Is abortion and equal rights issue?

[Beet]

The question came up on this thread. I thought it was relatively uncontroversial that abortion is an equal rights issue. After all, that is the main motive for why feminists are the the most staunchly pro-abortion rights constituency in the country, and have been since the inception of the contemporary abortion rights debate. It seems strange to me that anyone who knows much about American politics, particularly the debate over abortion rights, could not understand this.

Certainly there are people who say they support equal rights and yet do not support reproductive rights. Of course, a part of this is pro forma: very few people will seriously, outright admit to not supporting equal rights for women. Yet it is true that there are people who genuinely support equal rights for women who oppose abortion rights. But it has always been the contention of an overwhelming majority of United States women's rights activists that the right to an abortion is a core woman's right, and not only from a libertarian property-rights perspective, but also from a feminist and equal rights perspective.

In any case, the substantive case for why abortion rights is an equal rights issue is, I think, strong and clear. Women have the ability to get pregnant, and men do not. Hence, a prohibition on the right to an abortion would be a restriction on women, but not men. If a woman cannot control when she reproduces, then she cannot control either her body or her life: the fetus grows in the mother's body for months, and the birth of a child is a life-changing event that impacts the health, economic well being, freedom, education, and career of the parent. Adoption is not a good solution because many mothers will want to raise their child, presuming she has one, even if she would not want to have one in the first place. Birth control is available, but is imperfect. Abstinence is advised by social conservatives, but it is unreasonable to expect women to abstain from sex; and besides, women who are married will still want to ultimately control when she has a child. Hence, if abortion were prohibited, then women would face a profound structural disadvantage in life, compared to men, and it is hard to see how equality could be achieved. Additionally, the state would be regulating the woman's body in an important way that it doesn't for a man. Neither of these are compatible with equal rights.

Comments?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The right to life and liberty ends where it involves depriving another of life and liberty. As soon as you approach the equation from the perspective of the unborn being life, the whole calculus changes, from being one of equal rights for women to one of civil rights for the unborn.

[Beet]

The right to life and liberty ends where it involves depriving another of life and liberty. As soon as you approach the equation from the perspective of the unborn being life, the whole calculus changes, from being one of equal rights for women to one of civil rights for the unborn.

I mean, it's valid to argue that the civil rights for the unborn outweigh equal rights for women, and I think this is where most anti-abortion rights people are (though you'd prefer not to say so explicitly), but I don't think it's valid to argue that the question of equal rights for women doesn't figure, and doesn't figure very heavily, in the question.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've never really perceived abortion as an equal rights issue for the reasons you laid out believing that they are, ironically. There's no direct inequality here. Men's bodies aren't regulated in that way because they can't be regulated in a comparable way. It's one of those situations where the double standard is justified because there are two situations completely unique from one another. Pay inequality is an example of a direct inequality, and abortion rights don't really resemble that at all.

I've always perceived it as a privacy rights issue and not an equal protection issue. The right to do with your own body as you please, etc. Similar to drugs, actually.

And then, of course, as Yankee said, the issue takes on yet another element of complexity when you bring in the life of the child. If you genuinely believe the act of abortion ends an innocent life of sufficient development, opposing abortion is not a matter of opposing equal rights. A lot of activists accuse all opposition to abortion as being informed by sexism, and that is certainly a very big component, but it's not really an honest assessment of all opposition.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm a pro-life feminist. That's a real thing evendors if many othere feminists wont accept that. I believe misogyny is one of the greatest if not the greatest problem we face today. There are far more important things than abortion to equal rights.

[Beet]

I've never really perceived abortion as an equal rights issue for the reasons you laid out believing that they are, ironically. There's no direct inequality here. Men's bodies aren't regulated in that way because they can't be regulated in a comparable way. It's one of those situations where the double standard is justified because there are two situations completely unique from one another. Pay inequality is an example of a direct inequality, and abortion rights don't really resemble that at all.

Well, this really involves speculation about society's motivations for prohibiting abortion, which really can't be proven one way or another absent a counterfactual world where men could get pregnant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, that's a valid way to look at it, just not the only way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that all opposition to abortion is informed by sexism - I don't question SMilo's stated sentiments above - although I agree that it's certainly a big component. It's that when you get away from trying to guess at people's and society's motivations for things and actually look at the consequences of the policy, there's a huge equal rights component there, which I laid out in my post.

