IV. The Real Boy
In this my last entry in a series of commentary on abortion, I want to keep things somewhat more open-ended. I have spent time thus far in sub-issues within the debate which, while important, are mostly peripheral: the selection of terms, the coherence of compromise, and our approach to interlocutors. I have also suggested the utter necessity, for any traction, that the debate return to its center: the ontological fact of what the unborn being truly is. If I have lingered long at the outskirts while entreating a journey inward, it was with the aim of first clearing what pernicious overgrowth has too often obscured our path. Working through these concerns, I hope to have shown, does not require any profound agreement on the ultimate question: it takes merely a reflective pause, a critical eye to the mechanisms of another’s belief and one’s own, to sweep off the mounting detritus that tends to clog our gears and, for it, our vision.
The primacy of that final question, however, cannot be ignored. But while a shift (or perhaps simply a refinement) of concentration is crucial for the debate at large, I have come near the end of what I little I hoped to accomplish in these writings. To advance a positive argument from the roots up with anywhere near the appropriate rigor would be a task much desired, but fit for a space different from this. So instead I will offer one last thought experiment for parting consideration:
There is a humble old woodcarver whose friend generously gifts her a small supply of timber for Easter. In gracious spirits, she uses the material to craft two wooden dolls. One day not long after, a man comes by his shop claiming to be a magician. He notices the dolls and tells the carver that he will return at the end of the year, and if the carver has decided to keep them until then, they will be turned into real boys. Lest the poor shopkeeper have any doubts, the magician speaks a soft word to a wooden dove perched on the workbench nearby; the bird twitches its rigid wings, morphs and softens into feathery white, and flies out the window. “Year’s end,” says the magician, and he leaves.
The carver is stunned. She had always wanted a child of his own, as it turns out. Though bewildered, she has been shown reason enough to believe that this magic is real, the magician’s word firm and certain. After the shock subsides she regathers her senses, however, and falls deep into thought. Blessing and wish-come-true though a child would be, having two would be a true challenge for a woman of her age and means. After many days of deliberation she decides that she will keep one doll. Having no preference, and wishing to effect none unwittingly, she chooses one at random and has the other destroyed. On Christmas Day the magician returns, casts a silent nod to the carver, and the doll comes to life. The old woman has a son, and the stranger departs.
Has the carver done something blameworthy? Immoral? Some days watching her son play she may wonder whether she should have given him the chance of a sibling. But surely she knew best the nature of her circumstances, and though by her decision another boy undoubtedly would have been, what was lost was, in effect, merely a dream; in substance, a block of wood.
I offer this story as a way to frame another, this one true to life. In August of last year a piece appeared in the New York Times called “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy.” I encourage any who has not read it to do so here because it is a jolting read and I will not be able to recap it sufficiently. It follows the growing phenomenon of a practice self-described as “pregnancy reduction.” Women undergo this procedure to reduce their twin pregnancy to a “singleton.” In plain terms, a woman bearing twins decides to abort one and keep the other. Again, I recommend the full read because it has several details worth absorbing: the condition of anonymity on which these women give their testimonials (for fear of the “stigma”), in vitro mothers getting more than they bargained for, and decisions to reduce on the basis of sex.*
There are many things I could say about this story but of all those that struck me I would like to draw particular attention to one. As I read reactions to this piece (in the site comments and elsewhere) I began to notice a common preface: many commenters (though by no means all) would begin their remarks will something to the effect of “I am pro-choice, but . . . ” and proceeded to register their unease or repulsion toward what they had read.
This response reminded me of another. In 2008 at my alma mater, a story broke that a student had been artificially inseminating herself, inducing abortions, and collecting the resultant blood to put on display for her senior art project. You can read more about it here. The news ignited the campus with a firestorm of several weeks, and though the student was not without her defenders her project drew harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle. In the aftermath as conflicting reports arose it became increasingly less clear whether her claims were fact or performance-art fiction (she maintained their truth to the end). But whatever the case it matters not for my point, which is that many pro-choice people found her acts, or at least the idea of them, disturbing.
There are enough differences between these two stories that I do not mean to compare them beyond this shared moral instinct, which exists not only in an intended public spectacle like the abortion art project (which might be objected to merely for its inflammatory provocation of those who do believe lives are at stake), but even in response to a guarded private choice like pregnancy reduction. What accounts for this instinctive discomfort, or in some, even disgust?
