When having an abortion is like having heart surgery, that is it is no longer a political issue, and simply a health one, we can compare to other socital health and medical problems and address it accordingly. As long as abortion is a political issue, talking about it terms of rarity, such that "rarity" becomes the political battle cry, just hurts the cause and pushes the battle for reproductive freedoms backwards.
Who among us hasn’t had unprotected sex when the time or situation or partnership wasn’t quite right for bringing a new life into the world? Most of the time we get lucky; sometimes we don’t. And in those situations we rely on the mercy, compassion, and generosity of others.
Umm, me. That's more about STD's than pregnancy prevention. This still kinda pisses me off.
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
Umm, me. That's more about STD's than pregnancy prevention. This still kinda pisses me off.
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
I highly doubt my situation is super unique.
I got pregnant while ON birth control, while I was in a happy and healthy marriage. Guess what? Still not the situation to bring a baby into the world.
If people think these situations are unique, they have their heads in the sand. They think this isn't happening because people in situations like mine don't talk freely about it for fear of stigma, shame and the morality police.
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
I highly doubt my situation is super unique.
I got pregnant while ON birth control, while I was in a happy and healthy marriage. Guess what? Still not the situation to bring a baby into the world.
If people think these situations are unique, they have their heads in the sand. They think this isn't happening because people in situations like mine don't talk freely about it for fear of stigma, shame and the morality police.
I don't think these situations are unique.
And I don't think that someone who has unprotected sex should be "punished" with a pregnancy.
I do think the author starts to lose people when she goes down the road of "Who hasn't had unprotected sex when not ready to be a parent?" Like it or not, some people will be turned off by that argument. And given the current political climate around abortion, we need all the allies we can get.
Umm, me. That's more about STD's than pregnancy prevention. This still kinda pisses me off.
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
I highly doubt my situation is super unique.
It's not unique, but I don't think I am either. The author is making it out to be everybody and it's not.
The second reason is that the defense that prochoice people offer when they say they are not "pro-abortion" is a defense that is important to the credibility of the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers rhetorically paint people who are pro-choice as having abortion as the default position. So, being not really pro-choice at all, or being pro-choose-abortion. The strength of the pro-choice side is that it allows for the complexity, disparity, individuality of unique human experiences. The only way in practice to allow for that individuality is to allow for choice - some will choose motherhood, some will not. Being pro-abortion as it is used by pro-lifers suggests that prochoice individuals believe a choice of motherhood is a lesser or inferior or even unfeminist choice. Not true. She can wish "pro-abortion" didn't mean this, but then her article should really be "let's redefine what it means to be pro-abortion."
...
I think you are giving WAY too much credit to the pro-life side wit the bolded. Being pro-abortion = feminist, sure I agree that the connotation or association is there. But I think more so that for pro-life activists that framing someone as pro-abortion is that they are a killer of babies, not unfeminist or that being a mother is lesser, but a person who is okay killing babies.
We're not going to redefine the word by assuming pro-life activists feel pushed out by feminism by using the work pro-choice/pro-abortino, we're going to redefine pro-abortion as claiming for ourselves and not being ashamed of it. I'm pro-abortion. I think abortions should be as easily obtainable as Plan B and should be used as birth control without shame or guilt or legal hoops. If someone chooses Plan B or abortion as their form of birth control, they are fine by me. They know the risks of a procedure, but it's not like hormonal BC doesn't also come with drawbacks and risks.
I'm not so sure. I posted the TX article and the first comment, from my mom, was "The reason I'm not Democrat is I want the right to choose." There are a lot of uneducated, unwashed masses (sheeple) out there like her is that they equate "pro-Choice" with "anti-Life" or "All will have Abortions! Let's have an abortion party!!"
I got pregnant while ON birth control, while I was in a happy and healthy marriage. Guess what? Still not the situation to bring a baby into the world.
If people think these situations are unique, they have their heads in the sand. They think this isn't happening because people in situations like mine don't talk freely about it for fear of stigma, shame and the morality police.
I don't think these situations are unique.
And I don't think that someone who has unprotected sex should be "punished" with a pregnancy.
I do think the author starts to lose people when she goes down the road of "Who hasn't had unprotected sex when not ready to be a parent?" Like it or not, some people will be turned off by that argument. And given the current political climate around abortion, we need all the allies we can get.
