My brother is pregnant. Well, his wife. And not really my brother. It's just a metaphor, inspired by the age-old question, “Am I my brother's keeper?”
He's been pregnant before, you see. I advised an abortion. He has no money. He could not afford a child. He was indignant. The nerve of me, meddling. Who was I to intrude? It was none of my business.
And yet, my business or not, who fills the gaps? Car not working? Electricity turned off? A glance at the caller ID and I can tell you the whole story, without even picking up the phone. I'd just as soon not answer, actually. But I do anyway because there's an innocent young child caught up in the fiction that he can afford this endeavor.
And so now he's pregnant—again.
He's trying to figure out what to do.
Figure out what to do? Why is there a microsecond of thought required? He is already not doing fine. He can't afford the child he has. He certainly cannot afford another. It should be as simple as that.
I'm told there's a moral issue here, forcing a particular outcome. I guess I just don't agree. To me, what's moral is either to have a child you are prepared to take care of and to commit to really doing that, or to not have a child. To think otherwise is a selfish, immature, irresponsible indulgence.
But what is society's recourse? As things work today, the decision is theirs alone. A decision sure to indulge themselves at the expense of others.
And it will not stop here. He will be pregnant again. It's who he is. And each time he does, he will be digging himself—and others—in deeper economically. There will be costs, but he won't bear the full weight of them. We will. We, the ones for whom this is none of their business.
How strange that it requires a license—the permission of a government—to get married, and yet anyone can decide to have a baby.
Some will rush to call the continual cranking out of babies that cannot be afforded “the moral thing,” “the ethical thing,” or “the responsible thing.”
It is none of those things.
They will say an abortion is not moral, ethical, or responsible.
I don't agree.
An abortion is called for here. That is the responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to carry a through with a pregnancy when there is insufficient planning, economic and otherwise, to make the situation work.
And by the way, a great many of those same people who argue that the pregnancy must be carried to term are the ones who say they don't support the public option in health care, much less universal health care. And why? Because they don't want others' economic burdens put onto them. The hypocrisy of this position leads me to have no respect for that position.
I hear some people don't want to fund abortions in a public health care option. Don't want to fund abortions? Abortions are self-funding. They save money. They should be obliged to use the terminology “I don't want to save money by having abortions. I want the societally more expensive route of forcing people to have unwanted children that no one wants to pay for.” If they had to say it that way, it would make the morality more clear.
It's the having of unwanted babies that costs. If we're going to talk about the cost of abortions, let's talk about the cost of not having abortions. And I'm not even talking about the possible issue that more unwanted babies lead to more crime, though that's an interesting issue in its own right about which I'd like to see more study. I just mean the obvious fact that it costs to have women undergo the extra checkups, to have kids taken care of. It costs to have parents out of the workforce to take care of kids when they don't have the personal finances to support that. It costs a lot to have a child. Let's be honest: There is, comparatively, no net cost to an abortion, only a net savings.
How can anyone say with a straight face that there is no moral choice for my brother other than to impose his lack of money upon me and others?
In my life I've known a number of women well enough to have asked whether they've ever had an abortion. Of those I was close enough to ask this very personal question, most have said “yes,” that they have. They don't all talk about it, but at one time or another, many of them faced the realization that “now is not the time.” Most of them later did have children, when their situation was more stable, often with a different and more permanent partner. Happy children in happy families that were properly planned. They did the moral and responsible thing. They did what was right for society.
If you think otherwise—if you think my brother and his wife shouldn't go the abortion route and should instead carry to term a pregnancy they cannot afford—please let me know. That is, please let me know your bank account number. Money is what's needed to make this work, so if you're ponying up money to help make this situation economically balance, it makes sense to get involved. But if not, then how about you stay out of it while we work this out among those of us who are affected.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
CZPhoenix
Kimberly Krautter
Bob Eckstein
Joan Walsh
Marcela in English
JLee Davis
Salon.com
Comments
personally I think it's between a woman and her medical provider, period.
But you're absolutely right, Kent. Your friend ('s wife) should have an abortion. No question.
You're also right that there's a natural conflict in society, between caring for the child (it's not their fault that their dad is such a loser!), autonomy over reproduction (which is older than human society, even), and having the resources to raise those children you create.
In some ideal world, you could imagine something like a vaccine, that would render all humans sterile, but in a reversible way, so that they could undo it whenever they consciously chose to have kids. Kids should never be an unwanted accident.
I guess abortions serve much the same purpose, if you can manage not to be morally opposed to them.
Not to trivialize it by the comparison, but it's like buying a house. Rushing it (as the government is presently encouraging people to do with big tax breaks) before you're financially ready doesn't seem wise.
