Aborting the stigma of termination

Young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy have two choices: to carry the baby to full term or to break the law. In most states, abortion is illegal. Women needing an abortion have to overcome social stigma and the law to reclaim their life path.

Submitted 9/15/2008 By Elizabeth Views 1715 Comments 6 Updated 9/15/2008

Photographer : viva la libs @ flickr

In the recent Hollywood flick Juno, a teenage girl facing an unexpected pregnancy in high school goes to an abortion clinic. In the scene, she is met by a woman chanting, ‘Your baby probably has a beating heart you know—it can feel pain and it has fingernails’, while holding a placard saying, ‘No babies like murdering’. Needless to say, Juno opts for adoption. While this is a funny film, there’s nothing amusing about the judgemental representation of abortion. Taking the moral high ground, Juno only helps to reinforce the message of so called ‘pro-life’ advocates—that woman wanting abortions are murderers. Unfortunately, the legal state of abortion in most countries means that woman seeking abortions can indeed be labelled criminals.

In Australia, abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is illegal, except in the ACT and WA. Physicians administering terminations and those receiving them are shadowed by a legal grey-area. But thanks to a new Abortion Bill before Victorian Parliament, this archaic law might finally be abolished in that state. The move to legalise abortion has been met with praise, panic and surprise. Surprise mainly because who knew abortion was illegal?

Abortion is a divisive issue, with teams facing off along the lines of ‘choice’ versus ‘life’. Team Choice stands for the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and Team Life claim to defend the unborn child. But these are just the obvious distinctions between the two sides. What is less obvious is the fact that one team stands on the side of the law, and one team doesn’t.

Abortion in Australia is governed by state law. The changes being considered in Victoria aim to remove the legal restrictions on abortion. In most states, abortion is illegal unless the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. This is why many physicians refuse to conduct abortions. It is not a moral thing, it is a liability thing. Very few women and doctors have been punished under this law. But this is not the point. No woman should be made to feel like a criminal for exercising her own life choices. Labor backbencher Christine Campbell has criticised the bill as a ‘gift to the abortion industry’. Instead, it should be seen as a positive step towards equality, access and options for women.

The sensitive nature of the abortion debate cannot be ignored, and this is why the Victorian Government has invited a conscience vote on the Abortion Bill, rather than insisting that Members of Parliament (MPs) vote along party lines. MPs can vote on three abortion bill models:

A. Model A decriminalises abortion but would restrict it to those women who would come to ‘harm’ otherwise

B. Model B allows for abortion on demand up until 24 weeks – and beyond that with the expert opinion of two physicians

C. Model C is the most progressive – accommodating abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

But unless one of these models is introduced in Victoria, women facing pregnancy and considering abortion will continue to be labelled criminals. This is why the law must change. Changing the law will not lead to more abortions. Instead it will grant woman the dignity they deserve.

According to Beryl Holmes, former president of the Children by Choice association, ‘Abortion is first and foremost a human rights and social justice issue…Failure to repeal laws against abortion is a flagrant example of man's inhumanity to woman.’ In short, when denied legal and judgment-free access to abortion, women are denied an equal playing-field to men.

Pregnant women supposedly glow with the delight of impending motherhood. But for anxious young women, reading the pee-stick, their glow has more to do with rising panic than a maternal halo. The abortion debate comes down to one single argument: whose life is more precious, foetus or woman? Are women a means to an end, nothing more than a uterus, or an end in themselves?

It is my wish that legal reform will allow a re-energised pro-choice movement to forge a path towards equality and acceptance of women’s choices. In every state of this country, and world-over, women should be allowed to choose abortion. And if they do choose to have an abortion, they should have access to a safe abortion that is conducted by professional and willing physicians.

How do I know this?