[Sol]

It's a good thing that fetuses are no more alive than ants.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The right to life and liberty ends where it involves depriving another of life and liberty. As soon as you approach the equation from the perspective of the unborn being life, the whole calculus changes, from being one of equal rights for women to one of civil rights for the unborn.

I mean, it's valid to argue that the civil rights for the unborn outweigh equal rights for women, and I think this is where most anti-abortion rights people are (though you'd prefer not to say so explicitly), but I don't think it's valid to argue that the question of equal rights for women doesn't figure, and doesn't figure very heavily, in the question.

Of course it weighs into the equation but the whole point of my statement was just that. Thing of it as a matter of reasonable accomodation and the tipping point where such ceases to be the case. It is reasonable to value the equal rights of women just like it is anyone else's rights save when doing so impinges on the rights of another.

The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to steal a gun for instance, nor to shoot someone with it. The right to free speech doesn't absolve somone of slander or libel.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I've never really perceived abortion as an equal rights issue for the reasons you laid out believing that they are, ironically. There's no direct inequality here. Men's bodies aren't regulated in that way because they can't be regulated in a comparable way. It's one of those situations where the double standard is justified because there are two situations completely unique from one another. Pay inequality is an example of a direct inequality, and abortion rights don't really resemble that at all.

Well, this really involves speculation about society's motivations for prohibiting abortion, which really can't be proven one way or another absent a counterfactual world where men could get pregnant.

     The problem with looking at it this way is that the people who oppose abortion rights have clearly explicable motivations that one can uncover by asking them. You may choose to ignore this detail in favor of some abstract theorization, but don't be surprised when those against it (and many for it, including myself) deny that abortion rights is an equal rights issue. As far as we are concerned, it isn't.

[Beet]

The right to life and liberty ends where it involves depriving another of life and liberty. As soon as you approach the equation from the perspective of the unborn being life, the whole calculus changes, from being one of equal rights for women to one of civil rights for the unborn.

I mean, it's valid to argue that the civil rights for the unborn outweigh equal rights for women, and I think this is where most anti-abortion rights people are (though you'd prefer not to say so explicitly), but I don't think it's valid to argue that the question of equal rights for women doesn't figure, and doesn't figure very heavily, in the question.

Of course it weighs into the equation but the whole point of my statement was just that. Thing of it as a matter of reasonable accomodation and the tipping point where such ceases to be the case. It is reasonable to value the equal rights of women just like it is anyone else's rights save when doing so impinges on the rights of another.

The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to steal a gun for instance, nor to shoot someone with it. The right to free speech doesn't absolve somone of slander or libel.

Well sure, the question in this thread isn't whether women should have abortion rights, but merely whether it's an equal rights issue. It's an equal rights issue if equal rights weighs into the equation, as you said. Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, this is something that must be conceded. Just as fetal rights, as well as privacy & property rights, as well as (others would argue, although probably not contemporary Americans: population policy, eugenics, etc.) all bear on the debate, then abortion rights is an issue of all those things. It can't be reduced to a single type of issue to the exclusion of all others, because it touches on different areas of ethics and different stakeholders.

The analogy of bearing arms versus stealing arms does not follow because bearing arms and stealing arms are two different things. A prohibition on stealing arms does not infringe on the right to bear arms. A prohibition on abortion, however, does infringe on women's equal rights. Whether it's a valid infringement or not is a different question, but an infringement it is. A better analogy would be a requirement for a background check before a person can buy a gun. That is an infringement on bearing arms, but arguably a legitimate one.

[Beet]

I've never really perceived abortion as an equal rights issue for the reasons you laid out believing that they are, ironically. There's no direct inequality here. Men's bodies aren't regulated in that way because they can't be regulated in a comparable way. It's one of those situations where the double standard is justified because there are two situations completely unique from one another. Pay inequality is an example of a direct inequality, and abortion rights don't really resemble that at all.

Well, this really involves speculation about society's motivations for prohibiting abortion, which really can't be proven one way or another absent a counterfactual world where men could get pregnant.

