Yesterday, Milena Thomas posted about the hypocrisy of a vegan choosing to abort a pregnancy. One of the most difficult decisions women make is what to do when faced with an unintended pregnancy. It’s not like women don’t realize that terminating a pregnancy prevents the gestation of what ultimately culminates in a new life. Women know full well the weight of the decision they’re making and have to live with; having an abortion is not like getting your haircut on a whim. There are lot of factors to weigh. And however a woman chooses to come to terms with that decision is unique to her and should be without judgement.
Thomas would have you believe that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is broken in some way.
My understanding has always been that a woman who drives herself to such a decision has been befallen by tragedy. Either suffering from severe medical complications, detrimental effects of poor decision-making, or horribly, being violated. I’ve always felt that a woman who chooses abortion has hit a low in her life, led to her choice through complex social and personal beliefs. I don’t feel I could do anything but lament for her and hope she gets the help she needs.
I would argue that abortion is as old as pregnancy and serves as the most primitive means of population control. It allowed/s a woman to choose to be (or not to be) a parent.
Much as we don’t want to admit to our lowly status as part of the Animal Kingdom (we share 93% of our DNA with monkeys), terminating an unauspicious pregnancy fits with the basic instincts of animals. How often do we read of cubs taken away from their mother at a zoo because she killed previous cubs and litters? Infanticide is common across the animal kingdom when conditions are not favorable for the upbringing of young.
infanticide has been reported among mice and ground squirrels, bears and deer, prairie dogs and foxes, fish and dwarf mongooses and wasps and bumblebees and dung beetles. . . lion[s]. . . red howlers of Venezuela, the gorillas of Rwanda, and the blue monkeys of Uganda . . . lemurs. . .
In the early 1970s, Harvard grad student Sarah Hrdy spent the summer in India observing the behavior of indigenous monkeys, Hanuman langurs. Fed by humans, the langurs overpopulated their terrain, which led to crowding and acts of infanticide by both genders. The males seemed to kill the young not genetically bound to them, as a means of trying to ensure the success of their own progeny.
Her “outsider male” infanticide, she realized, was clearly not the only kind of adaptive strategy practiced in the animal world. A mother might resort to infanticide if she didn’t have the resources to raise all her children. Adults might also kill the infants of strangers simply for food or to eliminate the competition for limited resources.
Historically, humans have participated in infanticide. In Ancient Greece, unhealthy babies were left to die from exposure outside the boundaries of communities. A woman wasn’t deemed pregnant until she announced her pregnancy, allowing women the freedom to plan the size of their families and the frequency of new births. Family planning was so embraced in ancient North Africa, that a plant known for its contraceptive properties made its way onto the back of coins, sort of an early public service announcement to prevent unintended pregnancies. (The plant was so heavily used; it was driven to extinction.) Imagine condom pictures on the back of nickels!
While ancient societies moved away from infanticide, abortificients continued to allow women to terminate a pregnancy long before it became a viable life. Thus, to this day, women can plan their families on their own time line, and not be held a slave to their reproductive organs, by using contraceptives (in the best case scenario) and abortion (in the worst). Today, 98% of American women will use birth control for some part of their lives, and one in three will likely have an abortion.
Pregnancy termination is an incredibly difficult and complex decision for women. International research on the reasons behind women’s decisions find the choice to be incredibly layered. In the US, for instance, a 1988 study showed women averaged nearly 4 reasons for choosing to terminate, “with 63% reporting 3-5 and 13% reporting 6-9. Only 7% of women in that study gave just one reason for obtaining an abortion.” A 1998 synthesis of 32 studies conducted in 27 countries found (emphasis mine):
Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman’s perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons. Women’s characteristics are associated with their reasons for having an abortion: With few exceptions, older women and married women are the most likely to identify limiting childbearing as their main reason for abortion.
Women who don’t want children, probably aren’t going to make the best parents if forced to carry to term.
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. (Guttmacher)
Most women are either happy with the news of pregnancy, or eventually shift to acceptance. Some simply aren’t ready or don’t want to be mothers. What kind of childhood would a baby brought into the world by a distinterested and disengaged parent(s) have?
