Some thoughts on abortion.
1) Why do some pro-lifers want to show pregnant women pictures of aborted fetuses? Sure, it would scare some off. But in the same way showing a heart disease sufferer pictures of open-heart surgery will queer her off getting that quadruple bypass. We get it: you think "abortion" is just another word for "baby killing." You aren't adding anything to the discussion by pointing out fingers and toes. If a baby has its fingers and toes chopped off, it doesn't suddenly become a non-person without rights; so adding fingers and toes to a parasite doesn't suddenly mean we've got a baby on our hands. Anyway, if we're gonna be honest about the scare tactics, why not show the baby delivery video along with the abortion video? Because we might get a rash of suicides among the pregnant and a sharp decrease in unprotected sexual encounters. Yeah, right.
2) I understand some of the exceptions recognized by some in the anti-abortion community. The rape exception and health-of-the-mother exception work for me. See Judith Thomson's Defense of Abortion if you aren't on board. [You may not be convinced, but at least you'll see there are rational arguments to be made.] But why would one recognize an "incest" exception? If we're talking about some form of coerced sexual encounter (e.g. Uncle Ernie and his twelve-year-old niece), I'm on board, but I'd put it in the "rape" category. If we're talking about mutations, I might see it, but I'd put that in the "health of the fetus" exception (not as widely recognized, but arguably consistent with the general pro-life stance). But otherwise, I have no idea what principle is being proffered. Could someone explain to me why a consenting adult female should not generally be permitted to seek an abortion, but should be permitted if the father is her consenting adult brother?
3) Many lifers use the phrase, "life begins at conception." Who cares when life begins? Chickens are alive. Do we give them the legal right to avoid having their heads chopped off as a result? The question is: when does personhood begin?
4) Many choicers want the right to abort to be absolute, right up to the minute before delivery. This is a particularly horrifying concept to lifers, and causes a lot of bad blood between the camps. Because if you pulled the damned thing out a little quicker, you've clearly got a baby on your hands. It convinces the lifers of their righteousness, and lends them support from the fence-sitters.
5) The cost-benefit analysis argument put forward by certain choicers (i.e. if we banned abortions, more back-alley abortions would occur, harming many women) does not really add anything valuable to the conversation. Lifers stand on principle, and you're handing them policy. It would be akin to arguing we should add an exception to the rape statute for married persons--an exception that exists in some places--because it would decrease the physical harm resulting from intra-marital assaults. [Basically, husbands would do less harm physically by beating their wives if they could get a little more action. Can you really show me this is not true?] To those who oppose rape on grounds other than its status as a type of assault--to those who stand on principle that there is something different and more heinous about rape--this benefit in terms of decrease in bodily injury to spouses is misguided, to say the least. Unless it gets to extreme levels (say, 20% of females will die every year if abortion is rendered illegal), no one who opposes abortion on the basis that there is something in a woman's uterus that is a rights-bearing individual will be at all swayed. So just stop it.
2) I understand some of the exceptions recognized by some in the anti-abortion community. The rape exception and health-of-the-mother exception work for me. See Judith Thomson's Defense of Abortion if you aren't on board. [You may not be convinced, but at least you'll see there are rational arguments to be made.] But why would one recognize an "incest" exception? If we're talking about some form of coerced sexual encounter (e.g. Uncle Ernie and his twelve-year-old niece), I'm on board, but I'd put it in the "rape" category. If we're talking about mutations, I might see it, but I'd put that in the "health of the fetus" exception (not as widely recognized, but arguably consistent with the general pro-life stance). But otherwise, I have no idea what principle is being proffered. Could someone explain to me why a consenting adult female should not generally be permitted to seek an abortion, but should be permitted if the father is her consenting adult brother?
3) Many lifers use the phrase, "life begins at conception." Who cares when life begins? Chickens are alive. Do we give them the legal right to avoid having their heads chopped off as a result? The question is: when does personhood begin?
4) Many choicers want the right to abort to be absolute, right up to the minute before delivery. This is a particularly horrifying concept to lifers, and causes a lot of bad blood between the camps. Because if you pulled the damned thing out a little quicker, you've clearly got a baby on your hands. It convinces the lifers of their righteousness, and lends them support from the fence-sitters.
5) The cost-benefit analysis argument put forward by certain choicers (i.e. if we banned abortions, more back-alley abortions would occur, harming many women) does not really add anything valuable to the conversation. Lifers stand on principle, and you're handing them policy. It would be akin to arguing we should add an exception to the rape statute for married persons--an exception that exists in some places--because it would decrease the physical harm resulting from intra-marital assaults. [Basically, husbands would do less harm physically by beating their wives if they could get a little more action. Can you really show me this is not true?] To those who oppose rape on grounds other than its status as a type of assault--to those who stand on principle that there is something different and more heinous about rape--this benefit in terms of decrease in bodily injury to spouses is misguided, to say the least. Unless it gets to extreme levels (say, 20% of females will die every year if abortion is rendered illegal), no one who opposes abortion on the basis that there is something in a woman's uterus that is a rights-bearing individual will be at all swayed. So just stop it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home