![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yeah, it's political. No, it's actually not a rant. Consider it a position paper, if you like, of my personal views on an issue which is not at all simple. In fact, I consider the entire idea to be one of the most complex moral problems on the modern landscape.
However, knowing that it's a sensitive subject for a lot of people, I cut. Read if you like, comment if you like. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on the subject.
...what I mean by pro-choice is that I defend a woman's right to pursue a safe, legal abortion at any time, without having to ask anyone's permission, or undergo any sort of waiting period, 'options counseling', or registration. I believe that abortion services should be widely available, very affordable, and as confidential as we can possibly make them. That is my position.
This is my reasoning.
First, it should be noted that I do not 'like' abortion. There is no doubt that, in cases where the abortion is not considered medically necessary, the fetus the woman is carrying will, if left alone, become a human being. Whether it /is/, while in the womb, already to be considered a human being is largely a point I don't concern myself with. It's semantics, useful for legal wrangling and the attempt to either rile or surpress guilt over the action, but I don't believe there's a person out there who isn't aware that the aborted fetus was, in fact, a human in potentia who never got to be born. And I sure as hell don't think most of the women carrying that fetus don't realize that, and that the knowledge does not affect them.
So, some might say, you know full well that this is a little person, and yet you're saying that you support the right for a mother to kill them off whenever she likes...to put it in the most slanted way possible. To which, I say...yes. While it's in the womb, I support the right of a woman to terminate any pregnancy. I do not /like/ that option. I also support comprehensive sex education at every level of school, plentiful and low-priced (or free) birth control for anyone with no questions asked, and a system for adoptions that protects and facilitates birth parents, adoptive parents, and children. But I know that even if these options were all available and worked at the level that I would most prefer, there would always be situations where someone has an unwanted pregnancy and, for whatever reason, cannot or does not wish to carry it to term for adoption.
What do we do in those cases? When it comes down to it, there really are only two options at our present level of technology: you either force the mother to carry it to term, or you allow her to terminate. There are obvious problems with the first choice, practicality being the one that leaps to mind first. A woman cannot, without difficulty, be watched constantly. There will always be people who are willing to help her out with a coathanger, there are herbal mixes which may induce miscarriages, there's the abuse of alcohol, violence, drugs, and a variety of other ways to try and self-terminate a pregnancy. Most of these are significantly threatening to the woman, as well, but it hasn't stopped the really determined ones. And, I will ask, what does it say about a woman that she is willing to risk her own death in order to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? You can argue from desperation, selfishness, or sheer panic, but either way you go, I have to wonder: Do I want a woman that desperate not to give birth to be forced to carry and raise a child? Will this person be a good parent? Is this person mentally, financially, and emotionally capable of raising a child?
What happens to the children that we would require to be born? The lucky ones, under my ideal system, would be adopted, assuming that all the family members involved treated the situation rationally. ...yeah, after you finish laughing, let's talk about the unlucky ones.
I strongly believe that parenthood is one of the most serious committments that anyone should make. It is not a 'rite of passage' or something that everyone should be doing to 'be an adult'. You're taking nearly full responsibilty for an undeveloped human being who, at various times, will be the most amazing and infuriating person that you've likely ever met. You are agreeing to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, protect them, monitor them, discipline them, socialize them, and love them for the rest of your natural life. To my mind, it should always be an informed, consensual decision, undertaken with--if not full understanding (does any non-parent really know what they're getting into?)--at least with enthusiastic optimism. I do not believe that an atmosphere of coercion can ever produce a good, loving parent, or that force is a good way to start this very intimate relationship between a parent and a child.
Children should not hear, "You were a mistake," or "I never wanted you in the first place." I believe that, as a society, we should do everything in our power to make sure that every birth is wanted, and I believe that free and full access to abortion services is an indispensible part (but not the ONLY part) of making that happen.