As for socioeconomic concerns, can you fault a woman for recognizing she can’t afford a baby? The staples of the first year of a baby’s life run average $10,000 (from diapers and formula to furniture and onesies), and the cost of raising a child through the age of 18 can run between $125,000-$250,000). There’s a certain stigma to life on welfare, so it seems that allowing a woman to pursue and education and career that would provide her with the finances to fund the life of a child, in a way deemed acceptable to the holier-than-though in society, might prove to be a good stage prior to parenting. Also, 60% of women who seek to terminate a pregnancy already have one or more children at home. Such a woman is making the hard choice to provide the highest quality of life for the children she already birthed.
Relationship problems and immaturity. Carrying a fetus to term is not going to make dealing with relationship issues simpler. In fact, it’s likely to complicate the relationship further. And to recognize that one is not mature enough to be a parent. . . both are responsible assessments of one’s situation. And having a child in those instances also don’t seem favorable to a positive long term outcome.
Women choose to terminate a pregnancy because conditions for childrearing are NOT OPTIMAL in their specific case. That decision isn’t the sign a damaged woman, but one responding to her most basic instincts that gestating life in that time and space isn’t going to yield the best outcome possible for all parties involved.
While pro-lifers are quick to point out that plenty of couples who can’t have children of their own would adopt the children born in lieu of termination prior to viability, I ask why there are more than 500,000 children in US foster care, without permanent homes? Would we forcibly add another million children to the system per year, knowing that just 1/10th of those 500,000 today will be adopted by the end of the year?
From its earliest days, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is made by women determined to bring life into this world, only when it’s most likely to thrive.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of my rebuttal, which will cover why abstinence isn’t as good for you as regular sex.
August 7, 2008 at 5:43 am |
Let me start by saying I have had this argument with you and others before and therefore don’t really care to share my pro-life argument again BUT I would like to hit upon your research and “facts”.
To start, let’s talk about your comparison with the animal kingdom. I love monkeys, my favorite animal and I agree on the closeness of similarities BUT you are comparing apples and oranges here Andrea, to compare aborting a fetus to animals eating or killing their young is completely different. Now, if you had facts that monkeys were actively seeking bamboo to shove in and abort the monkey fetuses that would be a different story. On top of that the lemurs or monkeys you were talking about were killing the young “NOT genetically” affiliated with themselves, which if compared to humans would be the equivalent of murder and pushed through the justice system (yes I know even if it was your genetic affiliation that would also be considered murder). I guess my argument here is that if when you talk about the torture of terrorist you hold HUMANS to a higher standard, than why would you in other instances compare us with the animal kingdom? Are only certain things applicable?
As far as ancient societies and how they treated babies, once again, not abortion. I understand that Romans threw babies they saw unfit off of cliffs because they would never be soldiers but this is AFTER birth and in modern times would be once again, murder.
As far as the adoption argument, I still hold strong to the fact that when people argue how many are in foster care it ends that argument as if they are doomed to die before 18. I would love to see how many of those kids go on to live full happy lives anyway without adopted parents, the pure and simple fact is that they were given the opportunity to live and mold their life.
Here is something that I am sure is out of left field. I remember one of your last posts saying that abortion was a means of population control, that the earth was overpopulated and women are doing the “greater good” by aborting. My question to you then is, why not kill two birds with one stone? I think if people are really that concerned about “Mother Earth” they might as well take out two people and kill themselves also, I mean isn’t that really taking the responsibility to help the environment? I can’t think of a more unselfish way….really.
It’s good to be back : )
August 7, 2008 at 10:59 am |
First off – I kind of love that I’m referred to by last name, makes me feel very adult!
: P
Furthermore, I applaude you for this rebuttal, most people don’t wish to engage.
Your parallel to the animal kingdom is illustrative of biological tendencies towards animalistic behavior, for certain, but I don’t think anyone prides themselves on maintaining allegiance to acting upon “basic instincts” like aborting a child that is deemed unwanted. Monkeys have been known to eat their own feces as well. There are good reasons we shed animalistic behaviors.
Wow – by whose definition do you get to say a pregnancy is “unauspicious” – I’m certain that if a pregnancy became a life-threatening proposition, that would be appropriate criteria. However, I think that some women take “unauspcious” definition to heights verging on insanity, such as Ms. Vernelli in my example.
