Skip to main content

The Sherri Finkbine effect

Linda Greenhouse (of The New York Times) tells the story of Sherri Chessen/Finkbine, who, in 1962, wanted to have an abortion and became national news. This is one of those 'forgotten' events in the history of abortion rights in America.

The purpose of relating personal stories like this is to frame the question of abortion as one of difficult and context-specific personal choices for women and their families. Where the basic pro-life narrative focuses primarily (though not exclusively) on the moral status of the unborn, stories like this attempt to complicate things for the reader, especially because most readers can identify with the pregnant protagonist and all of the things weighing on her mind.

This was, I think, the effect of the Sherri Chessen story: It introduced, into mainstream public discussion, the idea that 'regular' and 'good' women might want an abortion for reasons that are too complicated to dismiss easily. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...