On to my story, and the official rant #1 in A Rae of Light.
So the other day (last Thursday, I believe), I was walking to class in the BioPsych building. As a liberal arts major, I don't go there often, but gen-ed requirements get me there every once in a while. In the courtyard in front of the building, I saw a bunch of those lawn markers in blue and pink on every spare inch of grass. I had seen these before, all over the mall in the middle of campus, and knew what they were for that time.
I checked the area and quickly recognized that the same group had put them there. I saw a bunch of posterboard signs stuck into the ground proclaiming various statistics, such as:
- 3500 abortions occur daily in the US
- 1.3 million abortions per year in the US
- almost 1 in 4 (22%) pregnancies end in abortion
- etc.
I have no problem with such statistics being publicized. They may very well be true, and I believe that they are, since I have no proof otherwise, and they do sound about right, in my humble opinion.
However, just because those are correct doesn't mean that they're enough to convince me, or any other informed person, to be "pro-life" (as they tend to call what I prefer to call "anti-choice").
They try to pull people to their side with statistics, so I will rebut with the same, plus commentary, which I assume they also give when a student actually stops to talk to the kids flyering around the display (I always end up being in a rush to class--the next display, I intend to stop and chat a bit, and you'll hear from me again then, I'm sure).
Abortion was legalized in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision. The decision, contrary to popular belief, was made not based on the morality or how "right" abortion is or ought to be, but rather on the issue of privacy: what a woman, especially over the age of 18, chooses to do with her child is between her and her doctor, and due to patient confidentiality laws, the government may not interfere.
Enlightening Rae Fact #1: as far as the government is concerned, abortion is a privacy issue, not a morality issue
There are conflicting statistics, but from what I can gather, before 1973, between 1.2 and 1.4 million abortions occured each year illegally in the US, with several hundred thousand American women who could afford it also going to another country for abortions, though thse numbers are less known. Illegal abortions in this country often involved unsanitary conditions and instruments, untrained practitioners, and a fatality rate of about 3 (reported) deaths per 100,000 abortions (the numbers are very unclear online, so I had to do the math myself: 39 reported deaths due to illegal abortions in 1972, with an average of 1.3 million illegal abortions a year = 3 per 100,000). Of those who survived, the permanent infertility rate was ridiculously high (no clear authoritative statistics available that don't conflict way too much for me to feel good posting here--if you find some, please let me know), almost all due to infection.
Enlightening Rae Fact #2: Abortions occur whether they're legal
or not, the main difference being that illegal abortions have a
significantly higher infection and mortality rate than legal abortions.
In comparison: Post-Roe, as the UMD Students for Life proclaim, 1.3 million abortions occur annually in the US. Also, according to other sources, fatality rate of legal abortions was 0.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions, while the maternal fatality rate was 7.8 per 100,000 live births. Among the legal abortions, Dr. Bohumil Stipal, a "pro-life" supporter, says, "Roughly 25% of the women who interrupt their first pregnancy have remained permanently childless." However, that 25% also includes those women who chose to remain childless for whatever reason in addition to those who became infertile as a result of complications from an abortion.
Enlightening Rae Fact #3: Abortions didn't lessen with legalization.
What did lessen were mortality rates and infertility rates as a result
of such abortions.
As far as the number of pregnancies resulting in abortion, 22% according to our beloved SFLs, you must consider the reasong behind these abortions. This is where I, unfortunately, must drift away a bit from hard fact and go with my own knowledge, because heaven knows where I'd find statistics on this--I can't imagine abortion clinics would go through the trouble of creating a survey for their patients, and if they do, I wouldn't know where to find the results of said survey.
Here are some reasons I personally can think of for wanting an abortion:
- Rape resulting in unwanted pregnancy
- Incest (forced or consentual) resulting in unwanted pregnancy
- Consentual sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy while the mother would not be in the best situation to bear a child for one of the following reasons:
- Unable to support the child financially
- Unable to bear the emotional roller coaster of giving a child up for adoption
- Discovering the child will have a genetic disease such as Tay-Sachs which would result in young death or a severe lifelong handicap that would greatly decrease the child's quality of life and expensive medical bills that the mother may not be able to afford
- Being in school (high school or college) and realizing that having the child would mean leaving school without a degree and probably not going back, resulting in a life of low-paying blue-collar jobs and a poor quality of life for both mother and child
- The mother having a health condition that would make giving birth more risky than aborting the pregnancy
- Bad timing of the pregnancy as far as the mother's relationship status, lifestyle, education, or something else
- Simply not feeling emotionally or otherwise ready to bear a child
Now, the question comes up: which is these are good reasons, and which are not?
