"Equal Rights"? Your scale's off balance
The 'pro-life' contingent loves to claim that they're protecting the rights of unborn children, nevermind that there isn't any agreement on whether or not they actually have any. I do believe that many on the other side of the argument truly believe what they're saying, and that they are doing 'the right thing'. For the sake of argument, though, I'm willing to grant that the unborn do have the same rights as the rest of us, because pro-lifers need to realise that the term 'equal rights' doesn't mean what they think it means when it comes to abortion.
First of all, what are the basic 'human rights'? There's life, naturally. Freedom and privacy are also considered rights by most, and the two are closely related. These two don't really mean much with regards to the unborn, though, as they have no will and thus have no real freedom. Privacy is a non-starter, since they exist within another person and so are never really alone. So naturally, life is the one that pro-life activists are focusing on. But for them to achieve their goals, they have to use the 'right to life' to grant the unborn other rights, rights that no one else has under any circumstances--most notably, the right to another person's body.
This is an important point because at this point, it is no longer about 'equal rights'. I am not obligated to give a dying person my blood or organs, or to feed a starving person, or to let a homeless person sleep under my roof. Sure, it would be nice of me if I did, but it would be an act of charity on my part, not something that I would be required to do. Pregnancy is no different, in that carrying to term is an act of charity on the part of the mother. She is, quite literally, giving of herself for the benefit of another. It is strange that in a country where any government security net is decried as 'socialism' that women are expected to give of themselves as a matter of course, with laws being crafted for specifically this purpose.
At the same time, the rights of women are being subverted. They are expected to give up their freedom and privacy, so that they can be judged on the basis of what benefits someone else enjoys at their expense. Decisions are to be made for them--decisions that may not be in their best interests. Even their lives can be at stake, and some woud deny them even that for the sake of their unborn offspring (as an aside, I've never understood this mindset, as I'm not sure how a dead woman can give birth to a live child).
I don't think pro-lifers are 'wrong', per se--as I said above, I think they truly think they're doing the right thing. However, they need to be honest, because what they're advocating for is anything but 'equal rights'.
Would you agree that the right-to-life can be defined as "the right to not be unjustly deprived of that which I need to live?" For example, if someone shoots me they unjustly deprive me of blood and a functioning circulatory system. If they lock me in an airtight box or a locked room, they unjustly deprive me of air, water, and food I have a right to (or at least have a right to access).
Therefore, we should ask if abortion unjustly deprives the fetus of something he or she has a right to. It seems odd that one can consensually engage in an act (sex) with the knowledge that it brings into existence a human being who is then placed in a state of total dependency and then feel they have no legal obligation to that being. And according to the Alan Guttmacher institute, 98% of abortions occur under this consensual framework (I would prefer not to get into feminist discussions of the consensual/non-consensual nature of sex outside of the context of rape). Jayn, should it be legal to cause another human being to be dependent on your body and then kill that human being by moving them to an environment where they can't survive?
Short answer: Yes
Longer answer: This isn't a question of having control over someone else, it's a question of having control over oneself. Now, such actions may or not be wise, but if we are to have real freedom, then abortion must remain legal.
My answer: it depends on the circumstances, but I believe almost all abortions are ethical -- because of Nature's sexism. I believe abortion is ethical in all cases where a woman schedules the abortion as soon as possible after she makes her decision, or as soon as possible after a change of circumstances changes her decision.
It is asking too much of women to accept Nature's sexism. That sexism has hurt women so badly that we can't accept your belief that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy. It might (possibly) be different if our culture wasn't so sexist or if biology was different.
But it's not. From the day any girl is born, it is known that she might become a mother. From the day a boy is born, it is known that he won't. And the cultural conditioning begins (and obvious intersex babies freak parents out because they can't be put in either category). And, as culture has it, girls are taught from the day they're born to be automatic servants. In certain families the parents may rebel against the patriarchy, but outside the home the "natural order" prevails.
I think the sexist patriarchy is much more unethical than any elective abortion might be. I consider it self defense. (Ditto the classism implications of the disproportionate negative affect of unwanted pregnancy on rich vs. poor families.) I think it’s understandable that women who find biology unjust are going to rebel against that Status Quo.
Nature's sexism is unfair. I don't think it's unethical to try to make things more fair.
Julie (who gets weary, day in day out, of all the "women are objects" messages from laws & the oligarchy & entertainment & advertising media)
