The reading by Ginsburg discusses the debate of abortion in Fargo, a rural community in North Dakota, during the early 80’s. This particular instance is a good example of the many discourses on abortion that occured in the United States throughout this time. The debate was sparked when the Fargo Women’s Health Organization opened, which allowed abortions, birth control, and information on sexual health to become accessible for the first time. The clinic catered to many people in surrounding areas despite the numerous amount of protests that occurred outside of the clinic. Many of the patients receiving abortions were typically young, unmarried women, who did not plan to be sexually active and became pregnant from the lack of preventative measures taken. Although abortions have become increasingly common since they became legalized in 1973, the introduction of the clinics where majority of abortions occur, was/is quite difficult to establish due to the social acceptance of abortions. When inspecting an area’s acceptability of abortion, religion must be considered as a major influence. In Fargo, Christianity is extremely prevalent and therefore may be the root cause to many of the pro-life opinions shared throughout the area. Majority of activists on both sides of the debate are white, middle class females. “Pro-choice activists consider inequalities between the sexes to be rooted in social, legal, and cultural forms of gender discrimination” (Ginsburg 7) and therefore abortions are viewed as a way to create equality between man and women that pregnancy often disrupts. “Pro-life activists, on the other hand, accept difference, but not necessarily hierarchy, in the social and biological roles of men and women” (Ginsburg 7) and therefore feel the need to maintain and protect pregnancy/motherhood as a defining quality of womanhood. Furthermore, pro-life activists view abortion as a disregard to the the link between reproduction and male support of family.
Ginsburg outlines three major themes in the connection between abortion and american culture. The first theme concerns irresponsible sexual activity as being a natural occurrence for men and an unnatural occurrence for women. The second theme emphasizes the unjust disregard for those that are dependent such as the fetus, disabled, and elderly. The third theme critiques the power behind and authenticity in human relations, and how abortion questions these elements.
In her analysis, Ginsburg also comments on how the increase in the amount of women joining labor force, and the availability/safety of new reproductive technologies might sway people’s opinion of abortions. Women now have more options as to the path they chose in life in terms of career and family. Historically, abortions were commonly practiced and only made illegal by those wanting to protect the lives of the dependent, and physicians attempting to gain control of their practice. Furthermore, some scholars claim abortion was made illegal to combat the decline of birth rates in the United States, and some feminist even claimed that abortion promoted actions stemming from male lust. It’s interesting to note that those who created the stigma around abortion including physicians and feminists, were those trying to legalize it a century later. Similarly, religion was much more passive in the abortion discourse in comparison to modern times. From the late nineteenth century with the campaign to criminalize abortion, to the 1960s pro-choice movement, and finally to the legalization of abortion in the twentieth century, attitudes and acceptability of abortion have fluctuated. However, although abortions were legal, they were not available to many people. Of the clinics and hospitals in Fargo, none of them offered abortions for fear of the stigma and backlash they would received from pro-life activists in the community, therefore opening a free standing clinic was not an easy task. After much debate and political/legal difficulty surrounding the opening of the clinic, those seeking services of the freestanding clinic were faced with pro-life activists that encouraged women to consider other options. Pro-life activists used tactics such as prayer vigilants, sidewalk counselors, movies, and other forms of media/advertising. A major theme throughout the pro-life activists goals was to educate those seeking abortions because they were deemed uninformed about the life of the fetus. But many of the tactics used, including the advertising, use of “counselors”, similar names of the activists groups, and indistinguishability between the people made it easy for those seeking abortions to come to pro-life establishments. This resulted in many legal cases that eventually favored thr Fargo Women’s Health Organization, and ultimately made the two sides of the abortion debate distinguishable.
However Both the pro-life activists and pro-choice activists, as demonstrated through ethnographic accounts, recognize each others interest and concern for the well being of women. There have been instances where the clinic has referred women to the pro-life community for financial support and moral support in her desire to the children. Since the establishment of the Women’s Health Organization clinic, there have been debates and conversations between the activists on both sides that has resulted in an understanding of each other’s viewpoints. Both sides have come to recognize that good intentions placed for women in the community, despite the disagreement on the practice of abortion.
The reading by Thompson begins by critiquing the common claim opposing abortion that states how humans cannot pinpoint an exact moment in which the fetus becomes a person. The development of the fetus is continuous, and is therefore a person from the moment of conception. Thompson agrees that the fetus has likely become a person before birth and to draw a specific line to where personhood begins is somewhat arbitrary. However, a newly fertilized ovum, according to Thompson, is no more than a clump of cells. The argument is that the fetus is a person, regardless if one disagrees or agrees, is not sufficient because it does not link the status of the fetus as a person to the impermissibility of abortion. Thompson goes in to understand this missing link by proposing that the fetus’s right to life is more important than the mothers right to decide what happens with her body. But in considering situations of rape is this claim still justified? Many people would argue that pregnancy resulting from rape would permit an abortion, but in making that claim, a fetus as the product of rape has less right to life than a fetus resulting from an unintended or abnormal pregnancy. For this reason, some do not see abortion as permissible in the case of rape, or even in cases where the mother’s life is threatened, though not many people have this extreme view.
