2008 Woodie Awards
Schukman's article not an ethical solution
By: Emily Gerteis, Katie Mesner-Hage, Jessica Mowles
Issue date: 5/2/08 Section: Opinion
Over the past week, we've spent a lot of time railing against Josh Schukman's multiple contributions to The Mac Weekly ("Abortion is not an ethical solution," April 18, "Letters to the Editor," April 25). Here, we'd like to publicly address the questions Josh poses to his critics.
To honor his latest request, we'll begin with why we do not believe an "unborn child is entitled to life." Simply, we believe an embryo, fetus, and/or blastocyst does not have rights that supercede those of the woman whose body carries it. More importantly, we do not assume the right to impose any belief - including this one - on anyone else. This is the essence of our identity as pro-choice women.
Secondly, setting aside the absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of comparing an embryo to the plight of oppressed, actual people, we will skip to the medical facts of the issue. For those that believe that life begins at conception, consider this: 50 percent of ova that are fertilized, 50 percent of "lives" that are conceived, do not successfully implant into the uterus and are spontaneously aborted. If, as Josh believes, life begins at conception, then women naturally abort half of their unborn children. In this sense, does Josh deem all women to be inherently unethical, even murderous?
The medical and biological reality of abortion has been lost completely in political discourse, which Josh rejects but viciously perpetuates. We agree that the debate tends to be politically charged and generally inarticulate, but we're not sure that Josh's invocation of the "pro-abortion movement" "destroying siblings" and "ending lives" is adding discursive clarity or objectivity.
Moving on to what we believe to be the crux of the debate at hand, we reject the implicit moral dichotomy within the anti-choice argument. The pro-choice movement embraces ethics: it leaves ethical decisions up to the woman and her support networks, so that each individual is allowed to pursue her own ethical course, including carrying a pregnancy to term.
To honor his latest request, we'll begin with why we do not believe an "unborn child is entitled to life." Simply, we believe an embryo, fetus, and/or blastocyst does not have rights that supercede those of the woman whose body carries it. More importantly, we do not assume the right to impose any belief - including this one - on anyone else. This is the essence of our identity as pro-choice women.
Secondly, setting aside the absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of comparing an embryo to the plight of oppressed, actual people, we will skip to the medical facts of the issue. For those that believe that life begins at conception, consider this: 50 percent of ova that are fertilized, 50 percent of "lives" that are conceived, do not successfully implant into the uterus and are spontaneously aborted. If, as Josh believes, life begins at conception, then women naturally abort half of their unborn children. In this sense, does Josh deem all women to be inherently unethical, even murderous?
The medical and biological reality of abortion has been lost completely in political discourse, which Josh rejects but viciously perpetuates. We agree that the debate tends to be politically charged and generally inarticulate, but we're not sure that Josh's invocation of the "pro-abortion movement" "destroying siblings" and "ending lives" is adding discursive clarity or objectivity.
Moving on to what we believe to be the crux of the debate at hand, we reject the implicit moral dichotomy within the anti-choice argument. The pro-choice movement embraces ethics: it leaves ethical decisions up to the woman and her support networks, so that each individual is allowed to pursue her own ethical course, including carrying a pregnancy to term.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
e
posted 5/02/08 @ 3:32 PM CST
YES
thank you.
Concerned White Male
posted 5/02/08 @ 5:26 PM CST
Well done!
Christina
posted 5/02/08 @ 6:43 PM CST
Overall, this is a thoughful and articulate response with which I heartily agree. Congrats. The last sentence troubles me: "We resist this male privileged, intellectually dishonest, discursively violent construction meant to justify the control of female - our - bodies and sexuality. (Continued…)
Jessica Mowles
posted 5/05/08 @ 10:58 PM CST
Thanks to those who have read our article and commented on it.
Speaking for myself, the last sentence of our piece was in fact meant to frame Josh's argument in the way we see it as vehemently pro-choice women. (Continued…)
Katie Mesner-Hage
posted 5/06/08 @ 1:18 AM CST
Yes, thanks for all comments. I'm glad the discussion is continuing.
I support all that Jess has written above and I think it very articulately clarifies what we intended to do with our piece. (Continued…)
Darren Angle
posted 7/21/08 @ 11:40 AM CST
Well articulated. Males who refuse to acknowledge the blatant ways their psyches are governed by patriarchal predispositions are growing smaller in number because of this kind of speech. (Continued…)
Post a Comment