To condense that rambling screed down to a simple justification: I believe that the quality of life that comes after birth is, in the balance, more important that the protection of life within the womb. I do not want children born unwanted to parents who will neglect and abuse them, and I consider the fact that a mother is willing to terminate a pregnancy to be a pretty good indication that she should not be raising the child in question. It would be nice to say that all women and men would have access to and use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but that's not going to happen, even if you were leaving free pills and condoms out on street corners. It would be nice to say that all pregnancies could be carried to term and unwanted babies adopted out in a completely confidential arrangement to a family who desperately wants them, but that's also not realistic (especially for minorities, when the majority of people wanting to adopt want caucasian babies). In order to protect both children and women, I believe that abortion is necessary to defend and support.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I fully support the right of any woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of what anyone else wishes her to do. I have never supported mandatory abortion policies, and I never will. I also fully support the right of a dam or sire of a pregnancy to terminate parental rights in a final, binding way with a written, legal contract. I do not support dams or sires who have terminated their rights in such a way in any attempt to later reclaim those rights, unless it can be proven that coercion or nonconsent was involved in signing the contract. Parenthood should be considered on basis of committment, not genetics.
One may notice that I do not address men's rights in this position paper. This is because men's rights do not change my basic position...I think that, as long as women are considered by society to have the burden of monitoring and using birth control, and considered to have the burden of parenting, women should have the final say in whether they, personally, will carry a pregnancy to term. As technology progresses, this will become a more complicated issue, but for now, I am firm.
However, knowing that it's a sensitive subject for a lot of people, I cut. Read if you like, comment if you like. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on the subject.
...what I mean by pro-choice is that I defend a woman's right to pursue a safe, legal abortion at any time, without having to ask anyone's permission, or undergo any sort of waiting period, 'options counseling', or registration. I believe that abortion services should be widely available, very affordable, and as confidential as we can possibly make them. That is my position.
This is my reasoning.
First, it should be noted that I do not 'like' abortion. There is no doubt that, in cases where the abortion is not considered medically necessary, the fetus the woman is carrying will, if left alone, become a human being. Whether it /is/, while in the womb, already to be considered a human being is largely a point I don't concern myself with. It's semantics, useful for legal wrangling and the attempt to either rile or surpress guilt over the action, but I don't believe there's a person out there who isn't aware that the aborted fetus was, in fact, a human in potentia who never got to be born. And I sure as hell don't think most of the women carrying that fetus don't realize that, and that the knowledge does not affect them.
So, some might say, you know full well that this is a little person, and yet you're saying that you support the right for a mother to kill them off whenever she likes...to put it in the most slanted way possible. To which, I say...yes. While it's in the womb, I support the right of a woman to terminate any pregnancy. I do not /like/ that option. I also support comprehensive sex education at every level of school, plentiful and low-priced (or free) birth control for anyone with no questions asked, and a system for adoptions that protects and facilitates birth parents, adoptive parents, and children. But I know that even if these options were all available and worked at the level that I would most prefer, there would always be situations where someone has an unwanted pregnancy and, for whatever reason, cannot or does not wish to carry it to term for adoption.
What do we do in those cases? When it comes down to it, there really are only two options at our present level of technology: you either force the mother to carry it to term, or you allow her to terminate. There are obvious problems with the first choice, practicality being the one that leaps to mind first. A woman cannot, without difficulty, be watched constantly. There will always be people who are willing to help her out with a coathanger, there are herbal mixes which may induce miscarriages, there's the abuse of alcohol, violence, drugs, and a variety of other ways to try and self-terminate a pregnancy. Most of these are significantly threatening to the woman, as well, but it hasn't stopped the really determined ones. And, I will ask, what does it say about a woman that she is willing to risk her own death in order to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy? You can argue from desperation, selfishness, or sheer panic, but either way you go, I have to wonder: Do I want a woman that desperate not to give birth to be forced to carry and raise a child? Will this person be a good parent? Is this person mentally, financially, and emotionally capable of raising a child?
What happens to the children that we would require to be born? The lucky ones, under my ideal system, would be adopted, assuming that all the family members involved treated the situation rationally. ...yeah, after you finish laughing, let's talk about the unlucky ones.
I strongly believe that parenthood is one of the most serious committments that anyone should make. It is not a 'rite of passage' or something that everyone should be doing to 'be an adult'. You're taking nearly full responsibilty for an undeveloped human being who, at various times, will be the most amazing and infuriating person that you've likely ever met. You are agreeing to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, protect them, monitor them, discipline them, socialize them, and love them for the rest of your natural life. To my mind, it should always be an informed, consensual decision, undertaken with--if not full understanding (does any non-parent really know what they're getting into?)--at least with enthusiastic optimism. I do not believe that an atmosphere of coercion can ever produce a good, loving parent, or that force is a good way to start this very intimate relationship between a parent and a child.
