Every woman should have the right to control what happens with her own body.
I recently had a young man reach out to me and ask about why I am such a vocal supporter of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. He asked me if I would be able and willing to boil down my support for abortion rights into four clear points so that he could better understand. I very much appreciate his interest in seeking more information and seeking truth, so I wrote him back, and I thought I would post my response here in hopes of inspiring some discussion around the issue of a woman’s right to choose, particularly considering the all-out assault on women’s rights in state legislatures around the U.S..
Why Do I Support a Woman’s Right to Choose?
1. Every woman should have the right to control what happens with her own body. For better or for worse, a fetus growing inside of a woman has dire consequences for a woman’s body and her life. Having a child can be a very dangerous physical change, and it undoubtedly will change every aspect of a woman’s life during pregnancy and after. Thus, a woman should have the right to decide what will or will not happen in her womb. It is absurd to think that a legislator or church or anyone should be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. As part of this point, it is important to understand that until a fetus reaches viability (usually around the 24th or 25th week of pregnancy), it acts biologically no different than any other parasitic organism. That language is SUPER harsh, so I tend not to share it, but the point is the same. If a life cannot live outside of a womb, it should not have rights that outweigh that of the woman carrying it.
2. That brings me to my second point. Those who say that abortion should not be legal and accessible for woman are essentially saying that the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the woman carrying the fetus. Though many try to say, “But we’re saying that the life of the fetus is EQUAL to the life of the mother,” there is no room for equality of livelihood when one being’s livelihood depends completely upon the livelihood of the other being. With that in mind, how can we possibly tell a woman that her life (one that is fully realized and viable) is less important than the potential human life that grows inside of her? Why does the potential human being that grows inside of her (and is completely dependent upon her to live) have rights that supersede her own? If we believe that the woman should be able to live her life to its fullest potential and that she is an independent being, then we have to respect her right to make a decision to value her life over the life of a fetus. It should be noted that while there is no doubt that a fetus is, biologically, human life, the real question is when personhood begins. I do not believe that a fetus can be considered a child (or a person) until it can survive outside of the womb. Until that point, it is a mass of developing cells that have the potential to become a person. This is an important distinction because of the moral question involved in abortion. I do not believe that to have an abortion is to kill a baby. It is to end the growth process of a mass of human cells. Again, to make the point, I will use a harsh analogy. Technically speaking, cancer in a human being consists of human life (it is alive, and the cells, though cancerous, are human cells). Would we ever argue that a woman should not have a surgery to remove cancer because it is human life? No way! As a result, we need to have a clear understanding of personhood in order to argue abortion politics.
3. People often say that we should eliminate abortion because adoption is always an option. In the United States right now, there are approximately 107,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted, but only about 53,000 of them will actually be adopted. This is, in part, because only 37% of those interested in adoption will adopt from foster care; the rest will adopt privately and internationally. Because of this reality, more and more children are simply aging out of foster care and into adult life. Within that reality, because of subtle and not-so-subtle racist attitudes, children of color are significantly less likely to be adopted than white children and spend more time in foster care. Children who grow up in the foster system are four times as likely to experience physical and sexual abuse and neglect. They are more likely to abuse drugs. They are significantly more likely to drop out of high school. They are more likely to spend time in prison. Essentially, those who spend their lives in foster care are significantly more likely to have a really, really, really tough life. Now consider further that 1.3 million abortions are performed in the U.S. every year. If even 1 million of those children were born and only 80% of them went into the adoptive system, we would have another 800,000 children who need to be adopted. It’s an untenable option, and it is an option that will only further guarantee that many children will experience abuse, neglect, and trauma in the foster care system. When there are so many children in this world who already need homes (both domestically and internationally), why should we pressure women to bring a fetus to full term if that child will be unwanted? Why should we put at least 800,000 more children into the adoptive system? For simple practicality sake, abortion must continue to be an option.
4. Lastly, any part of this conversation needs to be about the concept of “respect the right, reduce the need.” Rather than denying a woman her own bodily autonomy to protect the life of a potential person, why don’t we put our energies into preventing unwanted pregnancies? Let’s face it: we have a TERRIBLE system of sex education in this country. Very few students who are of age to produce a child can tell you much of anything about how a child is created and how to prevent a child from being created if they were to have sex. Thus, any conversation about abortion needs to include conversations about education and access to contraception. I find it frankly absurd that the same politicians who call for an end to abortion also speak out against the use of contraception. Just about every single person will at some time have sex, and it is our responsibility to empower them with the knowledge and tools to make sure that sex is as safe as possible and can be enjoyed without fear of unwanted pregnancy.
There is likely a whole heap more that I could say about a woman’s right to choose, but when asked to boil my views down to four points, this is what I came up with.
What would you add? What do you disagree with? I’m curious to see if we can get some good discussion going in the comments.
Way would I support women’s reproductive rights in this day & age if men’s reproductive rights are zillg & not supported by women?
About point 3, you do realize that none of those arguments actually support a woman’s right to choose because a woman can always choose to have the baby in which case the woman can put the child up for adoption or abuse the child (337 child fatalities perpetrated by the mother as opposed to 198 by the father). . Should we deny women the option of adoption to ensure that every child born is wanted? These arguments are only valid if you propose a parental suitability test before a woman is allowed to have a child (mandatory abortion, which is… Read more »
This is all fine, well and good—but I remain unmotivated to actively support expanded womens’ reproductive rights.
Why? Because men don’t have any reproductive rights at all. The best way to get men on-board with this is to actually give them a legal stake—reproductive rights to accompany their responibilities.
This is just how humans operate—we’re more likely to involved in the struggle if we have skin in the game. We’ll walk a mile in your shoes when you walk in mile in ours.
