As a non-American (but yes I have the nationality and I vote) I am amazed how someone can use so many words and not state the main point first: what does the woman want, what are her circumstances, how does she feel about it? Can she become a Mother? Half of all pregnancies are a surprise and logically, a large portion of all pregnancies are not wanted. A good portion of pregnancies must be dangerous to the woman's body or her mind. What a doctor believes of wants is unimportant, if he cannot handle the psychiatric part of his job, he should talk to a colleague. Then make a decision, serving the Mother's well being.
Honestly, a great piece that underscores the balancing necessary to reconcile complex moral decisions. This is spot on -
"My own tentative answer, I realize, comes from within my parents: a dad who taught me moral complexity, and the limits of government policy; a mom who granted me the moral urgency to fight for children. When young, all I wanted was moral certainty. With age, I must accept complexity."
Add in the fact that humans are inherently flawed, society is a compromise and intellectual humility (IMHO) is the best approach we've come up with and you understand that the tension never goes away (nor should it). Better to acknowledge the tension, leverage your morality as your north star but adjust as best you can taking into consideration both your own and other's interest and make a call (always leaving the safety valve to adjust as new information/experiences cross your transom).
Fantastic piece - this to me is more the "true" human experience than the automatic conflation of the ought begets a singular "how" pervading our discourse today.
Missing from most hopelessly polarized discussions on this issue, and from your piece, is to address the thorny ethical, even ontological question, "when does life begin?" Polls have consistently shown that the majority of people oppose late term abortions of viable fetuses, yet the same majority are in favor of the mother's right to choose very early in the pregnancy. I don't pretend to have a good answer, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of most, those two hypothetical abortions, the first viable and sensate, the second unviable and insensate, are not ethically equivalent.
I congratulate you on raising this subject, and for the courage and thoughtfulness it required.
I'm glad you're no longer in favor of banning abortion, but you seem to have little to say about women who have abortions. Do you really expect these women, the majority of whom already have children, to go through pregnancy and childbirth only to give up their baby to some anti-abortion couple? You don't mention health care, sex ed or birth control, or poverty, or violence against women. All these are part of the abortion story. Having a baby is a huge big deal, physically, emotionally, socially. Very few women bear a child in order to give it up for adoption, and there are good reasons for that.
The fundamental premise though, that we are "a complex country", should lead one to believe that Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned. Afterall, all this would do is punt on abortion as a federal issue and make it a states issue. Like most "complex " issues, they should be handled more locally than federally. This point seems to be missed though.
As a non-American (but yes I have the nationality and I vote) I am amazed how someone can use so many words and not state the main point first: what does the woman want, what are her circumstances, how does she feel about it? Can she become a Mother? Half of all pregnancies are a surprise and logically, a large portion of all pregnancies are not wanted. A good portion of pregnancies must be dangerous to the woman's body or her mind. What a doctor believes of wants is unimportant, if he cannot handle the psychiatric part of his job, he should talk to a colleague. Then make a decision, serving the Mother's well being.
Honestly, a great piece that underscores the balancing necessary to reconcile complex moral decisions. This is spot on -
"My own tentative answer, I realize, comes from within my parents: a dad who taught me moral complexity, and the limits of government policy; a mom who granted me the moral urgency to fight for children. When young, all I wanted was moral certainty. With age, I must accept complexity."
Add in the fact that humans are inherently flawed, society is a compromise and intellectual humility (IMHO) is the best approach we've come up with and you understand that the tension never goes away (nor should it). Better to acknowledge the tension, leverage your morality as your north star but adjust as best you can taking into consideration both your own and other's interest and make a call (always leaving the safety valve to adjust as new information/experiences cross your transom).
Fantastic piece - this to me is more the "true" human experience than the automatic conflation of the ought begets a singular "how" pervading our discourse today.
Beautifully written and reasoned. Thank you!
Missing from most hopelessly polarized discussions on this issue, and from your piece, is to address the thorny ethical, even ontological question, "when does life begin?" Polls have consistently shown that the majority of people oppose late term abortions of viable fetuses, yet the same majority are in favor of the mother's right to choose very early in the pregnancy. I don't pretend to have a good answer, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of most, those two hypothetical abortions, the first viable and sensate, the second unviable and insensate, are not ethically equivalent.
I congratulate you on raising this subject, and for the courage and thoughtfulness it required.
A level headed point of view on a complex issue, to hear this issue spoken about without any rancor was very welcomed. Thank you.
I'm glad you're no longer in favor of banning abortion, but you seem to have little to say about women who have abortions. Do you really expect these women, the majority of whom already have children, to go through pregnancy and childbirth only to give up their baby to some anti-abortion couple? You don't mention health care, sex ed or birth control, or poverty, or violence against women. All these are part of the abortion story. Having a baby is a huge big deal, physically, emotionally, socially. Very few women bear a child in order to give it up for adoption, and there are good reasons for that.
The fundamental premise though, that we are "a complex country", should lead one to believe that Roe vs Wade SHOULD be overturned. Afterall, all this would do is punt on abortion as a federal issue and make it a states issue. Like most "complex " issues, they should be handled more locally than federally. This point seems to be missed though.
Thank you for sharing this.