At Least : On Indifference to Abortion

I heard this awhile ago on NPR: A woman named Kenya Martin, from the National Network of Abortion Funds, said this to an audience, and it turned my blood into ice chips:

"It's okay to have an abortions after some hot sex simply because you don't want to get pregnant. I just didn't want to be pregnant, and I want you to know that if that's your experience, that's ok, too."

Is it?

Let's travel back in time...

Once, women were locked away for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Once, women sought out unsafe terminations for unwanted pregnancies for fear of the shame they would have to endure. Once, women who got pregnant at what society or religion deemed "the wrong time" were made to feel dirty and low.

Then, things changed. Intelligent and caring people developed sympathy, even when they thought the behavior of others was wrong (not unlike the example of Jesus with the prostitute in the Gospels: You guys don't get to judge her as a person, but, He does tell her: "go forth and sin no more."). In my own experience, even in my teaching in Catholic schools, girls who got pregnant were supported and encouraged to graduate and, yes, to have their babies. They were not shunned; they were supported. Sure, pregnancy outside of marriage is a no-no in the Church, but the sacredness of life wins out over flat rules: the baby needed to be taken care of. If this is a violation of what you see as a woman's rights, at least you have to admit that there is a morality guiding it, even if you don't agree with that morality. There is an attempt (at least) to do what is seen as right. 

In the litigious realm, one reason abortion was legalized is so that women do not endanger themselves with unsafe abortion providers. Of course, there was and is debate over the morality of this...but that is the nature of the beast. If you think abortion is an abomination, in any or all circumstances, at least you have to admit that the laws were decided upon with the intention of benefitting women "in trouble," as the old phrase goes. Sure, you might believe it is downright wrong, but, at least, there was an attempt at promoting what is deemed fair and just. 

Again, it is not about whether you agree or disagree with the policies. The bottom line is, that there is an attempt at fairness and morality. An attempt, if not a success.  At least. Because humans try to do what they believe is best for each other.  

Now, here we are in the present, and we get this souless statement, above -- a statement that dismisses much that makes us human, at all. 

Forgive me another digresson, but let me tell you how I feel about sex. (Maybe, also take a moment to evaluate how you feel about it.)

To me, sex should be a "big deal." It's not a diversion. I, personally, don't believe in "casual sex" and I do believe that sex is a major step in a couple's relationship: You had better be very sure about this person before you commit to that kind of ramping-up of the stakes. 

I realize that, in today's world, many disagree with me. They are welcome to do so. I'm not God. I just know what appears to me to be human Truth: sex is a high-level activity with major spiritual importance and to turn it into a mere form of amusement is to devalue it. 

You may not agree with me, but, at least I am trying to make sense of the world and to try to live a life in a way that seems right, to me. If you think I am wrong, that's okay. But at least I am trying. At least I care enough. 

What's missing from the statement of Kenya Martin? Nothing much. Just every element that makes humans humans. It is an inhuman statement of complete indifference to the subject that so many feel is one of the most important questions on morality. 

What it implies is that we ("we," as in the man and the woman, both) have absolutely no responsibility to even try to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It says that the desire for momentary pleasure is justification for abortion -- or, as she says, "abortions" (plural, as if doing it over and over is okay) -- as a form of birth control. It doesn't even debate, as the abortion argument often does, when or whether or not the resulting conception is a life. Martin just doesn't care about any of this. No factor but the individual's desire, in the moment, is to be considered. 

I can process and understand the intentions of a person on either side of the abortion debate if that person is weighing in on what he or she thinks is right. But I doubt the vailidity of a person (as a person) who thinks abortion is no big deal. Ask women who have had abortions if they think it was "a big deal." What kind of a person wouldn't, at least, think it was a big decision? (I have known several woman who remember it as a life-altering experience.) 

Martin's attitude seems symptomatic of a loss of all boundries of human decorum. If she represents the evolution of the future of human thought...it's all over. Imagine if everyone pursued pleasure to the exclusion of all sense of responsibility. 

I prefer to (read: "must, for the sake of my sanity") think of her as an outlier. I don't think of those few women who have confided in me about having gotten abortions as inhuman or evil; I don't get to judge them. At least, it was a big deal to them. It changed them in some way. Because they have human empathy. Because, at least, they care about ideas outside of themselves and about the embryo who could have become a walking, talking person. A human considers that possibility, whether she decides to abort or not. 

One could argue that Martin's statement is not without the "at least" factor; that she is promoting this idea out of concern for women and that she wants to end the abortion stigma, and, therefore, that there is morality there; for me, though, it's an "any-means-possible" argument. I wouldn't tell my child to acquire happiness by disregarding responsibility, ignoring the vailidity of another life and pursuing completely hedonistic ideals. One could argue that any villain in history held to certain moralities: Hitler wanted to make things better for the Aryan Nation. 

Am I comparing this woman to Hitler? No. But I am comparing the idea that even villains and the un-empathetic think what they are doing is the right thing to do, so to argue that there was an at least in their thinking doesn't really stand up. There are no Dr. Evils in the world -- people who just delight in doing evil. They either think what they are doing is right or they simply can't control what they do. 

And if you are one of those people who believes men have no right to opinions on issues touching on abortion, I dismiss your position. It's stupid. I'm not, in any way, trying to make decisions for women. I am just saying that they (and men, as well)  should, at least,  care about their decisions

And, besides, I am not writing about abortion rights. I am writing about the slow loss of humanity in our culture. 

Elie Weisel once said that "indifference is what makes the human being inhuman." Indeed. 

Smogging-up the Abortion Argument

I'm "pro-life." I would like to think every human is. How could anyone be anything other than for life? I also think (in fact hope) that every human is anti-abortion. (More on this in a bit.)

I know, I know: I'm being cute. We know that "pro-choice" means what it says and that "pro-life" means anti-abortion, in context of the debates. Personally, I am truly "pro-life." By this, I mean that I believe that we humans do not have a right to take life. For this reason, I do not believe in the death penalty and I would not willingly participate in killing, even in war. To me, if life is sacred (or, in non-religious terms, it is an inalienable right of the one who exists) and there is no carte blanche for the taking of life. (I do believe that taking a life can be necessary, but that it is never moral. For example, I am sure I'd kill to protect my family, but I would still consider it [there simply is no better word] a sin that I would suffer from for the rest of my life.)

Of course, when it comes to abortion, the big debate is whether or when the biological stuff in the womb is a life. But I am not sure that is relevant to my own reasoning about the subject. (Maybe I'll address this in another piece.) But my purpose here is not to argue the particulars of abortion, but more to criticize how we currently argue about abortion.

But, first off, I categorically dismiss those who label men as invalid commentators on the subject of abortion. Abortion is a human question and not just a women's question. It is primarily a women's question, for sure.

Having said this, I watched my wife carry and give birth to two children; I also watched her miscarry three times (the first time, heartbreakingly late in the pregnancy). And while I "watched" this happen, I also, on a very deep level, experienced these things. As deeply as her? Of course not; but, I think these experiences more than justify my having opinions on reproductive rights.

I actually think my being a member of the human race is justification enough, and I am surprised everyone does not feel that way. For instance:

I am ready for you, too, you, O quoters of tribal arguments. I see you checking the script for the right line, you who are ready to question (or lambaste) men who see women's issues "in terms of how they affect the men, themselves." I always see men who comment on abortion being chopped down for saying "if my daughter..." or "if my wife..." But let's put a check on our cynical natures, shall we? Many (though, admittedly, not all) of us men love our wives and daughters deeply and mean this sort of thing in an empathetic way.

When my wife suffers, I suffer. When we need to make decisions, either about her body or mine, we make them together. We're married; we are, in terms of our belief, one. So, I simply won't entertain that argument. I will not see real empathy perverted, through "canned" argument, into selfishness. (Can it be selfishness? Sure, depending on the sincerity or insincerity of the source. but it is not a man thing, it's a good vs. bad man thing.) Argumentation contains pathos, ethos and logos. Always has. How can we argue something as profound as life itself without emotion? -- without discussing how it affects us all?

