Abortion debate is hitting social media hard as Alabama bans the procedure. I've already talked too much about my views in piecemeal on Twitter, so I guess I should just spell them out here and point people to it. Note that I am not trying to insult anyone by simply stating my views.
In general:
- I take a moderate stance on abortion. I call myself "pro-choice", but this is in response to the complete bans that pro-lifers are trying to pass.
- Some cases of abortion are necessary, and some are not. Some cases should be always be allowed, and some should always be banned.
- Abortions for medical issues (such as ectopic pregnancies) should always be allowed.
- There's always a point in a pregnancy where it is so early that terminating a pregnancy should present no issue. A cluster of cells that cannot be seen with the naked eye is only a blueprint, not a person. This should be plainly obvious.
- There's always a point in a pregnancy where it's too late to have an abortion. The day before giving birth? Five minutes? I don't have an exact timeline, but a point of no return exists. This should also be plainly obvious.
The main argument from pro-life Christians is that one has a soul from the moment of conception, and so life should not be ended from that point on. (I've heard there are non-religious arguments against abortion, but there aren't many people with that view, so it's not anything I wish to cover.) "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." (Jeremiah 1:5) Of course, I could be pedantic and say that the verse says before you were in the womb, so this means that birth control is against God's will as well and should never be used, right? I know there are some anti-abortionists (Catholics) that think this way. But for the most part, birth control does not come up in these conversations. SO my question to the Jeremiah-quoting anti-abortionists is: why do you not protest against birth control just as fervently?
There is a difference between the timeline of imbuing of a soul of the unborn in Jewish Law (at birth) and right wing Christianity (at conception). As someone said on Twitter, there's no mention of unborn children in the New Testament, so Old Testament views are pretty much all we have. I'm no biblical scholar, but it seems that the biblical case for the unborn is not cut and dried. Of course, there are Americans whose views are non-biblical. Secular people and people of many and varying faiths exist in America, and they all have a say in the debate. Some do not believe in souls of any sort. Some believe that contraceptives thwart God's will and that your "quiver should be full". In the end, these are all positions from various sects of religious faith, and they have been at each other's throats for at least centuries. You think it is clear that your particular opinion of this issue is the right one? Because this is not a religion vs. secularism fight. Not by a long shot.
Scientifically, it's a lot easier. It seems pretty fair to say that there can be a pretty set point as to when an abortion would start to cause suffering for the fetus: when the nervous system is developed. When it starts to feel pain. Science doesn't really say that that should be the point at which abortions should end, because science is not a morality system. But it seems as fair of a place as any, from a scientific standpoint, to state the facts and let your personal sense of morality start making decisions. Depending on who is measuring, this occurs at about 5 to 6 months into the pregnancy.
So what about late term abortions of normal pregnancies? At this point, the baby can feel pain, there are no extenuating circumstances, the woman just wants to not be pregnant. I feel as if these types of abortions should be actively discouraged. The one issue with this, coincidentally brought up by my 100% pro-choice wife, is that if a woman doesn't know she's pregnant yet, there should be a time of grace. This discussion came up during a talk when we were discussing Heartbeat Bills. Like the Wikipedia article says, Heartbeat Bills are "a de facto blanket ban on abortions in the majority of cases". I agree that Heartbeat Bills should not be law, but like I mentioned above, there should be a set time during a non-problematic pregnancy where abortions should no longer be allowed. I believe that this statement, as non-committal as it is, is something everyone could agree on, even if the length of time mentioned is five minutes, 24 hours, one week perhaps? I can't commit to where that point in time would be, but perhaps there is a cogent argument that could slide the timeline forward or backward.
Note that I haven't said anything about other issues: rape, poverty, inheritable conditions. This is because I feel that the positions I have about the age of the unborn supersedes the importance of these conditions. It seems counter-intuitive. Of course a woman should have the right to abort a pregnancy caused by rape, right? With my hypothetical timeline, it would be assured before the unborn would suffer for it. When it is too late to have an abortion (whenever that is), it is too late for every case (except for the cases where it is always justified, as I mentioned earlier). In any of these cases, there has been plenty of time for the woman to discover she is pregnant and get an abortion. I know this dodges the issue somewhat. Whether these issues alone are sufficient to justify abortion are not fully formed in my mind. Rape? Mostly yes. Poverty? Mostly no. But there are caveats to everything.
Let's face it, abortion is a difficult decision to make. No one should traipse into an abortion clinic and do a little happy dance that she gets to scrape her womb like its some sort of business as usual. The whole point of the joke of that one Bojack Horseman song is that the act is portrayed to be so crass and unthinking. But the people fighting this battle are not monsters. Each side vilifies the other. Each side hyperbolizes the issue. And yes, there are probably some sociopathic women who would get abortion without any thought of the unborn, but laws about abortion should be well-reasoned and explained with empathy. I've come at this view with much thought and prayer. If only our citizens and politicians would do the same!
My thoughts on My body, my choice: it's a catchy slogan, but the basis of the pro-life side is that it's also the body of the unborn as well, and that the seeming loss of autonomy of her body is because of the growing autonomy of the unborn's body. The whole debate hinges upon this question: when on the pregnancy timeline does the unborn start to matter? This is the question that 100% pro-choicers need to answer. The slogan of "my body, my choice" implies that it never matters up until the moment of birth. I don't agree with that implication, but it makes for a great catchphrase against those wish to ban abortion outright. I don't really take issue to the slogan or the 100 per cent types, if only to consolidate against the position that I find more wrong: complete anti-abortion.
My thoughts on No uterus, no opinion: There's a point in there about the misogyny of the existing institutions, but I feel that it is a bit of mixed causes combining together. The Alabama law was signed by sexist white men. They made the wrong choice. This institutionalized sexism needs to be fixed, true. However, a man can, in theory, govern over women's issues assuming he is well-informed, listens to the will of the people, and his decisions are not shaped by sexism. To not allow this is to ban all male politicians! The pendulum would swing too far in the other direction. Remember, Alabama's governor is a woman. Governor Kay Ivey signed the anti-abortion bill into law, so this is obvious not a case of women always being right and men always being wrong.
My thoughts on female oppression: I know there's an undercurrent of sentiment in the greater culture about a woman's autonomy. Abortion is linked to that. But I also feel that unlike suffrage, birth control, #MeToo, etc, abortion deals with other "people". Sooner or later, the unborn's rights come into conflict with the woman's rights. This doesn't happen in any other women's rights issue.
My thoughts on "slippery slopes": Late term abortion bans can lead to full bans. State bans can lead to federal bans. This is the truth. It's very difficult for me to advocate these positions, since the political opponents use one bill to raise support for the next. Of course this is not a perfect world. I think I would side with the pro-choice side in this case, due to the bait and switch nature of right wing politics nowadays.
No comments:
Post a Comment