In light of our recent discussions
around ethics, I found this article to
be extremely relevant to not only the issue of what makes something morally
right or wrong, but also to the issue of reproductive rights (a subject
extremely relevant to feminism today). Leah wrote a great post on reproductive
rights a few weeks ago and, as it is an issue I too am passionate about, I
wanted to shed some more light on it.
One issue that often comes up when
we think about ethics and reproductive health is the question of how morally
wrong those are who past judgment on those who either perform, support, or
receive abortions. The article posted above is basically a very brief summary
of an article published in a science journal by two bioethicists from the
University of Toronto called Reducing Stigma in Reproductive Health.
The original article criticizes
abortion-shaming (which is not so different from slut-shaming--something we see and hear
much more frequently at Rhodes College). The authors write that, "Gynecologists who undertake
lawful abortions, for instance, should be afforded the same respect as others,
not denigrated as 'abortionists'," and go on to call stigmatizing "a
barbarous and unacceptable form of regulation that a humane society must
reject."
The article actually
justifies other forms of stigmatization, such as stigmatizing cigarettes, which
has obvious health benefits for both users and non-users alike, but what do we
gain from stigmatizing abortion? Who really benefits in this situation? Do
pro-lifers find a moment of release in yelling at a patient exiting a Planned
Parenthood? Are they really doing it out of a genuine place of love and concern
or is more from fear and ignorance?
Much of this returns to
a debate that is very common in medical ethics—how we judge separate individual
and public health. Of course, public health is not affected at all by one woman’s
decision to or to not get an abortion, but what many fail to realize is that it
does not affect the woman’s individual either. Some many argue that it is
emotionally scaring, but the truth of that is also that most women do not
regret their decision at all. What it comes down to is that the decision to get
an abortion, whether or not they are a Christian and whether or not they find
it morally sound, is one person’s decision only and that person deserves to
make that decision without having any quick character judgments made about
them.
Thanks for sharing. It is interesting to shift moral permissibility from those seeking and providing abortions and reproductive health services to those who stigmatize such services (and furthermore, to argue for a moral obligation for providers of these services to remove the stigma of them).
ReplyDeleteThe crucial question concerns what forms of stigmatization – if any at all -- are acceptable. That is, what distinguishes stigmatizing smoking from stigmatizing abortion, and why might one be morally permissible and the other ‘barbarous’?
You seem to suggest that we should judge the moral permissibility of stigmatization insofar as we benefit or gain from it. That is to say, stigmatizing smoking makes sense as it significantly reduces the frequency of cancer among users and even non-users will no longer inhale carcinogenic second hand smoke; however, stigmatizing abortion makes less sense as there is no clear public health benefit to reducing abortion to non-users (or in fact it may cause a detriment to public health) while there can be a clear health benefit (mental health, physical health, etc.) to users. You also suggest that the motivation behind the action is relevant, as it seems condemnable if it is more from “fear and ignorance” than “love and concern.”
I think that both rationales are dangerous grounds to justify the impermissibility of stigmatization, for who is to decide what is and what is not a benefit? Those who protest abortion outside Planned Parenthood may genuinely believe that they are benefiting society as a whole for what they view as saving a human life. I do not believe that such people would so easily cede that public health is unrelated to the ability to obtain abortion; conversely, I think many such people may view abortion as a more significant threat to public health than smoking.
I agree with your conclusion that abortion is one woman’s decision and she deserves respect in that decision; however, I think care ethics provides a more salient argument for defending against the stigmatization of abortion. That is, care ethics reframes what constitutes a moral problem to be about care and abandonment and not simply about justice and rights. Picketing outside of abortion providers becomes morally impermissible in this framework, for the picketer must consider the social relationship between herself and the person she is demonstrating against and not only the relationship between the fetus inside a pregnant woman and the pregnant woman herself. The picketer is thus forced recognize how her demonstration furthers isolation and how her detachment and failure to respond to another’s need is more of an issue than she would have otherwise considered. The assumed separation between the parties, the need for a regulating external structure (usually religious authority), and the latent egocentrism of the picketer and (justice ethics largely) are reframed to have to reckon with understanding the relationship between the parties and assuming a connection as the self and the other become interdependent.
You brought up two issues in this post that are very important: First you argued that it is not morally ok to shame other people for doing things that you think is wrong. Then you brought up the point that in a logic operated by choice, women should have the final say in what they can do with their body.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that abortion shaming is wrong. In addition to the utilitarian consideration that stigmatizing abortion causes no happiness amongst people, I would love to add some more justifications. Abortion shaming is also wrong because it does not take into account women’s particular circumstances. It assumes abortion is always wrong in all circumstances. Women in need of abortion fall through the crack in this kind of logic.
However I’m not sure how well a logic of choice that you have used the last paragraph works. A woman needing abortion cannot just make the choice out of a vacuum. How much of that “choice” really is hers? This woman may be in great financial crisis and cannot afford a baby. She may be financially able but not emotionally ready for a baby; she may be both emotionally and financially ready but not physically ready for a baby; she may be ready to have a baby but other people connected to her do not want her to have a baby... In all of these cases, the woman is not the only person who is making a choice. Her “choice” is the result of multiple lines of considerations. When we say that a woman should be able to choose abortion, we commit the same fault as in shaming abortion: we ignore the unique circumstances these women are in. Not every woman has a choice whether to abort or not. Instead of saying we should respect the choice of these women needing abortion, we should say we respect the life of these women and they should be allowed to do what is best for their lives.