What is the Abortion Debate About?
There is a new documentary (12th and Delaware) about abortion by the filmmakers that made Jesus Camp (never saw it). In an LA Times write-up, Kenneth Turan quotes regarding the filmmakers’–Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady–attitude toward the main issue of the abortion debate:
Both women also feel strongly that at its heart this struggle, in Grady’s words, “has nothing to do with babies. Its about control, it’s about the power of women and women’s roles, what the purpose of the female gender is, the absolute core of the identity of a woman. It’s so profound and so deep.”
For me, personally, this is not the heart of the issue, and when I hear things like this, a variety of thoughts and emotions come to the fore.
First, on one level, this statement is foreign to me because I’ve never met someone opposing abortion for this reason. (Then again, maybe I’m just blind or incapable of picking this up.) Do other people sense that a majority of people opposing abortion do so for the reasons above? Do you actually know people like this? (I’m not disputing that some people are like this; I just don’t think I’ve met many of them–then again, it’s not like I have a discussion about abortion very often.) My overall sense, and I could be completely wrong about this, is that this is not the heart of the issue for most people who oppose abortion.
On another level, I think this is the wrong way to frame the debate–that gender roles is not and should not be the heart of the debate. If this were the most important issue, this would be a no-brainer for me, particularly for what the government’s position should be. (The government should stay out of the decision.)
The bigger issue–in a broader moral sense as well as from the government’s perspective–is the point at which we consider the fetus to be a human being. Once we decide that the fetus is a human being, isn’t the government compelled to prohibit abortion at that point–almost regardless of its effects on the individual fetus, women (or men) or society in general? (The one exception is when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. In that case, the health and viability of two citizens are at stake–and the decision regarding abortion could kill one or the other.)
I think that’s the reason the filmmakers said it like this: you seldom hear someone giving this as the reason. Their assertion is that this is the core of the issue. When you say you’ve never met someone who opposes it for this reason, you’re making their point for them, which is that too many people don’t understand that this is where the heart of the issue is. I should point out that they don’t seem to be saying (based solely on this excerpt) that this is the reason anyone opposes it, but that this is the reason it’s an issue.
Just a quick look at the signs people carry should be enough to verify this. Pro-choicers don’t carry signs that say, “Let me kill a human being.” The signs say, “Hands off my body,” “Protect a woman’s right to choose,” and (illustrated) “No wire coathangers.”
We have actually had this discussion before, in someone’s car, with Grace and Penny, driving up McCully street one evening. I’m wondering if you remember, because for once the discussion got a little bit heated, but it was Grace and Penny who got riled up (just a bit) and not you and me. You said you had always heard that the argument was over when a human life begins, but we said no, one side’s argument is over who gets to make the decision, whether or not what is at stake is a human life.
This is really why there can never be a settlement to the argument. As was pointed out by one of my best professors, when one side thinks the issue is one thing and the other side thinks it’s another thing, how can there be an agreement?
So, to be clear, I’m trying to say two things. First, in general, I don’t think most opponents of abortion will give this as a reason because the foundation of their argument (in general) is that the rights of a baby are being violated, not whether or not a woman should have the right to make the decision (this is why the traditional Libertarian position, a completely secular one, is against abortion). Second, what the filmmakers assert is not that this is the reason anyone would give to support a woman’s right to choose, but that this is the all-encompassing, global issue at its heart.
And that’s what Pro-Choicers say.
That would be one argument. The other would be that there are times (such as you mention with your one exception) when the government does decide that one life takes priority over another. When two soldiers meet on a battlefield, the government is allowing one of them to kill another. When a person is executed for crimes he or she has committed, the government is allowing one person to kill another. When a physician assists an elderly person with ending his or her suffering, the government is allowing (in some places) one person to kill another. Whether those times call for a government to decide is the part we can’t agree on.
Shoot. I just re-read your post and realize I didn’t answer the question correctly. You said you’ve never met anyone who opposed abortion for the quoted reason and then I said you probably have. I misread what you wrote and thought you were saying you’ve never met anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose for the quoted reason. I think I straighten myself out in the second part of my comment, but that whole first part doesn’t make sense now that I see what you were asking. Sorry.
So let me ask you again: Do you think the people that oppose abortion do so primarily because they believe women should primarily stay home and raise children? that, for them, this is primarily about gender roles and the amount of freedom women should have in their vocation and lifestyle?
And, do you think this is the heart of the abortion issue?
Wouldn’t you agree that the government already makes this decision? i.e. at some point they step in and say you can’t harm the fetus/individual. I know for sure that once the baby comes out of the mother, the government prohibits taking the life of the child–and I assume this is tantamount to saying the baby is a human being. The question becomes is this the right time for the government to step in–i.e. when does the fetus become a human being. Therefore, isn’t the question of who should decide when human life begins already decided?
