Before I start responding to Hugo’s most recent reply to me, I wanted to comment on something he wrote in his earlier reply to me.
From my perspective, I’m the one advocating for a “both/and” way of seeing the world in this debate. I’ve been arguing that since the most effective ways of reducing abortion don’t involve banning abortion, there’s no need to choose between pro-woman policies and pro-fetus policies. We can have it both ways, reducing abortions far more than any ban plan can while preserving women’s bodily autonomy.
For all his chatter about preferring “both/and” solutions, it’s plain that – on this issue at least – Hugo passionately opposes “both/and.” In his view, we should absolutely ban women’s rights wherever women’s rights come into conflict with fetal rights; he believes it’s an either/or choice, with no compromise possible.
That said, let’s look at Hugo’s more recent post.
First of all, Hugo asks me to prove that women will be hurt by future pro-life laws, but then says that he refuses to accept the past results of actual pro-life laws as evidence (such as the actual history of banned abortion here in the US, or what’s happened in other countries that have banned abortion, such as Poland). Since no other kind of evidence can possibly exist, I’m afraid that I can’t fulfill Hugo’s request.
But (at the risk of losing my civility a tad) I understand why Hugo and other pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage they’ve caused; there are about 70,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions, mostly in third-world countries where evangelical Christians have succeeded in banning legal abortions. Not only do pro-lifers not take responsibility for their death toll, they make things worse by slandering organizations that provide non-abortive health care to third world women, such as UNFPA. (“Feminists for Life,” an organization Hugo admires, is no different from any non-feminist pro-life organization in this regard.)
Would it get that bad in the USA? Of course not – the pre-Roe record shows pretty clearly that illegal first-world abortions are many times safer than illegal third-world abortions. Would there still be occasional women in the US, if abortion were banned, who’d be afraid to go to a hospital if their illegal abortion led to complications – which could then lead to serious health consequences, or even death, for the woman? Of course, there would be – and, again, the pre-Roe record is clear about that. Since Hugo is anti-evidence, perhaps he’ll accept simple logic instead: if you pass a law that makes it effectively impossible for people to seek needed medical help without fear of arrest, then of course some people will be harmed.
(And, of course, that’s not the only harm banning abortion does to women – not by a long shot.)
Hugo suggests that injuries and deaths from illegal abortion won’t be a problem “if — as leftist pro-lifers insist — anti -abortion legislation be accompanied by considerable aid to help single (and married) women either afford to keep their children or give them up for adoption.” But leftist pro-lifers have never insisted on this; instead, as Hugo points out later this same post, they “make common cause with Christian right-wingers,” advocating pro-life bans that are not accompanied by a stitch of aid for women. (According to Hugo, he “rejoiced when President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion ban” – a ban so misogynistic that it doesn’t even include a health exemption. Of course, the PBA ban was not accompanied by any of the nice policies Hugo suggests.)
The basic fact – the fact that Hugo never addresses directly – is that there is not a single country in the world in which banning abortion has led to a low abortion rate. Logically, there is no compelling reason for someone whose goal is a low abortion rate to support abortion bans, because they simply don’t work. (What does work, judging from those countries that do have low abortion rates, is Belgium-style generous social support combined with widely available birth control).
There is no logical way, given the evidence, that a pro-lifer can claim to support banning abortion because they want the US to have a low abortion rate. The two things are not connected.
Hugo does address this a bit, writing:
What’s striking to me is how Hugo’s analogy completely misstates my argument. If Hugo had been true to my argument, he might have written this: “The fact that outlawing prostitution victimizes women while not actually reducing prostitution significantly, and that other methods which don’t victimize women will reduce prostitution much more, is a poor argument for legalizing prostitution.” That would be an accurate analogy, but it would also be an excellent argument for legalized prostitution.
(Regarding prostitution, I strongly favor decriminalization. Specifically, I favor the Swedish approach, which decriminalizes prostitution but criminalizes being a John. But that’s a subject for a different post).
Hugo writes:
First of all, it’s not the law that makes abortion possible. As Hugo well knows, abortion takes place whether or not it’s outlawed. By spreading the lie that it’s laws that make abortion possible, Hugo is being deceptive – except the main person he’s deceiving is himself.