     The problem with looking at it this way is that the people who oppose abortion rights have clearly explicable motivations that one can uncover by asking them. You may choose to ignore this detail in favor of some abstract theorization, but don't be surprised when those against it (and many for it, including myself) deny that abortion rights is an equal rights issue. As far as we are concerned, it isn't.

I'm the one protesting against abstract theoreization, not defending it. I'm not arguing that "people who oppose abortion rights" have one motivation or another. I don't presume any motivation, except that people who oppose abortion rights have diverse motivations, and while individuals can explain their motivations, there is no way of knowing the motivations of one "side" or another as a whole.

My argument that this is an equal rights issue is based on the consequences of abortion rights itself, and the negative impact that not having the right to an abortion would have on the ability of women to be in control of their bodies and lives to the extent that men are, as I said in my first post.

[SteveRogers]

I want to reiterate that I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

I also agree that putting restraints on women in order to reinforce traditional gender roles and power structures have played a role in motivating abortion restrictions. I agree with all of the following language.

The question came up on this thread.
Women have the ability to get pregnant, and men do not. Hence, a prohibition on the right to an abortion would be a restriction on women, but not men. If a woman cannot control when she reproduces, then she cannot control either her body or her life: the fetus grows in the mother's body for months, and the birth of a child is a life-changing event that impacts the health, economic well being, freedom, education, and career of the parent. Adoption is not a good solution because many mothers will want to raise their child, presuming she has one, even if she would not want to have one in the first place. Birth control is available, but is imperfect. Abstinence is advised by social conservatives, but it is unreasonable to expect women to abstain from sex; and besides, women who are married will still want to ultimately control when she has a child. Hence, if abortion were prohibited, then women would face a profound structural disadvantage in life, compared to men, and it is hard to see how equality could be achieved. Additionally, the state would be regulating the woman's body in an important way that it doesn't for a man.

So sure, if you frame it as the right to not reproduce, then legalizing abortion levels the playing field between men and women.

But if I may play devil's advocate for a second, one could just as easily frame the situation as follows: The legalization of abortion removes a restriction on women, but not men. Because abortion is currently legal, women have a right to choose not to reproduce while men do not. A man who gets a woman pregnant has no right to terminate that pregnancy and prevent their own offspring from coming into the world, while the woman does. While a man does not have to bear the burden of carrying a child to term,  the birth of a child is still a life-changing event that impacts the economic well being, freedom, education, and career of the father.Thus men face a structural disadvantage in life because a man who does not wish to raise a child may still find themselves having to support a child while a woman in the same situation has absolute veto power.

So if you frame it as the right to terminate a pregnancy, then legalizing abortion grants a right to women that men cannot ever have.

I would say that when we're talking about rights that flow directly from the biological differences between males and females, we should acknowledge that different rights are implicated for each sex, and I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest to use the term "equal rights" in this context.     

[Beet]

So sure, if you frame it as the right to not reproduce, then legalizing abortion levels the playing field between men and women.

But if I may play devil's advocate for a second, one could just as easily frame the situation as follows: The legalization of abortion removes a restriction on women, but not men. Because abortion is currently legal, women have a right to choose not to reproduce while men do not. A man who gets a woman pregnant has no right to terminate that pregnancy and prevent their own offspring from coming into the world, while the woman does. While a man does not have to bear the burden of carrying a child to term,  the birth of a child is still a life-changing event that impacts the economic well being, freedom, education, and career of the father.Thus men face a structural disadvantage in life because a man who does not wish to raise a child may still find themselves having to support a child while a woman in the same situation has absolute veto power.

So if you frame it as the right to terminate a pregnancy, then legalizing abortion grants a right to women that men cannot ever have.

Well, I think when the state imposes a law, it should be seen as the actor or imposer. Legalization of something means nothing outside the context of it being prohibited in the first place. Absent any laws on abortion by the state, then it would surely not be illegal.