Thompson goes deeper into the argument of how a fetus might threaten a mother’s life, and the permissibility of abortion in that instance. Are the rights to life between the mother and child equal? Many believe that abortion is killing the child, but not doing anything with the mother is not necessarily killing her. Thompson claims that “it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs the abortion herself to save her life” (Thompson 52). To let the mother just wait for her death to come is rather ridiculous. However, many mothers cannot safely or accurately perform an abortion themselves and need a third party in order to do so. Thompson claims that not all acts of self defense are justified, but in this case “both are innocent” and “there are only two people involved, one whose life is threatened, and one who threatens it” (Thompson 53”). Therefore it seems that decision rightly belongs to the mother. The argument continues saying that we cannot intentionally kill individuals, but when a person is dependent on an individual for survival, that doesn’t mean that individual must assist the dependent person. The individual does not owe the dependent individual assistance. So Thompson concludes that “the right to life consists not in the right to not be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly” (57).
The mother’s responsibility for inviting the fetus into the world questions her right to abortion, because the invitation was voluntary. However, this question of responsibility cannot be extended to instances of rape, and even in instances of unplanned pregnancies. Just because a window of opportunity is opened, does not necessarily imply intentions of becoming pregnant. Therefore just because it would be more favorable and decent to help another individual, not doing so would not necessarily be unjust. Of course saving the life or helping another individual in need would be a good thing to do, especially when trying to be a “Good Samaritan” as instructed in the bible, but no law says one must be a Good Samaritan.
The reading concludes with her claims that an individual is not responsible for carrying a child she does not wish to have, but does not have the right to guarantee the child’s death. In other words, the fetus does not have the right to the mother’s body, but the mother does not have the right to ensure the death of the child should it become birthed or survive in some way. However, throughout this entire argument it is assumed that the fetus becomes a person from the moment of conception, which is of course a different but related debate.
The reading by Arkes begins with discussion on the Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade, as a significant landmark in the abortion debates. In the case, Justice Blackmun states that pregnancy will always be with us as long as man is present and that many women will become pregnant more than once in their lifetimes. We cannot use religious or theological accounts to make these decisions because claims cannot be judged as completely true or false. The question of what makes a human arises, and it is concluded that the determining factor cannot be left to appearances or anything tangible, but rather “consciousness” (Arkes 374). However, we have a difficult time in defining what consciousness is and how to measure it. Many people do not have moral understandings of their own acts and motivations, and therefore would not be considered as persons. These attempts in defining consciousness are really just attempts to define when a fetus becomes a person, and allow us to disregard other tangible measures from the brain or heart.
Arkes goes into explain that a fetus is not a potential human, because it’s not possible for the fetus to become anything else. Rather, the fetus’s development is continuous and became more developed as time passes. Therefore there is no point in development where a nonhuman becomes a human. Arkes makes the claim that if the the offspring can only be human, it’s not always wrong to kill if one has justification for doing so. Rape may be a good justification, but we also must consider poor mothers, or those who cannot emotionally handle a child as possible justifications. Furthermore, the wellbeing and welcoming of an unwanted child should be considered as a justification.
Hi Courtney,
Thanks so much for your post. It was very informative and useful in summarizing the readings. One of the most powerful lines in Ginsburg’s book, in my opinion, that relates to your summary is, “Research on factors affecting abortion practice shows that the local availability of abortion services is the single most powerful determinant of variations in abortion rates in the United States” (Ginsburg 1989, 57). I interpret this idea as contributing to a cycle of stigma and perceptions of communities and abortion. As you note, religion and cultural factors affect the acceptability of abortions in regions and therefore create barriers to clinics and safe abortion services. This characteristic is also used to stigmatize communities with low rates of abortions and contribute to such cultural and societal perceptions of groups. This increased scrutiny and recognition for lack of abortions only contributes to barriers in accessing abortions and further stigmatizes women for seeking them. This contributes to dynamics between pro-life and pro-choice groups in these areas.
I also appreciate your condensed summary of Thomson’s argument. I wonder if another way to think of Thomson’s argument is through the term “non-maleficence” or “do no harm.” This bioethics term does not obligate an individual to act in a manner of beneficence, or good nature, towards a certain thing (in this case, a fetus), but just not to provide intentional or, in this case, unjust harm to it. Obviously debate is much more complicated than this, but these terms might be helpful to people struggling to make sense of her sentiments. In thinking of this, how might pro-life and pro-choice groups approach the idea of non-maleficence? Would they agree or disagree with Thomson’s sentiments? Thanks again!
