This week’s readings focused on the heavily debated topic of abortion in the United States, which began in the mid 1900’s and has only become more controversial as time has gone on. The reading by Ginsburg, Contested Lives: An Abortion Debate in the American Community, is an ethnography published in the late 1900’s that delves into the conflict of abortion by using a community in North Dakota as a miniature model for the larger scale society of the United States. The other reading by Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,” was published prior to Ginsburg’s reading and presents the ideas behind the right to life movement while also arguing against it. Overall, these two readings cover the moral reasoning behind and the consequences of the ongoing abortion debate, and the rights a woman holds in the American society in the late 1900’s.
While it is a small detail, it is important to take note of the publication dates of both of these readings and analyze how one publication may influence or inspire the other publication. In this case, Thompson’s work was published before Ginsburg’s Contested Lives and therefore created a stage for Ginsburg to organize her ethnographic paper. In Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” she supports the right of choice for a woman going through a pregnancy and potentially an abortion. As suspected, this defense of abortion sparked a lot of criticism and debate over whether a woman truly has the right to abortion, polarizing society into pro-life and pro-choice even more. Thompson claims that most of the debate over this issue stems from the idea that “the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception (47).” According to Thompson, most pro-life supporters do not draw a definitive line defining when abortion starts to become impermissible.
Thompson goes on to propose a thought experiment involving an unconscious, famous violinist to explain her point (48). The scenario is presented as such: you are the only person that can cure a famous violinist of his fatal kidney ailment, and because of that, the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and “plugs” you into the violinist. If you unplug yourself, the violinist will die. Thompson then presents a series of moral questions such as “is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?” (48) She also proposes adding a time frame and asks the reader if their decision to unplug would change if they had to be plugged in for only an hour versus nine months versus 9 years. This thought experiment is meant to parallel the scenario of pregnancy and deciding if abortion is permissible if it is desired. This part of Thompson’s reading highlights the argument between saving a mother’s life versus holding a mother accountable and responsible for supporting a fetus at the start of conception and onward.
Initially, this thought experiment seemed logical, and it was easy to resonate with the analogy. However, there seems to be an issue of oversimplification of abortion and pregnancy, and it can be concluded that there is a lack of emotional attachment in the analogy. A famous violinist does not hold the same value in a woman’s life that a fetus would. A famous violinist also does not parallel a fetus, because a famous violinist is already an established person in society while a fetus only holds potentiality. It is important to note the difference between actuality and potentiality, as the two states hold different values in society. The analogy also focuses on “against my will” scenarios, comparing kidnap to rape or imminent death of a mother during pregnancy. There are other scenarios where a mother may want to consider abortion, and those cannot be paralleled with this thought experiment.
Some questions to consider after reading this work include:
- What could have made Thompson’s argument more convincing? Did the analogy strengthen or hinder her argument?
- How could she have included emotional ties between mother and fetus in this analogy? How could she have addressed other scenarios of abortion besides rape or death?
After reading and analyzing Thompson’s work, we can use it as a background and better understand how and why Ginsburg developed her argument the way that she did. Ginsburg explains that her identity as a “young, unmarried, Jewish, and urban visitor from New York City might pose serious barriers to communication with Fargo residents.” (5) Ginsburg was very clear with the audience while explaining that she was about to communicate with a conservative, homogenous, and secluded town that has “the highest rate of church attendance of any standard metropolitan area.” (4) It is no surprise that Ginsburg’s identity made it difficult for her to understand and communicate with the Fargo residents, as their identity was much different from her own. This underscores the division of ideologies and opinions across the nation and how reactions toward abortion vary, specifically in different areas of the country.
Ginsburg’s ethnography was conducted and written post-Roe vs Wade, and it was interesting to see how strong opinions on abortion were, even after the decision to allow women the right to privacy and choice to abortion. Ginsburg’s short summary on the history and legislation of abortion aided in my understanding of her work, and strengthened her credibility once she started to address her findings in Fargo. Her credibility was also strengthened when she acknowledged that her findings in Fargo might not actually reflect the entire society of the United States, as there are different conflicts and debates going on about abortion in other cities across the nation and at different paces and gravity.
With the background of Thompson’s work explaining the national controversy over abortion, Ginsburg’s anthropological study can build upon it. The abortion debate in Fargo started with the opening of abortion clinics shortly after Roe vs Wade, specifically in 1981. This proved to be a social drama, which included a “sequence of phased conflicts typical of ‘social dramas’: breach, crisis, redress, regression to crisis, and eventually stabilization either through schism or reintegration.”(121) Essentially, after this abortion clinic opened, there were waves of pro-choice support and pro-life support throughout the late 1900s. These waves proved to be a large focal point in Ginsburg’s work, and she sought out narratives from both sides of the debate.
