Abortion discussion – my response to Rachel
"Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." (James 1:27 NLT)
Whew! This has been a BUSY week here at Disciple Dojo!
A few days ago I posted the first part of my discussion with my friend Rachel, a pro-choice advocate who wanted to know what I thought about a recent protest at a NARAL Christmas party. You can read that initial post here.
Rachel then asked me some questions. Rather than answering immediately, I opened it up to discussion among Dojo readers–and boy was there ever a discussion! If you haven’t read through the comments section, I would encourage you to set aside some time to do so. There are fascinating and thought-provoking comments and points from all sides of the issue. And throughout, the tone has been largely respectful–though not apathetic!
I wanted to finally respond to Rachel’s excellent questions today, however. Here is what she asked:
This is a genuine question: how do you see ending abortions being carried out? I understand on an abstract level what I think you and others who are pro-life want–no more abortions (unless perhaps in the case of the mother’s life being in danger?). But practically, what would that look like? Making abortion illegal? Incarcerating doctors who perform and women who have abortions? Increasing access to family planning? Better sex ed? Better health care? Increased social services for poor women? All of the above? I can’t get behind something that says “Don’t have sex or live with the consequences.” It’s incredibly impractical.
There are a number of questions you’ve asked, Rachel, each of which could generate whole discussions on it own. Let me start broadly and work my way from theory to ethic to practice.
From the perspective of one who values all human life, abortion (when not performed to save the life of the mother directly) is always an unjustified option. It is morally equivalent to the ancient infanticide practice of exposure or its modern equivalent of leaving a baby in a dumpster. Thus, at an ideological level, the primary thing that must happen is that society as a whole must be persuaded that this is the true nature of the act of ending the life of a fetal human being. That is the goal of those of us who oppose abortion but who lack the political/legal authority to do anything about it directly in that capacity. Changing people’s view of it one mind at a time at a grassroots level.
However, as previous overturning of social injustices has shown us (i.e. women’s suffrage, civil rights movement, ending of apartheid, abolition of the slave trade, child labor laws, etc.) it is not necessary to convince every member of society of the evils of an injustice before using legal/governmental means to oppose it. Once a critical mass of popular support is reached, legislation against a human rights violation can be successful. It took Wilberforce decades to see this realized in Britain, so it isn’t something that is likely to happen overnight. But as more and more hearts and minds are opened to the needlessness of abortion and the suffering it generates at a societal level (not to mention at the level of the individual or the religious level–which is actually the most important when all is said and done!), more and more avenues will begin to open for pursuing other options and other ways to help the women caught in the situation where abortion is currently a legal option.
Once societal views of the nature of abortion are sufficiently altered and legal rulings are in place prohibiting the practice of abortion for all but the most dire circumstances (and here there is varying opinion among abortion opponents–some allow for abortion only in self-defense, others allow for it in the “hard cases” of rape, incestuous abuse, severe fetal deformity, etc.), those who would continue to seek abortions and those who would continue to provide abortions would be on par with those who choose to abandon their children in a dumpster or those who provide post-birth “abortions” (i.e. safely delivering the baby and then discarding or killing it).
At the level of practice, we must decide what the penalty for such violation of the law would be. At this point I am no legal expert, nor am I completely knowledgeable of the current social/family services options available, so I can only offer ethical proposals or guidelines that others in the fields of law, family services and healthcare would need to see implemented responsibly and effectively.
First of all, the woman who is pregnant but unwilling or unable to be a parent MUST be emotionally, financially and medically supported and cared for throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. The means that those who oppose abortion must step up and put their money where their mouth is. The early church was known for taking in and caring for infants throughout the Roman empire who were abandoned to exposure. Thus MUST characterize the Church today as well. The will mean lifestyle change on the part of many people–so be it. Human life is worthy of lifestyle change…on everyone’s part.
Secondly, doctors must be required to only offer to perform abortions in the aforementioned “hard cases” (whatever they end up being legally determined to be). Doctors who go against this and perform abortions for convenience or lifestyle change sake should be legally prosecuted AT LEAST to the degree that doctors who perform voluntary suicide, illegal prescriptions or any other illegal medical practices are prosecuted. Personally, in the case of abortion-on-demand, my own view is that the doctor is the primary party guilty of actual first degree murder. The woman who opts for it is closer to manslaughter or a lesser degree murder charge. Regardless, though, the prosecution of those committing the act should not be the primary emphasis of the debate; rather, it should be the unfortunate but necessary byproduct of a legal decision on society’s part–just as the prosecution of slave traders in the British Empire who continued to engage in slave trading was not the primary emphasis of that debate, but rather the necessary consequence of it.
Lastly, yes, I believe there should be a tremendous increase to family planning/contraceptive resources available to people everywhere–so long as abortion is not considered a viable means of family planning. Education should be comprehensive and, as a commenter in the previous post, Christian, suggested, should focus not on “sex education,” but rather on “biological reproduction education.” Sexual education should be part of a greater emphasis on biological education and human life should be taught in all its wonder from the earliest ages (i.e. no more storks and cabbage patch explanations!).
