Today is Blog for Choice Day. The purpose of this movement is to protest the removal of abortion services from hospitals and medical clinics, and to reaffirm women’s right to access an abortion should she so choose. Bloggers are asked to write a post telling readers why they are pro-choice.
So, why am I pro-choice?
First, let’s get some terms straight. “Pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion”; it means supporting women’s rights to self-determination over their bodies. “Fetuses” are not “babies”; fetuses exist in the womb, babies exist outside of the womb. “Human” does not equal “person”; human is the biological name of our species, personhood involves moral agency. There; now let’s move on.
I believe that women’s reproductive freedom is an essential piece of the puzzle for women’s full and uninhibited autonomy. In our society, women’s value comes from their usefulness within a male-dominated system, created by men, for men’s benefit. The ultimate value of women lies in their ability to produce a healthy baby, to continue the male bloodline. In this regard, women are increasingly treated as vessels through the medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth. I’ve written about this before, here and here. In order for women to gain true equality and equity in society, we must be valued intrinsically, and not in terms of how we can be of use to men – or to our children. Part of this involves the freedom to determine if and when we choose to have children.
There is a deep connection between issues of reproductive freedom and issues of sexual freedom. I wrote about that here. Women’s sexuality has been and continues to be defined in terms of its relation to male sexuality and male sexual pleasure. This andro- and phallocentrism has caused a great deal of harm to women by denying us the recognition of full sexual expression in hetero sexual relationships, of oppressing lesbian women on the basis of their rejection of male-centred sexuality, and by assuming the importance of male sexual pleasure and dominion over women’s bodies, which leads to all sorts of physical and sexual abuses. It is this attitude towards women’s bodies as sexual objects for male possession that has prevented women’s autonomy as sexual beings and in terms of reproduction.
There is a lot of debate around the issue of abortion involving the question of when life begins. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – it doesn’t matter when life begins. Personally, I take the view that life begins at conception. The point isn’t about when life begins, it’s about when rights attach. This is the difference between “human” and “person”, as I outlined earlier – and make no mistake, this is the most important distinction as we can make on this issue. For me, the most important right to protect is that of the woman. This is her body we’re talking about. Fetuses are completely dependent on women’s bodies for nourishment, development, and survival. They offer nothing in return, biologically speaking. That means that this is a one-sided benefit, to the fetus – not a symbiotic relatinoship whereby both parties benefit by the presence of the other. As much as people hate it when I say this, it’s true: fetuses are parasites. They depend on the continued goodwill of the host, the pregnant woman. Actually, considering the defenselessness of newborn babies, some philosophers consider them to also be parasites, but this is where I draw the line.
Do living things deserve moral consideration? Yes, of course I believe this to be true. Obviously, I think so – I am a vegetarian. I believe all sentient beings (beings that can sense pain and pleasure) are deserving of moral consideration. However, what makes no sense to me is the special privilege we afford humans over other living beings. Why should we give more rights of moral consideration to human fetuses than we do to fully formed, born, non-parasitic animals like cows and pigs, whom we as a society kill readily and unnecessarily for our food supply? And certainly, it makes no sense to give more moral consideration to fetuses than we do to the fully formed, born, non-parasitic, rational moral agents with full rights and freedoms (at least theoretically, entrenched in human rights legislation around the world) that are pregnant women. Unless, of course, your goal is to control and subvert women.
My official position is that abortion must be legal at all stages of pregnancy, in order to protect women fully. Otherwise, we could have a situation where the woman’s life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, and she has no legal right to self-defense. I fully support a woman’s right to choose an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. Women must have the right to decide at any point to discontinue hosting a fetus, and the manner in which she continues to host a fetus. I am opposed to any legislation that aims to protect fetal health over the woman’s right to determine how she uses her body. It’s her body – she should have the ultimate choice over how to treat her own body at all stages of her life. If we own anything in this world fully and completely, it’s our bodies. We must have the right to do with our bodies what we choose. However, I will say that all evidence that I have examined shows that sentience begins in a human fetus between 17-20 weeks. At this point, I believe some moral consideration should be given to a developing fetus, since that fetus can feel pain. Note closely: I said moral consideration. I did not say women shouldn’t be allowed to abort after this time. I did not say that the fetus’ rights outweigh the woman’s at this point. I said moral consideration. If the woman still decides after the point of sentience to abort, I fully support her right to do so.
This is what the debate boils down to for me: to not support women’s right to choose whether to carry a fetus to term do not support women’s equality. It is illogical to declare a human fetus more worthy of moral consideration than the fully formed moral agent carrying that fetus. Doing so reduces women to our reproductive function, and makes us into vessels whose true value comes about through becoming useful vessels rather than empty ones. And this certainly does not create an environment of equality.
So, I hope that today, some of you will also Blog for Choice. At least, I hope some of what you read will help you consider supporting women’s rights to reproductive freedom.
