In "Abortion and the Sexual Agenda," Sidney Callahan controversially compares "debates... about the fetus... [to those] once conducted about feminine personhood." Moreover, Callahan continues, "just as women, or blacks, were considered too different, too underdeveloped, too 'biological,' to have souls or to possess legal rights, so the fetus is now seen as merely 'biological' life, subsidiary to a person." "As the most recent immigrants from nonpersonhood, feminists" must rise up and protect similarly oppressed fetal life, Callahan concludes.
At the same time, Naomi Wolf polemically writes that "the pro-choice movement has relinquished the moral frame around the issue of abortion." She continues, "the women who come to a clinic that is truly feminist -- that respects women -- are entitled not only to their abortions but also to their sense of sin."
Do you agree or disagree with Callahan's argument and Wolf's claims? In a post of no fewer than TEN SENTENCES, please respond thoughtfully to these excerpts and this question.
I definitely appreciate Wolf's understanding of the distinction between moral and legal restrictions on abortion, which we discussed in class. I'm reminded of a controversial pro-life figure in the Frontline documentary who said something along the lines of, "If people wanna go into this place and kill their children, that's not okay with me," to whom many of my classmates responded, "Fine." Abortion is such a multifaceted moral AND legal issue that activists on both sides of the debate forget that their moral views on abortion can be stricter than their legal ones. Federal lawmakers should almost always air on the side of laxness with matters this divisive.
ReplyDeleteI started with Wolf to procrastinate, because I had mixed feeling while reading Callahan's article. I keep resisting the tendency to write, "The difference is that minorities and women are people, and fetuses aren't." To misquote Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court, I shall not today attempt further to define personhood, but I know it when I see it, and a fetus is not that. I have trouble seeing this as a time of rights recognition for fetuses as there have previously been times of rights recognition for people of color (see, THERE'S that word again... "people") and women, perhaps because I can't associate fetuses with marches, protests, or any if the images I associate with uprising. I can't remember which article recognized the silence of a fetus as more reason for US to fight on ITS behalf, but if a fetus IS a person, I would have to agree with that thinker. Callahan is wrong to compare arguably sentient fetuses who are voiceless with inarguably sentient persons who CAN recognize and protest the extent to which their rights are being violated.
I thought Callahan's argument was an interesting way of looking at the subject of abortion. I had never heard of an argument like her's before. In many ways I thought her argument was very persuasive, at times when I was reading it I could really understand her side of the argument. I thought it was especially interesting when she brought up that if women had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to handle the responsibility of a child then shouldn't a man have that right as far as child support. She even went on to say that if it was solely a personal matter and choice then why should the government get involved with taking moral responsibility with the care of children. I can't really say that I agree with Callahan's argument, but I do think that she had a well-devoloped and thought out argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought Callhan made some good points in her essay, but comparing abortion to black people and women oppression is a huge stretch. I think there is an uncertainty surrounding abortion that cannot exist in relation to people who can talk and learn and rebel. Oppression of black people and women has always been very clearly and obviously wrong, the only thing that changed is that today is that white people and men acknowledge it. There are people who have spent time thinking about abortion and what it means to be a person, and taking the evidence have decided that fetuses are just cells. Anybody with a brain can recognize that no matter what reasonable criteria we decide to judge personhood by, race and gender does not affect it. Racists and sexists listen to people telling them they are wrong and telling them why they are wrong, and who they are hurting, and they decide to ignore it. There are no fetuses shouting for their rights; if we infringe on fetuses’ rights, we do it unknowingly.
ReplyDeleteI like that she put Wolf puts her argument in a moral framework, because ultimately it is a moral issue for me, but I still do not see how she reconciles her pro-choice belief with the idea that abortion is—as she describes it— a sin, and ultimately results in the lost of a life. I do not understand why she isn’t compelled to eliminate that death entirely. If she believes that abortion is wrong I don’t understand how an acceptance of it is possible. Through her reasoning abortion is comparable to killing a baby. While she acknowledges this is evil, she still supports a parent who decides to commit that murder.