I think the question Hugo should ask himself is where his real priority lies: in restricting and punishing women and doctors, or in saving as many fetal lives as possible? If it’s the former, then perhaps it makes sense to remain pro-life – even though that locks us into an endless political deadlock, and will never really prevent abortion.
But imagine an alternative world. Imagine a world in which pro-lifers realized that 1) banning abortion has never, in the real world, led to a low abortion rate, and 2) feminists and civil libertarians will never, ever give up fighting to protect reproductive rights. On the other hand, what if the endless people-hours and billions of dollars pro-lifers spend on banning abortion were instead spent on working to actually reduce abortion, by incrementally working towards a Netherlands-level social support system? Sure, it would be a hard fight – but instead of being enemies, feminists, pro-lifers and civil libertarians would all working in the same direction. And unlike banning abortion, a victory in this case actually could lead to a low abortion rate, if real-world abortion rates are anything to judge by.
Hugo likes to say that he’s against “either/or” choices, but in the real world sometimes choices have to be made. Every dollar spent on trying to ban abortion is a dollar that could have been spent advocating for a policy that would more effectively save more preborn lives. Every minute spent supporting banning abortion is a minute that could have been used supporting policies that would more effectively save more preborn lives.
Thinking of it that way more than justifies not working for an abortion ban. Assuming, that is, that the point is saving fetal lives, not controlling female lives.
And that’s the bottom line, isn’t it? If being a feminist pro-lifer means anything, it should mean an eagerness to support both the best interests of women and the best interests of preborns. And, in fact, there’s a practical real-world way of doing that – a more effective method of reducing abortions that doesn’t attempt to punitively control women’s bodies. That’s something pro-life feminists should be eager to support.
But when I talk to pro-life feminists, they don’t seem eager about the possibility that they can have it both ways. Instead, they seem eager to dismiss the possibility. I think that’s a mistake on their part.
Amp: I agree with your Both/And analysis. There are pro-woman and pro-fetus policies that can work. I think, to a point, they work well here in the U.S. Granted there is a way to go.
One point that I believe is missing from your Both/And argument is pregnancy prevention. You write about the Netherland’s policy of social support as a way of reducing abortions. Is that just one example or is it your be all, end all example. Our social support of the seventies did nothing for the “black community”, but cause more children to be born and the subsequent need for more social support. It is also a widely held belief by many in the black community, at least where I grew up, that the “white man’s” social support programs were the destruction of the black family.
IMHO, concentrating educating in abstinence and sexual repsonsibility would be a better path along with social programs that promote responsibility within the parents instead of the state. Furthermore, real abortion education would also assist in reducing abortions. So both real, productive, education and social support systems would be a better than outlawing abortion.
One other question — “Hugo and other pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage they’ve caused; there are about 70,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions, mostly in third-world countries where evangelical Christians have succeeded in banning legal abortions.” How did pro-lifers cause 70,000 women to die every year from unsafe abortions? Were all 70,000 abortions forced by some barbaric regime or did these women decide to have an abortion on their own accord? I would agree with your point if they were forced to have an abortion, but if they had an abortion on their own free will . . . ?
You write:
Hugo likes to say that he’s against “either/or” choices, but in the real world sometimes choices have to be made. Every dollar spent on trying to ban abortion is a dollar that could have been spent advocating for a policy that would more effectively save more preborn lives. Every minute spent supporting banning abortion is a minute that could have been used supporting policies that would more effectively save more preborn lives.
And then earlier, you say you’re a “both/and” type of guy…well, it doesn’t look that way from this paragraph, as you are advocating an either/or choice here.
And you overlook the choice that would make abortion go away entirely: Abstinence.
Forced vasectomies would be easier to enforce, Mike.
Amanda: Forced vasectomies would be easier to enforce, Mike.
Unfortunately, Amanda, forced female or male sterilization would cause us to be extinct.
Therefore, abstinence is a better way to reduce abortions than a vasectomy or tubal ligation.
JStevenson, you can undo a vasectomy, so there’s no reason universal vasectomies would lead to extinction. After the couple is married and has signed all the papers indicating that they’re willing and able to support a child, then the guy will be granted a legal right to have his vasectomy undone. What’s the problem?
