Human Rights Cartoon (135): Abortion
(source)
As the topic of abortion is back in the news, with the horrible killing of – indeed, terrorist attack on – Dr. Tiller*, maybe it’s useful to link back to one of my older posts on abortion (where I also explain why I believe this is a human rights issue). My position is basically anti-abortion, but I do regret the disdain of many pro-lifers for the rights of the mother. They don’t seem to understand that the rights of the mother should sometimes take precedence (for example when the health or the life of the mother are at risk) and that a tragic choice between mother and fetus should sometimes be decided in favor of the mother. They prefer the simplicity of moral idealism and ignore the tragic nature of a lot of morality in real life.
And neither do they seem to care about the consequences of criminalization of abortion. This quote says it well, I think:
When imagining a future abortion black market and the inherent dangers such a market would introduce to mothers and fetuses alike, I find myself worrying. I worry that it might make matters worse. The life of the mother is sacred, too, and in a black market the most desperate mothers – and especially the poor and the young mothers – would be at a much higher risk then they are now. This hardly seems just. E.D. Kain
We can see what this means in countries where abortion is illegal:
Abortion is illegal in Tanzania (except to save the mother’s life or health), so women and girls turn to amateurs, who may dose them with herbs or other concoctions, pummel their bellies or insert objects vaginally. Infections, bleeding and punctures of the uterus or bowel can result, and can be fatal. Doctors treating women after these bungled attempts sometimes have no choice but to remove the uterus…
Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. (source)
The rights of the mother that have to show up in the equation aren’t necessarily limited to health and survival. The right to self-determination of the mother, or her right to decide without government interference what to do with her own body, is perhaps, in some cases, also important enough to override the right to life of the unborn child.
More on abortion and maternal mortality.
* I know I’m late with this, although I did post some timely pieces about this incident here and here.
I agree with you that this is very much a human rights issue — both the rights of the baby and the rights of the mother must be considered. Most of “my crowd” are pro-abortion and I am not for several reasons. I must make clear, however, that I am speaking about the United States; the situation in other countries might be such that I would have a different opinion if I were living there.
First, babies that are born at 22 weeks and higher have some probability of survival (and that probability goes up as the number of weeks of gestation rises). I find it morally reprehensible to kill a fetus if that fetus is viable, and therefore do not support abortions of fetuses over 22 weeks except in the case where the mother’s life is endangered. I don’t agree that self-determination of the mother overrides the right of the child if there is no imminent danger to the mother. I argue that the right to life is the most basic right, and that the other rights (right to food, shelter, health care, a means of livelihood, and the civil and political rights) exist to support that initial right to life. In the United States, if a woman can not care for a child, there are mechanisms by which she can transfer custody of that child to someone else — the most obvious of which is adoption.
Second, there is a trend in the United States of aborting fetuses that are “less than perfect” — e.g., fetuses with Downs Syndrome, cleft lips and/or palates, or other obvious disabilities and/or deformities. In fact, the pressure to abort most often comes from the obstetrician caring for the mother. This, to me, is a very, very dangerous trend. The argument for an abortion can be seen in terms of the needs and rights of the parents (who might be taking on significant financial burden and/or societal stigma in choosing to allow the pregnancy to continue and raise a disabled individual) and the needs and rights of the child (who will live the life of a disabled or disfigured person). In the first case, if the parents really do not want the burden of caring for a “less than perfect” child, they can transfer custody of the child as described above. In the second case, it seems that the types of disabilities that are the source of a recommendation of an abortion by doctors are not ones that cause the individual with the disability to wish they had never been born. For example, children and adults I have met that have Downs Syndrome are in general cheerful and productive members of society, in some cases taking jobs that others would find menial.
And then there is the question of where to “draw the line”. Should I abort a fetus if it has a significant disability? A minor one? A gender I didn’t want? And even given my right to self-determination, what right do I have to decide why that child has the right to live or not, unless my own life is in imminent danger?
I should make clear that 1) I am female, 2) I am a mother and 3) one of my children suffers from multiple significant disabilities that cause him to be in a full-time special education program. If someone told me when I was pregnant with him that he would have those disabilities, and pressured me to abort him because of those disabilities, would I have done so? If so, all of the joy he has brought me and all of the lessons I have learned while raising him would never have happened. What a terrible loss for both of us!
Finally, I think the most extreme individuals on either side of the debate are missing the complexity of the issue. This isn’t just about the rights of the mother, nor is it just about the rights of the child. It is about the complex interplay of those rights when two beings are biologically and emotionally linked so thoroughly that the well-being of one significantly and irrevocably affects the well-being of the other. To legislate those rights is a very tricky business, indeed.
I’m sorry, no. Only human beings can have human rights. I think that’s been proven quite thoroughly by now. This only becomes a “human rights issue” as soon as you take away a woman’s absolute right to her body.