Moral non-dilemmas

One thing I’ve noticed is that “TERF” is often too charitable as a designation — when T becomes your overriding commitment, not just the “R” but indeed any form of “F” but the Ladies Against Women variety goes to the bottom of the ocean. Bari U. founding member Doc Stock is a particularly egregious example:

The Taliban is banning the pill. But extremism about reproductive matters is found on both sides. Some feminists think abortion should be decriminalized and treated as healthcare— worms cited (@christapeterso) June 25, 2023

it’s not a handmaid’s tale metaphor kathleen it is very literally being forced to carry a pregnancy for someone else pic.twitter.com/PeIWhzPOVE— worms cited (@christapeterso) June 25, 2023

The Both Sidesism here speaks for itself, but I wanted to elaborate on Peterson’s point about the “many people have a stake in whether a woman chooses to give birth” argument. This was an issue when I was in high school, because an abusive partner sued to claim dominion over his partner’s uterus on the grounds that he had a legal interest in having the pregnancy to term. It’s an argument that’s been used by people looking to justify legal controls on women for a long time.

Here’s the thing: this “dilemma” is one of the easiest to resolve in the history of law and moral philosophy. While child-rearing responsibilities can be shared (although they often are not), the physical and psychological burdens of pregnancy simply cannot. Moreover, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is strictly dichotomous; it can’t be compromised like agreeing on an appropriations bill. Ultimately, someone has to be the decision-maker, and it is blindingly obvious that this should be the person who bears the actual burden of pregnancy and childbirth. This is an easy question even it comes to a potential father who will bear at least some theoretical financial responsibility for child-rearing. For relatives with zero obligation to have anything to do with childrearing, it’s beyond easy. “Should relatives with zero obligation to devote any personal or financial resources to caregiving be able to veto the choice of the person who would actually bear these responsibilities in addition to the major health risks of pregnancy and childbirth” might be a question of unfathomable moral complexity, if you believe strongly in 19th century patriarchal norms. But for people who believe that women are full citizens the question answers itself.