This has been floating around the feminist blogosphere and is by no means new. The argument goes thusly: some people think that abortion should be illegal; what, then, do they propose the punishment for breaking the law be? Tellingly, the answer is often “counseling” or “prayer” for the woman but loss of license or jail time for the doctor. This underscores the fact that one of the major reasons that antiabortion activists think abortion should be illegal is that pregnant women (and possibly also non-pregnant pre-pregnant women) are incapable of being trusted with their own medical care.
If aborting a pregnancy is akin to murdering a child, the punishment for both should be similar. Perhaps counseling is indeed called for, but surely there must also be a need for imprisonment (if not capital punishment). Prayer as punishment (while it may indeed be punishing to sit through a prayer service) may readily be laughed at and dismissed. I’d like to see the state that enacts a law for which punishment is prayer.
If, however, the punishment for murdering someone is too strong for the crime of obtaining an abortion, it must be admitted that either the fetus is not the same as a breathing child or the woman is not capable of decision making.
If the former, the argument falls apart: terminating a fetus is not the same as killing a person. If the latter, we need to delve into why she is incapable of making her own choices. Hormones could indeed be a factor, but allowing pregnant women to get away with crimes is a dangerous road to go down. Perhaps she does not have appropriate solutions available to her. We should ensure that all women people have access to appropriate medical care, including contraceptives and education. Alternatives, including adoption, mandatory infant health insurance, pregnancy leave, and other such “socialist” solutions need to be fully explored on a nation-wide scale. If women are truly to be able to make the choice between abortion and carrying a pregnancy to term, having a child should not be a punishment. There are too many children in poverty, too many parents working more than one job to support their families, and too little attention paid to the crisis of health insurance in this country.
Let us assume, then, that our hypothetical pregnant woman had full access to education about preventing pregnancy and full access to health care to help her in that end. Let us further assume that she is well-off: she is able to support a child financially; she is able to take time off her job for bonding, breast feeding, and recovery; she has health insurance that will cover her during the pregnancy and her child after it is born; she has a caring doctor who openly discusses all her options with her and gives her an arena in which she feels safe to make whatever choice she desires. If this woman chooses abortion, how can she be said not to be capable of coming to the correct choice (that being, of course, to bring the pregnancy to term)?
Here is the rub of the conservative argument against abortion. She cannot make that choice because that is a choice that no one who is fully aware of what is going on can make. This is the classic choice about why some people who turn away from religion or don’t believe in the right religion may not be going to hell: they didn’t truly understand what they were giving up. If they did, they would not have been able to give it up. Similarly, any woman who chooses abortion should only have to suffer the prayers and self-righteous pity of the antichoicers as punishment for her crime. She has already suffered so much (by undergoing a surgical procedure) that she ought not be expected to take on more punishment. She knew not what she did. She will be forgiven, but never allowed to forget.
And this is where I must call “bullshit”. Treat women like adults. Better, treat them like adult men, since we clearly suffer from permanent hysteria. Accept that we are able to make choices when we are given adequate information. Accept that we are able to conduct our lives according to our own ethics, principles, morals, and religions. Accept that we may not all want to be mothers; or that some of us simply don’t want to be mothers right now. Accept that we are living, breathing humans with minds of our own, bodies that belong to no one but us, and desires that may not include a pregnancy at this time. In short, treat us as you would wish to be treated.
If you want to make abortion illegal, fine. I’ll fight you tooth and nail to keep you from winning, but as long as you have a cogent argument and are strong enough in your position to tell me exactly what punishment you want to propose for this new crime, I will at least respect you.
24 responses so far ↓
1 Elaine // Sep 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Re: the linked article from the WaPo about “pre-pregnant” women.
Why don’t they just propose locking up all women of child-bearing capabilities? Because under those guidelines, it doesn’t sound like women would be able to do much of anything so long as they are capable of becoming pregnant.