Edit: Please take the time to read the following posts (I’ll be adding to this list throughout the day as I find more and more great posts on this topic): Sarah’s Blog for Choice 2006 at the Razzberry, Jill’s Why I’m Pro-Choice, Anti-Choicers Bring the Crazy. And the Misogyny. And the Racism, and Embryonic Personhood at Feministe, Amanda’s Blogging for Choice and Beyond Choice at Pandagon, Shark-Fu’s Blog for Choice – Pro-choice for Life at Angry Black Bitch, BrownFemiPower’s “Choice” Challenged, and Who Gets to Be a Legitimate Mother at Women of Color Blog and Sage’s Funeral for an Abortion at Persephone’s Box. For those of you who might think that abortion is an easy, convenient choice, or that anyone other than the pregnant woman herself is a better candidate to make decisions that affect the entire course of the rest of her life.
You say a fetus is a parasite, and you say people hate it when you say it. Maybe you want people to hate what you say if you keep repeating it? And maybe people hate it because you are wrong?
I’d re-examine your definition of parasite. It could be argued that a mother benefits from the relationship as well. Perhaps not in a biological sense, but in an emotional or spiritual one. Maybe symbiotic mutualism is a better term for what you’re getting it.
Hmm, but then that doesn’t support your views, so nevermind I guess.
I’m gonna write a new song, “Give babies a chance…”
Your discussion about abortion in any stage of the pregnancy for health reasons (i.e. mother’s life in peril) is somewhat a moot point from my perspective. I think that many “pro-lifers”, husbands and family of the mother would choose that the mother’s life was important to preserve in an unhealthy pregnancy. That is an extreme case for sure.
What I do have an issue with is ‘abortion for convenience’, ie. those who have abortions for lack of planning in the beginning. Abortion shouldn’t be used in the same way as a condom or a pill. Or those who have abortions because they have changed their mind, as if it’s a dinner they just ordered. When it comes to people who oppose abortion, I think they’d cite these cases as the driving force behind their belief, rather than the extreme case of ‘mother is going to die unless we abort the baby’.
What is interesting though — is that both sides are arguing about different perspectives on abortion — the necessity versus convenience argument, if you will. Perhaps if both sides realized this, there may be more consensus about the whole issue.
Generally, I don’t think it’s about reproductive freedom, I think it’s more about accepting responsibility for your own reproductive ‘powers’. We as a society have to download the responsibility of reproduction to the would-be parents or two sexual parties, or ‘flings’ (if you want to define it as such), thus removing it from doctors (and medicine in general) to fix the sudden problem of an unwanted pregnancy. We have the power to produce a child, offspring, foetus — we should take that power, that act very cautiously and carefully.
Kris
no, I don’t think people hate it when I say that fetuses are parasites because I’m wrong. I think they hate it when I say that because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I don’t continue saying fetuses are parasites because I want people to hate it; that actually makes no logical sense whatsoever. I continue to say this because it’s true, and because I believe it needs to be said. Putting more value on a human fetus, which is a parasitic organism, than on a human woman, is ridiculous. It demonstrates just how little our male-dominated society values women.
I don’t need to re-examine my definition of parasite. A parasite is defined as follows, according to Dicitonary.com: “An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.” So, yes, fetuses are parasitic. A woman’s survival does not rely on any fetus she might be carrying. In fact, in many cases women’s lives are threatened by the continuation of the parasitic relationship.
However, yes, it could be argued that some women do feel they benefit from being pregnant, emotionally or psychologically. Not physically.
But I don’t think that is really the case for those women who don’t want to be pregnant and for whatever reason decide to terminate. For these women, their pregnancy is not a joyful occurrence that brings them emotional benefit. It’s something that they do not want, and brings with it a good deal of emotional and psychological stress. Abortion is not something most women take lightly – there is a great deal of heartache and sorrow involved. They feel, for whatever reason, that the fetus they are carrying is a burden too great to carry, literally. It would be a mistake to think that women choose abortion lightly. It is a choice that must be free to them to make, but that freedom does not make it any easier.
Dave –
so, then women who are ‘too irresponsible’ to take precautions against pregnancy should be forced to carry to term and give birth to a fetus that they don’t want? If they are too irresponsible to avoid getting pregnant, wouldn’t they also be too irresponsible to be trusted to carry a fetus in the best way possible? It’s not like the demands of pregnancy are over with quickly – we’re talking nine months of physical interference from an unwanted organism. Maybe then they should be monitored, and have their privacy infringed upon as well? Or maybe the experience of being an unwilling host to an unwanted parasite would smarten her up? And what happens after birth – should she be forced to raise the unwwanted baby, or give it up to some government agency to be raised by the state until someone adopts it? What if every woman who had an abortion last year decided instead to give up their babies for adoption? That’s a LOT of babies, which means a BIG strain on public funds. Who’s going to pay for clothes, food, shelter for those unwanted children? The mother’s medical bills, vitamins, maternity clothes? How soon before the conservatives start crying about how much these unwanted children are costing them in tax dollars – they already cry and whine about their tax dollars going toward social services such as welfare? If she’s forced to keep the child, what kind of life is that for either of them? should a woman really be punished, for either 9 months or 19 years, for a mistake in her birth control?