I'm not so sure. I posted the TX article and the first comment, from my mom, was "The reason I'm not Democrat is I want the right to choose." There are a lot of uneducated, unwashed masses (sheeple) out there like her is that they equate "pro-Choice" with "anti-Life" or "All will have Abortions! Let's have an abortion party!!"
Nope, that has nothing to do with abortion and more to do with not understanding any stances or republicans or democrats. Is she implying that all republicans are for choices and that democrats are for abortions? I'm assuming you responded with, "Mom, you are totally wrong. Republicans are primarily pro-life which equates to NO choice. You have to carry the baby to term, not that you have a choice about it. It's democrats that primarily are pro-choice, where you get to decide if you want to carry a baby to term or not." What did she say to that?
Umm, me. That's more about STD's than pregnancy prevention. This still kinda pisses me off.
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
I highly doubt my situation is super unique.
It's not. It's how I ended up with #4. We stayed together longer because of it (and his seizures) but if he (and seizures) hadn't come along, the imminent divorce would have been much earlier (we'd separated the first time after #3).
The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.
The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).
It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I got pregnant while ON birth control, while I was in a happy and healthy marriage. Guess what? Still not the situation to bring a baby into the world.
If people think these situations are unique, they have their heads in the sand. They think this isn't happening because people in situations like mine don't talk freely about it for fear of stigma, shame and the morality police.
I don't think these situations are unique.
And I don't think that someone who has unprotected sex should be "punished" with a pregnancy.
I do think the author starts to lose people when she goes down the road of "Who hasn't had unprotected sex when not ready to be a parent?" Like it or not, some people will be turned off by that argument. And given the current political climate around abortion, we need all the allies we can get.
Oh, I am not saying I agree with 100% of the article. But I do agree with the sentiment. I am a grown woman. I have a great marriage. I am professionally successful. I donate both time and money to charity. Heck, I still go to church. I am not lacking in my moral code because of this decision. I wish more people could feel could about speaking up about their situation, whatever it was. And that's my point.
I hate that I had a medical procedure that people are afraid to talk about. I hate that there are people who imply that somehow my moral compass is broken because I terminated an unwanted pregnancy. Because I took some pills to expel a tiny cluster of cells from my uterus instead of letting them grow to their full potential. Because to me, that was not a life nor a potential life nor anything more than the clot that I passed. As though I am an inferior woman to not see that as a life, to not have pangs of guilt or occasional regret about my choice? Like I need to hide it and suffer shame?
I'm not so sure. I posted the TX article and the first comment, from my mom, was "The reason I'm not Democrat is I want the right to choose." There are a lot of uneducated, unwashed masses (sheeple) out there like her is that they equate "pro-Choice" with "anti-Life" or "All will have Abortions! Let's have an abortion party!!"
Nope, that has nothing to do with abortion and more to do with not understanding any stances or republicans or democrats. Is she implying that all republicans are for choices and that democrats are for abortions? I'm assuming you responded with, "Mom, you are totally wrong. Republicans are primarily pro-life which equates to NO choice. You have to carry the baby to term, not that you have a choice about it. It's democrats that primarily are pro-choice, where you get to decide if you want to carry a baby to term or not." What did she say to that?
She said in her comment she thought she should be Libertarian. I responded to her comment with "Dems believe in the right to choose. That's why it's Pro-CHOICE. It's politically expedient by pro-Life to call it Anti-Life, which is NOT what it is. You don't have to have an abortion, but don't take away the right for someone else to have that choice." She made no reply.
My uncle did though. Something long the lines of "Why am I tarring all of Texas" with this stuff? Whee.
I actually very much dislike articles like this one. First of all, she has not established that she is pro-abortion. Each of her examples is a demonstration of why the CHOICE is important. It is not a pronouncement that she wants that person or a class of persons to have an abortion.
The second reason is that the defense that prochoice people offer when they say they are not "pro-abortion" is a defense that is important to the credibility of the pro-choice side. Pro-lifers rhetorically paint people who are pro-choice as having abortion as the default position. So, being not really pro-choice at all, or being pro-choose-abortion. The strength of the pro-choice side is that it allows for the complexity, disparity, individuality of unique human experiences. The only way in practice to allow for that individuality is to allow for choice - some will choose motherhood, some will not. Being pro-abortion as it is used by pro-lifers suggests that prochoice individuals believe a choice of motherhood is a lesser or inferior or even unfeminist choice. Not true. She can wish "pro-abortion" didn't mean this, but then her article should really be "let's redefine what it means to be pro-abortion."