I agree in some level with Callahan's arguments, which compares the feminist movement and the civil rights movement. Like I have mentioned before, I believe that fetuses should be consider people and have a right to life. On the other hand, I think that it is hard to compare these three movements because there are too many variables that come into play. It is, is like Alex mention, a matter of both legal and moral standards or laws which are too different to come to a complete understanding. I agree with her that human beings are born with intrinsic rights such as life. I think that is very accepted from both sides that fetuses are human being whether their personhood is questionable. I think that setting standards to what a person is creates a manipulative setting that can further restrict personhood. For example, in a few years a philosopher thinks that person should be based on their eye color or in their ability to understand math. This is restricting personhood on appearance and a particular and restricted way of thinking (this of course is my opinion and my example might sound stupid so feel free to express you opinion). Keeping in mind the mentally ill and handicapped, is it okay to end the life of those whose mind are not working like they should or have not being given an opportunity to think. I think that this might be an unfair question but to me it is a question that continues to come up. Back to the topic at hand, I personally feel that these articles are harder for me to grasp since I am not in that situation. That brings me to another point, which Callahan brings up. How much saying does the father of the child has on this issue? As my mom would say, "It takes two to make a baby". Again, I think that it is hard for me to say something meaningful since I have not been put in that position. I simply believe that it is an intriguing question that deserves to be mention. Most people agree, myself included, that a women's body is for her to look after, but I agree that there are two beings present during pregnancy. Coming back to Wolf's claim between legal and moral restrictions, I think that women should be legally allowed to have an abortion. I personally believe that an abortion might not be the best choice, but I do not think that its restriction would do any good. The only thing that frightens me is the thought that if abortion is made legal in the country, people would use is as non-restrictively to simply have unprotected sex and simply have an abortion, as it did not matter. Lastly, I think that it is hard, if not impossible, for men to judge how abortion promotes or restricts a women's life because it is something we would never feel. (Again feel free to express your opinions but let’s be mature about it.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Callahan and Wolf when they say that there is a moral something attached to a fetus. I’m not sure exactly what, but I definitely see the logic in a woman feeling connected emotionally to the fetus to which she is connected physically. There is nothing like it, and it is beyond moot to try to compare a pregnancy to a fish, or an astronaut, because there is nothing that is quite like a fetus inside a woman’s uterus. I like how both authors acknowledge that an abortion is a moral decision, but I agree with Wolf when it comes to how she uses that conclusion. I know that it is a huge choice to abort a child, but it is equally important to think through pregnancy. It’s not like a haircut, which will grow back in a few months. It’s irreversible either way, and the gravity of the situation needs to be addressed. Wolf took this into consideration when she discussed a woman’s need to mourn after choosing to abort her fetus, and in my opinion, abortion should be a somber process, and not a “rite of passage”. I’m not sure if I agree that abortion is a sin, because I’m still not entirely convinced that a fetus should be considered a person/abortion a murder, but I figure that that is up to interpretation, and it’s not too vague to leave it that way. Regardless, I think that abortion is a big deal, and involves a moral decision that is unique to every person in that situation, and it is inappropriate to make light of it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Callahan's argument very much. I have no clue how you can argue that you're a feminist yet don't believe in abortion. It irked me reading Callhan as she tried to justify the pro-life views. "It does not matter whether the fetus is fully conscious or feels pain. We do not sanction killing the innocent if it can be done painlessly or without the victims awareness." I can understand the reasoning behind that statement however, fetus' are NOT alive. They cannot exist outside of the mother's womb, therefore are, in my opinion, not a human yet but rather a bundle of cells.
