion? When I actually got it, it pressed home the point that, no matter how supportive I try to be of feminists or how much I read feminist theory and practice, on some very basic level male privilege is still ingrained in me. Trying hard to change it but, yep, still there.
Hey Dr B -
Thanks for the welcome! I was just bracing for someone to quote Kant at me. Me and the Kant, we have not been properly introduced yet. Maybe next year.
Oh god do I know contraceptives fail. I am yet another woman who owes Plan B a great debt of gratitude. But I'll bet if there were non-condom reversible methods of birth control for men (okay, a pet issue of mine) there would be a lot more situations in which two or three kinds of protection were being used during sex.
Obviously there would still be _someone_ who would get pregnant through a condom, his and hers birth control prescriptions, and a pair of blue jeans. Some folks are just that fertile. Which is why abortion should never be illegal. Just massively less common, for all the right reasons.
It is worth getting to know the Kant, though I don't believe I made his acquaintance until graduate school.
I actually know a woman who got pregnant using the pill.
With twins.
Twice.
(Ok, the second twin pregnancy she wasn't on the pill, but it's less dramatic that way. And yes, she now has four children. All boys. All under the age of five.)
Dear lord. My family has one set of twins; no one, including me (age four) slept for the next two years. I could not _imagine_ two sets.
Out of curiousity, was she 35 either time?
No, my god, the poor woman is in her 20s.
Just very. very. very. fertile.
She is, in fact, a great mother. Very calm and organized. I felt I should add that.
I'm late to the discussion and sleep deprived, but do I understand you to argue that any political action against third-trimester abortions when the fetus is viable and the woman's health is not in danger MUST be construed as anti-woman? At some points in the comments you seemed to reject the hypothetical and insist we stick to stories such as Julia's and Cecily's and Anne's. And at other points, I understood you to be arguing that until labor commences, the only intellectually coherent pro-choice position demands that we grant to a woman all control over her uterus and the fetus within it.
Speaking hypothetically, a healthy woman who chose a D&X to end her healthy pregnancy at 28 weeks would be aborting a fetus that had an 85-90% chance of surviving, and the survivors would have an 85-90% chance of living free of any long-term handicaps, physical or cognitive. Such an abortion isn't that hard to imagine, given the lack of abortion facilities in 85% of the USA, and the lack of access to basic medical care for millions of women. It's my understanding that such abortions are rare to the point of statistical insignificance--but how many such abortions are too many?
Are there states that have sufficiently broad definitions of "health of the mother" to allow abortions at 28 or 30 or 32 weeks to healthy fetuses in the absence of extraordinary physical danger to the mother? Are you arguing that a 32-week fetus could be aborted if a woman estimates that the risks and dangers of a c-section or induced vaginal labor are simply too great for her to bear? And that the 32-week fetus should have no protections under the law, because any protections would imply that women are second-class citizens incapable of making their own decisions?
Full disclosure: my babies were born at 32 weeks.
I spent the first five weeks of my life as a parent with one or more children in the NICU. And although my political commitment to pro-choice policies hasn't wavered, for all the reasons you define so well, I'm afraid that I cannot support abortions of viable fetuses in the absence of a life-threatening complication such as Cecily faced. There's a question of science here, or so I understand my own position. It seems to me that a viable fetus has achieved a degree of autonomy from the mother that the state has an interest in protecting.
So, what am I missing? And does it matter, if I continue to support NARAL, Planned Parenthood, et al?
I think my answer to that point is that, as you say, such cases are stastically insignificant and that therefore, basing an opinion on abortion on them is not something I am okay with.
Basically, as I've said to a couple people via email or whatever, I am not arguing that every woman everywhere is perfect. Like men, women can make stupid decisions, and sure, like every other human being on the planet, I have known people who have done things I thought were dumb or inexcusable. But I think that my political position is that rare cases make bad law, or whatever the aphorism is, and that the rights of the *vast* majority of women--who, like you, and like me, take motherhood very very seriously--trump the rare cases. We can't legislate everyone into perfection.
A better, less late-night, more articulate statement of what I'm saying can be found here.
And no, for the record, I'm not going to drum you out of the movement
wow. am totally late to this, but wow. excellent, excellent post, dr. b.
"The only way to respect the freedom of a pregnant woman to decide what's right for her is exactly that: to recognize that she has the right to decide what's right for her particular situation, up until the end of the pregnancy. The only rights a foetus(fetus)has as(is)the ones its mother chooses to grant it."
Enough and well said...
bitch ph.d:
You are a breath of fresh air!
I am a feminist of the MS school, ripened during consciousness-raising, and new to the blog world. I met Andrea Dworkin at a "Take Back the Night" rally in Minneapolis and recently read an op ed/obituary for her on the "Outside the Beltway" blog. I was appalled at the smug, self-righteous, inhumane descriptions of Andrea and feminists in general.
With the advent of the blogosphere, I realize how isolated I have become surrounded by my liberal circle of friends. You have inspired the activist in me! I will be reading and contributing to this all important public discourse.
Thank you.
Hey Dr.B
I think that your great, a well articulated position, and a great follow up defense. First time reader !
Dr B
De-lurking for the first time to say how deeply grateful I am that you (and many other posters) are out there. I'm about to exercise my right to have an abortion - thought it might help to have one of them actually chipping in.
You are absolutely right in your original post to say that attempts to make me do anything other than what I choose are based on a lack of trust in me and my judgement. The thought of being unable to deal with my unwanted pregnancy in a safe environment which respects my choice makes me feel sick with fear and anger. It's my pregnancy; it's my decision. It really is that simple.
(Rest of site is ace, too).
Thanks.
Alex, you RULE!!
However, I think you underestimate the sexist pigs' scorn for women and our choices. They do not want us to have ANY control over our bodies, or to be able to have sex without worrying about being saddled with children. That's their way of keeping us at home, dependent, barefoot and pregnant.
Incidentally, this is going WAY back in the discussion, but although sex-selective abortion in India and China tends to select boys, women who are given the opportunity to select the sex of their children (usually during IVF) more often pick girls. Interesting.
Anonymous, best of luck. My thoughts are with you.
Sorry, that should be women IN THE US.
Way late, but:
Amy, it's my understanding that the vast majority of women who have abortions--especially late-term abortions--do so after much thought. After all, it is they who are having the abortion.
I don't know what kind of survey you've done or read to come to that conclusion about "the vast majority", but even if it's true (and I'm not convinced), that still leaves a minority that is not thoughtful. And that's who laws are for. Most people aren't interested in knocking over banks or murdering grandmas, either. We have laws to constrain the few who apparently have no sense, with "sense" defined constitutionally or loosely as a majority will.
And saying we trust women to drive doesn't mean that we trust them as much as we trust men.
Irrelevant. We have the legal power to drive, and it'd be tough to revoke. That's all that matters when you want to get in the car and go somewhere.
Ann Coulter is popular because she is angry AND ANTI-FEMINIST. Sure, a woman who disses feminists is going to do well in an anti-feminist society: "see? This woman agrees with us. That proves you're wrong!"
So the real problem isn't anger, it's message. And that's probably true. Hillary doesn't go around frothing, and she's well-hated just the same. Btw, you still haven't dealt with the idea that in politics nobody can show up, expect to hang out being themselves (angry or not), and win.
The free market argument simply isn't that simple: one reason women don't get access to the media is because of a preconception that women's issues are marginal, that no one will listen to a woman, etc. To some extent this is even true: since the society is sexist, women's views ARE seen as less important. Which is precisely my point.
Which is still missing the fact that we have no power in large measure because we have no money, which by definition makes us marginal in this game. Along with every other group that has no money.
Amy, yes, of course money matters. But I don't agree with the rest of what you're saying. Hillary is hated EVEN THOUGH she's quite diplomatic. If she was angry, she'd be unelectable. And yet, angry right-wing men get elected all over the goddamn place. Patti Murray got elected on a "I'm just a mom in tennis shoes" platform. Women have to pander to the fear of angry/strong women in order to sort of sneak into power by the back door.
And why do you assume that women don't think about their abortions? First of all, EVERY SINGLE STORY I have ever read by a woman about an abortion demonstrates a great deal of thought. Second of all, every thing I have read about, say, late-term abortion sshows that (as someone upthread pointed out) elective late-term abortion for reasons having nothign to do with health is so rare as to be stastically insignificant (and given how few late-term abortions there are anyway, this means, effectively, zero). And look upthread at what Alex has to say. And read what I had to say about my own pregnancy. Being pregnant is not something that one just *ignores,* lalala. The only way women could not think seriously about this crap is if they had no brains.
And why do you assume that women don't think about their abortions?
Hold the bus. Did I say "women in general don't think about their abortions"? No. But I do believe that in any large group of people, you're going to find some who ain't all that thoughtful or responsible. That's who laws are for.
I've known some women with no brains, by the way. Also women with mental illnesses that prompted them to make some extraordinarily stupid decisions. About sex, about abortions, about all manner of things. If we're going to get anecdotal about it: You wouldn't think a woman would sit around doing nothing about a pregnancy she didn't want until the middle of her fifth month -- and yet I know one who did just that. You wouldn't figure the mother of an asthmatic toddler would sit there smoking while the kid hacked and wheezed, but guess what my ex-best friend used to do. Nor would you think a woman with any brain at all would invite a stream of internet dates over to her house with small children in it, much less introduce her small children to "their new daddies", but guess what. I wouldn't think a mom would leave her 5-year-old with an acquaintance and then just abandon the kid in favor of a new boyfriend, but yep, I knew her, too. She was good and crazy. (As was the daddy.) I got more where those came from.
Do I think this is most women? No. I don't. But I know for a fact that there are women out there who do remarkably stupid, thoughtless, amoral things. As well as men. Which is why we need laws and enforcement.
If men and women were angels, b....
As for the anger/unelectability thing, keep in mind that it's not limited to women, though I agree angry women are less electable. Hillary's opponent blew himself up partly by raving like a moron, and the only reason Tom Vilsack is still the governor here is that his (male) opponent was mean and nasty, which doesn't go over well in Iowa.
All of this is beside the point, though, which is that in politics, you can't possibly be talking about a genuine expression of self. I'd be terrified to meet the creature who could actually sit there, be him or herself, and be elected.