I take extreme issue with calling abortion a convenience. It is in no way convenient to have an abortion. First of all, it is a devastating thing to find out that you’re pregnant when you don’t want to be. This is a major life event, finding out you’re pregnant. Just as wonderful as it is for some, it is horrible for others. Second of all, it is also devastating to make the decision to abort. This is serious emotional turmoil. We have no right to judge any woman who has to make such a decision. NO RIGHT. Third, there is the actual procedure, which is Not Fun physically or emotionally. Many women never get over their abortions. There is often a great deal of guilt involved, and the kind of rhetoric offered up by pro-life society is exactly why. All of this, and never mind the impact her decision might have on her friends, family, and partner. None of this is convenient – and to say so is a grave insult.
as for your comment that “both sides are arguing about different perspectives on abortion — the necessity versus convenience argument”, I disagree. I’ve read plenty of pro-life literature, and a lot of it argues that abortion should never be permitted, even in cases of rape, incest, or maternal health risks. The argument is that the fetus is completely innocent/defenseless, and the woman is not, and so moral weight must always fall with the innocent/defenseless. So no, we’re not just arguing about the same thing on two different side of the coin. The arguments are fundamentally different.
It makes NO SENSE to try and force women to carry fetuses they don’t want to carry. Forcing women to be ‘responsible’ for their reproductive powers is ridiculous. The one thing you’re right about here is that bringing a life into the world is a serious matter, and it should only be done with serious thought and commitment. And nobody is in a better position to decide whether she is ready to undertake such a commitment than the pregnant woman herself.
Dave said: ‘We have the power to produce a child, offspring, foetus — we should take that power, that act very cautiously and carefully’
I agree with you on that quotation however it must be stated that the men who leave their girlfriends when they become pregnant prove that the woman is still seen as the sole carer. Mentalities like this prove that gender roles haven’t been reversed, they are being enforced by those men who leave their partners to make up ‘their choice’. Of course not all men are like this but the impact that the choice of having a termination has on a womancannot be seen under the microscope of contraception. I think it is almost unfair because we do not know what most women feel. Do most women want to go to clinics where they have to do something that they probably did not want to do the first place? It is too cynical and simplistic to say that many women have abortions for convenience.
Thinking girl: Great post — you always pick interesting topics.
Dave and Kris, I would just like to add that during the Rwandan genocide, many women were raped and seeked abortions in that Catholic country that barred them. Abortion isn’t a topic that can be crushed in such a simple way.
Abortion is sad. But, women do need to be able to make that choice. We need to have more resources, education etc. out there to make that choice easier to go through or maybe not have to be made at all.
Just a little digression … but emotions DO have an effect on you physically. Laughing lowers blood pressure, reduces stress hormones and boosts immune systems. Stress releases hormones that have effects upon our hearts.
I would never call any of my children, or anyone else’s children, aborted or alive parasites. I know that you’re right, by looking at the dictionary definition. But some words have emotion attached to them, and that’s one of them. That’s just cold.
Aulelia – thanks for pointing out some of the complexities surrounding abortion, particularly with regards to mass rape in Rwanda. That many women cannot access abortion after rape is absolutely dispicable.
Laverne – ah, cold, well, sure. Practical, factual, unemotional. Admittedly, I don’t have any personal interest in pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing, or even baby-sitting. Perhaps that allows me a perspective others may not be able to share. Of course you wouldn’t consider your children to have been parasites at any point in their development or lives. You love them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t love them, or make plans for them, or be excited about them, if we want to. I’m just saying it might be helpful to stop thinking about fetuses like they are already-born babies. They aren’t.
none of this, of course, is meant to detract from the emotional turmoil many women go through when they choose to abort their fetuses. Many women do think of their fetuses as children. I only offer the suggestion up to try and shift the paradigm a bit, to help people understand that abortion is not the same as infanticide, and that the relationship between a pregnant woman and her fetus is so one-sided that to impose the role of host on an unwilling mother is really asking a lot.
I don’t feel like debating whether abortion is wrong or not. For me, it’s a woman’s body and the woman’s choice. I also can’t argue about the use of the term “parasite”. On one hand, I agree that the definition of parasite applies, but on the other, I think it simplifies things too much to make a good argument with.
I just wanted to emphasize the point that it’s tricky to claim that abortion shouldn’t be a replacement for prevention (whether it be through condoms or lifestyle choices, etc.). It is easy to say a woman should never be in such a predicament in the first place, because I, for example, don’t make choices in my life that get women pregnant. But there are many situations where choices are forced on people (or at least heavily influenced). For example, rape or, I don’t know, growing up female in a third world country like Honduras. Of course, you can’t get a legal abortion in Honduras, so I’ll just stop here.
Thinking girl…
While I am pro-choice – choice being the operative word.
I would wonder where you would be right now if your mother felt the same way you do.
Matthew – thanks for bring that up. We’re not exactly living in a world where every ‘choice’ for women, up to and including pregnancy, is uncoerced and autonomous.
Ah, that’s the beauty of the parasite definition – simplicity and clarity. That’s why I like it so much. To me, it is simple: if you don’t want to carry a fetus, don’t. If you do, do. But don’t beat yourself, or anyone else, up for either choice. Women are full moral agents, and fetuses are not. Therefore, women get to choose whether to harbour and gestate a living organism for 9 months, or not. Simple!
Shirley – hi!
