[blogan: The following is a guest post by Marilyn Burge. Although she and I come from very different backgrounds and have vastly divergent views on religion and politics, she is a good friend and we enjoy debating the issues. Please join me in welcoming Marilyn to blogan.]
We argue constantly in America about abortion. The issue of whether or not to abort quickly gets bogged down in issues like when two joined cells become persons (The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty clear on this issue. It says Natural Born citizens, so there is no reason to believe that the Founding Fathers regarded the unborn as Americans, or, persons for that matter.), whether or not aborted fetuses feel pain during abortion, and, if they do, at what stage of pregnancy they are able to feel pain, etc. Sooner or later, the issue that gets talked about is guilt and regret. The guilt and regret of abortion is usually the focus of this part of the discussion. There are several fairly well-known evangelical groups that focus on this aspect of the problem. These groups are most likely started by a woman who has had an abortion and later regretted it, perhaps after converting to an evangelical faith. Or, perhaps she knows somebody who had an abortion and later regretted it, and wants to save others that pain she knows her friend or relative is experiencing. I would imagine it is inconceivable to her that a woman would feel anything other than guilt and regret, thinking as she does about how she would feel had she had aborted a fetus earlier in her life.
But life is messy. It is like a decision tree, where there are two or more forks in the road, and regardless of which prong of the fork is chosen, one encounters another fork further down that path, and, again finds yet another down whichever prong is then chosen.
So, if a woman is pregnant with an unwanted fetus and choose not to abort, her next fork is whether to keep the baby or adopt it out. Either choice has a huge potential to later cause the woman to feel guilt and regret. Keeping the baby will introduce her to the drudgery of having to support herself and another human being who later may not be entirely happy with her choice, knowing (or imagining) that a much better and easier life would have been theirs, had the birth mother chosen another path.
If the woman decides to adopt the baby, there is also a huge potential for guilt and regret. An item in the newspaper about a child of the same age who did something stupid and ended up in serious difficulty with the law, or, perhaps dead from getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking. “Was that my child? If it was, would things have turned out different if I had kept him or her?” More guilt and regret. There can be no end to it.
Not all woman experience guilt and/or regret, regardless of which path is chosen. Some (many?) have the presence of mind to put the whole sad affair behind them and get on with their lives. Some people are just more inclined to beat themselves up over their mistakes. That’s the way they are put together, it seems.
So, as much as we might like to think that women who abort will suffer guilt and regret, and that we are saving them from that, the plain truth is, it depends on their mindset — now and in the future. If that is their mindset, it is likely that there is no way to save them from their guilt and regret, regardless of how much we may want to. That is just the way they are put together, and guilt and regret will be what they, themselves will have to learn to deal with, and there is nothing we can do about it, try though we may.
My first response after reading your post is that avoiding negative emotions (guilt or regret) should not be a prime motivator in deciding whether to have an abortion. I would argue that doing right for its own sake is more mature behavior than avoiding wrong to minimize negative consequences. Then I realized that I’ve used that same argument before, in fact, fairly recent and with you.
Btw, interesting comment on “natural born” citizens. Does that mean those born by C-section are not citizens? ;-)
Most of these unwed teenagers, to which I was mostly referring, are not that mature, or they wouldn’t likely be in this difficulty to begin with. Guilt and regret seems to be the thrust of the arguments given by the evangelical pro-life groups that plead for non-abortion. It was to that aspect of the problem that I was referring.
You have my permission to post my private email to you, if you are comfortable doing so. In fact, I think I sent you two, and you can post both, if you wish. The dynamics behind decisions that are made are at least as important as the decision themselves. In fact, it is the dynamics that lead to the ultimate decision, in far too many cases.
If I had the ability to play god, which I don’t, I’d tell all the peripheral parties involves to spend less time trying to nudge the woman into a particular decision, and more time just listening and asking questions, in an effort to help her sort out the possible ramifications of the different prongs on the road to a solution.
I didn’t realize your post was directed to unwed teenagers. Abortion certainly isn’t limited to them. According to Women’s Issues:
48% of women chosing to abort are are 25 or older.
Only 12.2% of abortion are because the “woman” is too young.