And the third reason I don't like articles like this one (or actually this specific one) is because her poetic description of morality is grossly incomplete and actually hurts the position of women in this debate. One of the fundamental principles that demands women have choice is the argument that we are fully formed moral agents. Not just "sentient beings." A fully formed moral agent is capable of recognizing a morally dilemmatic scenario, sorting through its complexity, and reaching a conclusion that preserves moral integrity, OR alternatively, being a strong enough person to live with moral mistake. Morality is not merely whatever is the preference of the more intellectually or physically formed agent. That's a dangerous line of reasoning. One of the best arguments women can make in response to the moral objections to abortion is that our lady brains can handle that shit; not that it doesn't exist.
I am only up to here but, I need to get this out because YOU ARE BACK!!
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I got pregnant in the middle of getting a divorce with my XH. I was off birth control temporarily because I didn't expect to be having sex, and had a slip during an emotional time. Technically, it was sex with my HUSBAND. But it wasn't the right time or situation or partnership to bring a new life into the world.
I highly doubt my situation is super unique.
It's not unique, but I don't think I am either. The author is making it out to be everybody and it's not.
There are about 4,000,000 babies born per year and almost 62,000,000 childbearing women (ages 15-44) in the US. Plus half of all pregnancies in the US are unintended - not planned. So you're right, it's not the majority in any one year, but over a your childbearing years, you are likely going to be in that 50% of women who had an unintended pregnancy to face some year. That doesn't mean that you're automatically going to consider abortion, but over your reproductive years, you are more likely to be faced with an unintended pregnancy and therefore it isn't not going to be rare that you are in that.
And I don't think that someone who has unprotected sex should be "punished" with a pregnancy.
I do think the author starts to lose people when she goes down the road of "Who hasn't had unprotected sex when not ready to be a parent?" Like it or not, some people will be turned off by that argument. And given the current political climate around abortion, we need all the allies we can get.
Oh, I am not saying I agree with 100% of the article. But I do agree with the sentiment. I am a grown woman. I have a great marriage. I am professionally successful. I donate both time and money to charity. Heck, I still go to church. I am not lacking in my moral code because of this decision. I wish more people could feel could about speaking up about their situation, whatever it was. And that's my point.
I hate that I had a medical procedure that people are afraid to talk about. I hate that there are people who imply that somehow my moral compass is broken because I terminated an unwanted pregnancy. Because I took some pills to expel a tiny cluster of cells from my uterus instead of letting them grow to their full potential. Because to me, that was not a life nor a potential life nor anything more than the clot that I passed. As though I am an inferior woman to not see that as a life, to not have pangs of guilt or occasional regret about my choice? Like I need to hide it and suffer shame?
Screw that.
I'm (obviously) with you
I also think that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has only had sex under perfect circumstances. Maybe not everyone has had unprotected sex with someone other than their spouse (and only within the context of a happy healthy marriage to that spouse), but unless you are using your BC 100% correctly 100% of the time and maybe even using a backup method in case your pill fails - I think it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that you too could end up in a situation where you're pregnant at a less than ideal time. And you know, some people make lemonade out of lemons and have the baby anyway and are perfectly happy. But the "I would never! STDS!" argument is annoying to me too. I read the author's comments more as "nobody's perfect and sometimes shit you're unprepared for happens".
The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.
The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).
It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I don't think I am dismissing the other side's opinion on abortion at all. I think I am dismissing my side's opinion on abortion and the way we as Ds have been framing it for the past 20 years.
It's not unique, but I don't think I am either. The author is making it out to be everybody and it's not.
There are about 4,000,000 babies born per year and almost 62,000,000 childbearing women (ages 15-44) in the US. Plus half of all pregnancies in the US are unintended - not planned. So you're right, it's not the majority in any one year, but over a your childbearing years, you are likely going to be in that 50% of women who had an unintended pregnancy to face some year. That doesn't mean that you're automatically going to consider abortion, but over your reproductive years, you are more likely to be faced with an unintended pregnancy and therefore it isn't not going to be rare that you are in that.
I have PCOS and it took two years to get pregnant with my daughter and while it would be unlikely for me to have a failure it's not out of the realm of possibilities. I'm not saying it can't happen to me. I'm also not saying that someday I won't say fuck it in the heat of the moment either, but so far I haven't.