More seriously, there is no doubt that abstaining from heterosexual genital sex is the most effective way of preventing pregnancy, for any particular couple. (Note that they can still have all the not-hetero or non-gential sex they want and it remains just as effective). However, as a matter of public policy – and public policy is what my post is discussing – abstinence (either in the weak “the goverment requests that people not have sex” form, or the strong “have sex and we’ll throw you in prison” form) is not an effective policy.
* * *
Mike, I favor “either/or” policies when they’re possible but also recognize that in some situations “either/or” is not possible. So it is possible to support both female rights and reduce abortion rates; but it’s not possible to spend the same dollar on both abortion bans and on social supports. There’s nothing contradictory about that.
abstinence . . . is not an effective policy. I agree that abstinence – only is not an effective policy. However, there certainly should be more advocacy by both pro=life and pro-choice movements into abstinence.
My preference is to view an “unwanted pregnancy” like an STD. If we educate in the same methods as we do for STD I think that would be an effective policy.
The current political strategy of “pro-abortion” advocates, I disagree with. Blame the government and pro-lifers for the situation you are in, not the person having sex. Your comment regarding 70,000 dead because of “pro-lifers” is an excellent example. Rarely do you hear (except in the case of HIV/AIDS) the blame the government rhetoric for contraction of an STD. The focus on personal responsibility in regards to STD’s has a more effective impact on sexual responsibility than the “blame the government/men” mantra.
… you can undo a vasectomy, so there’s no reason universal vasectomies would lead to extinction. After the couple is married and has signed all the papers indicating that they’re willing and able to support a child, then the guy will be granted a legal right to have his vasectomy undone. What’s the problem?
The problem is that vasectomies, for the most part, are not reversible.
From Columbia University:
Results of recent studies indicate that following microsurgical vasovasostomy sperm appears in the semen in approximately 85 to 97% of men. Approximately 50 percent of couples subsequently achieve a pregnancy.
Following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy, sperm appears in the semen in approximately 65% of men. Approximately 20 percent of couples subsequently achieve a pregnancy.
Even with the best methods available, it only seems to restore fertility in roughly 50%. Also, microsurgery is very, very expensive.
So, that’s the problem.
Excellent essay, btw.
BTW — There is a greater chance of success through tubal ligation reversal than vasectomy reversals. Given that men deplore having their manhood taken away forced vasectomy’s would not be the best implementation of your policy.
DISCLAIMER Prior to the onslaught of tomatoes, eggs and feces — Aside from the fact that there are cultures that actually believe that statement is true, the above does not reflect the true opinions of the commentor nor the editor)
jstevenson, you are using faulty reasoning to analogize responsibility for unsafe abortions to responsibility for contracting STDs. No one suggested that the government was responsible for the underlying condition — the pregnancy — but for the lack of safe medical care. It would be as if the government intentionally made penicillin unavailable to those with STDs. No, the government wouldn’t be responsible for the initial STD, but would be responsible for pursuing a boneheaded public health policy. After all, one could say that abstinence is the best cure for STDs and withhold treatment on that basis, but that would be pretty silly. I realize that there are differences between abortion and STD treatment.
What Barbara said.
In addition, you’ve been warned – multiple times – about using insulting, baseless anti-feminist cliches on this website, such as claiming that my argument is part of a “blame the government/men mantra.” Please cut it out.
As long as (some) men equate “manhood” with “ability to impregnante a woman at any time”, preaching abstinence is a ridiculous anti-solution.
I swear I’m going to start a pro-choice groups that promotes vasectomies over abstinence. Sterilization totally works better, as one cannot be overcome with passion and undo a vasectomy in the heat of the moment.
Forced Vasectomies–‘Cause It’s Men’s Turn
That’ll be our motto.
Hey, I’m all for male as well as female methods, but why has this discussion gone down a road that seems to be assuming the only choices are abortion, abstinence, or sterilization (male or female)? This is ALL a little silly.
Lots of methods out there, folks (although admittedly not enough for men)–pill, injections, diaphragm, IUD (yes, they’re still available and safe, people just got scared off by the whole Dalkon Shield thing… They’re also almost as effective as sterilization AND they’re reversible without any surgery), condoms, etc.
I say teach about them all in school, make them readily available to all… and, as amp is suggesting, go for the Belgian or Scandinavian model of lots of individual freedom and low rates of unwanted pregnancy.
