In recent days (for some reason) I have seen an increased interest in moral arguments on social media about abortion policy in America. I have seen a couple of arguments repeated in many places both on Twitter and Facebook. I would like to respond to those arguments, but I also understand that some people just want to get something off their chest. It may be a deeply personal and emotional topic for them or a loved one, and they aren't necessarily interested in engaging in a serious philosophical debate with me on the merits of the argument.
That's fine. However, if you are interested in my thoughts on the topic, or want to share yours without unintentionally traumatizing a rape victim by jumping on their thread with your essay about why their feelings are wrong, you are welcome to share a link to this blog post in order to respectfully engage with these topics in the comments of your post among your social media contacts. I am disabling comments on the blog post itself.
Note:
this was originally posted to Facebook. I want to keep that
discussion between people who know me, but I also want a public version
so that others can discuss in their own circles. This is the public
version, but it is not the public forum.
Here are two screenshots that are either the literal arguments put forth, or are the basis of such arguments repeated elsewhere, along with my responses:
Regarding “If it was about babies”:
I
agree that the political right in America is inconsistent in its
values. It is important to keep in mind that political party platforms
are not people: they are coalitions built on common goals and compromise
(and often corrupted by monied interests), and do not represent a
coherent set of values. Hypocrisy of an institution does not make every
position that institution espouses morally worthless.
It
may, and should, influence how you vote. If you are a party-line voter
for either major party in America, and ignore the primaries, you are
contributing to the problem.
I
personally am in favor of more taxpayer funded access to free or
low-cost health care (and help with those costs for those who need it),
and safety net programs. I don't think the "everything is free"
socialist utopia from the screenshot is the best balance here, but the
idea that human societies at large are responsible to care for their
most vulnerable members because they exist as human beings in their care
(whether or not they are "desirable") is morally correct for EXACTLY
the same reason that parents (and families at large) should provide for
the needs of their own children.
Regarding “It doesn’t matter”:
The
best numbers I could find say that less than 2% of abortions are
because of rape. In the case of rape there is a logical pathway to
applying the reasoning of "bodily autonomy", since the sex was not
consensual.
In
the other 98%, a couple willingly engaged in acts that placed sperm
into a vagina, which (according to the laws of physics and biology)
constitutes affirmative consent to the possible consequences.
So, over 98% of abortions are:
- Oops, our birth control failed.
- Oops, I wasn't thinking about the consequences of my actions and didn't use birth control measures.
- I want a baby, but not this one; it's disabled.
- I want a baby, but not this gender.
- Etc.
The
"bodily autonomy" argument claims that a MOTHER has no obligation to
nurture her own child. This is legally and ethically false.
If
I discover mid-drive that someone has crawled into my car and is taking
a nap in the back seat, my moral and legal right to kick them out of my
car to the side of the road is inversely proportional to how much they
depend on me for survival. Usually that would be fine for an adult in a
city, but if I abandoned someone in the middle of a remote desert area,
or a blizzard, I might be charged with manslaughter or murder EVEN
THOUGH they were trespassing in my car. If it were a child, I would
probably need to contact the police or another authority (if I couldn't
find a parent) and transfer them safely into their care. For an infant
mistakenly placed down for a nap in the wrong car, I would need to do
even more to ensure their safety while in my care, even though I did not
consent to the role, and have NO RELATION to the child other than
common humanity.
Our
society rightly places responsibility on men who impregnate women to
financially care for their offspring through child support, even if they
did not want the child. The same is true for mothers: parents have an
obligation to provide for and nurture their children, regardless of
whether they meant to enter that relationship.
Again,
in the case of rape, a bodily autonomy argument can be made, and most
laws prohibiting abortion do carve out specific provision for cases of
rape or incest (incest is usually rape or statutory rape) because of the
possibility that mothers will see the pregnancy as a continuation of
the violation of their bodies.
No
right that you have is absolute. When the exercise of the rights of two
people conflict, one of them must give way. I have a right to do what I
want with my own property, but if what I claim as my own property is
another human being? Suddenly I don't.
Human
beings have a right to life. It is not absolute, but a prenatal human
has a right to her own mother's womb. Is that right absolute? Also no.
Some pregnancies are too dangerous for the mother and violate her right
to life. But in general, attempting to construe normal human
reproduction as a violation of the mother's rights is morally bankrupt.