With this I turn back to the tale of the carver. How you do feel about her decision? To those who find something deeply unsettling in the recounted stories of “pregnancy reduction”: Whether right or wrong, does the carver’s choice elicit the same response? If wrong, is it wrong in the same way?
Though I don’t want to presume, my expectation is that few who identify as pro-choice will find serious moral qualm in the carver’s decision, though a greater number will take issue with some form of pregnancy reduction. My question is why this should be the case. I imagine it might be objected that in attempting to set up this analogy I have hardly brought into equivalence many striking factors and have constructed a poor analogy for the experience of pregnancy. The old carver never carries her child, after all; the physical, mental, and emotional labors of pregnancy are never felt. Neither is there any period of natural gestation in which the dolls develop—the one she chooses to keep passes from wood to human child, fully formed, by instantaneous dint of magic. And the old carver had no ownership in establishing the initial potentiality of the children: though she was fully entitled to an out clause (so to speak), the conditions of the magician—in which mere inaction would result in two children—were put in place by no act of her will.
But imagine if her experience were (in some rough way) more like real pregnancy. The magician tells the carver if she wants the dolls to become children, she not only has to keep them for the next nine months, but keep them well polished. This begins with light touch-ups here and there, but the carver soon notices that the polish has begun to wear off more and more quickly. As time passes this rate of dissolution increases at a surprising rate until she can no longer afford to leave the dolls at the shop for any extended period of time and is forced to carry them wherever she goes. A few times in her care the dolls have even, strangely, burned her hand to the touch. In short, the process is more demanding, restricting, and time-consuming—occasionally painful. After some time under these conditions, or even presented upfront with the knowledge of what would be, would it be anything but more understandable if she should choose to keep only one, for all the same reasons she decided before, but here with the added hope of alleviating her current experience in whatever small way?
What is curious is that it is not the carver’s choice (in the tale’s original formation) that draws our discomfort—she who faces the easier path to her end and nevertheless “reduces” the potential outcome—but precisely the woman who does go through the pains of pregnancy, who has, in the I.V.F. cases especially, authored the situation in which she finds herself (even if she is surprised by the news of twins). Why then should any pro-choice advocate feel anything but utter sympathy with the woman’s decision to alleviate her pains and align her condition to her wishes? Why be opposed, when there is no moral content to the choice—when the unborn thing is no more a person than a block of wood? Less, even, for at least the carver’s doll was wanted property, a work of her hands and an object of care; Fetus No. 2 is an unwanted intrusion, a tumor in the strictest sense.
So whence comes this rejecting instinct? Does it balk at removing the potentiality of a sibling for the lasting child? Then our two responses should be the same. Is it because reducing the biological twin pregnancy is especially “unnatural” (more so than an ordinary abortion, at least) when all nature has to do is take it’s course—and the mother clearly wants children to some degree—while the carver’s whole operation rests on some mysterious magic? But what is the standard pro-choice account of respected human life but precisely some inscrutable magic—the passing at some mysterious stage from fetus to person, from termination being a thorough non-issue to suddenly and unquestionably a moral wrong the moment after? The “magic” of the magician is, in my invention, no less certain its potency, reliability, or finality; it is merely an alternative mechanism for the same outcome.
Does the mother bear some obligation to both potential children since her choices are responsible for their being in the first place (surprise though the number be)? Is it an insult to mothers who desperately wish for children to be blessed with the potential for two and to throw one away? Is it abusing a right whose victory was so hard-fought? Is it senseless when the woman will still be going through pregnancy anyway, and whatever physical alleviation the reduction might provide could only be a matter of degree and not of kind?
A perfect distillation of the operating principle appears in a telling quotation from the article itself (emphasis mine):
“Other doctors refuse to reduce below twins unless the pregnancy presents unusual medical concerns. Among them is Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia and another reduction pioneer. Sometime in the late 1990s, when Wapner practiced in Philadelphia, he received his first two-to-one request. “She said, ‘Either reduce me to a singleton, or I’ll end the pregnancy.’ ” He consulted his staff, all women, and they concluded that if a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, she can reduce from two to one. Besides, in this case, the team would be saving a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.”
You could hardly put it more succinctly. So in response to the above questions: Why? Is not that the very beauty of the freedom of choice? Why should there be any obligation, or even suggestion of an obligation, when it is a protected private choice, respected by its mere status as choice, regardless of what one chooses—because there are no victims at stake, and the outcome simply does not matter?
