(Note: This post originally appeared on a different blog of mine.)
I feel so fortunate to have so many friends and family members with diverse worldviews and opinions. We all make the world go 'round, and together come up with answers and solutions to make this world we call home a better place. My circles include fellow atheists, but also Christians, Muslims, New Agers, and Hindus; fellow Democrats but also Republicans and libertarians; fellow liberals, but also conservatives. I hang with vegans, hipsters, vagabonds, homeschoolers, and others who may or may not agree with my own personal opinions and worldviews. And I love sharing ideas with everyone, and hearing ideas in return -- it's the only way we come to honest understandings of the world around us and, most importantly, of ourselves and why we live the lives we do. I love debating, and passionately so, sharing the knowledge I've acquired through the years and, again, coming to new understandings about others in the process.
There is one issue, however, that is hotly debated and highly controversial in our current society, which I deem to be not debatable. Abortion is one of the hottest "hot button" topics in modern political discourse. The anti-choice stance (or "pro-life," if you prefer), though, is one that I do not simply disagree with -- I find it to be one of the most offensive I've ever encountered, and I do not believe that the legality of abortion is a topic that should be up for debate. Let me explain why.
I know that, at first, this might seem like a really strange stance to take. After all, what is so offensive and distasteful about wanting to save babies' lives? This is how many people view the issue -- as one of life versus death -- and it's created a rhetoric in our country involving a "culture of life" versus a "culture of death." Who wouldn't want to align themselves with a "culture of life," right?
It's not that I don't understand these views. I have many friends and family who consider themselves to be pro-life, and are vehemently against the idea of abortion. Some of them have had an abortion themselves, and sincerely regret it. Others cannot stand the thought of "innocent" life, as it's been labeled, being snuffed out before it's had a chance to really begin. I've heard these arguments over and over again, but the issue goes much deeper.
Let me first say that this issue, for me, is all about legality. I think that we could likely argue for and against the morality and ethics of abortion all day long, but that's not what this is about -- it's about legality, and the reason it's about legality is because there are very aggressive movements in our country that are actively working to either make abortion illegal, or else completely unattainable. That is what matters to me. That is what I'm concerned about. And it's what I want those who call themselves pro-life to truly consider. This question is not necessarily whether a person feels that abortion is right or wrong, however they choose to define those terms. It's about whether access to abortion should be legal to all women -- or not.
I'll start by saying that we do not make laws in our country based on one set of morals. "Morality" should never be the deciding factor in whether something is legal or illegal. The legality of something should based on the ways in which we can best protect individual freedoms while still existing within the same society. It's illegal to murder, for example, not because it's immoral, but because that act infringes on a person's individual freedom and autonomy. It's illegal to steal, as another example, not because it's immoral, but because that act infringes on the seller's rights to her or his own property. When something poses a threat to society or others within it marks the time when it should become illegal. That's not to say that there aren't some laws pushed through that are based on someone's moral stances, but that isn't how it should be in a free society. Such laws infringe on the rights of others who don't agree with said stances (and this is truly a threat to the notions of freedom, freedom of thought, and religious freedom).
That being said, the right to abortion is about a woman's right to ownership over her own body. It's about her right to allow or not allow someone else to live inside of it and grow. It's about her right to allow or deny an embryo or fetus the use of her bodily resources.
It's about her right to evict an unwanted tenant within her body. And any argument that claims she does not have these rights rests on the assumption that her body does not fully belong to her, but rather to the state (or to a developing fetus), and that the state has a right to allow other people full access to her body whether she wants that to happen or not. Let me restate that: anti-choice arguments rest on the notion that women's bodies do not belong to them, and can be commandeered for the sake of others.
This is why I find these arguments so offensive. They assume that I am not fully deserving of complete human rights. (I know you have objections and questions. I will get to them -- I promise.)
I cannot place enough emphasis on just how much individual freedom is dependent on each individual's right to bodily autonomy. Let me make clear that bodily autonomy doesn't refer to a right to do whatever we want, at any time, with our bodies -- it simply refers to the right to be the sole owners of our bodies and prevent others from using them. Bodily autonomy is the reason why we are not forced into blood donation, even though an increase in such donations would save many lives. It's why we're not forced to donate organs, even though a great many people will die without them -- and even though these organs will otherwise rot in the ground and serve no other purpose after we die. It's because of the underlying understanding that our bodies belong to us and no one else, even when other lives hang in the balance. We do not even force prisoners, and others removed from society, to donate their bodies to science. Our appreciation for bodily autonomy and its necessity for full freedom, prevents it.
