Reproductive Rights.
Issue:
Do women have the right to control their own bodies or are their bodies the property of the state? This is the core question in the endless national debate regarding the abortion of a human fetus before birth - because this question must be resolved before a discussion can be had regarding pregnancy termination. It becomes especially critical at a time such as this as various states move to further restrict abortion in dramatic fashions.
In the forty-some years since the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, which established certain rights for women to make this decision for themselves and in conjunction with their choice of family members and physicians, people who believe the law is not restrictive enough in terms of government control over pregnancy have continued to press for everything from further restrictions to a complete ban on any termination of pregnancy for any reason.
As perhaps the most divisive national controversy of the last half-century, this debate centers around two opposing, though not mutually exclusive, stances:
• We each have a right to control our own body and this extends to the right of a woman to control her own body during pregnancy, including that of the fetus she nurtures; and
• Society has the obligation to protect the biological life of the fetus from harm or death.
Note: the term "abortion" will not be used here as it has many other uses unrelated to the issue of pregnancy termination.
Deception:
The primary argument made by those who would restrict a woman's choice over whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy is that life is sacred - that the human fetus is a life as sacred as that of a human being and its well-being should therefore be within the jurisdiction of the state. This is deception.
Reality:
Life is not sacred, however much we pretend to believe otherwise. We like to believe that we consider it sacred and indeed that seems most desirable but the reality is this: life is a force manipulated and exploited by humans for an infinite variety of desires. To underlay any discussion of pregnancy termination with a foundation that includes the concept of sacred life creates a false basis for the discussion. Life is sacred in belief but not in reality - and the life of a fetus must be viewed in this context if a meaningful and productive discussion of pregnancy termination is to occur.
All it takes is a gander at the day's news to understand that humans are in serious denial when claiming that life is sacred. Whether it is the bacteria on our bodies or the spiders in our doors, the chickens in their cages or the cows on our tables, the soldiers in the trenches or the homeless children in our streets, the workers in unsafe factories or our forgotten elders or our dismal state of healthcare - we do not universally honor life and we do not treat it as sacred. Life is a commodity, a product of the planet as much as are the rocks and crops and trees. We choose in our minds to consider it sacred, but only as a way to honor ourselves and our loved ones and to fulfill our sense of worth and priviledge over all other inhabitants of our world no matter what their genetic or molecular composition - though some of us extend this respect to other life forms as well. Life is considered sacred only when it serves our purposes to be considered thus and for ensuring our self-preservation.
The debate over pregnancy termination revolves on the concept of human life as sacred because all sides of the debate operate within this assumption. Those who oppose pregnancy termination extend this assumption to the unborn fetus and believe that the biological life of a fetus deserves the same respect as that of a born life - though some allow for exceptions. Those who support the right to pregnancy termination may or may not believe that the biological life of a fetus deserves that same respect, but in any case believe that every woman must retain the right to terminate her pregnancy even when that means aborting the fetus - again with varying exceptions.
As to whether a fetus constitutes a life, consider that humankind has defined a "life" in various ways over its history. Until recent times a "life" was considered to be a born human - not an animal, insect, fetus or even a slave, even though all of these were known to be "living". To claim that a fetus is a "life" worthy of state protection ignores the reality that the fetus, while constituting living material, is not a "life". It can only be a life when it can live independently of the mother without technological assistance. Until then it is an integral a part of the woman and should be respected as her domain.
As to whether a fetus feels pain during an abortion: this is an issued manufactured and increasingly voiced by the same forces that attempt to intimidate women from terminating pregnancy by forcing - forcing - them to view an ultrasound image of their fetus before the state will allow pregnancy termination; the same forces that require parental permission when the woman is not of a certain age when the choice should be hers alone; the same forces that throw up every obstacle they can create to dishonor a woman's sovereignty over her own body including the shuttering of healthcare clinics and the denial of care.
