Some Thoughts on Murder

[revena]

I just read a very moving article about one woman's participation in the Haven Coalition (linked from Feministe), and then the comments to that article, and one of them kinda jumped out at me:

Dear Rabbi's Wife,
Encouraging women to have abortions is NOT a mitzvah. Unless the mother's life is in danger or the foetus is seriously deformed, abortion is murder.

Posted by David G. Singer on 03.30.06

I don't really want to go into what I feel to be true about the morality of abortion. I don't know how many of my readers share my political views, but I do know that most of you are here more for odd little stories about my daily life, rather than polemics on highly controversial topics. Of course, my thoughts about things like abortion are part of my daily life... So I'm trying to strike a balance with a post like this one - I don't want to say too much, but I also don't want to say too little. Both actions would be offensive, in one way or another.

With all of that as a lead-up, now I'm going to talk about why statements like Mr. Singer's drive me absolutely up the wall. If contemplating this makes you uncomfortable, you may not want to click the cut.

Forget we're talking about abortion, for a minute. I know that's hard, but try to ignore the broader context, and just focus on the logic of what this man has said.

A particular act is murder. Unless another person's life can be saved by it. Or the person being killed is deformed.

I'm sorry, guys, but it doesn't work that way. We don't get to say that one person's life is more valuable than another's. If a fetus is a full-on person, then we don't have the right to weigh the mother's life as worth more than the fetus's. We don't get to say that the life of a person with a disability is worth less than the life of a person without.

It makes no sense to say that something is murder except when it's not. It either is, or it isn't.

Myself, I vote for isn't.

The woman in question - the mother - is a person, full-fledged, undeniable. The fetus - not so much. It is my opinion that a fetus is a potential person. I would dearly love to live in a world where all potential people are given the opportunity to grow into real people, surrounded by love, and care, and plenty. But I don't. And if I have to choose between potential people, and people who already exist, then that's an easy choice. And the word "murder" doesn't even enter into it.

I'm not going to pretend that this position isn't fabulously complicated. It is. And my exact viewpoint on it changes almost daily.

But one thing that doesn't change, not for me, is the recognition that rhetoric like Mr. Singers is, pardon my language, bullshit.

Comments

[cavalaxis]

Wow, you mean someone wrote down a kneejerk reaction without giving any thought at all to what he was saying? Say it isn't so!

Seriously, this idea that a foetus=person is so -- just not based in reality. In the Middle Ages, and in some parts of the world today, a child doesn't even receive a name until he's survived his first birthday. The idea that the law might pre-empt a woman's human rights for the rights of a potential person is just -- it blows my mind. The whole anti-abortion crowd is a big mess of anti-critical thinking that makes my head hurt. They want their world black and white -- and it just isn't.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. Even if I disagree, I love the discussion.

[revena.livejournal.com]

Wow, you mean someone wrote down a kneejerk reaction without giving any thought at all to what he was saying? Say it isn't so!

The thing that really gets me is that this particular illogic chain (murder murder murder except when it's not!) is something that I see repeated constantly in abortion debate. It is an illogical, kneejerk reaction... but people treat it like it makes perfect sense.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. Even if I disagree, I love the discussion.

You're quite welcome. It probably helps that we seem to be in agreement far more often than not... ;-)

[cavalaxis]

Yeah, probably. But I like to think that I can hold an opposing viewpoint and we can still have an intelligent discussion, even if the result is agree-to-disagree. ;)

And I swear I'm gonna make you another icon. That one makes me ~crazy~.

[revena.livejournal.com]

And I swear I'm gonna make you another icon. That one makes me ~crazy~.

Eh? My Judith icon makes you crazy? Or I'm misunderstanding you?

[cavalaxis]

The "My weakness is my weapon" icon.

There's a thousand word post in why that sticks in my craw and I don't have time to write it right now. Suffice it to say it goes along with "My strengths against my opponents weaknesses" and "A warrior shall have no preference."

Perhaps I should really read it as "Your false perception of my weakness is my weapon."

[revena.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should really read it as "Your false perception of my weakness is my weapon."

That is indeed the spirit in which it is intended... It came out of my undergrad thesis, which was about examining several retellings of the biblical Judith story, and in which I spent a great deal of time talking about how important it is to the narrative that Holofernes not suspect for a moment that Judith would be capable of killing him.

I made it back when I was posting about my thesis a lot, but I use it for most feminist posts because it's the icon in my rotation most connected with feminism in my mind. That said, I certainly wouldn't object to increasing the number of feminist icons in my collection. ;-)

[cavalaxis]

Was that a gauntlet you just lobbed at my feet, m'lady?

I think the technical term is "Accepted!"

[bbcaddict.livejournal.com]

notice how it's mostly MEN who really get into the kneejerk stuff?
and why aren't more men like this getting vasectomies?
:p

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

The reason men get so involved as spokesmen of the anti-abortion movement is that most politicians are men. It's not because men love foetuses.

