I know, it
has been so long. First, the good news, the Supreme
Court refused to review Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban. So it stands as
unconstitutional. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we’re all safe, what it
mean this one is good. The Ninth Circuit’s decision said the measure was unconstitutional,
and an extreme measure. Of course, other abortion cases are coming: Wednesday,
the Court will hear augments in McCullen v. Coakley, on the constitutionality of
a Massachusetts reproductive health-care clinic buffer zone law.
However, I
really wanted to write about a post I saw last week on Role/Reboot entitled, “I
got an abortion and didn’t tell the guy: Did I do the right thing?” by
anonymous. The author describes her situation and how she came to the conclusion.
Specifically, she knew she couldn’t have a child, and assumed her partner would
have been opposed to abortion. Now, she wonders if she did the right thing, not
on the level of what is right for her, but instead what is right ethically. It is
a personal story, and the read really feels for the author, and I highly
recommend reading it.
That said,
yes, to answer the author’s question, she did the right thing because it was
the right medical procedure for her. See what I did there? In the text, the
author doesn’t really talk about how it is a medical procedure. I think that is
best way to begin, and then we can get into the other ethics…if they exist at
all.
First, the
author had a medical procedure to maintain her quality of life. Any other
medical procedure, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For example, if a
person had a benign tumor removed to maintain his/her quality of life, we won’t
be having this conversation. It wouldn’t be something they would have to
discuss with a partner. If there was a discussion it would be a courtesy. Now,
I’m not saying people shouldn’t discuss medical procedures with their partners,
but if the partner isn’t on the hook financially then *shoulder shrug*.
The author
however, appears to have some misgivings about her decision to have an abortion
without telling her partner. I have to infer the full reasoning being guilt and
the idea the people have a right to their genetic material via privacy. The
first, throughout the post, the author spends time trying to convince the
reader the abortion was the right decision. After all she and her partner have
a casual relationship. Also, women are judged harshly for their decisions to
exercise their rights to make medical decisions for themselves. So the
expectation that she would have to convince her readers is there, as well as the
assumption that her readers wouldn’t be very favorable if she exhibited no
remorse at all. After all, aren’t we all supposed to feel bad? The answer to
that is no. Many women obtain abortions with no guilt or remorse because it was
the appropriate medical decision for that individual.
The second
issue is the issue of privacy. Of course, this isn’t a privacy issue because he
voluntarily gave his genetic material without a condom to his partner. So there
is no expectation of privacy, and the outcome, birth or abortion, he can’t claim
he was uninvolved. Now, I know that sounds harsh, right? What about the men who
don’t want to have babies, but their partners’ do? Well, that sucks, and
ideally we’d all have relationships where communication was open and clear. That
said, if you discard your genetic material then it can be used, at least
according to the police. This is one of those times when men (usually white heterosexual
men) complain to me that women can trap them with children sounds ridiculous to
me. You’ve made a decision there were other options: condom, vasectomy, pull
out method, etc. These have varying rates of success of course, but I’m just
saying. But men aren’t biologically tied to their offspring the way women are
so there isn’t really a comparable situation. Of course, this is complicated because
of the financial responsibility that the fathers’ have…of course to equate the
financial responsibility between both parents when including medical costs over
time is a bit ridiculous.
However,
let’s look at financial responsibilities we might have issues with, but the government
gives zero fucks. Given the weather last week, I witnessed several car
accidents that resulted in property damage to other person’s property outside
of the driver’s. So if car one hits car two because of black ice because the
city salted the roads, but the temperatures were so low the moisture
immediately froze, who is responsibility for the damages to car two? Well, car
one because you’re supposed to be in control of your car at all times
regardless of road conditions. So I can’t really break out a tiny violin for
people who want to get out of financial responsibility for a child.
So again,
just to return to the beginning, the author of that post did the right thing
personally, the right thing legally, and the right thing ethically.
No comments:
Post a Comment