If you happen to find nothing objectionable in “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” I have not been speaking to you, and there is more we disagree with than I can account for in this course of this blog. If you feel something wrong about it, I ask why that might be. To be fair, it might be that case that one really does attach him- or herself to any of the speculative reasons stated above. I simply wonder whether those reasons can be defended in the full pro-choice context as anything more than mere sentimentality, resting as they do upon prejudices either irrational or extrinsic to the logic of autonomous choice. And I wonder also whether, in those who do experience that strong and immediate sense of retraction, the strength and immediacy of that sense is likely to be the product of some reasoned-out respect for a sympathetic party like the barren mother, or whether it is strong and immediate, and indeed a prejudice, precisely because it strikes a chord at the very heart of the issue.
I can not identify with the experience of holding in combination these two perspectives—a thoroughly pro-choice outlook on the one hand and a repulsion to the abortion of one of two twins on the other—because that is not me. As should be evident from this series I am pro-life, though I hope my meditations have been fair in their treatment of all and have offered as much for the consideration of pro-choicers as they have for those who share my beliefs.
Yet observing this phenomenon from the outside as I do, I cannot say I am surprised that this immediate instinct persists, for it sounds something to me like the sharp but quiet notes of conscience. Perhaps we feel it because it refers to something real. Perhaps it strikes us before we can explain it away because beneath whatever artifices we have put up there lies dormant but present a whisper of the moral truth. Perhaps we have become so numb to it through years of normalized abortion and hallowed choice that it takes drastic stories like the two-minus-one or the senior art project to stir us momentarily out of our slumber. Perhaps we feel differently about the reducer and the carver because one had a baby and the other did not.
I cannot say. This curious sensation is not mine to feel, as I know how I stand. But it would not surprise me. And with that I’ll close. Thanks for reading if you did.
=====
*Not to mention this astonishing line:
“Ethics,” [the doctor] said, “evolve with technology.”
This would have to be the most intelligent article I’ve ever read on the subject.
Exactly..
I have read all 4 posts in your thesis on the abortion issue. I appreciate your concern to the need of looking at both sides. I can’t help thinking these same positions, anti or pro, voices for, voices against, moral or immoral, are the same divisions, roadblocks and detours that society and lawmakers encounter on almost every debate. Environment, economics, urban renewal, social welfare, social medicine, you name it. Where does it start and where will it end.
Are children property? Do grandparents become disposable? What counts as being terminally ill? Does it not really come down to self importance, self gratification?
I was quite surprised when reading this to find, towards the end, that you considered this all an argument in favour of pro-life. I am pro-choice, and of the variety that there is no distinction to be drawn between the examples you provide, of the human child and the carver’s wooden child. I realise that you weren’t writing for me, so I shall be brief – all I wish to say is that the rationale you appear to offer here is that the thoroughly logical conclusion that pro-choice must lead towards is instinctively bad, therefore the inconsistent but emotionally appealing pro-life argument must be the right one. I would say that you have given in too easily to cognitive bias – reason should trump instinct as humans are born with naturally irrational minds, and sometimes we must except that appropriate answers to difficult questions will be counter-intuitive. It is wrong to side with the emotionally satisfying option just because it is emotionally satisfying; everything you’ve said here is in favour of pro-choice.
I agree. This is the most pro-choice article I have read in a while. Emotions are great and all but they’re drawn from instinct. It is in my instinct to take in stray animals but I know that were I to take in another dog I would not be able to feed it and the ones I have. Everyone in my life (and I suspect even you) would criticize me for following my emotions and taking on a task I cannot possibly afford when I know I can’t afford it just because my emotions draw my intensely towards rescuing that dog from it’s plight. And if I took it in, what about the next dog that comes along who I can’t afford? Do I keep that one as well even though I am already stretched thin? Turned away, even to a shelter, both animals are likely sent to thier deaths but in my hands both animals would suffer and so would I and ultimately those around me as well. Why would I take such a risk? It’s dumb. It is also similar to throwing away a good job with no serious issues to paint pictures full-time with no experience instead. Why would you put yourself under what is ultimately such stress.
But the moment it’s a human child it becomes different and we are somehow obligated to take on more than we can handle? Of course not.