[bbcaddict.livejournal.com]

That's a real generalization-
sure there are men, and I know of a few, who have had the course of their lives changed because of a fetus- ie: paying for that child until he/she turns a certain age even though they are not married to the mother of that child and certainly not invested in any other way in their lives. I can't say that any of those men are pro-lifers!
And I also don't think that a lot of men speak up on this issue for fear of being labelled mysogynistic or controlling. In reality- children, unwanted or no, are everyone's problem. I'm most confused about WHY the right to choose men aren't as vocal as the right to lifers.
And sure, most politicians are men- it's generally getting better but I feel that a lot of the responsibility for speaking up and standing up to men like that hasn't been a priority for our generation. I feel that in a lot of ways that our mother's generation was FAR more proactive about many things than we are- and the only ones to blame for that is ourselves.

[betacandy.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you and I agree on the personhood aspect of the debate. Potential person is exactly the description I use.

I also agree that it's illogical. Basically, if you accept the premise that a fetus is a person, then killing the fetus to save the mother is killing in self-defense, not murder. Which frames the fetus as an aggressor, which is pretty wacked.

I think they need their own terminology. Trying to use "murder" just for the drama the word evokes works against the point they're trying to make.

[revena.livejournal.com]

I think they need their own terminology.

Less emotionally-loaded, pre-existing-paradigm-founded (woah, say that five times fast) terminology would be helpful on all sides of the debate. And in most debates, actually.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

But where's the fun in that.

[revena.livejournal.com]

Hm. Point!

[zinaya-y2kewel.livejournal.com]

And in most debates, actually.

shiv5468 is right, there's no fun in that!

I had to do an exercise in high school (can't remember the class), where we took a hot topic from the newspaper and rewrote them using less emotionally charged language. Someone took abortion and to be a smartass called them "do overs." Needless to say, when he read his article we all cracked up. The funny thing was that we had a long discussion about abortion after because it didn't seem as heated after a good laugh.

So, listen up, media! Try making people laugh about it and we may be able to have some decent discussions without protests (oh, and murders).

(Pregnancy is eating my brain. I fought hard to keep on subject!)

[revena.livejournal.com]

A little humor never hurts anything, definitely.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

To change the subject slightly... why the "feminism" tag?

[revena.livejournal.com]

Because this a political issue about which I am expressing a feminist viewpoint. I suppose that it would be reasonable to tag my entire journal with "feminism", since I express a feminist viewpoint about pretty much everything, but I usually only tag the entries that are particularly overt.

I'm a bit surprised at the question, in honesty.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well, as I've so often said, on LJ and off, feminism is a notoriously difficult term to pin down. I wouldn't have identified your viewpoint as feminist myself, since it doesn't deal implicitly with women's rights or women's role in society, except that you are comparing the life of a woman to the life of a foetus - but the fact that it's a woman's life doesn't seem to enter into your analysis, seen as, in the hypothetical situation where a man was giving birth to a baby (bear with me here) the same ideas would apply.

I guess I asked because I've often seen analysts on both the pro and anti-choice sides deride the right of men to have an opinion on abortion, seeing it as implicitly a women's issue, and that makes me rather uncomfortable. Admittedly my views on abortion are not strongly held, mostly due to lack of research on my part.

[revena.livejournal.com]

Well, as I've so often said, on LJ and off, feminism is a notoriously difficult term to pin down.

I don't really think that's true. Feminism at its core is pretty simple to define. There are, however, nearly as many distinct feminist ideologies as there are distinct feminists, and that does complicate things.

As to this post being feminist - you are right that I'm not specifically addressing women's rights or the role of women in society in this post, since I am talking in a very general way about some very general definitions. The reality, of course, is that only women can give birth, and because that is so, I would say that this is an implicitly feminist discussion. (if men could give birth, my views on the issue of whether an adult, autonomous human is more of a person than a fetus is wouldn't change, incidentally. If that ever happens, I might revise the tag on this post)

I guess I asked because I've often seen analysts on both the pro and anti-choice sides deride the right of men to have an opinion on abortion, seeing it as implicitly a women's issue, and that makes me rather uncomfortable.

I hope you don't think you've seen me do such a thing. I hope that I have never accidentally derided the rights of any person to form an opinion on any matter. That it's impossible for most men to personally experience what it is like to exist as a woman is occasionally a factor in some arguments that I make - but I still think it's important for everyone to have an opinion about everything. When personal experience isn't an option, there's always discussion, reading, etc.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

No, you've never expressed any such views, and I was pretty sure you wouldn't, but I thought I'd clear it up. I would, for the record, be interested to see how you define feminism.

It's funny you should talk about personal experience, because I think one of the things obscuring the abortion debate is that, while we all have experienced being a foetus, none of us can actually remember it, and it's quite abstract.

