In the post, she briefly describes consenting to an early induction of her pregnancy at 25 weeks due to pre-eclampsia. Her son, Gabriel, died shortly after birth. She argues that she had an abortion by writing,
She took her surgical cap off. She sat down and picked up my hand. She said "I need you to sign a consent form to be induced. I have to tell you that in all likelihood your baby will die. I have to tell you that at this point, given his gestational age and weight, and given the pre-existing complications, he will die. Most likely before he's born. Do you understand?"I don’t know the full details regarding this situation but I’m of the mind that a procedure whose intended goal is not to kill the child (but rather treat the mother and also treat the child, if possible) isn’t abortion. I’m favorable to Right to Life of Michigan’s policy statement on abortion which says,
I nodded. She handed me the pen. I signed my name.
I, Cheryl-Nancy Elizabeth.
I signed my name. I gave full, free and informed consent. I had options open to me, and this is the choice I made. I consented to kill my child.
I had an abortion.
Abortion is any act or procedure performed with the willful intent to cause the death of an unborn child from conception to birth.....
This position does not oppose medical treatment to save the life of the mother. Treatments may, in rare circumstances, result in the unintended death of her child. The unintended death of the child is not to be construed as abortion. When the life of the mother is judged by competent medical personnel to be in danger, a doctor can and should treat both the mother and her unborn child, striving to save the lives of both.
But Mrs. Spit isn’t really interested in people thinking her situation was different than the situation of women who have abortions. In fact, she claims any differences are completely artificial.
I will stand up with thousands, hundreds of thousands of women. I will say that we made the best choice we could, at the time, under the circumstances. I'm not sorry if you don't like my choice. Frankly, I don't care. Perhaps you think I'm morally bankrupt, perhaps you think we all are. Perhaps you are able to make distinctions between my case and someone else's. I will say that those distinctions are completely artificial. I will say that I am not flattered when you tell me that you think I had a socially acceptable abortion. I will say that you are dead wrong when you tell me that I didn't have an abortion at all because I was dying. I will say this: either I have the choice to chose my life above my son's, or no one does. Either we all have choices, or none of us do.
In her post, she’s trying to provide prolifers with a face to women who’ve had abortions. She also seems to have some anger towards prolifers whom she seems to think believe women who have abortions are horrible. She concludes by writing,
When you fight about abortion, when you say that I am an exception, when you say that we are wrong or horrible or morally degenerate, when you want to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, would you remember -I find this kind of argument in favor of legal abortion to just not make that much sense. The idea seems to be that because Mrs. Spit’s life was in danger and doctors recommended that she agree to an induced labor at 25 weeks and her son unintentionally but not unexpectantly died, therefore anyone who decides to have an abortion (regardless of the circumstances) is making the “best choice.”
That's my face up there. That's me you're talking about.
To me there seems to be a huge chasm here. It’s a little like arguing that because I sped down the highway to get my injured wife to the hospitable, therefore anyone should be allowed to speed as fast as they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want. That comparison doesn't even work that well because I'm of the mind that the procedure Mrs. Spit had shouldn't even be labeled "abortion" if the intent wasn't to kill Gabriel.
But what I really wonder about is why would anyone in Mrs. Spit’s situation be so ardent in their belief that they had an abortion. Would she still think it was an abortion if the labor had been induced at 30 or 35 weeks? Would it have still be an abortion if Gabriel survived?
Posts
I know this post is almost a year old, but I found it while searching about the grey area of induced/c-section delivery with pre-eclampsia and very young gestational age, such as the Duggars (from the TV show 19 Kids.)
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your premise that "intent" is what makes an abortion different from a procedure that "unintentionally" kills a baby. It seems like what you are really arguing is your belief that all abortions are murder. Therefore, in your opinion, this blogger's experience was more akin to "manslaughter" than "murder".