Being Jewish, I feel obligated to answer that question with another question:
Who are we to judge?
Cultural relativism would argue that what one culture (or religion, in this case) believes is moral may not agree with what another culture (religion) believes is moral, and that's okay. You can believe that all of those reasons are morally wrong for whatever reason, but I can believe that they're all legitimate and morally acceptable, and we can both be right.
You may believe that abortions are morally unacceptable.
However, I believe that letting women die over 3 times more often during a procedure they would be having anyway due to unsanitary conditions and reducing the quality of life for unprepared mothers, regardless of their reason for their lack of preparedness, is beyond morally unacceptable, but a total affront to our society as a whole.
So say whatever you like, UMD SFLs, so long as you don't actually end up succeeding, only to find that you're causing more deaths than you're saving. I wish you would acknowledge that of all those blue and pink flags, for every pink one is a mother who would have complications with her abortion if it were illegal--because every single flag, both pink and blue, would still be there if abortion were no longer legal.
Just to end on a more humorous note: if there are 3500 abortions a day in the US, and we're overpopulated as it is, can you imagine how much it would suck if 3500 more babies were born every day than there already are? I can only imagine the price of real estate in 25 years when they're all trying to buy houses to raise their own families... Though on a positive note, if more pro-choicers had those kids they were aborting, then we'd have more voters on our side in 18 years since most kids end up with the same or similar political alignment as their parents on such issues...
I believe thats enough light for the day.
Peace, love, and babies (or not),
~ RaeAn
4 comments:
Rebuttal:
First, fact #1 was in reference to the fact that the primary basis for keeping abortion legal is an issue of privacy, which is a legal concept, not a moral one--the Supreme Court does not rule on morality; it rules on law and the Constitution. Personal morals may have an effect on decisions--even the best judge cannot remain 100% unbiased, it's not in human nature--but they are not the basis on which any decision regarding abortion has been, or should be, made.
Second, I suggest having a sense of humor when reading my posts--the Jewish comment is in reference to Jews' tendency to answer a question with another question. However, upon reflection, as a Reform Jew, even taken the way you took it, my statement still rings true: Reform Judaism was, for most intents and purposes, the first movement to question the morality of laws in the Torah--not everything in there is necessarily relevant to modern life. How many slaves do you own? When was the last time anyone was stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? Is our punishment for raping a virgin death, while for raping a married woman is merely paying a few silver coins in damages to her husband? Have you ever eaten shrimp, crab, pork, or a cheeseburger? This blog entry, while in reference to homosexuality rather than abortion, illustrates many of the points in the Hebrew Scriptures that would be a backward step for us to follow in the modern world.
I also am a strong proponent of Cultural Relativism, the Wikipedia article on which is linked in the main post. I believe that my religion supports this philocophy. I may not be the utmost Jewish scholar, but I am spending my collage career majoring in it, aside from aving been raised and well-educated in Reform Judaism, so I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about when I make religious references.
As for your third point, you seem to have missed my point--maybe you only skimmed? Perhaps, in an ideal world, people wouldn't have irresponsible sex before marriage, would want every child that was conceived, and would be able to provide a good home for every child conceived and born. However, last I checked, that world does not--and, admit it, will not--exist. There will never be a college class full of virgins, abstaining until marriage, even in the most conservative colleges--kids find a way.
That being said, I don't believe that the women who died as a result of non-sterile, illegal abortion procedures would have chosen to die. However, they would have chosen to have a sanitary, legal, safe abortion if they could have.
Yes, she chose to have sex.
But I don't think you realize that she did not necessarily choose to get pregnant.
For example, take a true story: She's on birth control. He wears a condom. They did everything right to prevent pregnancy.
The condom breaks. She realizes the next morning that the antibiotics she's on for a bout of ear infection she was just getting over has a warning label on the bottle that it may decrease the effect of birth control.
In that case, they got the morning after pill. But what if she hadn't realized the antibiotics thing until a month later when she was having morning sickness?
