Did you read this week that so-called “partial birth abortions” have been banned by the US Supreme Court?
Let’s talk about this a bit. “Partial birth abortion” – sounds grotesque, right? Sounds like pulling a baby half out of the birth canal and slitting its throat or something, right? Or perhaps one might picture a baby in the womb being punctured with a sharp object until it is mutilated into a pulpy mass of half-formed flesh?
Notice the difference in how pro-life/anti-choice folks talk about pregnancy vs. how pro-choicers do. For pro-lifers, pregnant woman are carrying babies, little innocent children, people, persons. For pro-choicers, pregnant women carry fetuses – babies only exist outside the womb. This is, of course, the “medically correct” way to talk about pregnancy. Not that that matters one lick to the pro-lifers. Same goes for the actual terminology used to talk about abortion.
See, the truth is, “partial birth abortions” don’t technically exist. It’s a politically, emotionally charged term for a medically necessary procedure that quite often saves women’s lives. Who do you think came up with the term? Not the doctors who perform it, and not the women who have it done.
So, as per usual, power comes into play in the naming of things, in this case, a medical procedure typically performed on women whose lives are at risk. The religious right strikes again in its ongoing efforts to control women’s bodies and women’s rights, force women to carry fetuses that for one reason or another they do not wish to carry, to punish women for getting pregnant and being such sluts to begin with. Let me tell you, late-term abortions are typically only performed when the woman’s life is in jeopardy, and quite often these women are not aborting fetuses that they don’t want, but fetuses that they very much wish they could continue to carry and give birth to and nurture and raise. Other times, late-term abortions are performed for women who did not discover they were pregnant until very late in their pregnancies, and would have terminated earlier if they had only known.
But this is ultimately irrelevant. Women must be able to decide what to do with and what happens to their own bodies. It doesn’t really matter whether they would have aborted sooner if they could have. It doesn’t really matter if they would really rather give birth to their fetus. What matters is, women have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies, and now the options are more limited. Oh but right, “their bodies aren’t just theirs anymore, once they’re pregnant.” Um, yeah, they are. Women’s 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 serious health complications and risks. Any woman carrying a fetus is being generous.
so what we’re talking about with this ban is valuing fetal life over women’s lives. Why? Because “fetuses are innocent” and “women have to live with their decisions and be responsible.” Which translates, contra-positively, to “women are guilty and irresponsible.” Which sounds about right, from the righties. So it’s better to ignore the wishes of the women who don’t want to carry fetuses to term for whatever reason (and whatever reason is a good enough reason for me), and the professional opinions of their treating physicians. Because fetuses are innocent. Never mind the complication of original sin, that’s not important in the context of abortion. Because what we’re talking about is how guilty and sinful women are. Right, righties?
So is this all what abortion law will come down to? Who has the power to name, to define, the terms? It seems that way to me. And it comes as no surprise.
For other perspectives on this decision:
If you read any other posts or articles on this, please leave a comment and I will add the link to this list.
UPDATE: Just found this post this morning over at Huffington. By Jill of Feministe.
Thinking Girl 
I’ve got a list of blogs with posts about this and I’m adding more as I find them…
http://feministnation.blogspot.com/2007/04/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-partial.html
I posted about the opinion on my blog, though it is more in the form of practical commentary on what I think it will mean in the legal and political sense.
http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/abortion-ruling.html
I have something more I want to say about abortion, but that is a different post I have yet to write (it is rather personal).
I know this is a very charged issue, but I think it is important to see both viewpoints. Particularly since language can easily alienate either side. For instance, being pro-choice does not mean you have to value women’s rights above the fetus (or speak in a manner that suggests that). As a Libertarian, I am politically pro-choice…but as a woman, I am personally pro-life. I believe a bridge can be built between these opposing forces when we focus on what we all have in common…a respect for life and liberty.
Well, this comment may not be about “partial bitrh abortion”, but here it goes….
As I said before, I am from Mexico, where abortion is ilegal, but recently in Mexico City some efforts have been made to change this and make it free for all before the 12 week. This is to prevent more deaths because of infections or bleeding from un-safe procedures.
Of course many people are not happy with this, specially the catholic church, who has been spreading hate massages against pro-choice people (there has been death treads, attacks and things like that).
The final desicion will be made this tuesday. So far we only have 5 votes against the new legislation from a total of 20 votes.
I just made a wordpress account of my own, and was all set up to write about this very thing, but you took the words right out of my mouth. Really couldn’t say it better if I tried. All I would add is that whether the fetus is techinically a human or not, the mother’s life should come first by default. Excellent post, Thinking Girl.
I’ve got a running round-up too, if you’re interested:
http://saraspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/04/being-sexist-assholes-in-name-of-saving.html
Right on! Thanks for this post. I swear, the “righties” you speak of will not rest until we start assigning social security numbers to zygotes and celebrating fertilizationdays instead of birthdays.
If you’ve never read Cristina Page’s “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America”, I completely recommend it. In fact, I think I’m going to post about that for FF since I just got home and haven’t had the chance to do that yet.
It’s a sad day. It has always seemed obvious to me that the decision about abortion ultimately resides with the woman who is pregnant, who but her could be more qualified to decide? People are free to do whatever they want to make the world a place where every child is a wanted child, but making a women’s decision for her isn’t going to do that and is in fact the devil’s work. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we have just taken a giant stride down it.
Thinking Girl
This is a good site for Philosophy on abortion.