To expect men to discard this natural impulse is, well, dehumanizing.
As soon as the abortion rights movement stops being ANTI-choice (for men), I will take them at their word that they are a choice movement. Until then, it is no more than an ANTI-choice movement.
I support abortion for women, and I support financial abortion for men.
Co-signed. That’s what equality’s all about.
Financial abortion! Being legal? ?
No way in hell would that ever pass for the simple fact that both the feminist & the religious right would never ever let it be even considered let alone debate it.
That is sad. I’d actively vote against people who are against financial abortion, feminist, religious, whoever. Anyone against it is against equality for all in my books.
I’m sorry if this is TOTALLY naïve, but can you explain ‘financial abortion’? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before…?
Basically it gives men the option for a few months when they first learn a woman is pregnant to opt out of fatherhood. He can say “I do no wish to be a father” and he is free from ALL responsibility, but also it means he has no future say in that child’s life. I’d add a thing in law where should she choose to abort, he should pay for half of the abortion. That way, both genders have a say in whether they want to be parents. Women can still be parents, or they can choose to abort, men… Read more »
a parasite stops “being such” when it is no long ATTACHED to its host for Survival. Children are vulnerable. They may not be able to live without assistance from adults, but they aren’t physically attached to another living thing in order to survive. You’re viewing the argument through philosophical eyes, not logical eyes so I find it interesting that you find his logic flawed while your arguments aren’t based in logic but morals. If you look at it LOGICALLY it all makes complete sense. you are looking at it morally (which doesn’t dimiss the validity of your argument at all)… Read more »
@Lil Bit “a parasite stops “being such” when it is no long ATTACHED to its host for Survival. Children are vulnerable. They may not be able to live without assistance from adults, but they aren’t physically attached to another living thing in order to survive.” Infants are are 100% dependent on others for survival, not just “vulnerable.” Without human intervention, there is 0% chance of survival. 0%. No different than prior to birth, except they may survive a little longer, depending on the conditions they are in. These are facts, nothing to do with philosphy or moral considerations. Hence, the… Read more »
These are dated arguments Jamie. Limiting our discussion to North America, the dangers inherent from childbirth are relatively rare (in the magnitude of less than .01% of births). The rate is comparable to deaths from legal abortions (with some variation based on timing). The most important question of freedom and autonomy is whether one (man or woman) desires to become a parent for the rest of their lives. We’re not talking about 9 months, rather, a decision that will directly impact individuals for 70-80 years!! As to the morality of terminating a life: I draw distinction at some level of… Read more »
It is absurd to think that a legislator or church or anyone should be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. But is actually not the issue. The issue is the life inside the woman’s body. Coincidentally, legislators tell women and men what they can and cannot do with their bodies all the time. That is precisely the point of legislation. If a life cannot live outside of a womb, it should not have rights that outweigh that of the woman carrying it. That is bad logic, and here is why: once a… Read more »
You need a new hobby. Thinking and then writing up the results isn’t really working out for you.
@WTF?says:
At least he stated his opinion & he is adding something into the conversation, unlike you Sir.
“The issue is the life inside the woman’s body. Coincidentally, legislators tell women and men what they can and cannot do with their bodies all the time. That is precisely the point of legislation.” No, its not — this is from galerouth.blogspot.com “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal… Read more »
galerouth,
you cite the Thirteenth Amendment
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ”
The problem is that the legal meaning of these words isn’t the same as the common understanding; for example forced military service is not involuntary servitude. If the supreme court can bend language in the case of military service, it can also bend language in other cases.
“The problem is that the legal meaning of these words isn’t the same as the common understanding; for example forced military service is not involuntary servitude.” No can has ever said to me, using the law AND showing me the proof, that the draft is not involuntary servitude…. but all I hear is: “IT’S THE LAW”. ‘It is a violation of the Fifth Amendment which forbids the government from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Being forced into the military has the potential to deprive someone of all three.’ http://terrymitchell.wrytestuff.com/swa420556.htm but again, there’s a… Read more »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude “is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion” Even if that granted a right to abortion, that doesn’t mean that people can’t be prevented from performing abortions. That would just make coat hanger abortions legal. Even RU-486 can probably be controlled by the FDA. Ironically, that would make it unconstitutional to collect child support, get drafted, or even criminalizing the neglect of a dependent. The equal protection clause only states that everyone should have equal rights. It doesn’t say women have a right… Read more »
‘A fetus is a not a baby, and a BABY is not physically attached to the woman’s body; repeat: “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.’ I say, if it’s used in this way, it… Read more »
Galerouth, the wording of the 14th Amendment is so brilliantly broad that it can actually be used by anti-abortion advocates to support their position. More so, if the 14th Amendment applied as you think it does, then it is technically a violation of men’s rights to force them to pay child support by making them get jobs. Roe v Wade makes viability constitutional: The decision held that the state could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations “that are reasonably related to maternal health”; and in the final trimester, once… Read more »
“Galerouth, the wording of the 14th Amendment is so brilliantly broad that it can actually be used by anti-abortion advocates to support their position. More so, if the 14th Amendment applied as you think it does, then it is technically a violation of men’s rights to force them to pay child support by making them get jobs.” No really, again: ‘A fetus is a not a baby, and a BABY is not physically attached to the woman’s body; repeat: “NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th… Read more »
Point 1: Where is the outrage over the fact that a woman doesn’t have control over her own body in a great many instances: For example: Suicide, it is illegal in a number of US states, assisted suicide is illegal. Taking drugs is illegal , all of these things are taking away from a womans right to do with her body as she sees fit. Yet we don’t have the huge debate over it. Why not? imho, it is because abortion is unique to women and women only and the mouthpieces of the world only care about what happens to… Read more »