scattered thoughts on abortion
Jan. 22nd, 2003 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioIt is unfortunate that some pregnancies have to end in abortions. It is unfortunate that birth control is not 100% accurate. It is unfortunate that some people realize only after conception that they are truly not fit to be parents at that time. It is unfortunate that sometimes a wanted pregnancy threateans the health of the mother who will undergo it.
But it would be tragic to take away a woman's right to control her own body. It would be tragic to say that the father, the fetus, or society take precedence over the pregnant woman. And it would be tragic to revert to the way things were 30+ years ago, with women as second-class citizens and some of them dying from unsafe abortions or from unsafe pregnancies.
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I don't automatically advocate abortion, though I would personally have one if I found out I was pregnant. I know plenty of people who would never personally have an abortion but who maintain that it's their choice alone. The anti-choice people almost never seem to get this point.
The vocal anti-choice folks seem to think that women, left to their own devices, will treat having abortions casually -- gee honey, we got pregnant; better stop at the clinic on the way home and take care of that detail. I suspect that most of these people have never actually talked with someone who has had an abortion. I have, and I have yet to meet anyone who is eager to repeat the experience. Abortion isn't birth control; it's a last resort when birth control didn't work (or wasn't permitted) and when pregnancy isn't acceptable.
The government has no legitimate interest in this question, any more than they have an interest in which antibiotics I use to treat an infection or whether you use chemo or radiation to treat cancer. It's none of their business why, or whether, a woman chooses to have an abortion.
He who defines the terms has an enormous advantage in discourse. The anti-choice people (who call themselves pro-life, but are not really that broadly defined) have succeeded in introducing the phrase "unborn child" into the lexicon. There is no such thing. It's not a child until it emerges. It's not a person, a citizen, or an entity with rights equal to mine. (Hell, President Bush even wants to give the fetus guaranteed health insurance, a right many actual children (and non-children) do not have.) The neutral word is "fetus", and that's the word we should be insisting on.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-22 09:44 pm (UTC)