Thanks for taking on this debate, by the way…
Amp, I’m going to continue to honor my commitment to stay away from revisiting this topic for a while — that said, your post has given me much about which to think. At the same time, the sweeping generalizations of your final paragraph are, I think, unsupportable.
Cheers
Hugo
Looking at both the responses and the original article I must say that amp has somewhat not gotten the point of the belgian experience and the respondants /really/ don’t get it.
The belgians have rock-bottom abortion rates because they incessantly hammer “ALWAYS USE CONTRACEPTIVES!” into the skulls of their children. This is the message their shools send through their sexual-education programmes, it is the message which their media sends through ads and slogans, and it is what dutch parents tell their kids when they are on their way to a party.
There are other parts to the programme such as “What are the various bits and what do they do?” and the emotional aspects of relationships are also emphasised, but the central core of the policy is to get every-one to “double-dutch” Which means using the pill in conjunction with condoms.
It works.
The social policies also have something to do
with it but it is a secondary effect. Poor people typically have more unwanted pregnancies in any society so policies that reduce the number of poor people reduce the number of abortions, but the US simply doesn’t have a social underclass big enough to explain a rate of teenage pregnancy
*13 times as high* as the dutch.
Thats right. An average US teen is 13 times more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock than a dutch teen.
Social policy doesn’t cover it, this is the result of dutch teenagers knowing how to manage their sex-lives responsibly and american teens being kept in deliberate ignorance.
AKA: Abstinence Only.
Amanda: “Forced Vasectomies–‘Cause It’s Men’s Turn”
You are the BOMB! Next time I am in Texas would love to get together for a beer — no scissors please.
– – – –
Amp — I did not intend to say your argument was part of the “blame the government” mantra. You wrote several paragraphs regarding Hugo’s post. I disagreed with one statement becuase it seemed to say pro-lifers are the cause of the deaths of 70,000 women every year.
“I understand why . . . pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage they’ve caused.” and “there are about 70,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions.”
I presumed you meant — Hugo and other pro-lifers don’t want to talk about the disgusting carnage to which their pro-life policies contribute; due to those policies, women who want to abort their babies, must resort to an illegal abortion. Their choice to get an illegal abortion causes 70,000 deaths per year. I just wanted to clarify that was what you meant.
Barbara’s explaination — “No one suggested that the government was responsible for the underlying condition . . . but for the lack of safe medical care.” — sufficiently clarified your point.
I don’t believe “blame the government” is a feminist position — therefore, I fail to see how “blame the government mantra” could be an anti-feminist cliche. I have never heard of it as an anti-feminist cliche, but I will take your word on it and apologize for that too.
Jstevenson, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that your original statement refered to a “blame the goverment/men mantra,” and now you’re rendering the phrase as simply “blame the goverment mantra.”
I agree that your new phrase, revised after my criticism, is not an anti-feminist cliche. Your original phrase, however – refering at least partly to a supposed “blame the men mantra” – certainly was an anti-feminist cliche.
* * *
Hugo:
You’re right, the last paragraph sucks, and detracts from what I meant to say. I’ve revised it. (For those who came to this post after my revision, the original last paragraph said: “And yet, it doesn’t interest pro-life feminists at all. They have no interest in supporting both women and preborns, choosing instead to support bans that accord all respect to preborn life and none to post-birth women. What on earth is feminist about that?”)
Excellent analysis, Ampersand. You’ve explained everything that I’ve always found contradictory about feminists who are in favor of criminalizing abortion.
I’m still waiting to hear if all these yo-yos who keep proclaiming that we can save fetuses through abstinence and have a perfect world are okay with masturbation. I’d still like to hear if they find it compatible with, and a legitimate part of, abstinence teachings.
[cricket noises]
Yawn.
“If one believes — as almost all pro-lifers do — that life begins at conception, and the life of a child at one week or three months or three years is equally valuable, than one would be hard-pressed to justify not working to overturn the law that made the killing of any of those children possible.”
Ampersand, I was wondering if you discussed this already: why do these groups think it’s acceptable to impose their personal/religious beliefs on perfect strangers?
Amanda, can I join FV-CIMT? (Although, I think we need a new acronym.) I vote for t-shirts and bumperstickers, stat.
Any ban can plan? What are you, Mary Poppins?
Crud. Any ban plan can. Any ban plan can, dammit!