While none of the recommendations are bad things in themselves, the whole concept smacks of treating all women who can become pregnant as if that is all they can do, and as if they must take it as inevitable that they will get pregnant.
I very deliberately made a choice not to have children, and I have know since I was very young that I did not want children. I take exception to being told directly that I must behave as if I could get pregnant any second and indirectly that it is my duty to do so.
2 Kristen from MA // Sep 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Well said.
3 Rich // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:25 am
Well written arguments. It’s clear to me that conservatives who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-fetus, because the idea of forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world and then abandoning it to potential abuse, neglect, homelessness, lack of health care, whatever, demonstrates that they really don’t care about LIFE. For many it’s nothing more than punishing the woman for being “sinful” (as if having a baby is punishment!). The whole abortion argument is nothing more than pretense of caring about life, while truly ignoring life already here; a placating of conscience that already must feel guilt about ignoring the needs of the poor while screaming about paying too many taxes and resenting any kind of social programs.
If conservatives are willing to pony up the taxes to pay for medical care, housing, 3 square meals, education and counseling and placement services for mom and baby, not to mention covering the unthinkable legal expenses of trying said women, I might be inclined to listen. Obviously that will NEVER happen.
4 Chandelle // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:35 am
Excellent points. I discussed many of these same issues as well as those that Rich refers to here:
http://consciousintention.blogspot.com/2008/08/abortion-redux.html
Thanks for discussing this important topic.
5 Elaine // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:24 am
I just keep waiting for some of these, um, zealots, to propose a fine for women every time they have a cycle on the basis that they’ve wasted an egg that could have been a viable life.
Yes. You laugh. But, some of these folks’ thought processes are so out there that such a proposal from those quarters wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
As far as the idea of being pro-fetus rather than pro-life, I got into an argument with the local head of Right-to-Life around here at an open forum a few years ago on that very topic. He just didn’t get it that someone has to take care of all those babies after they’re born.
6 Cobwebs // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm
You’ve touched on one of the (many) things that drives me particularly nuts about the anti-choicers: The whole, “You’re not capable of making your own decisions, little lady, we’ll just handle all that hard thinking for you.” If you want to educate people that abortion might be hard on them physically and/or mentally, that’s fine. But the final decision needs to be *theirs*. (And as someone who’s had a baby–something that many anti-choicers can’t claim–I can tell you that carrying a baby to term is pretty effing hard physically and emotionally too.)
I read a proposal several years ago which I quite liked: Everyone who feels that abortion should be illegal signs a registry agreeing to fully financially support an unwanted child to age 18. I think it’d be instructive to see how many people were actually willing to pay for their beliefs.
7 xJane // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Elaine @1: I agree. All of the suggestions are wonderful health measures that perhaps all people should consider. But I object to all medicine that is broadly, rather than personally, focused. (Perhaps I should change it to “most” but I can’t currently think of an exception.) The fact that I’m missing a penis does not mean that I need folic acid supplements. Perhaps a doctor would prescribe folic acid supplements after examining, interviewing, and discussing options with me. But I feel that there is a vast gulf between the first situation and the second.
Kristen: thank you
Rich: “conservatives who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-fetus” this is something that occurs to me on occasion, too. While many antichoicers do enjoy their own children and grandchildren, many more are opposed to social change that would put into place infrastructure to care for the fetuses in question when they get born. (Obviously, they’re not talking about their own fetuses or the fetuses of their family—all of them would feel blessed to be inconveniently pregnant, be forced to choose between their education/career/earning power and their new child.
Chandelle: thank you for sharing your story. It’s a very personal one that brings a valuable perspective to the debate. I encourage everyone to go read it (it’s long, but worth it), as well as the article mentioned and linked to in her comments.
Elaine @5: remember the old Monty Python skit Every Sperm Is Sacred? I have also often wondered how long it would take to make the jump to every egg is sacred. (see “Masturbation is Murder”.)
Cobwebs: that’s an interesting idea, one that I quite like.