With regard to your broader point, I think it is a good one, in the sense that absolute equality may be impossible as a result of biology. But I would still contend that it would be a far more equal system, if abortion were legal. The first reason is that as you said, a man does not bear the burden of carrying to term, or breastfeeding. Secondly, it cannot be denied, that the role of mothers in our society compared to fathers is still somewhat larger. The number of stay-at-home dads compared to stay at home moms is minuscule, and the same with single dads versus single moms. Having a child almost certainly has a bigger impact on a mother's career than a father's. This may change in the future, but at present it is pretty asymmetrical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I hope we can have a good discussion without accusing each of dishonesty. So far I think (and hope) I've been respectful of everyone here, despite our differences, and I would hope the same courtesy be extended to me.

[SteveRogers]

Well, I hope we can have a good discussion without accusing each of dishonesty. So far I think (and hope) I've been respectful of everyone here, despite our differences, and I would hope the same courtesy be extended to me.

I meant absolutely no disrespect, and I probably should have used more care phrasing that last bit. I only meant to answer, in response to the original question, that I would not use the term "equal rights" to describe abortion rights.

[Beet]

No worries Steve, I think you've understood me best, and raised the most troubling objections to my position (without conceding it of course). I should add that I think a man who has not agreed to be a father should have the right to opt out of child support.

[IceSpear]

I've never really perceived abortion as an equal rights issue for the reasons you laid out believing that they are, ironically. There's no direct inequality here. Men's bodies aren't regulated in that way because they can't be regulated in a comparable way. It's one of those situations where the double standard is justified because there are two situations completely unique from one another. Pay inequality is an example of a direct inequality, and abortion rights don't really resemble that at all.

An interesting way to think about it is: Would abortion be such a controversial issue if men were the ones who got pregnant? I'm skeptical. Even though it may still be an issue, I highly doubt it would be anything like it is in reality.

[TNF]

I don't think that whether or not the fetus is 'alive' in any sense of the word is particularly important, given that the issue should be about whether or not women have agency over their own bodies. The opposition to women having agency over their own bodies is often dressed up in this sentimental 'but the child!' rhetoric, which is almost always hypocritical because it comes from segments of the population that literally stop giving a sh**t about that child the minute he or she is born because they wouldn't want to pay another penny in taxes in make sure that child is well fed, housed, and clothed.

On Atlas Forum, however, the main pro-life contingent seems to be liberal in the general sense of the word, and does support helping young mothers raise their children after birth. The fact that they take this position does not negate the utterly reactionary content of being 'pro-life' (in reality, anti-agency) in the normal sense of the word. Opposition on the right to abortion may cloak itself in terms of protecting the welfare of the child, but the issue at hand is control over the means of human reproduction. If we allow women to control when and if they have children, that presents a potential problem for those who run society, because at any time, women could, theoretically, decide not to birth children or reduce the number of children they are willing to bear in return for concessions from the powers that be.

Liberals don't recognize this because they don't understand power relations in society. Is the above situation thinkable at the present moment? No, I don't think so. At least, those of us on the left and some liberals who support abortion rights aren't thinking seriously about it. But the right is, and the right always has. That's because the right understands power relations in society. Why is the right going after unions when they're at their weakest point in the postwar era? The same reason why they're targeting abortion rights - because they confer the possibility of altering the balance of power in favor of people who don't think that the be-all, end-all goal of human civilization should be to accumulate wealth and power in the hands of a tiny, shrinking elite.

Reproductive agency is absolutely, totality something that must be respected if women are to be emancipated from the shackles which bind them to domesticity and a subservient position within the capitalist power structure. If you deny that, you are essentially denying the emancipation of women and supporting a subordinate role for women, because you are not according them the same agency you accord men - that is, total control over their own reproductive organs.

[Torie]

Sex discrimination has intermediate scrutiny under the equal protection clause (the law will be upheld if substantially related to an important government interest). Fetuses are not chopped liver (and indeed have some rights under the law, as in if killed it can be murder in some states if felonious), and the male inseminator has some rights in the mix. Asserting this Constitutional doctrine really does not get one that far on this issue, when it comes to the hard cases, as in late term abortions.

[King]

All the talk on the abortion issue is too philosophical. The similar fact is that pro-choice policies result in less abortions than pro-life policies. There are less abortions per 100,000 conceptions today than there were before Roe v. Wade.