Thank you for your post. I think you bring up some interesting points, and give a relatively good summary of the book. There are several things I agree with you on, however, I think you left out some information in your account of the tactics used to prevent people from using the clinic in Fargo. You paint a relatively peaceful protest to these clinics, when in fact there were many protests that became extremely violent with the creation of the Save-A-Baby coalition. They resorted too much more violent tactics such as throwing stones through the clinics windows and chastising woman as they went in to get abortions. However, one of things you bring up that I found fascinating was about the ones creating the stigma around abortion, were the same ones legalizing it a century ago. In the beginning, Ginsburg provides a lot of the analysis leading up to her research in Fargo in particular, Ginsburg states, “It seems particularly ironic that the campaign to delegitimize its practice went into full swing at the moment of abortion’s greatest acceptance.” (30) this goes along with my previous point as they individuals began to undermine abortions only once it was a commonality amongst the public.. I also like how you mentioned the commonalities and humanizing factors between pro lifers and pro choicers, where although they might have had differences of opinion in terms of abortion, there was still a social place within Fargo that they connected with. One hypothesis for this was that there existed a social ecosystem outside the abortion topic that made people behave more friendly towards one another. One quote that stuck out to me and showed this was when Ginsburg wrote, “When an abortion counselor slipped on the front stairs, Linda Anderson who had been on a prayer vigil in front of the clinic ran over to help her.” (112) I think this was very important in showing how abortion may have been the only difference between the two groups, and many shared goals outside of abortion. I think another point that wasn’t mentioned in your post that I saw stuck out was the difficulty in determining what constituted an abortion, as well as the separation of abortion and feminism. First off, Ginsberg gives account to the difficulties of law and practice between abortions, particularly through the account of Finkenstein. She had a deformed fetus, however, the law at the time was very vague, and hospitals in her area would not allow her to have an abortion, as they were afraid of the legalities, causing her to go to Sweden for one. I think this is important in the sense that it still is existent in our society. There is no clear right or wrong definition of when an abortion takes place, and when murder takes place. If you ask different segments of the population, people will give you different timelines on when they think abortion should be allowed up to. Secondly, Ginsburg talks a lot about feminism and its relation to abortion. I found the discussion between the two to be quite confusing as she initially claims that both groups had similar ideas of feminism, and that abortion should not go hand in hand with that. However, she later talked about how pro-lifers began to disregard this, and say that if you have an abortion you lose your identity as a woman, and that having a child in a state of turmoil should be considered an achievement. She also gives varying different accounts of the relation between feminism, gender identity, and abortion. So ultimately, this has me want to question, how similar are the issues of abortion and feminism? If you are against abortion, does that make you strictly not feminist? Thanks again.
Hi Courtney, thank you so much for an insightful blog post! You and Elizabeth in the comments, both hit on the point of culture being a crucial factor in the perception of abortion. I also believe it is quite difficult to shake the general social perception of abortion in a particular community, which in turn renders it difficult for women seeking an abortion to get one. Even Ginsburg in her book notes that before the 1960s, women did not fight back on the laws and policies against abortion because motherhood was regarding as a woman’s primary “source of dignity” in the world that “denies women” of it (Ginsburg, 33-34). The second part of this quote, to me, implies that the discrepancy between men and women in a male-dominated world was pretty clear even in the early 20th century. There were already policies and social structures in place at this time that frowned down upon certain women becoming mothers. This stigma, although opposite the one of legalizing abortion, has similar roots as the latter argument regarding pro-life and pro-choice. Later on, the argument for women’s sexual rights was not necessarily tied to notions of motherhood, but more so the “cultural values” attached to it, such as social welfare and a women’s identity intertwined with motherhood (Ginsburg, 208).
Thompson, as noted in the blog post, poses a bit of a dichotomy between the fetus’s rights versus the mother’s rights. She claims that the fetus’s right to life is more crucial than the mother’s right to protect herself and her own body. She attempts at clearing this up toward the end of her claims that although she deems abortion as morally permissible in certain cases, she is not an advocate for “securing the death of an unborn child” (Thompson, 66). A mother may be so distraught over the idea of abandoning a child she carried for nine months, that she would rather wish death upon the child. I think this argument is a bit flawed because there is so much gray area and complexity in that decision. It is not easy or accurate to say that abortion is akin to the wish of death due to the suffering that might come about from detachment. Of course, this argument extends further to the idea of early versus late abortion and whether or not it is truly considered the killing of the child early on. This brings into question Arkes idea of humanity (Arkes, 374) in determining the beginning of life. Not only this, but several factors such as SES, cultural context, rape, financial stability, and life-threatening cases must be considered when talking about abortion.
Thanks for your post Alexis.