I'm torn here. I would never say to a poor woman that she can't have a baby because she has no money. I don't want to see us become a society where only the rich can afford to have children. And the fact that we don't have universal health care is our shame, our problem.
On the other hand, making babies when you have no money, no means of taking care of that child, feeding that child, preparing a good life for that child, is fucking irresponsible.
What I worry about with children born into such circumstances is how many of them wind up abused, neglected, in foster care. Too many of my students have told me their heartbreaking stories.
So, reluctantly, I'm with you.
His anti-adoption stance is interesting, though. You basically say that he wants to take responsibility. That's excellent, and actually to be encouraged. He's not running away from the problem. In addition, I agree with FLW that poverty (in and of itself) is not necessarily a reason to (try to) prohibit reproduction. There are plenty of beggars in the slums of Calcutta, and most of those people would much rather be alive (despite their conditions) than not.
So I guess it comes down to: what demands, exactly, is your "brother" making of the rest of us? Or of you? Well, surely from your description he isn't really thinking ahead. But let us think for him. Are you thinking about the usual stuff, like we have public schools which will be required (correctly!) to educate the kids, and emergency rooms which are required to (eventually) treat their health problems?
Because, it's an interesting and difficult question whether an additional human life is overall a net cost or net benefit for surrounding society. The answer is not at all clear (and surely depends at least a little on the choices made by and for that particular human).
It is none of those things.
I came to this conclusion many years ago when I was in the same situation as your brother. i look at my present situation and see that I made the right, though very difficult, choice.
This might very well be the most coherent argument I've ever heard, though I believe the ultimate decision is the woman's, I also believe that the man should at least have his feelings on the matter considered. the fact that we are breeding ourselves right off the planet is secondary.
Your question about the incremental value to society of adding any given new person is a good one, but I think is a separate question. I have an answer, but it would be distracting to lay it out here. I'd tell you to blog about it, but you seem to be studiously avoiding such things. So maybe I will sometime.
You're right that it's complicated for everyone to get a voice since there are two people and there is only one decision. As for breeding ourselves off the planet, well, yes, we are.
Alternative Situation: Your brother is rich and successful and has several young children. He falls upon economic hard times and cannot afford to support all of his children. What should he do? Kill one of them? I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that. In other words, I think you would say that there is a moral difference between terminating the life of a developing human in utero vs. terminating the life of a developing human outside of the womb. What exactly is that difference? Would you still recommend abortion were the fetus four months along? Six months? Eight months? Does the developing human in utero have any rights?
In other words, you appear on the surface to be making an economic argument, but I think underneath that you're really making a different argument. But I'm not sure what it is.
Since you're the one making this argument, this is what I would ask: if the economic argument trumps the life of the developing human in the early stage of pregnancy, why does it not trump the life of the developing human in the later stages of pregnancy, or even after birth? What is it about the developmental aspect of human life that changes the moral calculus?
Also, Don speaks of the incremental value to society of having babies and I partly responded to that but had another thought. Don, you use the term “externality” a lot, and I think this is one of an odd shape. If there is a value to society, it is a windfall to some and an excessive burden to others. And, in the spirit of this piece, the people to whom it is a burden is not limited just to the people having the baby but to their, well, their village, shall we say? By which I mean their family, the friends they feel comfortable leaning upon, etc.
Further to Mishima, I think the point to me of birth is that it should, in fact, be a sort of considered act. Not one where it is decided by circumstance exactly because that makes it not a considered act. It allows people the illusion of feeling the victim. I want people to feel like they chose the act when they do, and like they were able not to when they choose not, exactly so that later when things get tough I can say, “well, you elected this and must carry through.”
Because of the emotional charge this issue creates in most people, it did not take long at all for this discussion to drift away from what I perceive as one of the main points this post raises; HYPOCRISY. The discussion seems to revolve around whether people approve of abortion --- the ethics of the procedure.
I find the overarching point to be this:
“…a great many of those same people who argue that the pregnancy must be carried to term are the ones who say they don't support the public option in health care, much less universal health care. And why? Because they don't want others' economic burdens put onto them. The hypocrisy of this position leads me to have no respect for that position.”
It seems to me that if we look at this issue from the perspective of hypocrisy of the position to which you refer, it brings us to a discussion about a different set of ethics, which are independent of how one views the ethics of abortion.
One who views “life” as so valuable as to force someone into an unwanted, unplanned birth, one that is financially impossible to maintain, and often even one that brings a life of suffering, but then refuses to also help provide a reasonable level of care and opportunity for that offspring is not reasonable, their argument is not worthy of respect and their character is questionable.
It seems clear to me that your position is not merely that your “brother” should have an abortion, but that the abortion itself is a preference because of the societal issues this hypocrisy creates. Those issues affect not only the individuals having the child, but all of society.