This also means that crisis pregnancy options should be given increased support and funding as well. Likewise, adoption laws must be reformed so that it is not ridiculously expensive and children are therefore left to grow up in a system of bureaucratic red tape. Parents willing to raise “unwanted” children should be able to do so without spending a fortune and years on a waiting list before they even receive the child into their care. Adoption must lose any cultural stigma it may have at the moment and parents giving their children up for adoption must be seen as compassionate and caring people who want the best for their children.
At the end of the day, even under such conditions, human evil is such that people will continue to seek and perform illegal abortions. However, those who do so are not to be lionized and romanticized as “heroes” who are fighting against oppression. Rather, like those who leave babies in dumpsters or neglect infants until they die, such individuals should be seen as seeking to destroy the weakest and most helpless victims in all society. Should they suffer from “back alley” abortions, that is a sad consequence of their desire to kill another weaker than them for personal choice. But just as we wouldn’t make leaving babies in dumpsters legal because some young, scared mother decided to leave her baby in one and suffered an infection from a piece of broken glass she scraped up against and which later she died from, we likewise shouldn’t use the “coat hanger” argument as in any way justifying the continued legality of abortion-on-demand. Instead, we should put ALL of our efforts into making a society where women don’t feel that abortion is their only option and the law should be there as a final insurance that such option is not sanctioned, should one still feel the desire to seek it.
I hope that helps answer your questions, Rachel. I invite your response, which I’ll be happy to post as a follow up post if you’d like to email it to me. Or you can respond in the comments section below.
I also invite reader responses as well. And remember, this is a discussion that is difficult, passionate and emotional–and those things are fine. But name-calling or personal attacks/outrage/etc. are not welcome and will be deleted.
Iron sharpening iron,
JM
Categories: Blog, Church History, Ministry, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
“From the perspective of one who values all human life, abortion (when not performed to save the life of the mother directly) is always an unjustified option.”
This is dehumanizing to women because you are implying that women who choose to abort (or who support a woman’s right to choose) do not value human life. This is defamation and inappropriate.
“It is morally equivalent to the ancient infanticide practice of exposure or its modern equivalent of leaving a baby in a dumpster.”
No it is not. This is hyperbole. Infanticide is the killing of an infant. An infant (as defined by Oxford dictionary) is a young child or baby. A fetus is neither as it depends on it very survival from its host, or the pregnant woman.
“Thus, at an ideological level, the primary thing that must happen is that society as a whole must be persuaded that this is the true nature of the act of ending the life of a fetal human being.”
Again, please refer to the above.
“That is the goal of those of us who oppose abortion but who lack the political/legal authority to do anything about it directly in that capacity. Changing people’s view of it one mind at a time at a grassroots level.
However, as previous overturning of social injustices has shown us (i.e. women’s suffrage, civil rights movement, ending of apartheid, abolition of the slave trade, child labor laws, etc.) it is not necessary to convince every member of society of the evils of an injustice before using legal/governmental means to oppose it. Once a critical mass of popular support is reached, legislation against a human rights violation can be successful. It took Wilberforce decades to see this realized in Britain, so it isn’t something that is likely to happen overnight. But as more and more hearts and minds are opened to the needlessness of abortion and the suffering it generates at a societal level (not to mention at the level of the individual or the religious level–which is actually the most important when all is said and done!), more and more avenues will begin to open for pursuing other options and other ways to help the women caught in the situation where abortion is currently a legal option.”
Okay, I understand if you feel abortion is wrong and you would like to change people’s minds. But, why the need to make it illegal? You should work for things that are proven to prevent unwanted pregnancy: comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control. If you worked with pro-choice organizations, instead of against, women wouldn’t “be caught” (your words) in that situation.
In addition, your “religious level” has no place in a society in which the first amendment of the Constitution makes it very clear that no laws should be made respecting an establishment of religion. It’s your religion, not my religion and not the beliefs of many Americans, and you have no right to impose them on others.
As far as your “human rights violation” statement, arguments are constantly made, and laws are constantly changed (in other countries), because the denial of safe abortions threatens women’s lives and health, and their economical and social standing—therefore constituting a human rights violation. In addition and of course, obviously most people agree that compulsory pregnancy resulting in rape, incest or foetal impairment constitutes the most horrific of human rights violations.
“Once societal views of the nature of abortion are sufficiently altered and legal rulings are in place prohibiting the practice of abortion for all but the most dire circumstances (and here there is varying opinion among abortion opponents–some allow for abortion only in self-defense, others allow for it in the “hard cases” of rape, incestuous abuse, severe fetal deformity, etc.), those who would continue to seek abortions and those who would continue to provide abortions would be on par with those who choose to abandon their children in a dumpster or those who provide post-birth “abortions” (i.e. safely delivering the baby and then discarding or killing it).”