Whatever pain a fetus may feel is regrettable but it is not a sufficient reason to deprive a woman her right of ownership of her body. It is not sufficient reason to allow the state to intrude on her affairs. It is not sufficient reason when the pain for the fetus, if any, is fleeting. We have little or no compunction regarding the infliction of pain in circumcision, poverty, war, torture, lack of food and healthcare and lack of compassion for those less fortunate. Fleeting pain for a fetus - and we are talking about a fetus, not a human being - is preferable to the birth of an unwanted child whose pain throughout life is far more severe, particularly in a society all too ready to mandate birth but not provide for the born.
If everyone accepted that life is a commodity and that the meaning of a "right" to life has only as much value as that which a given society places upon it at a given time, the debate over preganancy termination would be much easier to resolve - because people could see the fetus in a context free of the value placed upon it by those among us who believe that the biological life of a fetus is sacred to the same degree as that of a born human and that it must be preserved at any cost. Women would be free to choose whether to carry the fetus to birth - generally in conjunction with their care provider and family.
Let us assume for a moment, however, that the life of a fetus is indeed sacred, whatever that means to any one of us. How can we then justify the termination of that biological life before it can be brought to full birth as a full human?
Resolution:
We could start with education: teaching our children about all functions of the human body including sexual intercourse and pregnancy so that they may have the skills for finding their way through life as living, breathing, sexual and procreative beings. These skills are arguably more important than reading, math, science or theology. After all, our bodies are wired for instinctual procreation. They are not all wired for spending our lives pursuing mathematical equations or literature, however desirable or pleasurable those pursuits may be. Yet those are the skills we teach our children often at the expense of the most basic skills of living. In the worst case we deny people these skills for living while expecting them to know and apply them instinctually - and then deny them the right to choose how to deal with the consequences.
We could add to this education the tools for preventing unwanted pregnancy including birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and common sense - without judging any of these as preferable to the others. We could provide prophylactics free or at nominal cost to encourage their use, acknowledging that the absence of these tools will not only fail to prevent intercourse but ensure that it is more likely to lead to pregnancy. We can impose the same responsibilities for pregnancy and contraception on men as we do on women. We could advocate for development of a male birth control pill so that all parties to sexual intercourse can exercise responsibility for their actions. We can continue to fund programs such as Planned Parenthood which works to provide healthcare services and counseling. And instead of shutting down abortion clinics - which provide safe and sanitary conditions when pregnancy termination is elected and are far preferable than "back alley" procedures - we could instead expect states to ensure that they are adequately funded to meet reasonable medical standards.
When unwanted pregnancy does occur we could offer counseling for pregnant women and their partners and families so that they, not the state, can determine the most sensible course of action in their situation - whether it be building a family to include the child, arranging for a post-natal adoption or a pre-natal termination. These choices should be left to the woman and her chosen advocates, not the unknown strangers of public policy-making - strangers who have no stake in her pregnancy other than their own particular values that they wish to impose on others. Most of all we must acknowledge and accept that pregnancy termination must be dealt with as an ongoing reality in our world - because simply outlawing pregnancy termination only drives it underground and places women at risk of injury and death.
We could further ensure that all children of our society have the guarantee of proper nutrition, medical care, education and protection from abuse. Sadly, this is the essential need that is so often overlooked or denied by those who profess so much concern for the survival of the fetus.
Do women have the right to control their own bodies or are their bodies the property of the state? This is the core question in the endless national debate regarding the abortion of a human fetus before birth - because this question must be resolved before a discussion can be had regarding pregnancy termination. It becomes especially critical at a time such as this as various states move to further restrict abortion in dramatic fashions.
In the forty-some years since the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, which established certain rights for women to make this decision for themselves and in conjunction with their choice of family members and physicians, people who believe the law is not restrictive enough in terms of government control over pregnancy have continued to press for everything from further restrictions to a complete ban on any termination of pregnancy for any reason.
As perhaps the most divisive national controversy of the last half-century, this debate centers around two opposing, though not mutually exclusive, stances:
• We each have a right to control our own body and this extends to the right of a woman to control her own body during pregnancy, including that of the fetus she nurtures; and
• Society has the obligation to protect the biological life of the fetus from harm or death.
