This is a really interesting piece. I think I feel the same as her. I'm really unsure of my position when it comes to things like the examples she gave (such as the couple's child wouldn't be born under the right zodiac sign). I'm just glad I'm not in the position to really have to deal with those tough calls.

I think the strongest point she has is the sex selection-case in point, China. This is really problematic for me, but I don't really know if that's the product of the individual woman's choice, or a cultural manifesto imposed by her family, her husband, and society as a whole in China. So it's not even a question of sex selection by individuals, but a devaluation of girl babies, as a whole, by certain cultures. So she's kind of presenting a muddy dilemma that doesn't seem to fit in with what the experiences of most women getting abortions in America happen to be. I'm not saying that it's bad to look at international trends or problems in ethics, but this seems kind of disingenuous. Like sex selective abortions are widespread in America, which I don't think is true. I think people are far more likely to do that sort of stuff during in vitro fertilization.
She also mentions anecdotal evidence about women who aborted babies for mild imperfections (i.e., the deformed hand) and my first thought was, "Um, hello? Can you SEE that on an ultrasound, or is this some sort of right wing nutso ploy to show all the silly reasons silly and evil women get abortions?" Can anyone back that sort of story up? Does that even sound true?
And, as a closing note, even if all of this is true, I'm not sure that it outweighs the importance of choice for me. If we're not free to make _legal_ decisions that other people disagree with, even vehemently, on ethical, moral or religious grounds, then are we really free?

I can't get behind that mentality. It feels too much like inflicting my sense of morals and "right and wrong" on someone else - exactly what I fight against.

So while I may not agree with every reason a woman may have to get an abortion, the point remains, her body, her choice. If she does not want to use her body to carry a boy child, she has the right to not do so. If she does not want to carry a Leo, and is holding out for an Aries, so be it. I don't have to agree or approve. It's not my body. It's not my life. And refusing on those would be akin, in my opinion, to doctors who refuse birth control. If your ethics are going to come into play on basic medical issues, you're in the wrong business.

I can see the other side of it, surely, but I'd feel like too much of a hypocrite to endorse it.

Kissling's conflation of fetus' moral value and legal rights (and the consequences of that to all pregnant women) speaks to the importance of a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee re: Sotomayor's nomination that National Advocates for Pregnant Women released today: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/JointLetter-SotomayorConfHearing.pdf

No one has the right to choose for the pregnant person. It is her body and her choice. While I might not like one person's reason for getting an abortion, in the end, it is their choice to make. On this issue I am an absolutist: the decision to have an abortion should be the woman's to make, in counsultation with her doctor. Period.
Joan

We are somewhat more comfortable talking about "ethics," although both words have the same meaning.

Not correct, especially in situations where you are taking in multiple viewpoints from several divisions within society.

I believe that a woman should have complete control of all fuctions within her body, pregnancy and gestation included. This, for me, is a very scientific stance, not related to emotions connected to parenthood or morals related to a religious background. In my opinion, a woman has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus could sustain itself outside of the womb. I also believe that while that fetus is inside of a woman, it is part of the woman, and she still calls the shots. The idea that a woman needs a "good" reason is patronizing to women in general and suggests that one person is fit to control the behavior of another. Sometimes people do things for silly reasons, including getting pregnant in the first place, but unless something violates the rights of another living person, I do not see a reason for third party involvement.

I was thinking about this the other day.

The arguments she gives still don't take in to account the fact that if someone doesn't WANT that baby, for whatever reason, the baby will suffer. Does the life of the baby not count after it is expelled from the womb?

So, if people want to select the sex, even if it IS a terrible idea, I think it has to be their decision. There are far too many children who die from neglect and abuse because they were not wanted by their parents.

If we lived in a world where there were safety nets for people who didn't want the kids, or couldn't afford the kids then I think this writer might have a better case for being self righteous. The US is particularly bad at NOT providing any sort of decent health care or social services for people who need them.

Since the only person who REALLY has to take the brunt of anti-choice decisions is the mother, I will still support the decision. Even if I don't agree with the reasoning.