So who should decide what constitutes “dire consequences?” I would think it should be the woman and doctor, but that obviously is not what you believe.
“At the level of practice, we must decide what the penalty for such violation of the law would be. At this point I am no legal expert, nor am I completely knowledgeable of the current social/family services options available, so I can only offer ethical proposals or guidelines that others in the fields of law, family services and healthcare would need to see implemented responsibly and effectively.”
Its clear you believe that abortion should be illegal. But now you avoid answering the question of punishment. Now its “we.” You’ve had no problem expressing your opinion so far, why keep quiet now? Are you afraid of what people will think of your answer?
“First of all, the woman who is pregnant but unwilling or unable to be a parent MUST be emotionally, financially and medically supported and cared for throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. The means that those who oppose abortion must step up and put their money where their mouth is. The early church was known for taking in and caring for infants throughout the Roman empire who were abandoned to exposure. Thus MUST characterize the Church today as well. The will mean lifestyle change on the part of many people–so be it. Human life is worthy of lifestyle change…on everyone’s part.”
Please read the First Amendment of the United States.
“Secondly, doctors must be required to only offer to perform abortions in the aforementioned “hard cases” (whatever they end up being legally determined to be). Doctors who go against this and perform abortions for convenience or lifestyle change sake should be legally prosecuted AT LEAST to the degree that doctors who perform voluntary suicide, illegal prescriptions or any other illegal medical practices are prosecuted. Personally, in the case of abortion-on-demand, my own view is that the doctor is the primary party guilty of actual first degree murder.”
This is sexists. Women are the ones who make the decision and seek out care. They are not some passive member of the procedure. They are able to make decisions and follow-through with them. They are not helpless little girls that need protection.
“The woman who opts for it is closer to manslaughter or a lesser degree murder charge. Regardless, though, the prosecution of those committing the act should not be the primary emphasis of the debate; rather, it should be the unfortunate but necessary byproduct of a legal decision on society’s part–just as the prosecution of slave traders in the British Empire who continued to engage in slave trading was not the primary emphasis of that debate, but rather the necessary consequence of it.”
Slave traders of the British Empire have nothing to do with this discussion. Stop dehumanizing the people who support a women’s right to choose.
“Lastly, yes, I believe there should be a tremendous increase to family planning/contraceptive resources available to people everywhere–so long as abortion is not considered a viable means of family planning.”
Maybe it shouldn’t be for you. You can choose not to have an abortion. You have no right to deny that to someone else.
“Education should be comprehensive and, as a commenter in the previous post, Christian, suggested, should focus not on “sex education,” but rather on “biological reproduction education.” Sexual education should be part of a greater emphasis on biological education and human life should be taught in all its wonder from the earliest ages (i.e. no more storks and cabbage patch explanations!).”
Whatever you want to call it.
“This also means that crisis pregnancy options should be given increased support and funding as well.”
Will the people working in them be licensed to give sonograms, and will they employ licensed nurses? Will they also be required to provide scientifically sound and correct information? In my state there was an investigation, and it was astounding how dishonest these institutions were.
“Likewise, adoption laws must be reformed so that it is not ridiculously expensive and children are therefore left to grow up in a system of bureaucratic red tape. Parents willing to raise “unwanted” children should be able to do so without spending a fortune and years on a waiting list before they even receive the child into their care. Adoption must lose any cultural stigma it may have at the moment and parents giving their children up for adoption must be seen as compassionate and caring people who want the best for their children.”
So all of those background checks, etc that are to protect the children from harm should be cast aside? You should educate yourself as to why there’s so much “red tape” before you make sweeping allegations like that.
I can’t even go on. The bottom line is your entire argument focuses on the fetus. You very rarely mention women, and when you do its about “human evil,” “murder” etc. You are incapable of seeing the issue from the woman’s point of view. You know, the person who carries the fetus.
A fetus is dependent for its very survival on the woman. If a woman for whatever reason, be it lack of interest, money, health, etc, she should not be forced to provide her body, nutrients, blood and limb and life (in some cases) for someone else.
by Jackie on Dec 18, 2010 at 1:55 am
Jackie, there’s no need to quote me at length when responding. I would encourage you to rethink your rhetorical choices in how you’ve (mis)characterized my position. The thing I enjoy about my discussion with Rachel is that she’s actually willing to try and understand those of us who oppose abortion rather than coming in rhetorical guns a blazin’.
by jm on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:23 am
Jackie said,
“The bottom line is your entire argument focuses on the fetus. You very rarely mention women, and when you do its about “human evil,” “murder” etc.”
JM said,
“. . . more and more avenues will begin to open for pursuing other options and other ways to help the women who are caught . . .”
and also
“First of all, the woman who is pregnant but unwilling or unable to be a parent MUST be emotionally, financially and medically supported and cared for throughout the entirety of the pregnancy.”