Children should not hear, "You were a mistake," or "I never wanted you in the first place." I believe that, as a society, we should do everything in our power to make sure that every birth is wanted, and I believe that free and full access to abortion services is an indispensible part (but not the ONLY part) of making that happen.
To condense that rambling screed down to a simple justification: I believe that the quality of life that comes after birth is, in the balance, more important that the protection of life within the womb. I do not want children born unwanted to parents who will neglect and abuse them, and I consider the fact that a mother is willing to terminate a pregnancy to be a pretty good indication that she should not be raising the child in question. It would be nice to say that all women and men would have access to and use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but that's not going to happen, even if you were leaving free pills and condoms out on street corners. It would be nice to say that all pregnancies could be carried to term and unwanted babies adopted out in a completely confidential arrangement to a family who desperately wants them, but that's also not realistic (especially for minorities, when the majority of people wanting to adopt want caucasian babies). In order to protect both children and women, I believe that abortion is necessary to defend and support.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I fully support the right of any woman to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of what anyone else wishes her to do. I have never supported mandatory abortion policies, and I never will. I also fully support the right of a dam or sire of a pregnancy to terminate parental rights in a final, binding way with a written, legal contract. I do not support dams or sires who have terminated their rights in such a way in any attempt to later reclaim those rights, unless it can be proven that coercion or nonconsent was involved in signing the contract. Parenthood should be considered on basis of committment, not genetics.
One may notice that I do not address men's rights in this position paper. This is because men's rights do not change my basic position...I think that, as long as women are considered by society to have the burden of monitoring and using birth control, and considered to have the burden of parenting, women should have the final say in whether they, personally, will carry a pregnancy to term. As technology progresses, this will become a more complicated issue, but for now, I am firm.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Even in this day and age, we risk our lives, and short-term and long-term well-being, to bring forth the life of a child. That's a job for volunteers.
I believe that the quality of life that comes after birth is, in the balance, more important that the protection of life within the womb.
Amen. So. Much. Amen.
From:
no subject
Unless of course there's a guy out there who's died from exhaustion caused by running errands for his pregnant wife so she can recline in comfort and ease?
The world needs more martyrs like that. |D
From:
no subject
But yes. Women carry the physical burden of risk as well as the psychological, emotional, and often financial burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing, so the decision should be in their hands.
From:
no subject
I swore "Only Child" to the Porcelain Altar, long before the pre-eclampsia (aka toxemia, aka PIH) and c-section. But reading up on it all? Eugh. That one-in-twenty chance is pretty awful when you roll that 1.
Adoption is well and good, but there is currently no way to get to that point without risking life and health. I'm much more aware of that now than I was before I had a kid.
From:
no subject
I, too, believe that abortion should be a legal right. It is hardly an ideal situation when abortion becomes necessary but, as you said, we don't live in an ideal world.
I've always been a big believer in the principle of "live and let live." I believe that every person has the right to determine their own destiny as much as is practical. Who am I, or who is the Supreme Court for that matter, to tell a woman that she must bear a child regardless of whether the fertilization was wanted or accidental, or a result of rape, or the fetus genetically damaged? It is up to every individual to decide what they can bear. (ouch. bad pun. sorry.)
As for male rights... that's touchy. I think that if a woman absolutely doesn't want a baby but the father does want the child -- and is willing to take sole custody -- then that should weigh heavily in her decision. Again, though, I can't find it in my heart to say that she has no choice, that she must bring the child to term. It's her body, not his.
From:
no subject
*duly thrashes you for the pun!*
As for male rights... that's touchy. I think that if a woman absolutely doesn't want a baby but the father does want the child -- and is willing to take sole custody -- then that should weigh heavily in her decision. Again, though, I can't find it in my heart to say that she has no choice, that she must bring the child to term. It's her body, not his.
That is one of the more complex parts about an already complex issue, I agree. I would hope, sincerely, that if a father wished to take sole and full parental responsibility for a child, that the woman would strongly consider carrying to term. However, I can see several reasons why she would not. The medical risks associated with pregnancy, the financial costs, and other issues. For example, I'm not sure that (in the US, at least) there is any absolute way to permanently terminate parental rights in such a way that guarantees that no one will ever hold you responsible for that child. If, for example, the father later decides he can't support the child, I do believe that he could sue for child support (even as a mother in the same position could). If the father dies, the mother is still legally next of kin, and there could be a lot of guilt and trauma associated with refusing that responsibility. Grandparents and other family members add additional complications...a lifetime of being called a 'bad mother' or being accused of 'abandoning' a child you never wanted in the first place could be more than they could take. And as the child ages, it may wish to establish a relationship with the mother that she doesn't want, and may not even be able to handle.