Abortion has been a hot topic in America for a long time. There was worry and clamor that Roe v. Wade might soon be reversed by Trump, but the debate is alive either way.
It is interesting to see the contrasting opinions of Thomson (who argues for abortion) and Arkes (who argues against). Both of them ponder what/when constitutes a human life, but Arkes focuses on it considerably in his essay whereas Thomson handwaves it and moves on to discuss an analogy of being physically attached to a violinist.
I noticed that Arkes’s argument was not unlike that of the Catholic Church in Donum Vitae. Notably, he is a formerly Jewish but currently Catholic convert, so it is very possible his personal beliefs intertwine with his religion. He adamantly does not allow for the “taking of human life” in any case, which extends to the fetus. Thomson considers this, but argues for the fairness and justification of balancing a mother’s life versus her unborn child’s, suggesting that to choose one over the other is much like a “coin flip” if they hold equal value.
Both arguments made compelling points to counter one another, though it is clear that their respective views clearly represent one or the other side.
Ginsburg’s book was far more objective, simply outlining the history of abortion policy in America.
I think the most interesting fact that I learned from the book was the organized creation of the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade. While beforehand the pro-life movement was somewhat disorganized and disjointed, they began to rally as soon as the Supreme Court decided. It makes sense now that the conservative, pro-life movement did not have much of a base at the time, thus the more liberal ruling. Another interesting quip from Ginsburg was her comment about the feminist argument for abortion was not the same as the “right to choose” argument, yet they were both assumed to be under the same group.
It’s easy to villainize both sides in the abortion debate – throwing around terms such as “pro-birth” and “pro-abortion.” However, the debate of abortion goes beyond just policy. It is a fundamental question in how much agency a woman can have to her own body before it infriges upon her fetus’s “right to live,” as well as what constitutes a human life that deserves rights.
Hi Courtney,
Thanks for the summary of the three readings. Personally, I found both Arkes and Thompson’s arguments to be quite compelling, and I thought the metaphors were a creative but effective way of providing perspective. Something that I would add to your Arkes summary is the idea of technologies, rather than the consciousness/moment of humanness, that has evolved and changed over time. Our readings this week brought into the abortion conversation things that are typically not immediately thought of. Prior to this week, I had very little knowledge of abortion, and honestly, had not given much critical thought to it. My natural thought process followed that of what is repeated over and over in social media and news; I focused on the rights of the mother and the rights of the child in regards to choice and life. I loved that our readings made us consider “ought” obligations versus rights, the role of technology, and the experience of women versus men in the issue of abortion. The abortion debate is certainly more complicated than I ever imagined. I’m not sure which perspective or consideration(s) should carry more weight in the abortion debate, but I do think pro-dialogue will help highlight similar philosophies and cultivate greater compassion among people with different beliefs on the abortion debate. To that end, I personally believe that women who are pregnant are best positioned to direct conversations about abortion because they are the people who have more at stake and/or are physically at stake. I do not think it is appropriate for men or other people who cannot understand the experience of unwanted pregnancy to dictate what pregnant women can or cannot do/have access to.
Hi Courtney,
Thank you for your great post. I enjoyed reading your section about Ginsburg’s text. You did an excellent job summarizing the text and emphasizing the important sections. I thought the reading was interesting in how it depicted changes in opinion about abortion as history and laws changed. Specifically, it showed how religion and culture has created the abortion stigmas today. Out of the three readings, I found this one the least interesting but still extremely informative. The objective writing was definitely important in helping to contribute to our pool of knowledge on the topic, but I found reading the other texts and trying to understand the different subjective opinions far more interesting.
I found the way which Thomson formatted her writing to be extremely thought-invoking. As you stated in your post, she compared the life of the fetus to the life of the mother using several different metaphors. In particular, she talked about the mother being a house and the fetus growing until the house burst and was destroyed but the fetus lived (Thomson 52). This example reflected that the life of the fetus was valued more than the mothers. She then transitioned into discussing the mother’s role if she had intended to become pregnant versus being raped and forced into the position of pregnancy. I found some of her arguments hard to follow but I think this is because there is not a clear right or wrong answer; that is why we are in the position of discussing this topic to begin with. The last thing I found interesting about this reading was how Thomson quoted doctors and other third parties: “There’s nothing we can do for you. We cannot choose between your life and his, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene” (Thomson 52). This idea shows that no one wants to be in the position of choosing who lives because if a choice is made to save one, you are also choosing to actively kill the other. If not choice is made, then one just dies; it is not murder.
The third reading by Arkes took most of my opinions towards abortion and challenged them. I found the writing compelling and it really made me question my own beliefs. At times, I also found Arkes’ writing to be traced with an almost slight humor. For example, he related abortion clinics to McDonalds to emphasize the quick, in-and-out nature of the clinics (Arkes 386). A major point he made was that legalizing abortion did nothing to minimize the amount of deaths by illegal abortion. It is estimated that only about 400-600 deaths occurred because of illegal abortion; however, by legalizing abortion, over 1.5 million babies were aborted (Arkes 383). Thus, by legalizing abortion, more deaths occurred.
