Feministe Five
Ms Lauren has asked for people’s views about the abortion debate. I was going to post my answers in her comments thread, but decided that I’ve neglected this blog for a while and this quiz will provide instant content and instant controversy.
1. Where do you fall under the pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights continuum?
I’m in the pro-abortion rights camp, but not at the extreme of the spectrum.
2. Do you object to terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” or are they largely semantic?
I don’t like the term “pro-life”; it’s misleading. The implication is that those who support abortion rights are “anti-life” or “pro-death”, which is just not true. On the other hand, “pro-choice” is reasonably accurate.
3. Why do you support or not support abortion rights? Be honest, please.
I’m trying to negotiate between two contradictory principles:
-
Women should have control over their reproductive processes (in consultation with the prospective father).
-
Human life should not be destroyed.
As far as I’m concerned, the latter must take precedence over pretty much everything else. That means my views on abortion are almost entirely framed by the scientific and moral debate about what constitutes a human life, and at what stage in foetal development the human life appears.
Before that point, abortion is essentially cosmetic surgery.
After that point, abortion is murder.
I’m still not sure at what point the foetus becomes a human life. I certainly disagree with the Catholic proposition that human life begins when the sperm meets the egg. The Anglican Primate of Australia, Dr Peter Carnley, argued that the human individual emerged at about 14 days after fertilisation. He was writing in the context of stem cell research, but the moral question is essentially the same:
Since 1970, moral theologians have had their attention drawn to the fact that the fertilisation of an ovum, and the conception of a human individual, are in scientific terms identifiably different processes. The fertilisation of an ovum may happen in a moment of time, as the sperm “docks” with an ovum. But conception is now known to be not a moment but a process that takes 14 days. Only at the end of that process is it possible to say that “a human individual has been conceived”.
During this 14-day process of great cellular fluidity, which ends with implantation and segmentation, twinning may occur. Alternatively, divided cells may recombine. It is only at the end of the 14-day process, once implantation has occurred and there is no further possibility of twinning, that we can logically say that a human individual has been conceived. In terms of simple logic it is not possible to make that assertion until the process of conception is complete.
Accordingly, I think abortion is certainly acceptable in the first two weeks after fertilisation. It might also be acceptable for some later period, but I haven’t read enough about it to make any further judgment. So for now, I’m pro-choice up to 14 days and anti-choice after that.
If anyone wants to explain why I should be pro-choice for a longer period, feel free.
4. Are there instances in which abortion should be legal/not legal? Why?
Up to 14 days, anything goes.
After 14 days, abortion should be illegal — no exceptions.
I realise that rape victims might suffer serious emotional trauma bringing a child to full term, but having accepted the humanity of the foetus, I find it impossible to justify murder as a pre-emptive solution to possible future problems.
I also realise that there’s a bit of a grey area when the life of the mother is threatened. However, I don’t believe that I, or a mother, or a doctor, or anyone else is in a position to decide that one life is worth more than the other.
Even when there is an overwhelming risk that both mother and child will die, I have difficulty saying that murdering one to save the other is justifiable. This is not like killing an attacker in order to save the victim. Neither the mother nor the child has committed any wrong, so what right do we have to murder one of them?
The best analogy I can come up with is this: Two people are hanging for dear life from a branch on the edge of the cliff. Their combined weight will break the branch and they will both fall to their certain death. However, if one of them was to fall, the branch would remain intact and the other person would be saved. Does that give me the right to shoot one person to save the other? I don’t believe that it does.
I’m definitely opposed to abortion after 14 days for genetic engineering purposes.
5. How did you come to these conclusions?
Hmm. I think I’ve covered that pretty well in my answers above, but if you want clarification, let me know in the comments.
A few other points…
I strongly support the right of all women — regardless of their age — to access the morning-after pill.
I agree with Tony Abbott that there are too many abortions in Australia. There is no reason for people in our society not to have access to contraception — I just wish Abbott and his mates would stop restricting people’s access to it.
I don’t buy the argument that men should stay out of the abortion debate. It’s an issue that should be based on science and morality, not gender. (That’s a point about the debate about the existence of abortion rights, not about the decision to exercise them. Ultimately that’s a matter for the pregnant woman, though I hope the prospective father’s opinion would be considered.)
I should also stress that although I’ve used the term “murder” for abortions after 14 days, I don’t mean to imply that I think women who take that option are immoral or criminal. I don’t know what I’d do if I was facing the prospect of carrying an unwanted child, and thankfully I’ll never have to deal with it, but I certainly don’t think we should attack people for making what must be a very, very difficult decision.