Morals DO evolve with technology. Two hundred years ago it was illegal to be anything but a christian. One-hundred and twenty years ago it was OK for a 12 year old girl to marry a 30 year old man and have a baby. One hundred years ago the best dog trainer in the world said the only way to train a dog was to beat it thoroughly. Fifty years ago black men and women were considered to be lesser people. And twenty years ago disposibility was the only way worth living. And today it is OK for woment to make choices about having children.
People’s views on morality have changed over time in the same way that peoples views on the Solar System have changed over time. But like the basic nature of the Solar System, the basic, objective requirements of human life that determine what is moral, have remained unchanged for a very long time.
What was genuinely, objectively moral was the same all along, but it took Ayn Rand to discover it.
Actually that is also not true. There was a point in time where it was perfectly moral to have a harem. Where it was objectionable to not worship royalty. Whhere women were abused and controlled.
Unless you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old there have been massive changes in morals and societies. And there’s no way for us to look at a time 20,000 years ago when there were cavemen who controlled harems of women and to our eyes raped them and say “that is objectively unmoral” because we are viewing it not through thier lens of thier pure nessecity of survival but of ours of a changed and evolved society.It’s only unmoral to use because we’re not living it, nor have we ever done so. If we were living it it would be MUCH different.
I had the same reaction. I read the sentence about “we disagree on more than I can account for in this blog” at least five times, trying to figure out what you meant, before I realized that your position is exactly the opposite of what I had thought. Callum J Hackett puts things better than I would, so I’ll just say, I agree with him.
This article belongs in this obscure place.
What I do with my body is my choice, if I accidentally get pregnant, whatever I choose to do is MY decision, and no one has the right to impose their opinions on me. That’s how I feel about this whole “debate”. My body, my choice.
Hmm…and what about the baby’s body?
Exactly.
I’m sorry to say that at that stage it’s a foetus, not a baby. It is a potential baby, and what about when the baby is born? What then? I find most, not all, pro-lifers to be little more than pro-birth. Whatever happens after the child is born is irrelevant; it may be born into abject poverty or into the household of an unwilling parent, but hey, so long as it’s born you’ve made the world a better place.
Regardless, I found this post to be quite interesting, and was very surprised to read at it’s pro-life stance. I also thought you had some very interesting, well thought out points on which you base your views, not the typical “Don’t murder babies” spiel.
It’s important to remember that very few people enter into an abortion nonchalantly, and those that do, well, I personally feel that they probably shouldn’t be given the responsibility of taking care of a child.
^ THIS. It astonishes me to find that many pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty. Once that child is born, they have no problem executing it for some reason or another. Or sending it off to war to die (or possibly kill someone else’s baby.) The abortion debate seems to come down to “What age is it appropriate to start killing each other?”
I hope you know that Fetus means “little one,” and not latin for blog of tissue. And how can you determine when a baby becomes a real person, personally, without being subjective? And how can we even begin to imagine being able to judge whether or not a life is worth living– so many of the world’s best leaders have risen from poverty and poor parenting. Can you fathom a world where every child that was conceived to unready parents was terminated? And the same for poverty:
http://orig.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec4_sheledfight_mcferren.shtm >She made the world a better place.
We cannot judge a humans quality of life before they have had a chance to live it.
Interesting post.
I am pro-choice, both in regard to one child and in regard to pregnancy reduction, because this is the rational position. A fetus is a potential person, not an actual person. Just as a living adult is a potential corpse, not an actual corpse.
An adult has rights, unlike a corpse (or pile of ashes.) Thus, a fetus does not have rights, unlike an adult.
Perhaps this doesn’t represent you, but the typical idea offered in support of an anti-abortion position is that a mystical soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, making the zygote a human being in the eyes of a creator god. Therefore, killing this bundle of cells is considered murder in the eyes of said god.
This position is generally taken on sheer faith. I, however, reject faith and find no basis in evidence of a soul separable from the body. So the status of being a human with rights is based on the physical development and capabilities of the entity in question.
I disagree with your analogy that a corpse and fetus have no rights. A corpse has no potential whereas a fetus has only potential. The mutilation of a corpse does not deny it any rights. The mutilation of a potential person denies it all rights. Also, even a corpse is not without rights. It’s interesting that a potential life has fewer rights than a past life.
All “X is potential” means is “X will be the case, if certain conditions are met.” An orange tree seed is a potential fruit-bearer, but you cannot actually harvest fruit from a seed. So it is with a fetus. A fetus is a potential rights-bearer, but there is no basis to actually recognize rights in a fetus.
There is no bias in the concept of “potential” toward human life; it is neutral with regard to the content of the “potential” condition.