(Of interest, Women’s Issues reported these two statistics with the opposite slant I used, though the numbers are exactly the same.) Other interesting statistics from the same source:
Nearly half of women getting pregnant don’t use any form of birth control during the month they became pregnant.
Only 2.8% of women have an abortion to protect the mother’s health.
According to Big News, National Radio reported today that New Zealand women aobrt one in four pregnancies.
I guess it’s “fun” to argue the corner cases on abortion, but they don’t represent the vast majority of pregnancies being aborted. Meanwhile, 1,370,000 abortions take place anually in the United States.
Back to the issue of guilt and regret , regardless of the age of the woman, I would presume that guilt and regret wouldn be more acute when the woman is pushed into a decision that isn’t really hers. I know a woman who gave up a baby for adoption when she was in her teens. She still has tears in her eyes when she talks about it. And, she is in her SIXTIES! Her parents mandated that as the only course of action, and that she would just have to accept it! That is the real issue that I am talking about!
Regardless of the circumstances, the most important dynamic, from my point of view, is that the decision be one that she can live with for the rest of her life. Not everybody has the same values around this issue, but the person who has to live with the decision is the woman, herself — even more than any significant others, friends, well-meaning counselors, or anybody else. If she can’t live with the decision, then she will, by definition, have guilt and regrets. Mostly, in situations like that of my friend who was railroaded into adoption, the guilt will be for not standing on her hind legs and saying, “I don’t care what you want, I will do what I want.” Chances are, if the option of adoption had been presented to her in a more compassionate way, she would have come to the same final decision as the one that was made for her. She will never know. But, I can guess that over the fifty or so years since she signed those papers, she has shed enough tears to float a major cruise ship.
I can’t imagine any parents knowingly wanted their child to suffer a lifetime of pain and regret because of what they did.
If you really want to get down and dirty with statistics, contact the Oregon State Public Health Department. They have a booklet that may be available online that’ll break down the abortion numbers by the age of the woman at the time of the abortion, the length of gestation, and, most shocking of all, the number of prior abortions the woman has had. There are apparently a surprising number of women who are using abortion as a form of birth control. If you subtract out the number of abortions by repeaters, the numbers look quite different.
That fact really bothered me, until I started asking myself some questions. The number one question turned out to be Would you really want to have a woman with that frame of mind for a mother. At that point, I was actually relieved they had made the decision that they did. I can just see myself being resented and cheated out of any childhood, made to feel guilty for even being born, and never feeling the arms of a loving mother soothing my owies, through all my formative years. It’s a very sterile existence, I would think.
Sure enough. Oregon’s abortion statistics are on the web here.
In Oregon in 2003, induced abortions ended 21.5% of pregnancies for women ages 15-44.
I’m uncomfortable with the concept of preferring abortion over having someone who would use abortion as a form of birth control rear the child. First, those aren’t the only two choices. Second, being stupid or careless doesn’t necessarily mean one would be a poor mother.
We have a generation of women who have been taught there is nothing wrong with abortion. Don’t be surprised when they behave in conformity with those teachings.
Abortions will decrease as more women become aware of what actually happens in abortion. In fact, Oregon’s statistics show abortion has already decreased significantly in the past 25 years.
I think part of the decrease is due to AIDS. People are more inclined to use condoms now than they were a few years ago. Unfortunately, the fastest growing AIDS demographic is among teenagers. They are right at that age where they think nothing can touch them. Look at how some of them drive, and you can clearly see the mentality involved.
I will stick with my theory that women that would have multiple abortions have no respect for children, and it would show. We aren’t just talking about an unwanted child here, we’re talking about a woman with no respect for her own flesh and blood. That’s a whole other thing from simply having an ill-timed surprise.
I was one of five unwanted children, and I can tell you that it’s no fun. Resentment runs deep. So does a lack of caring, and an inability (or lack of inclination) to nurture. You end up not being raised, but rather being jerked up by the hair on your head. And that’s on a good day.
I find it interesting that December is the month with the smallest number, consistently. I wonder if that has to do with the celebration of Christmas and what it actually stands for, or whether it’s simply because women don’t want to be in a somewhat ambulatory mode over the holidays.