The idea of eliminating offspring that are detrimental to a society is nothing new. The hypocrites to whom you refer are a detriment to society. Perhaps we should eliminate them, instead.
;~)
Just kidding, seriously, not really.
I think about this slightly differently. It is not the lack of money that is the key problem really. It's the lack of personal responsibility that's the key problem. People who are poorer should not be chastened for having children. My mother's family was dirt poor. Six kids. (!!)They lived in a very small house in the country and did without quite often. But my grandfather had great personal responsibility. Everyone had food in front of him or her. Gardens were kept. Kids wore hand-me-downs. They made quilts out of flour sacks. They walked to school or rode the mule. It was not an extravagant life, but it was a good one. Of course, it was a slightly different time. Big families were the norm.
Personal responsibility is key in these situations. But I think we should be careful about attributing money as equal to personal responsibility. It is not. Any one of us could suddenly have a financial reversal of fortune, starting tomorrow. It would only take one illness to do it, in our country, or a terrible accident. That wouldn't have anything to do with our responsible or careful natures. Shit happens.
Being poor is not about being lazy. Being poor is simply about being poor. It does not reveal the character of the person.
But your relative reveals that he has something much more problematic than an empty wallet. He has a thoughtless nature. He sounds (and pardon me if I am wrong) like he never considers at all anyone but himself in these equations. THAT is a bad thing. That is what shows he shouldn't have more children. It's not the money. It's the careless nature of him.
Many years ago, when I was younger and more docile, I allowed my (then-)husband to persuade me to abort my third child AND to have my tubes tied. Note that he did nothing at all to prevent himself from creating more children. No, I bore the burden because HE didn't want to have the expense of raising any more of his own children.
So after I divorced him, I was unable to have children with my second husband (I've now been married to him for 15 years). A fact I will regret to my dying day.
Get your freakin arrogant sexist nose out of your low-life "friend's" business. This is nothing to do with you or your kind.
Odette, what a fine thoughtful analysis—thank you. I think there is a lot to what you say, and indeed I don't think the issue is a simple function of money. It's essential, when one has asked a lot of others, to do one's one share. It isn't people asking for help that's the problem, it's people asking for help that they ought not have to, that illustrate lack of considerate and responsible planning, that is the problem. Great points.
The question itself avoids the answer; we don’t know that a developing fetus is a human life. It may be, but we don’t know. There simply is no doubt that a child who is breathing on its own, eating on its own, etc, is a human life. That is the difference in the moral calculus; uncertainty versus certainty.
The question really applies more to those to whom Kent refers in his post; the hypocrites who defend the uncertainty while abandoning the certainty.
I can't imagine having to choose between an abortion and having a baby that I couldn't support in any regard. I just couldn't imagine it.
There's always adoption?
I'm pro choice but if I ever had to "choose" an abortion, I'd be haunted for the rest of my life. I think I'd end up with a nervous breakdown over such a thing.
I think your argument is very cut and dry and rational - but for women, there is a whole lot more to be considered, and even MORE if you're Catholic (brainwashed).
Also, the whole "abortion as a form of birth control" slippery slope can't be ignored.
Men like that metaphorical heavy brother of yours should be castrated. That'd solve the problem.
(sorry, perhaps it's the Mom in me.....)
Also, if your 'brother" is a real guy, then I would advise a Vasectomy, not castration (as I so coldly recommended prior to thinking)
Before I was a parent, I was pro-choice. Now that I'm a parent of two wonderful girls, I'm militantly pro-choice. Parenting is difficult and takes a lot. We want people who can be truly committed to it to be parents. We don't need more parents by default.
Well, it's not a kangaroo, or a frog, right?
Also, many people don't think a body that has lost its brain signal is still a person. I think Rick's point was not to defy knowledge of DNA but rather to say (putting words in his mouth) that it's common usage by people on both sides to say that someone born is a person, whereas it's less well-established to refer to a three-day-old pregnancy, a mere few cells, as “a person.”
I do think Rick uses the wrong words when he says “we know.” He means “we define,” I believe, if we want to refer to definitions deliberately designed by people through conscious thought, or else “we observe,” if we want to infer meaning based on how people construe meanings of words not by deciding them but by observing how others consistently use speech. But personhood is not something for which there is a truth science can discover. It's an abstraction that people decide differently, and we must build a workable society atop that disagreement.
I would hope you would recognize the weakness of an argument that defines something solely by saying it is not something else. Arguing that a fetus is a human life by stating the obvious fact that “…it's not a kangaroo, or a frog”, is completely pointless.
I guess you argue from the supposition that a clump of cells is a human life, which is precisely the uncertainty to which I refer. Is a clump of cells a human life? Is potentiality the same as certainty?