So to say that a woman, by law, must allow an embryo or fetus to use her body against her will is stripping her of her bodily autonomy and full rights under the law.
I know that some people will object to this by stating that a woman placed herself in this situation by having sex, as though consensual sex somehow equates to actively giving up her rights to her body. This argument states that a woman chose to have sex, and therefore must "take responsibility" for whatever consequence might come of it. This is, actually, the most common argument used against the bodily rights argument for abortion.
Let me state, though, that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy, and a woman should never be required to forfeit her rights to autonomy simply for choosing sex. Women's rights to their bodies should never be questioned because they chose to have sex. There is no other comparable application of law in which we strip someone of their bodily rights simply because they made a choice that placed someone else in the situation of needing their bodies. We don't say that because someone did something that left another person needing their body, they must therefore be required by law to give it. Honestly, are we as a society willing to commit to the idea that being the cause of someone else's need for our bodies should be the deciding factor in whether we are forced to allow said people to legally commandeer and use them? If we accidentally hit a pedestrian with our cars, should be we be legally required to donate any organs they may need to recover (since, after all, we knew the possible consequences of driving)?
Beyond this, the no-sex argument relies on the notion that all sex should be centered around procreation. "It's simple," some people will say. "If you don't want to be pregnant, or don't want kids, then don't have sex. It's not like we don't know where babies come from." I've heard this so many times I've lost count of the exact tally. But, again, it assumes that all sex should be about, or at least "open to," procreation. Understand that this is a very naive and inexperienced view of sex. We have evolved to use sex for many purposes, procreation being only one of them.
As humans, we use sex to bond with those we love. We use it as an expression of love, and a way in which to give ourselves to those we care deeply about. It is an expression of trust, of affection, and is one of the closest ways in which we develop connections with our significant others. To say that all sex should be about procreation means that many people -- including those who don't want kids, can't have kids, or have health issues that bar them from healthy pregnancies -- should never consummate their marriages, and never experience the intense bonding described above. They should simply abstain for life, I suppose. Birth control is a wonderful solution for many couples, but is not foolproof (and, unfortunately, somewhat difficult to obtain for some couples because of active attempts to make it unattainable by, you guessed it, the anti-choice crowd).
And, yes, sex feels good. It's fun. But to claim that sex for pleasure's sake is immoral is like claiming that eating for pleasure is immoral. Sex certainly has a biological drive and purpose, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it for other purposes. The drive behind, and purpose of, eating is to nourish our bodies. But that doesn't stop us from eating, even if we're not hungry, a piece of cake, a cookie, or something else with absolutely no nutritional value. It doesn't stop us from bonding with others over meals, or using food to appreciate and understand culture. And if we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of becoming ill because of these pleasures, we as a society certainly don't say, "Well, too bad -- you knew the consequences when you ate, and now need to stay ill as penance." There are viable medical options to assist people in recovering from eating-induced illness. And the same should be true of pregnancy. (And if you're arguing in your head about "another life" hanging in the balance with pregnancy, remember that, first and foremost, we're speaking here about people's rights to treat their own bodies if and when they need to.)
Further, the "just don't have sex" argument assumes that all women who become pregnant choose sex. There are, however, many who are raped and did not consent to the sexual encounter that left them pregnant. In this situation, a woman did not "know what she was doing" in the act of becoming pregnant. However, where the argument goes from here on out becomes very interesting, and I'll tell you why. If your argument is "just don't have sex," but you agree that women who are raped should be able to access an abortion, then your argument has nothing to do with being "pro-life" or "pro-baby." An embryo or fetus that results from rape is no less human, and no less of a potential baby, than one that results from consensual sex. That's just how biology works. The argument, then, has become a crystal clear advocacy campaign for punishing sexually active women by stripping them of bodily rights. If you honestly believe that a woman who chooses sex should be banned from an abortion, but a woman who was raped should be allowed an abortion, your argument is simply anti-sex. It's not pro-baby. Understand that.