Personally, I think angry feminists are extremely effective, if not electable. And I mean ranting, sex-talking, insane-demands feminists. Why? Because like PETA and the Christian Coalition and those idiot animal liberationists, they drag the whole conversation with them. Off-their-nuts publicly incoherent- furious feminists make nicely-groomed advocates for bcp prescription coverage sound much more reasonable at the statehouse.
I'm not denying that there's terrific sexism when it comes to women expressing anger in general. But I guarantee you that women would not have to do nearly as much back-door sneaking if we actively controlled major wealth in this country. I think you've got the wrong diagnosis, which isn't received sexism, but lack of tangible power. And I don't think they go quite as hand-in-hand as you imply.
There's one hell of a lot of bright, able women around -- I'm one of them and I'm thinking you are too -- who do not devote their lives to building the biggest goddamn pile of cash and influence possible. Or even to collecting serious wealth. I see no female Soroses around. No Gateses. Nor do I see us lining up to run for office -- in fact that's become a major recruitment effort.
I think I have less patience for "societal change" than you have, b. It seems to me that if you're really serious about changing these things, you've got to figure out how you can get power as the rules stand, and go do it. Without forgetting where you came from. I'm thinking that's exactly what Hillary's done, though I hope like hell she doesn't run for president.
I think you're operating from a misunderstanding of how the law works.
Yes. People make bad decisions. So, for instance, a person might make a bad decision to kill someone. So, we say, "killing someone is illegal." That becomes a blanket law. We feel okay with that, and you can, in some circumstances, plead "self-defense" or whatever, but the basic presumption is that most killings are not acceptable.
In contrast, let us take your example of a woman who makes a bad decision to have an abortion. First of all, as it's a medical procedure and I do not recognize a fetus as a person with legal rights, I don't see that this is anyone's business but her own. But let us say you do think that a fetus is sort of human, but in some circumstances, okay, abortion may be necessary. You are basically okay with letting *most* women decide about their own abortions, but in *some* cases it bothers you.
What solution can you propose that does not impose on the rights and moral judgment of *most women* in order to prevent the *rare* instance? And why would you bother, anyway? Just for the sake of not letting women do things that bother you? It is not like murder. We are not operating from a presumption that *most abortions* are bad, but maybe once in a while one might have an abortion in self-defense.
Unless, of course, you are operating from that presumption, in which case I suppose one would be willing to put quite a burden on *most* women in order to prevent a *few* women from having "bad" abortions. But then there's this little problem of burden of proof; you have just shifted the burden of proof onto the woman to "prove" to someone why her reasons for having an abortion are acceptable. And every place that this is tried, what ends up happening is precisely what you say you are trying to avoid: more women end up having later abortions (which is presumably problematic for those who are "uncomfortable" with late abortions on viability grounds, but is also problematic on medical grounds--late abortions are more difficult and carry a slightly higher risk than earlier ones) because the women have to sit around waiting for their case to make its way through the system to get the judge's permission. And while they do it, they are being treated as if they are not fully functioning adults, capable of making their own decisions. And I have a real problem with that.
You say to me, "people are not angels." And I say to you, "you cannot create a perfect society by sitting in judgment over every person in it." We need to allow that people are the best judges of their own lives. Because when we stop doing that, we become totalitarian.
I read your post as excerpted by Amanda at Pandagon.
Then I read your whole post here and some of the comments. How you can answer so patiently is beyond me.
You rock. And you should start telling people you're great at laying down this particular argument in a way that makes other feminists proud and righteous.
The comments get my hackles up, so I'm going to post just to let you know that I appreciate what you say here and have forwarded it to my friends, who I know will love it as well.
From one PhD to another...
Thank you Catty. It's odd you praise my patience; people often think that I am far too impatient. But secretly I agree with you
One of my summer plans is to get a good article about abortion into a journal somewhere.
Thank you again, bitch, for saying much more eloquently and less furiously what I am attempting to think. For what it's worth, I also think there is an issue of education here - yes, many women are ill-equipped to make important decisions, but doesn't that say something about the society in which we live, which tolerates such incredibly poor educational standards? (I live in the UK but I'm guessing things aren't any better in the US, if not worse). It seems to me to be wrong not to care about providing people with the skills to think critically and then to berate them for failing to do so in a particular situation. And I'm not saying that this only affects women, because it doesn't; however there is still pressure on women to be nice and not make a fuss and to leave the worrying thinking stuff to the clever folks whilst concentrating on their hair. And that's not ok.
I have nothing to add to this conversation other than "preach it, sister!"
Nicely done.
But Ronald Dworkin said it first and said it better. In his worst book to date, even.
Keep in mind that the not-trusting bit goes less far than it might seem. At some point in the early sixties, this exact conversation was happening, except with someone who was in favor of allowing business owners to hire and to take as clients whomever they chose, but was uncomfortable with the habits of some of discriminating along racial grounds.
Did we wonder about whether we should trust the southern gentleman then? Or question the legitimacy of our moral framework? No, and the reason why is clear: Trusting the decisions of others does not entail withdrawing from all judgment of what they do. The difference between then and now is the content of the decision being made: We disagree with discrimination in a way that we don't disagree with abortion. It is emphatically not the degree of deference we grant.
Great post and responses - wish I had more time to read more of them.
DOUBLE STANDARD NOTE:
If a woman has an abortion, it's her choice to do with her body what she wants, and the life/potential life/blob of goo/whatever in her tummy is irrelevant.
If a man chooses to make a personal decision to walk away from his familiy - he's a jerk?
I think that BPHD would argue (correct me if I'm wrong) that a woman has a right to choose even if we do assume that the blob of goo is a person. I'm sure that many who post here are going to be able to easily state a number of ways in which, then, her decision is not only NOT far worse and more destructive than the hypothetical man's, but also in which it is, in fact, far better. Can't wait to hear them (Really, I mean that)
A, my answer to that has different layers. One, the fact is, it is physically possible for a man to walk away from a pregnancy/child; they do it all the time. So that right there is a major difference between paternity and pregnancy: being a father is not a physical risk. Second, as I sometimes say flippantly, "take it up with god": women can decide not to carry a pregnancy (even if abortion is illegal--we've been doing it forever), but once a baby is born, well, there a baby is, and someone needs to support it. Third, I actually think that this "deadbeat dad" drumbeat is really about society not wanting to support single moms: let's kick 'em off the wellfare rolls, but lest we feel too guilty, let's hunt down the daddies. This doesn't work too well, as a lot of women (my sister included) have learned: a man may be *legally* required to pay child support, but that doesn't mean he'll do it, or do it on time. And if he doesn't, then getting his ass thrown in jail doesn't really help the mama or the kid very much. So, in effect, what child support laws do is put single moms in a continued position of financial dependency on their baby daddies, a fact that a *lot* of men use (consciously or no) to lord their power over the mothers of their children, which pisses the moms off and is generally a shitty scene all around.
In my perfect world, women earn as much as men, so this is less of a problem. Also, a man who wants not to support his kid can go file a document to that effect at the courthouse. And then the goddamn state will step in and provide support for that family. Alternately, the state pays the woman her child support payments, and then the state has to go collect from the man. Let them be the one to deal with his "the check is in the mail" bullshit every month.
But the short answer is that yes, we think both women and men who walk away from their families are jerks.
"That a woman who is contemplating an invasive, expensive, and uncomfortable medical procedure doesn't think it through first. In short, that your judgment is better than hers."
Let's rewrite these two sentences of yours, and see if it still makes sense. Replace "woman" with "person" and "invasive, expensive, and uncomfortable medical procedure" with "armed robbery". Still comfortable with your claim?
Siteowner steps in: Hey, Clayton, let's rewrite your sentences, hmm?
The only reason that you are comfortable with your self-righteousness about this is because you have persuaded yourself that an unborn child a woman isn't a human being. Unless you are an anarchist, a totalitarian, you do believe that the collective moral judgment of the people, expressed through their representatives, is superior to that of individuals. moral judgment of individualas should be free from state intervention. That's why we have laws. a bill of rights.
There. Still feel comfortable with your claim?
"The fact of the matter is that the fetus is inside a woman's uterus. It may be viable outside the uterus, but it is up to the woman whose uterus it is to decide what to do about that."
Suspiciously similar to the argument that slaveowners used to make. Except that even the law did not allow slaveowners to arbitrarily kill their slaves. They got away with it, true, because blacks couldn't testify against whites, and those were generally the only witnesses to such crimes. At least the slave states never reached the point of denying that slaves were humans.
Heh. I doubt you'll find anyone willing to say that human fetuses aren't human. Perhaps you should have chosen better wording. I think you were going for "person."
Actually, Clayton, the law did allow slaveowners to arbitrarily kill their slaves. Also, see, armed robbery doesn't involve havingt someone stick something metal up your vagina and into your cervix. Imagine, my dear, someone sticking a metal tube into your urethra, and then tell me that that isn't something you'd think about before doing.
I haven't "persuaded" myself that an unborn child isn't a human being. Nor have I persuaded myself that a fetus is an unborn child. Because, you see, I've been pregnant. I know from first-hand experience that the process of transforming an embryo into a baby is a long and arduous one. And that it is, see, a process.
So don't condescend to me, you jerk.
b, I'm sorry, but your argument is making no practical sense to me.
I do not regard a 10-week fetus as a baby. I do regard a 38-week fetus as a baby, and I suspect the vast majority of pro-choice voters agree. Where's the line? Somewhere around viability, which is currently somewhere around 23-26 weeks. I hold something very close to what the Supreme Court held: If you haven't managed to make up your mind about an abortion and get one by then, you're stuck with the pregnancy until you deliver and sign the adoption papers, unless the continued pregnancy will kill or cripple you. (Why the exception? Nobody said the law must be internally consistent. This is a holdover from when infant death was common and healthy childbearing-age women relatively rare. If you pushed for consistency, though, I'd bet you a lot of money the exception would go away.)
Is this about mistrust of women? No. It's about the widely-held sense that an viable fetus is enough of a person that killing it would indeed constitute murder. Since we have no objective test of personhood, viability is probably the best we can do.
When it comes to other, more subjective circumstances, b -- and maybe you've been reading more into my posts than I've written -- I don't care. I don't care how many abortions a woman has had, or whether she's having one because she wants to finish school, or whether she's having one because she likes to go to the clubs and a baby would cramp her style. I don't care if she doesn't want to raise a baby with a clubfoot. I don't care if she's having an abortion because she's a moron who refuses to use birth control even though she knows she doesn't want a baby. That's not my business, and frankly I don't know how you'd get at those things legally except through a sort of inquisition, which makes the whole process suspect. My sole concerns are viability and mother's life/health.