After several interviews and investigations, Ginsburg came to the conclusion that pro-choice women thought inequalities rose from gender discrimination. The pro-choice women believed that the issue could be mollified via economic and political solutions. Ginsburg also came to the conclusion that pro-life women thought opposition to abortion “like other moral reforms, is a gesture against what they see as a final triumph of self interest, a principle that represents both men and the market.” (216) Interestingly enough, it seems that there is an underlying feminist approach from both sides of the abortion debate. All the women that were interviewed assumed the issue of abortion came from gender discrimination and a woman’s identity in society. Ginsburg also points out that there is no socioeconomic role in the difference of opinions from the women in Fargo, as they all came from the same socioeconomic class and all seemed to have the same social identity within the city. This is incredibly important because it shows, once again, that these women are extremely similar yet they have completely opposite viewpoints on the debate. Essentially, it is the ideologies that are in opposition, not the women. Perhaps these ideological differences come from where and how the women are raised.
Overall, it seems that Ginsburg’s goal in this ethnography was to “understand how this grass roots conflict shaped and was shaped by activists’ experiences of self, gender, family, community, and culture in a specific setting.”(6) Ginsburg concludes that the differences in opinion stem primarily from the way a woman’s concern for feminism is manifested, rather than socioeconomic differences or religious differences.
Some questions to consider with this reading:
- How can women with the same inherent goal have polar opposite opinions on the abortion debate?
- Ginsburg suggests that opinions on abortion are due to where and how you are raised. What do you think is the true root to opinions on abortion?
- Ginsburg mentions briefly the role of media in society and in the debate about abortion. Does media portray the pro-life and pro-choice sides in a negative or a positive light, and how does that affect the progress of coming to a solution?
Nikki,
You gave a very in depth summary of Ginsburg’s book. I really liked your introduction to your blog post. It set up the post nicely so the reader knew exactly what you would be discussing throughout your post for this week.
I also liked how you discussed something that other students haven’t taken into account yet this semester. That idea is the publication dates of the two readings. Analyzing certain details, like the publication dates, is something that is overlooked when comparing different materials. Yet, I believe it is an important detail, as you stated, when realizing that one piece may have influenced the other.
One criticism I have is that in your analysis of the violinist analogy, I think your argument could have been strengthened by evidence or facts from the two readings. You differentiate between potentiality and actuality, however it comes across as part of your opinion, rather than an argument founded through evidence.
Overall, I think you did a great job at summarizing the readings this week. You gave insight into specific topics that we can further analyze during class. You also shed light onto other aspects of the piece that may have been overlooked.
Nikki,
This was a really great post all around – you summarized each reading very well, synthesized them together in terms of content and publication date, as well as provided some thought provoking questions for us to answer. Awesome job!
I agree with Thomson when she says , “the prospects for drawing a line in the development of the fetus look dim” (47). Regardless of if you hold the religious or the scientific perspective, every single person will draw their own experiences and conclusions, determining for themselves when a fetus becomes a baby and a living person. This argument of cells vs. fetus vs. baby is the foundational “fact” behind both the pro-choice and pro-life argument. In my opinion, the “truth” being so unreliable weakens both arguments tremendously.
I mentioned this in Dominique’s post but I absolutely agree with you that the analogies used in Thomson post were thought provoking but missed the mark emotionally. None of her analogies truly captured the emotional intensity between a fetus and a mother. I don’t believe they hindered her argument but I definitely did not feel more convinced by her words after thinking them through. With that being said, I don’t think there is a totally equal way to compare something to the emotional relationship between a mother and fetus. Pregnancy and childbirth is too unique and ultimately the reason why ART and abortion are such polarizing topics.
I found it particularly interesting that you said Ginsburg’s overall conclusion is that “the differences in opinion stem primarily from the way a woman’s concern for feminism is manifested”. I agree with you here, but it makes me think about Unit 9’s reading of Rothman – an article about ART and feminism. How does reading Rothman effect your reading of Ginsburg? Do you still agree that based on Ginsburg’s ethnography, abortion sentiments are dependent on feminism? Can one infuse the two pieces to form an even stronger argument. whether that be for or against? This would make for an interesting class discussion now that we have all read both pieces!
Nikki,
Thank you for your well-written blog post. I appreciated your discussion questions.