When they talk about those stories of adopted children who, as adults, spend years tracking down their birth mothers, we usually hear about the happy endings. But I have to wonder how many of those people actually hear, "Oh god, they told me no one would ever know," as the first thing out of their birth mother's mouth.
From:
no subject
Let's say that I recognize that at some time between conception and birth (inclusive), the potential person inside that woman's womb becomes an actual person, and for our own sake we had better take very seriously the question of when that happens. I am very much of the position that abortion may be murder, under some circumstances, and a healthy society had better think hard about the implications of that.
I'm also of the position that the best way to give women the ideal of reproductive freedom - "control over their own bodies" - is to produce easy, cheap, invariably effective contraception that women can apply without anyone else's permission or approval. A woman should ideally never conceive unless she consciously chooses to do so, and that decision should be a private one.
If we had that, abortion would be vanishingly rare because it wouldn't be needed.
Unfortunately, we don't have that, and many of the people most adamantly opposed to abortion are the same people who would like to see to it that we never get it. They are, in fact, the same people who do not take at all seriously the notion that women ought to have rights of their own as independent of male control.
So the problem is more intractable than it needs to be, and under current circumstances abortion may sometimes be the least bad action to take. So while I consider at least some abortions to be crimes, I don't approve of a blanket ban at this time either, and I'm cautious as to what restrictions on the practice I would support.
From:
no subject
I am completely on board with the idea of birth control being the best option, although I would extend it farther than women to both women and men. Ideally, I would consider conception to be a mutual decision between both the woman and the man, talked about, and with parenting agreed upon between them. Fatherhood shouldn't be any more of a surprise than motherhood should be.
And yes, I think that if we had that (and comprehensive sex education programs, and easy and confidential adoption procedures, and a few other things), abortion would probably become an option of last resort, likely only when dealing with a dead-in-the-womb or tragically deformed child who would likely not survive on its own. And that would be the ideal situation.
From:
no subject
That, as they say, is the Hard Question.
Let's say, as a first approximation, that I'm not too uncomfortable with abortion in the first trimester, I become far more uncomfortable with it by the beginning of the third trimester, and I find abortion within minutes of natural delivery to be almost impossible to justify. If the fetus is conscious, capable of suffering, and viable outside the womb, then I'm not inclined to treat it as non-human property any more.
The reason for the abortion also has to come into play, of course, but I'd prefer not to discuss hypotheticals on that point.
Heh. It occurred to me that there's one other bit of reproductive technology that would be handy in solving this problem: ectogenesis, or the "artificial womb." Be neat if a woman who somehow found herself pregnant against her wishes could put the fetus up for adoption immediately. Of course, the same religious conservatives that hammer on abortion and contraception would have a livid screaming fit about that idea too.
From:
no subject
(I'm definitely a contraception FIRST, abortion LAST RESORT kind of person. But reality doesn't yet give that option. Or uterine replicators, dangit. I might vaguely consider having another kid, if there were one of those...)
From:
no subject
Suffice it to say I agree with some of what you say, disagree with other parts, and in general am pro-life, because to me, quality of life is NOT an issue, merely the existence thereof, because once you start allowing death due to quality-of-life issues, you open a very unpleasant door that leads down a path I never, ever want to see the human race contemplate.
From:
no subject
There is a time when abortion is pretty clearly not killing a baby, and there is a time when abortion is pretty obviously killing a baby. Therefore, Abortions should happen as early as possible if an abortion is happening. The time of the abortion is pretty important because if we say 'going to be a person' counts as 'a person' then basically all forms of preventive measures must be destroyed immediately.
I don't really support abortion in some instances, especially late-term abortions. If someone is waiting until week 40, then it sounds like it's a bout of nervousness more than a serious desire to not have a kid. I'm not sure if these late-term abortions happen because of lines or price issues (perhaps they should be made cheaper so more offensive abortions are made less of an option) but if you wait till the old third trimester, even the second is suspicious (being the grey area, I suspect) then I think someone's abusing the abortion option.