8 John // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:43 pm
xJane, thank you for bringing this up. With all of the material I’ve read on abortion, I’ve only heard this argument a couple of times before, and I think it’s a great one for pointing out the hypocrisy in those who try to equate the value of blastocyst with that of an adult human. I’ve always felt that the pro-life movement has always fundamentally been about the social control of women, their bodies and their sexuality, especially when paired with abstinence-only education.
It’s kind of like the veil over the “pro-marriage” politics, which is really just a sugar-coated euphemism for anti-gay bigotry.
9 Brian // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:04 am
Okay, go time.
In answer to the topic question of what the punishment for the WOMAN who willingly and (I’m assuming this is implied by the context) without coercion or threat, the legal charge made against her should probably be manslaughter. One could argue that this should be voluntary manslaughter, possibly as a means of “imperfect self defense”, or involuntary manslaughter, such as charged with recklessness or criminal negligence.
I think a crucial issue here (and why I would assert manslaughter instead of some degree of murder) is that the woman (I hope) honestly does not believe that the fetus is a living human being. I would say she is liable to the law because she is wrong. (I think it is the greatest shame of any society that, in its very law, dehumanizes a class of people.) Hence, in the first case, she is attempting to defend herself, her well being, her livelihood, against the threat that this fetus represents. It is an honest but (in my belief) unreasonable belief that self defense justifies this killing. In the case of charging her with negligence, she willfully took part in an act (abortion) that may or may not, to her mind, result in harm to a human being. If the law recognized a fetus as a human person, then that would be, at best, a negligent act.
Of course, in any case, the usual modifiers regarding the free exercise of will such as force, coercion, fear, or psychological state would apply. I think it would probably the hardest judgment to assign a sentence to that we would have for a while. There should probably also be some arrangement to take into account those who already have children, as well, but I am no expert and couldn’t tell you what that should be.
I had this discussion with my wife yesterday afternoon. She took a bit of a harder stance than I did, rather passionately and eloquently arguing that the only just charge is murder, and that whether or not the mother believes the fetus was a human being is irrelevant, because she would be bound to obey the law. Breaking it, she would be subject to its punishment. I’m not sure how I feel about the harshness of her argument, but I love her, and knew better than to disagree too strongly.
As an aside, the doctor wouldn’t be able to make any of the claims for leniency that the woman did. Not only should he know better the status of the fetus as a living homo sapien, he would in most cases be the actual performer of the murder itself, and in all likelihood, do so serially. To borrow from Firefly, I imagine there’s a special place in hell for them and people who talk in theaters.
I agree with xJane and others when they say that if we’re going to be consistent on valuing the lives of these children, we as a society need to pony up and help protect, nourish, and support these most vulnerable members. Increased programs for adoption, medical and financial assistance would go a long way to helping these mothers and their children. (Adoption, it seems to me, is a tricky issue, as there is a limiting resource, namely, those families willing to adopt, but while we should do our best to expand the pool, we also have to make sure to protect the children by not lowering our standards for their parents.)
Finally, just to touch on what John said about “the hypocrisy in those who try to equate the value of blastocyst with that of an adult human.” I understand what you’re trying to say, but I see no other way that doesn’t place a utilitarian value on people. If we are only as valued as our potential for production, who places the value? Is a farmer more or less valued than a sculptor? Is a healthy five year old Mozart more or less valuable than a deaf, bipolar, suicidal Beethoven? If human life is not intrinsically valuable, than we are little more than machines in a factory, to be discarded when broken and replaced with a more efficient model. I would go on and address other valuable points brought up, but I tend to run longwinded as it is, so I’ll cut it now.
10 ebrown // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:29 am
Prohibiting abortion does not end abortion: it ends medically safe abortion.
11 Mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:45 am
Very good thoughts, well done! You have taken a very tough subject and approached with a great deal of sense.