Kent,
You do get my point, I think, but I never said “we know” anything in my comment. I did express the certainty that is a human life as opposed to the uncertainty that many defend as being human life. If someone walking around, breathing and eating on their own is not a human life, then we have nothing to discuss here at all.
As for DNA, well, is a human DNA sample a human life? I’ll go out on a limb and say, “No.”
My point is that it is a developing human life, and left to develop most fetuses will become human babies, but certainly not kangaroos or frogs or anything else. For example, if a woman told you she was pregnant, you wouldn't ask "what species is it?" So we're talking about human life in some stage of development.
I find it troubling when we as a society begin to develop a callousness or indifference to human life, whether at the point of procreation or later on.
Last year there was a very interesting post on OS that was enthusiastically received. A woman described how wonderful it was that her female teenage babysitter had lost her conservative religious faith and was now "putting out" for her boyfriend.
And I suppose the idea was that if the girl became pregnant a quick trip to the abortion clinic would take care of that. (The risk to the girl of developing a sexually transmitted disease, or even AIDS, was seemingly never considered.) Her new sexual liberation -- sex as recreation -- was celebrated, and the possible unfortunate consequences utterly ignored.
But many people of the "liberal" persuasion no longer see abortion as a negative consequence. Oh, it's negative in the sense of being a "health issue," and that it costs money. But it's not seen as negative in a moral sense.
In that regard I'm happy to see that Kent's brother is at least asking the question -- is abortion the right thing to do in this situation? Because there are an awful lot of people these days who aren't even doing that.
I’ll just say this; my response was primarily directed at your question, which was a very specific question;
“What is it about the developmental aspect of human life that changes the moral calculus?”
The question you pose is not that complicated to decipher. But you take the question into other aspects that it does not address. As you, yourself, point out;
“…left to develop most fetuses will become human babies …”
You have expressed the very uncertainty to which I refer, and you have agreed with my assessment and answered your own question with that statement. Contained within your own statement is the idea that fetuses are NOT human life YET, which would seemingly indicate a different moral calculus.
Many fetuses do not survive at birth. Many are subjected to a life of nothing more than suffering until they finally die. The main point here, though, is that they are not the same as people who are breathing, eating, etc on their own and who are clearly “human life”.
The problem boils down to being wired for responsibility. Perhaps your friend will consider ONE act of responsibility and have a vasectomy. Just a thought.
You know I admire you very much. You’re a deeply thoughtful man and the articles you post here at OS are of full of insight and considerable research.
You wrote,
“Figure out what to do? Why is there a microsecond of thought required? He is already not doing fine. He can't afford the child he has. He certainly cannot afford another. It should be as simple as that.”
and,
“An abortion is called for here. That is the responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to carry a through with a pregnancy when there is insufficient planning, economic and otherwise, to make the situation work.”
I understand and appreciate your premise Kent. I do believe however that both personal choice and fate are being undervalued in your strong opinion.
Is it responsible. No. Morality has no corner on this argument when you factor in responsibility.
But perhaps a vital moral question to ask here is how far, as a society, as we willing to go in legislating or telling people what they can and cannot do in regard to personal choice. To enforce such an idea would certainly would change the definitions of both “personal” and “choice” for which we, who defend a woman’s right to choose, have labored to protect.
Then there is fate. How many times has a world changer been born into abject poverty? How many centuries have seen some of their most influential leaders in human endeavor given birth to and raised by what might be termed irresponsible parents by the definition it seems you are suggesting. I believe it would make an interesting study at the very least and one that should be undertaken before accepting or embracing the premise of what you have presented here.
But that is just my opinion. I tip my hat to you when it comes to reason and brains. In that league I am a ham-and-egger at best my friend.
Rated and appreciated.
Kent: Consider being supportive. You never know when the tables could turn.
Indeed. He might, alternatively, become a criminal. He might become someone who does great things. Or not. I'm not advocating terminating prenancy because of fear that the fetus is endowed with some demon seed. Indeed, I think bad-person-ness (like good-person-ness) is usually a product of nurture, not nature. So instead I'm saying that children we can't afford are among ones we're least likely to have the time, money, and other factors to propertly nurture (since if we did, we could afford them). We are setting ourselves up to lose in many such cases. Even in the simplest of cases, ignoring the whole good/bad thing and the crime thing, consider that a person just starting out on a minor salary may have to work two jobs to pay for having a kid, whereas a person with a few years of savings and a better salary may be able to work one job and spend more time with family. I think that's likely to be better, and not just because of money. It isn't the need to lavish a kid with presents that is the need for money; it's that lack of money below a certain level is equivalent to slavery, and someone who isn't financially secure to at least a certain level has limited options and in many ways not a real life. This is not me pronouncing a judgment but reciting experience; I have spent times in my life with extra money and times in my life owing, and I can tell you that one who owes money is not their own master. (That's the reason our Congressfolk are not good representatives these days. They owe too much for what they have achieved.)