Well, it’s kind of a moot point. My mother feels extremely differently about almost everything than I do, including abortion. She chose to have me, while I choose to remain childless. She has, and wants, a very different life than the one that I have and want. So it doesn’t really matter that she chose not to abort me. Her choice was her choice, and she made it, and that’s that. And I’m here as a result, fighting for things that she doesn’t agree with. For her, it wasn’t a choice at all – she would never have done it because it doesn’t align with her beliefs. It does align with mine. The fact that I am disinterested in children is all the evidence I need that I should have access to abortion if I become pregnant. If my mother had not wanted to have me, I would have hoped that she would have had the option available to her not to have to. And I wouldn’t hold it against her if she had taken it. Theoretically, of course, since I wouldn’t be here anyway! I want her to live the life that she wants to live, that will make her happiest. In fact, that’s all I want for any woman.
TG – excellent post, and excellent rebuttal to some of the comments.
I also use the term parasite even when I’m pregnant by choice. Some days the fetus seemed to suck all my energy, and I had to eat constantly to keep any weight on. I’m small and tend to have big kids. Lucky me. But I don’t see it as cold, merely as descriptive. It’s not biological mutualism; it’s clearly parasitic. And that’s especially evident when I was falling asleep in class all the time, and I’m the teacher!
I also thought of the movie “Alien” a lot when I was pregnant and could start to see the baby moving around. Creepy!
If my mom was pro-choice, and she felt the way I do, and then she chose to have me, then I’d know I’m wanted, not forced to be here because she had to have me. But even birth control wasn’t legal when I was conceived.
thanks Sage – glad to know I”m not the only one who thinks about fetuses in this way! And that it’s not just becuase I don’t have or want kids!
Actually, because of Alien, I’ve always felt a little weirded out by pregnant bellies. Especially when you can see the outline of hands and feet and faces. Gross!
I love what you said about your mom. Great point!
As far as I’ve read so far, when the commenters talk about the argument for supporting the abortion choice, the discussion seems to consistently refer back to the extreme cases, ie. rape, dying mother, disease, 3rd world health-care. I’d be curious to see what the statistics are for the number of women who are raped and become pregnant vs. the number of abortions for other non-extreme reasons, ie. lack of prevention or contraceptive failure. I think without looking at the data, there would be a higher amount of the latter. If that is so, why is there such a reliance on the ‘extreme situation’ in maintaining the ‘reproductive freedom’ argument? Of course, the extreme cases are wrought in terrible circumstances of either violence or disease/sickness, injury. But, can we treat them the same as the non-extreme cases, such as teen pregnancies for example?
(As such, when I talk about abortion in the following, I’m talking about the non-extreme cases.)
TG> I think you misunderstood me in a few parts. When I was referring to ‘responsibility’, you might notice that I was specifically indicating the copulating couple, not just singling out the woman.
Also, I think you’re polarizing the two perspectives of the for/against arguments, when there is probably middle ground that isn’t being acknowledged. Literary perspectives are fine, but if a person were to survey the general public, you may find alternate arguments. For example, there are those that support abortion in the extreme case, but not in any other situation. To categorically say, they’re either one or the other is a mistake.
Lastly, when I was referring to convenience — I was referring to the ‘technological way out’ that is provided by modern medicine. There are many ways that modern medicine (whether for health reasons or cosmetic) provides a band-aid solution (liver transplants for alcoholics, liposuction/stomach stapling, lung transplants for smokers, the list goes on). In the examples where decision making has resulted in these problems, we rely on technology to bail us out, rather than taking action before it becomes an issue. Beyond the individual, abortion is yet another sad example of how society has failed its women, children, fathers and families. Problems resulting in non-extreme situations are preventable with education, socialization and planning (and dare I say, discretion!).
TG, when you refer to privacy issues to do with sexuality, perhaps you’ve stumbled upon something. Dare I question whether our society be better off if our sexuality or reproduction capabilities were licensed, not much unlike described in the Orwellian ‘1984’? Is it a greater detriment to society to regulate reproduction than abort its end result? Of course, these ideas are extreme. But when the population reaches 15-20 billion on earth, with less natural resources, perhaps it will become an issue.
For the present anyway, I’d have to argue that those who do choose to have a baby should have obtain a government license first. There should be just as much training, planning, restrictions and guidelines as there are to do much less impacting things in our society, such as driving, owning/using firearms, or undertaking a career, such as a carpenter or electrician. Sadly, where individual responsibility fails, society must pick up the slack.
Dave, never in a million years are you going to get people to consent to regulating and licensing their sexual behavior. If it ever does come to licensing birth, that could only lead to more abortions, since people will still be fucking all over the place, possibly without being allowed to bring the pregnancy to term. That’s some scary thinking by the way.
