Pro-Choice argumentation seems to be a little underrepresented on the web. I found an insightful article from the Pro-Choice Action Network that provides some useful argumentation against the anti-choice arguments. I will include the main section of the Fetus Focus Fallacy in this post.
“Anti-choicers insist that the key question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a person or not. If so, abortion is murder, they say, and therefore obviously immoral and illegal. That is not the key question at all, of course – anti-choicers are committing the “fetus focus fallacy.” The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus – it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be. On average, abortion rates do not differ substantially between countries where it’s legal and countries where it’s illegal.[2] Which reveals a more pertinent question: Do we provide women with safe legal abortions, or do we let them suffer and die from dangerous illegal abortions?
Some anti-choicers argue that even though women will have abortions regardless, that doesn’t mean we should make abortion legal, since we don’t legalize murder just because some people will commit murder anyway. This analogy fails because everyone in society agrees that murder is wrong and must be punished, but there is no such consensus on abortion. Second, very few people commit murder, but a majority of women will either have an abortion, or would have one if they experienced an unwanted pregnancy. As we learned from Prohibition (of alcohol), criminalizing behavior that large numbers of people engage in has disastrous consequences for public health and law and order.
The real key question behind the legality of abortion is: How much do we value women’s rights and lives? Because focusing on the fetus always has dire legal and social consequences for women. It’s also insulting to women because it usurps their moral decision-making, as well as their bodies and wombs. The best way by far to protect fetuses and children is to help pregnant women and mothers. When women have the necessary support and resources to raise kids, we can trust them to be good mothers. If women have liberty and equality, their mothering will also be willing, happy, and confident, which further benefits children. But as soon as we bestow special rights on fetuses, we separate them from their mothers and create an adversarial relationship that hurts both. For example, pregnant drug abusers tend to forego prenatal care entirely rather than risk arrest and prosecution. By protecting the interests of fetuses, we sacrifice women’s rights and autonomy, and end up harming their children in the long run. Furthermore, it’s logically impossible for two beings occupying the same body to exercise two competing sets of rights – one or the other has to go.
To shed more light on why it’s wrong and inappropriate to focus on the fetus, let’s examine several aspects about abortion. I’m going to clarify some misleading anti-choice language around the fetus, weigh the claims that a fetus is a person and has a right to life, and consider a woman’s ethical reasoning behind an abortion decision. Thinking about these issues will help us understand that assigning moral value to fetuses steals away a woman’s sacred right to resolve this question for herself, and her right to decide how much it will factor into her private decision to have an abortion or a baby.
14 comments
June 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm
askingquestion
If “it’s wrong and inappropriate to focus on the fetus” in the abortion debate, why is it right and appropriate to focus on the child in the child abuse debate?
LikeLike
June 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The Arbourist
There might be a slight problem with some of the terms involved.
It is wrong and inappropriate to focus on the fetus in terms of this post because the post assumes that the fetus does not have the same moral worth as a adult or child outside the womb.
The child abuse analogy may not quite accurately describe the situation as child abuse happens to being we assign full moral worth and therefore is appropriate to focus on.
LikeLike
June 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm
askingquestion
The distinction rests on the “full moral worth” society assigns or does not assign the subject?
LikeLike
June 28, 2009 at 7:33 am
The Arbourist
Pretty much.
The dust up in the original self-ownership thread was essentially that. The anti-choice faction deems that we should assign full status as a human being to a fetus/blastocyst etc at the moment of conception which I think is a mindful conflation of the term ‘human being’ in the case of a blastocyst/fetus etc.
Conversely the pro-choice faction argued that to have moral worth, one must exhibit certain signs of personhood, consciousness etc before being regarded as a human being. More to the point, the focus of the pro choice argumentation is that a woman’s right to her body supercedes any argument made on behalf of the fetus.
LikeLike
July 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm
askingquestion
Even if prenatal personhood existed, would prenatal personhood be irrelevant if the woman wants to control her body in using abortion?
LikeLike
July 4, 2009 at 9:58 am
The Arbourist
In terms of my opinion; absolutely. It is the mother’s body, therefore her choice.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 2:04 pm
jgage8
“Conversely the pro-choice faction argued that to have moral worth, one must exhibit certain signs of personhood, consciousness etc before being regarded as a human being.”
So does this mean that mentally ill people, let’s say in a vegetative state, are not regarded as human beings? Fetus’ don’t show signs of humans because they aren’t conciously responsive–so mentally ill people that are unresponsive don’t have the right to choose whether to live either? So are you saying level of dependancy is what determines human moral worth?
I’m not throwing out a one-sided emotional appeal just to get you going; Just curious.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The Arbourist
jgage8 said: So does this mean that mentally ill people, let’s say in a vegetative state, are not regarded as human beings?
One must consider the relationship as well as the level of person hood. The fetus is using the mothers’ blood, air, kidneys, body cavity. She is a fully formed autonomous person it is her decision that matters.
Fetus’ don’t show signs of humans because they aren’t conciously responsive–so mentally ill people that are unresponsive don’t have the right to choose whether to live either?
That is too big a jump to really be properly dealt with in terms of the abortion debate alone. Euthanasia is a slightly different topic which has its own particular arguments for and against.
So are you saying level of dependency is what determines human moral worth?
It is one of several factors one must consider in regards to being a human being. But to directly address the question, I’m saying is that the mother who is autonomous and in the full sense of the term ‘a human being’ has the right to say what goes on her body all the time.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 10:12 am
jgage8
Fair enough. So in your opinion, what factors have to be in place for a human to be considered of moral worth?
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The Arbourist
If you are going to follow the autonomy line, then once a being is capable of autonomous existence then it should enter the spectrum of moral worth we assign to human beings.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 9:07 pm
askingquestions
What about humans who cannot live without life-support from the day they were born, and again (which I appreciate is a different agrument) are mentally ill to a state a vegetation. Someone, for the lack of better words, who is completely non-independant.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Mystro
If you’re looking at the way your life-support-dependent example and abortion are similar, then I would point out that the main argument of this post still applies.
If there is a person in a state of vegetation, you are not morally required to care for that person. Sure, it would be really nice of you to do so, but it would be wrong to say you were morally inferior for not caring for the comatose person.
In that same vein, women can harbor a fetus, if they really want to, but it is their body, time, resources, and risk. They can say ‘no’. Just like if someone asked you to care for a vegetative patient, you are within your rights to refuse, even if that patient would die without your aid.
LikeLike
August 12, 2012 at 6:19 am
The DWR Sunday Disservice – Killing is Wrong(?) « Dead Wild Roses
[…] that you think that “life” begins conception. It is an erroneous, problematic assumption at best. So, what this comes down to is whether or not you think women get to makes choices about what […]
LikeLike
August 20, 2012 at 6:08 am
Christian “Anti-Choice” Site Advocates No Abortion for Child Rape Victims. « Dead Wild Roses
[…] nothing more], I think you will better understand[We do understand, the hate for women and their autonomy screams from every line of this post]. Share […]
LikeLike