ReplyDeleteConcerning Wolf's article, I felt the need to highlight a whole paragraph. "The affluent teenage couples who conceive because they can and then erase the consequences -- and the affluent men and women who choose abortion because they were careless or in a hurry or didn't like the feel of latex -- are not the moral equivalent of the impoverished mother who responsibly, even selflessly, acknowledge she already has too many mouths to feed. Feminist rights include feminist responsibilities: the right to obtain an abortion brings with it the responsibility to contracept. Fifty-seven percent of unintended pregnancies come about because the parents used no contraception at all. Those millions certainly include women and men too poor to buy contraception, girls and boys too young and ill-informed to know where to get it, and countless instances of marital rape, coerced sex, incest and couplings in which the man refused to let the woman use protection." I think this single paragraph should be able to convince people of the pro-choice argument and I really thought it was well written and definitely meaningful.
I think both women did a nice job of defending the rights of the fetus, though I wish there had been an additional article that would balance out the two. While Wolf is supposed to present a feminist pro-choice viewpoint, I didn’t always get that. As a few others have said, it was a little difficult to connect the Wolf who believes in the personhood of the fetus with the Wolf who excuses abortion by comparing it to war. That said, I admire that both authors tried to bring back a moral framework to the issue of abortion. As much as I love a separation of church and state, it doesn’t call for a separation of morals and law, as law is very much a result of our morals. Reading articles such as Warren’s and Marquis’ left me wondering why the authors even tried to deal with a small part of the issue of abortion when, clearly, we must deal with all parts of it to come to any kind of agreement.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that it was extreme for Callahan to compare a fetus to a minority, and I’d like to see Callahan’s sources for her use of the term “biological.” While I don’t doubt that someone, somewhere, said that women were too biological to be considered people, the wording seems molded to fit her argument. “Animalistic,” maybe, but biological seems too modern. As far as Wolf’s article goes, I agree that a woman is entitled to her own sense of sin, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she can go to a clinic in peace. Another woman’s sense of sin might be that by not stopping abortion completely, she is acting as an accomplice to millions of murders. It’s a tough call to determine who is allowed to live peacefully.
I had a difficult reading both articles and not allowing myself to add own perspective. Callahan says,” “we do not sanction killing the innocent if it can be done painlessly or without the victim’s awareness.” In some ways i agree totally with this statement, but i also strongly disagree with it. If i were a “vegetable” would i want the doctors pulling the plug on me without my knowledge of it, no! Does this now make me pro- life? Is a person under two a “person”? Callahan makes strong points in this article.One thing I disagree with her on is the feminism part. Just because one is a feminist does not mean that they don't have the right/ its a sin to get an abortion( pro-choice side)While reading Naomi Wolf, I realized her argument was solely based on feministic beliefs. How does feminism relate to abortion. Yes i understand the“women’s rights part, but should that determine whether a woman has a choice for herself without being hated by the community?
ReplyDeleteI find Callahan's comparison of fetuses to human rights issues a bit insulting. Overall, I found to be trivializing of grander issues we face as a society, and all that has been overcome. (Not that abortion is menial, but that I believe that the rights of women trump the rights of the growing fetus.) What irked me especially was her quote that, "It also seems a travest of just procedures that a pregnant woman now, in effect, acts as a sole judge of her own case, under the most stressful conditions." (169) This is especially disturbing to me, because at the core of the debate is whether or not other people can make decisions regarding a woman's body. I think this is wrong, but apparently Callahan does not, as otherwise fetal genocide would take place.
ReplyDeleteDespite Callahan's off putting argument, I found Wolf's essay to be more grounding. I think that often we begin to think of abortion in terms of laws and statutes, but often the emotional effects can be just as important. However, emotions are not quantifiable or measurable in any convenient way such as legality of a situation is. I like the idea that just as women should have access to abortions, there should also be accepted access to a period of mourning and regret that can be experienced, which can often be overlooked.
I find it hard to agree with Callahan's argument because of the comparisons she makes with born, live people in societal situations and unborn fetuses. It was a stretch to try and connect the two. I think her argument didn't really make sense in that she believed that the act of abortion itself is a "betrayal of feminism" because of the natural maternal instincts women have, or supposedly have. The assumptions she places on all women don't necessarily seem fair. Another point that Callahan stated that I didn't agree with was when she said that the access to legal abortion undermines the morality of conception and pregnancy. Trying to make as many negative assumptions as possible about women, in my opinion, is not how to convince us that "pro-choice" is the way to be.