It's a slippery slope when we start imposing our own morals and value systems onto another person's right to bodily autonomy. I may not agree with the reasons why a woman is seeking an abortion and may not make the same choices for myself, but that doesn't make them any less wrong for her.

On a related note, I've always been puzzled by some anti-choicer's opposition to abortion except in cases of incest or rape. If all life is sacred, which is the rationale used in arguments against abortion, what makes these fetuses borne of rape and incest any different? I have never heard a convincing or even rational anti-choice argument that reconciles the obvious contradictions.

I think that in a perfect world where women were trusted with their own reproductive decisions, there could be a post-viability limit on abortions with a life or health of the mother exception- much like we have now, actually. The problem comes in when we look at who gets to decide what counts- that's why I say in a perfect world because. The other problem with that is that it rests on the premise that there are women out there who carry a healthy fetus to 8 months and then decide "Nah, I think I'll get that abortion after all". Nobody does that, it's ridiculous. Until we get to that world though, I'm super uncomfortable with the idea that we should get to choose for a woman what to do with her body. It doesn't mean that I have to like it or even agree with it- some of the situations Kissling presents are tough for me to swallow as "adequate" reasons for an abortion- but even then, do they have to give me a reason? No. Do only women who have abortions in circumstances I feel comfortable with get to have them? Absolutely not. Like Tia, I do understand what Kissling is getting at, but I just can't endorse it. I personally don't understand sex-selection abortions- I have a girl and a boy and both times would have been thrilled with either gender- but I don't think it should be illegal.
I do agree though that we shouldn't push providers to do things that they are uncomfortable with, so long as they are up front with their patients. Having been in a situation where I needed to end a pregnancy fairly late (I was 22 weeks when I found out my son had massive fetal defects and would be unable to survive more than 30 minutes after birth) what I needed most was a compassionate, caring doctor who understood I wasn't doing this on a whim, not one who thought I was an evil baby murderer. I can only imagine the difference in care those two views bring.

I saw two very different topics in this article (though I see how they are related). One was the moral and legal issue of late term abortions in non-health threatening circumstances versus judging women's reasons for wanting an abortion. I can get behind limiting late term abortion but to deny a woman an early or "regular" (I'm not sure of the correct term) abortion because of her reasons for it is something I do not agree with for several reasons. If we are going to take the view that non-late term abortions are not murder or morally wrong than how can we tell a woman that her reasons for the abortion are inadequate for her getting one? That implies that there is some kind of moral cost to getting the abortion and that her reason is not adequate enough to make up for that moral cost. I don't think women should have to give any reason for getting an abortion and I don't think it is right for health care providers to pass judgements on the reasons (not to mention that the women can simply lie). Plus, where do you draw the line when making these moral judgements? There are probably a lot of people who think that a person who is married and can financially support a child and who just does not want to have children having an abortion is immoral and selfish. I don't agree, but my point is that we all have different morals. Saying that a woman needs a good enough reason to "justify" the abortion implies to me that abortion is somehow in and of itself bad or wrong and needs a "good" reason to make it ok.

Ultimately, we have to give the final say to the woman who is carrying the fetus. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, nobody has the right to force her.

Why do we think that society will make better decisions through blanket policies based on arbitrary numbers than individual pregnant women?

Just because people have ethical qualms about certain kinds of abortions doesn't necessarily mean that those should be illegal. There are lots of ethically controversial behaviors that are widely condemned but legal.

This was a fascinating piece, but I don't think I can forsee an Ethics Committees at Planned Parenthood (for every woman seeking pregnancy termination to appeal to) or any sort of rule book defining ethical abortions vs unethical abortions would serve humanity any better; I certainly do not see such classifications as serving women well at all.

It would quickly spiral into a parsing of words. If any abortion after 12 weeks is "unethical," for example, what about a pregnancy that is 12 weeks and one day?

