The redrawn lines of the abortion debate.
A bumper sticker on my car, which posted next to several others gives anyone driving behind me ample reason to keep their eyes off the road (and once got me out of ticket), repeats those words above: Pro-Woman, Pro-Life. It's from the group Feminists for Life, which was the focus of attention during Justice John Roberts's confirmation hearings because his wife had been affiliated with the group.
It seems the group's strategy, opposing abortion by focusing on the needs of women, is gaining a wider audience. The New York Times reports,
last month’s Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act marked a milestone for a different argument advanced by anti-abortion leaders, one they are increasingly making in state legislatures around the country. They say that abortion, as a rule, is not in the best interest of the woman; that women are often misled or ill-informed about its risks to their own physical or emotional health; and that the interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus are, in fact, the same.
Justice Kennedy mentioned the view that women's health is endagered by abortion in his argument supporting the partial-birth abortion ban. "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”
"Many, on both sides, viewed that as an invitation from a newly conservative court to pass tough new counseling and informed-consent laws intended for women seeking abortions," writes The Times. It seems that the next battle over a woman's "right to choose" will be her right to hear or refuse to hear the possible ill effects of an abortion.
Posted by Rob Moll on May 22, 2007 9:46AM
Comments
As a member of Feminists for Life, I do believe they are a major contributor to the conversation about abortion. I'm excited to see them grow in influence. They defy the caricature of the pro-life as anti-women maniacs.
Posted by: Matt K at May 22, 2007
There is nothing "feminist" about that position. The fact that some women are pro-life, even assuming that they are looking out for the best interests of women as they see it, does not mean that they (or our Supreme Court following that logic) should be permitted to make that decision for all women. The notion that the Supreme Court or our legislatures know what's best for all women, or that a woman cannot make an informed decision without the legislature dictating the details of the conversation between doctor and patient, is nothing more than a return to the condescending paternalism of what should be a by-gone era. It's like the arrogance of the date-raper -- I know she was saying "no," but I knew what she really wanted. To the Supreme Court and to the so-called Feminists for Life -- back off and respect women who make different choices enough to believe that they mean what they say and that they have made an informed choice for themselves -- even if you're sure you know beter.
Posted by: True Respect for Women at May 22, 2007
Although I think everybody would like to see abortions reduced (if not the actual right to have one), I think "Pro-Woman, Pro-Life" as offered above obfuscates the important question in the debate.
Borrowing from Greg Koukl, the only question that seems to matter here is "what is it?" If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for abortion is necessary. Do it at 2 weeks, 20 weeks, 39 weeks, whatever. Do it in the case of rape, incest, any kind of health reason. Do it even if you've had 50 abortions before. It's morally no different than cutting your hair or clipping your fingernails.
But if the unborn is indeed a human person, then no justification for abortion (except perhaps the life of the mother) is adequate. We don't kill innocent human persons without an extremely good reason. Most of the reasons offered for abortion do not qualify. Under our system of law, you wouldn't be allowed to kill your 2 year old child because they remind you of a rape.
So "Pro-Woman, Pro-Life" as offered above seems to cloud the important question: what is it? That is, unless "Pro-Woman" is additionally referring to the approximately 500,000 female fetuses aborted each year, and not just their mothers.
Posted by: Cliff Mather at May 23, 2007
Dear True Respect for Women:
What about the baby???
Posted by: Alan Paul at May 23, 2007
Cliff misses this point.
For those who DO NOT believe life begins at conception, or is not significant until after birth or some other stage, there remains...or should remain...the question of whether abortion actually benefits women or whether it hurts women is a separate issue that may be very important to their views and behavior.
Setting aside the moral issues, there is extensive and growing evidence that abortion is associated with higher rates of death, including from suicide, higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization, treatment for depression and anxiety, more difficulty in raising subsequent children, and other emotional and physical complications associated with abortion.
Abortion is a moral issue. But it is also a medical issue. Moreover, it is a social justice issue...particularly since the best evidence indicats that about 60% of women submitting to abortions are doing so because they feel pressured into UNWANTED abortions by other people...boyfriends, parents, bosses, doctors, etc.
While abortion advocates may choose to put a woman's autonomy above even the medical evidence that abortion is dangerous (just as smoking advocates may resist bans on smoking based on arguments of autonomy over public and personal health considerations), it is a grave disservice to women to pretend that the problem of coerced abortion doesn't exist. This is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates should seek to curb...for the sake of both women and their children.
These are just a few reasons why the pro-woman arguments is necessary and in some respects independent and in other respects intertwined with the pro-life argument.
Posted by: Dave at May 23, 2007
To Alan who asks "What about the baby???" --
That's my point entirely. Make whatever argument you want to make about the baby or fetus. The paternalism is in arguing that you know what's best for the woman -- and trying to bring the power of the government to bear in enforcing your view over the protestation of the woman. That's the epitome of paternalism.
Re the faulty analogy to smoking -- First, the medical evidence on the dangers of smoking are conclusive, but the evidence of the so-called "dangers" of abortion to the women is not widely accepted within the medical community. Second, if you buy this analogy, then you should be out protesting to criminalize smoking just the same way you want to criminalize abortion.
Posted by: True Respect for Women at May 23, 2007
Smoking might or might not kill you. Abortion always kills (oh I mean terminates) human life. There is no dispute that it is indeed human life, the dispute is over the "personhood" of that human life. Still, whether it is a cluster of cells or a thumbsucking baby (oh, I mean fetus) it is still human life.
Posted by: Veronica at May 23, 2007
To Veronica --
You may not like it, and it may make you mad, but there is, in fact, a dispute over whether abortion is the taking of a human life. You categorically state there is no dispute merely because you completely dismiss the opposing view. There's no intellectual honesty in that. Your paternalistic dismissal of the oppsing view will not make it go away. Oh, and by the way, the ability to allow people to express and act on views diametrically opposed to your own is the essence of democracy. I don't like your view any more than you like mine, but I'm willing to allow you to hold your view and, for yourself, act on those views. Please have the same respect for my views.
Posted by: True Respect for Women at May 25, 2007
I made the choice. I killed my baby. At the age of 18 I took a life. Not 1 person told me I could be a good mom. I know I made the choice. But it was a lie. I didn't spend 1 day in jail. I served a 20 year sentence, before meeting Christ, in my own personal hell, filling the emptiness of my womb.
Posted by: rita at August 9, 2007
Post a comment