14 days don’t give you a lot of room to move. You’d want to a) be sure you’re pregnant and b) abort, all in a fortnight.
I think that’s a pretty sensible position, Rob.
Jonas, I agree. My suspicion is that I would support a significantly longer period if I looked further into the evidence. Basically, I’d like to consider the law relating to the removal of life support machines and apply it to the other end of a person’s life. Until I know more about it, though, I’m not willing to advocate in favour of potential murder.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, and trying to find some more information. Perhaps because the abortion debate is so heavily politicised, I’m finding it very difficult to find medical research as to what happens at different stages of development. On the anti-abortion side, it’s all “it looks like a little baby”, while the pro-choice groups talk almost entirely about the mother and don’t consider the foetus at all.
However, I came across one site that provides a discussion of various different positions, and provides a useful rhetorical distinction between “human life” and “human personhood” — a term I was fumbling around for in my mind. It also gives a brief outline of the “death” formulation that I mentioned above:
[...]
Interestingly, that’s about the time that many medical organisations have nominated as the upper limit for abortion rights.
At this stage, I’m not prepared to change my opinion, but I’m going to continue to dig up information and see whether it’s convincing.
I would agree with the above for two reasons.
(1) 14 days just isn’t enough- most women won’t even realise they were pregnant, if it wasn’t planned.
(2) I think Peter Singer has the right idea – it’s sentience and the capacity for suffering that counts rather than humanness or non humanness.
Most anti-abortionists aren’t out there caring for miserable, unwanted children, or helping people with too many children feed and educate them.
I can’t go along with Peter Singer. I don’t believe that infanticide is moral, or that culling disabled children is moral.
However, I’m working up a new post on abortion.
In a world trending towards the potential hhilism inherent in postmodernist “thinking”, it isn’t easy for us to decide which of our “basic” tenets over-ride the others with which they will inevitably clash.
Life for most is made easier by simply pretending to be unaware of the contradictions with which we all live. Deciding even such relatively simple matters as the number of days is far from easy. Life for modern Roman Catholics would have remained so much easier, had the Church not decided, in the 19th Century, to no longer permit abortion up to “the time of quickening”.
At least you’re not trying to draw a boundary there. It’s common to find people saying that abortion is always murder and evil, but elide that little snag when it comes to rape or incest.
Anyway, I disagree with you, but I can’t fault your reasoning. You at least have thought it out.
As for whether a discussion ’should be based on science and morality, not gender,’ that’s a fair call. However, it’s not a 100% theoretical position for everyone. Until you’re faced with the full reality of making a decision like that, you won’t know what it’s like. You just can’t. And that’s not feminism, or sexism, it’s biology.
One can accept Peter Singer’s premise that capacity for suffering should be the primary point of departure for ethical treatment, without necessarily going with such things as infanticide or the culling of certain individuals. I did not specify that part at all. I am only referring to foetuses which have not reached the sentient stage where they have a brain function to feel pain or fear with. I cannot accept that the first trimester foetus is thinking “Whoa, now they’re coming to kill me, here I go, Aaaaargh”. I also agree with Peter singer that to make a big deal out of killing a first-trimester foetus because it’s “human” and ignoring the holocaust-like conditions that many intelligent farm animals are kept in – not to mention the world’s starving / diseased / neglected children – does everyone a disservice, and is not “compassion”.
I see what you’re saying, and fair enough.
It is extremely clear that the people whom do not agree with abortion only care about themselves. They are not the people that are unable to pay and care for another person for at least another 18 years. These pro-lifers’ would rather see a kid brought up with abusive parents,and the child endng up on the street homeless addicted to drugs, doing crime and finally committing suicide.
YOU PRO-LIFERS ARE BLOODY SICKOS!!!!
I totally agree with you maddie. Unless your paying for the damn baby, mind your own business! They aren’t even humans when they are aborted, anyway, we can’t have babies we don’t wan’t cause we have an extremely serious problem called OVERPOPULATION!!! The environment is whats keeping us alive and where not treatng it very well!! If we keep breeding this fast then where all going to bloody well die. Overpopulation equals a sick environment which is what we can’t live without. You dumbass pro-lifers, come on, you wanna kill the whole world over some fetuses. UMMMM THATS KINDA WEIRD PEOPLES!!