Overall, I believe the readings were extremely compelling and interesting. However, I wish that they had placed more emphasis on what would happen if abortion was illegal and more children were born to families who did not want them. While some children have a means of being adopted, the foster system in the United States is not the best possible system. Furthermore, of the babies born prematurely or with medical conditions, who would pay for them if the parents did not want them in the first place? I think it is important to discuss the life of the child after it is born while discussing the life (or death) of the unborn child as well.
Hi Courtney,
Thanks for your analysis of the readings! Personally, when reading these pieces that idea I kept coming back to was the idea of rights: who had them, what are they, and when can they ethically be violated. You discuss the varying opinions on when life starts, which is the primary focus of the Thompson article. Thompson begins his article claiming that the arguments supporting that personhood begins at conception are weak. He argues pro-life supporters rely too heavily on “slippery-slope arguments,” and then compares a fetus being a person to an acorn being an tree (Thompson 47). Thompson then argues that the debate over personhood is futile and thus continues his article under the assumption that a fetus has personhood. I agree with this methodology because having a debate where different parties do not share the same assumptions from which their argument is based, especially when those assumptions cannot be challenged as they seem arbitrary, is futile. As seen in Ginsburg’s book, in her interview with Corinne, people become entrenched in their beliefs and resist conflicting viewpoints (176). Therefore the remainder of his work argues under the assumption that life begins at conception. Thompson brings up an interesting anecdote about someone who nonconsensually borrows your kidneys as a form of dialysis-like treatment. If you were to unplug them from you is that violating their right to life? In this context I’m inclined to believe most people would say it is not unethical to detach that person from your body. But if we adapt this scenario to the pregnancy dynamic, is it ethical to “unplug” a fetus from a mother, especially if it wasn’t put there consensually (such as the case with a pregnancy from rape)? Does that violate the fetus’s right to life or uphold the mother’s right to not have to be a “good samaritan” (Thompson 49) ?
Hello Alexis, thank you for your blog post. I thought you did a great job summarizing each reading. I appreciated that you mentioned Ginsburg’s quotes on pro-choice activists versus pro-life activists. A major difference between the pro-choice activists and pro-life activists were their views on the societal roles of males and females. Many of these perceptions do mirror religious views of societal roles of males and females. For this reason, I agree with you that we must recognize that religion is a major influence on the accessibility of abortion. If a religion, such as Catholicism, makes certain rules about abortion, followers will also have the same views.
Additionally, a major debate over abortion rights is the discussion over when a fetus should be considered human and therefore given natural human rights. As Thompson mentions, that line is arbitrary and thus such debates should not be included in the discussion of abortion. I think it would be interesting to try to view abortion through Thompson’s eyes because she focuses on the relationship of the mother and the child and the rights of each in relation to each other. This relationship is variable and depends on every woman’s views. The decision is left on the mother and not on bystanders who have no relation to the patient. As Thompson mentions, however, the mother does not have a right to guarantee the child’s death, so again problems arise over when the fetus becomes a person.
Lastly, I think it is important formulate different debates about abortion because of the arbitrariness of determining what being a human means. Karen mentioned that the debate of abortion should go beyond policy and should include questions about how much agency a woman has over her body. Ultimately, each woman should have rights over her own body these responsibilities should not be taken away by others, especially men.
Hi Courtney, thanks for giving such a good summary of all 3 of the readings this week.
In your discussion on Ginsburgs’ reading about Fargo, you stated that “abortions have become increasingly common since they became legalized in 1973”. However, this is actually false. I don’t remember reading this specifically in the book and believe that this is your perspective. Instead, abortions have become much more discussed in the forefront of activism since the legalization. Statistically speaking, and counterintuitively, legalizing abortion actually leads to a reduced amount of abortions in the per capita population. This has been shown to be true across the world when you examine the abortion rates in countries where it is legalized and where it is strictly prohibited. Beyond that, I appreciate you mentioning the 3 main themes that are often discussed in the American abortion debate. To me, this specific analysis was the most important part of Ginsburgs’ discussion. It’s also interesting to note that those groups who originally lead the opposition have turned around to lead the pro-life movement.
Personally, although I am pro-life, I did not like Thompson’s article. I agree that defining personhood is often arbitrary and liked the comparison of the acorn and oak tree. However, I believed that many of the examples that were used in the reading were nonsensical comparisons. In conversation, they seem more likely to earn a roll of the eyes as opposed to actual discussion. Instead, if one were to use comparisons about who has the right to life and what all it entails, I believe that a more compelling argument would be that of organ or bone marrow donation. It’s not compulsory, even if one is a match. Perhaps it harms the donor, even kills them, but it saves another and their right to life. To me, this kind of commonplace argument sees more reasonable.
