EVERYTHING is NOT About Abortion
On my way home from a speaking gig in Edmonton, Canada, I came across this long article in the Globe and Mail, byline Carolyn Abraham, that just got my blood boiling. The story concerns families who suffer a miscarriage and choose to bury their babies rather than having them disposed as mere medical waste. Why is this a story? Because of the politics of abortion. From the story:
I have long believed that abortion is the new slavery issue in that it seems to underlie almost every political dispute today, just as slavery did in the 1850s. (This is the reason I generally avoid discussing it here at SHS.) But good grief! Everything is not about abortion. People should be allowed to grieve miscarriages in peace, including, if they desire, burying the remains of their dead babies without advocates and media turning their tragedies into a political parade. Color me disgusted.Yet across Canada and in other parts of the Western world, the modern miscarriage has birthed a new and potentially incendiary brand of perinatal bereavement. A growing number of women and their advocates, many of them staunchly pro-choice, are pushing for the formal recognition of the miscarried fetus as a symbol of their grief and loss. In some cases, they're seeking out these rites even when, for medical reasons, they have chosen to terminate the pregnancy.
But the fetal funeral could be a Pandora's Box. Some graveyards and funeral-home staff have been reluctant to bury remains for which no burial permit can be issued. Medical staff worry it may push patients to dwell on losses they would rather forget. More profoundly, holding funerals for fetuses raises implicit, uncomfortable questions about when life begins.
Those who oppose abortion have long fought for the respectful burial of human fetuses in acknowledgment of their personhood. Can society simultaneously agree to mourn the early fetus and still sanction its destruction? Could the desire to recognize formally the death of a fetus --which has no legal status as a life--reignite the abortion debate?...
"This trend of ritualizing grief...will be watched with enthusiasm and pleasure by those who want to restrict women's reproductive choices, and watched with concern by those interested in preserving women's reproductive liberty," predicted Arthur Schafer, director of Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba."Anything that encourages us to view early-stage pregnancy as personhood could impact the law on the choice to terminate pregnancy and on embryonic stem-cell research."
Indeed, the Campaign Life Coalition, the political wing of Canada's anti-abortion movement, considers the trend a sign of "society's progression." Jim Hughes, Campaign Life's national president, recently attended two funerals for fetuses miscarried before 20 weeks. He applauds the trend, regardless of whether those involved consider themselves pro-choice. "This is their little shot at recognizing this was a human being that was a part of their family."
Labels: Abortion Politics
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:55 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
I'm not sure why you are so disgusted, the article is in general about the recognition of fetal personhood or partial personhood, with only a few passages out of a very long article suggesting that pro-choice people should oppose this. So you should be happy.
I'm pro-choice and I think that the trend is a good one, having personally had some experience in this area.
I'd also point out that if the pro-choice viewpoint was not embattled, there would be no reason for any pro-choice person to oppose a ritual for pregnancy loss. The only reason this happens is because of the extreme polarization on this issue, which forces people into simplistic views that don't correspond to reality.
The simplistic points of view are "a fetus is a person" and "a fetus is just a glob of tissue". Neither of these capture the reality very well.
I am disgusted because people should be able to deal with the matter in their own way without others remarking on the "societal" implications. Some things are completely in the private sphere and should just be left well enough alone.
Why Wesley, you sound positively pro-choice today! I thought bioconservatives were generally eager to have the state intervene in people's private affairs, and pro-choicers were the ones who emphasized that the private sphere should be left alone.
I'm not even sure that distinction is that useful in this case. The issue is mourning and funerals, which are public or semi-public acknowledgements of loss. In this case, as in many others, private matters have a social component.
I don't Wesley, as someone who worked in the pro-life movement and who has had a miscarriage, I can see the social implications. Miscarriages are certainly private events but they are a loss that can turn very public.