I disagree with you that the publication dates are a small detail. This is due to abortion and protocols behind it being heavily influenced by the year the procedures occurred. For example, Faye D. Ginsburg reminds the reader that the first abortion did not occur after they were legalized; instead, there is a long history of illegal abortions through time (23). Whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice or even indifferent to this debate in America, based on the knowledge that abortions occurred before they were legalized, they will not stop no matter what measures are taken by pro-life groups. To summarize, it is likely that if abortions occurred 200 years ago, in addition to abortion doctors’ lives being in danger for performing the procedures, they will continue through the rest of time (Ginsburg, 51).
I agree with you that Judith Jarvis Thompson’s analogy and argument in defense of abortion is an oversimplification. To answer your question, I believe her analogy in the end weakened her argument. This was not the first time I heard this analogy but when I did I had to reread many times due to how confusing I found it. I do believe the attempt to represent the pro-choice argument is important however, because people need arguments they can agree to in order to support an idea. I have seen hypotheticals used in bioethical arguments and the scenarios can run the risk of distracting the core principle in question. Based off Thompson and Ginsburg’s work the main problem is the inability to explain one’s position in a way that the other side can get on board. Ginsburg discusses a middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice. Still, until both sides become less heated in their arguments and give time to hear both sides, this middle ground position will continue to stay small to avoid persecution from both sides.
Nikki and Dominique,
The two of you approached Unit 8 in very different but interesting ways. I appreciate the different approaches you two took in your responses. Still a very controversial topic in modern society, abortion is a difficult topic to analyze and discuss from a bioethics perspective.
Nikki, I found your attention to the background of the authors and time of the pieces insightful. The focus on analyzation and argument over summarization is also a positive aspect of your blog post. As I did the readings, I questioned similar points to the ones you highlighted in your post and found your criticisms to be valid. (In the Thompson piece, I found the violinist and box of chocolates analogies to be confusing and reductive.) Although, your opinions on the issue can be inferred from your post, I feel that your post would have been strengthened if you had clearly chosen a stance on the debate and argued it using the texts.
Dominique, I appreciate the critiques you made on our Ginsberg reading. I agree that the arguments made by Ginsberg were one-sided. I wish you had referenced the Thompson reading more as it compliments the Ginsberg reading well. In your blog post, you alternated referring to Faye Ginsberg using her first and last name. I think proper etiquette would be to consistently use the last name throughout the piece. As I said for Nikki’s post, I feel that making an overarching statement and arguing it would have strengthened your post as well.
Your posts complimented each other nicely! Overall, I feel that they have a good summarization and analyzation of our Unit 8 readings. The questions posed and points discussed in the blog posts were thought provoking. I appreciate how they touched on topics we previously discussed in class, such as the point in which a fetus is a baby and the ethics of parenthood.
Hi Nikki,
I liked the way you formatted your response to Ginsburg’s and Thompson’s articles with questions to consider. By doing so, you allow us to gain insight on what you were thinking while reading and follow along. Your summary not only covered the readings thoroughly, it went above and beyond in details that I did not notice when reading. For example, I did not think about the publication dates of these readings and what effect it would have on the reception of Ginsburg’s Contested Lives.
The violinist analogy presented by Thompson could’ve have been framed better or she could’ve used a different analogy. Although I do see the parallels, this analogy draws I agree with you on your critique that there is an oversimplification of abortion and pregnancy. I have the same question in mind: “How can women with the same inherent goal have polar opposite opinions on the abortion debate?” Your quote usage and placement in your concluding paragraph summarizes Ginsburg’s goal in his ethnography well. Overall, your post was well-framed, easy to read, and very thorough.
Hi Nikki,
I found your post to be very well summarized and thorough. I also agree that the thought experiment in Thompson’s work was very oversimplified and did not accurately parallel the choice for a woman considering abortion. As you pointed out, there are many problems with the thought experiment, such as the violinist is already an established living being on earth. Overall, I agree that this weakened her argument.
Additionally, I’m not sure of any ways to revise the thought experiment to be more reflective of the abortion debate. Based on what we have read this week, it does not seem to me that either author was really able to construct the conceptual framework for understanding abortion in every case. I think this highlights the complexities of the debate, because not every case can be broken down to be the result of one root issue. In each case, context will vastly differ and thus, bring about a different conversation regarding the issue. Although I think the thought experiment serves to be a talking point, I do not think that this thought experiment or any thought experiment on abortion really has potential to drive the conversation forward.