Hmm. I believe the answer to the original question in the first post from Reid is no. Pro-lifers do not oppose abortion based on gender roles, or control.
But I believe the answer to the question that Reid posed in the latest post is in fact answered by Mitchell. The heart of the issue is different depending on who you ask.
To pro-lifers, the heart of the issue is determining when a fetus is human and when it has a right to life, as Reid says.
To pro-choicers, the heart of the issue is whether a pregnant woman has the right to choose what to do with her body or should be forced by her government to bear the burden of pregnancy to full term, as the makers of the film say.
So I will agree with Mitchell on his specific point, which I will try to paraphrase. Since the two sides disagree on what the heart of the issue is, there will probably never be a satisfactory resolution between the two.
Marc,
I understand that pro-lifers and pro-choice people differ on what is the most important issue. My question is do you think one issue is more important than another? Or are you saying that both issues are equally important and one can choose either? (I’m interested in hearing a response from Mitchell and anyone else on this question.)
Reid,
Answering the question of which argument “is more important” reveals which side of the debate someone is on but not much else. I don’t feel that it provides any more clarity on which side is correct. If all you’re looking for is a poll, fine. But it seemed to me that you were arguing that the filmaker’s stance was incorrect and that the bigger issue was when life is considered viable. To me, that simply represents a recapitulation of why a “pro-life” argument is more correct and does not respect a “pro-choice” argument. It places you on the side of the pro-lifers and says that your view of the “heart of the argument” is the one that really matters.
I really believe that this more complicated than you are making it out to be. That is my point, and I believe that’s what Mitchell’s point was.
Consider:
Clearly, government is in the business of legislating morality declaring certain acts illegal. For instance, it is illegal to take someone else’s life… most of the time…
On the other hand, government has determined that it is legal to take someone’s life under other circumstances. Take for instance the death penalty. While a prisoner sentenced to death may be guilty of a crime, at the actual moment of death that prisoner is obviously defenseless. Or take for instance a civilian bystander in a foreign war zone who is killed in a military attack during a was that is sanctioned and supported by the US government. That bystander is probably innocent, but the death is not considered illegal. No one is held accountable or guilty for the death.
So in fact, the US does not have a blanket law against the taking of life. The US goverment determines that in some cases it is ok to take a life. Even if that life is defenseless. Even if that life is innocent. So maybe the argument is not simple as to rely solely on “when is a fetus a life?”
No, I do not presume that the death penalty, civilian casualties, and abortion are identical, but I feel that they are relevant to the point that the complexity of this debate is much more than declaring that one argument is more important than the other.
So for me personally, I tend to side with the Pro-life side of things in part because I believe that people should bear responsibility for their choices and actions. But the pro-choice movement has a valid argument. And despite my own political or spiritual leanings, I will not simply ignore that argument and cast it aside. I see this issue as being a lot more gray than black/white.
Marc,
I disagree with your claim that saying that the heart of the abortion debate is NOT about controlling women or gender roles represents a recapitulation of the pro-life argument; in other words, if I say the heart of the issue is when life begins, that doesn’t automatically invalidate the pro-choice position. Indeed, the most compelling pro-choice argument addresses the question of when life begins by arguing that the question cannot be definitively answered; therefore, individuals–specifically mothers–should be the ones that answer this question, NOT the state. (I believe President Clinton made this argument.)
Of course, not every pro-choice advocate makes this argument and some that do don’t necessarily consider this the primary issue. Those that don’t, often feel like the main issue is about a woman’s freedom to do what they want with their body. They feel that those who oppose abortion want to control and restrict women’s ability to choose, primarily out of the traditional belief that women should stay home and raise children. In my view, control over a woman’s body is not the primary issue, and I don’t think saying so invalidates the pro-choice position. (I don’t agree with the pro-choice position, but I think it’s a valid position*.)
So, I don’t see my asking you if which issue is at the heart of the debate is tantamont to embracing one side, while dismissing another; nor do I see it as oversimplifying the issue.
(*Note: There’s a danger involving semantics here with regard to terms like “valid/invalid position.” On one hand, if I say a position is valid or invalid, I could be referring only to the substance and logic that supports a specific position. On the other hand, saying a position is “valid” or “invalid” can signify respect or disrespect to an individual. To be clear, when I use valid/invalid in the context of this debate, I use it in the former sense (i.e. referring to the soundness and substance of an argument. I think everyone has a right to an opinion, and I respect that right.)
I should probably restate my main point:
I don’t think there is any single, correct “heart of the argument,” in this particular issue
Therefore the question is essentially unanswerable for me. Otherwise I have nothing new to say.