The rights that a government properly recognizes in regard to the deceased are simply the delayed implementation of the rights of the living person. That was an actual living person who exercised those rights. That is, the rights were actualized. But a corpse as such has no right to liberty.
Reblogged this on misentopop.
Wow! This article shaped me to become a pro-life supporter. I wasn’t either pro-choice or pro-life before, but the carver story gave me perspective on the subject. As i am a teenager, it was something that I could relate to more easily. A human shouldn’t be given the power to choose the fate of a child.
God Bless you Evan, you have much wisdom for your age.
I think you are right to return to the ontological question of what a fetus really is and represents. For some people, our answer is that we don’t know. Some things in life are simply unknowable, and we have no right to tell someone what to think or choose about something that will always remain a mystery to us.
To be human should involve a degree of humility. We do not know everything. We should not pretend we do.
A human fetus can never become a dog. A monkey fetus can never become a giraffe.
Only a human fetus can become a human.
We cannot miss out or bypass the fetal stage and still produce an animal or being. A fetus is what it is.
It sounds like it’s difficult for you to understand that others see things differently than you.
with respect Ashana, I am stating basic biological facts. You are making an assumption, about me, but thats o.k. you are entitled toyour opinion.
I continue to see things differently from you.
Oh, I see – you are saying that
you find it difficult to understand that others see things differently than you…
I continue to see things differently from you.
I enjoyed your blog. As a Christian, I am against abortion in totality.
A very intelligent article on a very delicate matter I would say.
Thank you for sharing this post and making me think about this issue.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! As a pro-lifer, I get frustrated sometimes with the lack of intelligent discussion (on BOTH sides) centering around the abortion issue. You have offered some beautifully written and thoughtful words. This can be such a heated subject, and I hope that your post inspires reflection and discussion on both sides of the issue!
a very interesting article..
I liked this article and the thought-experiment too. Thought experiment is just the way of exposing our true nature and only points to the subtleties of the polar positions we like to defend. I am pro-choice (all the way!), and this article made me reaffirm my position. I don’t have a problem with the woodcarver, and I don’t have a problem with twin-to-one reduction. As some commentator said above, “My body, my rules”.
It sounded weird that the OP magically “becomes” pro-life; I assumed she was not. But that only makes me applaud her effort even more because it means the article was neutral in every sort of way.
If you want my flaming opinion on the subject anyway, it is wood to me before it is born.
have you never felt an unborn baby kick? That ain’t wood in there.
Thought provoking, thank you.
There will always be a gray area with this topic.
There’s no further mention of the magician in this ‘Carver Fairytale’. Isn’t this the real problem here? Instead of our societal norms to blame women, why do we never consider the decision of the father?
That a magician would come along, grant the lady her wish of having a child then ‘depart forever’ is simply outrageous, yet you assume that the finger of blame should be pointed at the woman.
It is for both parties to take responsibility for their actions and even before reading the article on New York mothers I fully believe that a thorough discussion would have been had between both parents before making a decision, rather than just being the decision of the mother.
This is a hard issue to tackle and as I was reading not only did I feel that it seriously leaned toward pro-choice but also that it was pro-pregnancy reduction. Though I understand giving respect to the other side of things I think in an effort to be clear with your objective maybe more of your personal thoughts about the subjects herein should have been included. With that being said you write intelligently and as being a pro-lifer myself and being face with an unplanned pregnancy making me a single mother with a twin pregnancy that resulted in one child surviving and suffering through the miscarriage of my daughter’s twin. I can tell you that I am still saddened at the thought of the loss of my child. I could never choose to end a purposeful pregnancy that resulted in more children then I expected. I am not saying this in judgment but compassion because every choice we make has a consequence to our life and I believe soul. And I have seen the lasting effects of abortion firsthand in the lives of some of the people I love. Think it through and be clear headed, a baby isn’t the worst that could happen to a life. <3 Trust a woman who knows.
Jenness
I am sure this may be related to my age, but I found this missive to be unnecessarily verbose and lacking cogency. Judging from the comments, I am sure I am in the minority, but the allegory was lost on me. Unfortunately this debate can not be resolved by observers or pontificators, but only through the agonized decisions of the women and men, in the moment, who must make this decision in real circumstances known only to them.
Reblogged this on joviesylvia.
Hi all,
Thank you very much for reading. I am surprised and humbled that these relatively isolated meditations should have caught anyone’s notice, much less attracted a wider audience. I appreciate the responses (of all stripes) and wish to comment myself upon a few of the running lines of note:
1. I was initially surprised that some took the piece to be thoroughly pro-choice and nature and the pro-life turn at the end to be somewhat incongruous, but in retrospect I can see how this might have been so. Much of the preliminary argument is indeed attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff: the objection to pregnancy reduction makes no sense, and must be accounted for, given the pro-choice premises. “[G]iven the pro-choice premises” is the crucial qualifier. In unpacking the position I speak as one assuming assent of pro-choice thinking en route to the reductio, though with a (perhaps too-thinly-laid) layer of irony. This is an enunciation of principles picked at in previous posts which give more context to my own positions, so I can see how the stylistic choice might have confused in isolation.
2. The piece is intended to be open-ended (per the opening line) in that it clears ground merely to make room for a hypothesis. If my preliminary argument is correct, then pro-choice opposition to pregnancy reduction is irrational. One approach to settling the issue is merely to say “Yes, it is irrational” and continue to hold fast to pro-choice principles. While logically viable, this by itself offers no plausible account for why an instinctive moral objection to reduction should exist in some pro-choicers who at the same time have none for pro-choice logic as it is applied conventionally (i.e., non-reduction scenarios). Perhaps it is irrational, but it is still a very curious phenomenon. Any convincing explanation would still have to make some sense of why there there does in fact exist (for no small number) this objection where there should be none. That doesn’t necessarily mean this take is wrong, but it does mean one has more work to do.
The other approach is to entertain the possibility that the objection might exist for some good and rational reason. But if my argument is correct, this cannot be squared under pro-choice premises. Therefore we question the premises. Here is where I offer a hypothesis: the objection is a primitive voicing of conscience responding to a sort of immediate apprehension of the facts of the case, before that apprehension gets fed into and dissolved within our preferred theoretic schema. I don’t consider this a definitive pro-life argument by any means, and certainly a compelling argument would have to give this hypothesis a much fuller treatment. But it does provide the framework of a sufficient answer to the phenomenon: the objection is a legitimate moral conviction because it speaks to something true about the being in question, our understanding of which has been numbed and suppressed under our society’s reinforcement of the practice and prevailing view of abortion, so that only in unusual and extreme cases like these does it surface again.
(Splitting this comment; more to follow)
Beautiful post, thanks for bringing this topic to the deeper level that it deserves. We’re talking about life here, the most precious, irreplaceable and misunderstood phenomenon of all time. For the sake of my argument, I am pro-life. I understand all the reasoning behind pro-choice and understand the circumstances that bring any woman to exercising her freedom of choice. I do not condone anyone’s decisions to do anything, because I do believe the only thing we do own is our own life. But isn’t this last argument self-contradictory when applied to this topic? WE own OUR own life…yet we are making a decision that affects , not our own life, but someone else’s. This is the thought process that brings me to my final and (personally) irrefutable conclusion.
Who am I to say this is wrong or right? I was absolutely certain I didn’t want babies, ever. When I fell pregnant in extremely unlikely circumstances, my world may as well have ended. When I found out I was carrying twins, the scattered pieces rearranged themselves in a way that cut me off from reaching for a termination, which seemed like the option I needed to take for what I automatically assumed was a single pregnancy. Don’t ask me why the concept of two babies made it so much harder to end the pregnancy, it just DID. When I lost one of my twins at 14 weeks, the kaliedoscope of horror and surprise shifted again. Who the hell was I to be going through this- someone who never , ever wanted babies? I didn’t get the answer to that question until the very second I held my son, and all the confusion and fear dissolved. I was a mother, and my son is my world and all the love I know. I often wish his sibling had survived, especially knowing the love I felt for him was absolutely unestimable- and i could never have guessed how limitless it is. I have no doubt I would have felt this for his sibling, it is just my truth.
A few more thoughts:
3. Some commenters have claimed that I am setting up a dichotomy (intentional or not) between emotion and reason, and falling into the former at the expense of the latter. This can’t have been helped by my imprecision with such terms as “feeling and “instinct.” In using such terms I meant something more, however, than the expression of mere emotional or non-rational preference. What I am describing is a conviction that carries definite, if unspecific, propositional content: “There is something (morally) wrong about this.” That is to say, it is a belief that, if articulated, will show itself to carry a truth claim. What I intended to evoke with “feeling” and “instinct” is one particular but critical aspect of the phenomenon: that it seems *not* to be overtly articulated, manifesting more as involuntary reaction than deliberated assent.
Many of these reduction-objecting pro-choicers may on further reflection dismiss this conviction as irrational sentiment and sally on with their same opinions. I merely suggest that, if my characterization is correct, it operates in the same way that conscience operates, or at least bears some similarity, and thoughtful reflection would require this brand of pro-choicer to grope around to account for it in some way or another.
But even granting this, I do not claim that the moral instinct “pregnancy reduction is somehow wrong” is sufficient justification taken in isolation. Neither is the moral instinct “torturing children is wrong” sufficient to establish its wrongness. But that does not entail that these propositions are not themselves rational and justified (or justifiable) within a larger theoretic framework, or that neither instinct does any work in putting together that framework. A moral philosophy without reference to conscience simply has the wrong subject. But neither is it the end of our inquiry—otherwise we would not bother theorizing. My hypothesis considers this moral instinct as we consider other more widespread and acknowledged proddings of conscience: as signposts and products of moral truth rather than bases of it.
4. (I think the rest I’ll fold in as replies to individual posts.)
Thank you for writing for both sides. I feel like the media bias pushes one view at us and the other should be voiced as well. Congrats on being Freshly Pressed. Sometimes writing against the grain ruffles feathers, don’t let that stop you though!
Hi, at 43 I was expecting twins, the experts pushed me ” abort one, its got downs.” I said no thanks. the practice nurse was releived. She knew what that meant. A few weeks later I was told by the doctors, “you must abort them both, they both have downs” again I said no.
Nine years later I have two perfectly healthy, happy and intelligent children. (They were born on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.)
Reblogged this on By the Mighty Mumford and commented:
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER…Jonathan Caswell
A wonderfully curious blog. I’m glad I stumbled upon it. Being that I’ve read no others, I must dig and find your reasons and argument for the pro-choice perspective. I did not see that stance coming in reading this particular blog, which means your attempt at objectivity succeeded.
most interesting article
begs the question eh?
Interesting enough, I need to reblog this.
Reblogged this on thewordpressghost and commented:
Everyone,
I found this to be an enjoyable intellectual exercise.
But, I found the comments more fascinating. The lack of logic of so many amazes me.
A “corpse has no rights:” then try to dig up a grave ….
I have the right over my body. It is not a body it is a fetus. Etc.
Modern rights are not ‘rights’ they are legal concessions. That is why we hear about “the rule of law.”
Rights, as defined historically, were granted by an absolute authority.
And NO it was not “OK” for a 12 year old to marry a 50 year old. That was ‘allowed’ just as our current “rule of law” tries to redefine our dictionary definitions.
What do you think?
Ghost.
Pingback: Good Reads II « keepingupwiththejoneses67
I myself would almost never consider abortion as a solution. But this is also a very personal thing and for all of the moral reasons that I find myself against it for, I would not take that decision or solution away from someone who had to consider it for themselves. I was only able to read about half of the post due to time constraints and I will return and finish it, but from what I did read I did find it insightful and well done.
Reblogged this on Auxochromic Coffee and commented:
An excellent read! By MJM in Abortion series
“Ethics evolve with technology.”
I’m not sure truer words have been spoken.
The fact that we even have the choice to put off pregnancy and motherhood til a later age could be considered immoral in the past. If you didn’t have a kid by the age of 18, you were probably going to be a barren spinster. Now, having a kid as a teen is a cause for concern. Technological advances is what made much of that possible.
Of course, being a woman, whatever decision you do is going to be criticized and scrutinized.
If you believe in your virginity: “Wow she’s such a prude.”
If you lose your virginity before marriage: “What a slut.”
If you use birth control: “She just wants to be able to sleep with guys without consequnce.”
If you get pregnant: “OMG she shouldn’t be having kids at her age.”
If you abort: “Baby killer.”
If you keep: “She’s not ready to be a mother.”
If you’re a young mother: “She’s too young to raise a child. She’s practically a child herself!”
If you’re an older mother: “She waited far too long. Now she’ll be to old to play with her kids, ect.”
If you speak up for yourself: “She’s such a bitch.”
If you keep quiet/keep your head down: “She’s far too quiet/meek. Why doesn’t she stand up for herself?”
If you go to college/get a career: “She’s a dyke who doesn’t appreciate men.”
