Tuesday 22 January 2008 is the 35th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, and it’s Blog for Choice Day. Feminist bloggers, and other bloggers who support choice, have been asked to blog for choice.
Of course I’m pro-choice, despite the years of indoctrination at convent schools. I’m pro-choice because no-one, but no-one, can tell me what to do with my body. Ever. Full stop. Period.
Although Roe v. Wade is important in the American context, it is not so important in my old home, or my new. In neither country are religious conservatives given much credence, and the right to have an abortion is under no particular threat, in the legislatures, at least. Nevertheless, it seems that in my new home, in substance, if not in form, the practical ability of women to secure an abortion may be under threat.
Back in the old country, women are still required to get two doctors to approve an abortion. Why? Are there any other medical procedures where two doctors are required to sign off on the details? If a man turns up and wants a vasectomy, does he have to go and get another doctor to approve it? If a woman turns up, and wants the pill, does she have to go and get another doctor to approve it?
I suppose the “two doctors” requirement dates back to the time when doctors were held in very high regard, treated as veritable gods within their communities. Doctors had managed years of university training, had demonstrated considerable intellectual proweress, dealt with people’s problems every day. Abortion was seen to be a moral decision, and doctors were thought to be the right people to deal with it. But that was back in 1976. Thirty-two years later, we have moved on a little.
The only morality involved in abortion is what a woman may do with her own body. The “two doctors” requirement infantilises women, telling them that they can’t do what they want unless at least two old time gods, from 1976, agree. It says that that women can’t make careful, responsible decisions about their own bodies. It’s time for this barrier to choice to be eliminated.
4 responses so far ↓
rayinnz // Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 9:01 am |
Abortion, it is a tricky one
As a man I feel I should not and never will demand a women should or should not, go down the road of abortion
First it is a given that it is her body and no one else should have overruling power over it
That does not give her a right to demand a doctor do something they don’t believe is right
Fortunatly that is no longer a problem
Mind you one of my great aunts asked me to smother her if she ever was placed in a Home
She probably wondered why I never visited her when she was placed in an old aged home
So while I am in favour of a womens right to chose ( with the minimuim of difficulties to obtaining an abortion)
I just do not feel abortion is a good/best way to control how many children or not a woman has
As I say for me it is a tricky one and fortunatly I have never had to be involved in making the decision
I can say I know women who have had one with no ill effects at all and another for whom it is a constant regret
Melika // Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 6:32 pm |
My body is my own…………tell that to the child, who could say “how dare you do that to me , interfere with my life,my body” Too many other easy options today other than abortion.
Fortunately I’ve never had to face that one. I can’t, I couldn’t, I didn’t.
Deborah // Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 8:55 pm |
The idea that life begins at conception is fairly new. Augustine held that the soul entered the fetus at forty days after conception, if the fetus was male, and at eighty days, if the fetus was female. Right…..
The church dithered to and fro on the issue of when life began, and it was only in 1869 that Pius IX forbade abortion, on the grounds of prudence. He didn’t claim that life began at conception, but just suggested that to be on the safe side, abortion should not be morally permissable. It was only in 1965 that Vatican II condemned abortion. There’s a potted history of all this here.
Potted histories are all very well. What are we to make of this? Marilyn French sees it as part of the war against women. The prohibition against abortion has nothing to do with holding life sacred (and frankly, the Catholic church’s history in that respect is spotted, to say the least), and everything to do with controlling women, who were just getting a little too uppity for the church’s liking.
Moz // Thursday 24 January 2008 at 12:41 pm |
Vasectomy is an interesting comparison. FWIW, in Oz they didn’t even ask if I had a partner, let alone for the opinion of anyone else, doctor or not. Said partner is currently suffering nervousness after a lifetime of active contraception… it just doesn’t feel right not using anything.
My discomfort with the abortion choice is purely that male choice ends at consent to sex (or earlier, in cases of coercion). “the condom failed” will not let you off child support payments if your previously adamantly anti-motherhood partner chooses to keep the baby. In the same way as your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins, your right to unilaterally control your body should end where your choice imposes significant costs on me. I’m just not sure how exactly to make that decision-making process fair. Involuntary parenthood is unfair regardless of gender.