Well, I’m not really sure where I fit in as far as abortion goes; I hold by the Orthodox Jewish view, which is abortion isn’t good, mom dying is worse.
I think we go about it wrong; I think we really need to look at WHY a woman seeks out an abortion and answer those women in a case by case program. I have no idea what such a program would consist of, especially if government sponsered (or required prior to getting an abortion) I do know that if it were to be effective it would have to answer the real needs of a woman and not what someone wanted to tell her what those needs were.
Sometimes women are aborted planned pregnancies that have, somehow, gone “wrong” either from a psychological or physiological view point.
The more we argue about the rightness or wrongness, the less likely we are to attack the actual problem–and I do think the rate of abortion in USA (and Israel for that matter) constitutes a problem.
The solution, like the solution to so many things (homelessness, poverty, drug use), isn’t simplistic or answered simply by a law. We need something that is flexible; not something writ in stone.
I do believe that science could provide some answers, but that would require years of work, investment of money and patience. Such things as artifical wombs would answer health problems, methods to “freeze” a conception anywhere along the line and delay birth (outside the womb)till a better time (a new job secured, medical treatement finalized.)
Preventing rapes and incest would help, as would offering social support to women who give birth under such circumstances; but this wouldn’t help if the woman felt forced to continue the pregnancy, only helped to continue.
Ending poverty would be nice all around, and would most likely limit abortions (and unplanned pregancies, and lessen the incidence of risky pregancies, as there are a number of health conditions attributable to poor eating, more common among the poor for many reasons.)
A lot of it comes down to money. Money, money, money. Wish it didn’t and that is a nasty little fact, but if we wish to limit or end abortion we have to start with the green stuff. And no, it isn’t just throwing money at the problem,is wise investment into solutions of the problem. People don’t like to spend money on problems, they like to tell other people why they shouldn’t be doing this bad thing or that. But if you don’t want something to be you have to pay for it just like if you want something to be you have to pay for it. There really isn’t anything such as a free lunch.
See, this is why both sides of the issue hate me.
Obviously my statement should have been written thusly:
Sometimes women have aborted planned pregnancies that have, somehow, gone “wrong” either from a psychological or physiological view point.
Echo – JStevenson
However, the more I sink my teeth into this male vasectomy thing, the better it sounds (tastes?). As long as this isn’t a mandatory thing, that is. I mean, if a man and woman are willing to accept responsibility for an unexpected child are they allowed to refrain from participation? Otherwise, it seems like there would be some bootprints on his/her rights.
Otherwise, allowing only those of us who are committed enough to bear the majority of children in this world sounds like a great idea! After a generation or two, the world is mine. Mwaahhhahah.
When they perfect human cloning and men aren’t necessary for reproduction anymore, all these problems will go away. So that’s where the money needs to go….
Okay, some of you people are clearly sick and disgusting bigots. (people who like forced vasectomies and who want to replace men with clones) You can say these things are “jokes” but that’s the same sort of BS that people like Rush Limbaugh says. Joking or not, it’s bigotry. It might be normal, but I doubt the folks on this forum would like similairly stereotypical things about women. Bigotry is never acceptable and anyone who thinks it is, for any reason, is evil.
What is the point of this post? Abortion usually just looks like a battle between two groups of people who long since stopped carring about the primary issue and have instead taken to bashing each-other over the head with their respective self rigteousness as clubs. Pro-lifers seem to do everything in their power to make abortions more frequent and pro-choicers want… well, they won decades ago. Most (not all) should have moved on to something else a long, long time ago.
Well, if we’re talking about what feminists can do to prevent abortions, then I’m probably doing what I’m supposed to. My main activism on this issue is to teach jr. high sex ed (NOT abstinence-only, but they’re at least *considering* abstinence as a serious possibility.) If I have to choose between the two sides in the voting booth, I will choose the social programs & eduction vs. banning w/out social programs or (reasonable) education. In other words, I am very happy to live in the Netherlands rather than Poland.