I just have a bad taste in my mouth at the thought of some allegedy exhaustive guidebook or list of rules, examining every situation and supplying a standard answer. "Rape? Ethical abortion. Don't like the eye color of the fetus? Unethical." How could it ever be so cut and dry?

Outlawing late-term abortion is a terrible way of dealing with the ethical controversy. Better to let doctors decide what procedures they are comfortable with doing on a case-by-case basis. As Kissling points out, even Dr. Tiller refused some requests.

There's a hidden misogyny in these skirmishes over late-term abortion. The implication is that frivolous late-term abortions are common enough to require laws.

If that were true, it would make a large percentage of involuntarily pregnant women out to be capricious and irresponsible and in in need of social control.

In fact, the vast majority of elective abortions take place much earlier in pregnancy. Even without a law, a woman seeking late-term elective abortion would probably be unable to find a doctor willing to perform the surgery--especially given the federal "partial birth" abortion ban.

Absolutely not.
The writer's issue with allowing a couple who simply does not want a child of a certain gender access to an abortion is no different than an anti-choice doctor's issue with allowing a woman access to an abortion at all.
It is not the abortion-provider's task to decide whether or not an abortion in a certain case is acceptable ... that's why we call it CHOICE.

I don't want to endorse Kissling's opinion per se, but I will say that one major reason why I am pro-choice is that I feel like the doctor-patient relationship should be free from government interference. So I'm not entirely uncomfortable with a doctor telling a patient who's pretty far along and not dealing with any extenuating circumstances that in his/her expert opinion, she wants this for the wrong reasons. My gut feeling is that doctors who perform abortions are generally compassionate and nonjudgmental, and would only refuse when it really did seem to be an utterly unnecessary procedure (or an ethically borderline one, as in the case of sex-selective abortion). Obviously, the doctor should still be required to refer the patient to a different doctor. But as long as the law is not interfering with the doctor and patient's right to talk freely about the best course of action (or the course of action ultimately determined), I'm more open to the idea.

Having said that, it's an extremely slippery slope and even as I type this I'm second-guessing myself. The one natural corrective is that there simply can't be many women out there acting out the scenarios that Kissling described.

This is a really hard one. Personally, I was disgusted at the thought of someone aborting because of a zodiac sign or gender (assuming that it was a wanted pregnancy at first).

Even so, I do believe it is a woman's decision. It's not my body and it's not my pregnancy.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be born to someone so fucking spacy as to terminate a pregnancy because the stars won't align in the desired way. I don't think genes like that should be passed on. For the suffering involved, I would say it's better that the pregnancy ended rather to end up with a mother like that.

I am strongly pro-choice, and feel the same way about someone who has the mythical/ nearly mythical "elective" 8 month abortion. (I do not know of any doctors that would do this type of abortion, I am just saying hypothetically) I feel if someone would elect to terminate a viable fetus for no reason other than..whatever reason that's not necessary, then it's still better that the fetus doesn't grow up to be the child of someone who clearly would not love or care for it. Anti choicers say that abortion is the ultimate child abuse. I beg to differ and say CHILD ABUSE is the ultimate child abuse, and that includes treating an unwanted kid like dirt their whole lives.

Due to the fact that I believe that fetuses become sentient human life for the first time when then gain higher brain function in the 26th week, I agree with Kissling's late term abortion stance:
"When a fetus reaches the point where it could survive outside the uterus, is healthy, and the woman is healthy, and she has had five months to make up her mind, we should say no to abortion ...absent severe fetal abnormality, a threat to her life or a clinical diagnosis of serious mental or physical health consequences of continuing the pregnancy..."

Prior to that time, I don't think the reason should matter.