That said, my real purpose here is this:

I think we do a lot of arguing around the issue of abortion these days. Current trends are to use things like barbaric legislation ("death penalty for women who have abortions" and "99 years in prison for doctors who perform abortions") as either implied or explicit arguments that being anti-abortion is barbaric. If, for instance, a school principal puts a rule on the books that children who cheat on quizzes will be punished by the removal of a finger, that just means the principal is an animal; not that cheating is any more wrong or right than it was before the rule.

It's like some weird version of ad hominum. It's as if people who use this technique would argue that cheating is okay because chopping off fingers is the act of barbarians.

Further, I have seen the pro-life stance, itself, referred to as cruel. Can laws against women who have abortions be cruel? Can a pro-lifer's very perspective on women be cruel? Of course. Can thinking one should not -- on a fundamentally ethical level -- have an abortion be cruel? I certainly don't think so. It's a concept; it's a moral belief. Cruel or not cruel is determined what one does with one's beliefs.

I would argue, further, that no one thinks abortion is a desired outcome. No one is "pro-abortion," because anyone, given the chance, would choose not to be in a position to have to consider having one. "Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are not the same.

But if we are arguing whether abortion is moral or not, we should really stick to the act, itself, independent of the urge to make teams out of the sexes. There is just too much fog around the issue now and people are not trying to burn it away; they are trying to take advantage of the poor visibility -- even willingly producing smog -- to make their arguments.

Once again, we see tribalism raising its head. Us against them; liberals vs. conservatives. Foolish. And, in terms of argumentation, distracting at best and crippling at worst. We attack each other and not the issue at hand. We have forgotten that argumentation's highest purpose is to find the truth and adopted the sports (team) mentality: it's all about winning.

Abortion: A Reasoning Suite

I.

I think abortion is bad. And so do you.

Right?

Like, it's an eventuality no one wants to reach. No one wants an abortion. No one enjoys an abortion. No one finds an abortion a to be desirable experience.

What would we think of someone who says having abortions makes her feel good? -- lunatic? -- psycho? -- masochist?

So, all sane people think an abortion is a bad thing. They may not think it is ethically wrong to do, given particular circumstances, but they would all agree that it is a bad thing that is best avoided.

II. 

Getting pregnant at the wrong time makes women (or couples) either consider having or have abortions (which are bad).

No one wants to get pregnant at the wrong time, so, if they do, one of four things has happened:

1. They were irresponsible and had unprotected sex because it felt good at the time and they were not considering the consequences.

2. They were completely ignorant and did not know about birth control and/or abstinence.

3. They intentionally got pregnant at the wrong time, either for the attention or to garner some weird kind of credibility; to have a juicy, past ordeal to brag about. (Either a baby or an abortion will do the trick.)

4. Intended birth control failed, either by intrinsic flaw or as a result of misuse.

(Use of the pronoun "they" is meant to encompass the couple, and, so, not just pile responsibility on the woman.)

Can you think of any other reason? Anything else that comes to me is sort of a sub-heading of these.

III. 

People in categories 1 and 3, above, are fully responsible for their unwanted pregnancy.

People in categories 2 and 4 are, arguably, not as responsible for the pregnancy.

IV. 

The ethics of an abortion in either of the groupings above are on sort of a sliding scale; better or worse by degrees. The end-result, though, is the same, if there is an abortion: a person either ceases to or fails to exist.

V. 

The person who either fails or ceases to exist would have been the consequence of having gotten pregnant at the wrong time. Abortion, then, is an attempt to erase the consequences of either human irresponsibility, human ignorance, human ego, human carelessness or of really bad luck.

In any case, the end result is an abortion, which I think is bad.

And so do you.

Can you offer any revision to this? Is this reasoning sound? Can we perfect it?