All that said, I still defend my claim to be a feminist who favors certain legal restrictions on abortion, a.k.a. a “pro-life feminist”. (I *don’t* favor a ban, BTW.) “Choice” philosophy, with no acknowlegement of the living being involved, is dangerous to humanity and even to feminist causes (e.g. ratio of boys/girls in India or China). I have always said that my feminsm and my “pro-life tendencies” spring from the same place in my heart. If I allow one of them to die, the other will as well. This is the simple, crazy truth of a lonely soul. :op
And by the way, this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, as I don’t base any of my beliefs on the Bible/Koran/etc. (I’m best described as agnostic.) I am very against the religious right generally, especially on issues like gay marriage and their piss-poor regard for women. My ill-feeling toward them increases when I talk about abortion because they drown out *my* voice quite effectively. Everyone seems to direct their comments to *them* instead of me (especially online, because no one can sense my sincerity). And believe me, I would hardly be a welcome presence in a right-wing religious organization! If I tried to join one, I’d be out on my a** in a matter of hours. :o)
To Barbara (not me)
I’d love to hear what your proposed restrictions are, because in my judgment even if I want to protect fetuses (which I do), I don’t think that there’s much of a chance that they need protection at the point that I’d be willing to impose it as a matter of law — somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks — without seriously damaging the interests of the mother as well as others in her orbit (her husband, her existing and future children). Most abortions performed at this time or later involve pregnancies that are going wrong — for the mother or for the fetus or both. No one has yet proven to my satisfaction that this is a problem that requires a legal fix or that the parents don’t take ethical dilemmas involving the fetus’ interests seriously. Some may not, but this is not the norm.
As to earlier abortions, I think it is both impractical and unfair to impose good girl/bad girl solutions — you were raped, so you get an abortion; you were pressured but not raped and didn’t have an orgasm so you have up to nine weeks; you had riotous fun, you don’t get an abortion at all; — so again, please explain why it is that you are so focused on “restrictions” or otherwise make me understand why restrictions are necessary to begin with.
Soul: “…and pro-choicers want… well, they won decades ago…”
Um, 86% of US counties have NO abortion provider. Fewer and fewer doctors are learning in medical school how to perform abortions safely. In many states, women have to undergo waiting periods, making it more difficult for an employed woman to get an abortion, especially if she has to travel across the state to find an abortion provider. And we still have to sue to get birth control covered by employer-provided insurance plans. This is “won” how?
Lost in all this is the sad fact that prenatal care is not available to many people for reasons of money and ability to find providers willing to take them on as patients for inadequate Medicaid fees and percieved high risk of lawsuit. The “pro-life” folks have tried to answer this by proposing funding care for conceptus ONLY – if pregnant mom breaks a leg, tough shit. This very limited funding is not likely to be well publicized to the pregnant/possibly pregnant women who need it – because they aren’t in the medical system in the first place.
As I have posted elsewhere, a consistent stance for the “pro-life feminist” wishing to assume some male responsibility for pregnancies and resulting children would be support for a universal male DNA database, testing of all conceptuses and liveborn infants to identify paternity, and prosecution of all men who procreate with women who have not registered with the government their intent to become pregnant. Now if this all seems sci-fi, well, the technology is here now, and all that is lacking is either the political will to enforce penalties or the moral will for men to voluntarily assume their half of the responsibility.
Amanda, I’m quite fine with masturbation, thank you.
To the other Barbara (not me) :o)
I guess I have to answer with my specific opinion. It is extremely analytical and long-winded… but you asked!
For me it has absolutely nothing to do with good girl/bad girl. It has to do with weighing the rights of one life vs. another.
For the sake of argument, presume that all pregnancies begin when an embryo magically appears in a woman’s uterus. For some women, this sudden appearance may cause serious complications, even putting her life at risk. (In the “rape” scenario, I think severe psychic trauma qualifies as a serious complication, so I include it in the same category as life/health of mother). I do not think the fetus is on equal footing with the woman as far as rights, but I also do not think the value of the embryo/fetus is 0.
What *is* the value of a fetus? I have no idea. I am not God. But I have to make some kind of an opinion, because I know intuitively that it’s *something*. So I’ll say this:
Assuming the value of a woman carrying a baby is 1:
Value of a single egg or sperm: 0.00
Value of a fertilized, unimplanted egg: 0.01
Value of a 10-week fetus: 0.20
Value of a 5 month fetus: 0.90 (many can live at this stage outside of a woman’s body)
Value of a 8-9 month fetus: 0.99 (this is essentially a slightly premature baby)
Value of a born baby: 1
(We can all agree on the first and the last values…I hope!)