If, however, your argument is that abortion should always be illegal, regardless of if the woman was raped or not, then recognize that your argument isn't really about "personal responsibility," and I really question why the "just don't have sex" argument would be used at all. Further, believing that all abortions should be illegal (usually because one doesn't believe in "punishing the baby" for a crime it didn't commit) is advocating that women should be slaves to their biology for, again, the sake of another. Regardless of her dreams, her goals, her life, and the world she has created for and within herself, if you believe that her body should always be, first and foremost, available to a fetus if it needs it, then you are arguing that women's bodies aren't fully theirs. You are arguing that women's bodies are government property. One rape can change the course of a young woman's entire life if she is forced to keep the resulting pregnancy.
If you don't agree with either of the above scenarios, then please reconsider using the "just don't have sex" argument.
Perhaps, though, you consider pregnancy to be a minor inconvenience that women should have to endure for the sake of another life. Perhaps you believe that abortion should be available, but only if the mother's life is in danger. I've heard many people say that saving both lives is the best option, but if both are going to die, then an abortion to save the mother is acceptable. Maybe you are someone who agrees. The problem, however, with this line of reasoning is health is such a spectrum of gray areas that nobody is truly qualified to decide when a woman's life is truly in enough danger to justify an abortion. I'm sure many of you remember Savita Halappanavar, who, while visiting the anti-choice country of Ireland during a wanted pregnancy, died because the doctors were not sure if her life was really in danger, and feared legal repercussions of performing an abortion if it was not. She is dead now, despite the fact that she pleaded for an abortion to save her own life when her pregnancy went wrong.
Aside from this, I want to point out that it is dehumanizing to suggest that the only thing of value about a woman that is worth saving is her very life. In a recent debate about abortion between Matt Dillahunty and Clinton Wilcox, the latter claimed that a woman should have to carry a pregnancy even if she would be harmed to the point of having to be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. In his opinion, life -- physical existence -- is the single most important thing, and the only thing worth considering when determining if a woman should be allowed access to abortion. Everything else -- her love of exercise, perhaps, or hot fudge sundaes; her busy life full of travel and business meetings that require good health; her dreams of becoming a world-class gymnast, or musical theater performer, or her ambition to swim the English channel, or to simply live a long, fulfilling life doing what she loves -- all becomes secondary and not worth anything. To suggest that all of it is worth sacrificing in order to protect the life inside of her is, again, dehumanizing. It suggests that women are not people with real experiences, dreams, and lives outside of the capacity to become and remain pregnant.
I want to point out, too, that pregnancy is not a mere "inconvenience." It is a life-changing, body-altering commitment. I know, as I happen to have endured and completed a pregnancy. Some women have fantastic pregnancies, and that's great for them -- but the fact is that many women do not, and the state of pregnancy is life-threatening for all women. Some people don't honestly understand what happens within a woman's body when she becomes pregnant, but, in short, the fertilized egg commandeers her body and resources, at her expense, and creates a parasitic relationship (I know that's tough for some to think about, but it's true). The biological process literally becomes a fight for resources. It sometimes results (as it did with me) in serious medical complications and illnesses, some of which are irreversible. These things should be a woman's choice to endure, or not.
A woman's rights rest on her right to bodily autonomy. But what, you may ask, about the baby's rights? Some people are pushing for personhood rights to be granted to all fetuses, and, in some cases, even to fertilized eggs. But honestly, precisely because of the bodily rights that we respect in most cases, no person has a "right" to use someone else's body in order to sustain their own survival. This is not a real human right. I cannot force my own parents to donate a body part, even if I will otherwise die. You cannot do this, either. Nobody can. So to grant fetuses this right is to give them not personhood rights, but special rights not granted to other humans. And this special right is at the expense of another living, breathing human being. In what way is this justifiable?
As a hypothetical, let's pretend that you're driving your toddler to a birthday party. You have taken all necessary precautions, including wearing seat belts and following the posted speed limits. But something goes wrong and, despite your good intentions, you wind up in a severe car accident. You black out, but when you wake up you find that you have been manually connected to your toddler. You did not consent to this, but he needs you to remain connected to access your blood and resources, otherwise he will die. As his parent, and as someone who knew the possible consequences of driving a car with a child -- and also knew the possible consequences of having a child that might need your body -- should you have the legal right to disconnect?
I'm not asking whether you would or wouldn't, or whether it would be moral or immoral for you to disconnect ... I'm only asking whether you should be legally allowed to. Honestly try to picture the scenario for just a moment. Maybe you have a big, life-changing job interview coming up. Maybe you had a lucrative performance scheduled. But your own feelings, happiness, health, and experience are not a factor here. There are hoards of people who are actively and aggressively trying to make sure that you do not have a right to disconnect. Because the other life that hangs in the balance means more. Because you drove a car, knowing in advance what could possibly happen. Your life and your body are no longer your own.