Incidentally, I don't see that these viability/maternal-health laws -- which happen to reflect Roe's implementation pretty well -- prompt more women to put off abortions. Emma Goldman's stats here show that the vast majority of abortions they perform are in the very early weeks of pregnancy. Few of them go into the second trimester. (For that matter, Emma does its own screens, and will actually turn women away if they don't think a woman has really thought it through and made some peace with the decision. Would you call them misogynist for doing this?)
Let's say that I did believe women should not have some category of "bad" abortion. Say it's something that's difficult to prove, like "she likes going out at night and doesn't want the hassle." And say such a law passed constitutional muster. Then you're right; then there's a lag while the woman proves to a judge's satisfaction that she's not having one of these "bad" abortions.
Note, though, that there are "bad abortion" tests that would be pretty quick to administer. A too-many-abortions test, for instance. Reasonable methods of proof would have to be established, since there's no proving negatives. But I think it'd be pretty tough to keep a law like that on the books, since it's plainly discriminatory. Holds women to a standard of sexual behavior that men needn't adhere to....heh. Unless there were pre-abortion paternity tests, which would complicate things pretty handily in a lot of directions.
You're also right in saying that this does is to transfer abortion from right to privilege. I'm not a fan of that idea, mainly because of how a situation like that can be manipulated. But I will also point out that we have many other institutions set up on that basis. Adoption and foster care, for one; driving, for another. Almost everyone who applies for a driver's license gets one, and the tests are designed to make sure nearly everyone can get a license. But the presumption is one of initial mistrust. The difference there is that the mistrust is not sex-based. If there were pre-abortion screens that were not at bottom based on misogynist stereotypes, and were legal/constitutional, I wouldn't see a problem with them except that I'd probably disagree mightily with them on philosophical grounds. In which case it's back to the canvassing.
In any case, unless your reasons for wanting to restrict abortion are based on some dark sense that women have some special treasonous stink of Eve about them, I can't agree that support of such laws is really about mistrust of women. My test is pretty simple; if men got pregnant, would you find the same questions sensible? When it comes to viability and maternal health & life, my answer is yes, absolutely.
You say to me, "people are not angels." And I say to you, "you cannot create a perfect society by sitting in judgment over every person in it." We need to allow that people are the best judges of their own lives. Because when we stop doing that, we become totalitarian.
b, you're off the mark. No one here is out to make a perfect society by creating and enforcing laws. We're after avoiding short, brutal and nasty. If people were always the best judges of their own lives, we'd have no need for laws. Which is what Madison was after when he wrote the angels bit. I think you'd be hard-pressed to describe Madison as a totalitarian.
Shall I describe you as a state-of-naturist?
For what it's worth, I also think there is an issue of education here - yes, many women are ill-equipped to make important decisions, but doesn't that say something about the society in which we live, which tolerates such incredibly poor educational standards?
I'm not sure academic education is the whole story. The 5th-month abortion story I told was about a woman at a private university with pretty stout admissions standards. Both the smoker with the asthmatic kid and the child-abandoner had some college; both were pretty good readers who knew how to use a telephone and shift for themselves. Same with the internet-lover inviter, except mental illness played a pretty good role there too.
Wow, got sucked in and read all the comments. (I'll be late to work again.) It is so frustrating talking to people in the middle of this debate. When I talk with someone who is 100% anti-abortion, at least it's clear we think each other is on the wrong side. When you talk with someone who is "pro-choice, but...", s/he is convinced that you mostly agree and that's good enough.
It reminds me of a comment that has stuck with me from childhood. Hearing my father talk about how much he liked his black co-worker/friend Charlie. He was so proud that he'd overcome the bigotry he'd been raised with. He said "I'd be happy to have Charlie come into my home and eat at my table." For a brief moment I was proud. His next sentence, unfortunately was, "Of course, I wouldn't let him spend the night."
When someone's bigotry is blatent the evil is easy to spot and confront, but when someone makes a little progress and stops? It's difficult for s/he to face that they still have a problem.
People who are "pro-choice, but..." like to think they mostly agree with the pro-choice side. Truth is, they're anti-choice but have decided to make a few exceptions. Maybe they can't face the thought of forcing a rape victim to have a child. But perhaps they're perfectly OK, with the idea that parents/society "own" the reproductive lives of teenagers.
As a side note, to all those who think teenagers will make bad decisions, what is your point? In your mind, worst case, she regrets having the abortion? I think the worst case is she regrets having a child.
This is really very simple. No one, not my husband/boyfriend/parents/society/you has any say over when/whether I continue a pregnancy. Speaking as a 35 yr old woman who has been firm in her decision to remain child-free for over 10 years, abortion is my final option in birth control. I have the right to choose not to become a mother. Society doesn't have the right to make any laws to restrict that choice. Period.
Amy, the education issue is one I won't allow, because I find it quite classist and condescending to say that a woman who doesn't have a formal education doesn't therefore know how to make decisiosn about her own life. That's ridiculous.
What I don't get is why, since you say you agree with me except that you think a woman shouldn't abort a 38-week old fetus unless there's a drastic health problem, why we're even having this argument. NO WOMAN is going to abort a 38-week old fetus unless there is a health problem (including her mental health, i.e. if she is crazy) because a 38-week old fetus is so goddamn huge that "aborting" it is massive major surgery. It seems to me that the people who make the "but a 38-week old fetus is basically a baby that hasn't been born yet" argument say that as if they didn't think that a woman who is 38 weeks old pregnant doesn't think that HERSELF. I just find that completely incomprehensible.
And if there is some crazy-ass woman out there who goes, "no, a 38-week old fetus is not human, it's some kind of ethereal essence that takes form only as it passes through the birth canal" than that woman is CRAZY. And hence, to make this imagined scenario the one that gets trotted out when we're talking about late-term abortions--as if it were the rule, and the life/health issue the exception, rather than MANIFESTLY the other way around--is, I think, misogynist. Because it's making up some insane scenario about some crazed/stupid/bizarre woman who doesn't think about these things, and reasoning from there. But to take the crazed/stupid/bizarre people as the foundation of an argument about abortion is completely bass-akwards.
Anyway. I'm yelling now because this debate is making me really impatient. My point is that women are on the whole intelligent, reasonable, people who take pregnancy and childbirth VERY seriously, and people keep insisting on presenting me with arguments that there are always exceptions. I don't understand why everyone wants to focus on the imagined insane woman rather than the vast majority of sane, rational ones, and yes, I do read that substitution as extremely problematic in terms of trusting women.
It's good to read what is, for the most part, meaningful moral discourse: thanks, Dr. B. FWIW, I agree with your basic stance: her body, her choice, though I think I would place this moral agency on different grounds.
I have been following several blogs regularly in my retirement; yours is one of the best, though I think you are too patient sometimes. You might consider "Fuck off, pissant!" rather than "So don't condescend to me, you jerk!" on occasion: more flavor.
Thanks again.
b, I wasn't the one arguing for an education filter. I argued against. "For" was anonymous, several posts up.
The problem is that the imaginary insane woman isn't imaginary. They do exist, in the same way that pedophile wackos and hopped-up random-acts-of-violence morons exist. (I got my nose broken by one, thanks.) There are thoughtless and amoral types of both sexes. There are also perennially seamy types who'll do anything for a buck. I don't know where you live, but I could certainly take you on a tour of Wackoland, and maybe then you'd see the point of laws as something other than an insult to the general population.
A 38-week abortion isn't likely. Without laws against, a 26-week abortion, while still serious, is more likely. Since that's generally regarded as post-viability, I'd stand with Roe on that.
Laws in general are for protection against crazy/stupid/bizarre/greedy/etc. people. If they weren't, we wouldn't have laws in the first place. Go talk to a lawyer. Their entire professional lives are about imagining what such people might do and protecting clients against them.
We're arguing because you posited a) that there should be no restrictions on abortion, period, and that would include all post-viability abortions; b) that to say "yes, there should be some kind of restriction" automatically means you distrust all women, and specifically women, rather than people in general. Which I still maintain is nonsense, for reasons I gave before:
In any case, unless your reasons for wanting to restrict abortion are based on some dark sense that women have some special treasonous stink of Eve about them, I can't agree that support of such laws is really about mistrust of women. My test is pretty simple; if men got pregnant, would you find the same rationale for restrictions as sensible? When it comes to viability and maternal health & life, my answer is yes, absolutely.
I think we're also arguing because of the ringing manifesto-like close to your original post, in which you called on us to give up rights. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Amy, what rights did I call on anyone to give up? The right to make decisions for other people? Since when is that a right?
And please don't "tsk" at me. I find it condescending.
Here’s you:
If you're pro-choice, you have to give up the right to have a "say" in someone else's choice. If you're pro-feminist, you have to give up the right to expect your personal feelings to be more important than women's public rights--including the right to be unpleasant, if, in her judgement, unpleasantness is called for.
Let's look at that again. The right to have a say in someone else's choice.
That's no more or less than the right to participate in public policymaking. Having a say in other people’s choices is exactly what lawmaking does at every level: it restricts or at the very least defines people's choices. That policymaking right is fundamental to democracy, and I do not believe there is any single issue, be it feminism or church-state separation or social security reform, that justifies letting go of that right. When someone comes around saying "Give up a fundamental democratic right and support X, or you're a _____," I don’t care what shoe polish she's selling; I don't trust her, and I don't for a minute believe she's going to give up any of her own rights. On the contrary. There’s a long history of people who’ve called on their countrymen to give up basic rights in the name of something noble, and it’s funny how many of them had to recruit a lot of guns to enforce the noble sacrifice. Happily for all of us, you don’t have the guns. But I object to the rhetoric and the frame of mind that produces it.
Let's look at the second part: The right to expect your personal feelings to be more important than women's [current] public rights.
Any time anyone promotes a policy, a candidate, a bill, it's rooted in personal feelings. It’s either direct interest or a product of horsetrading, rooted in direct interests somewhere else. If someone promotes a "too many abortions" bill, that's rooted in personal feelings, and I do not see that those feelings can be intrinsically more or less valid than others in a democracy. They can only be more or less shared and persuasive to others within the confines of federal and state constitutions. If -- as I expect will happen -- sci/eng figure out how to bring the viability age down to 10 weeks, and someone starts promoting a "no second trimester abortions except etc." bill, this will be rooted in personal feelings about what constitutes murder. This right to promote one's personal feelings and perceived interests through speech and votes is also fundamental to democracy.