Now, what qualifies as a “serious complication”? I realize this is extremely difficult to determine in real life. So I would be OK with abortion being perfectly legal/unquestioned up to 10 weeks (even if morally, I might be iffy about it). The 10-week mark has to do with the lower relative value I perceive the fetus as having at that stage. After 10-12 weeks, I think it needs some kind of justification, legally. A woman should at least *claim* a specific health/mental health reason. If there are some who would abuse this and just lie, well, that’s life – but at least the restriction is there.
Another restriction that I agree with is parental notification laws. If only because any surgical procedure requires the permission of a parent or guardian, and I don’t see why abortion should be an exception to this. I’m not saying that I have a lot of love in my hearts for parents who would refuse either necessary surgery or necessary abortions for their children. I’m only saying that parental agreement makes sense as a general rule both for surgery and abortion. And as far as I know, specific cases may be overruled by a judge in both scenarios.
I support a partial birth abortion ban, but I would have given an exception for life/health. (What can *I* do about the fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans would have supported this idea?)
I am open to ideas like waiting periods – i.e. I see nothing wrong with it in *principle*.
Now, after saying all this, I can imagine that people will alert me to numerous practical concerns and various exceptions that my proposal wouldn’t cover. They will say that the agenda of the religious right goes way beyond what I’m putting forth. But I already know this, and I never said the religious right is my friend!
As far as “practicality” is concerned, I still support “innocent before proven guilty” as a philosophy even though it’s impractical and sometimes causes real suffering to crime victims. But it’s not because I *don’t care* about crime victims! And having that philosophy wouldn’t exempt me from being an advocate for crime victims. I’m sure there are unfortunate exceptions in the abortion debate that I can’t even *imagine* let alone come up with legal solutions for. On the other hand, I think the restrictions I propose would probably still cover quite a number of exceptions. It would even keep chemical abortions legal. Certainly it would allow for the “morning after pill”, which I support OTC.
If only the religious right didn’t exist, I believe my proposal for legal restriction would be completely reasonable and work very well. Unfortunately, the religious right *does* exist, which effects how I vote in practical terms. But that doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to see a fetus as a woman’s “choice”. To me, the semantics of that opinion are *extremely* important.
LOL I would hope so, Hugo. ;) But I wasn’t the one who was asking about masturbation.
Gosh, anti-feminists just don’t have a sense of humor!
Look, Soul, in reality I think that reproduction by cloning and forcing sterilization on anyone is stupid and wrong. But I crack these jokes for a reason. Almost everyone I know who argues that it’s acceptable to take away rights to prevent abortions seems to think it’s only acceptable to take away women’s rights. I’m trying to expose how sexist that is. I notice that you didn’t explode in anger at those who would take away women’s rights–are you sure that one bigotry is as bad as another? Or is it only bad if it’s aimed at men?
Amanda, I’m quite fine with masturbation, thank you.
I didn’t really ask if you personally were fine with it, Hugo, though I’m glad to hear it, of course. I asked if the much-vaunted-by-the-pro-lifers abstinence classes –indeed the very concept of abstinence as a “study” worth pursuing– includes masturbation.
I know this sounds frivolous, but I don’t think it is. Sexual guilt is a huge problem in this culture, even among us so-called evil secular humanists, I’ll wager. A culture of fundamentalism and/or extreme conservatism would seem to imbue its flock with the notion that ALL sexual practices are inherently bad, sinful, et al to the same degree. This is, to say the least, unrealistic and unhelpful to our supposed mutual goal of preventing abortion.
That’s why I was asking.
My bad, alsis and Amanda!
Alas, most pro-lifers tend to have a theology of sexuality that sees any kind of self-pleasure as a misuse of creation. In this theology, sex exists to bond husband and wife together. Pleasure for its own sake is defective.
That is not my opinion, but sadly, it tends to dominate the world-view of many pro-lifers. Not all, thankfully.
To Barbara:
Only two comments —
The earliest a woman can even know that she is pregnant, reliably, is at five weeks. Yes, that’s right, because the pg is timed to start from the last period she experienced but she can’t possibly know it until at least one week after she misses the next one.