So—fate? Well, either fate is in God's hands, and it's blasphemous for me to think I have the power to save God's plan for him, or fate is in my hands. And if it is, I'll use my God-given brain to calculate the probabilities and to see that the chances of a good person resulting are better when I've planned properly. As to the per se morality of the mechanism for assuring that (the abortion), that's topic for another day, I guess.
Inevitably people raise that topic in this kind of matter, but I hadn't meant to so much bring the morality of abortion front and center as to bring front and center the immorality of being irresponsible. Admittedly, it's hard to speak of one without the other from your point of view, but you should understand that from my point of view, the two are indeed separable. I have a morality, just one that is different than that of some other people. I reject the notion that they may use the words moral in common speech for their use and that their doing so precludes me from using those words myself for my own purposes.
To a great extent, my remarks here are intended to take back the terminology of morality (not to me exclusively, but to me also, as in the sense of sharing the terminology, lest I otherwise perform the same injustice in reverse by claiming to be the center of a social universe I see as fundamentally pluralistic).
And, finally, you speak of enforcement, but I did not. In fact, it's common in religious sermons for preachers to speak of things as imperatives and mandates. I claim the right to merely say in equally stern terms “This is what I see as a truth.” If you think that forces anyone, then what am I to make of sermons that are equally forceful in reverse? I'm merely stating my opinion, not to assert my right to rule a pluralistic world, but to re-assert my right to have an opinion in a world where the other side of the debate has too-long spoken as if there were only one moral side to this much more complex debate. The issue is not moral vs immoral, but one of conflicting moralities.
If I could convince my “brother” of only one thing, it would be that he needs to think seriously about the issues and find his own morality, not merely operate on autopilot as if there was only one possible definition of morality and hence only one possible decision, because that relinquishes his control entirely to fate and makes him a victim forever after of forces beyond his control rather than a responsible party in something he helped to create.
tai, if you read my post, you'd notice that I have been supportive so “consider being supportive” sounds odd and seems to miss my point. I'm not someone rich who can afford to help, and my “bro'” is dragging down people none of whom can afford to keep helping. He needs to first learn to help himself before imposing further on others. The having of a child is not, in my book, unconditionally virtuous.
Your reply, as expected, was both thoughtful and wise. My remarks were not in any way seeking to raise the usual “moral arguments.” Many of us who defend a woman’s right to choose heartily agree with you that another side of the “moral” question is, as you have astutely argued, responsibility.
Nor was I implying that you were arguing for legal enforcement. My comments in that regard were attempting to point out that there is often a natural extension of thought once any of us begin to contend, as you wrote, “An abortion is called for here. That is the responsible thing to do.”
I’m not in any way implying you would seek to legislate such actions. I’m suggesting that once any of us begin to contend that we know what should be done in regard to anyone’s personal choice we are entering an arena where we must take care.
My mentions of further thought being needed in regard to “personal choice” and “fate” were in respect to this situation with your brother and others like it.
As much as you and I would agree that it is irresponsible to bring another child into the world when one is ill equipped to raise the child they already have my comment was an attempt to suggest there can be other positive ways to grasp the situation when what seems clear to us is not clear to those involved.
Since you and I agree on both a woman’s right to choose and the lack of responsibility being demonstrated by your brother (and others like him) let me try another way to explain what I have attempted to say.
I would argue that such a person was acting irresponsibly by not using birth control to begin with. But since “he” is already pregnant, that horse has effectively left the stable.
The same would be true of your reasonable argument. It is true he is acting irresponsibly. It is also true that you have every right and perhaps a felt responsibility to point that out.
But since he is determined to have the child, that horse has effectively already left the stable.
That is why I suggest that there is a another alternative in this situation.
Affirming the right of “personal choice” even when we do not agree with the choice being made along with suggesting that the hand of “fate” may allow a “world changer” to be born into your brother’s family may lead to a more peaceful resolution in both of your hearts.
When it is a matter that must be dealt with “after the fact” and our suggestions are met with refusals, I believe the most peaceable way is to find the positive that may exist and make that the focus thereafter.
Affirming “personal choice” and the chance that the child may impact the world for the good does not dismiss that the opposite may come to pass. It simply focuses on a hopeful way to view a situation which clearly is not going to be remedied otherwise.
This is off topic a bit, but your post has me thinking. Somehow the discussion of morality and abortion always seems to skirt the common incidence of couples conceiving with medical assistance, a situation that frequently leads to multiple fertilization. I have many friends who eliminate 2 or 3 embryos and leave only 1 or 2 for development. These are abortions, but the 'reason' for the abortions is deemed more morally acceptable to most. I wonder why.
