Abortion and Fetal Rights

The other day in my class on Childhood Development the professor brought up the issue of abortion. The way she did it, however, was by bringing up the issue of a mother's rights versus fetal rights in a very different context. She passed out handouts for a "critical thinking activity" that began by discussing how the medical community's ever-increasing technology and understanding of prenatal hazards raises important questions regarding the balance between the mother's rights as an individual and those of the developing fetus she is carrying. Increasingly, doctors are able to treat the fetus itself as a patient with distinct medical needs. The question, then, was that as technology advances, should women be expected, and even legally required, to submit to medical intervention- even surgery- that might save a fetus but risk their own lives? So then we were asked to break up into groups and discuss just that: what should be done if there's a surgery that could save the life of a fetus but risks the life of the mother in the process. And further, should there be legislation on such a matter. Okay, didn't seem TOO hard. But maybe that's because I sit near a group of fairly intelligent, responsible other students that I get along with and with whom I happen to share relatively similar views. (Which, by the way, I learned in my communications class is a form of prejudice- to choose to sit with people who are like-minded.)

After we'd discussed for a while we got together as a class to talk about it. Wow, was it tense. Very tense. So tense that a number of people specifically asked that we don't talk about it. Granted, it was a very diverse classroom with a lot of people from very different backgrounds, and this IS bordering on a hot topic, but given that we're going into the medical profession, you'd think we'd be able to discuss something like abortion. Particularly when moments before the professor had specifically made a point of "soothing" everyone by gently reminding them that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion," and "there is no right or wrong answer here." The latter was repeated at least 9 times by my count.

So right, we got into it. A lot was said about autonomy. Ultimately in the case of the surgery the things that were being considered were, 1) the mother has to have surgery too in order for the fetus to have surgery, and 2) parents are looked upon as decision-makers for their children. As such, it ultimately should be the mother's choice. Furthermore, as far as fetal rights go, you're not actively doing anything to harm the child, so if you choose not to undergo surgery (which of itself can be very risky for the fetus, too) you'd just be allowing nature to take its course. This would be similar to an elderly person who was incapable of making the decision as to whether or not they should undergo surgery have their son or daughter who had power of attorney for healthcare make the decision for them not to have it after weighing the options and risks and letting nature run its course.

Okay. But then the professor started taking liberties with that first bit about the mother's rights and slyly manipulating it into pro-choice arguments for abortion. This was troubling, to say the least. Particularly after the "there is no right or wrong answer" speech. And well, yeah. I couldn't keep quiet on that one. There were two of us actively arguing against her. Maybe three willing to vocalize actual arguments on her side, and the remainder of the classroom making uncomfortable protesting and muttering noises. It was unfortunate and not very productive. It could have been very interesting- particularly seeing as how its one all of us will need to be thinking about more once we have careers in this field. But still. I have to say this conversation was dismal.

And moreover? Perhaps I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm vaguely concerned about my grade for the class now. I know I really ought to give her the benefit of the doubt that her disagreement with me on such issue will not interfere with her objectivity as an educator-- but I really have to wonder from what I've seen so far. It really is unfortunate. I think the downhill part happened when she used the language of political and religions agenda in relation to pro-life advocates, and I said, "Agendas- you do mean beliefs, right?" and then explicitly demanding fair use of connotation and word choice between pro-choice and pro-life contingencies. She didn't like that much. Her glare nearly blinded me. Part of me wishes she hadn't forced me to play my cards so soon. And the fact that I even need to think that- particularly in relation to a woman who adamantly preaches about there not being right and wrong answers and how everyone is just fine and dandy with their own beliefs- well, that's just depressing.