I agree with your comments on Arkes and about how it is difficult to define “consciousness”. If that defines the right to life, then why do we keep braindead or comatose individuals alive on ventilators and other machines for days, months, or years? Viability makes more sense but even it can be difficult. I also agree that whether or not the child is wanted should affect it. Although there are technically systems in place such as adoption and foster care, many children in these systems do not have a happy or healthy childhood and end up with substantial trauma. Often, it seems like the “right to life” conversation ends at birth.
Hi Courtney,
Thank you for the blogpost. I thought your post did a great job summarizing the key concepts of this week’s readings. I felt that Thompson’s argument was the classical clash between beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence is generally an active proves whereas non-maleficence is more of a passive process. Thompson argues that the mother has the right to protect her own life which would be an act of beneficence, but at the same time, does not permit maleficent acts on the fetus when the life is not at stake. I felt that this was a strong argument because this is similar to how the United States law differentiates between self-defense and assault. Additionally, Thompson argues that intent also plays an important role. A woman does not have to be responsible for a fetus that she does not want. However, the crux of Thompson’s argument hinged on the fact that a fetus is a human at the point of conception. Arkes’s argument was interesting because he states that a fetus does not have the potential to be anything else. While I do not disagree with this argument, one counter argument I have thought of is the butterfly. While a caterpillar does not have the potential to be anything other than a butterfly, we still classify the two as separate entities. A caterpillar and butterfly are just different stages of the same species but, we make a distinction between the two to the point that people are okay with killing caterpillars but not butterflies.
In Ginsburg’s book, we see another instance of religion influencing policy. We see how the town of Fargo, which held Christian beliefs, protest the installment of an abortion clinic. These local acts against the availability of abortion services then lead to variations among abortion rates across the United States. This makes me question whether the country should introduce a law or whether each state should have different laws on abortion.
Hi Courtney, thank you for your thorough blog post and analysis of this week’s readings.
A specific concept that Ginsburg mentioned that I had never previously considered was the feminist notion that abortion stemmed from male lust. John Noonan’s explanation that white upper-class males were the strongest supporters of abortion in the 1970s was interesting to note, as typically abortion is seen as anti-feminist (Ginsburg, 10). Such a claim indicates that such a perspective is not so clear-cut, and also indicates more reason for Ginsburg to concentrate her research on the pro-lifers in Fargo. The indistinct nature of these perspectives is further demonstrated in the community when, as you mentioned, both sides recognize each other’s concerns.
In Thompson’s article, she discussed that an individual is not obligated to help one who is dependent on them which posed an interesting comparison to a fetus’ dependent on the mother. Such a claim poses a debate for the idea that the fetus should be considered an individual as, although the fetus may be an individual, that individual is still one who is dependent on another being and that other being does not necessarily have a duty to care for the individual. Such a debate is an interesting point of view to consider, as the duty that a mother follows in not aborting a child is defined as a moral obligation but not an essential obligation.
The abortion debate is one that is complex which was demonstrated by the readings of the week and, I believe, depends strongly on ethnographic evidence, as factors for the people involved differ strongly from one community to another.
Thanks for the post, Courtney! I genuinely enjoyed reading your summaries of the readings and interpretations of the author’s thoughts. The questions you add in when discussing some of these ideas emphasizes the complexity of this conversation in American society today. I especially liked how a previous comment acknowledged that this week’s readings provoke the reader to question their own views. I believe that it is of best interest for society as a whole if all its individuals continually reflect upon their thoughts and opinions regarding controversial debates. Like one of Ginsburg’s underlying points, perspectives of the individual, community, and institution will naturally change over time as change occurs. Introduction and ease of safe abortion technology and its increasing availability catalyzed the most recent conversation around abortion, but a contributing factor that Ginsburg highlights is also the portrayal of current events in the media.
Media and advertising has always influences the individual in American society, and it is becoming increasingly accessible with recent technology advancements. One of Ginsburg’s points about the portrayal of current events and opinions through media is that it is often representative of a vocal minority. The preference of broadcasting a clinic firebombing instead of “less dramatic but more representative” coverage is of best interest for media companies; however, it does not speak to the true depth of the actual discussion being held (Ginsburg, 117). When Fargo was covered in the media, Ginsburg herself received a lot of complaints about the programming by the media from all sides of the debate, even though she was not involved in the production or broadcasting of the program.
