by Marguerite Hattouni Spencer
I choose to title my response, “Lady Edith and Pregnancy Dilemmas.”
His blurb:
“For many women, the social, practical, and personal reasons for having an abortion simply trump the life of their child.”Mine:
“For many men and women, the multi-faceted realities of pregnancy pose complex questions about moral responsibility that defy rigid characterizations.”
Perhaps this subplot in Downton Abbey is a parable of sorts, but the moral question that lies within it involves more than whether the solitary and selfish Edith should choose to abort or not.
First, I challenge Paulsen’s derogatory characterization of Lady Edith as “the sometimes nasty, irritatingly selfish, and hard-luck pathetic middle sister.” When I asked my 16 year-old son to describe Lady Edith in one adjective, he chose “tragic,” which he defined as a relatable figure whose bad mistake leads to his or her downfall (he just finished reading Oedipus Rex). He rejected the notion that she was selfish.
Perhaps viewers will recall that Lady Edith was the young woman who joyfully committed to marrying a disabled elderly aristocrat (he left her at the altar), who tenderly helped the injured servicemen of the Great War to write letters, and who courageously defended a bandaged misfit who claimed to have previous ties to her family and heart. It is also interesting that she is the first daughter to venture into the man’s world of work, setting aside the customary expectations of an earl’s daughter. I suggest that Paulsen employs Lady Edith as a straw woman who is animated by “selfish self-interest” in his effort to show that many pregnant women are similarly motivated when choosing abortion, a rigidly dismissive characterization that he sustains throughout his analysis.
This leads me to my second challenge. I believe that Paulsen trivializes the moral dilemma that women find themselves in when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. He also infantilizes these women, largely stripping them of their moral agency. Although Paulsen acknowledges that Lady Edith feels social and personal pressures, he calls them “trivial” to us and “very real” only to (my emphasis) Edith’s self-interest and social standing. Paulsen imagines that, in her “benighted judgment” she incorrectly weighs the moral stakes involved and is therefore willing to abort her child for “purely social reasons.” Even though she comes to see clearly that abortion is the taking of a life, Paulsen describes her as “morally blind.”
Lady Edith attempts to evaluate the consequences of abortion in a way that Paulsen claims most viewers don’t—she can see abortion in its most disturbing light. Although women in her position are sometimes “vulnerable and confused,” they are still able to engage in moral deliberation and understand what they are doing. Paulsen attempts to sum up the moral dilemma in this black and white way: “Crisis pregnancies are real, but abortion kills a baby.”
First, I challenge Paulsen’s derogatory characterization of Lady Edith as “the sometimes nasty, irritatingly selfish, and hard-luck pathetic middle sister.” When I asked my 16 year-old son to describe Lady Edith in one adjective, he chose “tragic,” which he defined as a relatable figure whose bad mistake leads to his or her downfall (he just finished reading Oedipus Rex). He rejected the notion that she was selfish.
Perhaps viewers will recall that Lady Edith was the young woman who joyfully committed to marrying a disabled elderly aristocrat (he left her at the altar), who tenderly helped the injured servicemen of the Great War to write letters, and who courageously defended a bandaged misfit who claimed to have previous ties to her family and heart. It is also interesting that she is the first daughter to venture into the man’s world of work, setting aside the customary expectations of an earl’s daughter. I suggest that Paulsen employs Lady Edith as a straw woman who is animated by “selfish self-interest” in his effort to show that many pregnant women are similarly motivated when choosing abortion, a rigidly dismissive characterization that he sustains throughout his analysis.
This leads me to my second challenge. I believe that Paulsen trivializes the moral dilemma that women find themselves in when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. He also infantilizes these women, largely stripping them of their moral agency. Although Paulsen acknowledges that Lady Edith feels social and personal pressures, he calls them “trivial” to us and “very real” only to (my emphasis) Edith’s self-interest and social standing. Paulsen imagines that, in her “benighted judgment” she incorrectly weighs the moral stakes involved and is therefore willing to abort her child for “purely social reasons.” Even though she comes to see clearly that abortion is the taking of a life, Paulsen describes her as “morally blind.”
Lady Edith attempts to evaluate the consequences of abortion in a way that Paulsen claims most viewers don’t—she can see abortion in its most disturbing light. Although women in her position are sometimes “vulnerable and confused,” they are still able to engage in moral deliberation and understand what they are doing. Paulsen attempts to sum up the moral dilemma in this black and white way: “Crisis pregnancies are real, but abortion kills a baby.”
Given his dismissive depiction of many women’s capacity to make sound ethical decisions, I argue that he fails to grasp the gravity of the “realness” of a crisis pregnancy, as well as the ability many women have to differentiate between complex choices.
Naomi WoIf provides a more level-headed account of the ethical dilemma at hand in her essay, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” originally published in 1995.
Naomi WoIf provides a more level-headed account of the ethical dilemma at hand in her essay, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” originally published in 1995.
...............
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario