Respect -- What a Concept!

One of my readers who disagrees with me on the abortion issue e-mailed me today with some thoughts that are worth further discussion:

Taking someone's life is the ultimate act of aggression against them. If we consider all lives equal, taking a life of one for the "emotional health" of another becomes a bit of a stretch. I'm sure the thought of carrying the baby of someone who raped her could be very hard on the woman, but we have to remember that the baby is guiltless of any wrongdoing. We do not hold children accountable for crimes of their parents in this country. To be consistent with our societies legal code, we should side with life in these situations. It is better for one party to suffer temporary hardship than another to lose their life permanently.

So, actually, I do think that self-defense can justify ending a life (pregnancy), but that's as far as it goes. I don't know if the ratio is still this skewed, but I remember a statistic back in the late '80s that abortions for medical reasons, and cases [of] rape and incest combined accounted for less than 2% of the abortions performed in this country. The vast majority of abortions are for the convenience of the mother. While our discussions above are valid in those cases, we are really dodging the heart of the issue by focusing on such a slim proportion. I would be happy to see a 98% reduction in abortion. The 2% does not justify the allowance of 98%. The moral and legal basis of our country says that we as a society value life, and each have a right to it. Since we all have a right to life -- women and babies alike - one of us cannot have a right to take the life of another of us just for their own convenience. Abortion for convenience is inconsistent with our common values and law.

[Another Liberty Street reader commented]: "However, I do hold a living, breathing woman's life above any 'rights' a fetus inside her may hold. To me it is a no-brainer." With his or her use of quotation marks I would hazard to guess that [he] does not see a fetus as being a person having a right to life as guanteed by the constitution. This points us to the ultimate irreconcilable difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Pro-lifers see the fetus as a baby with a whole life ahead of it. Pro-choicers see a fetus as something less than that (a zygote, an embryo) using other terms with a connotation that it is just a clump of cells. I speculate that each persons pre-existing perception of the fetus determined which side of the abortion issue they would choose. Therefore, it is almost impossible for us to expect to change anyone's position on the issue. Talking about [it], though, can help us understand one another better ... and perhaps end the hatred and bitterness that permeates the political arena. If I imagine myself believing that a fetus was just a wart, I would have no problem with abortion and completely agree with you and Chief. Therefore, I understand your position and respect it. I don't hate you and if we ever met I wouldn't yell or scream at you either. Imagine believing that a fetus is a living baby, even outside the body if it helps. Does that help you understand the motivation of pro-lifers? If someone was about to slaughter a living baby, would you not object?

Since taking a life is the ultimate act against them as I mentioned before, I think our society should err on the side of caution and use abortion only as a last resort, but maybe I am biased d[ue] to my perception of the fetus.

It's nice to meet someone who argues both thoughtfully and respectfully on this issue. It's not an easy thing to do, considering what an emotionally heated subject it is for most people who feel strongly for one side or the other.

I do have a few comments:

• "If we consider all lives equal...": Ah, but we don't. Consider the rationale given by Pres. Bush for the Iraq war after it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction: "It's better to fight terrorists over there than it is to fight them here." The implication is clear: American soldiers are killing people in Iraq so that Americans don't have to be killed by people from Iraq, and neighboring countries. Obviously, this argument is flawed on more than one level: It ignores the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded. But, relative to Spoomonger's reason for opposing abortion, it's crystal clear that "we" (as in America as a society, and national policy) clearly do not consider all lives equal. The lives of innocent Iraqis caught in a maelstrom of war-induced violence are less equal in this sense than are the lives of Americans. Iraqi lives can, indeed, be sacrificed to keep Americans from losing theirs -- even when the Iraqis are innocent civilians.
• "I'm sure the thought of carrying the baby of someone who raped her could be very hard on the woman, but we have to remember that the baby is guiltless of any wrongdoing": It's not the thought of carrying; it's the carrying. It's the kicking, the moving, the constant physical reminder that, just as when the rape occurred, something quite real and alive and physical was forced inside you, now you have the living consequence of that invasion still inside you, and you can feel it, quite literally, 24 hours a day. That's not simply "very hard"; that's being raped all over again, and again and again, for nine months. The fact that the "baby" is "guiltless of any wrongdoing" is truly and thoroughly irrelevant: The "baby" is the consequence of the rape, and no woman should have to go through that even once, much less for nine months.
• "While our discussions above are valid in those cases, we are really dodging the heart of the issue by focusing on such a slim proportion. I would be happy to see a 98% reduction in abortion": The truth is, you would not see a 98% reduction in abortion. You would simply see (or not see, since they would be largely hidden from public view) the same abortions being done illegally and by nonprofessionals. There would still be just as many, if not more, abortions; and there would also be many more dead women. A recent New York Times article reported that, in Latin America, where abortion is almost universally illegal for any reason, four million abortions occur every year, most of them illegal; and up to 5,000 women die every year as the result of botched abortions done by unqualified people. So, clearly, if one is concerned about the value of human life, keeping abortion safe, legal, and accessible is the way to go.
• "The vast majority of abortions are for the convenience of the mother": In my view, this (very common) anti-abortion argument is a euphemistic way of saying that a woman's physical, emotional, and psychological health are of no real importance. Going out in the pouring rain to buy some milk and eggs that you forgot to get earlier is an inconvenience. Taking a day off from work to wait for a plumber is an inconvenience. To characterize pregnancy -- a major health and medical event -- and child-rearing -- an undertaking with literally incalculable societal and human consequences -- as an "inconvenience" is shockingly disrespectful of the awesome importance and difficulty of raising children, of the job of being a parent, and of the rights owed to any child one chooses to bring into the world -- not to mention how disrespectful it is of the value of women's lives.
• "Imagine believing that a fetus is a living baby, even outside the body if it helps. Does that help you understand the motivation of pro-lifers? If someone was about to slaughter a living baby, would you not object?": Of course. And I do understand that this is how pro-lifers think about abortion. I get just as upset and angry knowing that there are people who want the government to compel women to go through pregnancy and childbirth against their will; because, to me, it's the same as telling a woman that her body is not her body; that the state owns her body and not she herself. The right to control what happens to one's own body is the most basic right that anyone can have; without that right, freedom is a meaningless concept. I also understand that pro-lifers contend that the fetus has a body, too; and abortion takes away that fetus's right to make choices for its body. My response to this argument is that it's disingenuous and bogus. Unborn babies cannot make choices -- any choices. A fetus in the womb cannot choose one way or the other. Neither can newborn babies, obviously. Parents make choices for their children, and whether our children like those choices or not, or would make those choices for themselves, parents still are the ones who make them. There is a presumption among those who oppose legal abortion that unborn babies, if capable of a choice, would choose to be born. The truth is, they have no way of knowing this for certain; nor does anyone. The unarguable fact is, that choice has to be made by someone other than the unborn baby. The only question to be decided is whether that someone will be the woman who is carrying the developing baby, or the government.