The author isn't talking about failures, she's talking about no precautions taken.
The only reason this article exists at all is to counter the Democratic position that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." Which in itself was just a classic Clinton triangulation of the abortion issue to win an election during an era of culture wars. At the time Rs liked to accuse Ds of hating babies and such. This line was a way for Ds to maintain their pro choice bona fides and also say "but not too much choice." Playing both fields and all that.
The problem with "safe legal and rare" is that it implies that there is something wrong with abortions. From the perspective of a medical procedure, maybe it should be rare, because there is a medical "problem" and it needs "fixing",just like we should limit open heart surgeries and the like, because of a "problem." But unlike other medical procedures, abortions are also incredibly political. Forces on the right are actively trying, by all means possible, from the political to the terroristic, to prevent a woman from having one at all. And they will not stop until abortions are flat out illegal for all at all times. Calling for "rare" abortions just plays into the hand of these forces. Meanwhile no one is preventing anyone from having heart surgeries, appendectomies, or knee replacements (except for maybe your evil insurance company, but that's another matter).
It's very helpful that women like the OP come forward and say that abortions are not wrong because that's the political environment we live in. A woman's ability to choose her destiny is under assault and this message is necessary. When we reach a point where abortions are just like heart procedures, then we can talk about rarity. Until then, rarity is a red herring designed to win votes and the OP's message will continue to be needed to counter it.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I think you're right, I don't understand how it's a debate or how having a different opinion is bad. Your opinion is life, my opinion (and the medical community, and courts) say it's not a sustainable life. So we differ in opinions, but how is that bad? I know you're pro-choice, so where does the moral complexity need to come in? Linking a fetus to life from a moral viewpoint is not wrong - I get that it's opined as a life and therefore a moral decision to you. So use that when making your own decision. But who says you get to decide it's a moral issue for someone else or the public?
I really don't understand, not just being flippant. I'm fine with you using life/morals/abortion to make your own decisions. I even understand feeling trapped between not wanting a kid and the moral obligation you feel, but I don't think anyone gets to say that other people should feel a certain way about a medical procedure/tool. Doesn't it feel like there is an underlying tone of, "Yes abortions are needed, and need to be protected, but women should feel bad/guilty/morally flawed/wrong about making that medical decision?"
Oh, I am not saying I agree with 100% of the article. But I do agree with the sentiment. I am a grown woman. I have a great marriage. I am professionally successful. I donate both time and money to charity. Heck, I still go to church. I am not lacking in my moral code because of this decision. I wish more people could feel could about speaking up about their situation, whatever it was. And that's my point.
I hate that I had a medical procedure that people are afraid to talk about. I hate that there are people who imply that somehow my moral compass is broken because I terminated an unwanted pregnancy. Because I took some pills to expel a tiny cluster of cells from my uterus instead of letting them grow to their full potential. Because to me, that was not a life nor a potential life nor anything more than the clot that I passed. As though I am an inferior woman to not see that as a life, to not have pangs of guilt or occasional regret about my choice? Like I need to hide it and suffer shame?
Screw that.
I'm (obviously) with you
I also think that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has only had sex under perfect circumstances. Maybe not everyone has had unprotected sex with someone other than their spouse (and only within the context of a happy healthy marriage to that spouse), but unless you are using your BC 100% correctly 100% of the time and maybe even using a backup method in case your pill fails - I think it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that you too could end up in a situation where you're pregnant at a less than ideal time. And you know, some people make lemonade out of lemons and have the baby anyway and are perfectly happy. But the "I would never! STDS!" argument is annoying to me too. I read the author's comments more as "nobody's perfect and sometimes shit you're unprepared for happens".
But if you see abortion as a moral issue, the circumstances of conception are kind of irrelevant. If you see it as killing a baby (personally I dont, at least not early on) then it doesn't suddenly become okay to kill a baby because well, it happens to lots of people and everyone makes mistakes.
