In the United States, the debate around abortion has been tactically centered -- intentionally -- around the concept of the fetus. That is to say that not only all discussion, but more importantly, all thought and consideration of abortion begins with the fetus as the protagonist and the anchor around which any debate begins and develops. This 'framing of the issue' -- strategic as it is -- is meant to distract most people from the real protagonist: the woman who has become pregnant.
The effect of this tactical shift from woman-centered to fetus-centered analysis is noted in the book, "Backlash," by Susan Faludi: "[a]s the fetus's rights increased, the mother's just kept diminishing." (p. 432). The end result of this intentional tactical shift by social conservatives from woman-centered to fetus-centered discussion was that, "by the close of the '80s, a fetus actually had more legal rights in some areas than a live child." (p. 430).
Liberty for all, not control by some over others
A woman's right to decide whether or not to abort her pregnancy -- and her concomitant rights to 1) professional medical advice to inform her decision and 2) professional medical services to care for her in the event that she does decide to abort her pregnancy -- are inextricably tied to the concepts of sexual independence and reproductive freedom.
Sexual independence is a facet of the American idea of liberty; sexual independence is personal liberty within the realm of sexual behavior. This means that women have the same scope of sexual freedom allowed men, and that either gender is free to make decisions regarding their sexual behavior without an obligation to consult the opposite gender. As this relates to abortion, as it is presently considered in the United States, this necessarily demands the elimination of the primacy of male family control. And in basic terms, it is important to keep in mind that control is the antithesis of freedom.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion
Those who are pro-choice can be described as those who are in favor of abortion rights, which does not mean that they are proponents of abortion. This is a critical distinction which many social conservatives would prefer to blur; it is a critical distinction which Angela Y. Davis points out in her book, "Women, Race & Class," on page 204.
Reproductive freedom, not reproductive control
From "Women, Race & Class", page 202, by Angela Y. Davis:
When nineteenth-century feminists raised the demand for "voluntary motherhood," the campaign for birth control was born.
"Voluntary motherhood" was considered audacious, outrageous and outlandish by those who insisted that wives had no right to refuse to satisfy their husbands' sexual urges.
Birth control -- individual choice, safe contraceptive methods, as well as abortions when necessary -- is a fundamental prerequisite for the emancipation of women.
Legal analysis of abortion: Roe v. Wade
Any time I hear or read anything from an anti-abortion/anti-reproductive rights proponent about Roe, I wonder to myself whether they have ever read the actual Supreme Court opinion. This is only my own personal presumption, but I would presume that the answer is 'no.' I have a feeling that many of these proponents believe that the court opinion is simply the length of a short paragraph, something like: "Abortion is legal because we say so. We can easily change our opinion later if you elect a Republican president though. Thanks, the Supreme Court."
From "Backlash", regarding Roe: "[t]he landmark ruling is simply a return to status quo. The right to an abortion -- practiced in one form or another since colonial times -- had never been restricted until the last half of the late 19th century." (p. 421). In fact, "[i]n 1800, abortion was legal in every state and popular opinion on it largely neutral." (p. 422).
The fetus-centered analysis, mentioned above and which comprises today's popular opinion, however, is in sharp contrast to the logical consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court, a consideration all the more important because it carries legal force and authority. The Court has unequivocally ruled that "a woman's life and health must always prevail over the fetus's life and health, direct quote 439 U.S. 379, 400." (quoted in Backlash, p. 444). Furthermore, "[t]he courts have long held that parents cannot be compelled to take actions to benefit their children's health." (p. 440). Nevertheless, the weight of popular opinion -- to which the courts are subject to influence being that they are made up of real people -- led to a deterioration of that position; from Backlash: "[b]ut when it came down to a choice between the health of the mother and the rights of the fetus, the fetus began to win out." (p. 440).
The moral of this story:
"All of women's aspirations -- whether for education, work, or any form of self-determination -- ultimately rests on their ability to decide whether and when to bear children. For this reason, reproductive freedom has always been the most popular item in each of the successive feminist agendas -- and the most heavily assaulted target of each backlash." (Backlash, p. 422).
No comments:
Post a Comment