Imagine the feeling of the government deciding for you what happens to your body, and you have no say.
Really put yourself in that situation. And honestly tell me that the notion that your legal right to disconnect wouldn't mean something to you. Tell me that you would not feel dehumanized, and tell me that other people's noses in your personal medical business would not offend you.
As parents, are we required to seek out all medical care available for our injured children? Of course we are. This might involve lots of time and money, and it's required of all parents (men and women alike). But what we're never required to do is offer up any part of our bodies in order to save our children's lives. The difference between the requirement to provide medical care through time and money and the requirement to provide medical care through our very bodies is the differentiation between property rights and bodily rights. They are very different things. Every parent is required to care for their children, but I challenge you to find one (except for pregnant women) who have been required by law to donate their bodies in order to save their child's life (or, I can save you time right now by telling you that you won't find it). Again, our understanding of property rights and bodily rights differs very much, and are therefore not comparable.
The above example (regarding the child in the car) is an updated example of Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy (which I highly recommend to anyone who is unfamiliar with modern pro-choice arguments, or unfamiliar with the bodily rights argument). I've updated it to be more applicable to the abortion question -- changing the violinist, for example, to a child, and the "hooked up" person to a parent. The reason I did this is because I think it addresses a fundamental question: If we, as women, are bodily responsible for our offspring because we chose to have sex, then why aren't all people bodily responsible for their offspring after pregnancy ends? If we "knew what we were doing" when we had sex and got pregnant, surely we also "knew what we were doing" when we "created" a child that might need our bodies somewhere down the line. If a fetus has a "right" to use its mother's body to survive pregnancy, then why does it lose this "right" upon birth? Why aren't all parents required to be bodily responsible for children who will otherwise die?
I've heard people respond to this using the naturalistic fallacy, claiming that pregnancy is a "natural" state (natural meaning "good," I suppose), and abortion is the deliberate act of stopping it. Not saving an already-born child, they argue, is different because allowing that child to die is also "natural," not a deliberate act of taking a life. This, however, is honestly a battle of semantics -- whether we choose to view abortion as "murder" or as the simple termination of a pregnancy ... which naturally, mind you, results in the death of the fetus. Abortion, see, is the removal of a pregnancy from a woman's body. It's unfortunate that the fetuses (or embryos) in question cannot survive after being removed, but the removal itself is the termination of the pregnant state, not "active murder." Knowing that the fetus will die due to this event isn't all that different from knowing that your child will die without that blood transfusion that you may or may not want to give (and whether or not you would isn't the question here -- it's your legal right to say yes or no when faced with the situation).
Being pro-choice isn't about hating pregnancy, babies, or about loving death. Honestly, listening to some in the anti-choice crowd, you'd think we were chomping at the bit to see more and more pregnancies aborted. It's not about that. We celebrate pregnancies and births, and love that men and women can create happy families through babies that they love. We enjoy these things as much as anyone else. But we believe that pregnancy needs to be a woman's choice, lest she be deprived of her human rights to her own body.
This is about consent. Consent to carry a pregnancy is everything, and a game changer. But to say that a woman's consent should not be considered in what happens within her own body is one of the most dehumanizing and degrading notions that modern women face.
I am a woman. My body is my own. My uterus belongs to me. And your body belongs to you. And this understanding is foundational to personal freedom. If you are a person who values freedom, particularly freedom from government intrusion, but do not believe that a woman's body fully belongs to her, then I challenge you to ask yourself why. Everybody should enjoy the same freedoms, and nobody should be forced to be a slave to their own biology.
Where do your objections come from? Is it about babies? Is it about sex? Is it about women? Morality and ethics aside, what justifiable reason do you have as to why all women should be legally barred from full bodily autonomy? Regardless of your own views on what constitutes a selfish act and what is probably good for you, personally, why is it justifiable to deny bodily rights to every woman out there?
As you ponder these things, be careful with your answers. Remember that the implications are not only the innocent babies you've been hearing about, but also real women who should have the same rights to their bodies as everyone else. It really isn't too much to ask.
This is why I don't believe abortion is truly debatable. My human, bodily rights are not up for debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment