Responsiblities, and trust.

[pecunium]

A dear friend of mine was so brave as to open her LJ up for a discussion on abortion.

In the course of trying to get caught up on things (a rational sleep schedule, time with Maia [who leave for a week on Monday. I leave for two-weeks a week after she gets back] the news, the blogs, the kitchen, the yard, the dogs... in short life) I have, of course, stumbled on a few things.

A comment thread at ginmar's blog led me to an idjit, who led me back to a page of Bitch Ph.d (who is a great read in general), on abortion.

matociquala likes to say she refers people to me because I say what she wants to, better than she would (since she makes money selling her words, I just blush and go, "aw shucks."), which is what (so far as I'm concerned) this post of Dr. B's does.

I'll quote the relevant passages (and the mainline reason, my personal reservations aside, I am absolutely for abortion being seen as a right. There are a host of secondary reasons I support it, but those might allow me to justify limiting it, and so have compromised some of my internal arguments when in debate).

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I'm engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

Let me unpack a bit, because I know this sounds polemical, since I am clearly stating a bottom line. When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, "I'm pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with... [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for "convenience" / etc.]" then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman's ability to assess her own circumstances. That you don't think that women who have abortions think through the very questions that you, sitting there in your easy chair, can come up with. That a woman who is contemplating an invasive, expensive, and uncomfortable medical procedure doesn't think it through first. In short, that your judgment is better than hers.

Think about the hubris of that. Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation?

And you think that's not sexist? That that doesn't demonstrate, at bottom, a distrust of women? A blindness to their equality? A reluctance to give up control over someone else's decision?

Because if you cannot see that, then I don't care who you are. Male, female, feminist, reactionary asshole. You are acting as a conduit for a social distrust of women so strong that it's almost invisible, that it gets read as "normal." The fact that abortion is even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust women.

Go, read the rest. Read the comments. Read her blog.

Comments

[thesideshow.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't "trust" anyone not to do something shit-stupid. But that lack of trust goes double for governments that meddle in your personal decisions, and there's actually an even bigger principle at stake: If the government can decide whether or not you can control your own reproductive life, or your body in general, then it can make all sorts of decisions that don't necessarily have anything to do with preventing abortion. China has already made that decision, and it has the opposite effect of the one the anti-abortion bunch say they want.

But of course, I don't really believe the anti-abortion people really want to protect life. I think they are happier with what China does than the condition we have of allowing women to make those decisions for themselves. It's about control, not life.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

People get married whom I think shouldn't. They get divorced when I think they shouldn't too, and drink, enlist, quit their jobs, buy houses; cars, horses: Breed same, and a host of other things I think are stupid, perhaps even wrong.

But it's not my place to force them not to. It's certainly not my place to make it a crime for them to do that.

It's about autonomy, and autonomy (on this scale) requires an instituional trust.

TK

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

There's the word: Autonomy. I should not lose my personal autonomy because I am a female with an operational reproductive system. Another's right to tell me what I can and cannot do with it ends at their skin- they are not me, and cannot think or decide for me.

But like another poster said, control is an issue, too. I prefer to control myself, not other people. And my assumption (with exceptions for age and ability) is that others can control themselves as well. They will not control me.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I don't think this argument works. How is abortion different from anything else that government forbids people to do? Do we simply "trust" people to make the right decision involving . . . well, much of anything? If we did, we wouldn't have laws at all.

Yes, people who want abortion outlawed are putting their judgment above individual women's. I doubt that any one of them would deny that. But everyone who wants, for example, laws against people being allowed to carry handguns in public is doing exactly the same thing. Everyone who wants a law against talking on cellphones while driving is doing the same thing. People who favor any such law are saying that "{Their] judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some [other person]'s judgment about [his or her] own, very real, life situation."

There are strong philosophical and practical arguments for opposing laws against abortion. I don't think this one qualifies.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I disagree as far as the late term abortions. It is possible to not believe life begins at conception but further along. In which case, a prohibition against abortion past a certain point could not indicate a distrust of women.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I tend to think it still does.

Unless one posits women make the decision to abort lightly, then one must assume the decision (esp. for a late term abortion) is also not going to be made lightly.

One can even presume late term abortions are going to be made far less lightly, because of the nature of them (if it were going to be done without much thought it would have happened sooner).

Taking the power of decision out of the affected parties hands, shows a lack of trust. We say, in that case, we don't trust them to weigh the situation.

As for the question of life, from a legal standpoint (and from a social standpoint) it is immaterial to me, in re the question before us.

We posit any number of circumstances where killing someone is legal. We assume a few where we call it a good, and not a personal good, but a social good (capital punishment comes to mind. We have other ways to deal with the problem of heinous felons, most with far better moral resolution, but the culture has mandated that killing them is to the better good of the many).