Great article, Thinking Girl, I couldn’t agree more. Honestly, though your whole post is good, I think you could have stopped about a third of the way in. It should be the woman’s choice. End of story. A lot more could be said, but not much has to. If a woman does not want to have a baby, she shouldn’t have to. It makes no difference if it’s a matter of desperation or “convenience” – it’s her choice.
this is a really good analysis: “keeping it legal” – The real abortion debate is not between advocates for “choice” or “life.” It’s between rational people and foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics.. and this addresses some points that were raised: “Abortion Funding for Poor Women: The Myth of the Rape Exception” – let’s not forget the economic, class and race privilege aspect to what “choice” really translates to for many real women (also see angryblackbitch’s “pro-choice for life” entry for yesterday)!
it chills me to the bone when people, and especially people who don’t own uteruses at all, have these very strong ideas about how – let alone if – control of other people’s uteruses might be best achieved… it’s so weird. where does that impulse come from? i just don’t understand it. as for abortion being a new negative technological advance – yeah, maybe, if you call saving an incredible number of lives “negative.” otherwise women have always had ways to abort, and probably always will, whether you know/like it or not. besides, another thing that’s always baffled me about the anti-choice “abortion is murder” stance is how it views miscarriage. ’cause, you know, micarriage also happens and as far as life being lost it’s the same thing as abortion! and then there’s a possiblity that any miscarriage is murder, right? so i have to wonder if women who say they miscarried should be tried in order to determine whether it was an accident or “murder”… anyway, it would fit in perfectly with the whole attitude of simply not trusting women in anti-choice rhetoric.
Whoa Dave – that is pretty radical.
First, while you may be specifically talking about couples, I am specifically talking about women. In terms of reproductive choice, we MUST talk first and foremost about women, because it is women who have the joy/burden of carrying the fetus, giving birth the the fetus, and often nurturing the fetus with her own body. As much as men may say they wish they could take this role, they can’t. And for some reason, many men think that they should or do have the right/power to influence/make a decision for women as to pregnancy. It is always a woman’s body at stake; ultimately, it is a woman’s decision to carry a fetus or not.
An aside – Ruxi, I think this fact is what gets men so riled up about abortion. They actually don’t have ultimate power over whether or not a pregnant woman decides to carry and give birth to a fetus – a fetus that might be ‘theirs’ (the man’s). It goes to the idea that children are private property that’s so popular under patriarchy.
Back to Dave – the thing about the extreme cases, is that they’re not as rare as you might like to have us think, and that those anti-choicers who are actually actively fighting to have Roe overturned don’t care about the women in these extreme cases. They don’t even want women to have access to birth control. So while you may think I’m polarizing the debate, I think it is important to point out that anti-choicers are the ones who are taking the debate to extreme levels.
And, while there may be lots of people out there who, like you seem to, support abortion for extreme cases but not for other cases, I think it is important to draw out the fact that this stance does not support women’s rights. Denying women access to abortion, for whatever reason they might want or need one, is not pro-woman. It’s anti-woman, or, misogynist. For anyone to think they can decide better than the woman in question whether or not their fetus’ life has more value than their life is anti-woman. And that’s what you’re saying here – your cries about ‘responsibility’ play out as punishment. Why on earth woudl you think it’s a good idea to bring a child into this world under those circumstances? And sorry, but I don’t see abortion as an example of society failing women. Denying women abortion is failing women. Allowing women to access abortion when they determine that is the best decision for their life is supporting women, and supporting equality. Anything less is oppressive.
Not every case that ends up in abortion is preventable with education, socialization, planning, or discretion. And no, not having sex is not good enough as a realistic option. Sexual freedom is just as important as reproductive freedom.
As for your ridiculous suggestion that people should have to obtain licenses in order to have children… wow. You know, most people think 1984 is a pretty bad way to run the world, right? And just who do you suppose would be approved for these licenses? And who do you think would be rejected, and on what grounds? I’m willing to put all my life savings into the pot that poor, uneducated, lesbian, and/or single women of colour would be denied every time. After all, that has certainly been the reliable pattern of behaviour our societies have legislated (not just here in north america, but throughout the world, by the way, in population control programs in third world countries, run by UNDP and Planned Parenthood, no less). And so what if they already were pregnant? Criminalizing people for have children, or forced abortion? What you’re suggesting amounts to a eugenics genocide. We’d be breeding a whole segment of the population out of the human race. Not that we haven’t been trying to do that anyway. But, I’m guessing that’s not really such a bad idea to you. OR perhaps you just haven’t thought it through. Perhaps you just don’t realize how your comments here demonstrate white supremacy, misogyny, and elitism. I’ll give you a very small benefit of the doubt, this once.
I should warn you, Dave, my patience has been growing VERY THIN lately for these kinds of racist sexist arguments. Thin ice. You’re on it.
Thanks Kyassett and Ruxandra – for the support, for the comments, Ruxi for the links.
It’s about trusting women, as Jessica said.
Great post, TG. Found your post via the BlogHer link. :)
TG> I think you’re taking the subject of licensing a little too heatedly. In no way did I ever refer to any specific economic class, status or race when I referred to licensing, you interjected those into the argument and assumed their intentions, rather than asking. I was simply throwing out a hypothetical for discussion (especially on the sex permits!). I am trying not to be offended by your accusations, which are absolutely unfounded.
Let me explain about where my thoughts about child licensing comes from: In a perfect world, everyone raises their child perfectly — the child grows up to be healthy, productive, contributing member of society. However, that’s not how it is in the real world. A percentage of children are abused and witness abuse of their parents, others grow up malnourished, or live in substandard dilapitated and dangerous houses, children witness and endure drug addictions (hell, kids are found living in marijuana grow operations — where the strong smell of musty marijuana is overpowering, from the children even after they are removed from the home), others never grow up not attending school or learning as they’re relegated to street life at 10 years old. Some children don’t have a chance at the start, because of their parents drug addictions, physical and alcohol abuse has damaged their little bodies in the womb. And in all of these examples, I’m not talking about third world conditions here, I’m talking about supposedly ‘first’ world Canada. How do we prevent these injustices?
