Leah Sargeant's Other Feminisms newsletter is excellent, and she's had a few posts specifically on abortion, including this one which had several reading suggestions in the comments:
I am curious though... What were the medical advancements made in the 19th century that led to that century's abortion laws? I'm not familiar with that. For that period, I've heard vaguely about the Comstock Laws, and that's it.
Hi Sam, if I may give (part of) my own take on this issue... In this and lots of others issues, there's a certain assumption so common that it passes without notice: "Humans are a distinct class, separate from all other life, inherently possessing a special status". But we now know, thank you theory of evolution, that this assumption is false.
In this, and any other moral issue, I'd start by inviting you to ask yourself: What kind of answer do I want? A subjective answer (i.e. an answer that satisfies my own feelings and preferences) or an objective answer (i.e. the true answer, assuming it exists)? If you just want a subjective answer, then you need not be bothered by such naggy considerations; just pick whichever answer you like. But understand that you have no reasonable expectation that someone else, who doesn't share your feelings, should agree with your pick. However, if you want an objective answer, then you do have to confront such naggy considerations, because the true answer, assuming it exists, must be consistent with scientific reality.
How does this tie back in to abortion & my first paragraph? Well the abortion issue generally seems like a duel between two competing claims about rights. One side asserts that there exists within every human an inherent "right to life", which commands societies' abortion laws to go a certain way. The other side asserts that there exists within every human an inherent "right to bodily control", which commands societies' abortion laws to go the opposite way. But what if we take a step back and ask: Assuming that this or the other right is actually real, then surely there must have been a first being with said right. If all humans and only humans have this right, then that first being must have been the first human. But there was no "first" human. Humanity isn't a special and distinct class; it's a branch of the tree of life that merges seamlessly into our larger primate family if you wind the clock back far enough.
Leah Sargeant's Other Feminisms newsletter is excellent, and she's had a few posts specifically on abortion, including this one which had several reading suggestions in the comments:
https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p/a-better-way-to-argue-about-abortion
I am curious though... What were the medical advancements made in the 19th century that led to that century's abortion laws? I'm not familiar with that. For that period, I've heard vaguely about the Comstock Laws, and that's it.
Hi Sam, if I may give (part of) my own take on this issue... In this and lots of others issues, there's a certain assumption so common that it passes without notice: "Humans are a distinct class, separate from all other life, inherently possessing a special status". But we now know, thank you theory of evolution, that this assumption is false.
In this, and any other moral issue, I'd start by inviting you to ask yourself: What kind of answer do I want? A subjective answer (i.e. an answer that satisfies my own feelings and preferences) or an objective answer (i.e. the true answer, assuming it exists)? If you just want a subjective answer, then you need not be bothered by such naggy considerations; just pick whichever answer you like. But understand that you have no reasonable expectation that someone else, who doesn't share your feelings, should agree with your pick. However, if you want an objective answer, then you do have to confront such naggy considerations, because the true answer, assuming it exists, must be consistent with scientific reality.
How does this tie back in to abortion & my first paragraph? Well the abortion issue generally seems like a duel between two competing claims about rights. One side asserts that there exists within every human an inherent "right to life", which commands societies' abortion laws to go a certain way. The other side asserts that there exists within every human an inherent "right to bodily control", which commands societies' abortion laws to go the opposite way. But what if we take a step back and ask: Assuming that this or the other right is actually real, then surely there must have been a first being with said right. If all humans and only humans have this right, then that first being must have been the first human. But there was no "first" human. Humanity isn't a special and distinct class; it's a branch of the tree of life that merges seamlessly into our larger primate family if you wind the clock back far enough.