Do we risk forgetting?
Yesterday's New York Times carried an article outlining the generational divide between pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates. The generation that grew up with the debate focussed on the rights of the fetus and specific procedures, particularly the so-called 'Partial Birth Abortion' procedure, are more sympathetic to arguments of the anti-abortion position. As one girl plainly says in the article "It's more about the baby's rights than the woman's rights."
To take that position is to say that you as a woman will readily give your life for the life of a fetus that would then live life without you as a mother. I think that it is important to articulate why this position is wrong. If the choice is presented between fetus and mother choosing the mother is an ethical position and for many people is a religious position.
I as a Jew value the life of a mother above that of her unborn children. Although an unborn fetus is precious and is to be protected, Judaism views the life of the mother as paramount, placing a higher value on existing life than on potential life. Women are commanded to care for the health and well being of their bodies above all else. Therefore, there are several instances in Judaism where abortions are not only condoned, but are mandated. In the Mishnah Ohaloth 7:6, for example, a woman is forbidden from sacrificing her own life for that of the fetus, and if her life is threatened, she is allowed no other option but abortion. In this situation the fetus is considered a pursuer who intends to kill the person pursued. Torah commands the pursuer be stopped, killed if necessary to protect the person pursued. And so the
fetus, in this instance the pursuer, is terminated.
In addition, if the mental health, sanity, or self-esteem of the woman (i.e. in the case of rape or incest) is at risk due to the pregnancy itself, the woman is permitted to terminate the pregnancy. It is due to the intrinsic Jewish belief in the sanctity of life that abortion is viewed as both a moral and correct decision under some circumstances.
I look to the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice as an example of deeply religious people supporting the rights of women and mothers not despite their belief but because of it. From a secular point of view, Luce Irigaray argues that among the most fundamental rights held by women as women is the freedom from intrusion. Whether rape or unwanted pregnancy, the female body is not a vessel, it is a woman.
I am, as you can tell by reading this, pro-choice. I am sad that many young women today do not confront the challenges presented by the issues surrounding sexuality and abortion and instead assume more dogmatic positions. Abortion rights need to be defended because they are under attack more now than ever. This New York Times article fails to present the many young people that I have seen working for reproductive choice. Planned Parenthood, NOW, Feminist Majority, NARAL, and many more organizations have organizing activity targeted to young people. These groups know that without educating the young all of their work has been wasted.
Without the right to choose women and families do actually suffer. One need only look to our recent history and to parts of the country where there are de facto prohibitions of abortion. I agree very strongly with the Jewish position of ambivalence. This is a complicated ethical issue. But when it comes down to it, the ethical choice, at times the existential choice, can only be made by the individual woman.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
Who is this guy?
thanks for bringing this up. i often fear what the Bush administration is trying to push through while we are 'distracted' by its military aggression in Iraq. part of the problem i see with reproductive rights (and often with the war issue) is lack of engagement on both sides. reproductive rights and the morality of abortion are two separate things. we can and should ensure rights, but we cannot legislate morality. but individual belief somehow outweighs critical thinking for those who don't want to think.
a business professor at MSU had her students evaluate websites on affirmative action (i think) using a special rubric to determine the reliability of information from websites...two sites representing each side. at the end, many students found that one side had reliable information, but at the end of the paper, they said '...but i believe...' as if that discounted critically examined information. geez!