Abortion is a good thing
The women at Our Descent into Madness are trying to make an argument for the permissibility of abortion that hinges on women’s autonomy:
Abortion bans and coerced abortion are both forms of rape. Not like rape, as in the case of the pregnancy, but flat-out, full-on rape, with a culpable perpetrator. In the case of a ban, the perpetrator — the actor who denies a woman the ability to decide what is allowed inside her body — is the government. In the case of coerced abortion, the perpetrator is whoever is doing the coercing (government, doctor, spouse, etc).
I like this model of pro-choice ethics a lot better than the choice model, and a lot better than the “fetus as a clump of cells” model.
…………..
Abortion is an exercise of my right to remove a being from inside my own body, not my right to kill a baby I’d don’t want (a right I do not have). This argument leads logically to the conclusion that the right to abortion ends at fetal viability, at which point I have instead the right to an elective cesarean section.
I understand this argument and to some extent, agree with it. The question of reproductive rights has little to do with the status of the fetus and everything to do with autonomy. If we as a society claim to respect the total autonomy of women, then we have to allow women the choice – without serious restriction – of obtaining an abortion. I wish that “pro-life” activists would make the argument against the liberal conception of autonomy, it’s not that popular, but it’s certainly a hell of a lot more honest than arguing for the “child” (especially considering the pro-life movement’s political affiliations*).
My concern though with arguments from autonomy is that they “bracket” the question of morality, or at least the question of goodness or social worth, and instead ask the public for mere toleration, “This doesn’t affect you, so if you don’t mind, leave me to my own life.” The problem with mere toleration is that it implicitly bolsters the widespread belief that there is something inherently bad and dirty about abortions. Since, when you “tolerate” something, you’re saying that “even though I don’t like this thing, I’m willing to let it happen.” It’s a strategy that – I think – ends up laying the groundwork for a backlash against abortion rights, and strengthens the hands who argue that we should outlaw abortion because “even the pro-choicers think it is wrong.” Again, this isn’t to say that pro-choicers actually see abortion as wrong, only that arguing for mere toleration adds credence to the view that there is something morally wrong with abortion.
If pro-choice activists are interested in success in the long run, I think that they should begin making arguments for the goodness and social worth of abortion. Rather than accept the premise that there is something wrong with abortion, activists should instead argue that when a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is supporting and affirming her autonomy towards a positive end, namely, reproductive health. Which makes abortion a positive means towards a positive end.
*Not to say that there aren’t honest pro-life activists who really do believe in the humanity of the fetus: there certainly are. But there are also plenty of “pro-lifers” who are far more concerned with restricting and punishing women.
“Abortion bans and coerced abortion are both forms of rape. Not like rape, as in the case of the pregnancy, but flat-out, full-on rape, with a culpable perpetrator. In the case of a ban, the perpetrator — the actor who denies a woman the ability to decide what is allowed inside her body — is the government.”
I would love to hear their thoughts on the FDA and water fluoridation.
I mean, it’s certainly a “radical” thing to say, but can I see the logic. Both rape and abortion (both restricting and forcibly inflicting) are serious violations of a woman’s autonomy and control over her body. They are only separated by a matter of degree.
It’s not radical so much as along the lines of standard libertarian bullshit (granted, I doubt the folks who get behind something like this are libertarians) – you know, the whole belief system centered around the ideal of individuals as inviolable bastions of “freedom” who must be protected from the evil state. If rape is rape and abortion bans are rape, then water fluoridation must be petty rape and taxation is probably some form of sexual harassment. And at the end of this path, mapped out helpfully by the quote in the OP, sits Ron Paul on a stack of guns and gold-backed currency. Better to justify abortion on the grounds of it being desirable – as you propose – than to join the libertarian circle jerk over the myth of the autonomous individual.
Haha. I am horribly annoyed when talking to self-proclaimed libertarians, since they seem to be unaware that there exists an overarching social structure which shapes each individual, and they are unwilling to even entertain the idea that a community may be something more than the sum of a group of individuals.
I absolutely hear you with regards to “mere toleration.” This:
Rather than accept the premise that there is something wrong with abortion, activists should instead argue that when a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is supporting and affirming her autonomy towards a positive end, namely, reproductive health. Which makes abortion a positive means towards a positive end.
Is really more like what I was trying to advocate.
And I think the rape analogy as a framework can actually be useful for this, because it allows us to condemn all violations of bodily autonomy with the same force, affirming women’s reproductive decisions the same way we should be affirming love.
I’m not at all a liberation, by the way, and I rather resent the comparison there. Would I be on the path to Ron Paul if I defended people’s right not to be raped…?
Not at all a livertarian*. Ha.
Oh wow, double typo. I give up.
: )
Daisy,
I think what Dmitri was taking issue with is the idea that there is such thing as a perfectly autonomous individual with some sort of inviolable “freedom” or “liberty.”
Personally, I think it’s rather obvious that individuals are bound up in and defined by community ties, and that it is silly to talk about persons as separated from community.
Well, that’s a little strong, but I think the point is the same.
AND…
Thanks for the comment.
Personally, I think it’s rather obvious that individuals are bound up in and defined by community ties, and that it is silly to talk about persons as separated from community.