Yes, JM’s post does refer to human evil and murder as well, but he did mention helping women.
by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:54 am
I stand corrected. He did “mention helping women.” Exactly how that’s going to materialize is never explained.
by Jackie on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:35 am
Jackie said,
“In addition, your “religious level” has no place in a society in which the first amendment of the Constitution makes it very clear that no laws should be made respecting an establishment of religion. It’s your religion, not my religion and not the beliefs of many Americans, and you have no right to impose them on others.”
After rereading his post a few times, I am unable to find any place where he uses religion to justify his stance so I don’t see the relevance of arguing the First Amendment. Furthermore, this is a blog, not PBS. JM is not imposing his beliefs (religious or otherwise) on anyone. He did suggest a grassroots effort to change people’s minds. Changing minds is a far cry from imposing on others.
Jackie,
I want you to know that if someone unfairly misquotes you or misrepresents your point of view, I will defend you as well. I know you don’t need me to defend you, you are strong woman, so I will stand with you if someone twists your words. Its unnecessary and an unwelcome distraction to the conversation.
by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:08 am
He mention religion here, and highlighted it as the most important one:
“But as more and more hearts and minds are opened to the needlessness of abortion and the suffering it generates at a societal level (not to mention at the level of the individual or the religious level–which is actually the most important when all is said and done!), more and more avenues will begin to open for pursuing other options and other ways to help the women caught in the situation where abortion is currently a legal option.”
He also mentions the church taking care of infants in the past and they should do so today.
Christian,
I’m not twisting anyone’s words around. I’m reading and responding. Which is why I quoted at length so there would be little confusion. All I have received from JM are instructions on how not to behave as he dehumanizes women. He has yet to answer my questions.
Also, I’m completely aware that this is a blog and not PBS. I’m also aware of the fact that JM is not just working to change minds but is working (with a group of others) to make abortion illegal in this country. And because of that I would like him to know the concerns on the other end of the debate. This includes the concerns I’ve highlighted above but I would also like to include some statistics:
Approximately 219 women die worldwide each day from an unsafe abortion.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.
According to the WHO, in countries where abortion remains illegal it is a leading cause of maternal mortality.
Another good article is about the abortion laws in El Salvador and the nightmare its caused women and physicians alike. This is a policy many anti-abortion activists in the United States have called, “a goal for the U.S.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html
by Jackie on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:47 am
I suppose if you interpret one line of his entire post (written as a side note in parentheses) to be the one line that is the crux of his argument, although he never provides support for a “religious” argument, then I suppose you could make the argument that JM is trying to impose his religion on you. I think this is a stretch. I think it is more likely that you realized he was not arguing from a religious point of view and were trying to twist his words to make him seem like some sort of zealot to fit your own agenda.
Reminding the church of its role is not arguing a pro-life position or using a religious perspective to justify a pro-life position. I think most people would agree, religious or not, that the church is not currently meeting it’s objectives in many areas including the vital area of caring for those who are uncared for by others. I don’t know your religious views, but I imagine you agree the church needs to do a better job of caring more for people in need.
The tone of your more recent posts has been much more constructive and the facts that you bring to the table are a much better way to argue your point of view than your first attempts.
I have a question for you. Does anyone who supports/argues for pro-life policy “dehumanize” women? If not and it is possible to hold a pro-life position an not dehumanize women, what is it specifically about JMs arguments that are dehumanizing to women?
by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 6:19 pm
If someone is anti-abortion for whatever reason, I don’t care. What is troublesome is when people try to force their beliefs on others. This includes harassing women entering women’s clinics; setting up pregnancy crisis centers that advertise as abortion clinics in the phonebook but actually deceive women who enter their clinic with false information and unlicensed medical care; shooting doctor’s; blowing up medical facilities; sending threatening letter to medical students, etc. These are wrong.
With the said, as the argument becomes more heated, and extremest right-wing groups are being absorb by the more mainstream anti-abortion organizations, dehumanizing women with terms like “sin,” “evil,” “murderers,” “don’t value life” and the list goes on, makes it a lot easier for the madman to walk into a church and shoot a doctor in the head.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:06 am
What is troublesome is when people try to force …
Yes, for us who see fetal humans as humans, this is EXACTLY what you are doing to them…only it’s not rhetorical, it’s LITERALLY forcing your beliefs upon them (often by violently invasive means). That is why it is unreasonable for you to say that you don’t care if someone disagrees with you about abortion, they just shouldn’t try to tell you what to believe about it. If that attitude were shared by all society, NO human rights violations or social justice revolutions would have ever taken place. After all, many at the turn of the century said “I don’t care of women should THINK they have the right to vote; I just don’t want them forcing their beliefs on our society which clearly sees that they do not!”
by jm on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:50 am
JM,
The difference is that carrying a fetus you don’t want to carry is a little more personal and invasive then being ticked off that women are now waiting in line with you to vote or that you can’t whip your slave anymore.