Children by Choice, 2008, Abortion Law Reform: Repeal the Law in 2005! http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/campabortlaw.htm

Cica, N (1998), ‘The changing meaning of unlawful abortion in Australia’, in Law and Bills Digest, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp01.htm#crime

Holmes, Beryl (1991) ‘Human Rights: Another Look at Abortion’ in Woman and the Law (Easteal and McKillop. Eds) www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/16/Holmes.html

Overington, C 2008, ‘Women with the law on their side’, 25 August, The Australian p.15 www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24233593-28737,00.html

Navarro, M 2007, ‘On Abortion, Hollywood is No-Choice’, 10 June, The New York Times www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/fashion/10Knockedup.html

Parliament of Victoria, 2008, ‘Abortion Law Reform Bill’ www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/alrb2008219/

Reitman, Jason (Dir.) Juno (film) 2007. (watch the abortion clinic scene at www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G48HsLPnU)

Right to Life, The Abortion Law Reform Bill (Vic) 2008, www.righttolife.com.au/abortionbill.aspx

Shanahan, A 2008, ‘Abortion has a new adversary in Costello’, 6 September, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24301603-5006785,00.html

Discuss Now

Post Comment 1 | 2 |

humanrightsbeliever 30-May-2011

Yes I totally agree! Women should have the right to choose and nobody should judge until they are in the situations themselves! :)

Emmylou 06-Apr-2009

Yes be pro choice - you have the right of choice in this country everyone is right to have their own opinions and beliefs on this issue, however you dont have to force your views on anyone else. Imagine if it were a rape victim - def pro choice. Or you had health issues, or just werent ready - you dont want that child growing up and you resenting it. Especially if your lifestyle is not that healthly or great either - i know if i were to fall pregnant now - we would have money issues. Abortion is always going to be around- whether its done properly and safely in hospital or backyard style. Give them the healthly option - no backyard!

ClassicalLiberal89 24-Sep-2008

Erm, no model C is not progressive. It is utterly regressive. It simply subsidies a lack of individual responsibility, insults women who are able to take care of their bodies, and kills an innocent child.

I propose model D: 10 week terminations MAXIMUM, unless the mothers life is in danger.

Why?

As such, and as a classical liberal, I follow JS Mill's harm prinicple, which basically espouses the idea that an individual is someone who feels pain. I also follow the doctrine of individual responsibility and 'reasonableness' based on a logical criteria of science.

Furthermore, I ask myself is there any 'overlapping consensus' (to use John Rawls term) from some other major doctrine, other than, say, science, that can overlap with 2.5 months (my premise)? (ie is there another doctrine that has different premises but the same conclusion). Btw, let me note another overlap would be prevention is better than cure eg contraception or abstience).

Firstly, science, as it is always evolving. Science tells us a child can feel pain at 8-9 weeks (2.5 months): to abort at this stage, one is creating an externality i.e. you are creating a harm on an innocent individual, even if one is raped. So that RANGE ought to be reasonable. Clearly, I prefer the upper end of that range where, 9-10 MAX as certainity that it can feel pain is almost exact. (Depending on future research, this may be 13 weeks where a child can 'physically respond' to pain). Now, note my criteria is that of pain, as the minimum level of abstraction (as opposed to outright consciousness, though again science is telling us more about this: of course, if we defined a child as absolute consciousness and allowed abortion none of us would be born). John Liddle sums it up so eloquently in this article, in the Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/7...

(He reveals that science is telling us more and more that intelligence and pain begin earlier than we once thought, on MICRO levels). Fresh cells are ultra sensitive, hence the pain could be horrible.

Secondly, any other 'overlapps'?