It is because of these things I think about licensing (for lack of a better word) of child birth/rearing. It has nothing do with race, as anyone could create the above problems. We desperately need to prevent the injustices that happen to children — perhaps taking radical measures is necessary (or at least parts of them)?
Zandria – Hi, and welcome. glad you found your way over.
Dave -yes, I acknowledge that I am the one who brought up issues of class and race in response to your licensing argument. I bring these up because that’s the way it would play out. Do you really think that we can actually trust our governments NOT to be racist, classist, sexist, homophobic? Because they certainly don’t have a good track record that would support such a belief. That’s what I mean when I say, think it through.
I’m an idealist as much as anyone, believe me. But reality unfortunately kicks me in the ass enough that I have to pay attention to the reality. And the reality is that our government is racist, homophobic, sexist, and classist. They prove this over and over again, in their policies both at home and internationally.
Yes, kids grow up in all kinds of shitty circumstances. And this is not acceptable. But what we need is more governmental support for programs that help kids, and women, of all backgrounds – not a fascist policy that would in practice sanction genocide. We can’t simply trust the government. It’s run by white upper class christian men – who have proved time and time again that they are willing to impose their vision of a ‘perfect’ world onto people they don’t actually give a shit about. My government doesn’t represent me, and it doesn’t represent a lot of other people, either. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that it does.
Although pro-choice myself (as Shirley said, choice being the operative word), I just feel like adding some fuel to the fire by saying that fetuses, from a purely biological point of view, are not necessarily parasites. In some cases, like when the mother has MS (about one in 350 women in Canada), the fetus is actually beneficial, lowering chances of attacks. Also, if, at a certain point, the fetus can survive outside the womb (with or without the aid of technology), and could safely be removed alive, it does not have to rely on the mother for its survival.
ruxandra: “micarriage also happens and as far as life being lost it’s the same thing as abortion! and then there’s a possiblity that any miscarriage is murder, right?” That’s a bit of faulty logic. That would be like saying that death by accident or natural causes is murder.
Parsite is a very good term for what a fetus is. Although to me, I don’t consider them a parasite and I don’t call them fetuses.
I think to begin with, all schools need a better sex education class. We need to teach kids how to have responsible sex and what to do if you find out you are pregnant. Everyone treats abortion and unwanted pregnancy as taboo. We need to tackle it head on and not be so secretive about it. Be open about every aspect of pregnancy/abortion. Because if you are not educated about these things, you assume certain things about them which can greatly influence your decision.
I have a friend whose mother was taking a big risk in trying to carry her to term. The dad said if it came right down to it, he would rather his wife lived and helped raise their 3 other kids than risk her life for their child. In the end the pregnancy went well and she went on to give birth to a healthy girl. But I think it is a common sentiment among dads that they prefer their spouses to live so that they can continue to take care of their already living kids.
For me personally, I would never have an abortion. I would rather they try to save the baby than me. But that is just me and my feelings. What I feel and how I think is not for everyone and I respect that.
License to have a baby? That’s kind of creepy.
Accidents happen. Even if you are the most careful person about taking/using birth control, you can still get pregnant. It’s a fact of life that everyone is fully aware of and risks when they have sex.
@marc andre: :) no, actually that was exactly my point: if you’re going to separate the fetus from the woman’s body and give the fetus personhood to such an extent that you’d call abortion “murder,” then the “logical” next step, in the case of any miscarriage, would be to set up an investigation to find out whether it was “death by accident or natural causes” or abortion/murder. ’cause you never know with these sneaky, monstruous women – can’t trust them! and crazy as all that sounds, don’t think the anti-choicers (i refuse to call them “pro-life” – i‘m pro life, they’re pro not recognizing the full human rights of women) wouldn’t do it if they could (they’re already moving in that direction with the unborn victims of violence act). after all, isn’t the whole “abortion is murder” rhetoric precisely that if left to their own devices women are all just potential baby killers, so their lives and bodies must be monitored and controlled at all costs?!
that’s what i was saying.
Oh, I understand now. Interesting point.
I agree with Gina that we need to get rid of such taboos.
Marc Andre – I haven’t heard of the case you mention about women with MS. I’d have to examine that a bit more closely. Perhaps it isn’t the fetus that makes the difference, but improved diet and vitamins? I don’t know. I’d be interested to find out more about that. Also, I have heard that endometriosis is helped by pregnancy.
However, I will maintain that fetuses still qualify as parasites, as the woman’s survival does not depend on the survival or presence of the fetus, and the fetus does depend on the woman for its survival. The fetus leaches nourishment from the mother – which is why pregnant women must take specific vitamins. It’s not for the fetus, it’s for her own health, because the fetus will take what it needs and leave nothing to nourish the woman’s own cells. Also, the placenta develops during pregnancy not only to nourish the fetus, but also to protect the woman from the fetus’ biological products (for example, when a woman is carrying a fetus that is a different blood type than her own, the placenta acts as a barrier to prevent the woman from basically getting blood poisoning from the fetus).
