Wednesday, August 15, 2012

How an abortion would have been better for a mother and daughter

Lynn Beisner writes this in the Guardian (via):

I make even my most ardent pro-choice friends and colleagues very uncomfortable when I explain why my mother should have aborted me. . . .

An abortion would have absolutely been better for my mother. . . . She would have been better prepared when she had children. If nothing else, getting an abortion would have saved her from plunging into poverty. She likely would have stayed in the same socioeconomic strata as her parents and grandparents who were professors. I wish she had aborted me because I love her and want what is best for her.

Abortion would have been a better option for me. If you believe what reproductive scientists tell us, that I was nothing more than a conglomeration of cells, then there was nothing lost. I could have experienced no consciousness or pain. But even if you discount science and believe I had consciousness and could experience pain at six gestational weeks, I would chose the brief pain or fear of an abortion over the decades of suffering I endured. . . .

[My mother] abused me, beating me viciously and often. We lived in bone-crushing poverty, and our little family became a magnet for predatory men and organisations. . . .

The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done – including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner – could have been done as well, if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.
A commenter named Afroblanco makes an important point on Metafilter (where I also posted this link):
One of the most disingenuous arguments of the anti-choice movement is "my mother would have aborted me, but I'm glad that I'm alive." A lot of women have abortions because they'd like to have children someday, but they're not ready yet. And since most American families have 3 kids or fewer, it's safe to say that once a woman reaches her "limit", she's not going to have more. So, if your mother only wanted 2 children and had an abortion before you or your sibling were born, then shouldn't you be glad she had that abortion? I'd imagine a lot of people . . . would be in this boat.


CatherineM said...

Or there is adoption.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Adoption is addressed in the article.

"What about adoption?" is a handy debating point, but it's mostly beside the point. No matter how much you or I might wish that adoption were more prevalent, the reality is that most women who give birth don't want to give their babies up for adoption. So, they don't do it. This affects children who have no say in the matter. Hence, this article.

Anonymous said...

How do you wrap your brain around justifying killing female fetuses--future women all to preserve a-"woman's right to choose?"

You are aware-are you not -that women are having abortions for-"sex selection"? IOW for the simple reason that they would prefer to have a male child rather than a female child.

One more way the DNC is like China.

What happens when--the technology proves that-"gays are born that way"?

Want the genetic testing to find out if a fetus is gay?

What then?

Are you okay with females aborting homosexuals because of their personal preferences?