I want to start with the pro-life stance. This stance may or may not include the belief/argument that all abortions should be illegal. Or it may include the belief/argument that abortions should be illegal after a certain point (first trimester? fetal viability?) or that they should only be legal under certain circumstances like risks to health of the mother, fetal incompatibility with life, or extreme circumstances of conception--i.e., rape or incest. (Those three possibilities are listed in the handbook of my church as the three church-sanctioned reasons for seeking an abortion, with the caveat that every situation differs and abortion should never be the default option for church members.) https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion
Other views that I feel like can conceivably fall into the pro-life camp could include the notion that abortion rights should be left to the states, and/or that only private clinics should provide abortions--i.e., not Planned Parenthood or any clinic that receives taxpayer funding.
Here are some specific pro-life thoughts/arguments as I understand them. By listing these here I am not saying that I believe they are correct or right, although I do agree with some (not all).
I'm using the word "fetus" with both pro-life and pro-choice arguments, although pro-life arguments sometimes prefer "baby," and most pregnant women I know who are not contemplating abortion, including myself whenever I was pregnant, call their fetus "the baby," not "the fetus." You might argue that I'm letting myself off the hook too easily and that I should look the gritty details of abortion in the eyes. You might be right.
-From a purely philosophical standpoint (leaving religion out of it), if a fetus is a person, then the practice of abortion threatens the first of the famous trifecta of "inalienable rights" granted to all American people: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
-The above-mentioned gift of life has been bestowed on all humans specifically by God and, irrespective of any laws, cannot rightfully be taken away from an innocent person by man (or woman).
-Late-term or partial-birth abortion, which requires dismantling a fetus's body, is tantamount to murder, even more so than drug-induced abortion, which is possible during the first trimester.
-Adoption is a valid option for mothers who do not wish to or cannot raise a child. Couples or single women suffering from infertility or who otherwise want to open their home are in every city and town.
-Abortion may be a valid option as long as the mother consents to an ultrasound and counseling prior to the abortion, and/or burial services for the fetus's remains after the abortion.
-A pregnant woman's right to a certain lifestyle does not take precedence over her fetus's right to birth and life on earth. In other words, a fetus's right not to be killed takes precedence over a pregnant woman's right not to be pregnant.
-Planned Parenthood specifically (or other state-run clinics) has been proven to use taxpayer money to fund abortions as well as wading into murky ethical waters with the disposal of fetal tissue and/or selling or donating of fetal tissue for medical research.
What am I missing? In terms of pro-life arguments. Can I just say that after many years of thought and discussion, and four pregnancies of my own, and many pregnancies of loved ones including those that ended in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death soon after birth, or that ended in preterm birth and extended NICU stays for 20-something-week little guys, I oppose abortion personally, I'm horrified by it, I cannot imagine ever choosing it for myself or wishing it on anyone. Yet when it comes to the law, I still consider myself generally pro-choice with several caveats, which I will explain in a later post. Why is that? Why am I not instead "pro-life with several caveats"? I haven't decided that yet. Maybe it's just semantics. Maybe it's a question of political identity or deeply held feminism. Maybe it's my desire to keep the state away from women's bodies. (Matt's libertarian leanings have rubbed off on me when it comes to how I parent as well as my own medical decisions.) Maybe there's a piece I'm missing.
I accept some pro-life and some pro-choice arguments as being completely valid. I'm also interested in learning about stances I might not agree with or may not have thought about.
So I'm hoping that the comments on this post (if anyone even comments here, which it's very possible that no one will do! #crickets) will only be examining, or contributing to, pro-life arguments--not rebutting or refuting them. These could be arguments that you make yourself, or that you've heard other people make, but they're arguments that support pro-life. That's why I am trying to write separate posts for the different sides, so that I really think about each stance instead of reacting to it. Sorry if that's a bit English-teacher-y. It's really an exercise for myself, and you're welcome to join in if you'd like.
6 comments:
I used to feel like pro-life was the ONLY choice. The older I get, though, I am loathe to say anything is an ONLY choice - life is never that simple. I am not in favor of abortion - but I'm also not in favor of men especially telling women what they must do. I cannot imagine myself ever consenting to an abortion - but I can visualize someone with a very different background seeing it as the only choice.
It is very complex.
I am looking forward to your blog posts on this topic. Abortion is such a complicated subject, especially in the United States and especially within the Mormon community. Like Barbara, my views have changed as I've gotten older and understood that life is so nuanced. I just outed myself on facebook as an abortion supporter. That's probably going to cause some friction. But I don't care anymore. We have to speak up for what we believe in. Women should be able to choose what happens to their bodies. A group of old white men do not get to make that choice for them. Abortions in the US have gone down because of increased access to family planning and birth control. That is the route we need to go. We cannot pretend to understand another's decision when put in an impossible situation.
So what arguments do you all agree with? I am curious. I know that some pro-life people read this blog. (Although maybe not every day. Haha.)
One pro-life argument I just read from my friend Michelle on FB yesterday (which I realize not all pro-life people endorse) was that pregnancy is a natural biological consequence of sex, and if a woman did choose to have sex (particularly without protection) then that was the relevant "choice" in the situation. I actually happen to agree with that argument, at least in theory. She also highlighted the inherent (apparent) racism of Planned Parenthood attempting to curb pregnancies from poor minorities. Interesting, no? I mean supporters of Planned Parenthood might agree that that happens but that it's compassionate rather than racist. But it's a point worth considering.
Another argument I think is completely valid is that palliative care at the end of life is very similar to the situation of a fetus who has not reached viability. Just because a person (assuming a fetus is a person) needs assistance to breathe does not mean that his or her life is not valid. Of course that opens up to the debate over euthanasia, which is another fraught question that I'm very interested in.
I don't think anyone wants to have an abortion, but it should still be an option for those that can't handle child birth and/or raising a child. It shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and I would like to think that once someone has one, they take measures to never be in that situation again. That's why it is so important that we have easy access to birth control and a solid sex education program in schools, if not at home.
I'm going to refrain from any comment on this topic except to say (me being me) that there's never been any evidence found, that I'm aware of, that Planned Parenthood has ever sold fetal tissue. Honestly my biggest issue with the pro-life movement is how they often paint abortion providers as evil, profit-driven scum, when in reality most abortion providers are doing a very difficult (and often dangerous) job out of compassion and love, even if their actions appear misguided to people who believe in a different set of moral standards and rights. So just want to defend Planned Parenthood a little bit by correcting the record here.
Also, re: Margaret Sanger and the supposed racism of Planned Parenthood, the fact is that good primary care, including preventive reproductive health care, is systemically more difficult to access for minority communities, so the possibly disproportionate use of Planned Parenthood services by minority communities (I haven't found reliable numbers to this effect, but just assuming) may reflect that. Nothing to do with compassion, more with epidemiology and health care access!! This is an interesting article on the topic, and the only one I could find that was written by a news source I trust for good reporting: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population
Post a Comment