It is well and even handed but you have to read the whole thing to see it.
http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/36goldblatt.htm
It is a good article for people like myself who automatically distrust arguments heavily laden with emotion.
thanks for the comments and the links, everyone. To all keeping a round-up – good on ya! Excellent!
folkrockgirl – see, this is the beauty of choice – you can personally make any decision about abortion that you want! And so can I, and so can every other woman! The problem arises when folks want to make their personal decision into a national policy that limits the choices of others. As you point out, that is very much anti-libertarian – not that I’m pro-libertarian by any stretch, but the funny thing is that so many of these anti-choice righties claim to be libertarian on so many other issues! a little consistency? too much to ask for? Argh.
Liz – thanks for sharing – I didn’t know Mexico was attempting to make a move for women’s health, that’s wonderful! I hope it makes it through – that would be a welcome victory after this week.
And, does not the catholic church see the obvious hypocrisy in supporting anti-choice movements that include violence, hatred, and death threats? I just don’t get it!!!! What happened to “love thy neighbour” and “turn the other cheek”? Jesus wouldn’t be too pleased with them!
Kyassett – you’re starting your own blog!?!? I’m so happy! Get writing, mister, and give me the address and I’ll add you to my blogroll!
Tracy – no, I haven’t read this book. I’ll have to check it out from the library when I get a chance this summer. Thanks for the reco.
unitedcats – thanks for your comment. I couldn’t agree more. The funny thing about language – in this case, making a decision for a pregnant woman is really making a decision against her.
Steve – thanks for that link, I’ll check it out.
Having to make a decision about abortion, no matter what that is, is not a fun thing.
yes, DBB – exactly. very succinctly put.
Agreed with everything written above. It’s ironic that most of anti-choice people who call themselves ‘pro-life’ are in favour of the War and death penalty, then against the decent gun control and public healthcare system (which saves lives of people with disadvantaged economic background…)
Fetuses are sacred and must be protected at all cost while they are in mother’s womb, but once they get out of the womb and become a person who cares if they don’t get well-fed and well-nurtured because of the lack of welfare support to combat child poverty!
what i really find interesting about the person who wrote this article, justifying partial-birth abortion, is how they cleaverly attached the term “parasite” onto an infant. Because infact they “derive all their nutrients from the bodies of their hosts, and quite often pose to their hosts serious health complications and risks. Any woman carrying a fetus is being generous”. Justifying sucking the brains out of another living thing that can register pain by refusing to acknowledge it as a human being is simply cold-hearted and inhumane. Babies are no doubt very much alive before they are born and sometimes are even born too early and live to be healthy. I believe there are specific instances where an abortion would be the best decision to make. Deciding to end a perfectly healthy childs life on the grounds of “choice” seems to contradict any ethics, including feminist ideology. A woman deciding to end the life of her own child well after birth would not get the same response as a woman who decides to have an abortion. Oh lets just say “i killed my child because he came from my body, was a risk to my health(for example the child contracted a horrible, highly-contagious virus), and is financially straining(which makes him a “parasite”)” When put into this context, most would agree that this is not acceptable logic to end anyones life. So how is it different when a woman decides that she would do they same thing before the child is born? It boggles my mind. If person is mentally mature enough to live on their own then why can they not take on the responsability of at least giving birth to the child the may or may not have wanted. Especially if adoption is an option(I fully understand that this is not always the case). The person who wrote this article has taken a very calculated, narrow minded, and mean-spirited approach to an issue that should be looked at from all angles.
Sand – I am the person who wrote this piece; you can call me by name. It’s right at the top of the page.
I normally don’t approve anti-choice comments, but I thought this one was instructive.
I think you have misunderstood me a little bit. First of all, I don’t refer to infants as parasites – just fetuses – there is a difference. And, fetuses are indeed parasites, biologically speaking. All I speak is the truth there.
the idea of ‘parasite’ that you use is not a biologically relevant one – you seem to be using the term more in a social sense. The difference between killing a fetus and killing an infant is that the fetus is a parasite and the infant is reliant. When the fetus is inside the womb, the mother is the only one who is fully responsible for its development and care, the only one who can do the job. Once the fetus is born and becomes an infant, there are others who can take responsibility and care for it. That is the difference, and I think you probably know that.
Also, I don’t deny that human fetuses are indeed human beings, or that they are alive. I just don’t think they are persons. Again, there is a difference. Personhood is a philosophical and political concept, not a scientific one. Human persons are moral agents. Human fetuses are not, although I do believe them to be worthy of moral consideration, as all living sentient beings are. CONSIDERATION, not ultimate moral weight. Once again, there is a difference.
I also don’t deny that abortion is killing. However, even in cases of human persons, I think there are circumstances where killing is not morally prohibited – euthanasia and self-defense. And these are the instances when so-called “partial-birth abortion” is used. When the fetus is too damaged to survive or live a life free from pain and suffering, and when the pregnant woman’s life is at risk.
So you see, it is not so simple as “the woman has the responsibility to at least give birth to the child whether they wanted it or not.” Sometimes, a woman’s health and life is at serious risk to carry out what you think she is morally obligated to do. I believe that no body should have to put their life and health at risk for another human unless they really want to. I would never fault a woman for choosing to continue her pregnancy and give birth to a fetus, even if that fetus is severely deformed and lives only a couple of hours. I don’t understand why so many do fault women for not being able to or not wanting to risk their life and health for a fetus that is likely to die or live a short and painful life, and I certainly don’t understand the callousness people like yourself display to what is a deeply emotional and traumatic situation for the woman (and others) involved.
And I’m the narrow minded and mean-spirited one. I don’t think so.
[…] upon me, particularly as it relates to my identity and my politics. There is, as I have pointed out before, power in language. Recognizing that is very important in terms of resistance. Besides, our […]
[…] to abortion is anti-libertarian or unlibertarian. When a radical, pro-abortion feminist makes a statement like "fetuses are parasites who derive all their nutrients from the bodies of their hosts, and […]