Daniel Rollins writes in response to Grace Gawn's article "Why Abortion Should Remain Legal", published previously on the blog and in Portsmouth Point magazine.
Abortion is bad. This should be the start of any discussion
about this sensitive issue. However you feel about access to abortion and the
personhood of a foetus, the killing of a potential human being is not
something. Why then has abortion changed from a last resort for mothers whose
health is in danger or are unable to look after a baby to a considered option
for many pregnancies?
The idea that abortions do, in fact, have moral or ethical
weight has been suppressed in this culture. However, every so often our buried
objection to the practice is exposed. The widespread objection to pro-life
protesters showing pictures of the remains of aborted foetuses, insensitive
though it is, is evidence that there is an ethical element to the debate, not
just on the side of the mother but for the protection of the foetus. If a
woman’s “right” to have sex without having to take responsibility for any
babies produced is valued more than any baby’s right to exist then something is
very much amiss.
Conversely much of the opposition to the pro-life movement
focuses on its apparent misogyny, favouring the life of the baby over the
woman. While the mother is at least as important as the baby she is carrying,
it must be recognised that an abortion is not a positive result for either.
Many women suffer emotional pain or psychological harm during and after
undergoing an abortion, as well as the small risk (admittedly much smaller than
the risks from a “backstreet abortion” common before the practice was legalised)
of complications such as infertility and haemorrhage.
The real misogyny in this debate does not come from either
the pro-life or pro-choice factions but from society’s general neglect of
mothers. “Pro-choicers” often illustrate their arguments with examples of young
or poor women who are unable to support or raise their child or whose lives
would be adversely affected by having a baby. Abortion is presented as the only
ethical solution to the situation. Surely the real scandal of the situation is
not that woman’s lack of access to an abortion but the fact that the woman must
consider finances when weighing up a foetus’ life or that she must choose
between her future and her baby’s? There must be a better way to deal with
these cases, alternatives to abortion.
The only way the pro-life movement can have any credibility
in this debate is by providing these alternatives. Instead of just protesting
and condemning women who have abortions, they must provide practical
alternatives in which both the life of the baby and the life of the mother are
considered.
There are many shocking statistics that have come out of
China: 500,000 people in prison without trial, thousands of executions, but
perhaps the most shocking statistic of all is that 330 million abortions take
place in China each year (over 900,000 per day on average). Many, if not most,
of these abortions are forced, either directly by officials upholding the
country’s one-child policy or indirectly by the financial burden of a second
child when state support is lifted. While women in the West are thankfully
freer in their decision whether to have an abortion, the concept of a
financially forced abortion is still a problem for many women with low incomes.
The cost of raising a baby, providing food and finding childcare may push both
the mother and baby into poverty, forcing a woman to choose between feeding
herself and having an abortion. The obvious way to save a woman in this
situation from having to make that decision is by giving her money, funding programs
that provide food and affordable housing for pregnant women and new mothers in
poverty. This funding could come from either government or charity (maybe even
those protesting abortion clinics), whichever corporate expression of
compassion your political position prefers. Promoting adoption as an
alternative to an abortion and providing women who choose to keep their baby
with jobs with flexible hours and attached childcare, although difficult to
provide in the currently depressed labour market, would also prevent mothers
having to choose to have an abortion out of financial fears.
Another fear that can force women to make a choice about
abortion is how having a baby could affect their future. When discussing this
issue, several young women expressed fears about how an unplanned pregnancy
would affect their future education and opportunities. Although the life of
foetus may be considered more valuable than any of these opportunities, it is
still a tragedy that young women who fall pregnant must choose between their
future and that of their baby. Girls who become pregnant while in education
should be given support by their school, college or university, which would
allow them to keep studying for as long as possible and, after giving birth,
they should be given further support if they choose to not give their baby up
for adoption so that their education is affected as little as possible by their
pregnancy. This would allow them to gain knowledge and training to find a job
to support their baby and also provide them with personal opportunities to
fulfil their own potential.
However the most effective way to prevent women having to
make a pressured decision about abortion is through preventing unplanned
pregnancy in the first place. When asked on Twitter, a feminist blogger
suggested three ways to provide alternatives to abortion: combating poverty and
lack of support for women; creating better awareness and use of contraception;
and providing better Sex and Relationships Education (SRE). Modern
contraception gives people almost complete control over their fertility,
therefore better use of it should prevent many unwanted pregnancies and
abortions.
This is why women (and, importantly, men too) need to take
responsibility for any pregnancies both in prevention and in the case of
conception, whether planned or unplanned. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy,
women should not be forced into having an abortion by financial or social
factors but, equally, should not use abortion as an escape from the shock of an
unwanted pregnancy but take responsibility for the life inside and seek to look
after the child, whether that involves giving him or her up for adoption or
not. Abortions do have a negative moral weight and consequences, but they
should not be needed.
This article was originally published in Portsmouth Point Magazine, July 2013
Just to be clear, when you're saying "that 330 million abortions take place in China each year", you mean that a quarter of the population of China has an abortion every year? Are you quite sure?
ReplyDeleteTim Bustin
Sorry that is an error, over 330 million abortions have taken place in China since the government began it's one child policy. The correct statistic is 13 million which I am sure you accept is still a shocking figure.
DeleteStat source: China aborts 13 million babies a year". Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. 31 July 2009. pp. 2A