I am not callous towards the 3 eliminated embryos, but nor will I raise the issue of their termination to stand on the same plane as a person. Their (the 3 eliminated embroyes) potential for life was no more precious nor certain than the two embryos that go on through the total developmental cycle. Could one of the three have become another Einstein, could one of the two that survive become another Ted Bundy? Yes on both counts, and it's completely irrelevant to the question of the morality of abortion. I use this example to demonstrate that there is never going to be a one size fits all solution to the moral and economic question of abortion.
Quite some time ago, someone close to me died in a car accident (head-on collision with drunk driver) on an occasion where I “should have” been in the car at the same time, but plans had gone awry. I thought for a long time about how if I had been there, history might have been different. I might have seen it coming and helped avoid it. I might have died. I might have delayed being in that place at that time. There are so many possibilities. (There's a decent movie, not a blockbuster but reasonably well-done and worth a watch, called Sliding Doors that treats this issue of chance in an interesting way.) In order to put that death to rest, I finally came to the conclusion that there is no value in speculating about what “might have been.” There is only what has happened and what does happen. In the context of this situation, that means I agree with you that for every would-be Einstein there is a would-be Hitler and no one can know so it's futile to wonder or worry.
Having a baby changes the future too, not just deciding not to have a baby. What if the couple would have conceived another baby the next month but because there was no room at the Inn when the sperm arrived, it was turned away and left to die. Was that not a potential life, too, and is it not now precluded? Speculation about what if's get quickly out of hand.
What matters is that we make the best of them. And what concerns me is not that they are making a choice here, but that they are not making a choice. Once, when learning to drive, I was out driving around with my instructor. We came to a place where there were there was a fork. One fork had a do not enter sign, and the other did not. I asked my instructor what to do. He looked at me in shock and said, “If you ask that question on the driver's test, you will fail. There is no choice here, so ask no question. Just turn in the only way that you are legally allowed to go.” It is as if my “brother” is now faced with a sense that he has a similar (non)choice. I know there are people telling him he can—even must—go the route of having a child; I want him to see that there is an equally valid path in the other direction. It is the only path I would take, but I'll never convince him that it's the only path he should take. What I may convince him of is that his choice is between things things of equal moral stature. If I bargain down (in the way I've recently accused Obama of doing) before offering my opinion, unilaterally lowering my position because I know there will be an opposing position, he will hear “If I go this way, everyone will say it's moral, and if I go that way some people will say maybe I did a good thing.” I want his choice to be between “If I go this way, some people will think me moral and if I go that way, others will.” At least that way, he will use his brain and make a real choice. And at least that way he might say, “damn, I wish I'd thought about this earlier and not put myself in this position.”
Right now, he is assuming the choice is dictated by morality—that there is morality in continuing this pregnancy and none in having an abortion. I say it's the other way around. I fully acknowledge that others will disagree and I do not assert myself to be the ruler of the world. I do, however, claim the right not to water down my opinion based on the fact that I know someone will disagree.
You wrote, “Affirming “personal choice” and the chance that the child may impact the world for the good does not dismiss that the opposite may come to pass. It simply focuses on a hopeful way to view a situation which clearly is not going to be remedied otherwise.”
Your approach might make your personal life a little easier, but I’m not sure it is necessarily the best approach. I’ve been in situations where I was asked to support somebody’s position even though I believed that position was wrong. In some cases, that person was a dear loved one, and the circumstance was challenging my own character. I have never chosen to support a position that I believed to be wrong. In some cases, my loyalty, or my love, for that person has been questioned because of my perseverance in my own moral perspective.
Ultimately, because of my steadfastness, some of my relationships have improved; not immediately, but over time. There is a level of trust that develops with total honesty, even if it causes some turbulence initially. In other situations, some of those relationships faded away, which I view as consequences of being who I am as opposed to who they were. I’m okay with that.
Enabling poor judgment will most likely lead to more poor judgment, as Kent has also indicated.
Focusing on only the positive possibility while ignoring the definite negatives might be helpful in a personal equation. On a societal level, I think we enter into a different realm where a different moral calculus might be more beneficial. Sometimes, maybe, maintaining accountability is better.
Sandra,
You certainly raise an interesting aspect. Of course, many anti-abortion advocates are also anti-in-vitro and anti-artificial-insemination advocates, as well. Those procedures are not “part of God’s plan”.
You make excellent and well thought out points. I’m pretty sure I’ve so mangled my original intentions for replying with my further comments that they are beyond recognition now.
I’ve found that my support of a woman’s right to choose has placed me in challenging situations with people I have known on both sides of this argument.
How my suggestion makes me personally feel has never been at issue. My comments were directed to situations where the rock has met the hard place. I agree we should never yield ground on what we believe nor enable and that by standing fast we often can win the day.