Yeah, well. Me too. But we still talk about individual rights, don’t we? Which happen in conjunction with healthy community functioning? I’m thinking of things like the ability/right to consent (to sex, medical procedures, marriage, etc) and the right to vote, both of which we accord specifically to individuals.
I understand this argument and to some extent, agree with it. The question of reproductive rights has little to do with the status of the fetus and everything to do with autonomy.
Are you a “libertarian” too, then? For thinking that to some extent adults should be seen by the law as autonomous?
Daisy,
I’m not discounting individual rights. Mine (and Dmitri’s) problem with libertarians is that they assume that all sorts of rights stem from some sort of nebulous autonomy. They treat autonomy as an end in itself and not as a means to attaining some conception of the good.
If you think that autonomy is valuable in so far that it allows individuals to pursue their own ends, then you’re not a libertarian. But by speaking about autonomy as the central good, you’re framing your argument like a libertarian would.
But by speaking about autonomy as the central good, you’re framing your argument like a libertarian would.
Okay then. That’s fair.
I do think, though, that autonomy basically is the central good, for pro-choicers. Right to privacy, reproductive control, etc. I do think abortion is very often a good thing (we actually have a post with the same title as this one, ha), but just talking about how abortion is good isn’t enough, I don’t think. Abortion isn’t a social good when it’s used for racist euthanasia. “Mississippi appencectomies” are not a social good. So I think framing the argument in terms of people controlling their own bodies is the only was to address the whole spectrum. If we refused to address the whole spectrum, I think we’re in danger of falling into the “feminists only care about rich white women” trap.
But if you’ve got suggestions, I’m all ears. Thanks for taking up the topic. : )
I think that if you choose to get pregnant then you should have the baby. If you choose not to then you are killing a livin thing and I think that it is not fair to the baby that yuo are killing.
So if you don’t want to get pregnant then don’t have sex. And if you don’t want to mess up your career with having a baby the don’t lay down for the guy. And guys if you don’t want to be a dad any time soon the keep it in your pants. I personaly think that a baby can’t make a choice to live or die it is the mothers choice and if the mom chooses to kill the baby then mom’s you are killin your own kid and that is pretty bad.
May be harsh but it is the truth.
Sorry Jamie, but the abstinence-only is no good. Telling people to “keep it in their pants” won’t change the fact that they’re not going to listen. If we don’t educate people on all their options, they’re going to have sex just as much as if you tell them not to (abstinence-only), and then they won’t know about preventing pregnancy, what to do if you are pregnant, STDs, etc. Education is power.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Nobody likes abortion. Pro-choice is about giving women the option to reproductive health care and being able to make a decision on whether or not to abort. Everybody makes mistakes. I would not expect you to suffer your entire life because of one mistake you made, and you should not expect the same of me (and in this case, the child would suffer too).
Pro-choice is this: women have sole ownership and legal rights over their bodies. Having said that, they also have a right to anything within their bodies, which includes an unborn fetus. Until a woman no longer has that legal ownership, you cannot tell her she has to have a child (or has to abort, for that matter). It is HER sole decision. I cannot tell you what to do, and you cannot tell me what to do. That is what pro-choice is.
From what I’ve seen, pro-life is about trying to validate the “unborn child” as having more of a right to life than the woman. How can you argue that either has more of a right than the other? Since the fetus is living off of the mother, taking nutrients from her, and cannot survive without her up until about 6 months +, to say that is automatically has a right to life despite what the mother says just doesn’t make much sense to me. I also happen to think that pro-life is also about oppressing the woman and taking away her rights, but that’s not always true. That’s just what I seem to be noticing in some cases. I think abortion is such a big issue because it’s about women, and it’s about them having sex. No other issue is quite so touchy as that. I can’t understand why.
While I’m pretty agnostic on the question of abortion (I’m one of those horrible, autonomy-embracing libertarians and I can’t resolve to my own satisfaction the one person or two debate – my sole position is it was never the federal government’s business but that’s another matter entirely), the property argument seems somewhat flawed in my mind.
Basing it off of Katie’s comment:
“Pro-choice is this: women have sole ownership and legal rights over their bodies. Having said that, they also have a right to anything within their bodies, which includes an unborn fetus. Until a woman no longer has that legal ownership, you cannot tell her she has to have a child (or has to abort, for that matter). It is HER sole decision.”
To begin with, the fetus isn’t a random tumor. Excluding cases of rape, it only got there through explicit and deliberate action. It would seem to me this might lay the ground for a tacit contract between the woman and the child, an agreement to allow the use of her body as the potential cost for the pleasure of sex.
Likewise, it seems flawed to root abortion rights in property claims since the mother was not the sole contributor to the creation of the fetus. The father played an equal role in its creation and contributed an equal amount of genetic material. On this basis the child almost seems to be something of a joint venture company – a point reinforced by the fact the state compels both parents to fiscally support the child should the mother carry it to term and keep it after birth. While the mother is obviously the greater contributor of physical resources, if the claim is rooted in property the father clearly has grounds to insist on a say in the decision making process.
Like I said I’m not really for or against abortion, but it seems to me there are much stronger arguments for it and a case from property only undermines the case for abortion rights.