If you don't see it as a moral issue, then okay. But you're far far less likely to convince someone that abortion isn't killing than you are to convince them that the autonomy of a woman's body and her right to privacy and to make medical decisions between her and her doctor are crucial and fundamental rights. Just like I may never convince a religious person that gay marriage is not immoral but I can possibly persuade them that the government has no business legislating religious issues.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I think you're right, I don't understand how it's a debate or how having a different opinion is bad. Your opinion is life, my opinion (and the medical community, and courts) say it's not a sustainable life. So we differ in opinions, but how is that bad? I know you're pro-choice, so where does the moral complexity need to come in? Linking a fetus to life from a moral viewpoint is not wrong - I get that it's opined as a life and therefore a moral decision to you. So use that when making your own decision. But who says you get to decide it's a moral issue for someone else or the public?
I really don't understand, not just being flippant. I'm fine with you using life/morals/abortion to make your own decisions. I even understand feeling trapped between not wanting a kid and the moral obligation you feel, but I don't think anyone gets to say that other people should feel a certain way about a medical procedure/tool. Doesn't it feel like there is an underlying tone of, "Yes abortions are needed, and need to be protected, but women should feel bad/guilty/morally flawed/wrong about making that medical decision?"
Frankly it's none of my business how women feel about their abortions. I may have different morals or different choices, or not, but that's irrelevant to the law and irrelevant to the fact that my moral feelings do not trump someone else's right to do what they want at their doctors office.
I just think that going around saying "abortion is great! I'm pro abortion!" Just plays exactly into the stereotype of "see, these pro choices don't care about babies, they WANT women to go in at 34 weeks and kill their babies of it's no longer convenient for them." And I think that distracts from and damages the real arguments, which is that this should be a personal medical decision and not up to the state legislature. It's about privacy and autonomy, just like gay marriage is about civil rights not just two men having sex.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I think you're right, I don't understand how it's a debate or how having a different opinion is bad. Your opinion is life, my opinion (and the medical community, and courts) say it's not a sustainable life. So we differ in opinions, but how is that bad? I know you're pro-choice, so where does the moral complexity need to come in? Linking a fetus to life from a moral viewpoint is not wrong - I get that it's opined as a life and therefore a moral decision to you. So use that when making your own decision. But who says you get to decide it's a moral issue for someone else or the public?
I really don't understand, not just being flippant. I'm fine with you using life/morals/abortion to make your own decisions. I even understand feeling trapped between not wanting a kid and the moral obligation you feel, but I don't think anyone gets to say that other people should feel a certain way about a medical procedure/tool. Doesn't it feel like there is an underlying tone of, "Yes abortions are needed, and need to be protected, but women should feel bad/guilty/morally flawed/wrong about making that medical decision?"
The other thing is this woman is calling herself pro abortion. She's not saying all women or all pro choice women need to do so.
And I don't think that someone who has unprotected sex should be "punished" with a pregnancy.
I do think the author starts to lose people when she goes down the road of "Who hasn't had unprotected sex when not ready to be a parent?" Like it or not, some people will be turned off by that argument. And given the current political climate around abortion, we need all the allies we can get.
Oh, I am not saying I agree with 100% of the article. But I do agree with the sentiment. I am a grown woman. I have a great marriage. I am professionally successful. I donate both time and money to charity. Heck, I still go to church. I am not lacking in my moral code because of this decision. I wish more people could feel could about speaking up about their situation, whatever it was. And that's my point.
I hate that I had a medical procedure that people are afraid to talk about. I hate that there are people who imply that somehow my moral compass is broken because I terminated an unwanted pregnancy. Because I took some pills to expel a tiny cluster of cells from my uterus instead of letting them grow to their full potential. Because to me, that was not a life nor a potential life nor anything more than the clot that I passed. As though I am an inferior woman to not see that as a life, to not have pangs of guilt or occasional regret about my choice? Like I need to hide it and suffer shame?
Screw that.
Although there are certainly people who are doing this, I am not one of them. I don't think your moral compass is broken because you had an abortion. I think the OP invites a conversation about the morality of abortion and misstates what those moral issues are. Further, the way she analyzed the issue demonstrates a very immature view of moral decision making that certainly doesn't help those of us who want to argue that women possess the capacity for complex moral deliberation. I can leave room for the opinion that abortions are not immoral. In fact, I can think of endless examples of abortions that I find to be more moral than continuing a pregnancy. What I can't wrap my head around is the idea that abortions are ipso facto moral because women are "sentient beings" capable of feeling "pleasure and pain." Nor can I accept the argument that abortion is an amoral issue.