Yet you are saying, "This cause is so important that if you don't voluntarily give up these fundamental civil rights, you're anti-feminist." How is your rhetoric essentially different from Bush's "You're with us or against us"? I'm not talking content or subject, mind. Just rhetoric.
If you want to say, "Look, if you want to win, then realistically we have to stick together and broker some compromises," that's one thing. But to start feminist-flag-waving, namecalling, and calling on people to nobly give up basic rights? No. Take a quick stroll through Animal Farm again to see why that's not a wise rhetorical tactic or frame of mind, earnest or not. Unless you like the Snowball part.
(You’ll note that I am not claiming here any fundamental human or women’s rights, and that’s because I agree with Burke. I don’t think these natural rights exist. I do not think there are any rights other than what we manufacture and agree to inside social contracts, and only as far as they’re enforced. And when I say “we”, I mean whoever exercises power inside the society.)
You do not have a fundamental civil right to tell me what to do with my own body. That is slavery. I am arguing that you can't be a feminist and also want to dictate women's decisions. If you want to put the collective ahead of the individual, you can go live on the Animal Farm.
b, of course I do. As part of a legislative process, I have a fundamental civil right to influence laws on what both women and men can do with their bodies. Can I tell you directly what to do or not do? No. I can only do it as legislator to citizen, though I can be pretty powerful about it if people ignore the issue and leave most of the billwriting to me.
Things people have told you, legitimately, that you can't do with your body: Sell it, walk it around outside naked, put it in a bed with your teenaged son, have sex with minors, put most recreational drugs in it. If you have a problem with the legitimacy part of that, you'll have to take it up with the Constitution.
I don't know that we can go any further on the "hands off all women's decisions" issue. I can't really believe you don't think it's a good thing to restrict the behavior of the thoughtless, crazy women out there, just as we restrict the behavior of thoughtless, crazy men. Of course thoughtless and crazy are subjective notions. That's precisely why it seems to me you can't expect every feminist to hold the same view of what constitutes thoughtless and crazy when it comes to abortion or anything else. And you surely can't expect them to drop their rights to advance their views in law. (Back to Orwell again.) I think the best you can probably do is to argue specific points about specific proposals, as we recently did here on Plan B.
The unfortunate thing about a democracy is that people are going to disagree with you, even people on your own side. Which is why I don't think anyone can afford to be a purist or a namecaller, or draw "'with us or agin us" lines. Not unless they've got lots and lots of guns, or believe bullying will be an effective tactic.
Dr. B.: Thank you for this post. It's one of the best things I've read in a while on the bottom-line importance of a consistent pro-choice position. This whole argument reminds me of nothing so much as the arguments between immediatists and gradualists over the abolition of slavery -- and not coincidentally, of course, since banning abortion just means legalizing slavery in the case of pregnant women.
amy: Hold the bus. Did I say "women in general don't think about their abortions"? No. But I do believe that in any large group of people, you're going to find some who ain't all that thoughtful or responsible. That's who laws are for.
This is not so. Laws (as opposed to advice or legislative resolutions) are for authorizing men with guns and clubs to enforce compliance with a proscription. Passing a law against something means, ultimately, being willing to cuff, beat, imprison, and/or shoot someone over it.
This is an important fact about government action that had better not be ignored. When you talk about using legislation to control people--women--that are declared to be irrational by some process of public deliberation, you are not just talking about telling them what to do. You are talking about attacking them if they do not do what they are told to do.
This is important to remember, because not thinking about it can lead people to sign on to the most monstrous sorts of views and argumentative methods.
amy: I do not regard a 10-week fetus as a baby. I do regard a 38-week fetus as a baby, and I suspect the vast majority of pro-choice voters agree.
But being pro-choice is not a matter of letting "pro-choice voters" decide what Julia can do with her own body. It's a matter of defending Julia's right to decide what she does with her own body. The pro-choice position is not a majoritarian position; it's a position about rights.
bitchphd: You do not have a fundamental civil right to tell me what to do with my own body. That is slavery.
amy: b, of course I do. As part of a legislative process, I have a fundamental civil right to influence laws on what both women and men can do with their bodies. Can I tell you directly what to do or not do? No. I can only do it as legislator to citizen, though I can be pretty powerful about it if people ignore the issue and leave most of the billwriting to me.
You're either not responding to bitchphd's point or you're saying something which commits you to a crazy position. If what you are saying is that freedom of political speech and freedom of conscience is a fundamental right, and so you have a right to go around saying that you support bans on abortions under conditions X, Y, and Z, well, of course you do. But that's not a response to the statement that you don't have a right to tell another woman what to do with her own body, since bitchphd is clearly talking in terms of enforced government policy here, not merely in terms of your rights to hector and admonish other people.
If, on the other hand, you're saying that you are a citizen in a democratic polity and you therefore have a right to enforce your ideas about an abortion ban if you can get it done through the political process, then the argument only goes through on the premise that anything that comes about as the outcome of a democratic political process is therefore something that the government has the right to enact. Which is an absolutely crazy position. Political victors in democracies do not properly have totalitarian authority over the citizens. There are lots of things that nobody has any right to enact no matter what political process approves them--laws permitting slavery for example, or laws authorizing the extermination of Jews, for example--and any political theory which would regard these outcomes as possibly legitimate is frankly one that's beyond the pale for civilized humanity.
You might claim that you're not arguing from the universal claim that any decision issuing from a democratic process is therefore legitimate, but only that abortion is a field where majoritarian decision-making is appropriate. Fine; but then you'd have to give some argument for that, rather than just appealing to polls and pointing out that we live in a quasi-democratic polity. You'd also have to give up the claim that you are pro-choice, since allowing for abortion laws as long as they are supported by a majority may not be anti-abortion, but it is also not pro-choice.
Rad Geek --
You missed the part where I said "within the confines of the Constitution". And existing law, for that matter, such as the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. All of which exist in part to protect minorities from majoritarian rule.
I'm aware of the part with the guns. Yes, I'm saying that I'm happy to have the guns stop Loony Angela from getting a 30-week abortion because she's just decided, for whatever reason, that she doesn't want a baby right now. (The guns here are pointed at the docs, afaik, not Angela, not that it changes the outcome.) In this I'm with Roe, by the way. The essential position is "You have a choice until the critter inside you is likely to be capable of living outside you, at which point we think this looks enough like murder that you're stuck. Subject to some fairly stringent exceptions re maternal life/health."
I do not agree that "pro-choice until viability" is not pro-choice. (I think "there's only one pro-choice" is a pretty funny stance for a blogger who's proud to recognize many kinds of feminism, btw.) Though I can see that becoming more debatable as age of viability drops, particularly if it drops below 16 weeks, when amnios are administered. More practically, if you want to go around administering purity tests, that's your business, but politically it seems a little nuts. It seems to me the pro-choice side needs all the friends it can get.
What the pro-choice side needs is a little backbone.
The Republicans claim those within strict orthodox Christian groups are the only people capable of making decisions about a woman's reproductive organs in the genitourinary tract. For this reason, decisions about the use and care of a woman’s reproductive organs must be legislated in accordance with the Republican Platform and Fundamentalist Christian Scripture. Their evidence to support this belief is the fact that there are those (i.e., non-Republicans, heretofore known as “Religion Hating Secularists”) who would not follow the algorithm to consistently make the following decisions:
1)abortion is a permissible sin if the embryo/fetus definitely has no chance of life at all under any circumstances and the mother is at imminent risk of death should the pregnancy continue (i.e., ectopic pregnancy)
2)no other abortion is permissible except when the mother is in imminent danger of death (merely being at high risk for a grand mal seizure during labor is not necessarily sufficient cause to terminate pregnancy, especially if there is no documented lethal abnormality of the embryo/fetus)
3)unmarried women may not, under any circumstances, use prescription contraceptive agents
-the dispensing pharmacist should be able to declare a prescription for a contraceptive agent for a woman who is married is invalid
4) a woman may not have sex with anyone except a man to whom she is legally married
5) agents or vaccines that could be used to prevent transmission of infection/disease may not be provided to women if there is a possibility that disease/infection could be transmitted sexually (abiding by #4 is all the prophylaxis a woman needs)
caveat: exceptions to these rules can be made on a case by case basis (limited to lovers, mistresses, wives or daughters of religious leaders and Republican politicians or their sons) at the sole discretion of specific religious leaders and Republican politicians who prefer not to follow these rules personally
Well. Wow. I agree with a lot of what you said.
Personally, I couldn't choose abortion for myself. However, I feel very strongly that each individual woman has the right to choose for herself.
Having been the victim of molestation by an Uncle and a rape by a trusted best friend of my brother, I can safely say no one has the right to tell someone else what to do when they've just been through such life-altering trauma.
The rape resulted in a pregnancy. I was agonizing over what I should do with no one to tell or talk to. The choice was taken out of my hands, as I miscarried.
I still am not sure what I would have done, to this day. I'm pretty sure my parents would've forced me to keep it, but, who knows?
The point is, I've had 4 miscarriages and 4 live births. My last child's pregnancy was "ill-advised" by the doctor. Not like I planned it. It sort of happened, on strong birth control, even. He tried his damndest to intimidate me into an abortion. I refused.
By the same token, I sat in the waiting room with a good friend while she waited for her abortion appointment. I held her hand. I held her when she cried after it was over, asking me if she did the right thing.
I told her that only she knew the answer to that and I was her friend no matter what I thought about it, 'cause I wasn't her and I didn't have to live her life. It was my job as her friend to love her through it and be there for her through thick and thin.
No one has the right to dictate or judge. Only the woman in question has all the facts and knows what she can and cannot handle. It's between her and what God she believes in, or doesn't believe in.
And by all that's holy, NO MAN has the right to make the choice for her!
Now, do I believe that a loving father, husband or significant other may have some input, yes. But, ultimately, the decision rests with the woman.
The father of the baby donated the sperm that fertilizes the egg. But, it's not his body that has to be put through 9 months of some very health traumatizing stuff. He's not the one who's got to deal with a body that takes about 2 years to recover hormonally, if the woman is lucky.
It's not him that is the one relegated to 24/7 duty for 18+ years, 'cause whether or not men want to admit it, they still think their job is done after 8 hours at thier day job and it's mom who's got to deal with the midnight prayers to the porcaline goddess, cutting teeth, fevers, trips to the ER and all the other extra-curricular things. Then he has the gall to take the credit. Go figure.