Historic participation in infanticide is not an appropriate justification for it.
You say, “As for socioeconomic concerns, can you fault a woman for recognizing she can’t afford a baby?” I never did.
As for the costs of raising a child and such, there are many private organizations available to help raise children and help mothers care for costs of unwanted pregnancies. You bring up an excellent point about adoption/foster care, one that I haven’t researched, and you’ve sparked my interest. However, this still doesn’t give adequate justification for abortion, just sad realities of being human, which I believe everyone has a right to.
I’ll also re-post a comment I wrote on my own site:
I agree that the government shouldn’t decide what we do to our bodies. That’s our business. However, when a woman decides to abort her child, she is therefore claiming the child is not a legal individual, therefore she gets to remove it legally, as if removing her arm of her own volition, just as Ms. Vernelli removed her reproductive organs after her abortion. Again, I would agree 100% that a person should be able to do whatever they want to their body, however I happen to disagree that a child in the womb is not a legal individual and can be treated just like the rest of a woman’s body.
It is spotty logic, putting it kindly. When exactly does a child become a child? If I were to become pregnant, people would ask, even within the first two weeks, “How is the baby?” Not, “How is that blob of pre-human matter doing?”
I understand some people also argue the parasite/host relationship justifies the mother deciding. They claim because a child is dependent on its mother completely for its survival, it is still within the mother’s realm of judgement to abort at will. For that case, a newborn meets the criteria as well as an adult paraplegic, if not moreso. At least a baby in the womb is just hanging out in there, you take it wherever you go, doesn’t make noise, don’t have to change it’s diapers or schedule it’s own feedings or buy special food mashed up in jars.
Like I said in my post, if I met a woman who has had an abortion, I would never ridicule her or claim she should be tried for murder, not because I agree with the choice, but because I accept the unfortunate fact that the zeitgeist has agreed: a child inside a womb is not a legal individual and is not protected under the same rights as a child outside the womb.
August 7, 2008 at 11:01 am |
Also, looking forward to Part 2!
August 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm |
Chris and Milena,
We seem to fundamentally disagree on when life begins; a fetus isn’t a baby until it’s viable OUTSIDE the womb in my book. And a cluster of cells post-zygote, just don’t qualify.. Thus, on abortion rights, we’re not likely to find a meeting of the minds, except to say that steps to achieve less abortion would be optimal.
Whereas I think comprehensive birth control options should be available to all sexually active individuals, it sounds like Milena prefers a life of abstinence and chastity for anyone not actively trying to have a baby.
Chris,
While the male monkeys were killing other offspring, the females were known to kill their own offspring, as do other species.
As people, with a highly complicated grammar that allows for long term planning, and thus proactive steps, not just reactive ones, abortion steps in BEFORE life is viable and limits, though by no means eliminates infanticide (newborns wind up in dumpsters periodically).
I don’t know of any other species that actively tortures and commits mass genocide of its own species. Clearly, alphas pick off a few members of their animal tribe to determine dominance, but mass slaughter is specific to humans. Given people tout their allegedly superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom ( a claim that is diminishing in strength with every new study that demonstrates the ability to reason, to retain memories, and to do math, etc by a wide variety of species.), torture should be beneath us.
You are, I hope, also aware that you speak from a place of privilege. You presumably had a comfortable enough childhood and the funding/financial aid/work opportunities to go to college. The road for foster children is long and hard. Steven Levitt has an entire chapter dedicated to the statistics that suggest that the legalization of abortion yielded the crime drops (I believe in the 90s) because the children that would have been born into particular difficult circumstances that frequently lead to a life in crime were not born.
In reference to population control, I think you refer back to my post on why I won’t be a mother.
http://www.brazencareerist.com/2008/07/01/how-i-know-im-not-going-to-be-a-mother/
As an existentialist, I think every aspect of life is a social construct, thus our existences are essentially devoid of any authentic meaning. We create layered and nuanced meaning to have something to live for. Personally, I find suicide a perfectly acceptable choice, but it’s hardly the popular choice.
Milena,
People don’t want to acknowledge parallels to behavior in the rest of the animal kingdom; it doesn’t mean those ties don’t exist. Re: people not eating monkey feces, some embrace sexual subcultures that involve the consumption of feces, urine, and vomit. I don’t get “get” it, given the health ramifications, but different strokes for different folks.
