[ Post a Response | The Sublime Desire of Cigarette Smoking ]
Posted by nobody on March 15, 2007, 2:53 am, in reply to "Re: "St. Nicotina"" I think that accepting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and accepting a woman’s right to smoke while pregnant share a basis in the concept of valuing the rights of a woman to control her own body. Among other implications, the text accompanying the "St. Nicotina" image essentially acknowledges as much, since it states that "Her Body Is Her Temple." However, I think the two concepts share far more of a basis than just that, because, especially in the first trimester, a woman's right to control her own body also encompasses the right to terminate the very existence of the developing fetus within it. From a practical standpoint, whether that is accomplished by means of an abortifacient/surgical abortion or by prenatal smoking is of little significance vis-a-vis the fetus. But beyond that, I think that they are fundamentally different, since the termination of a pregnancy also means the termination of a potential mother’s responsibility to her potential child, whereas prenatal exposure to danger caused by a potential mother does not. I cannot agree, at the very least in cases where the pregnancy is actually terminated due to prenatal smoking or the baby is born dead. In such cases, a potential mother’s responsibility to her potential child terminates, just as it does in the case of a successful abortion. As I originally argued, either way, the end result is the same. Furthermore, why doesn't a woman's constitutional right to choose to end a fetus' very existence logically also include the lesser freedom to choose to assume the risk of merely damaging it by inhaling cigarette smoke (or by ingesting any other drug of choice) during a pregnancy? (This argument has actually been made to defeat laws making it a criminal offense to expose a fetus to harmful substances, including alcohol and illegal street drugs like crack cocaine.) In fact, I believe that the endless debate between anti-abortion and pro-choice groups really boils down to the difference between evaluating abortion morally vs. considering it ethically. I'm not so sure about that. While I accept your hypothesis that the concepts of ethics and morals are not interchangeable and that it is valuable to recognize that rigorous definitions differentiate between the two, my assessment of the raging, seemingly never-ending debate between anti-abortion and pro-choice partisans (particularly those who are extreme) is that it is more about the refusal of both "sides" to acknowledge that there are any "shades of grey." That is why we see many extreme anti-abortionists focus on things like third-trimester abortions (which are fairly rare), and why we see many extreme pro-choicers refuse to give an inch on issues such as abortions for the sole purpose of gender-preference and parental notification for minors seeking abortions. To them, it's all a long, bitter slippery slope to the abandonment of Roe v. Wade, not a battle of ethics versus morals. Likewise, I think the civil law is ill-equipped to deal with both moral/largely religious objections to abortion and ethical/largely secular objections to restrictions on abortion. Another important aspect of ethics is the concept of personal responsibility, which leads us to the issue of smoking during pregnancy, and which is why I feel that it is inappropriate to behave judgmentally toward a pregnant smoker. I agree, but not to the extent you are arguing that moralists never take into account the concept of personal responsibility. Now, I do believe without question that there are many, many serious potential risks to both the short and long-term health and well being of anyone exposed to prenatal smoking[.] As pointed out on the side of one in every four packs of cigarettes manufactured in the U.S., among those potential risks are not only premature birth and low birth weight, but also fetal injury in utero -- the last of which, of course, is the conscious object of every pregnant woman seeking an abortion. (Moreover, if they can be believed, press reports indicate that at least some pregnant smokers also actually desire reduced, smoking-induced gestational weight, if not fetal injury.) As I previously argued and continue to maintain, as regards the effect on the fetus, there is little difference between exercising the right to choose to use one's womb as a personal carbon monoxide chamber for the developing fetus and exercising one's right to choose to have an abortion, particularly in light of the fact that abortion typically produces a deadlier and more certain outcome. Or, to use the terms in which you rephrased the issue, I find little difference, ethically or morally, between accepting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and accepting a woman’s right to smoke while pregnant. In short, I do not "judge" the two scenarios any differently -- I simply acknowledge their clear similarities. But I would argue that to attempt to apply this standard to someone else, especially someone that I have no significant knowledge of, is also potentially quite harmful, because it implies that I believe that I am superior to her, which is the fundamental problem with morals. Once you allow yourself to indulge in the hubris of believing that you are such an authority on something that you are entitled to start telling others how to behave, and perhaps even believing that they should be punished if they don’t, you destroy all possibility of an equal and respectful dialogue, which I believe will ultimately do more harm than good, for not only this issue, but for many others as well. Once again I agree, with the following additional gratuitous observation: I think that although it's water under the bridge, in establishing the current trimester system as a constitutional imperative by judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade, six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court long ago indulged in the hubris of believing that they were such authorities on abortion that they were entitled to start telling others how they had to behave when confronted with a demand for the procedure, and in so doing, effectively destroyed all possibility of an equal and respectful dialogue on the issue within the legal system. My take is that this, more than anything else, is the real burr under the saddles of some if not many anti-abortionists (and even a very small minority of pro-choicers) -- whether they are moralists or ethicists, pro-smoking or anti-smoking. I've said my piece; thanks in advance for considering my opposing viewpoints.
Hello again, Vesperae. The following discussion probably would have fit in much better on your old Smoking Ethics board (which I never happened to stumble upon while it was active), but I think the "St. Nicotina" image makes it topical here as well. If you disagree, please feel free to delete it. 
Responses: