Having challenged pro-lifers with this ethical riddle, I'd like to now hear from pro-choicers on a particular aspect of the moral dilemma.
Let's assume that abortion is fully legal, right up until the point of birth. Would you feel morally comfortable aborting the fetus one day before the birth date? Under what circumstances?
And if you feel like that's too late in the pregnancy, where would you personally draw the line?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Let's assume that abortion is fully legal, right up until the point of birth. Would you feel morally comfortable aborting the fetus one day before the birth date?"
I don't think "comfort" has anything to do with abortion/choice.
But I'm not someone who can get pregnant, so frankly I think I should stay out of other people's private decisions altogeher.
You really think people have abortions up until the day before due date?
One other thing about this "Safe, legal, early" idea --- you'd probably have the unintended consequence that someone who might have had an abortion at 3-1/2 months buys the idea that she shouldn't but then changes her mind and has an abortion at 5 months. When she starts to show.
the point of being pro-choice is that i don't believe that i have the answers to everyone else's problems, be they moral or physical. but for me, i am staunchly pro-choice. i would "abort" the day before my due date if i discovered that i would have a very, very high chance of dying while giving birth. or if i had been raped in prison or something and i had been released the day before my due date, i dunno.
however, the question is sort of a straw man, or, dare i say, a stupid question. not one pro-choicer i know is advocating for such a thing. and if abortion was made more accessible, without laws that required 24-hour waiting periods, or laws that prohibited poor women from getting federal or state aid to get an abortion, or laws that prevent women in the military from getting abortions from military doctors even if they pay out of their own pockets (which they have to, even if raped), then late term abortions would be far more rare.
gerard:
"If the young woman can't or won't name the father and can't support the child, then I would think that taking it away would send a chill through young women and make them think twice about allowing their bodies to be treated like a McDonald's dive thru."
yeah! those sluts! they deserve whatever they get, and so do their babies, if they can't name the baby daddy. no mother who is a Slut is capable of loving her child, of course, because only Good Girls who have a certain amount of sex with a specific number of partners--whose social security numbers they memorize and can provide upon request--deserve social assistance. that'll teach them!
of course, if they were gang-raped, or the father is a family member, or a teacher, or a priest, or an authority figure, or abusive, and the mother wants nothing to do with him, or does not want to pit elements of her family against each other or what have you, then she DESERVES to lose the baby.
no wonder so many women choose abortion. to be a single, young mother, or a single mother of any age, is to be Judged by people like Gerard. Too old? why didn't you get your act together? too young? SLUT. don't know the baby daddy? SLUT. do know the baby daddy but decided ultimately not to be with him or have anything to do with him because he is a jerk? slut with Bad Judgment who Should Have Known Better.
When women who choose to become single mothers are treated as though they are worhty of respect, and when single motherhood doesn't de facto disqualify women from a middle-class life or higher education, maybe less women will seek abortions. until then, with people like Gerard judging them and the system dooming them to poverty, abortion is the most sensible choice.
You ask a valid question. I see some good ideas so our culture can begin to think about balancing the rights of women with the rights of a developing child, the rights of the individual with the demands of cultural/religious ethics, the responsibilities of a parent with the obligations of society.
I am certain we will never reach a consensus on any of these as long as we cling to absolutes. I am equally certain we will never be willing to do what is necessary to balance these questions. We will always choose half-hearted measures, half-baked policies, & worn-out misty theologies (from MEN who neither sustain committed a FAMILY partnership with all the endless negotiations a good relationship requires NOR the awesome unrequited responsibilities of parenthood) that apply band aids rather than real solutions.
Furthermore in my crankiness, I really think men, when talking about women's reproductive experiences, should never be allowed to split hairs endlessly about women's reproductive experiences. Instead men should talk endlessly about supporting the development of inexpensive, effective methods for men to control their sperm's fertility. Why isn't this subject included in discussions about abortion? SOME PROMISING METHODS ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT BUT DRUG COMPANIES LACK SUFFICIENT PROFIT MOTIVE TO RESEARCH, TEST & MARKET THEM.
But, just for fun, let's also have some moral questions for "pro-lifers": "Let's assume you win the legal battle and abortion is fully criminalized up to the first second of conception:
1) How would you fell about a threat to the womb's (er, we mean, um, mother's) life? Would you permit an abortion to save her life? If the child's development is defective so that s/he will not survive, would you permit an abortion to save the mother's health?
2) How would you feel about paying more taxes to guarantee the child is born into a family able to provide everything (emotionally, financially, spiritually) to ensure that child's absolute right to a decent environment for his or normal development? TIHS WOULD REQUIRE A DRASTIC REORDERING OF AMERICAL SOCIETY, INCLUDING ECONIMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE ANTITHETICAL OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM: HOW WOULD YOU ACCOMPLISH THIS AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WILL YOU BE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT?
3) How would you feel about extending the "right to life" to ALL humanity, including victims of war? Would you be willing to extend all your resources to peacemaking? Would you be willing to divert taxes from war hardware to humanitarian efforts that ELIMINATE much of the causes of war? Would you commit your government to justice in all its dealings?
4) How do you feel about extending the "right to life" to all humanity, threatened by overpopulation and global warming? HOW will you change YOUR lifestyle to ensure millions (billions?) of fellow (born) humans will not become refugees, die from the impending lack adequate food or water, hereby helping life on earth avoid the dreadful consequences of drought and mass starvation?
5) Similarly, Would you extend the "right to life" to ALL life on earth, threatened by global warming & mass extinctions, from human over-development, overpopulation, habitat destruction, and environmental devastation? What will YOU do to ensure your children's children do not endure a world full of suffering, without even the songbirds for comfort?
Well, whatever, just asking.
If we're going to be absolute about life (and not merely controlling women's reproduction), let's do it right.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.