Nope.
No one's choice but the woman who's got the baby growing in her belly.
Men should stay out of it. Other women should be there with open arms, hugs, compassion, a strong shoulder to cry on and a hot cup of tea or coffee.
They *definitely* shouldn't be pointing fingers and judging.
That's how we got into this fix in the first place. Too many fingers pointing, too many tongues in drive, too many brains in drive and not enough listening.
ME
One difficulty in Amy's position is that the rare "crazy" behavior of getting an "unnecessary" abortion is identical to the admissable "well-considered" act, so imposing judicial or procedural oversight is something of an unfair burden on population.
I am not aware of too many other areas were legislation to separate this class of acts is that successful. Airport screening and the procedures involved with transferring large sums of money are two analogues I guess.
While I don't find the host's argument that wanting to intervene in the woman's decision is misogynistic/sexist (in the prima-facie sense, de-facto I suppose so) I do think empowering the medical community to make the judgement calls as they occur is the best bet. They do this already I believe.
Hello,
I have been reading your blog for about a month now (got here through Sean Carrollś blog - I took some of his classes while in Chicago), and you make a point here that is very relevant to me, even though I am male.
I like to quote a few sentences, but for entirely personal reasons, from this entry, on my blog, with your permission, of course. It will be a protected entry, but I can allow you access to it, so you can see what I wrote.....
I really liked your mini-campaign for sending Sarah back home
Savyasachi
I'd first like to say that I enjoy this blog very much (first time reader). However, I'd like perhaps pose the abortion issue a different way and see what people think. The way I see it, the debate over abortion is a debate over the type of life a woman is entitled to live.
Is she to enjoy the same autonomy as a man, or is her life restricted because of her ability to bear a child?
For example, if a family member has leukemia and the only thing that will save her is if I agree to a bone marrow transplant, I am free to refuse that said transplant be performed. This freedom, I might add, is protected by the Constitution, as to deny it would be to deny my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Likewise, if a friend of mine decided that he wanted to crawl inside my uterus for nine months because it made him feel safe and warm, his request would never be granted, as it -- again -- impinges on my right to life, liberty, blah blah blah...
So--tell me please how it could be that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is even discussed as anything other than a violation of her rights.
Before long (in this thought experiment), women who are pregnant will be legally prohibited from doing things like rock climbing, bike riding, et cetera, as it would be irresponsible on her part to partake in any activity that could potentially subject the fetus (I still haven't found a term I feel comfortable using) to danger... Now certainly this is a bit of an extension, but it all follows the same line of reasoning: if a woman cannot choose if and when she would like to have a child, then she is not entitled to the same range of freedom currently bestowed upon men due to her capacity for child-bearing. Just imagine what would happen if the government tried to stop men from rock climbing and bike riding because they put their sperm in a precarious position...
b, As I understand your post and the gist of your comments, the centerpiece of your argument is the following phrase "women are fully autonomous agents". You contrast that statement, although I never saw this in so many words, with the idea that a fetus, at any stage up to and including the day of birth, is another autonomous agent (though not fully, clearly) who has appropriated the mother's body. Your logical position can be stated thusly (gotta love that word, thusly) - as the body is in fact and law the MOTHER'S body, she may choose to disallow that appropriation at any time, even if in the act of disallowing the appropriation the fetus dies.
The next step in your arguement is assert to be pro-choice means accepting her right to make that choice without imposing ANY restrictions - it IS her body.
I agree. I haven't a clue as to what to do with that agreement, but I agree.
Maybe the idea of late term abortion should be recast as early term birth, and and a serious attempt be made to assure the viability of the "baby", followed byan effort made to find adoptive parents? Then both positions can be upheld - well, at least the positions of true pro-choice and the center position of limited pro-choice. There is nothing to be done for the no-choice positions.
I like the way you have cast this argument. It is refreshing, and very logical.
It makes me TOTALLY uncomfortable!
Jake
About the trust women part and abortion. You said, "Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments?" and the answer is neither no nor yes. I expect women to act as men do - to whatever level of self interest they believe appropriate.
But I think, given the abortion and choice context of the disucussion, that the question isn't even about moral judement. The question is really about how the fact that a fully autonomous being is born as a women affects her life choices thereafter. Specifically, how that accident of birth makes her choices different from that of beings who were accidentally born as men.
Because in reading the post and the comments, that feels like the real theme of the discussion - whether or not being born a woman implies an absolute obligation to recognize the rights of a fetus at some stage of development as superior to her rights - either conception or some later stage, such as the third trimester.
So the argument can be cast, at least in my mind, as the balancing of rights of the mother and the fetus against the backdrop of this discussion of a woman's obligations to the fetus given that she IS a woman.
It's not a question of trust at all - although that distrust is truly embedded every bit as deep as you say it is - it's a question of obligation.
Are you obliged to tolerate this appropriation simply because you were accidentally born as a woman?
The pro-life answer is clearly yes, you are obligated. The center por-choice answer is also clearly yes, at some point.
Your position is no, not ever.
I hadn't ever thought of carrying to term as an obligation to risk your body's discomfort or health for another being, but that is exactly what it is.
I wonder how the law would see a man who had a uterus carrying a fertile egg implanted within him, with or without his consent? Would he have the choice? I guess it would be considered some kind of rape, and the answer would be yes, up to some point.
Suppose he was held captive until the third trimester and released into the world. He might seek medical help in ridding himself of the dangerous parasite, given that it will require a csection to remove the baby and that his other internal structures were not evolved to carry this extra 25 lbs wherever it got stuck. What would he be told? Whose rights would carry the day? The man's, or the fetus'?
Jake
And finally, and to a deafening silence, I have been thinking about other instances where the state takes ownership of a being's body - suicide is illegal and men get drafted. Maybe women will get drafted someday, but so far, nyet.
Which is food for thought. I don't think women are alone when it comes to not being the undisputed owner of your body.
Jake
I really love this thread, and I get alot of this stuff from my wife who is a big-time feminist. I respect her right to choose as I do all women. However, to me it is interesting that nothing is mentioned about a man's right to choose!? How is it fair that a female has the right to decide if she wants to wants to have an abortion to keep her life from being burdened by a child yet a man has no choice over whether he wants the child or not? Why can't a man simply walk away and say "I don't want anything to do with this child." (as was pointed out earlier--many do) Thereby absolving the father of all responsibility of the child, including child support. If that was the case, there would be alot more equal responsibility for sex on both sides, instead of "rewarding" women who have children with child support. Getting rid of the lucrative finacial award for having children would also likely cut the divorce rate alot.
I just think that I should have the right to decide if I want to support a child finacially for the next 18 years if I don't want to. It keeps me from living the life I want to live, cripples me finacially, and throws me to the mercy of the courts and the ex-wife for 18 years or more. If there was no financial support I guess more women would exercise their right to have abortions if they knew having it would mean they would be bringing it up on their own.
I completely agree that women should be allowed to chose what they do, without societal interference. However, the argument that society shouldn't make moral decisions for an individual can only reach so far. Are the laws of this country not supposed to be based upon common opinion and 'universal' morals?
If society can't tell someone they can't have an abortion, then what's to stop people from using the argument to defend actions affecting others? If it is a man's moral position that he owns his wife, and he can use her as he wishes, how can society call him out when he rapes and abuses her?
(Note: I am a 25 year old caucasian male. This doesn't matter of course, except that it does, for some reason).
When I was in Germany, serving in the Army, I met an awesome woman who, to some degree, you remind me of with your writing, not so much ideologically (I am not going to sit hear and claim to understand your ideology, or claim you even have one, for that matter), but in tone. You might call it bitchiness, and I wonder whether it would play across my ear the same way if I thought that you were a man, but that isn't a discussion I am trying to get into. We would get drunk and play chess into the wee hours of the night, and I respected her a great deal, because, in a way, she was what I perceive to be close to the ideal woman-someone with a set of opinions that were not mired in sad social cliche, and who was quite vociferous in her defense of them.
Meeting her was a revelation of sorts, because her existence showed that there were women who accepted some of the responsibility that the women's lib movement tacitly placed on their shoulders-to think for themselves and think well. I am pretty sure I am not the only guy who feels this way, although I can't really point to anything to show it.
So this is by no means a sweeping declaration, but the point is that, while I am sure their are buttloads of idiots who prefer their women in the Barbie Doll mold, I think there is a growing demand for women who have ideas of their own, and who think of what you term "bitchiness" with a certain fondness.
Good points!
Here is my take on some of these issues:
http://www.geocities.com/
ja2000j...issertation.htm
I respect her, so wasn't it lucky that in moments of boredom I just happened to have constructed an 'ideal' that she closely resembled.
"A growing demand for women that have ideas of their own". Dontcha just love commercial irony. Perhaps you could market these ideal women. Instead of the usual accessories, they could come fully equipped with a list of free will choices, cleverly designed by yourself, of course, to bring the best out of them in any given situation.
Since I have chosen this TIME to comment in this blog (time not being a renewable resource at any age), I will attempt to comment from my own experience; remembering that experiences are veiled in ones own needs, addictions, expectations etc.
ABORTION: Had one when I was young, incredibly stupid, afraid and couldn't make a positive choice for myself.
MY TAKE ON IT NOW: I practice an absolute; DO NOT USURP ANYONES AUTHORITY OVER THEIR OWN BODIES OR THEIR LIVES UNLESS IT THREATENS TO END MY LIFE. Trying to legislate behavior is like trying to hold water; even if its ice, it will melt right through your fingers.
If a woman or a man chooses to stay in a relationship that results in their death, so be it. If a woman chooses abortion as birth control. I KNOW thats stupid and harmful to her body and psyche but it's HER life not mine. I will not interfere.
WOMEN AND SO-CALLED MORAL JUDGEMENT:
Whose morals? the conservative right? The Bible thumping right? The confused and punitive feminist? The the not-in-my-back-yard-liberal? WHOSE Morals? Morals, like art, is extremely subjective. People throw the word morals around to mask a need for control over someone elses life.
My experiences with women in my short 50 years is that they are no more trustworthy or "moral" than a man. It depends on what their intent is; what they WANT or THINK they want.
I often wonder where and when women CHOSE to give up their autonomy; their innate talents and gifts; their attentiveness to self preservation; seeing daily reports of beatings, murders, fatherless families, honor killings, rape etc. WTF happened?