[revena.livejournal.com]

My favorite definition is a very simple series of three statements that I heard in a college course. The professor said (and I agree with her) that in order to be a feminist, all that is required is that you agree with these three points:

1. Women are disadvantaged in comparison to men (as in, do not have the same rights, and/or privileges, and/or freedoms, and/oropportunities, etc.)
2. There is something wrong with that
3. It can be changed

Feminism, then, can be broadly defined as agreement with those three statements.

The issue of personal experience informing a feminist opinion is much more likely to come up, for me, when discussing fear of rape. A fair number of men have told me, over the course of my life, that my pretty much constant level of fear regarding strange men is irrational - and they're absolutely right. It is (not least because most rapists are not strangers to their victims). But I can't help feeling it, as the cultural conditioning that instilled it in me is very thorough. It is my belief that most men, having not grown up female, cannot easily understand just how strong certain cultural messages aimed at women are. It takes a lot of work on the part of the man in question, and a very open mind, to approach the understanding that personal experience grants to me automatically.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

It's interesting you bring up the fear of strange men. I've actually found that fear that random strangers on the streets are going to inflict violence on them is something that seems to be stronger in Americans than other countries I've experienced, so there may be multiple layers of conditioning at work here - my former girlfriend was American and was much more frightened of such a scenario than New Zealand women might be. Presumably that's because the fear of violent crime is encouraged by conservative groups in America, who then encourage people to give away their rights in exchange for protection from this threat.

Um, anyway, on to that definition of feminism. That's a pretty good definition, but a large number of self-identifying feminists, mostly on the right and many (although not all of them) men, take the view that feminism is the belief that women are equal to men and deserve the same opportunities and access to power as men - but this isn't incompatible with the belief that women basically have it OK, and that feminism is a matter of defending their existing rights rather than trying to promote further rights. This is usually the feminism evidenced by right wing people when they say "I'm a feminist, but..." and then proceed to trash something that's aimed at increasing women's rights. However, I would hesitate to say this isn't feminism.

Amusingly, one of New Zealand's most prominent politicians (a conservative) was asked, last year, if he was a feminist, and when he said "no" and people responded badly, he said "I've always felt men can't be feminists". He was further mocked. Justly so, IMHO, but he -did- start a debate about what feminism is, so perhaps it was a good thing.

[revena.livejournal.com]

However, I would hesitate to say this isn't feminism.

Heh... I wouldn't! I would absolutely say that if a person claims that all women everywhere are exactly as advantaged as men, and nothing further needs to be done, that person is not a feminist. That person is also, imo, deluded.

And I do think that the belief that "women are equal to men and deserve the same opportunities and access to power as men" is incompatible with "the belief that women basically have it OK, and that feminism is a matter of defending their existing rights rather than trying to promote further rights". If women deserve the same opportunities as men, and don't have them (and they don't), then clearly further rights must be sought.

I don't know whether Americans are more encouraged to fear than people of other countries, but it strikes me as likely.

[(Anonymous)]

It is my belief that most men, having not grown up female, cannot easily understand just how strong certain cultural messages aimed at women are. It takes a lot of work on the part of the man in question, and a very open mind, to approach the understanding that personal experience grants to me automatically.

ahhhh- that's a good statement as to why a lot of pro-choice men don't feel as if they have a "right" to weigh in on the abortion debate.
I'm just damn sick and tired of having it seems as if there is this big "family" group of conservative, upper middle class, regular church going right to lifers who are quite dead set on women not being able to have any rights at all in terms of whether or not to have a child- when there IS a choice. And certainly most men that are the (most likely) very unintentional fathers of those children would love to be able to have that choice available to them.
It's a hard road since it affects BOTH parties and not just the woman BUT the woman is the one that's thought of as the sole "owner" of the fetus since she is the one who has to (or has the choice NOT to) carry it to term. The affects of this child are still going to be FAR FAR worse for the woman than the man- and that's utter BULLSHIT. And of course, one of the main advances of feminisim I think in the last few decades is being able to slowly change the rols of woman as the sole caretaker of offspring. I mean- it's NOT at ALL 100% better but it's slowly getting there.

[bbcaddict.livejournal.com]

oh this is BBCaddict bythe way!!
I forgot to log in for that last comment! d'oh!

[revena.livejournal.com]

Another aspect of the baby/no baby choice that only affects the woman, of course, is the actual pregnancy. Pregnancy is a hugely draining physical experience that can often be flat-out dangerous. I really feel very strongly that it's the sort of thing that a person (by which I mean a woman, since men can't) should be able to enter into with full knowledge and adequate preparation. Adequate education about birth control, and social conditions that make it easy and comfortable for everyone to use birth control would go a long way. I wish that people from both sides of the issue could focus on that, a little more.