I would enjoy feedback on an idea I've been working on to answer O'Reilly type questions, i.e. "Do you feel late-term fetuses deserve any protection at all?" (Caveat: others have probably worked this out and I know my wording sucks, so would welcome suggestions for further reading on this). I respect Kissling, but disagree with a lot of what she says. So my suggested answer to the O'Reilly question goes something like this: "Yes. The fetus is protected by the conscience and moral agency of the woman involved; it is she who gives it status and she who is best able to consider its interests and she who is a moral agent able to make this decision." OK, as I said, the wording really sucks. But just to explain that the motivation for this, as you no doubt suspect, comes from the fact that the antis like to argue that the only entity that can give the fetus the "correct" status is the law (govt), themselves, the "community", their god etc. And our argument is, no, the woman involved is a fully adult moral agent and SHE gives the fetus status and she makes the fully informed decision, etc. etc. The idea is to answer the question in a way that emphasizes this. When the opponent splutters and objects, we can pursue the idea of the woman being a moral decision-maker and clearly the one in the best position to make this decision.
Just one thing: this in Kissling made me splutter: "The fact that the fetus resides in the body of a woman..." What I want to know is is it renting, or does it own?

I hope to eventually become an abortion provider, and I would never force a woman to become a fetus incubator against her will. Even if I think that her reason is idiotic, like the "wrong" gender for instance, it's still her body. Like Dr. Tiller said, "trust women". Believing that women still own their bodies during pregnancy isn't "extremist" as the poster stated. It's common sense, and that's something that a lot of people in our culture lack, sadly.

I hope to eventually become an abortion provider, and I would never force a woman to become a fetus incubator against her will. Even if I think that her reason is idiotic, like the "wrong" gender for instance, it's still her body. Like Dr. Tiller said, "trust women". Believing that women still own their bodies during pregnancy isn't "extremist" as the poster stated. It's common sense, and that's something that a lot of people in our culture lack, sadly.

I'd also like to add this point. To those of you who believe that a woman must be forced to give birth is the fetus is deemed healthy and is past the point of viability: how far do we go? Should we also restrict pregnant womens' access to alcohol and cigarettes? After all, she may damage the fetus. Should she not be allowed to eat certain foods or do certain things? We'd also have to control her sleeping position. Oh what the heck, why don't we make all pregnant women live in special pregnancy facilities so we can govern every aspect of their life? After all, if the fetus is viable, it's not her body anymore so it doesn't matter.. The rights of the fetus are more important than the rights of the mother to her own body, isn't that what you're saying?

Sorry if this double posts.. Feministing has been acting up on my computer today.

Thought experiment:

Person A and Person B are brothers. B needs a kidney and only A can provide it. If he doesn't get it soon, he'll die - and there are no other donors.

However, A refuses to donate his kidney. He believes in astrology, and believes that if he underwent the operation at the time he'd need to do it to ensure B's survival, there would be bad consequences because of the planets' unfavourable alignment.

What is Person A? Misguided, unkind, a bad brother? Many would judge so. Is he doing nothing to prevent the death of his brother for what many people would see as a stupid reason? Yes.

But is he a murderer? No. Because no matter what the reason might be, a person still has the right of bodily integrity and can refuse to donate an organ for any reason they like.

Same goes for abortion.

I think that if you want a baby and you abort a fetus because it will be born under the wrong zodiac sign, you're an idiot. But you being an idiot doesn't mean that the state has the right to force you to play host to an unwanted parasite, especially an unconscious, unsentient, undeveloped one.

I come down on the side of saying that a woman should have the legal right to make her own decision about when she is willing to use her body to support another life, even if someone thinks her reason for the decision is wrong-headed.

Regarding abortion for sex selection: many people in the U.S. think that this is not an acceptable reason for aborting - especially since it is overwhelmingly females getting aborted due to being the "wrong gender."

Most people are unaware that this phenomenon is already reality in the United States as of 2000:
Almond D, Edlund L.
Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 15;105(15):5681-2. Epub 2008 Mar 31.

We document male-biased sex ratios among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean,
and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. Census. This male bias is particularly
evident for third children: If there was no previous son, sons outnumbered
daughters by 50%. By contrast, the sex ratios of eldest and younger children with
an older brother were both within the range of the biologically normal, as were
White offspring sex ratios (irrespective of the elder siblings' sex). We
interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection,
most likely at the prenatal stage.