And again, a woman is a living, breathing human being. The fetus depends on the woman to live and grow. The fetus’ rights do not over ride the woman’s. Unless you can carry the fetus for the woman, its none of your concern. Its not your body, its not your life. You’re not the one making the commitment, risking your life and health. And no one should force someone else to do that against their will.
Anti-abortion activists like to make an analogy to slavery. Well, now we know its wrong to force people against their will to work for no money and be subjected to abuse and death because of the color of their skin. And the same belief should be extended to women. Women shouldn’t be forced to carry a child against her will because the alternative upsets some people.
And you can tell me what you believe about abortion, but you have no right to impose that belief on me just because that’s how you feel.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 5:21 am
And again, a woman is a living, breathing human being. The fetus depends on the woman to live and grow. The fetus’ rights do not over ride the woman’s. Unless you can carry the fetus for the woman, its none of your concern. Its not your body, its not your life. You’re not the one making the commitment, risking your life and health. And no one should force someone else to do that against their will.
Of course the fetal human depends on the woman to live and grow. Just as an infant depends on others to live and grow. If someone dropped a baby off on your doorstep, you couldn’t just shut the door and allow her to die because her “rights to do not override” yours, could you? You’d be FORCED in that situation AGAINST YOUR WILL to act to preserve the life of that human in need. Legally you would be held responsible as negligent if you said nothing or did nothing to save that life, regardless of whether or not it was convenient or required a commitment of whatever was necessary for you to do on your part. And if you did shut the door and allow her to die, you would never expect anyone to agree that “unless someone drops a baby off on your doorstep, it’s none of your concern!” Such rhetoric would be dismissed as inexcusable callousness by anyone who values human life.
This is why such rhetoric in the abortion debate is dismissed as inexcusably callous by those who see the human in the womb as also a “living, breathing human being.” If you deny them rights, why should anyone uphold the rights of women based on the same logic? This is precisely why the early feminists were against abortion, btw. And it’s why modern feminists who oppose it do so as well.
by jm on Dec 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm
JM, again I have to make the distinction between physiological dependence, which Jackie articulated, and social dependence, which is what you are articulating about a newborn baby. It might not make a difference in your point of view–one form of dependence is equal with the other–but it is nonetheless different.
by Rachel on Dec 19, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Rachel, I agree that they are not identical ontologically (no two things really are); but I believe they are of an equal nature from an ethical/moral perspective.
by jm on Dec 20, 2010 at 12:25 am
Also, with regard to first-wave feminists, it should be noted that abortion was illegal and unsafe at the beginning of the 20th century, making it a quite different situation from that in the US now.
Susan B. Anthony, whom FFL upholds greatly, said in 1869 on a law making abortion illegal, “Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe…that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment.” The prevention Anthony is referring to here is not contraception but abstinence within marriage. Then again, contraception in its modern form had not yet been developed.
So, given the advances of medicine in terms of safe, accessible contraceptives, why does FFL refuse to take a positive stance on contraception? They say, “Preconception issues are outside FFL’s mission.” How can an organization claim to be feminist, want to make abortion illegal, and yet refuse to address contraception as part of the solution? This is utter craziness to me, and I cannot agree that it is a feminist organization, despite its name.
by Rachel on Dec 19, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Rachel,
I believe FFL would say that their primary goal, eliminating legal abortion-on-demand and protecting women, is clearly defined by their mission statement. Thus they allow people who have differing views regarding the nature and practice of contraception to maintain their convictions in that area while still coming together to oppose what they see as the greatest injustice. Since contraception is both completely legal and widespread in America (taught in public schools as early as elementary school, contraception devices available everywhere from drug stores to gas station bathrooms, widespread media/advertising for contraceptive products, etc.), FFL has no reason to further address it anymore so than they have to publicly address or take a stand on adoption, foster-care, the price of diapers and baby formula, or a host of other issues which touch on the social aspects of the abortion debate.
I wholeheartedly agree with Anthony’s statement and every person I know would rather see prevention than punishment. But notice that Anthony does not at all mince words in describing the true nature of the action, and even presupposes that it is one worthy of some type of punishment.
by jm on Dec 20, 2010 at 12:33 am
Not making a connection to contraception as a means of “eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion–primarily practical resources and support” is unthinkable. An unintended pregnancy IS the root cause of abortion.
And while contraception is legal in the US, the most effective forms are also the most expensive, such as IUDs. Insurance companies don’t always cover contraceptives, even while they cover viagra, which poses a financial strain for those with lower incomes.