Note: the term "abortion" will not be used here as it has many other uses unrelated to the issue of pregnancy termination.
Deception:
The primary argument made by those who would restrict a woman's choice over whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy is that life is sacred - that the human fetus is a life as sacred as that of a human being and its well-being should therefore be within the jurisdiction of the state. This is deception.
Reality:
Life is not sacred, however much we pretend to believe otherwise. We like to believe that we consider it sacred and indeed that seems most desirable but the reality is this: life is a force manipulated and exploited by humans for an infinite variety of desires. To underlay any discussion of pregnancy termination with a foundation that includes the concept of sacred life creates a false basis for the discussion. Life is sacred in belief but not in reality - and the life of a fetus must be viewed in this context if a meaningful and productive discussion of pregnancy termination is to occur.
All it takes is a gander at the day's news to understand that humans are in serious denial when claiming that life is sacred. Whether it is the bacteria on our bodies or the spiders in our doors, the chickens in their cages or the cows on our tables, the soldiers in the trenches or the homeless children in our streets, the workers in unsafe factories or our forgotten elders or our dismal state of healthcare - we do not universally honor life and we do not treat it as sacred. Life is a commodity, a product of the planet as much as are the rocks and crops and trees. We choose in our minds to consider it sacred, but only as a way to honor ourselves and our loved ones and to fulfill our sense of worth and priviledge over all other inhabitants of our world no matter what their genetic or molecular composition - though some of us extend this respect to other life forms as well. Life is considered sacred only when it serves our purposes to be considered thus and for ensuring our self-preservation.
The debate over pregnancy termination revolves on the concept of human life as sacred because all sides of the debate operate within this assumption. Those who oppose pregnancy termination extend this assumption to the unborn fetus and believe that the biological life of a fetus deserves the same respect as that of a born life - though some allow for exceptions. Those who support the right to pregnancy termination may or may not believe that the biological life of a fetus deserves that same respect, but in any case believe that every woman must retain the right to terminate her pregnancy even when that means aborting the fetus - again with varying exceptions.
As to whether a fetus constitutes a life, consider that humankind has defined a "life" in various ways over its history. Until recent times a "life" was considered to be a born human - not an animal, insect, fetus or even a slave, even though all of these were known to be "living". To claim that a fetus is a "life" worthy of state protection ignores the reality that the fetus, while constituting living material, is not a "life". It can only be a life when it can live independently of the mother without technological assistance. Until then it is an integral a part of the woman and should be respected as her domain.
As to whether a fetus feels pain during an abortion: this is an issued manufactured and increasingly voiced by the same forces that attempt to intimidate women from terminating pregnancy by forcing - forcing - them to view an ultrasound image of their fetus before the state will allow pregnancy termination; the same forces that require parental permission when the woman is not of a certain age when the choice should be hers alone; the same forces that throw up every obstacle they can create to dishonor a woman's sovereignty over her own body including the shuttering of healthcare clinics and the denial of care.
Whatever pain a fetus may feel is regrettable but it is not a sufficient reason to deprive a woman her right of ownership of her body. It is not sufficient reason to allow the state to intrude on her affairs. It is not sufficient reason when the pain for the fetus, if any, is fleeting. We have little or no compunction regarding the infliction of pain in circumcision, poverty, war, torture, lack of food and healthcare and lack of compassion for those less fortunate. Fleeting pain for a fetus - and we are talking about a fetus, not a human being - is preferable to the birth of an unwanted child whose pain throughout life is far more severe, particularly in a society all too ready to mandate birth but not provide for the born.
If everyone accepted that life is a commodity and that the meaning of a "right" to life has only as much value as that which a given society places upon it at a given time, the debate over preganancy termination would be much easier to resolve - because people could see the fetus in a context free of the value placed upon it by those among us who believe that the biological life of a fetus is sacred to the same degree as that of a born human and that it must be preserved at any cost. Women would be free to choose whether to carry the fetus to birth - generally in conjunction with their care provider and family.