The chart that I looked at didn’t contain the data by age or period of gestation. Nor did I see the data for how many prior abortions the women had. That’s a real eye-opener.
I suspect it’s harder to get an appointment during the holidays. I also suspect that there is less demand for abortions during the holidays.
I bet you thought it would be February…
Of course there’s less demand for abortions during the holidays! That’s why the numbers are smaller, silly! I’m just wondering why. Is it because the real significance of the Christmas Holiday hits home? or is it because the women don’t want to be recuperating from the procedure over the holidays?
Why would I think it would be February? Because it has fewer days? It has ten percent fewer than the longest months, but I don’t see much variation due to the length of the months. One would have to factor in how many weekdays there are in a given month. The actual number of days doesn’t necessarily tell us the number of days that are available for abortions. Are abortion clinics open on weekends? I haven’t the foggiest, but I’d be surprised if they aren’t open on Saturdays, just for the people who work weekdays and need Sunday to recuperate.
But what does any of this have to do with the issue of what happens to women who have made the decision not to abort? Remember: the topic is supposed to be Guilt and Regret. The idea that women who don’t abort are less likely to experience guilt and regret is questionable. The pro-life groups that talk about Post Abortion Stress Syndrome were the ones that I pointed the article to. But PASS is only one side of the story; there is likely plenty of room for some kind of ‘stress syndrome’ just for those who adopted out or kept their babies. That is what never gets discussed. It isn’t as if deciding to carry to term is the end of the story. It is actually just the very beginning of the story.
Too often is the constitution over-simplified or misconstrued (perhaps even by those courts doing the construeing). Following are some constructs rationalized to an extreme.
Would you contend that the purpose of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service
was to transform artificial persons into “natural” ones? Or, is a citizen precluded from being president if born by cesarean section, rather than natural birth? (Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5). Clearly, the constitutional requirements for becoming president pertain to birth and not to the much more ambiguous concepts of life or conception, which is typically the focus of the abortion controversy as it pertains to people.
Why should one be concerned over the abortion of an animal fetus that is not a person? (Except maybe for you vegetarians out there).
The declaration of independence referred to all “men” being created equal. Jefferson then owned slaves who were not regarded as men.
Who are considered persons by the founding fathers?
Under Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1, congressmen were to be chosen by the people of the several states. Until ratification of the 15th and 19th amendments, minority races and women were by definition not “people.” In a way, a minority or female embryo was already legally aborted upon conception, since it was deemed not a person. That is, the moment the two cells join, but prior to full cromosonal formation determining gender, there existed something which some contend constitutes a person; then, it became not a person under law.
Under Art. II, sec.2, cl. 3, slaves and indians only counted as 3/5 of a person to be represented in government.
http://etech.northern.edu/blanchak/epublius/three_fifths.htm
In a way, every embryo of a slave or an indian was already aborted in part by law.
Guilt is primarily a response to social values. Why would a pregnant woman feel guilt, but not a soldier in Iraq? Society relatively defines guilt and innocence. How much self esteem does one truly exert in life?
“Naturalization is the process whereby a person becomes a national of a nation, or a citizen of a country, other than the one of his birth.” [cite] Being “natural born” means being born as a citizen rather than being naturalized later. I intended the wink above to show my comment on C-sections negating being natural born was in jest.
We need not worry about the founding fathers regarding the definition of citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment redefined citizenship to include “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States [* * *].”
Guilt is not a response to social values, but personal values. The source of those personal values is something people like to debate. A pregnant woman who has an abortion could feel guilt if she believes she killed human life, regardless of social values. Likewise a solider’s feelings of guilt would be dependent on that soldier’s personal beliefs on pacifism and whether the soldier believed the war was just, not on social values.
One who subscribes to society’s definition of moral values has no control over self esteem. Why would one choose to do so?
I erroneously overlooked your wit and jest, which I am merely supporting.