Then again I wonder almost the same thing about Black people (as I am a Black woman). What choice did they make as a collective race, to go from building pyramids, advance sciences and libraries to selling each other to Spaniards, Arabs and Europeans, to killing each other over drugs, women and rap music! And don't get me started on their lack of responsibility to the children they help bring into the world through women who can't even figure out that no amount of straight hair and lighter skin is going to make them more acceptable in the causasian power structure..lol....unless you are Condo Rice who I admit I am not sure is human at all.
BITCH/BITCHINESS: MY EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER WOMEN HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE FROM THE TIME I HAD A CONSCIOUS MIND TO OBSERVE. Every one of them so far has lacked everything I value and practice as a woman, friend and wife.
I have found too many to be stuck on stupid; others to be grasping, controlling, malicious, back-stabbing, covetous, lying, sneaky, weak, helpless and needy.
Then there are the true BITCHES who are intelligent enough to use and abuse other women (and men),while claiming to be victims; thievery of every sort being their most noticeable MO.
I am sad to say I do not trust ANY woman at her word. I content myself with observation now, take joy in my husband who married me because I AM autonomous and have many skills, produce art, write and garden.
I am always civil to other women now but at this time I cannot imagine a honest friendship with another female.
This past few months of an experience with 3 women in a business showed me that I need to develope more skills in self preservation; even to the point of being considered a bitch by others! I'm definitely going to take my Grandma's advice to heart now: "If you volunteer to be a house-nigger, expect to be treated like one".
Thank YOU Grandma! I FINALLY GOT THAT!
I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion, but I completely disagree with what you stated with regard to second- and third-trimester abortions and, specifically, with women having multiple abortions. With the former, I'll concede my position if there is a medical justification for the abortion, but for the second one I will not. There's a difference between finding yourself "accidentally" pregnant once, but, after that, there's no excuse for it. There are too many ways to prevent it. Now, that's not to say that it's not going to happen from time to time. But using abortion as a means of birth control is, frankly, reprehensible.
Abortion is not an easy choice for most women. Most women do not "want" to get an abortion; most feel they have to because of her present circumstances or for some other personal reason. Most women (I hope) do not go around taking the risk of pregnancy, thinking, "Well, I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant." (Though I'm sure there are those who do).
If you consider my position as being distrustful of women, then so be it. I happen to think those women who don't want children who refuse to take measures against getting pregnant, and then resort to having one abortion after another, obviously CANNOT be trusted with such serious decisions.
Being a feminist shouldn't allow a woman to absolve herself from moral and ethical responsibility.
Grapevine, so you would "let" women have one abortion, but you still retain the right to judge situations and decisions you know nothing about?
That's real big of you.
If it were up to me, I'd enact mandatory sterilization for women who use abortion as a means of birth control. There is NO excuse for one unwanted pregnancy after another. Sound harsh? I hope so. As an analogy, why do you think we have mandatory seatbelt laws now? Because some people refuse to employ common sense in their everyday lives. Same goes with the abortion issue. Are you saying that a woman should be allowed to get pregnant every time she ovulates, then terminate it with an abortion? That's even "bigger" of you.
What actually would be wrong with having the baby and then just stabbing it to death ? Apart from suffering the birth process ? Is that the moral difference, the woman suffering the birth process ?
I mean, does the baby suddenly become something else as its head emerges ? Just when is the transformation exactly, from something that can be aborted to something that has to be murdered ? Is it just before the head emerges, in which case it might be OK to split its head with a medical chisel or something ? Or is it the time thing, that it cannot suffer before a certain time, or that it is not a conscious being before a certain time ? I am not convinced that a newly born baby is a conscious being, it can suffer, but is it conscious of itself ? Why not just stab it to death before it knows it's alive ?
Albert
When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, "I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]" then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances.
Surely your statement is only true if one takes the position that because one is uncomfortable, then third-trimester abortion, sex selection or whatever should be illegal? Thinking about a lot of things makes me uncomfortable, but I need a really compelling reason to say that something should be made a crime.
It does seem to me that maybe there should be some sort of limitation on third-trimester abortions. If one kills one's kid five seconds after it leaves one's vagina, that's murder. Surely if one kills one's kid as it's leaving one's vagina, that's also murder. Surely it ought, in general, to be murder if one kills one's kid the day before it's due to be born? As the "in general" suggests, even there I think there ought to be some exceptions, for example where it's discovered that the kid has no brain (anencephaly) or continuation of the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. It's also possible as a practical matter that it doesn't make sense to make killing one's kid a day before birth a crime because (a) virtually no one does this and/or (b) conceivably it's too hard to codify the exceptions. But in principle I don't have a problem with some sort of limitation. If that makes me a Neanderthal, so be it.
Incidentally, I think that many people think that certain frank political statements are uncivil and inappropriate coming from anyone, male or female. If I said (as I often do) "Bush is a war criminal who should be tried, convicted, and locked up for the rest of his life" many would consider that an outrageous statement even though (a) I have a dick and (b) it's a perfectly defensible statement -- we executed people at Nuremburg for much less than Bush has done.
it's important to acknowledge that prohibition is a solved argument; entertaining prohibionist ideas is not likely to have much political effect nowadays, in most places.
Not true. The insane "War on Drugs" is "Prohibition, Part II" -- we just prohibit different drugs.
We live in a society where people tell other people what not to do. Don't get an abortion. Don't do drugs. Don't drive without buckling your seat belt. This evidence that people are control freaks and busy bodies. That they want control over a pregnant women's body does not prove that the control freaks are sexist: merely that they are control freaks. And of course they think they know what is right better than everyone else does. There is no trait more common than self-righteousness.
So if someone tells me that they are against a women's right to choose (in general, or in specific cases) then I'll accuse them of being a fascist before I accues them of being a sexist. The fact that they are authoritarian is intrinsic in their point of view, whereas sexism MAY or MAY NOT be a cause of it. (just as racism MAY or MAY NOT be a cause of one's views on drug laws and sexism MAY or MAY NOT be a cause of one's views on gun control)
I trust anyone to make a tough personal choice more than a third party who simply believes in absolutes. The absolutists generally lack empathy, if not also sympathy, as a group. Many individual ones might just be insane.
Re: Anti-choice warriors who may or may not be sexist? Or just generally facist? Anyone remember the photo of the signing of the last bill restricting an abortion procedure? Seemed like a bunch of old white guys around the Pres.. All smiling like they just ate the proverbial canary.
Not that i want to argue with someone as rational and generous as grapevine, but last I checked I never really heard a credible story about women using abortion as birth control. If you can't afford/access birth control, how do you afford abortions? I believe the latter procedure is way more costly and hard to come by. I smell angry white man disease. The cure? Either reading or therapy. Depends on how advanced the case is.
Regarding the seatbelt analogy; I tried not to, but. You either need to work on your analogies or you are actually fucking your car. Pregnancy probabilities are available from your automaker. Good luck.
Albert, the obvious difference is that once the baby is born, it is no longer physically dependent on its mother's bloodstream for survival. It is also no longer a physical threat to the mother's health.
Duh.
>>>"If you're pro-choice, you have to give up the right to have a "say" in someone else's choice. If you're pro-feminist, you have to give up the right to expect your personal feelings to be more important than women's public rights--including the right to be unpleasant, if, in her judgement, unpleasantness is called for."
"Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation?"
If a woman decided, after coming to her own judgement about her personal or family situation, that it would be best if she killed her children, or killed her husband, or her neighbour or employer then who are we to make laws posited upon hypothetical situations?
We as a social species must make law for the whole and then within those parameters deal with individual infringements.
If it's acceptable for a woman to have an elective abortion based solely on her own personal reasons at 8 months then there is no justification for forbidding the killing of any infant.
You know that this is twaddle.
Jane, excuse me, but bullshit; also, you are not reading well.
The obvious difference between the hypothetical scenario in your first paragraph and abortion is that your hypothetical scenario is not gendered: obviously we also socially agree that it is not okay for men to kill people. Abortion is necessarily gendered, and the fact that as a culture we are obsessed with this topic demonstrates an obsession with women's (lack of) moral agency, as I clearly said in the post.
Your third paragraph is also ridiculous. Do you see no difference between an 8-month fetus and an infant? Because, as a woman who carried a pregnancy to (past, even) term, I seem to remember a fairly major difference: before birth, PK was physically dependent on me, and only me, for his survival. After birth, I got my bloodstream, my bladder, and all the rest of it back.
Anyway, the hypothetical "elective abortion at 8 months" scenario is as foolish as the "ticking time bomb" scenario so beloved of those who defend torture. Women simply do not suddenly decide to have elective abortions of healthy fetuses at 8 months, any more than people suddenly decide to have elective open-heart surgery. Late-term abortions are done because of major physical risks or health problems to either the woman or the fetus.
All of which merely reiterates the post, of course.
I like your fire but I think your perhaps being just a smidge narrow in this post, which as you make clear is your right. Consider the possibility that someone, like myself, thinks it is a woman's place to make the call to abort her pregnancy, yet I still feel it is often a wrong choice. Much as it is a person's right to get stinking drunk, or build up a huge credit card debt, or treat their child disrespectfully. WE are also capable of autonomous choice, and ought to be free to speak our minds most of the time.
Perhaps you can see the point more easily with your second topic. Of course you have a right to display anger! I myself have several times been peer pressured for it, and felt resentful too. But, then again, don't the judgmental onlookers have every right to express displeasure, and every right to do so on any basis they wish? Freedom is a bitch.
Keep burning anyway.
Incredible. I've just stumbled on your blog after a bit of surfing and I mostly agree with you. I haven't yet come to the place in my life where I can say "Here is my opinion, it boils down to this and this is why" but almost every point you were making here hit home with me. I have not really considered trust as the major issue when it comes to legal restraints on abortion (normally I am more militant than that, concentrating more on the woman than on those who oppose her) so I will have to muse on how much I agree with that. As for the rest though, every point seemed to hit home with me.
The part which really hit home with me had nothing to do with abortion but rather with being a woman.
"That is, women who don't ask for permission before speaking; women who don't just state their opinion and then back off to let you decide if you want to hear it or not, but who insist on having their arguments acknowledged; women who feel entitled to be angry; women who want to be heard more than they want to be liked."
I feel like I am one of these women. Perhaps it isn't fair for me to make this assertion about myself but it is nice to know that in a world where normally those people around me irritate me everyday with their thoughtless commments and pointless assumptions, that people like-minded are only a click away.