Let us assume for a moment, however, that the life of a fetus is indeed sacred, whatever that means to any one of us. How can we then justify the termination of that biological life before it can be brought to full birth as a full human?
Resolution:
We could start with education: teaching our children about all functions of the human body including sexual intercourse and pregnancy so that they may have the skills for finding their way through life as living, breathing, sexual and procreative beings. These skills are arguably more important than reading, math, science or theology. After all, our bodies are wired for instinctual procreation. They are not all wired for spending our lives pursuing mathematical equations or literature, however desirable or pleasurable those pursuits may be. Yet those are the skills we teach our children often at the expense of the most basic skills of living. In the worst case we deny people these skills for living while expecting them to know and apply them instinctually - and then deny them the right to choose how to deal with the consequences.
We could add to this education the tools for preventing unwanted pregnancy including birth control pills, condoms, abstinence and common sense - without judging any of these as preferable to the others. We could provide prophylactics free or at nominal cost to encourage their use, acknowledging that the absence of these tools will not only fail to prevent intercourse but ensure that it is more likely to lead to pregnancy. We can impose the same responsibilities for pregnancy and contraception on men as we do on women. We could advocate for development of a male birth control pill so that all parties to sexual intercourse can exercise responsibility for their actions. We can continue to fund programs such as Planned Parenthood which works to provide healthcare services and counseling. And instead of shutting down abortion clinics - which provide safe and sanitary conditions when pregnancy termination is elected and are far preferable than "back alley" procedures - we could instead expect states to ensure that they are adequately funded to meet reasonable medical standards.
When unwanted pregnancy does occur we could offer counseling for pregnant women and their partners and families so that they, not the state, can determine the most sensible course of action in their situation - whether it be building a family to include the child, arranging for a post-natal adoption or a pre-natal termination. These choices should be left to the woman and her chosen advocates, not the unknown strangers of public policy-making - strangers who have no stake in her pregnancy other than their own particular values that they wish to impose on others. Most of all we must acknowledge and accept that pregnancy termination must be dealt with as an ongoing reality in our world - because simply outlawing pregnancy termination only drives it underground and places women at risk of injury and death.
We could further ensure that all children of our society have the guarantee of proper nutrition, medical care, education and protection from abuse. Sadly, this is the essential need that is so often overlooked or denied by those who profess so much concern for the survival of the fetus.
End Note:
The hypocrisy of those who pretend to know what is best for any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy is akin to that of the pro-slavery, "anti-abolitionists", those people of our sordid past who believed it was their right to determine the lives of others by enslaving them and who resisted the abolition of slavery. This is the core of this issue: who is to determine what is best for each of us? Are we to determine our own fates or have them decided by others?
No person should enslave another and this includes taking control of their right to give or not give birth. Conferring upon the government the right to prohibit pregnancy termination also confers upon the government the right to mandate pregnancy termination, as is the policy in China today. It also sets a dangerous precedent for government intervention in the choices we make over our own lives - regarding healthcare, end-of-life, consumption, relationships, education and personal beliefs - and yes, even our choice whether to have or raise our own children.
The hypocrisy of those who pretend to know what is best for any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy is akin to that of the pro-slavery, "anti-abolitionists", those people of our sordid past who believed it was their right to determine the lives of others by enslaving them and who resisted the abolition of slavery. This is the core of this issue: who is to determine what is best for each of us? Are we to determine our own fates or have them decided by others?
No person should enslave another and this includes taking control of their right to give or not give birth. Conferring upon the government the right to prohibit pregnancy termination also confers upon the government the right to mandate pregnancy termination, as is the policy in China today. It also sets a dangerous precedent for government intervention in the choices we make over our own lives - regarding healthcare, end-of-life, consumption, relationships, education and personal beliefs - and yes, even our choice whether to have or raise our own children.