Abortion is not a topic that is easily discussed on a 500 word blog post. The legal, moral, ethical and practical issues are far-reaching and complex. Thus, I have avoided it for these nearly 5 years I have been posting on The Brodsky Blog.
But this week, when the North Carolina legislature upheld a ban on gender selective abortions, the ultimate feminist question became even more complicated, more nuanced and more divisive than ever before.
Sure, selective sex abortions in China and India are an outrage to any self-respecting feminist. In cultures where males are favored over females (hmm, educate me as to a culture which doesn’t favor the male over the female), aborting girls is the ultimate in gender discrimination. But these cultures are far away, not in our own more advanced back yards.
So, dear reader, I ask you, which is the correct feminist position? Preserve the freedom of choice for abortion even if it means we can and do choose to abort girls preferentially because they are not the more “favored” sex?
Of course, like everything to do with abortion, there is no easy answer. I cannot deny freedom of choice. And I also not deny that every potential life is precious and worthy of preservation (ask any woman who has lost a pregnancy). It’s hard to not understand both sides of this issue. And that’s why most women support both sides of this issue–that is, they are both pro-choice and pro-life.
But now there is a new twist. What is your take?
My Website
Follow me on Twitter
5 Comments
Pro-choice means choice for all, under all circumstances, because that is what choice means. Once we get involved in restricting what choice is, it is no longer choice. This has consequences that are odious for many, but that is the natural result of freedom. If one is pro-choice, s/he has to support unrestricted choice. This doesn’t mean that a pro-choice supporter would necessarily choose a gender-based abortion, but it does mean that a pro-choice supporter would support someone else’s election to do so. It also doesn’t mean that pro-choice supporters are anti-life, as you pointed out.
It is analogous to understanding that the ACLU has to support the Nazis’ right to peacably march in Skokie, IL. No matter how odious that is, it is a basic free speech issue.
That is the true cost of freedom.
Thank you for your comment. As always, well thought out, but I think the comparison to Nazi free speech makes the prickly nature of this development even more pointed. Yes, anyone can demonstrate peacefully, but once their hate speech incites others to riot or commit acts of abomination, then they are no longer allowed. That is the limit of our freedom.
As so with this. Are we reaching the limits of our choices when that very choice eliminates our rights as females to be brought into the world as much as males.
No legislation is going to keep anyone from having an abortion because they don’t want the girl (or sometimes a boy). Most people figure it out. But in an age of ever-expanding choices, when are our freedoms going to limit our lives to the point where we are not given life at all? The unintended consequences of some freedoms and some choices are scary at best and quite worrisome at worst.
You are right — freedoms aren’t unlimited. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Threats are not free speech. Riots aren’t peaceful assembly; they are unlawful riots.
Should people abort healthy girls just because they are girls ? Of course not. Many families, friends and allies of those with certain genetic conditions (such as Down Syndrome, for example) don’t think anyone should abort a fetus with Down Syndrome either. Is it apples and oranges or are we making value judgments on what is an acceptable reason to abort ?
I don’t think value judgements have a place in this; in my mind everyone has the right to choose whether I agree with that choice or not. Unfortunately, that is the price of believing in choice — you have to get on board with things you don’t agree with. Same with free speech — hence the analogy. I hate the Nazis as much as anyone and don’t think they should march anywhere, let alone in Skokie (and that is an actual First Amendment case). But free speech demands it.
Personally, I feel like the NC ruling and others like it recently are merely was to slowly encroach on our rights to our bodies by bringing up something as difficult to prove as intention. Whatever a woman’s intention is to end her pregnancy, it is still HER pregnancy and she is allowed to end it. If there are overriding laws and social norms that make her feel pushed toward abortion if she is having a girl, then I would love to change those. In reality, I would love to change a lot of the reasons women seek abortion from how workplaces discriminate against working mothers to young single mothers lacking support and free childcare. But banning abortion for those reasons will not eliminate the real problems, only the symptom. Banning any abortions based on “intent of the mother” is a worrisome step to take because it will lead to more and more mistrust of women to make this decision for themselves without the community deciding if her reasons are just.
I wholeheartedly agree. while we preserve choice, we have created terrible dilemmas.