If you decided to skip college and be a mom: “She’s too dependent on men.”
If you go to work as a mom: “She’s neglecting her kids for her career.”
If you’re a stay at home mom: “Why doesn’t she go back to work and support her kids?”
These criticisms exist whether you’re single, married, divorced or widowed as well. And they are unduly affected by our age and the fact that we have a period. We can not get righteously angry about anything without being pinned as “hormonal” “crazy” or “irrational.”
Until we can live in a world where our every choice is not scrutinized and ultimately considered to be bad, than the abortion debate will never be more than a war against which choices we allow a woman to make about her life.
Hi Lady Ruby,
you said: “Ethics evolve with technology.”
I’m not sure truer words have been spoken.”
if you consider that most contraceptive pills are grade 1 carcinogenics, then is it ethical to proscribe them for every female complaint under the sun?
– From Acne to period pain.
Its especially disturbing to think an unwary teenager would trust the doctor not to put tham at risk of cancer?
I am sure medical science can do better than this for women, and those who in the long term who mayhave to deal with their care if/when it manifests as a result of the “pill”.
Ethics do not evolve with with technology, ethics in matters of life and death not moveable feasts.
Doctors used to take the hypochratic oath to protect life – nowdays even that comes with disclaimers…
My job is to work with children, I work with them from the age of fours years to eleven years, even though I am trained to work with children from birth, yes I am also male to some I should not be in the career I have chosen, as all males are paedophiles, in one placement I had in a secondary school and the support staff were all female I was questioned under whispers over coffee, why I wanted to work with children as it wasn’t a mans job etc. The reason why I tell you the latter is because a man not working with children or trained to work with children may have a totally different view.
Anyway I was married at 18 my wife was 17, we had gone through five miscarriages 3 years later we went through IVF to be able to conceive, many eggs when removed, fertilised in a dish, the strongest cells were placed back into the womb and the rest destroyed then, my wife was checked to see if more then one embryo had taken if so, removed so only one was left….my son.
I didn’t have a problem with pro choice, I agreed with the removal and destruction of the fertilised eggs….. until
Three years ago I went on a conference about education and education of unborn babies.
After years of research it has been proven that unborn babies learn, music being played to the baby in the womb, when the baby was born and become unsettled the music was played and the baby settled, when the same story is read to the bump again when the baby is born the baby settled when the story is read, but not to if read by a different female.
We also was shown a video of new born babies under 2 hours old, when simple movements were made by the midwife for example such as extending a finger, within 30 seconds the baby pointed his finger, there were many other examples.
We now have our curriculum starting at pre birth. I know that unborn children learn, we still don’t know from what age (pre birth) but the facts do point to learning. So I do not agree with any form of abortion, choosing sex or anything else that affects an unborn child unless it will affect the health of the mother physically or mentally so rapes is a choice.
If a couple decide to bring a life into this world they need to make the choice before jumping into bed or up against a wall, if you lay with your legs open remember that it may lead to a life and if you are male take responsibility. I work with an increasing amount of children who parents are still children with now male role in the ‘family’
BTW I will also mention I am a born again Christian. Now if you had read that at the start, you would have not possible read it at all.
Hi Mysoresoul,
I was once at a teaching assistants meeting, two men in the group got that “suspected peado” thing from a mother in the group, I felt suprised at such ignorance and strongly corrected her.
Sorry you had to put up with such comments. (My kids have a male teacher and he’s a great role model for them.)
Any how, thank you for your post – I also know the pain of beng childless, but as a Catholic IVF was not an option for me for the reasons you rightly give.
One thing for consideration though, re; abortion being permissable in the case of rape.
Imagine if the rapist was sentenced to have his limbs severed, and an knife plunged into the back of his neck so that he was left to bleed to death for what he had done.
Does this mean that the innocent baby, conceived in rape deserves a similar fate?
I beleive there is footage of a baby in the womb fighting against a sugeons knife – which holds true to what you discovered about prenatal babies in the womb. Obviously it knew it was under threat.
I think abortion does affect the mother, ( I know there are a few exceptions) we cannot say if the abortion or the rape would become the greater trauma long term.
Rape leaves a deep and lasting wound, but abortion takes an irreplaceable life.
As a Christian also, I beleive God makes us all with a purpose to fulfil. Abortion removes not only the child’s right to live, but all of its potential to contribute to making the world a better place.
Thank you for your example of what a real man should be; one who takes care of his family.