I think abortion raises truly profound and existential questions of what it means to be alive, what it means to exist, what it means to be human, what our moral duties are to "the innocent", what are moral duties are to our own moral character, what our duties are to unrealized potential life, what it means to be autonomous, what it means to have agency over one's future... These are hard questions. I think women are capable of grappling with them. In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of conservatives pushing anti-abortion legislations aren't even doing so out of any kind of deep reflection on these issues - they are doing so purely as a way to control women - subjugation through motherhood.
Still, abortion is not morally inert, nor should we pretend that it is.
I don't know, I don't think an abortion would be a morally right decision for me. Because of my views on life, when its created or not. That's my moral compass though, and I don't think that my moral compass should be imposed on anyone else, and definitely not the basis of legislation. So I will always vote pro choice because its a safe medical procedure that all women *should have the right to.
The thing is, for some people, there *is* something wrong with abortion. It is indisputably ending a life. Whether you think that is a person's life or something less than that is a matter of opinion from a moral standpoint, but it is near impossible to argue that abortion does not involve ending a life or potential life.
Dismissing or glossing over this moral complexity is a bad idea, IMO, because it ignores a very fundamental part of this debate and it is completely tone deaf to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
I think you're right, I don't understand how it's a debate or how having a different opinion is bad. Your opinion is life, my opinion (and the medical community, and courts) say it's not a sustainable life. So we differ in opinions, but how is that bad? I know you're pro-choice, so where does the moral complexity need to come in? Linking a fetus to life from a moral viewpoint is not wrong - I get that it's opined as a life and therefore a moral decision to you. So use that when making your own decision. But who says you get to decide it's a moral issue for someone else or the public?
I really don't understand, not just being flippant. I'm fine with you using life/morals/abortion to make your own decisions. I even understand feeling trapped between not wanting a kid and the moral obligation you feel, but I don't think anyone gets to say that other people should feel a certain way about a medical procedure/tool. Doesn't it feel like there is an underlying tone of, "Yes abortions are needed, and need to be protected, but women should feel bad/guilty/morally flawed/wrong about making that medical decision?"
The courts' opinion is that it's not a person. Courts unanimously agree that it is a life and in fact, that is (one of) the stated State interest in the abortion decision: The States interest in human life. It gets balanced against the right of a Constitutional and legal PERSON (the woman) to liberty/privacy and she trumps because she is a legal person. But make no mistake - even the courts recognize that it is "a life."
As to the second highlighted point, that oversimplifies comments people have carefully articulated. And it does sound flippant.
I think you're right, I don't understand how it's a debate or how having a different opinion is bad. Your opinion is life, my opinion (and the medical community, and courts) say it's not a sustainable life. So we differ in opinions, but how is that bad? I know you're pro-choice, so where does the moral complexity need to come in? Linking a fetus to life from a moral viewpoint is not wrong - I get that it's opined as a life and therefore a moral decision to you. So use that when making your own decision. But who says you get to decide it's a moral issue for someone else or the public?
I really don't understand, not just being flippant. I'm fine with you using life/morals/abortion to make your own decisions. I even understand feeling trapped between not wanting a kid and the moral obligation you feel, but I don't think anyone gets to say that other people should feel a certain way about a medical procedure/tool. Doesn't it feel like there is an underlying tone of, "Yes abortions are needed, and need to be protected, but women should feel bad/guilty/morally flawed/wrong about making that medical decision?"
The courts' opinion is that it's not a person. Courts unanimously agree that it is a life and in fact, that is the stated State interest in the abortion decision: The States interest in human life. It gets balanced against the right of a Constitutional and legal PERSON (the woman) to liberty/privacy and she trumps because she is a legal person. But make no mistake - even the courts recognize that it is "a life."
As to the second highlighted point, that oversimplifies comments people have carefully articulated. And it does sound flippant.
I understand personhood and was simplifying b/c I am heading out in about 10 min and working.
But you have said that using abortion as a form of birth control makes someone "deeply morally flawed" and that the OP calling her pro-choice stance more pro-abortion is bad for pro-choice. I'm saying we can both be pro-choice and disagree on both of the above. I don't think that how someone uses medical procedures is the states business and should get no moral judgment from the masses and that calling yourself pro-abortion is just a range in the pro-choice opinions and might actually make some women feel less conflicted about making a medical decision when she finds she has an unplanned pregnancy.
I am pro abortion and wish more women would feel able to make the choice to abort instead of feeling forced to have children they do not want or can not care for.