For women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, the time isn’t right for a variety of reasons — making it unauspicious. That same woman might be part of the 60% who keep an unintended pregnancy if she wasn’t living paycheck to paycheck or had finished school or wasn’t battling cancer. The timing is not favorable for gestation for a variety of reasons.
You can’t know what’s going on in Vernelli’s mind; she had a difficult decision in front of her. As that study I cited shows, women have on average 3.7 reasons for terminating a pregnancy, so there’s likely more to the story, while the most salacious reason made it to press.
Can you site a few organizations that will cover the $125,000-$250,000 cost of raising a child? Or half the cost? Foodstamps and welfare are not much to live on.
When a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, the incubation of a being that could NOT survive outside the womb, she’s not ending the life of a cuddly baby, but that of a non-viable fetus, which doesn’t have legal rights.
No one knows you’re pregnant until you make that announcement to your social sphere. Your decision to gestate a fetus to fruition opens the door to acknowledging the potential for new life, life that doesn’t truly exist until it can survive outside the womb.
A baby in the womb is not just hangout out — it requires higher caloric consumption, can lead to gestational diabetes in the mother and high blood pressure (which endanger the mother), greater proneness to injury because of the hormones that start loosening the body prior to labor, etc. There are health consequences for choosing to take a pregnancy to term. Mothers opt to raise a newborn, duties that can be passed along to any other assigned caregiver; a pregnancy is not optional to a designated carrier.
Part two is in progress.
August 10, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
@zak – I posted comments on my post on BrazenCareerist…did you have a discussion there too?
Onward with the discussion:
You say, “a fetus isn’t a baby until it’s viable OUTSIDE the womb in my book. And a cluster of cells post-zygote, just don’t qualify…” Can you explain how they do not qualify other than in your own personal definition, which is not a logical argument? Creating a line in the sand so a woman can feel better about her choice does not make a solid argument. At what point in time (if not at conception) does a fetus become a human? “Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, child, adult” are delineations in a continuous thread: human life. They are not completely different entities at each stage.
You say, “Whereas I think comprehensive birth control options should be available to all sexually active individuals, it sounds like Milena prefers a life of abstinence and chastity for anyone not actively trying to have a baby.” This is an emotional tactic to paint me as puritanical and unrealistic, distracting from the actual argument I was bringing up. You ignore the indisputable nature of what I’m saying: abstinence is 100% effective for avoiding pregnancy. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. Nor did I at any point in my post or comments recommend “chastity” – I even mentioned women should feel free try a whole variety of sexual acts besides vaginal intercourse. Otherwise I simply warned they should be prepared to deal with the results other than abortion as birth control.
You cannot argue that people cannot fully comprehend these facts, options, and control their behaviors, though you continue to draw parallels to the animal kingdom. We are dramatically different from any other animal and have self-control, intentional thought, and pre-meditation. Your examples of “subcultures” eating feces are interesting, but not a basis for judging whether or not we should consider abortions acceptable on a legal and moral basis. Animals also rape each other. I assume you agree that is not an appropriate argument for considering rape legal or moral. These illustrations are not even remotely analogous to humans.
You also point out the differences between man and the animal kingdom, “I don’t know of any other species that actively tortures and commits mass genocide of its own species… “ But then contradict your own argument, “People don’t want to acknowledge parallels to behavior in the rest of the animal kingdom; it doesn’t mean those ties don’t exist. Re: people not eating monkey feces, some embrace sexual subcultures that involve the consumption of feces, urine, and vomit.” Chimpanzees have been known to fashion spears and intentionally attempt to eradicate entire groups of their own species in a war-like fashion. Many birds kill their siblings to gain more food/territory for survival. I’ve heard of a whole host of other animals & insects that kill each other. Again, you cannot compare humans to animals on an equal basis.
I hope we can carry the conversation forward only dealing with humans who have 100% control of their faculties.
You say, “You are, I hope, also aware that you speak from a place of privilege.” This is also an emotional argument which doesn’t contribute to the conversation with logic or rational thought. Why would anyone’s upbringing make a particular behavior excusable? Is murder more acceptable among the lower class than upper class? Perhaps you are trying to explain the proclivity towards choosing abortion; however this doesn’t excuse the act.