If you believe in rights of mothers, you should be pro-choice.
If you believe in saving the unborn, you should be pro-choice.
If you believe in free markets, you should be pro-choice.
If you believe in helping the disadvantaged, you should be pro-choice.
If you believe in not spending a lot of federal dollars, you should be pro-choice.

There's no good reason to be pro-life.

[Oakvale]

I'm pro-abortion but I think the real equal rights issue here is actually for men, who have no say and could be obliged to pay child support for over a decade if their partner chooses not to abort

[TDAS04]

If you want to argue that the life of the fetus is more important than the woman's independence or her right to do what she wants with her body, that's one thing, but the issue isn't that simple.  Abortion restrictions actually physically endanger women.  

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The similar fact is that pro-choice policies result in less abortions than pro-life policies. There are less abortions per 100,000 conceptions today than there were before Roe v. Wade.

This isn't a fair comparison. They've been in decline for almost 30 years, but that's not because abortion is legal. Contraception availability and acceptance is nowhere near what it was. That can remove a lot of the unwanted pregnancies from the equation that allows that figure to decline.

[Mercenary]

I can certainly understand wanting to equalize the playing field as much as possible. That is men don't have to get pregnant no matter how much they fool around or how irresponsible they are, so it may indeed be unfair that women can get pregnant in cases where they may be careful and even married. However, that is just biology and there isn't much we can do about that other than support scientific progress in birth control.

I can understand how some can view it as an equal rights issue for that reason, but I don't think it should be directly tied to equal rights since it is different than other such issues. Most issues that deal with equal rights tend to not have anyone that is harmed by guarantee such rights. Abortion is different in that a baby (fetus) is killed. Even if you don't consider the unborn to be human yet and worthy of rights, it is still a casualty by guaranteeing such a right. So I think, unlike most equal rights issue, there is a reasonable objection to it. That being the case, I think one can be supportive of equal rights, even a feminist, and still oppose abortion.

Both sides of this issue can claim to be fighting for rights. Either fighting for a woman's right to control what happens to her body and attempt to give her a more level playing field as a man or fighting for the right of the unborn child to be born and have a chance at life. Since it is much more difficult to say which side is correct as it is really dependent upon either your belief of when person-hood begins or how you prioritize rights, I don't think you can really say put it in the same category as the right to vote, right to equal pay, or other such things that are more of an obvious which is the right side type issues.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One can carve out a "reasonable objection" to any policy designed to protect equal rights. The examples you mentioned, the right to vote and equal pay, are so well accepted in our society (at least in theory) that you would have to go back decades or more to find the objections to it, but many people who argued against suffrage would have also said that their objections were reasonable, and hence, it wasn't about equal rights. That's why my argument is not based on what your stance on abortion is (a.k.a. what one considers 'reasonable'), or what your motivations are (a.k.a. am i a 'genuine feminist'), but only on the consequences.

Really, I think this issue is even closer to the question of gender equality than either the right to vote or equal pay, precisely because it is a result of biology. Voting and pay are artificial constructions of society, but unwanted pregnancy has hampered and killed women from the beginning of time. Besides physical strength, it is one of the main reasons they historically have not had the same amount of power or respect as men.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For me personally, abortion depends upon the whether one considers the unborn child/fetus/embryo to be a human life.  If one does then the state should exert every reasonable effort to secure the ability of that life to be lived.  (When the mother's life is put at risk from a pregnancy, that is a reasonable factor for allowing abortions, even when what is inside her is considered to be a human life.)  If one does not, then the state has no business in what the woman chooses to do about the pregnancy.

My own indecision on where the point at which what is inside the mother becomes considered a human life should be is why while I favor allowing embryos (first trimester) to be aborted and generally not allowing unborn children (third trimester) to be aborted and willing to let others who feel more strongly one way or the other decide how society views fetuses (second trimester).

The only way this becomes an equal rights issue for me is when the discussion is over how much input the father/spouse should have.  Even if one feels the father or the spouse of the woman should have some input, I would it think it obvious that the primary decision (where a decision is legal to be made) should be the woman's with at most the father or spouse being able to opt out of fiscal responsibilities if she chooses differently than they do. (I say spouse rather than husband because what happens if a woman chooses to have a baby over the objections of her spouse should be the same regardless of the gender of her spouse.)