Hi Nikki,
I like how you have included some contextual information regarding the publication time and authors’ backgrounds. And raising the questions throughout your blog was indeed very helpful and though-provoking for the readers. In Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” I agree with you that the thought experiment involving the violinist is a simplification of the issue of abortion. Nevertheless, I do not think the simplified model weakens his argument concerning abortion; in contrast, I even think think that it makes his argument more convincing. Thompson’s whole set of arguments is based on moral reasoning within assumed conditions and he speaks of “abortion” in terms of a basic human right, which parallels the case of saving the violinist. In order to justify abortion as a human right, situations need to be created and outcomes are predicted accordingly. Only through simplification of the conditions could the conclusions be logically drawn and the concepts of “selfish” and “unjust” to be differentiated in a universally understandable way. I do agree, however, that the choice of abortion could not be simply made from morally philosophical reasoning; there are indeed other strings, like you said, such as emotions and cultural factors, attached to the issue. Thus, I thought that “Contested Lives” by Ginsburg provided a distinctive, yet compensating view with respect to Thompson on the issue as she represents the matter with perspectives on feminism within the sociocultural realm. As you suggested, I also find it very interesting that underlying both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice activists are reasoning from feminist views, only with different ideologies on the manifestation of feminism. Only because she did her ethnography study in a small town like Fargo could she partially eliminate factors such as socioeconomic status, religion, and race. And as she mentioned, the activists on both sides mostly consists of young and white females. The particularity of the selected sample makes her ethnography study both more convincing as arguments but less so when using her argument for a national level debate on abortion.
Nikki,
I enjoyed your post a lot. I felt as though it was more than just a summation, but a true reflection. I enjoyed how you gave your own opinions on the readings, and I agree with many of them. I thought very similar things that you did and felt that the analogy used in the reading misguided readers on the subject of abortion. It is far more than, “what good are you taking from the world when you have an abortion” and to be quite frank I fail to see exactly what good keeping a professional violinist alive may have. So we may have better music or maybe their music puts someone in a good mood and allows for a period reflection onto oneself like a lot of music does, but exactly how much suffering from another human life is that actually worth? Weighing certain truths with incertain ones is never easy, but I personally feel as though if your decision is split between an outcome that is certain and one that is hypothetical, you should always put more wait on the one you know for certain. I, like you, feel as though the author failed to accentuate this point. Unfortunately, I am not sure what a better analogy for abortion may look like, but I am not entirely sure that one is necessary.
Hey, Nikki
Thank you for your blog this week. It is a really good one. I love how you made the connective between the two articles. I agree that Thompson’s work created a stage for Ginsburg to organize her ethnographic paper. Personally, I like Thompson’s work better because I believe that “the right of choice for a woman going through a pregnancy and potentially an abortion.” The pregnant women have the final right to decide whether she should go through the abortion. However, I also like Ginsburg narrow down her study population to “young, unmarried, Jewish, and urban visitor from New York City might pose serious barriers to communication with Fargo residents.” Thus, her study did not conflict with the Thompson’s.
Thanks Nikki for your blog post,
I really enjoyed how you utilized both readings to expand on the whole issue of abortion. I agree that the Thompson’s analogies oversimplified the whole abortion issue–I got where she was trying to get at where people have the fundamental right to the autonomous position to their time and body, but felt that Thompson missed the mark when paralleling the fetus to the violinist etc.
It’s important to note that Ginsburg wrote her book based on narratives–her depiction of American culture based off those narratives. I found it particularly interesting that her book focused on the conflict within American culture instead of writing her piece with the Geertz-ian viewpoint of culture being timeless and thus without conflict.
Nikki,
You gave a very thorough analysis of this week’s readings! I think that in Thompson’s work we see the danger of using analogies on such dense, and controversial topics. While they do serve a purpose to make the unfamiliar seem more relevant, they often fall short and thus, faulty conclusions can be made.
The structure of your blog post was easy to read and very effective. The quotations you selected were relevant and helped support you argument. You may have benefited from using another quotation when you were discussing Thompson’s analogies, because I can see how it may come off as only an opinion.
Hello Nikki,
In your analysis, you stated, “it is important to take note of the publication dates of both of these readings and analyze how one publication may influence or inspire the other publication.” I believe it is important to acknowledge the dates of publications of books. I think it is a stretch to believe dates link these two readings. In addition, I see correlation with the Catholic Church. In Thompson’s reading, she states, “the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception (47).” This view of conception is similar with the view of conception presented by the Catholic Church in Donut Vitae. This view of conception can be the leading factor behind whether individuals are pro-life or pro-choice. Thompson uses an analogy of a violinist to portray the view of pro-choice. This example was presented to make the reader to decide for themselves whether to save a mothers life or support the rights of the fetus.