Rock on girl! You siad it...
And we (as a society) still don't trust women with money, Suze Orman aside, or we'd be paying them equally!
Well, this topic has been silent for a while, but since I've just found the blog, I feel a need to comment. I think it does everyone good to read a blog such as this because it helps us clarify AND ARTICULATE our innermost convictions. Some of my comments:
Sexism - Many people are not capable of empathy - walk a mile in the other's shoes. Sexism, like racism, like classism, is often not perceiveed by those in power. I will grant that it's often unintentional, but it's everyone's duty to become enlightened.
Power/oppression - look at your local, state, and federal legislators and judiciary. Anyone who believes there is a balance isn't paying attention.
Justice/voice: I am a professional woman and a person highly involved in politics. Even among progressive and liberal groups, it is my observation that men often interrupt women's discourse. In some settings I have volunteered to be facilitator to stop this behavior.
Body as Property: I don't want my body perceived as property because when you start using "property law" as a standard because it becomes less than human, opening the door for unwise law. My wholistic body is part of MY life in all aspects.
Work for a while in a "food kitchen" and you will become aware of the sad numbers of despondent youth whose parents have "thrown them out" - perhaps from early childhood. "Hearts starve as well as bodies" - Many of these young people need caring community to listen, empathize and be present to them in thier important life choices. But it is NOT ours to make those choices for them, as THEY will be living with the consequences.
I remember the days when abortion was illegal and do not want to return there.
I don't have this thought completely articulated yet, but I'll spill out how far I have gotten:
Any other medical descision is up to the patient. They will consult their doctor to learn about the risks and benefits, they will consult their family to see what they support. But it's ultimately the patient that decides to have a tumour removed, to take anti-depressants, to have laser eye surgery, to have a gastric bypass ... or, ya know, not. There are no laws saying that after a tumour has been allowed to grow to a certain point, you cannot choose to remove it. No prohibition of quitting anti-depressants if they don't work for you. No requirement to undergo laser eye surgery if you have impaired vision, or a gastric bypass when you're over a certain weight. If a person chooses to have or not have any of these procedures or medications, they get the final say. Their neighbours and families and whomever may disagree with their choice, but no one challenges their right to make the choice.
NO WOMAN is going to abort a 38-week old fetus unless there is a health problem (including her mental health, i.e. if she is crazy) because a 38-week old fetus is so goddamn huge that "aborting" it is massive major surgery. - bitchphd
I agree, and I'd add that no doctor will perform ther surgery. In Canada, there are no laws about abortion. Absolutely no restrictions based upon reason, age of pregnant individual, length of gestation etc. (Although there is some restriction about which abortions the provincial health authorities will pay for.) Yet even in the absence of any legal abortion prohibition, there aren't women getting abortions at 38 weeks. Each abortion-providing health facility has their own regulations about under what circumstances they will perform the procedure based on whatever their metric is (bioethics, expertise & experience of staff, etc). There are so few 3rd term abortions that StatsCan doesn't even track them separately. Only 2-3% of all Canadian abortions are performed after the 16th week (Source) and this number includes a substantial percentage of 2nd term abortions.
My point? Going on about supposed 38 week abortions is a canard.
The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal.
No, dumbass. If you look into why pro-lifers are pro-life, they will argue that abortion is murder--that the woman getting an abortion is murdering a human being.
What is this shit about "not trusting women to make their own moral choices?" You can have all the sex you want, with however many partners you choose, with as many as you like at one time. But when you start to infringe on the rights of another human being (in the case of abortion, it is the baby), then society has every right to strip YOUR rights away.
That's what we do to murderers, rapists.... any criminal who infringes the basic liberties of any human being.
Gosh, you're so dumb, not being able to understand arguments and all.
I hope your daughter(s) get an abortion one day.
Offended??? WHY? It's such an empowering act, after all.
Holy shit, and what a way to dispell this attitude of distrust for women!
You're such an awesome mommy that you'll probably give her a congratulatory card for it, even!
You want Dr B's daughter's baby murdered?
Where the hell do these people come from? Hatched?
I'm with you all the way, Dr. B, except one niggling little detail: I wouldn't even give any quarter to these people by going into how women who abort electively at 38 weeks must be crazy because "it's a baby." Stick with your argument that anyone who puts conditions on choice does so out of a mistrust of women.
I mean, nobody is going around telling guys that they have to donate their kidneys to their sick kids or else they are immoral or evil or bad fathers or whatever. If I get an abortion I'm saying I don't want to be someone's life support machine. Until they figure out how to transfer the pregnancy out of my body such that it's less risky than old-fashioned abortion, that's the only option I have for ending a pregnancy I don't want in a way that is less risky than labor. 8 weeks or 28 weeks, doesn't make a difference.
About the only point you could really make about 38-week pregnancies is they're stupid because the risk of death is the same as from giving birth. At that point I guess you would ask whether some woman somewhere just had it in for the fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it. But we're talking about a medical procedure here. What is it about people that, even though we have laws protecting the right to medical consent, we lose our collective minds about pregnant women making free medical choices, even if it results in the death of the fetus/baby?
I mean, that's why that woman in Utah was charged with murder. Because she refused a medical procedure, as was her right, and her refusal may have resulted in the death of one of her babies. She exercised her legal right, so she's a criminal? Um...
I'm sitting here wanting to strangle amy even though she made her arguments last year, for just this reason. She's seriously trying to tell the class that this is not at all about sexism... BUT... ONLY women can get pregnant. And ONLY pregnant women may be forced to remain life support to someone else even if they don't want to. And ONLY pregnant women (as far as we know) may be forced to accept medical procedures they don't want, especially to "save the baby." See also Angela Carder. But this isn't about sexism, and if we restrict a pregnant woman's legal options, we're only making sure them damn crazy bitches don't do something they shouldn't do. Whatever.
Oh yeah, and let me add: Don't cave in to the antis by constantly citing stats about how many women have this trimester abortion or that trimester abortion. It makes no difference. Are we going to start banning tonsillectomies now when they reach a certain percentage of the population? What matters is whether the procedure is legal and safe and available to everyone. How many people get the procedure is a personal matter, even if the medical community collects the statistics anyway.
We don't need to pacify these people. I mean, they're out there trying to ban contraception; it's not like they want to *prevent* abortion. They only want women who get them to die.
Amen to this. I am so sick f people taking a stance and then having to explain the pros and cons of their own opinion or else they detail all the exceptions! I am 100% PRO CHOICE and I never explain this to anyone! Why should I? Every woman HAS the right to an abortion whether you agree with her or not, and for the sake of argument I'll spell that out here: I would NEVER have an abortion. It's not right for ME, but that doesn't mean the next woman can't do it. So I don't know what kind of feminist it makes me, if I truly am or not, but I would never confine a woman to the kitchen with an unwanted baby even if I would do thatto myself, so all these confused untrusting warblers can go on to fix the next big problem they create once their "world saving commandment" passes! Give me a break! Gah!
Why on earth should I trust anyone?
Dana: "
I mean, nobody is going around telling guys that they have to donate their kidneys to their sick kids or else they are immoral or evil or bad fathers or whatever. If I get an abortion I'm saying I don't want to be someone's life support machine. Until they figure out how to transfer the pregnancy out of my body such that it's less risky than old-fashioned abortion, that's the only option I have for ending a pregnancy I don't want in a way that is less risky than labor. 8 weeks or 28 weeks, doesn't make a difference."
Sure it does. 8 weeks you're aborting a fetus; 28 weeks, you're murdering an almost fully grown infant. The comparison to forcing fathers to donate kidneys is downright silly. There is no double standard here - men are not allowed to kill kids either.
Please say with me: A child is *not* a
part of your body, although it is *inside* your body.
The idea that any condition on choice "mistrusts women" is just as true or untrue that law "mistrusts men and women". Any law puts a restriction - or condition - on the choices I can make, according to what we can accept as a society. And as a society we've figured out that it's okay to kill a fetus when it's just a bunch of cells, but it's not okay to kill a viable baby. Among other things, like not stealing, raping, etc. And I think it's a good thing.
"Yes, I'm saying that I'm happy to have the guns stop Loony Angela from getting a 30-week abortion because she's just decided, for whatever reason, that she doesn't want a baby right now."
OK amy, so now you're equating my rights as a rational, educated human being with some loon you may or may not have known in your private life who made a decision you personally didn't agree with (and assume that you were privy to her deepest thoughts)? You come off as judgemental and immature and I'm glad I'm not your 'friend' in real life, when you go around making values statements about people you don't even know. You, my dear, are a fascist.
check out The State, paper of record for Columbia SC....there is a comment section on whether or not people believe that legislators attempts to force women to view an ultrasound of the unborn fetus prior to abortion is a good idea.
i'll leave it at that.
I just don't think anyone except the people who are personally involved should be so opinionated. If it is such an issue with the family, they should take the woman to court for custody. I realize life is never so cut and dry, and that is why we have courts. I, Personally, think that you should never use abortion as a form of birth control, BUT women who are raped have a god-given right to decide if they are physically AND mentally CAPABLE of carrying a child full term that they got pregnant with while being raped. I also believe that if you play, you pay. If it was YOUR choice to have sex, whether using safety precautions or not, and you get pregnant, you deal with it, and it doesn't matter if you raise it or give the baby to a couple who deserves a baby in their life. I became pregnant 3 times, ALL 3 times taking precautions. Abortion was NEVER an option for me. Being raped, though, is such a horrible difference, though. I don't think anyone that hasn't been there should be so hard on the women who were. I applaud a woman for being able to care for a child after something like that, but could I do it?? I have no idea, and hope I never have to find out. I also believe that a woman who gets pregnant should give the father a chance to make a choice, too (except, in the above situation, for those who didn't pick up on that). Basically, all I am trying to say is one law can't be passed for thousands of women based on a few womens' stories. So, maybe the only way to have these decisions made are by civil suits... I really don't know too much legal jargon, but it just seems that a jury listening and deciding would be a little more fair... although, it would have to be quick. I guess I could burn up the keyboard all day, but would still never get all of my feelings across about this, so I will stop now. That was just my humble opinion... take it how I feel.
I perceive anger as being a primate signal of approaching violence. It is a preparation for a loss of control, or a warning behavior.