This woman fully intended to end the life of her baby. The reasons why (saving her life) may be justified in your eyes, but your opinion is not consequential to the reality of the situation. What would your opinion be of a miscarriage that happened because of a woman's binge drinking? Her intent wasn't to kill the child, it was to get drunk. Therefore that is not an abortion in your opinion right? Oh, I see. Only morally corrupt people have abortions/commit murder. "Good people" have a "life saving procedure" that could easily be confused with abortion.
There are many circumstances where the Right to Life statement seems to ignore reality. Often there does not exist a happy third option to treat both the mother and child as two equal patients. In many circumstances, such as early pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancies there are only 2 options. Death of the baby, or death of both (or extreme harm, like brain damage, to the woman). Choosing the life of the woman *is also* a choice for the death of the baby. This may be a secondary consequence, but saying it is "unintended" is disingenuous. The two are as fixed as heads and tails on a coin. You don't choose one without the other.
Lets look at your speeding car analogy again. You were justified in speeding to get your injured wife to the hospital, but not if you really wanted a BigMac. Ok, fine.
But what if someone decided to pass a law to disable all private cars' ability to ever go above the speed limit? Maybe you can call an ambulance, but someone must approve it, because of too many irresponsible people calling ambulances in the past for knee scrapes and boo-boos so you need two 911 dispatchers' approval for the ambulance. Doesn't that more accurately reflect the situation?
The point about making a "best choice" is that an individual needs to have that ability and freedom to determine what is the best choice for themselves. Heck, maybe even the BigMac speeder needed to feed someone on the verge of diabetic shock? The point is, you cannot know-- we should not play moral police in other peoples lives.
Reproduction, genetics, and life in general is messy and leads us into morally grey areas. This is why I believe laws need to reflect that ambiguity and remain flexible.
You would like to marry abortion and intent, because it gives you a convenient moral high ground stance. I'd posit that Ms. Spit is ardent in her stance because sometimes abortions save lives, and that is a reality that needs to be injected into this debate, whether or not it is palatable to you.
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I disagree the vast majority of what you write. The child at 25 weeks didn't necessarily have to die. Though very early premies often die, sometimes they survive and if Mrs. Spit really wanted the child dead, then she could have asked doctors to inject the child's heart with a drug design to kill him before induction.
It seems like what you are really arguing is your belief that all abortions are murder.
Actually, I'm not a big fan of calling abortion murder since murder is a legal term. I prefer to describe abortion as a procedure whose intent is to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
What would your opinion be of a miscarriage that happened because of a woman's binge drinking? Her intent wasn't to kill the child, it was to get drunk. Therefore that is not an abortion in your opinion right?
Though I believe her actions would be morally wrong, I wouldn't consider it abortion. You seem to under the impression that abortion is anything that has to do with killing unborn children. There are a lot of things which kill unborn children (removing their stem cells, car accidents, etc.) that aren't abortions.
Only morally corrupt people have abortions/commit murder. "Good people" have a "life saving procedure" that could easily be confused with abortion.
Please attempt to argue with what I've written and not some position you've created for me.
Often there does not exist a happy third option to treat both the mother and child as two equal patients. In many circumstances, such as early pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancies there are only 2 options.
The Right to Life statement never says there are always ways to treat both mother and child. So again, you're arguing against a strawman.
This may be a secondary consequence, but saying it is "unintended" is disingenuous. The two are as fixed as heads and tails on a coin. You don't choose one without the other.
It's not disingenuous at all. Just because one action has certain consequences that doesn't mean that all the consequences are intended. That's like saying all fertile people who have sex without some form of birth control for long periods of time are really intending to get pregnant.
You would like to marry abortion and intent, because it gives you a convenient moral high ground stance.
Again, please don't try to create some position for me. It has nothing to do with the moral high ground. It has to do with creating a reasonable definition of what abortion is and isn't.
For example, what if a woman is suffering from some ailment at 30 weeks and doctors advise her that she should be induced or she'll die. They tell her the child has a 25% chance of dying. She agrees to the procedure. Has she agreed to having an abortion?