Their not taking a stance is, in my mind, a cop-out on a real matter of justice for women.
by Rachel on Dec 20, 2010 at 1:01 am
I know I’ve beaten this point into the ground, but the most effective form of contraception is knowledge, which is basically free.
by Christian Trotter on Dec 20, 2010 at 4:57 am
JM,
You mentioned “. . . the suffering (abortion) generates at a societal level . . .” I wonder if you could provide some examples of the suffering abortion causes at the societal level. I often hear that abortion is good for society in terms of fewer unwanted children, fewer mouths for the taxpayer to feed, less financial burden on poor would-be-mothers (who would otherwise be taken care of by the state), lower population when over population is already a problem, etc. What evidence or argument can you provide against that position?
by Christian Trotter on Dec 18, 2010 at 4:25 am
Christian, I would say there are a few societal harms that abortion causes. First and foremost is the culture of devaluing human life which it encourages. As one feminist points out regarding early feminists who unanimously opposed abortion: “They considered the practice of abortion to be a paradigm of society’s failure to recognize both the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults. ” (source). Likewise, Frederica Mathewes-Green has laid out why abortion actually runs counter to feminism and true women’s rights in society here.
Likewise, abortion doesn’t just negate the plight of feminism, it also has a disproportionate effect on minorities. Particularly hard hit has been the minority group that has undergone the most suffering in this country, African Americans. For more on how abortion has decimated the black community, see http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Another societal effect is that disproportionate number of psychological/medical complications that arise due to abortion. Of course, as Rachel points out, not everyone experiences such effects after having an abortion, but statistically it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t have a huge effect in general. An example: “The Sydney Morning Herald reported the “most detailed long-term study to date into the divisive question.” The New Zealand study was done by David Fergusson, who describes himself as “an atheist, a rationalist and pro-choice”. The study tracked 1,265 girls born in the 1970s. 41% of these woman became pregnant by the age of 25, and 14.6% (90 women) sought an abortion. By the age of 25, 42% of those who procured an abortion also experienced a major depression. This number was 35% higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy. The risk of anxiety disorders rose in a similar fashion. A woman who had procured an abortion was twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels compared to one who continued the pregnancy.” (link)
Another societal negative effect is “population aging” and the economic results: “Abortion also has contributed to population decline and demographic changes. The U.S. birth rate has dropped to the lowest level since national data has been available. In 2002 the birth rate fell to 13.9 per 1,000 – down 17 percent since 1990. This results in a demographic shift to an older population known as “population aging” where the share of the population of working age shrinks and the labor force grows older. This demographic phenomenon will have negative effects on the economy, especially as workers reach retirement age leaving fewer people engaged in productive work.” (link) Russia is already feeling this effect as well.
These are a few examples, I would argue.
by jm on Dec 18, 2010 at 5:09 am
Jackie:
I posted this comment in response to Rachel’s concern for maternal health. I think you may also find it helpful.
“I do appreciate your concern for maternal health. To that end, I’d like to bring your attention to the fact that legalization of abortion has been bad for maternal health because it increases the incidence of abortions, legal and illegal, and brings with it a higher incidence of maternal fatalities. The post on maternal abortion deaths on this blog is very instructive:
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/”
Note that the figures for maternal abortion deaths prior to Roe v Wade which are commonly circulated by pro-choice lobbyists are pure fabrications. Dr Bernard Nathanson, formerly of NARAL, states that the figures were vastly inflated in order to drum up public support for legalized abortion.
As a woman, I see pro-life as being pro-woman. Abortion kills an unborn human and damages the mother psychologically and often physically. Abortion is frequently used as a tool for unscrupulous men to treat a woman badly and then just tell her to “get rid of it”. And then there is the practice of sex selective abortion, common in societies which do not value women equally, such as China and India. I support women’s rights from conception, which is why I am pro-life.
by Mary on Dec 18, 2010 at 11:30 am
I’m not arguing with you over the maternal health issue because there’s so much information out there including WHO, CDC, Doctor’s Without Boarders, and the UN to name of few that contradict what that person on BlogSpot said.
Also of course “Dr Bernard Nathanson, formerly of NARAL, states that the figures were vastly inflated.” He became a hard-chore anti-abortion activist spurred by his conversion to Catholicism. What his opinion may be is of no concern to women who choose to honor a woman’s right to autonomy.
Some women feel bad afterward, most feel relief. This is according to both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association among others. And I really don’t see how making abortion illegal empowers a woman who is a tool for unscrupulous men is feminist. Actually, it puts women in really dangerous situations, in which they face unsafe abortions, or a child that could doom them to a life of poverty.
In addition, pro-choice activists are also against the status of women in China and India. In China, the reason why they enacted their policy is because the Communist Revolution (in sync with most totalitarian governments) made abortion illegal in all cases. When the populations exploded, they enacted the equally anti-choice, anti-women policy of the “one-child” rule. If government just butted out of women’s private lives and choices, and left reproduction up to the people who actually get pregnant, they never would have had the problem to begin with.