ReplyDeleteWolf's argument, like Noa said, is based on "traditional" feminist beliefs. It made sense when she stated her war example, yet I was a little fuzzy in agreement when she how decision making for her life should be viewed as her version of sin.
The concept of “necessary evil” is a difficult one to swallow in nearly all cases, particularly those in which one separates themselves from the evil in question – meaning anti-abortionists and the act itself. I agree with Wolf in that it’s not plausible to deem abortion as morally exclusive (is that a term?), or an act with negligible moral connotations simply because the undeveloped fetus doesn't yet constitute a human. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that abortion is murder, the termination of potentiality for life doesn’t leave a good taste in the mouth. The need for abortion in modern society is too crucial for the uncomfortable reality of the situation to negate a woman’s ability to reclaim her body, but it’s an undesirable act all the same that cannot (and as Wolf points out, should not) be brushed off as ethically trivial. It's not. It's tragic. Wolf puts it in religious terms by referring to the act as sinful, which for all intents and purposes, it is. Again, an example of necessary evil.
ReplyDeleteTo quote Wolf, “all abortions occupy a spectrum, from full lack of alternatives to full moral accountability. Karlin and many other pro-choice activists try to situate all women equally at the extreme endpoint of that spectrum, and it just isn't so.” This is a point that I have always held at the forefront of my mind during discussions concerning abortion, but bringing to light the selfishness of a good chunk of abortions is rather taboo given that it strengthens the pro-life notion that unwanted pregnancies are often due to carelessness. It’s an unattractive prospect to pro-abortionists, but an ugly truth all the same. The entire subject of pregnancy termination would be a lot more black and white if there were some form of intuition that allowed doctors to determine whether the fetus was created as a result of rape, incest, etc. As Wolf points out, it’s not feasible to argue the pro-choice position without acknowledging the self-interest attached to a considerable percentage of abortions. Doing so cripples the integrity of the pro-choice platform by making the issue out to be more societally lopsided than reality.
Callahan brings up several points with a level of absurdity that weakened her essay for me. Paralleling clusters of cells to prejudicial treatment of women and blacks is an inadmissible “stretch” if there ever was one, for reasons that it feels useless to even dignify with a response.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand Callahan's argument, but I don't necessarily agree with her. I find it difficult, being proabortion, to really agree with anyone who is not. However, I do think to a certain extent that Callahan's argument makes sense. But it does get back into the traditional debate of when does life start and should a fetus be considered a person and everything we've been talking about in class. Because I think the thing about racial minorities, especially black people, and women, is that it was never fighting for a black fetus or a female fetus, people were fighting for the rights of those already alive, clearly human, clearly a person, part of the moral community and all that. It's much easier to define a living, acting adult as a person than it is to define a fetus and I don't think they can be so automatically connected. And why not say not just feminists should be antiabortion, but anyone group who's ever been oppressed? I agree with Wolf because I think focusing on the mother would be considered more feminist and giving her the rights to her own body is closer aligned to that.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I found Callahan's arguments to be interesting and more convincing than most "pro-life" arguments I've heard, I still find that I do not agree with her because I personally do not support that movement. But she makes some interesting points. This article is the first piece I have read that proposed "pro-life"/"anti-abortion" views from a feminist's standpoint. Usually I am used to seeing a very divided debate with liberal women's rights activists supporting abortion and right-wing, conservative, and most likely religious men and women protesting abortion. So this article was certainly an eye opener to me, but I still don't agree with the view proposed in it.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with most of what Wolf said in her article, like her point about the difference between legal and ethical support of abortion. There are some things that need to be agreed on to make a solid set of laws about abortion, but people need to make their own moral decisions. I especially liked the point she made about the people who have abortions in morally wrong situations, like teenagers getting pregnant and then having abortions as a "rite of passage". I believe there should be some way to restrict this sort of action. But in the legal system it seems to hard to make a law that would encompass all morally questionable situations.