It is far more likely that a pregnant woman will have detrimental health effects from pregnancy than she will gain physical benefits. Pregnancy is no walk in the park. Of course, some women do just fine and are quite comfortable. Some, however, develop serious medical conditions that endanger their lives. Because the parasitic fetus is disrupting the normal functioning of their bodies.
As for survival outside the womb, yes, this can occur, in the third trimester and I believe, rarely, toward the end of the second trimester. Once the fetus is outside the womb, it is no longer a parasite in a technical sense. But that doesn’t change the fact that when it WAS inside the woman’s body, it was a parasite.
Gina – right on sister! I’m all for breaking down taboos. And better sex ed is so important. We need to teach our children about sex, early. In our culture, sex is everything and nothing all at the same time. It’s everything – everywhere, the most important thing we do and talk about, tied deeply to our identity. And it’s treated like it’s no big deal – like it’s nothing at all – all at the same time. IT’s so weird! We need a stronger emphasis on sex ed so our kids will know what the hell they’re doing – cuz they’re gonna be doing it anyway!
See, that’s the beauty of free choice – you would never have an abortion, I would do it in a heartbeat if I had to. I don’t judge you, you don’t judge me. I don’t force you to have abortions, you don’t force me to have children. I still respect you, you still respect me. Nice, isn’t it!
Ruxandra – as always, a great point about the lengths to which anti-choicers are actually trying to go with this. It’s crazy. All to force women to have babies they don’t want.
For those interested in the fetus-as-parasite debate, here’s another article, from Amanda at Pandagon.
Thanks!
I’m just going to take on a little bit on what Marc Andre said. My mom has had epilepsy since she was 10. She wasn’t supposed to ever get pregnant because they decided that it would be too risky. They said that she would have to go off all of the meds and everything. Well, each and every time she got pregnant, her seizures went away. She didn’t have a single seizure during each of her 3 pregnancies. But, after we were all born, the seizures came back. Not any worse, but they still came back.
They were never able to explain why this happened. We just know that it was something about the hormones of being pregnant helped her seizures stop. They tried putting her on birth control pills to see if that would simulate the same hormones, but it didn’t work.
So I suppose in very rare (and strange) cases being pregnant DOES help. But in the end, the baby is still sucking all of your energy out.
I don’t believe in judging people for the choices they make. Ever since I was young, I have always thought of situations in this way: “What would I do if I were in his/her shoes?” Instead of using my own biases/experiences and saying “You’re wrong.” Mostly because I lose my virginity at a very young age and was told by many many people that I was horrible for doing so. Even though they didn’t know the circumstances behind it.
Thinking Girl, your post got me thinking quite a bit about the right to have an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. I’ve always been adamantly pro-choice, but have usually ruled out third trimester abortions without giving them much thought. Now, the more I consider it, the less I’m sure.
On the one hand, I’m extremely apprehensive to even consider limiting the rights of a woman during pregnancy. Nine months into it or not, it’s still her body. And in the event that she finds out sometime in the third trimester that having the baby could do physical harm to her, I would definitely place more value on her life than the life of the fetus.
Yet on the other hand, fetuses delivered one or two months prematurely, with a little luck and proper medical care, can develop into healthy people. It reaches a point where the fetuses very well could be babies. I can’t stand the whole “abortion is murder” campaign, but the area seems to become increasingly grey as the fetus approaches birth.
At this point, I would still say the matter is at the mother’s discretion. It’s still her body, and still falls within her rights. What I’m not sure about is how the situation plays out morally. She should have the right, but does that mean the choice is necessarily right? Did that make any sense? I don’t know, what are your thoughts.
And Ruxandra, I think I’m going to adopt the term “anti-choice.” I like it: it’s succinct, it gets the point across, and it’s true. And to think all this time I’ve just been calling them narrow-minded, bigoted, Christian fucks.
This is a great post, TG. Thanks. As usual, I agree with pretty much everything (I didn’t know you were ‘back’… ooops!! So glad you’re writing regularly again!!)
But is a parasite, if it can survive once removed, still a parasite? What I mean is, if the fetus can be safely removed (with no danger to the mother) and survive as a person, doesn’t that change the morality of its termination? If the only difference between it being a parasite and a person is where it is, would it make more sense, morally speaking, to have it removed and adopted, than terminated? I’m not saying it does, I’m just asking. Because, like kyassett, to me, at that point of its development (thrid semester), it’s not so clear cut.
I know I’ve said this once before in another post of yours, but I do not believe in 3rd trimester abortions.
Marc Andre, in a way your suggestion makes sense. Take out the baby via C-section and put it up for adoption. There will of course be certain risks in doing this. The baby will have to be in the NICU for quite some time (which is expensive; my brother was premature), then the woman would have to stay in the hospital for no less than 3 days (because of the surgery), and then of course she would have the scar. I believe it would be more expensive to do it that way.
just to point out: statistically, third trimester abortions are extremely rare – something like less than .01% of all abortions performed, and of these the majority are done because it is necessary to save the life of the mother! to me it seems quite obvious that the vast majority of women would not have a third trimester abortion unless it was absolutely necessary… really, who and why would wait that long on purpose?!? and i think we can’t make blanket statements about what should be done (morally or not), because these will be very specific cases and it will depend a lot on the specific circumstances. but it should still be the decision of the woman; i would still trust each pregnant woman, and of course the doctor involved, to come up with the most “moral” and viable decision.