When a decision has already been irrevocably made, a child is going to be born, and all that is left is to hopefully find the best way to approach what will be an already challenging situation, are at the heart of what my suggestions were meant to cover.
I have not experienced this; everyone I know personally who has considered an abortion as struggled with it primarily as a moral question, and not one of health. But the moral question is multi-dimensional as Kent points out. There is little point of limiting the moral consideration to the birth itself; to fully defend the morality (or im) of a position, it's imperative that the morality (or im) of alternative positions also be considered.
I believe in full autonomy over one's person - that includes the choices of abortion and suicide. I can't see how the state could consider forcing me to have a child any more than I can see how the state would consider forcing men who aren't planning and ready for children to abstain from sex.
You really should put in more paragraph breaks :)
Sandra,
This...
“I believe in full autonomy over one's person - that includes the choices of abortion and suicide. I can't see how the state could consider forcing me to have a child any more than I can see how the state would consider forcing men who aren't planning and ready for children to abstain from sex.”
...was one of the most lucid and thoughtful condensations of belief (one which I share) that I have read. Thanks .
My very personal point of view is that, if someone is not ready to be a parent (not necessarily economy-wise, but maturity-wise), they shouldn´t bring a human being to life. The problem is that, if you are not mature, sometimes you don´t notice your lack of maturity, do you see? and then people act irresponsibly with consequences for everyone, not only themselves.
Good luck,
Marcela
In response to you several days ago, you wrote: "leaving this matter to choice, which I agree is appropriate, doesn't mean there that the choice may therefore be capricious."
Absolutely, there are many things that remain lawful and should, which are still bad choices. I believe that abortion should be lawful in just about every circumstance. I personally think the practice of aborting a fetus for its gender is reprehensible, but I would never deny the person the choice.
The same is true in this circumstances. Clearly, we aren't suggesting forcing people to get abortions when they are determined not to be model parents. But its fair to discuss and point out the impacts of people's decisions. Often, women (but strangely not the men involved) who have abortions are described by "pro-lifers" as "selfish." Well, sometimes deciding to have a child is selfish.
While you deserve some respect for articulating an unconventional opinion, I have some problems with the fact you see this issue purely from a fiscal perspective. If we would institute legislation based on your position wouldn't that entail killing people with Down Syndrome for the simple reason that they cannot contribute much to society on account of their disability and only consume? Also, you'd basically have to kill "excess" people in order to get rid of overpopulation.
Also, I don't think my position is particularly unconventional, just rarely spoken. For example, there are quite a number of people agreeing with me here on the thread.
Neither did I present an argument that is purely fiscal, it is simply easy to measure in that domain. The argument would be the same if the measure were the number of favors requested or the amount of other intangibles. A person is either sufficiently in control of their existence that they don't have to lean on other people to get buy or is not.
And in no case did I suggest killing anyone, so the idea of mentioning killing people as some kind of slippery slope is at best missing my point and at worst deliberately misconstruing my position in order to inflate the emotional impact of what is going on. A fetus may under your personal theory of ethics be a term that always implies personhood, but it's not in mine. And it was my theory of ethics I was writing about. The people who support so-called pro-Life positions are quite vocal about their definitions of things, but the fact that the pro-Choice community is not as loud about things does not mean they are unprincipled. Their principles simply differ. And as one such person, I tire of having conversations in which people with a particular point of view are allowed to converse as if “of course” their position is the default one that everyone must bend to. For one thing, the law of the land is that abortion is legal, and murder is not. So, plainly, there must be at least some difference between the two acts. Note well: I have not suggested there ought be no room for positions that I do not agree with. Managing a pluralistic society is complicated. What I have said is that any useful dialog on the matter begins with an acknowledgement that there are multiple legitimate points of view in play. At the point where you have simply construed my point of view as idiotic or extremist, you have left personal respect at the door, and I will have very little of interest to say to you.
But, in any case, as difficult as it may be to see, this issue is not about whether abortion ought be legal. Abortion is legal. This is a discussion of a matter that takes that legality into account and makes a different, layered point. It is a matter about personal responsibility. I use abortion merely incidentally, as is my right given that it is a safe and legal procedure capable of addressing the real problem.
Your response would be as if I had a sister who got stuck places and needed rides, and was faced with walking, taking a taxi, and calling me. Suppose you had moral objection to walking and yet I posted a piece saying he should walk. You might seek to open the issue of walk vs. taxi, but the real issue is whether my phone should ring. Yet there's nothing wrong with me writing that he should walk. Maybe I think it's healthy. Maybe you think it's unholy or unsafe or something. But my use of the suggestion of walking is merely a way of articulating a safe and legal approach to solving the problem. Perhaps I think taxi riding is too expensive or bad for the environment, so I don't want to suggest it not for moral but practical reasons. Walking works fine. We can quibble a lot on that issue, but I have no interest in it. Walking being legal, I want to get on about publicly encouraging it. If you don't like the laws, it's not necessary to intrude on everyone's attempt to go walking in order to reiterate your uncomfortableness.