12 Brian // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Ebrown:
I would argue that it’s not very safe for the fetus either way.
13 ebrown // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I support your choice to carry each of your pregnancies to term.
14 xJane // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Brian, I was hoping that you would step in
I think your wife’s response is the best: it respects the autonomy of the actor (the formerly pregnant woman) and the (alleged) humanity of the fetus. I take exception to your argument that she just doesn’t know any better (which is how I interpret “honestly does not believe that the fetus is a living human being”). It really removes the agency of her decision from her, as if she’s simply not smart enough, not educated enough, not human enough to be thought of as having made a fully informed decision.
Your wife, on the other hand, as much as I disagree with her, is taking her argument to its logical conclusion. I wish that prolifers would advocate their full desires in this arena, instead of just the first half of it. I think more people would agree that they, too, are prochoice if they understood the whole argument.
This can be proven by the two famous examples in the news right now: Gov. Palin is very proud of the decision her daughter made and McCain responded that an unplanned pregnancy in his family would warrant a family discussion of the matter. There is a decision to be made. That implies a choice.
15 xJane // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm
(hit “Submit” too soon)
Regarding the “value on human life” argument: that is actually not the argument at all. The argument is “when does life begin”. John is not arguing that the handicapped are disposable; or that children are. He is arguing (as are, I would wager, most of us), that a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, is not a human. Claiming that prochoicers don’t value life is disingenuous and misses the whole point.
ebrown has it right: abortions have been around for almost as long as women have. They’re unlikely to go away just because they get outlawed. The only result of that outlaw will be dangerous procedures, either by unqualified persons, by persons without proper equipment, or by the woman herself (if not all of the above). I would love education and contraception to reach the point that abortion is unnecessary, but I don’t ever want to see it illegal.
16 Brian // Sep 10, 2008 at 7:08 am
xJane, thank you for your response.
By no means did I mean to belittle my wife’s response or logic. That would be dangerous. My qualms with it are more religious than logical, as it relies on the virtue of Justice, a good thing, which I feel needs to be tempered, especially in delicate situations, with compassion and mercy. Justice may say “The guilty should be punished”, while compassion may say “Some have suffered enough.”
I did not mean to assault John’s or anyone else’s respect or value for life, but to try to…illustrate my view that picking any point along the biological existence of a homo sapien organism other than conception for the beginning of human life is an artificial and (to some extent) arbitrary decision. At fertilization, a new human organism comes into existence, which immediately begins protecting its own interests (for instance, becoming impermeable to other sperm). Again, I do not doubt the respect for life or freedom on the part of pro-choice advocates. It seems to me that, on both sides of the issue, people are earnestly pursuing those values, reflected and emphasized in different ways.
To respond to ebrown’s comments, first, let me apologize. My previous response was unnecessarily flippant, and, while I defend its truth, did not contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. Nonetheless, I think it would have other effect. As I said in my original response: “I think it is the greatest shame of any society that, in its very law, dehumanizes a class of people.” It is my assertion, and one I feel is supported by biology, embryology, and genetics, that the fetus is a real, living human being, and our law does not recognize that. If the law were changed, I feel it would remove that shame, and the shame that I believe our descendants would feel about this time in our history. As to your second response: “I support your choice to carry each of your pregnancies to term.” I feel that this embraces the same error that xJane accuses many pro-lifers of, namely, focusing only on the pregnancy, to the exclusion of the rest of the child’s upbringing. In that sense, I am just as much a parent to my three children as my wife. I think the majority of women who have abortions do so not because they fear being pregnant, or going through labor and delivery, but because they feel unready to be a parent. Pregnancy is no picnic (My wife always detested those women in the books and magazines who talked about the joy and peace of pregnancy. “Joy is not a foot in my lungs at 3AM.”) but it is a fraction of the time that a parent is responsible for the child, and as such, I think it is unfair to suggest that, unless you have a uterus, your voice doesn’t count.