I guess the question I still have is this: why don’t they just deliver the baby and give it up for adoption? I mean, if the possibility is there, why not take it? I understand that if a woman’s life is in danger, she would want to terminate the pregnancy. But if she is going to have a D&X, why not have the doctor deliver the baby? I just have a hard time comprehending why a woman would have a D&X if you can simply just take the fetus out. I’m not trying to pain, but I just can’t wrap my head around this one.
Hi everyone!
Gina – I’m with you on the not judging people, as much as possible. I think engaging in philosophical debate has really helped me with that, because it’s forced me to look at positions very different from my own in order to try and break them down and understand them. Sometimes, doing that has caused me to completely change my opinion on something. But what we always emphasize, even though it doesn’t always come out in speech, is that it’s the argument we’re judging, not the person. It’s interesting though, because I think so much of what influences our opinions are issues of identity, and experience.
By the way, it sounds like you might not have had such a good experience. I’m sorry, and I hope you’ve been able to work it all out. :)
Sleepflower – thanks! glad to see you again!
Now, on to the thrust of the argument at hand:
Kyassett, Gina, Marc Andre, and Ruxnadra – As Ruxandra pointed out, late-term abortions are very rare. I’ve read a bit about this. Typically, these are performed under extreme conditions, involving very serious health risks, and quite often it is the last thing the pregnant woman wants to do. After all, she has carried the fetus for 6 months or more, usually with full intentions of giving birth to it, if not raising it. Sometimes, it is done because giving birth, rather than carrying the fetus any longer, would be risky for the woman’s health. Sometimes, it is not done to save the woman’s life, but as euthanasia, when the fetus has developed a serious health condition, or has had it all along and it has only just been discovered, and it is unlikely to survive. (this is, I think, the #1 reason why late term abortions happen.) Sometimes, it’s done when the fetus has died in the womb (although sometimes the woman is forced to continue carrying it and give birth to a fetus she knows will be stillborn – how cruel is that? Happened to a woman I know). Sometimes, it’s done when there are twins and one has died and is jeopardizing the health of the other.
So there are all sorts of reasons why late-term abortions are performed. It’s not just a matter of continuing to carry the fetus, or removing a premature fetus from her womb via C-section, and providing the fetus with the best care possible to see if it will survive. Most often, late-term abortions are performed because the fetus is highly unlikely to survive outside the womb.
But, no matter, because the choice is the woman’s to make. Sometimes women don’t find out that they’re pregnant until quite late in the pregnancy (also happened to a woman I know, she didn’t find out until she was past 6 months), and it’s no different for them than if they had found out right away – they simply don’t want to have a baby, or a fetus inside their bodies.
Let’s say that a woman decides in her third trimester that she doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy. Her fetus might be viable, if it was delivered, with proper care. However, she would have to either deliver it vaginally, which I think can be done if she is induced, or via C-section, which is MAJOR SURGERY! Besides that, then there would be a baby out there that has her genes, is related to her, is her child. Maybe she just wouldn’t want that. I wouldn’t, even if I didn’t want a baby of my own. I would likely not agree to, say, donate my eggs to a friend who wanted to have a child of ‘their own’ but couldn’t for whatever reason. Not because I wouldn’t want to help them out, but because I don’t want any little people out there who are my biological children.
so, I’m with Ruxandra. I trust that women in these situations are making the best decisions for them.
I guess I had never though of it in that light, that some people just don’t want any little versions of themselves running around.
Thank you for your thoughts. It wasn’t a bad experience per se, just a really really bad choice at the time.
Having had a c-section myself, it isn’t exactly a walk in the park. It never hurt to laugh so bad.
[…] bodies are still and are always their own bodies, no matter if they are pregnant or not. Do recall, fetuses are parasites who derive all their nutrients from the bodies of their hosts, and quite often pose to their hosts […]
[…] pro-choice? thinking girl (Thinking Girl): Blog for Choice Day 2007 (lots of links, and a very interesting discussion addressing […]
TG <>
That’s why I gag every time I hear the words “We’re pregnant!” spoken by either a man or by a woman referring to herself and her mate.
Where did that come from? Whose idea of cute was that?
Excellent post, TG!
[sorry for double post… the quote got messed up in the first one.. no preview ]
TG said: “As much as men may say they wish they could take this role, they can’t. And for some reason, many men think that they should or do have the right/power to influence/make a decision for women as to pregnancy. It is always a woman’s body at stake; ultimately, it is a woman’s decision to carry a fetus or not. ”
That’s why I gag every time I hear the words “We’re pregnant!” spoken by either a man or by a woman referring to herself and her mate.
Where did that come from? Whose idea of cute was that?
Excellent post, TG!
Thank you for your post today! I found you via a search on Blog for Choice day.
[…] 22, 2008 · No Comments someone left a comment on my blog for Choice post from last year, and so I thought, perhaps I’ll write one for this year as well. since leaving blogging […]