She should then be able to choose to have an abortion. She shouldn't have to choose between risking an illegal alleyway abortion and carrying the fetus to term. That's not the law's job, to force her to make that choice: possible death vs. giving up her college education for a baby she never wanted.
It's not anti-choice to say that the government should do its best to prevent as many deaths as possible.
By the way, my next post (being written, not quite ready for posting yet), will be musing on when life begins, which ought to successfully refute your last half-point. Then I'll be going on to topics other than abortion. Like homosexuality, gay marriage, education reform, vouchers, stem cell research, AIDS, racism, and so on. I may be a newbie in the blogging arena, but I got lots to say. Just wait.
First off, before I go into the politics, if I knew you, I would demand an apology for your ignorance. Why? For this:
"...and some group that calls itself Reform Judaism comes along and decides which part of the Torah applies and which doesn't."
In answer to your question: No, that is not how it works.
It's not that we decide which "apply" and which don't. You obviously have prejudiced sources on that--no one who knows the precepts and philosophies behind Reform Judiasm would ever make such a comment and truly belileve it. We acknowledge that the Torah is a human creation from several thousand years ago--the hand of God didn't write those Hebrew words on a scroll; take any Jewish History class (which I can assure you, I've taken more of, being a Jewish Studies major and all) and you will quickly find that the Torah is a compilation of man-written texts, not something that God spat out and boom! there it is, unchanged over four millenia. Such a notion would be historically ridiculous.
We, as Reform Jews, from a historical perspective, diverted from the path of Gaonic Rabbinic Judiasm, which had a policy of adding and adding traditions without taking any away, turning Judaism into a burdensome way of life that, if followed in full, would disallow any Jew from participating in modern life. Religion shouldn't be a burden--it's a tool for enlightenment, an enhancer. We look at the Torah and interpret it--which, by the way, is exactly what the Rabbis did in the 900s and 1200s when they wrote stuff like the Talmud and the Mishnah, so it's not like we're doing anything bad by interpreting the Law on our own--and see what has the most spiritual meaning for us, and do as we feel is right. Every human being is different, therefore every observation of religion is (or ought to be) different. I suggest you do your research before you start accusing an entire movement within a religion--the largest and most influential movement of Judaism in the US, in fact--of using whim over reason. I choose to eat shellfish because the health reasons they were chosen not to be kosher are no longer there with proper cooking techniques. I choose to date women because God's commandment to love is more important than the commandment (which is in the book that was archaologically proven to be written 200 years after the rest of the Torah) that a woman shall not lie with a woman. I choose to support a woman's right to choose abortion over a pregnancy that would decrease her quality of life because creating the basis for one good life is far more moral than creating a situation dooming two lower-quality lives.
And no, I still disagree with the point you're trying to make with the government being a moral body. Have you looked at Bush's foreign policy? I see few morals there, and we, the "moral" people you speak of, elected the guy.
Perhaps that's not the angle you were going for.
Okay. You say we, the people, are the government. However, I don't hold a governmental position--do you? I do vote, agreed, but how much of an effect do I really have, as a individual, on the daily workings and rulings of our governmental branches? I'm a whole-hearted believer in the effectiveness in grassroots campaigns--you won't catch me missing a rally or letter-writing campaign for a cause I feel strongly about--but let's be honest. When was the last time you talked to a Senator, and (s)he said, "Hey, great idea! I'll vote like that next time it comes up"? Of all the measures brought up in Congress, how many make it to an individual voter's ballot in and of itself? In case you couldn't figure it out on your own, the number is small. Very small.
My point was that in all legal terms as the Constitution and all other documents currently stand, abortion's legality is because of privacy issues--not morality. The rulings and documents around Roe v. Wade do not mention anything in terms of morals whatsoever, except perhaps in the context that it's not their job to pass a ruling on moral basis. The documents make their points only in terms of the privacy guaranteed in the Constitution. Period. The government may function with its parts (people) having moral judgements, but the government as a whole does not make judgement on the basis of morals outside of legality. John Stuart Mill is the closest to a moral you'll find that the government should be ruling on. (If you've done your homework, John Stuart Mill's primary philosophy was that a person ought to be free to act as he wishes so long as he does not broach another person's liberties.) By good ol' JSM philosophy, you are encroaching on my Constitutionally-protected liberty of privacy if you forbid me from going to my doctor and asking for an abortion.