Also, even if people can do adoption once the child is born, they still have to have it in them for 9 months and that 9 months isn’t easy. They’ll have to stop work or school (unless they are damn DOLE BLUDGERS), change lifestyles andhave the major risk of takeing it harder than they thought they would when finally giving it up.
Mind your own bloody business pro-lifers, you have no right to tell someone else whether they have to have the baby or not. Pro-choicers are the smartest because they leave ALL OPTIONS OPEN. They are just saying that some women are not able to have a baby yet, and may like to actually have children later when it will be looked after PROPERLY. You bloody pro-lifers dont care about the kids. You don’t care whats going to happen to the baby once it comes out. What if the parents are drug addicts, they wanted an abortion but they can’t get one. Im sure that kids gonna grow up in a safe, friendly and family loving environment… What if a girl is about to go to university, she’s been working realling hard but she accidently gets pregnant. If she has the baby she’s not going to be able to continue with her dream. She can’t afford it because all she’s got is money saved up for uni fees and a place to stay. She’s going to have children in the future when she has a job and the time. Not right now!!
Piss off anti-abortionists’, don’t have abortions your ‘caring’ selves. Who cares what you think anyway. Women have the right to choose. And also men should have no say in the pro-life movement.
I think it would be easier to cast judgement on this issue as an outsider.
I’m doing an assignment right now on the abortion law and stuff. What the hell is it with these chicks that have an abortion then kill themselves. they right in their sucide letters “oh help! i just couldn’t handle it!! oh no how could i, i killed my baby!!” I guess it just shows which girls have really really really low self-esteem. At least i now can get some graphs on which countries have the weakest girls. So far i think it ’s most americans who kill themselves. Did u know they make up half the amount of people that have abortions in the WHOLE WORLD. damn. What the hell is killing yourself gonna do? Maybe you shuld have used a damn condom n the first place. D.O .Y.O.U. K.N.O.W. W.H.A.T T.H.E.Y A.R.E?? i think some people u have to spell it out too.
That foetus thing in you isn’t even a damn ‘baby’ If you call it that yur pretty stupid cause thats not even what it is. After like the 6th month u can call it one but not when u get an abortion. Its a fucking blueprint. An Early foetus has no central nervous system, no brain hance no mental activity!! thats a fact. The nervous system develops around the 4-5th damn month!!!!!! Your not killing anything, it like a little piece of tissue and thats it. Anyway it is pretty funny the girls that kill themselves over it. They obviously had problems in the first place if they went that over overboard. There was this one chick who killed herself and then the next day they found out she wasn’t pregnant. what a dumbass. You people embarrass what a girl is. We are not machines that have to have babies if you get pregnant. Sometimes you can’t continue growing the foetus in you. So wait and have one you can to stop the increase in child abuse due to mothers who dont have jobs = no money, are drug addicts, are to immature and young for a kid. Don’t be cruel and continue the cycle of child abuse by having a kid when you don’t want it or when u look at the facts and u see u can’t have it. U have the kid to stop your guilt. Your the bastard cause then it might grow up in an abusive environment with a slutty mum or something. It’s born you look after it for a while then you get sick of it. Thats a great idea!! so you pro-lifers don’t mind if a child is born into an abusive family. Those kids are said to be most likely to grow up as druggies and criminals. We don’t need anymore of them. So if someone needs an abortion there is obviously a reason. Leave them the hell alone. oh and try not to kill yourself once you’ve done it.
Women endure a lot, and I think the things women do endure in life as we know it today, endure and experience things which demand a great deal of inner strength.
Regardless about one’s decision to terminate a pregnancy or not, it isn’t an easy, flippant or painless decision one way or the other.
Wasn’t it the mono-browed-ferret who claimed parliament cannot legislate issues of morality [no guesses as to why - lol!] well this would be one of those surely?!
I know how I feel, and it has taken me a great deal to get to this point, but I wouldn’t like anyone to make my decisions for me or for them to think they have a right to.
I also think it is important to look after the health of women, who would suffer if abortions were shoved off in the medical dark ages once again.
It is a dicey enough procedure even at the best of times, but if the care[both during and after] isn’t reliable the mother and the foetus can end up dying.
I think that this is probably the most important issue which needs to be addressed in the abortion debate – health issues, moral issues can’t be debated in this way.
Just to address the previous post’ s mention of women who become suicidal, I don’t have the answer – but women who have abortions also get post natal depression – perhaps that might sometimes contribute to the cause?