Finally, I am sorry if anything I said has been overzealous. Sometimes emotions do that. I feel very strongly about the issue, because I can feel how strongly it affected me. Anyway, this isn’t really relevant, so I’m cutting it out.
17 xJane // Sep 10, 2008 at 7:53 am
Brian, thank you for your participation in this forum. (I just realized I should clarify that in my response #14, the second sentence, “she just doesn’t know any better” does not refer to your wife but to the woman-who-chooses-abortion.)
I understand your desire for compassion for women post-abortion. However, I think that this should be addressed with counseling (before & after) and support, not with “she’s suffered enough”. While it may well be an invasive procedure, not all women experience abortion as punishment (nor as a freeing experience: there is a spectrum). I just came across this wonderful article about one woman’s experience of abortion in Israel. Particularly this:
I think that issuing birth certificates for stillborn children is a slippery slope, but acknowledgement goes a long way.
Regarding “when life begins”, I’m not about to speak for anyone else or claim to be an authority, but it is my understanding that the concept of “quickening” has been a means of determining that for some time, and I am perfectly happy with that.
We all feel very strongly about this issue and need to be careful not to offend or be overly offended by this discussion. My thanks to all who have participated (and our veteran lurkers).
18 xJane // Sep 10, 2008 at 10:10 am
also, Biden’s response [to the question of when life begins] & the Bishops’ response to it are interesting and, I believe, valuable inputs to this discussion.
19 EBrown // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Biden’s response is awesome. He has his personal beliefs but doesn’t believe he has the right to make another bear the brunt of them.
20 Brian // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Indeed, I agree that both responses are enlightening. Of course, I would tend to agree with the bishops’ response that the issue is twofold, neither aspect of which is a personal belief or an especially religious question. First, as they put it, a biological question: when does human life begin; second, a moral/legal question, “Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights…?”
Anyway, I’ll refrain from further response, as we’re starting to veer off topic of “What should the punishment be?” I just figured wanted to put in the bishop’s response that xJane mentioned above (awkwardly, as I don’t have the time to make the link neat) and summarize.
NOTE: I made the link neat.
-xJane
21 xJane // Sep 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm
It is off topic, but may deserve debate anyway. Regarding the start of human life, the bishops’ indication that it is “accepted biological fact” that it is at conception is contrary to what many biologists think (certainly, I was taught by a biologist who thought differently). Even their support of that position indicates that biologists agree that development of a human embryo begins at conception. And it may be a point of biological, theological, or philosophical debate about whether or not that is “human life” for the purposes of conferring rights.
To the second question about rights: I think we should back up and decide what “fundamental human rights” are. Similarly to “animal rights”, if we define rights as including things I take for granted but hold dear (the right to vote, the right to free speech), it would be absurd to attempt to attribute those to an animal or a fetus (or even a small child). And if the issue is simply “right to life” this is not a merely human right at all—it is often applied to animals as well. It might also require a discussion of a “right to death”, which veers into even more hotly contested territory.
22 ebrown // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Do women have the right to make decisions for their own bodies. Or are they forever “children” in this regard? If the blastocyte has rights, how are they defined? Does the “right to life” mean that they have the right to be brought to term? Or does it mean that these undifferentiated cells may not be destroyed? For example, in the case of IVF, many embryos are created but not all are implanted. Of those that are implanted, do they all have the right to be brought to term? Despite the danger to the woman and the other embryos?
Here’s a hypothetical, assume a woman is pregnant. Early prenatal screening shows that the fetus has anencephaly, which results in the absence of most of the brain, including the cerebellum. Should the woman be forced to carry the infant to term, when the prognosis in such cases, is that the infant will be blind and deaf, unable to feel pain, and will live no more than a few days, all the time requiring intensive neo-natal care?
23 xJane // Sep 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Great new vid being much more rational than I could be:
via
24 xJane // Oct 27, 2008 at 4:04 pm
And another.
Leave a Comment