...I say yes. The doctrine of (reasonable) individual responsibility. What does this tells us? Ok, so you were stupid enough not to (a) use a condom, (b) take a pill or (c) abstain OR unfortunate enough to be raped (in the former case, I can subsidies ignorance to an extent, we all make mistakes, fair enough, take action REASONABLY). I do not think its takes 2.5 months to know you are pregnant, given abortion on demand (btw, I don't think Medicare should subiside abortions: certainly under grounds of individual freedom - why should I subiside your irresponsibility?). As such, a reasonable time to amend your 'mistake' is 2.5 months (I'd say it shouldn't take more than a month to know you are pregnant) and to steadfastly act on it. The deadline of 2.5 months in and of itself makes women take control to do something about it as soon as possible. Most diseases can, again due to science, be deducted up to 2.5 months (albeit, if you are going to use that argument, then we might as well have eugenics).

Hence, this, more or less is an overlap, with 10 weeks.

Thirdly, any other 'overlaps'? Radical feminists: abortion after 2.5 months little utility to women as a group, particularly TRULY indepedent women, who CAN take control of their bodies. How insulting is it to women who are able to control their bodies, true feminists "as radical feminists would call them". One could also raise the measure protects people from themselves as increased suicide rates / mental distress occur while later term abortions. Not much of a life if you can't take control of it ASAP. (I don't like this overlap but nevertheless it s a LARGE doctrine which supports the proposition of 2.5 weeks).

Also, Libertarians stress that the potential for life is a important as life itself (Gotta love libertarians like RON PAUL).

Criticisms of my model:

What if:

Scenario 1: there is a life threatening situation?

Answer: Let us be clear here. Catholic doctrine actively states, as per Pope Pius XI, (btw, I'm a tenetative atheist who loves reading theology), that if the mothers life is in danger abortion is acceptable. PROLIFES AND PROCHOICERS AGREE ON THIS ISSUE! So, there is an overlapping consensus on that issue, without a doubt between Catholics and prolifers. Suicide is included in this list. Religion informs my view on abortion, but it does not dicatate it.

Scenario 2: Well, what if a bizaree reason, the person did not know they were pregnant? (eg raped during ones sleep). Assuming this is possible, I think 2.5 months is responsible, and if it is the case, some pain should not cause further pain.

Are there any other doctrines? Yes. That way you can still keep people employed for abortions and for adoption, heh, I don't want to hurt either free market.

I think my model is very 'fluid', as it accodmates a raft of unpleasant scenarios (btw, abortions after 22 weeks are VERY rare anyways, and probably have to do with the health of the mother). Read Rawls overlapping consensus (I hate it when pinkos and conservative go at each other, its so frivilous, just sit down and discuss it - I convinced my Catholic friend that 'the Lord kew you in the womb' could mean listening to science, as God, according to various Pope's endowed us with reason).

As such, abortions after 10 weeks should be a 'crime', unless the mothers life is in danger. Hence as I point out in my book "I am not prochoice. I am not even pro-life. I am pro-reason".

Meli 21-Sep-2008

Another thought – what about the fathers to be?

Yeh, the current system does nothing for women’s rights. But the ‘abort on demand’ system could reduce men to little more than sperm donors, who get no say on aborting or not.

Should the woman have the final say?

Part of me thinks yes, because she has to push the baby out (or get sliced open) and is generally more involved.

But the other part thinks “don’t be stupid”, because the baby belongs to the man too - he just doesn’t have the right packaging.

Meli 20-Sep-2008

I agree that abortion should be de-criminalised. And that the mother’s health and well-being needs to be taken into account first.

But I see where pro-lifers are coming from. It’s unfair to imply they (the moderate ones) view women as nothing more than a walking uterus. The debate is more complicated than ‘women are baby-factories’ verses ‘women are Women’.

Where abortion can be avoided, it should be. Where it can’t, women shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about it.

And abortion shouldn’t be available on demand, at any stage of the pregnancy. There’s nothing progressive about that - it leaves the system open to abuse.

What’s to stop women from having sex 24/7 and then using abortion as a form of contraception, just because they can? And aborting during later stages seems more like killing a little person, instead of flushing out a foetus.

So there definitely need to be guidelines and restrictions.

My Recently Visited Pages

Related Content