In India, the situation is different but equally as aberrant to pro-choicers.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:28 am
“Also of course “Dr Bernard Nathanson, formerly of NARAL, states that the figures were vastly inflated.” He became a hard-chore anti-abortion activist spurred by his conversion to Catholicism. What his opinion may be is of no concern to women who choose to honor a woman’s right to autonomy. ”
No opinions. FACTS. And he became a Catholic AFTER becoming pro-life. Read this: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html (written when he was NOT a Catholic).
by Mary on Dec 21, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I will repeat, What his opinion may be is of no concern to women who choose to honor a woman’s right to autonomy.
He has a right to opinion, as everyone, but he has no right to impose his opinions on other.
by Jackie on Dec 22, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Jackie, EVERY law passed in this country, without exception, is based on someone imposing their opinions on another. Remember, southern plantation owners didn’t want northern abolitionists “imposing” their “opinion” about what makes for a just society on them… Aren’t you glad those “opinions” DID get “imposed”??
by jm on Dec 23, 2010 at 4:08 am
Pro-slavery activists, like pro-life activists, are wrong because one cannot impose their will on another. A white person cannot say to a black person, “because you are black you are my indentured servant.” Just like a pro-life activist cannot say, “Because you are pregnant you are an indentured servant to the fetus because of my (personal, religious, whatever) beliefs.”
by Jackie on Dec 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Sorry Jackie, but that doesn’t even remotely work (though casting pregnant women as “indentured servants” to the child within their womb gets an A+ in the creativity department!).
The thing that slave owners and most advocates for unrestricted abortion rights have in common is that both positions are predicated upon denying the full personhood of other human beings based on phenotypical differences.
by jm on Dec 23, 2010 at 6:50 pm
On the issue of dehumanization, JM has not dehumanized anyone. On the contrary, he has demonstrated a deep concern for helping women in crisis pregnancies. On the other hand, pro-choice rhetoric is founded on dehumanization of the unborn – despite the scientific (not religious) fact that the pre-born are human and alive from conception.
by Mary on Dec 18, 2010 at 11:38 am
“despite the scientific (not religious) fact that the pre-born are human and alive from conception.”
This “pre-born human” (weird term) you refer to, the pre-born human’s rights do not override the woman’s rights. This pre-born human uses the woman’s body, nutrients, blood to survive and the woman risks life and limb to give it life (the actual living breathing kind). So for me and my body, if I choose not to undertake such risks, I’m heading to Planned Parenthood. Or because I live in New York, to a doctor’s office where there’s not violent harassers outside to annoy me. And that’s my right as a human being. And no, the fetus I abort does not have a right to live because I don’t want to carry it to term. My body, babe.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:12 am
Jackie, why does this not then also extend to born infants who are thoroughly dependent on their mother for survival?
You keep asserting your right to convenience over the child’s life, but you don’t say WHY you believe that. You haven’t supported your assertion.
by Mary on Dec 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The infant is not thoroughly dependent on the mother for survival because she can give the child up for adoption. Someone else can choose to take care of the baby.
by Jackie on Dec 22, 2010 at 4:43 pm
What I find most interesting about this blog post is the picture JM chose to use. The Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange, taken under the FSA program intended to show the hardships of the American people during the Great Depression, is a statement on the toil of mother’s with too many mouths to feed. She has no available birth control, her husband is her master (there’s no laws protecting her), no safe abortion, and abject poverty exuberated by her inability to control her own reproductive system.
This picture, arguably the most popular of the FSA collection, spurred much pressure (including strenuous support by Eleanor Roosevelt) to help educate women in methods of birth control and helped start the discussion in favor of women’s human rights, which included available, safe abortions. Moreover, women like the mother in the picture, were the reason Margaret Sanger fought tirelessly against the Comstock Laws and was imprisoned countless times because of it.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:07 am
Yes Jackie, that’s precisely why I chose the picture I chose–to illustrate the fact that this is an issue that involves real women who are faced with hard choices and must not be abandoned by society or allowed to fall through the cracks. Abortion is not inherently consistent with the core ideas of historic feminism…which is why nearly all early feminists were opposed to it.
For example:
Susan B. Anthony, In her publication The Revolution, regarding abortion, it was written:
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Abortion was referred to as “child murder.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
“We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil…It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
“All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
Elizabeth Cady Stanton – She classified abortion as a form of “infanticide.” The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library
“There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?”
The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868
Jackie, you can read many more key feminist critiques of abortion here.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to make a heroine out of Margaret Sanger if I were you. She was a horrible racist and proponent of eugenics…something many are completely unaware of it seems.
“In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
…Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.” [From “The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans“]
No, it is precisely because I DO see women as fully human and every bit as much bearers of God’s image as men that I so vehemently oppose abortion as a viable option for “unwanted” babies.
by jm on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:46 am
And here’s a review of Sanger’s racism from a supporter of abortion-rights just so no one can say it’s some “anti-choice smear campaign” or anything like that: http://www.womensenews.org/story/commentary/010718/sangers-legacy-reproductive-freedom-and-racism
by jm on Dec 19, 2010 at 4:53 am
So, I’m sure you feel just as repulsed by the founding fathers for their attitudes towards Africans. Oh and their slaughter of American Indians, right? And their beliefs on women?