And, as one of my (conservative, ironically enough) teachers canddly pointed out, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are guaranteed to every citizen "born or naturalized" in the United States.
A fetus hasn't been born yet, nor can it take the oath of naturalization (even in spite of the 5-year process that leads up to such oath). Therefore, a fetus's right to life doesn't exist until it's out of the womb. You can argue that point morally until you're blue in the face, but that argument would stand in any fair court of law in this country.
You should also see my next post on another reason life begins at birth if you want philosophical basis in addition to the legal.
Over and out for now,
~ RaeAn
"The axiological and ethical questions that surround abortion, rights to privacy, rights to life, etc., are not going away because you do not want to deal with them."
In case you haven't noticed, I am dealing with them. Abortion is a choice that anyone should be allowed to make. Privacy ought to be guaranteed for every human being. Life is a right that all independent human beings have. If having made those decisions and being able to support them with viable reasons isn't "dealing with them," then I don't know what is--you're just being belligerent for no reason if you can't see that. Of course, irrational belligerence is a side effect of not being comfortable in your own beliefs, so perhaps you're the one who needs to do more considerations.
Otherwise, as far as life beginning at birth, if you read my next post, I basically define birth as independence: as soon as a baby can survive without being connected to an umbilical cord, then it is independent and has the right to life that all living human beings have. Just because a mother considers her unborn child to be alive (which I'm assuming I will also do if I choose to have a chils eventually) does not mean it should be considered such as far as the law goes. (Though on another point, nice try on your attempt to use my terminology, but the point you made is not in linguistic terms; it's in sociological terms, since it refers to common usage and colloquialisms, not linguistics--linguiistics deals with semantics and the origin and denotations, rather than connotations, of words. I can check with my linguistics professors this week if you like just to verify that point, but I will say that I'm not majoring in Linguistics for nothing.)
Anyway, I do see your point, that morality" and "law" ought to intersect and not be considered separately, but I ask you this: how can we insert one person's morality into the law without thoroughly offending another's sense of morality, especially on the subject of abortion? You can't. Therefore, the morality of the law is based on John Stuart Mill, the often-unacknowledged father of modern democratic law: You do whatever you like, so long as it doesn't inhibit my ability to do the same, and vice versa.
I say it's moral to allow a woman to get an abortion so that she can have a life of quality and so that any child she has later on would have a more stable life. You say it's immoral to allow women to make a decision that would end a pregnancy.
The JSM compromise would be: if you don't like abortions, don't have one, but don't get in the way of others' decisions to do so. Period.
Onto the religion point. If you're going to continue to bash my Jewish identity, then I don't see how you can see yourself as arguing intellectually or how you can expect me to do the same. My Jewish idendity is far more well thought-out than almost every Christian I've ever met, and half the other Jews; just because I have slightly different beliefs and stances than what is commonly propogated does not mean that it's any less valuable or has any less of a basis in my religion. I'm studying Judaism as my primary major, I work at a synagogue, and I will be going to rabbinic school down the road. If you're going to even remotely suggest that I am any less Jewish for any of these beliefs, then I suggest you do your research on Reform Jewish philosophy, perhaps take a look at the more recent platforms and other declarations of belief, so you don't mistakenly make a complete fool out of yourself out of ignorance. Reform Judaism is accepting of varying levels of spirituality--of which I don't consider myself lacking, but even if I were, spirituality isn't the only platform for which religion has its place.
As far as your accusation that my beliefs are "unscientific," consider this: until a baby is disconnected from its umbilical cord, it is an integral part of the mother, a non-independent organ in a way. Considering a fetus scientifically alive is like considering a kidney--which also can be removed without any harm to a person--alive in its own right. As far as growing, many other things grow that are not independently alive: tumors, for example. A lymphoma isn't "alive"... but according to your philosophy, it would be, because it's growing. The ability to grow is not inherent to independent life.
Life comes with independence, not with hypothetical independence. Being "born," by these terms, lies not in "passing through a canal," as you say (I was a C-section baby myself, as was my younger sister), but rather in being able to live without an umbilical cord.
In the future, I suggest trying to use intellectual media for your arguments--in general, not just here--rather than emotional media, since the former has far more weight than the latter.