I remember getting angry after the birth of my son (third pregnancy) because the Hospital Records dept. needed to know the result of each of my pregnancies. Filling out the forms I discovered that for my miscarriage I had the choice of marking "termination." I explained to the staffer that I had a miscarriage not an abortion. She replied that the category applied to both an induced abortion and a spontaneous abortion. I marked through the word and wrote miscarriage. Of course, I'm more sensitive to this than most. I didn't like the idea that my miscarriage was put in the same category as someone else's willful abortion.
Certainly, the fact that women who claim to be pro-choice feel that they can mourn the loss of their child has implications for the existence and treatment of post-abortion syndrome. Up until recently the existence of the syndrome was denied and ignored by pro-abortion groups. If a pro-choice woman feels she can mourn her loss, why can't the woman who has had an abortion regret the abortion and mourn her loss as well?
"The only reason this happens is because of the extreme polarization on this issue, which forces people into simplistic views...."
I reject the idea that people can be forced into simplistic views. They can have simplistic views if they are too hot-headed to think things through or if they are not open to alternative viewpoints but they are not forced to have them. Lots of people admit to being conflicted about abortion, even as they feel that they have to come down on one side or the other.
Laura, it's a very simple and common dynamic. "Forced" may not be exactly the right term, but it is very common for people to feel they have to choose up sides on a complex issue. Here's a blog post I wrote on this, not about abortion per se but it applies pretty well. Once you have chosen a side there is a lot of pressure to defend your side and filter your worldview through that sides ideology. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just the way things seem to go.
Your disgust Wesley should be directed at the culture of death which has devalued the lives of these yes small, yes young, unborn children to such an extent that people are unwilling to give a proper burial to even those that are 'wanted'.
Hi, John Henry: Thanks for stopping by.
My point is that whatever grieving people decide to do in the wake of a miscarriage, they should be left alone. If they wish to bury their baby, fine. If not, fine. Their decisions should not become grist for the broader social debates.
I agree with Wesley that funerals are in the private sphere. Granted, I can be a bit of a neo-Lochnerian.
However, I am a little confused too. As I read it, the point of the article's excerpt is to highlight the tension, if not contradiction, within politics and people's own beliefs.
If anything, it provides ammo to the pro-lifers to call the pro-choicers hypocrites.
re: slavery
The analogy is fair. It's not going away anytime soon, not until a political consensus can be reached.
Royale: See here's the thing: I don't care if it provides ammo for whatever side. This should be outside of those arguments.
Wesley,
I agree with the heartfelt response, but I wonder if it is reasonable. I am sincerely asking you the question as opposed to making the statement out of respect for your opinion. You say that the abortion issue is comparable to the slavery issue. I absolutely agree with, and for the sake of disclosure I work in a pro-life ministry and write on a pro-life blog. I think that abortion is the ISSUE that the larger fight over the identification and value of human life is most often and publicly being waged within. As you are aware, that larger battle spills into so many aspects of research, science, politics, and medical decision making that it is nigh unavoidable. The people most active in all fields are most often strongly involved in the abortion debate and so any incidents that touch the far reaches of that issue draws out the debaters.
This family ought to be able to mourn in peace as they see fit without their tragedy becoming another skirmish in the abortion issue. The problem is that so much is at stake in the greater battle to define life and its value that it invariably intrudes into places we wish it would remain separate from. Should this surprise us and is it likely to get worse? The themes that are being argued are as big as they get. Is life valuable based on utilitarian or subjective qualities or based on the nature of what an entity is and our moral obligations to that life? Are our values subjective or based on absolute standards that transcend our culture and physical reality? Under what conditions do we have the right to terminate innocent life for the benefit of others? Given that both sides seem convinced that every tiny victory or loss has major repercussions on the landscape of this debate, can we reasonably assume that this intrusion of the issue of life into unwanted places will become more and more prevalent? Do you think that this debate and the rancor and passion with which it is most often articulated will overwhelm our nation the way that slavery once did forcing action by those who would rather have been left alone on the issue of abolition?
Jay
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home