Q: When is an abortion not an abortion?
A: When it is a selective reduction
I don't imagine this post is going to make me popular.
Today's New York Times has an article about the very painful choices faced by prospective parents who make use of fertility treatments, find that they are pregnant with multiples, and then are faced with the risk of those pregnancies - both to the hopeful mom and the soon to be children. Successful fertility treatments often produce multiples because hormones are used to stimulate egg production or because multiple embryos are implanted. But because being pregnant wtih twins or triplets or even more developing fetuses is risky, and because children born from those pregancies are more likely to be born very premature and are thus at risk for greater and more serious health problems than babies born from singleton pregnancies, doctors sometimes counsel prospective parents to consider "selective reduction" where some fetuses are eliminated.
I am not going to write about the painful choice this must be. I am not going to write about whether or not such fertility treatments are ethical given their potential for resulting in pregnancies risky enough to warrent advising abortion. Nor am I going to address the fact that in vitro treatments require the creation of more embroys than anyone intends to implant. I am not even going to write about whether we should be spending so much health care money on helping people to reproduce and then paying for the complications that occur as a result of those treatments. Not today anyway.
Today all I am going to write about is the use of the term "selective reduction" itself.
It is notable that the Times article only twice in nearly 2500 words uses the term abortion, and when it does it uses it in this context:
Many opponents criticize selective reduction as a form of abortion. And for many parents who elect to carry all of the fetuses, the decision often hinges on religious convictions. There is also a chance, up to 5 percent, that selective reduction will be followed by a miscarriage of all the fetuses, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
For the Stansels, the decision was influenced by their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church generally opposes abortion. After learning that Mrs. Stansel was carrying sextuplets, the Stansels decided to meet with church elders and consult with a reduction specialist.
While the term "abortion" is used only twice and in the above context, the term "selective reduction" is used six times. In fact "selective reduction" is the only term used to refer to the procedure itself.
Why do I care about this? Because by separating out one kind of abortion, and one reason for having abortions, from all others the Times (and the doctors they are quoting) are saying that one set of reasons for eliminating pregnancies is so much better than any other that it deserves a name that doesn't share the stigma of abortion or end up regulated by the same restrictive laws that apply abortions. And what is that one reason? To increase the chance of becoming a mother.
Abortion is okay if you want to increase the number of children you have. It is so okay then that we'll give it another name to try to make it easier. If on the other hand you want to end a pregnancy because you aren't ready to be a parent, you're stuck with the word that draws protesters and forced-birther legislation.
The upshot? Reproductive justice is much more readily available to those who are ready and willing to reproduce.
The absolute hypocrisy is
The absolute hypocrisy is galling.
Reduction specialist: an abortion doctor we won't murder, because he helps us to breed.
That's not really surprising,
That's not really surprising, considering how people make significant distinctions in terms of morality in application to death and killing.
If you shoot your neighbor for being annoying, that's "murder", and you get 25 to life. (Or whatever harsh punishment is typical for one's jurisdinction.)
If a police officer shoots a fleeing suspect, there will be a review and possible discipline if it's warranted, but it's unlikely that they'll get anything worse than a suspension. If a police officer shoots a suspect who has surrendered and isn't resisting, they'll be punished more severely, but it's unlikely they'll get anything worse than a hefty fine and permanent removal from the police force. (At least where I live, anyway.)
If a soldier shoots a civilian during wartime, that's "collateral damage", and is lamentable but is rarely punished, especially if they were under orders. Similarly, if a troop of soldiers mis-identify another troop on their side as an enemy, that's "friendly fire".
If a soldier *fails* to shoot at an enemy soldier, or someone who is believed to be one (even if it turns out they're not) that's "dereliction of duty", and could potentially result in a dishonorable discharge or even military prison if they were under orders. Actually shooting at them could potentially result in a medal during "heroic circumstances".
If you shoot someone who's a danger to you, that's "self-defense". Justified... but only if you can prove that any reasonable person would do the same under the circumstances... and sometimes people apparently aren't as "reasonable" as they think they are.
Shoot yourself in the head, that's "suicide". People vary widely in their opinion of it, but they can't do anything to/for you afterwards.
So... for those who see abortion as killing, it's not surprising that there would be distinctions like that. After all, rightly or wrongly, most people make such distinctions for other types of killing as well.
I see your point and yet
I see your point and yet what bothers me in the case of the "selective reduction" terminology is that the procedure is used to protect the life or the health of either the pregant woman or the remaining fetuses. Yet when a woman with a single pregnancy makes a decision to end her pregnancy in order to protect her health we debate whether or not she should be allowed to have an "abortion". It isn't analogous to the difference between murder and self defense, but more like the difference between self defense in one instance and self defence in a similar instance. In fact, we lump all kinds of abortions together into the category of "abortion" but single only this kind out for special treatment.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Well, there's one little
Well, there's one little detail which makes this different from all other forms of abortion - it's the only kind which doesn't actually end the pregnancy. That's probably the key. Even for those who see babies as a gift from God and a woman as duty-bound to produce them, it's probably really hard to argue against that. It has special status simply because it's an exception that none but the most hardcore anti-abortionists dare to speak against, just like reasonable self-defense killing is acceptable because none but the most hardcore pacifists dare to speak against it.