Clearly to me, the 14th amendment was more form than substance until (1) sufferage; and (2) the ratial reforms enacted in the 60′s. My point, mostly tongue in cheek but with a grain of truth in the mouth, is that prior to the 14th amendment and all the other legal improvements, there were hominids in the U.S. that were not fully regarded as people by state and federal government agencies. So how do the “pro life” supporters reconcile imposition of life upon those that have not even been recognized as people? (BTW Terri Shiavo autopsy confirms that she was terribly brain dead, consistent with MRI scans prior to the end). How is it that somebody has the “right” to be kept alive when “they” are not really alive at all? (My questions in this thread are rhetorical).
Direct or proximate cause of values? While values are directly personal, my experience is that for the most part they are proximately learned from society (and I believe that there are some innate values in common to all humans as social primates — e.g., need for love).
>One who subscribes to society’s definition of moral values has no control over self esteem. Why would one choose to do so?
That is the whole point, they are not choosing, but operating out of subconscious response. This is the primary driver of humanity, and overcoming it is an ultimate goal of spirituality and psychology. A dominant majority male oriented perspective often has difficulty seeing how many oppressed / sudbued people have this issue as a major life struggle every day. It is not about logic and choice, but feelings at a different level which overwhelm to the point of repressing awareness. (Sorry for the psychobabble, but you hit on a very deep pervasive issue, and I thought I would put in my $.02). One generally does not have true compassion for that which they do not understand within the scope of their life experience. And, things can touch our core life experience in many different ways, not just through suffering. (The religious and spiritual (sociological) parallels about compassion, suffering, and guilt are many).
It is refreshing to read your openly expressed opinions which do not diminish others. I apologize that I have tended to criticize government (and those who democratically create its various manifestations), contrary to the spirit of this blog.
I don’t believe that pro-life people need to limit their definition of personhood to that contained in the U.S. constitution. Certainly our medical knowledge (and medical procedures) has increased significantly since even the 14th amendment was ratified. For example, how many people would accept that a fetus is not a person until the last portion of its body exits its mother? Yet that is the definition used to keep partial birth abortion legal.
Once someone is willing to reject birth as the dividing line for personhood (notice I’m not using the term “citizenship”; I’m talking life and morality, not legality), where does one draw the line for when abortion becomes immoral? Reasonable people can differ on this question. What dividing line would you use? Conception? Formation of certain organs? Brain activity? Viability?
“Imposition of life”? That’s a curious turn of phrase…
And no, the Terri Schiavo autopsy confirmed what wasn’t in dispute: Terri was severely brain damaged. Many other questions remain open and will likely never be answered. The medical examiner specifically stated that he was not taking a position on PVS. The Schiavo case was more interesting than the typical right to die case; it was what I would call a corner case. I wrote three posts on my views here, here, and here.
You argue that moral values are determined largely by society, yet there are innate values in common to all. I would suggest that those are two opposite views on the basis for value. A naturalistic view is that morals have evolved to their present condition, that society gets to define them and survive or not depending on their usefulness. A view that morals are innate suggests an external source for morality. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you…
Harmonizing the questions raised by both abortion and right to die would seem to better focus the issue. I believe that a predominant factor is independent viability on both sides of life. But, who bears the cost? Even fully functional people cannot get all medical care available, and they die sooner (e.g. expensive cancer treatment). Yet the media and public focus on those further out on the bell curve, almost as an academic or philosophical question. We are more numb to that which is more common, and thus learn certain values (or lack of value) accordingly.
What I meant — Innate value refers to that which is internal, while learned value is absorbed from society, including family and environment. I acknowledged that there are both natural and nurtured values. My belief and experience is that more of the “complex” and non-reactive values are leaned than innate. It is difficult to determine where our threshholds lie. (pun intended).
For example, the Yanomami Indians in South America often kidnap their spouses from other tribes. This would seem abhorrent to (North) Americans, but is necessary to maintain genetic diversity in their low population culture. Where we have learned (and passed laws supporting) the value that kidnapping is bad, the Yanomami may have survived and evolved to know (whether innately or by learned tradition) that it is a good value to kidnap a bride.
Sorry I don’t have enough time to properly discuss the issues of group values and majority rule across cultural lines. But I think I can safely say that the question of nature vs. nurture will never be fully answered. Dissent is inevitable, until the values of a society quash it.