I believe the social good is better served by leaving this sort of decision to the parties involved. If it kills a fetus that might have survived, that's a price I accept, just as I accept the collateral damage of gun violence, alcohol related fatalities, car crashes and all the other secondary ills of people making choices.

Given the rarity of late term abortions, the number of heathly babies which might be born without them is not enough to make me remove another person's autonomy; certainly not in an area which has so much else dependant on the question being closed.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Part of the disctinction is the level of secondary affect.

If one argues for a limit on the right to bear arms, one argues it because the actions of those people do harm to individuals; at large.

As I said below, killing people is a slippery question, so even if we grant, arguendo, that abortion is killing, plain and simple, the only persons affected by it are the mother and the fetus. No one can go out and abort a dozen fetuses, in a moment, as they can kill people by driving a bus into a diner (though there are those, like Eric Rudolph who do things which sort of fall into that category).

Who decides? That's the crux of the question. Is the collective, abstract, decision to be preferred over that of the woman involved? If a person take a pistol and shoot me I was not involved in the decision.

No, the fetus gets no say, but the fetus has no say in the decision even now.

The only flip side opinion which has standing is, that all abortions are always wrong. When one makes exception for rape, incest, and other (non life-threatening [and more than trivially life-threatening] medical risks) then one is admitting that killing the fetus is allowable, at which point the question reverts to, who chooses.

TK

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments?

I don't trust women to make their own moral judgements. I don't trust men to make their own moral judgements either. But I still favor abortion.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Do you trust yourself?

If not to whom do you abdicate responsibilty?

If you do, why shouldn't everyone else get the same chance.

As for the moral aspect of it, I don't care, that's the joy of letting others be autonomous; I can look to mine own house.

TK

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

As I said below, killing people is a slippery question, so even if we grant, arguendo, that abortion is killing, plain and simple, the only persons affected by it are the mother and the fetus.

Yes, but that's another discussion (which I am willing to have). My point is that there are plenty of decisions in this society (or any society) that we don't trust people to make for themselves. So I don't see how one can use "it shows distrust of women" as an argument against outlawing abortion.

The only flip side opinion which has standing is, that all abortions are always wrong. When one makes exception for rape, incest, and other (non life-threatening [and more than trivially life-threatening] medical risks) then one is admitting that killing the fetus is allowable, at which point the question reverts to, who chooses.

I agree completely; I have no respect for those who maintain that abortion is murder but will allow it in special cases (aside from, as you mention life-threatening medical risks for the woman, in which case one can make an argument for self-defense or even pull in "unintended consequences").

On the other hand, there are people who consider it immoral to kill unwanted animals or to kill animals for food (even if one does so as painlessly as possible) but not immoral to abort a fetus at any stage. I can't wrap my mind around that one, either. (I'm not saying that "immoral" should equal "illegal." I'm saying that one should be consistent in one's moral judgments.)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Because we aren't saying we don't trust how they will do things which have effects beyond themselves, but rather something which is local to their own body.

TK

[fucking--snow.livejournal.com]

no matter how good or convincing the argument, no matter which side argues it, or if it's someone with a whole new take on this, i have NEVER, NEVR EVER EVER, heard anyone reply "Wow, that's a really good point on abortion, I'm switching sides now because that makes a lot more sense than my argument." ack..

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Just for one example off the top of my head: We don't trust people to decide on their own whether to take certain drugs (either those that are completely illegal or those that are restricted to prescription).

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Sure, but we don't let them do a D&C on their own either.

As for the illegal part, I think it's nonesense. There are some, which for reasons of public health (anti-biotics) I think need to be regulated, but the broad category we condemn as, "recreational," have no more need, to my mind, of regulation than alcohol.

Hit the age of whateever and you can ingest what you like. Do something stupid on them (like drive, operate heavy machinery or perform in positions where your decisions have other's lives on the line, and you get punished.

Because those are things you do to yourself.

TK

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Do you trust yourself?

Not especially. I've seen pictures.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the illegal part is nonsense, too. That doesn't change the fact that, yes, there are things other than abortion that affect only oneself that society doesn't trust one to make a judgment about. That's my objection to the argument that wanting to outlaw abortion means one doesn't trust women; I think abortion is just one of quite a number of things that some people don't want to trust others to decide for themselves.

And we are avoiding here the question of whether an abortion affects just oneself, but that, too, is another discussion. (It's one that I find particularly frustrating, because in it most people on both sides beg the question.)

(As for the D&C, I don't know, is it illegal to do one on oneself? Or any other medical procedure?)