As I mentioned, I particularly enjoyed the challenge of mainstream ideas that Thompson and Arkes offer. Thompson’s argument of dependency and invitation of a fetus was something I had not thought of in great detail before reading it. A point was clearly made that the right to a mother’s body can only be granted if a woman’s “pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it” (Thompson, 59). This point is further developed as Thompson uses several metaphors to convey the argument that unintended pregnancy (even with proper use of contraceptives) is not an instance in which the woman voluntarily invited a fetus into her womb. The consistent presentation of multiple sides to an argument as well as the use of metaphors throughout especially promotes a re-consideration of the reader’s opinions, which is a prominent strength of this piece.
Hi Courtney,
Excellent blog post. I thought that Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion” aligned with my personal views well, and proved a well-researched testimony in favor of reproductive choice. Of particular interest was how Thompson skirted the usual pitfalls of a Pro-Choice argument, such as when he writes “a newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this” (Thompson, 48). Thompson instead frames his argument as a critique of the moral superiority of the Pro-Life camp, and proposes that on a “closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it [the argument’s moral superiority]” (Thompson, 48). Areas where Thompson applies this argumentative structure to numerous hypotheticals in his writing is where I found his argument to be the most persuasive. These sections removed the argument from the emotionally charged topic of abortion, and instead applied pro-life decisions to other medical issues. In this manner Thompson avoids merely adding his voice to the debate on abortion, and instead provides a new, useful perspective.
Thanks for your post! I really enjoyed your analysis and summary of the readings for this week. Out of this week’s readings, I found Arkes’ writing to be the most powerful, primarily because he used poignant and memorable examples in making his argument. Personally, I am against abortion in most cases (not all cases!) for reasons that largely coincide with the Catholic Church’s position in Donum Vitae. Arkes’ point that the number of deaths from abortion significantly increases when legalized was notable, and this solidified my position even further. When abortion is legalized, an additional 1.5 million fetuses are terminated with no significant change to illegal terminations that occur (Arkes 383). For this reason, if one believes that a fetus should be treated as an individual with a “soul”, then abortion should be illegal, especially since having it legalized seems to have no impact on the number of illegal terminations. I also found the argument about consciousness being a central issue to be interesting because it’s a factor many fail to account for when taking a stance for abortion (like Thompson) or against it.
Hey Courtney,
Thanks for your blog post.
I found the contrast of readings for this week to be very interesting and offering viewpoints from both sides of the aisle if you will. It was also great to have an “objective” view of the issue through the eyes of Ginsburg.
Like others, I too was surprised from reading that the same people who created the stigma around abortion were trying to legalize it later. Although there were reports of bombings, arson, and physical harm due to more aggressive protestors, it had little effect on the number of women attending the clinics (Ginsburg, 116). I found it interesting that despite these very real threats, women were still going to clinics and even bonding over their being threatened (Ginsburg, 116). It’s also interesting to note that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pro-choice movement in 1983 and since that ruling, the “pro-life movement became more apparent”” (Ginsburg, 122). I find it somewhat ironic(ally sad) that since the ruling, “violence against abortion clinics escalated” (Ginsburg 122) and the number of abortions (and thus deaths of fetuses) also skyrocketed (Arkes, 383).
I found the metaphors presented by both Thompson and Arkes to be compelling in their own right, and it made me challenge my beliefs and assumptions about abortion. As someone who is not a woman and therefore not have the same perspectives than a woman, I’ve bought into more or less the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants/needs to her body. However, if you consider the fetus to be a person, abortion would be analogous to committing murder. However, if you have a mindset like Arkes, who argues that a fetus does not have the potential to be anything else, this opens up many other avenues on how to view the topic. Are the rights of the mother and child equal? I think the mother’s rights in this instance have a greater priority, and I look forward to our discussion about this tomorrow.
Hi Courtney!
Thank you for a very well written post! You did a great job not only summarizing Ginsburg’s text but also presenting both Thompson’s and Arkes’ viewpoints. Arkes’ point on the definition of consciousness, which is something so intangible that we as humans struggle to define it. The use of determining when consciousness begins is to establish when exactly a fetus becomes a person and starts to “live”. The argument is that by determining when life begins, we can establish when it is acceptable to then take that life or if it is even acceptable at all. However, what Arkes goes into to explain that if a fetus cannot be anything other than a human when it develops, then this development must be continuous and there must be no point in the development where the fetus cannot be human. So either way, a fetus is always a human and the question then becomes when is it justifiable to kill a human?
Thompson brings up an interesting point when talking about the right to life. According to pro-life arguments, the fetus’ right to life is greater than the mothers right to make choices regarding her own body. Furthermore, what if the fetus’ right to life puts the mothers life at risk? The author presents the question in this question :”do the mother and child have an equal right to life?” (Thompson 52). When thinking about rights, I find it very interesting on how they might apply to a being without “conscious thought”. How can one determine and enforce the rights of a being that is dependent on another. In one of my other classes, when talking about the right to health and the incarceration of pregnant women, a question was brought up about the right to health. If incarceration at some point violates the mothers right to health and therefore violates the fetus’ right to health, what measures must be taken to protect the right to health, if any at all? And should these measures be made with just the mother in mind or just the fetus or both? When reading both Thompson’s and Arkes’ points of view, I couldn’t help but wonder if they would view the right to health parallel to their arguments of their right to life.