I believe we've hit an impasse, and someone had to say it, so I will: you're going to believe that life begins whenever you think it begins no matter what I say, and I'm going to believe it begins at birth no matter what you say. I'm going to value independence over a heartbeat regardless of how much you call that inhumane, I'm going to put scientific evidence on a higher pedestal than subjective morality (though I do keep it on a pedestal--just not as high of one), I'm going to tout the woman's right to choose over any other element that would get in the way of that--just because that's who I am. You're going to disagree with all three of those points any and every time they come up--because that's just who you are. Abortion is a polarized issue--anyone who's not a moderate isn't anywhere near moderate, nor will they ever change sides without some major life-changing event that I doubt any other human can consciously bring upon them.
There is evidence on both our sides. There are scientists who do believe that life doesn't begin until that umbilical cord is cut. (I've heard several mothers say that the cutting of the umbilical cord was at the very least the symbolic/emotional beginning of their son's/daughter's life, even if it's not the "scientific" one.) There is also scientific evidence that life begins as soon as that sperm wiggles its way into some poor unsuspecting egg. Granted, I don't see why it would be such a loss at that stage--how many sperm do you lose every time you jerk off (or have a wet dream, which any healthy male who never jerks off would have anyway)? How many eggs does every regularly-menstruating female lay to waste every year? It's like you're losing something that had a 99% chance of being lost anyway. But yes, there is evidence of everything in between: life begins at heart beat, at limb formation, and lung formation, at genitalia formation, at blastula differentiation, at first breath, at any given millisecond between daddy's orgasm and baby's wailing. It's a huge spectrum of people bullshitting their way to whatever they want to believe.
So, my real (underlying) point is: does it really matter that much?
My argument is that the definition of life ought to include quality of life. In my mind, quality includes--no, hinges upon--independence. And that's what I'm saying--and I know I can't change your mind. I also know you can't change my mind, even if you do want to lower yourself to the point of personal insult.
Also, if you have a problem with sarcasm, find another blog. My intro gives that warning. I am not responsible in the least for you not wanting to be treated with sarcasm: I already claimed that anything, anyone, everything and everyone is my personal sarcastic playground. (Not in so many words, but that's the gist.) I reserve all rights to poke fun at whomever I like with sarcasm. I try to keep my sarcasm on topic, but I never claimed that it would not be at the expense of someone with whom I perhaps don't agree. I also never claimed it wouldn't be at the expense of someone with whom I do agree; I just happened to bump into you first. That's not being any less intellectual (though one could easily argue that sarcasm is one of the highest levels of intellectuality, but that's for another day), it's just my personality. I make fun of homophobes, chauvinists, anti-choicers, war proponents, stupid people, book-burners, preppy kids, people with straight hair, people who wear sunglasses inside, people who love computers, people who hate computers, girls who own 600 purses, boys who don't own any black socks, JAPs, WASPs, people who claim to be politically apathetic, men who don't know how to cook, heterosexuals, people who drive any car that isn't a sedan or hybrid, people who complain about cold weather, people who complain about hot weather, people who can't stand the sight or blood, hopeless romantics, people who talk on their cell phones on the Metro, people who use the phrase "That's so gay," people who eat meat, vegans, girls who wear so much perfume that they smell like a walking piece of fruit, people who talk, people who don't, people in general... I also make fun of myself. It's just what I do. And I use sarcasm to do it. But even when it's aimed at you, it doesn't mean I don't love you. I'm way too much of a hippie not to. Besides, it's no fun to be opinionated if there's no one to argue with, so in a way, I have to repect your existence, because without people to poke fun at and argue with, what use would I have for this argumentative nature I have nesting inside of me?
Hoo boy. I can't wait until I finish my first homosexuality post... that ought'a be fun. I'll be yelled at for "sarcastically critisizing" all those who don't like man-on-man action. Because, honestly, 80% of people get turned on by gay porn, and the other 20% are lying, right? Right.
Over and out. I think I'll go grab a vibrator and watch some gay porn. It'll help me sleep better. But only after I watch that third-trimester abortion video one more time... yummy.
~ RaeAn
(And dear G-d, I swear, if you took me seriously there, I hope you shoot yourself and donate your body to the Bodies Exhibit for educational purposes. At least you'd be helping someone.)
Post a Comment