As Hilary Clinton said in response to an anti-abortion congressman when questions on how should could admire someone like M. Sanger:
“Well, Congressman, let me say with respect to your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership and I deplore his unrepentant slaveholding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer in trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies and I deplore statements that you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things that we admire and things we deplore.”
I am aware of M. Sanger’s belief in eugenics. I also know New York University has been in possession of her papers since her death and just recently (through grant money) have been publishing them. The first volume is out and I suggest you read it in order to read other aspects of her life and work. She was a remarkable women who fought for women to have control over their own bodies in the face of such religious zealots as Comstock and Co.
And like I sort of said to Mary, what someone believes is of no concern to me. I am grateful for the work of the early suffragists who paved the way for me to have the life that I have today; however, their belief on abortion is of little importance to me. And again, I’m aware of their life’s work and much of their quotes are taken out of context. But regardless, I hardly see how the beliefs of women who lived approximately 80 years ago in a world in which they were indoctrinated biblical law has anything to do with my life.
by Jackie on Dec 19, 2010 at 5:09 am
Jackie,
I can’t help but notice you are still using the term anti-choice. While I don’t really care if you use it, you would at least seem to be a more reasonable person if you discontinued its use. As you pointed out on the previous blog post, Wintery Knight used pro-abortion and I found that to be just as inflammatory. She argues more on my side of the issue and for the good of our side, I hope she stops using the term.
On the issue of dehumanization, what words would you have pro-lifers use? If sin, evil, murder, and don’t value life are off the table, how can those points be argued without using those words?
Religious pro-lifers see abortion as destroying a human life. They see destruction of innocent human life as something that goes against God’s will. Going against God’s will is, by definition, sin.
Many religious pro-lifers believe the pro-choice side has been deceived by an evil force bent on human suffering and destruction. What can they call it besides evil?
Pro-lifers see the purposeful killing of an unborn baby the in the same way they see the purposeful killing of a newborn baby. Murder and infanticide are the words that most appropriately describe the action in their view.
Pro-lifers, who see unborn life as life and equally valued life at that, quite rightly, from their perspective, say the pro-choice side does not value that life. How else can they/I say it?
I’m not suggesting you should agree with any of the arguments made by a side with which you disagree, but surely you think they should be allowed to make those arguments. What words would you have them use? If you can provide an alternative set of words that are less offensive to you or your side, I know I would be willing to use them and I believe others would as well. I do not agree that language led to the death of Dr. Tiller, but if there is even a chance that it did and it is possible to use other language, then we should try to do so.
I personally do not argue my pro-life stance from a religious or spiritual pedestal because I know that as soon as I do, someone like you turns me off. Therefore I don’t use words like “sin” and “evil”. But I have used “murder” and discussed the devaluing of life. I’m sure I have also used other words and phrases you would rather I not use. Please let me know what you would like me to use instead and if it makes sense, I will accommodate your sensitivities. If you go back to the previous blog post you will see that Rachel asked me to stop using the words “Man” and “mankind” when referring to humanity and I agreed. If other words will allow us to communicate more effectively, I’m all for them.
by Christian Trotter on Dec 19, 2010 at 10:45 am
I haven’t used the term anti-choice since I was asked not too. Check the time of my posting against the one from JM’s request and you’ll see that’s true.
Christian, it is not my responsibility to instruct you on how to dehumanize women in regards to the argument. Its your argument, you figure it out.
by Jackie on Dec 22, 2010 at 4:57 pm
You are correct about your usage of anti-choice. I apologize for the accusation and I should have been more thorough considering the time stamps.
I disagree with your opinion that any of those words are dehumanizing, so I will continue using those words. If you are offended by them, I can not control that. I have attempted to be as accommodating as possible to your sensitivities, but if you can not tell me how to avoid your sensitivities (other than asking me to keep quiet) I fear I will likely offend you again in the future.
All of those words and phrases you consider to be dehumanizing are only used in relation to humans. If anything, the words are “humanizing”.
by Christian Trotter on Dec 22, 2010 at 10:53 pm
[…] the unethical nature of abortion-on-demand…without anyone being called a “baby-killer” or “anti-choice” […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » How Bruce Lee shaped my ministry (part 3) on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Adsense is actually a really great program for those
who maintain blogs, as blogs get updated all the time and the Adsense possibilities are almost limitless.
20 percent of customers have the potential to spend
five times as much as they do currently A relatively small amount of marketing
effort creates the majority of output. There are other
ways to improve your ranking in Googlemaps, the purpose of this
blog post is not to tell you EVERYTHING Frederick Web
Promotions can do to improve your ranking, the purpose
of this particular blog post is to:.
by Google on Oct 2, 2014 at 5:15 am