And, by the way, my “brother” is not considering adoption either, at least not that he will acknowledge. Suppose I had said he should, if there is a child, definitely put it up for adoption. What would be your position then?
However, I really have to wonder why instead of addressing my criticims directly, you to jump to the conclusion that I am "pro-life" from that comment I posted. Whether I am or not is completely beside the point.
It's you argument I feel that warrants closer examination. It may or may not be sound but if you make it I think you should also have the balls to acknowledge that it has severe implications. If it is all about the cost, then why give benefits to the unemployed? They are draining the economy in the same way that children whose parents are not able to provide for them would. And isn't that also the same argument that those corporate health care corporations in the United States make when they deny people with terminal cancer treatment? That the afflicted are going to die anyway and that trying to change this is just a waste of money. I wonder how many ratings you would get if you had gone the whole nine yards and had made these admissions as well.
I think a stronger argument in favor of abortion is that in the early stages of pregnancy the featus is microscopic, it does not yet breathe, and that it's organs are not developed yet, and therefore can scarcely be regarded as a full human being. Killing an organism like this, to me at least, appears morally preferable to the potential problems inherent in tending to the child that you outline in your article.
Some people believe that a fetus is a person and like to use the word “killing” to refer to an abortion. This leads to a certain set of natural conclusions from people who do not model themselves as killers. Other people believe a fetus is not yet a person and so do not use the word “kill” when referring to a fetus. The ethics that result from that are simpler.
At the risk of sounding overly trivial (and I don't mean to be), imagine this scenario: You're about to make cookies in the oven and you get all the ingredients on the table and begin to mix the flour mixture. Then someone comes through and needs the kitchen. So you just wipe all the ingredients into the trash, even the ones you haven't mixed. We'll ignore the expense of throwing away unused ingredients (that's not done here to be wasteful but to complete the analogy). No one is going to come along, except someone trying to be whimsy or clever, and say “what are these cookies doing in the trash?” The ordinary English phrasing would not be to describe unmade ingredients as cookies. They are not cookies yet. They may contain all the elements of cookies, but if they are not mixed right and cooked right, and that matters to cookieness. They are just ingredients. And to some of us, the process of making people is the same. Fetuses are part of a complicated process of building a person but the person is not there yet. And though you may even say it looks like a person in miniature after a certain point, before that point it doesn't. Moreover, nature is full of things that look like other things but aren't. You don't have to agree, but you should acknowledge, that it is possible to have a world view that says if it were ready to be a person, it would be climbing out now, and that the reason it is not yet a person is that scaffolding is still being used. And while you might say there's a moment before the scaffolding is pulled where more people would agree that it's pretty close to done, there is also a time when the scaffolding is barely set up where a great many people would say there's really no person there.
If a painter has painted most of a great painting and it's destroyed, it may not be a full painting but it's still a great investment lost. But if a painter has painted but a brush stroke and it's destroyed, he grabs another canvas and starts anew. Now some might say that canvases are sacred, but hopefully you can see that this isn't a universal point of view. And hopefully you can see that someone who says, when you make a mistake in the first 5 minutes of painting a would-be masterpiece that the options open to you may be different than if you make a mistake in the last 5 minutes. It's a continuum of situations, and yet it's unfair to accuse someone who suggests just getting a new canvas as somehow “at risk of throwing away great masterpieces wantonly.”
Regarding safety nets: I have no problem with safety nets, but I have a problem with people who are on one believing they are breaking even. The problem I describe would not exist if I were not helping him out; the problem is that I don't think I should be having to help out—I don't think he's doing his part. And if he isn't doing his part now, the situation will be doubly so when he's got another kid. My whole point is that having a kid is expensive and if it's going to remain a personal choice, then the personal choice can't just be to take on the benefits of family but must also be to take on the cost of the family. No rights without responsibility.
Certainly if he or anyone is unemployed they should have unemployment insurance; I said nothing to the contrary. (And unemployment insurance is funded as a regular insurance, it's not quite an entitlement, but we'll ignore that detail for now since you're asking about my sensibilities and my sensibilities don't differ based on that point.) There's a difference between buying a house while you're unemployed and don't have the income to pay for it and buying a house while you're employed and then finding you're unemployed. The latter involves a good-faith commitment to work and keep bills paid (although it may depend on why you lose your job—termination for cause does not show commitment). The former might show an inability to get a job but it also might show an indifference to the need to get a job.