Nevertheless, for someone who isn't against abortion in the first place, this special status can be disturbing. (I'm not fond of it myself.) This is probably not because of this issue per se, but because the fact that an exception exists *at all* indicates an unspoken assuption that abortion is inherently wrong.
Abortion to save the life of the (other) babies
Random Visitor i do believe you're right. This is not really abortion to protect the health or the life of the pregnant woman. It is abortion to protect the potential life of the other developing fetuses. In other words, abortion to save the lives of the other babies. It isn't ending the pregnancy, it is sacrificing part of the pregnancy to save the rest.
The issues here are so emotionally and ethically complex. If doctors and journalists called the procedure 'abortion' would many fewer couples choose it? If that happened would health outcomes and health care costs get much worse? If they do continue to refrain from calling the procedure 'abortion' does that continue to contribute to the stigmatizing of abortion?
Where is Randy Cohen when you need him? ;)
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Killing vs Murder
Killing is ending a life, be that flowers for romance, turkey for Thanksgiving, cattle for hamburgers, chichillas for coats, pets for humanitarian reasons, embryos for quality of life, people in defense of life and property, etc.,etc., etc.
Murder on the other hand is a leap from reasonable action. From desire of profit to fear of social or economic consequence murder is the unlawful ending of a human life.
The term 'selective reduction' (not the term I've heard in the past for the same procedure) is clearly an effort to draw a line between abortion (the termination of pregnancy via the killing of all embryo/fetus residing in a woman's body) and abortion (the killing of an or some embryo/fetus residing in a woman's body while leaving others) in order to make the decision to undergo the procedure more palletable for the decision makers and possibly more palletable for the medical practicioners.
There is a line to be drawn, but this isn't a line, this is obsfucation, or a blurring of lines, or just plain public relations. The line to be drawn distinguishes between what is a legal killing and what is an illegal killing. The line to be drawn is when you have control over your own bodily functions and when that control is no longer a personal decision but a matter of public policy. When the ethics of a medical intervention to create a life is as much a debate as the ethics of an intervention to end a life we may start to see an engagement beyond personal beliefs into the situational concerns that drive these decisions.
Alternative paths while pregnant are available for now, but group and individual efforts to abridge or eliminate these paths are being applied across the country. While staying silent is an option, It's not an option that will maintain even the status quo.
I hold the stand that the woman involved is the primary decisionmaker and should be afforded the opportunity to decide what is right for her without undue influence being exerted upon her. Society's concern in the interest of the unborn child should be in direct proportion to the stage of viability of the unborn child sans heroic medical intervention. Decisions about future ethics based upon the advancement of medical science not yet at a viable stage of practical use are worthy of debate but not public policy.
This goes back to "life V choice"
The woman should be able to control her body. If having multiple children should be a problem (financially, space-permitting, etc), then there shold be an option to NOT have the multiples.
Multiples are much more likely to cause the death of the mother and the children. If doing that [eliminating some of the fetuses] means saving the mother, then it should be done (mother willing that is). I agree with Chris here.
In the end I think it's all
In the end I think it's all semantics. "Selective reduction", "abortion"--just 2 ways of saying the same thing. I find the commentary about the different views of killing interesting, and though compelling, difficult to relate to abortion.
contextual difference is present
@visitor While I agree that selective reduction is abortion and that abortion might well be selective reduction situations, represented by the term "selective reduction" do present a challenge to the idea that abortion is murder (a conflation that "pro-life" is likely to espouse) and that the use of a singular term that distances itself from abortion strongly parallels terms that distance permissable killing from killing such as "sanction" (politically authorized assasination), neutralize (military and police term for killing a person that is a known threat), etc... using a term that distances itself from the act further serves to stygmatize the action.
When a word is assigned meaning outside it's definition it's a change in the societal paradeim. That some of the US population considers abortion tantamount to murder is acceptable as a difference of opinion, that decades long efforts continue to be carried out by focused and well funded groups aimed at casting the stygma that abortion IS murder. Propoganda can be ugly, petty and mean.
If the technique existed to remove the dangerously overabundant fetus and maintain it's viability for later reimplantation in another host or at a later date in the same host (mother) many prospective parents might opt to do so, this would be a procedure that might fit the term selective reduction better than the procedure that is really a selective reduction abortion.
Semantics are important because without a common language it's impossible to convey a concept except by personal observation of an example.
Chris O'Sullivan
The Unborn
This post reminded me so much of the movie "The Unborn."
Selective reduction may not be abortion in its exact meaning but it can be a type of abortion, I think. They just came up with another term to make "abortion" sound reasonable. But it still is about terminating a life.
Sometimes we overuse science and mess with nature in the process. Everything has purpose. If a couple could not conceive by natural means, there's probably a reason for that. So if they try to get pregnant by artificial means, something's bound to go wrong; like the mother's and kid/s lives being in great risk.
If I were in this position, I'll leave it to the higher power to decide if I, my babies, or one baby should have a shot at life. Because my answer to the question, "Does the end justify the means?" is NO. And besides, He would know what's best.
Post new comment