I agree with cpip's disapproval of abortions out of quality of life issues. Especially in America, where a crummy lifestyle here is pretty damn good. Presumably, if a child even a single moment of positivity, that is better than not having any moments of all.
There isn't enough 'science' out there to decide when it's okay and when it's not okay, which is probably where a lot of the problems picking a 'side' lie, but if we're assuming the child is alive from the start (as you suggested) then at best abortion is mercy-killing, at worse downright murder.
People have said abortions shouldn't be okay even in terms of 'rape and the mother will die' because 'it isn't the child's fault'. I'm kinder than this, since I think there's a time when the child isn't a child, and a time when the child is a child. If the child was always a child, then even if the mother was in some danger, then abortion would merely ensure one death (presumably one that has more time to live, as a mother has had a fair bit of time on earth already. Pretty cruel reason, but quantitatively, the child is a newer product).
Let's not forget that there's plenty of contraceptives for both men and women. It's the responsibility of both to use them if they don't want a baby. As everybody's said, that's the best option, but clearly it doesn't always happen. Do we 'punish' them by denying them an abortion because they weren't careful?
Worded this way, it's a little tricky because for one thing, the baby shouldn't be a punishment but if they are denied formal abortion (ignoring coat hangers for the moment), it certainly seems like a punishment! Wouldn't people who are actually responsible enough to use the contraceptives the ones who, ironically, would be the best parents?
There isn't really an answer to this because it's paradoxical. Any argument here would have difficulty finding another evidence to prove its side and disprove the other. For example, I could say that people who might want abortions might be better parents than they realize, or they might learn how to be good parents through the process of raising a kid--few people want to ruin a child's life, I'd reason. But then you'd point out other instances. Neither case really works out.
But frankly, there -are- contraceptives. Sometimes they don't work, sure, but it's a 99 percent success rate if both people are responsible and, really, it's pretty obvious if a guy is not wearing a condom, right? It's not like they are going to be able to trick you (again, assuming consensual). People should think about baby possibilities before having sex. Even if they had a couple of beers. (I typically don't support people being not responsible for what they do when they're drunk).
And with the 'coathanger' methods, sure this is more dangerous than legal abortion, but then again, murder is more personally dangerous than supporting the death penalty and I'm not in favor of that either. Since we're assuming the child is a child instantly, it's murder no matter what (hench why I think we need to consider the timeliness of abortions).
From:
no subject
Basically, I agree with the moderate governmental stance (though of course it varies) of it being okay in the first trimesters, but not the third. It seems the safest all around, and gives plenty of time for abortions too. Until we have more data, we can't really be sure on a perfect stance.
Daddies might not be put in PHYSICAL danger when they impregnate a lady, but they'll have to pay for child support if the direct responsibility of fatherhood isn't placed upon them. Obviously we can't kill every one in a hundred dads to simulate this, but well, men do have to put themselves in dangerous situations that women don't have to too. They aren't related to childbirth, but it sort of balances the scales.
From:
no subject
I don't know if doctors call it an abortion, but that's exactly what it is -- because it's a choice of "one life, or none."
And... I really dislike being unpleasant, but the whole child support thing comes off somewhat hollow against renal failure, seizures, coma, and death. I don't think it's a good absolute argument. (Having a good relationship with one's lover, so that the people affected can talk about the situation, support, medical risks, etc., is the best option, of course. But there is no way to legislate having a good relationship.)
I will clip certain colorful tales about ambulance rides and terrified nurses (and me being highly tipsy from the Mag-Sulfate IV), and just give a couple of Googled URLs.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1905.htm: Preeclampsia occurs in 6-8% of all pregnancies. ... Preeclampsia is the second leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 12-18% of pregnancy-related maternal deaths.
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic480.htm: Preeclampsia is one of the most common causes of perinatal morbidity and mortality, resulting in an estimated 35-300 deaths per 1000 births, depending on neonatal support capabilities of the hospital delivering care. This mortality rate is almost double that of normotensive pregnancies.
From:
no subject
This is my reason for being in favor of abortion. I personally find it an awful, awful thing to do, and I admit I could never look the same at a friend who did. It is killing in my mind.
On the other hand, if you're willing to kill something that small and defenseless, then I don't want you having it any longer than necessary.
Of course, part of my reasoning is that I believe in reincarnation, and I believe that it would be easier for the soul of that child to lose its body early and reduce further trauma from parents that don't want it.