I find interesting how you mentioned that some “pro-life activists view abortion as a disregard to the the link between reproduction and male support of family”, especially because they usually don’t understand that the pro-choice argument does not take away the importance of the male in a relationship, it simply empowers women. Additionally, as mentioned in the readings, I think one of the larger problems is the social and cultural stigma towards sexually active men and women. I also find fascinating the transition of feminism and religion in the conversation about abortion. I would have never imagined the differences that would occur over time, with religion becoming a larger part of the discourse, and some feminists transitioning from pro-life to pro-choice. One more thing to note, as Thompson mentions, is the important distinction, which is often muddled, about when a fetus becomes a person. The larger problem with that seems to be how making an exception some people, such as a rape victim, may alter the right to life of other fetuses. Therefore, I think that having a few “loopholes” to a rule is not possible. Instead, we should make it legal across the board, with guidelines that are less ambiguous.
Thank you for you post, Courtney! In your blog you pointed out a theme that runs through these readings, which is the justification of abortion. You quoted something from Thompson that really stood out to me, which was that “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly” (57). This of course admits that abortion is a conscious act of killing and not merely a medical procedure. The question for Thompson is not whether abortions are an act of killing but whether or not that killing is justified. In terms of pro-choice arguments that I’ve encountered, this is one of very few (if any) that actually admits that abortion is an act of killing something, whether or not that something is a human being. Rhetorically speaking the language of “killing” is ineffective and can oftentimes be detrimental to the argument. It is much cleaner, much safer, to suggest that abortion is a medical procedure on a mass of cells or tissue rather than consciously depriving some being of life. This language of “killing” is something reserved for pro-life arguments. I think this ties back to our discussion of bioethics and reproductive ethics in particular as being something that cannot be morally neutral. Despite the desire to make abortion out to be something purely scientific or medical, there will always be a moral debate which will inform the language used in arguments on both sides of the issue.
Hi Courtney. Well done all around. You highlighted very nicely the connection between religion and reproductive technology. Before this reading, I did not know that religion is only a more recently developed core tenant of the abortion debate, as you say that “religion was much more passive in the abortion discourse in comparison to modern times.”
Similarly to many of the other ethnographic accounts we’ve studied in this class, Ginsburg takes individual accounts to consider now how religion affects abortion in women’s lives. She gives examples such as Shirley, a 60 year old woman whose pro life stance is deeply tied to her identity as a woman (Ginsburg 1989, 175). She argues that age has always played a role in a woman’s stance on abortion. Or Cathy, whose religious and cultural context cause her very much to be the token conservative pro-lifer that so many put in a box (Ginsburg 1989, 175). Given that ethnography allows us to see into the reality that religion has become a main player in the abortion conversation, my question is, what changed? People were surely more traditional before the 60’s than after, so what caused the turning point that brought religion to the center of the conversation?
I believe this question serves as an interesting contrast to the notion that, as you say, “we cannot use religious or theological accounts to make these decisions” in the context of Roe v. Wade. I would argue, though, that even in the Arkes article and the whole conversation about rights and consciousness we hear religious, or perhaps idealistic, undertones. Discussing “the point at which a fetus is sufficiently close to the nature of an ‘authentic’ human being that can claim those protections we accord to human beings” is in and of itself a religious statement drawing on the purely theoretical notion of authenticity as well as rights or protections that are derived from religious inspirations (Arkes 1987, 375). While this is certainly open for debate, I argue that religion manifests itself everywhere in the abortion debate today, even in spaces it claims not to be present in, and I continue to wonder how society developed to reach this point of the centrality of religion in this conversation.
Thank you Courtney. I appreciate how you included all parts and remained impartial. I believe it is difficult to speak about these issues without introducing personal bias but you did a great job! When reading I found it very interesting that abortion was thought of as a way to bring equality between men and women that pregnancy stood in the way of. This stood out to me because it seems to make the potential child irrelevant as a human completely and just a way to even the playing field. It is the only point from all the readings that disregards the child entirely.
I think it is interesting to think of the fetus as a dependent the way Thompson does. It is important here that the mother has a responsibility here to think about a fetus in this way. As you said Thompson argues that an individual may not have a responsibility to help the dependent in any intentional way. I personally do not understand how any woman could disconnect the fact that the fetus is dependent on her yet it is not her responsibility to aid it. I cannot say that I agree with this standpoint I believe that if the fetus is dependent,t than the woman is inherently responsible for its fate in total. Do you think that dependency and responsibility can be objectively disconnected in the way that Thompsons proposes?