Pro-choice questions about abortion for sex selection and disability
In a bold and thoughtful opinion piece, reproductive rights leader and former Catholics for Choice president Frances Kissling argues that abortion rights advocates should "deal publicly" with the reality that "just because something is legal - and should be legal - does not mean it is always ethical."
Kissling writes compellingly - and given the shadows of the culture wars, bravely - of her own questions about late-term abortion, sex selection, and "abortion when the fetus has mild disabilities - or even when the fetus has no disability."
These are matters that some pro-choice progressives, including CGS, have worked to raise in reproductive rights and justice circles. We see no contradiction between strongly supporting abortion rights and strongly opposing the use of reproductive and genetic technologies in ways that foster discrimination, inequality, and even new forms of eugenics. But it's been hard for pro-choice leaders to confront these issues, and Kissling understands all too well why.
The thought of putting every woman through the indignity of meeting with an ethics committee, or getting a doctor to sign off on her reasons for abortion, has forced most of us to stick with the principle that women must be allowed to make their own private ethical decisions.She continues:
[I]s it really leadership for us always to simply shrug and say: "Who knows whether that was an unethical decision for that woman?" Don't we express moral views about every other issue under the sun, from the number of embryos it is ethical to insert into a woman's uterus to the morality of bonuses for Wall St. executives who robbed us blind?
Expressing our views about controversial issues is how society develops norms and shared values.Kissling does not shy away from conclusions that she acknowledges were wrenchingly difficult for her to reach:
[S]ometimes the right thing [for an abortion provider] to say to a woman is "I am so sorry, I cannot do what you ask."
…I have come to believe that women's autonomy does not require that all efforts be made to protect women from pain or from hearing the word "no."Most of Kissling's arguments are points of principle, but she also believes that abortion rights advocacy will benefit from honestly acknowledging that we should at least sometimes weigh other values against women's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. Is "the fact that we have avoided [this] part of the reason that polls show that more people are willing to call themselves pro-life than ever before?," she asks.
Kissling's article is sure to instigate controversy. Let's hope it's the kind that generates at least as much light as heat.