You also mention costs of pregnancy and ask for lists of organization which help mothers who don’t want their children. Here is a website which lists resources by state.
http://www.bethany.org/
I never claimed it was easy to get through an unplanned pregnancy, but again, that does not justify abortion. If you have a life-threatening situation brought on by pregnancy (such as complications/gestational diabetes), you can be treated at any hospital. Otherwise, there are plenty of human populations that give birth to their children without the aid of the expensive care you mention.
Additionally, there are many couples willing to help with costs for birth mothers. The rate of couples looking to adopt has not changed, and is usually around 2%. What has changed is more mothers are unwilling to give up their children for adoption, and terrible public policy which discourages inter-racial adoption. There are many more complex issues surrounding adoption, which I think requires a separate post, so I’m not trying to skirt the issue here, this could just be really long.
You say, “For women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, the time isn’t right for a variety of reasons — making it unauspicious. That same woman might be part of the 60% who keep an unintended pregnancy if she wasn’t living paycheck to paycheck or had finished school or wasn’t battling cancer. The timing is not favorable for gestation for a variety of reasons.” If the timing is bad, they shouldn’t be having the type of sex that leads to pregnancy. For example, when people are ill (an inauspicious situation) they may be asked to abstain from certain types of foods, activities, for health reasons. I had a friend who couldn’t eat solid foods for a year due to a medical condition. She abstained from solid food, a tremendous inconvenience and terribly unpleasant, but her health was at risk, so she did it. If someone’s life is so overwhelming they cannot afford the mental, physical, or monetary costs of a baby, it is comparable and appropriate to suggest abstinence as the most effective antidote to the burden caused by pregnancy.
You say, “When a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, the incubation of a being that could NOT survive outside the womb, she’s not ending the life of a cuddly baby, but that of a non-viable fetus, which doesn’t have legal rights… Your decision to gestate a fetus to fruition opens the door to acknowledging the potential for new life, life that doesn’t truly exist until it can survive outside the womb.” Aside from the fact that your definition and segregation between “cuddly baby” versus “non-viable fetus” is a false dichotomy, you need to clearly outline your justification and delineation of when the baby becomes “cuddly” versus “non-viable.” Is even a one-minute old baby able to exist outside the womb in every case? No. It might be ill, needing recesutiation or urgent care. Could we decide to kill it if after life-saving procedures are administered we were to find it handicapped for life? What about a premature baby, the youngest I’ve heard of is around 21 weeks which is when second trimester abortions can still be performed? This preemie was by no means “viable”, and had to live in an incubation apparatus. Would you agree we could kill it too, or do you just say once it is out, it gets to live? If so, please explain your rationale using logic instead of “because I think so.”
Furthermore, fetuses, even when born at full gestation are not yet viable. We could also argue that neither is a fully-grown paraplegic, and yet, somehow we don’t find it acceptable to kill them. Again, the delineation needs justification.
“Mothers opt to raise a newborn, duties that can be passed along to any other assigned caregiver; a pregnancy is not optional to a designated carrier.” I understand there are a whole host of requirements for pregnancy. But the duties that can be passed along to any other assigned caregiver need to be done outside the womb – meaning a baby is not viable outside the womb even once it is born. Additionally you provide a great way to further prove a point that adoption is a wonderful option, as you are right, the baby can be cared for by many more people than the mother.
August 11, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
The debate is back and forth between my blog and Milena’s
http://www.quietthethunder.com/2008/02/abortions-for-earth.html
August 13, 2008 at 10:58 am |
[...] some great commentary, thanks to everyone who joined in! Andrea Zak of Schizofrenetic started a lively debate on her site, and my post was carried on BrazenCareerist. The conversation will continue until we [...]
August 19, 2008 at 5:47 am |
I’m so incredibly late on this bandwagon, but I just had to pop in and say I am 100% with you on this. I’m so glad to read about this topic in such an articulate and educated manner. It doesn’t hurt that we share the same perspective.
August 19, 2008 at 9:43 am |
Thanks Erin,
I haven’t worked up the energy to deal with Milena’s latest novella on the topic. Amazing when it comes to matters of morality that “my morality has to be better than your morality even if it infringes on my own choices. “