Represented in text, where there is time to think and there are no bodies present, it has a place. Between individuals it is an invitation to a fight. I would never get in a yelling match with a man who I was unwilling to punch -- and call it sexist if you want, but I am unwilling to punch a woman. (but that might change if she was blocking me from getting surgery.)
All this is a long way round to say that "angry women" -- in person -- make me tense, and I won't talk to them.
The above is a simple recognition that the foundation of political power is violence -- violence is the ultima ratio -- if I can force you into something then I win.
Civilization is the decision to place violence AS FAR FROM the prima ratio as possible. (It is always the ultima ratio because of, well, physics) In other words, violence is always a possibility -- if you have $5 and I want it, I can always take it, unless you can stop me. Civilization is the way for everyone to have a shot at getting their $5 without anyone having to have it taken from them. (not that it works so great, but its better than a constant brawl, don't you think?)
Anger is a step in the direction of the ultima ratio -- and until such time as the stigma against violence against women is eliminated (which I am not arguing for) anger will never be something which can be shared equally between women and men, and smart men will shun women who are getting in their face.
And even if you shot me, plenty of other people would feel this way because of our evolutionary heritage. So instead of being un-pleasant, why not just focus on being effective?
All that said, I totally agree with you about abortion -- if you tried to pass a law about my getting my appendix removed, I would be getting violent on your ass. I honestly don't know how you put up with that crap.
Yea -- I missed this 'choice' comment the first time around:
"No. First, no one is asking for your thumbs up: the short, bitchy answer to that is, "get over yourself.""
In the middle of all things, a discussion of weather or not abortion should remain legal.
Uh, yea, actually you are looking for peoples thumbs up. And yes, your choice is, like your body and soul, a part of a social/political process which does involve other people.
And that is a good thing (at least for me, because I don't know how to make my own electricity -- but maybe you have some astounding set of resources to back up all that entitlement. In which case (and only in which case) I am impressed.
My name is Sheilah Davis and I believe that men have no right to an opinion about abortion. People often accuse women of having abortions because they change their minds about pregnancies: what about those men who walk out on their children? Women often hold the caretaker role in this society and they are punished for taking on this work!
My name is Sheilah Davis and I believe that men who want to outlaw abortion (or those who demand that their pregnant lovers have abortions) do so to control women.
Too bad I'm nobody for Ms. Wolfe to quote.
Having an abortion sure as hell is one way to "deal with it" and "take responsibility", and millions of women have decided it was the best solution for them and responsibly dealt with it.
Oh wait, by "deal with it", "take responsibility", etc, do the pro-lifers ACTUALLY mean, "submit to your rightful punishment for your whoredom"?
I think that no one has a right to choose to kill an innocent life. However with capital punishment, if someone kills, rapes, tortures, etc. someone then yes I would kill someone and not think twice. I am of the opinion that women have it so much easier than men anyway. Most are controlling and get all bent out of shape over the stupidest things. I think they should all just lighten up.
I am not against abortion, but the argument that people should trust women to do the right thing is absurd. If people could be trusted to always do the moral thing, there would be no murder, theft, rape, no need for any law really. I bet murderers really ponder over whether what they're doing is right before doing it, and come up with a "yes" *sarcasm*.
Not that abortion is necessarily murder, but if you want to prove a point, make more solid arguments than an appeal to trust.
Thanks
Jens,
"Dana: "
I mean, nobody is going around telling guys that they have to donate their kidneys to their sick kids or else they are immoral or evil or bad fathers or whatever. If I get an abortion I'm saying I don't want to be someone's life support machine. Until they figure out how to transfer the pregnancy out of my body such that it's less risky than old-fashioned abortion, that's the only option I have for ending a pregnancy I don't want in a way that is less risky than labor. 8 weeks or 28 weeks, doesn't make a difference."
Sure it does. 8 weeks you're aborting a fetus; 28 weeks, you're murdering an almost fully grown infant. The comparison to forcing fathers to donate kidneys is downright silly. There is no double standard here - men are not allowed to kill kids either."
Please say with me: A child is *not* a
part of your body, although it is *inside* your body."
The comparison to forcing fathers to donate kidneys is not silly: pregnant woman is basically a life-supporting machine for the baby inside her, ie the survival of the baby is dependent on the woman. now if a baby already out of uterus will die without a kidney donation -eg. from the father- it is up to the father,the life support machine, to decide about the donation. tragic perhaps, if he chooses not to donate a kidney to keep his child alive. but we cannot demand that someone donate an organ to keep another person alive. even less can we expect a woman to give up the autonomy over her body to keep alive and give birth to a baby if she chooses not to want to do this. (and it does not make a difference that the baby is inside your body and not a part of your body, it is still a case of autonomy over one's body and what to do with it and its parts)
sorry meant to put the quotation from Jens in italics
Um...if we could "trust" women (any more than we trust any other human beings, which in reality isn't very much), then there wouldn't be a sex selection issue in the first place. The whole point of that argument is that societal values/pressures have duped, forced, and/or coerced women to "choose" to abort their female fetuses. Unless, of course, you believe that a whole bunch of women truly are choosing to abort female babies- in which case, there would still be no reason to trust their decision. The decision to abort a female baby because you would rather have a male is wrong whether it was genuinely made by these women or not.
I don't mean to say that this provides any reason to place a wholesale ban on abortion, like the pro-lifers would have us do- but don't you think that actions like sex selective abortions should be controlled in some way? Most people commenting here, I believe, would agree that totally banning abortion would NOT be a good solution to this problem (well, it would be effective, but the negative consequences of doing so would outweigh the benefit of eliminating sex selective abortion). However, to propose that we completely allow sex selective abortions to continue just for the sake of preserving the "principle" of a woman's right to choose is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Someone posted a comment above suggesting that we attempt to change society's values regarding female fetuses before we place any restrictions on abortion. I cannot think of a more unrealistic position on this issue. If I were to use that same logic regarding, say, gun control, then I would have to allow the unrestricted ownership of ALL types of guns until we figured out how to cure society's tendency to promote violence in individuals.
As it is right now, we have restrictions for owning guns based on gun type, use of gun, age, and so forth. This is because, like abortion, a gun is a tool that can be used for many different purposes. A gun can be used in a way that is of no harm to others (except, perhaps, animals- but that's a different issue), like for hunting, disc-shooting, or sport. Abortion can be used to end rape-induced pregnancies, avoid hardships for the mother and/or potential child, and reduce the world population.
On the other hand, guns can be used to murder, to coerce, and in self-defense (I put that with the negatives because, if we ever got rid of violence, then there would be no need to have guns for self-defense). Similarly, abortion can be used for such detrimental purposes as sex selection and as a means of social control over women's bodies.
I think that perhaps this rigid idea of a "woman's right to choose" blinds people to the fact that this same "right" can be used, ironically, as a tool to restrict women's freedom, as is the case with sex selective abortion. Therefore it is not unreasonable to propose that some restrictions be placed on its use, as abortion is not an a priori "good" thing in and of itself.
I haven't read any other comment. I trust this point has been made, but I don't trust that it has been made as succinctly as it will be made here.
See, I don't trust women. I don't trust men, either. Humanity is untrustworthy.
(This is why laws exist.)
That last bit was the point.
Wow, thank you for this excellent blog! we need more people like you around. inspirational! thank you.
The moral issue of abortion has always been completely clear to me. The question of whether a fetus is a person, is fully human, etc, is entirely beside the point.
If another full-grown person were attached to me by a tube through which he or she drew all of their life-support needs (eg, a continuous blood transfusion), I and I alone am entitled to decide whether to continue that support. The morality doesn't change if that person is helpless. The morality doesn't change if I initially agreed to provide this transfusion.
Our rights begin with the ownership of our own bodies.
Incidentally, Dworkin was a sexist pig. The world is considerably better off without her.
Beautiful article. I'm a man, a father of a young girl and this article you wrote really is like several discussions I have had with people (mostly women) in regards to my concerns. The lines of rights that we have in this society are really drawn up on multiple fronts and I have to admit, if anyone could not relate to me the views and understandings, like this article and others, I would wonder how radical it would make me as a person because I was denied the right of anyone communicating to me what they think. Please write more on this if you would. The public forum is starving for it.
Powerful argument. Nice blog, interesting bra stuff. Your links are rotten though, you should review them. I was a latchkey child starting in 1970 and my mother hates feminists--they don't speak for her. I'll grant you that abortions are the choice of the woman. But the fact that the fathers have no say in the decision is a complete injustice and a disgusting travesty. Equal rights my ass. And late-term abortions are just disgusting, both morally and in reality. I can't believe that anyone, especially someone who purports to advocate for liberal causes, would allow herself to be used as a tool for that vile cause. Obviously there must be a balance. Some compromise from both sides is in order. If you extremists on both sides would get out of the way, we would have our compromise and this disgusting issue would go away. I am not holding my breath. Have a great day.
To answer your question: No.
But it has nothing to do with abortions, have all of the abortions you want.
I am fully supportive of first and second trimester abortions, but confused by third trimester abortions. I realize that abortion isn't really elective on those cases...its not like a woman waited seven months before deciding she didn't want the baby afterall...and since third trimester abortion is rare and medical the idea of some sort of legislation surrounding it doesn't make sense.
And in the strawman of "some lady decides to have an abortion at 38 weeks because she doesn't want a baby afteral" couldn't a doctor induce/do a c-section and, and then she could put the baby up for adoption? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of that strawman. Based on what I know about biology/human development etc after a certain point in the 3rd trimester a fetus is just a preemie waiting to happen, and that third trimester abortions are for situations where the mother would die in childbirth, or the fetus wouldn't survive that process. For situations where the fetus could survive the process and the mother could survive the process but staying pregnant would be the more serious health risk, then having the baby a month or two early makes sense to me, from a scientific standpoint. I understand the moral/ideological argument for unrestricted access to abortion, but the practicalities of it confuse me a little.
Also, if a woman is in a safe, healthy or committed relationship with someone and gets pregnant, why shouldn't she discuss the pregnancy, and her options with the guy who got her pregnant. He shouldn't have veto power over her decision to get an abortion, but knowing what his feelings about the situation are, and the kind of support she can expect from him might be helpful for her.
Chiming in - the post is pretty much my feelings exactly. Whenever I hear of a late-term abortion, I tend to think, well she must have had her reasons. Being a mother myself, I feel in a gut way that the person who knows the value of the fetus is the mother herself, better than anyone else. I trust her, far more than a judge or a doctor.
Commenting by HaloScan
