My Writing on My Thoughts on Abortion, Part Two

Previously, on Vogue Republic, I talked about Freddie’s post on abortion and personhood and felt that his fears should be allayed because extending rights to black people, women, and gays are apples and extending rights to fetuses is oranges. I ignored the substantive (but not argumentative) issues raised in the post which I, nervously, shall address now.

I’m going to argue passionately and loudly for abortion rights, because I think that guaranteeing women control of their own reproductive systems is a duty of government, provided I remain convinced that a fetus does not possess human rights. And I believe, strongly, that a fetus does not possess those rights, that considering the beginning of life to occur at birth is a sane, pragmatic and humane philosophical stance, and that the best way forward for a pragmatic and moral society is to maintain a woman’s right to choose.

I could be wrong on this but I get the sense that there is a degree of legalistic thinking about having the moment of birth represent a clear and easy to use/understand humane law designed to be a consistent guideline. It avoids the messy morality of the clear but perhaps less humane dictates of Blackmun’s Roe v.Wade decision. Even more it addresses the tangle of abortion restrictions upheld or struck down in the name of Sandra Day O’Connor.

So, here’s where my legalistic and plot-hole focused brain kicks into overdrive. What happens when a doctor, for medical reasons relating to the mother, induces early labor? Does he violate her right to abort the fetus up until the day of natural birth? More darkly, if a mother is dying or dead but there is still a chance to save the baby, could doctors, without spousal or parental consent, perform such an operation?  Rare as either of these cases may be, they point out that common sense or decency would likely lead you to answer No and Yes, respectively, even though they might be, in a strict sense, a violation of Freddie’s rule.

My personal take is that viability outside of the womb matters. There may not be a huge difference between weeks 37 and 38 but there is a rather huge one between weeks 13 and 38. Not all fetuses are equal, perhaps we should stop considering them as such.

Earlier on, he states:

For this reason I oppose abortion restrictions, including waiting periods and parental notification laws.

Which is a line that – quite honestly – irks me in all the un-PC ways, meaning legalistically and hetero-chromosomatically (meaning as a man, but I’ll get to that later). I respect and know many people who share that view and I get it, but there are – literally – no rights without restrictions. None. Free Speech? Restricted. Gun Ownership? Restricted. Right to Habeus Corpus? Restricted. So the idea that abortions alone should be above reasonable constrictions like any other right strikes me as a terribly myopic view of how rights work in a pluralistic democracy.

Consider, for example parental notification laws. If a 16 year-old wants to get aspirin from the school nurse, parental notification and permission is required. If that same 16 year-old wants to get an abortion, not so much, in my state of California. Now we could say that we should allow teens to make their own pharmaceutical decisions, but that’s another discussion.

The general legal principle at work here is that until one comes of age, with few but notable exceptions, parents – for right or wrong – have significant control over what their children can and cannot do. Ostensibly, this is because parents have the right to make informed decisions for their child’s well-being. Consider moreover, that although extraordinarily rare, deaths from legally induced abortions do occur, particularly from anesthesia related complications. I can’t in good conscience support a position that might someday lead a parent to find out from a clinic that their teenage daughter died having an abortion.**

The same consistency argument goes for waiting periods. If a waiting period is required before a a sex change, which like having or not having a baby is a life changing experience, why shouldn’t a reasonably short one be required for an abortion, or for that matter, any elective surgery?

Now here’s where I shift gears. Heretofore, I’ve been mostly concerned about consistency amongst legal principles. If you find a way to make your goals and mine compatible, then more power to you and your argument. However, I, speaking as a man, find our gender’s contributions to thing/baby/fetusmaking to be wholly lacking from any discussion on abortion. Again, if women could self-fertilize, this part of the post wouldn’t even exist.

The problem is, of course, that they can’t. At some point in the process sperm is needed and avoiding that discussion because it’s inconvenient isn’t a good enough excuse. Perhaps we should blame God (or whatever entity you credit with our creation) for requiring two to tango but just one for gestation. Women really did draw the short end of the genetic stick there.

Take one heterosexual couple, for example. As a couple, if they create a song, write a book, buy a condo, or start a business, all together, both members would be legal co-owners of all of them. The rights could be distributed unequally, but both parties would have some claims. If they make a baby, only the woman would would have a say in deciding whether the baby makes it to birth or doesn’t. The inconsistency argument, though apparent, is superseded by the total exclusion argument.

To borrow from the consistency argument, how does it work that during gestation, fathers have absolutely zero rights or say about the immediate future of the fetus/baby/thing, but magically, after birth, becomes legally responsible for things like alimony and child support? Or, should the couple stay together becomes an equal co-parent?

Coming back to the total exclusion issue, it really just baffles me the ease at which women, who are deservedly cognizant and sensitive to their gender’s history of oppression, marginalization, and invisibility, can turn around and ignore the role, responsibilities, and voice of fathers. It’s said that abortion is a Women’s issue. It’s not. Cervical cancer is a women’s issue, just as prostate cancer is a men’s issue. Abortion is more of a periagynecological issue.*

Lastly, I wonder how unrestricted abortion rights would mesh with surrogacy agreements. I imagine the states would end up having to step in and protect the interests of the prospective parents, however, the whole situation would amount to renting out one’s womb with limited contractual obligations placed on you by other people which, no matter how you dice it, is icky. So who knows.

I don’t propose a solution, but I’d certainly like to see a broader discussion than the ones we’re currently having. I think extreme pro-choice supporters and the pro-life acolytes are both woefully insensitive to the concerns of real people affected by their actions, but that isn’t any different from any other political-cultural battle in America, so I’m not surprised. I am, however, surprised by the number of people who aren’t at all skeptical of the all too easy solutions presented by either side.

I’d love to find a position that I felt did the least harm and prevent the least harm, but for the time being, I’d love to be able to ask questions in good faith and get answers instead of vitriolic accusations of working for the other side.

*When I say periagynecological , I’m portmanteau(ing) periapsis and gynecology. To save you a look up, I’m saying it orbits between men and women but closest to women.

UPDATE: ** Personally, I’d be up for having a much broader discussion about parental rights, child/youth rights, and in loco parentis. It just seems legally and ethically odd to me that the unrestricted right for a minor to have an abortion is not only inconsistent with a fairly huge body of laws and codes governing minors but also runs counter to the general trend in this nation to place greater restrictions on the rights of minors rather than fewer.

Another interesting legal question I thought of after the fact, many felons lose their rights to vote or gun ownership. Could states or the federal government choose to remove or significantly restrict a right to abortion from convicted female felons?

~ by Kyle on March 19, 2009.