As I have stated before, most so-called pro-life adherents are interested mostly in drawing lines. Why should your lines, heavily dependent on your values, override those of an individual pregnant woman, who, no doubt, also has equally valid thoughts on the “value” of an embryo at each stage of development?
alsis: As someone who has been with his significant other for 13 years and has three kids, I am an advid supporter of masterbation (TMI?). In reflection of Barbara P’s statements it is shameful how the religious right has usurped mainstream commentary on this isse.
I am still of the belief that abstinence, at least from personal experience and growing up with men, would not work if men were not allowed to masterbate. Unfortunately, I cannot speak for women on this issue (as to whether abstinence is viable without masterbation), regardless, I believe in equal applicability of the standard.
That being said, I do not believe that abstinence only education is sufficient, but abstinence should be emphasized as the safest protection from pregnancy and STD’s.
Alas, most pro-lifers tend to have a theology of sexuality that sees any kind of self-pleasure as a misuse of creation. In this theology, sex exists to bond husband and wife together. Pleasure for its own sake is defective.
Please, allow me to be the first, at least on this particular thread on this particular day, to point out that this attitude is completely insane. Not to mention the enemy of any truly “responsible” approach to sexuality.
Also, as a woman who is monogamous but really has zero interest in getting married, please allow me to state to any True Pro-Life Abstinence Believers[tm] auditing this thread that my marital status is none of their damn business. Never has been. :p I’ll decide when and if it’s proper for me to have sex and/or babies, thankyouverymuch.
I fully support masturbation, too. Especially for myself. ;)
Masturbation is not going to make abstinence work, though. It’s just no substitute for partner sex. Of course, partner sex is no substitute for masturbation, either.
At the risk of seeing this thread getcompletely hijacked into the self-love arena, let me make it clear that understanding someone’s view of masturbation is, in fact, a helpful way of seeing their views on a wider variety of sexual issues. Conservative Catholics talk a lot about JPII’s “theology of the body”, which stresses both the sinful nature of our incarnate self but also the opportunity to redeem that sinfulness is self-sacrifice. Sex is thus redemptive when it is an act of giving in a spousal relationship; all sex outside that narrow confine is ultimately spiritually dead and evidence of psychological immaturity and profound narcissism. Lord, I wish I were joking.
To Barbara Preminger:
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and others have argued for years that fetal brain development should correspond to “personhood”, and that some time after the end of the first trimester the fetal brain is sufficiently personlike to be considered a person, justifying some kind of legal restrictions on abortion to defend that person’s life. I think that responds to the other Barbara’s argument that your valuation is purely subjective. I think your valuation is intuitively similar to the Sagan/Druyan approach, and is a pretty good one.
BTW, not everyone will agree that a born baby is morally equivalent to an adult. Some ethicists like Peter Singer believe that children have to develop significant language capabilities before being considered morally equivalent. These ethicists usually come up with different reasons for banning infanticide and murder of the severely mentally retarded.
I realize a lot of people are against masturbation; if they weren’t, there wouldn’t have been the problems with Jocelyn Elders who actually made a lot of sense.
This goes to show how much delusion accompanies the abstinence-only way of thinking. If you honestly think that kids won’t masturbate if you don’t tell them about it….*sigh*
Masturbation is a-OK with me. Masturbation is the safest sex possible, and should be presented as safe and natural in middle school sex ed classes.
Unfortunately, the abstinence-only sex education prompts the many men (most of whom read Maxim and the like) to view sex as masturbation into a woman.
Catholicism is one of my major squicks. A celibate clergy claiming that heterosexual married sex (which few, if any, of the priests have ever taken part in) is the only acceptable kind is the ultimate in illogic. It’s like the Comic Book Guy thinking sex with Angelina Jolie would be the best. thing. ever….it just ain’t gonna happen, so what’s out of reach becomes the norm.
A big problem with forced vasectomy (and forced sterlization) is that it has historically been aimed at the poor and at African Americans. Remember when Norplant was offered to women on public assistance? Child cap welfare policies? You’d never get away with sterlizing middle class folk in that manner.
To Brian:
Well, it’s flattering that Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan agree with my values, but I would like to avoid using that fact as part of a logical argument ;o) (Appeal to authority and all that…)
To the other Barbara:
You said:
“As I have stated before, most so-called pro-life adherents are interested mostly in drawing lines. Why should your lines, heavily dependent on your values, override those of an individual pregnant woman, who, no doubt, also has equally valid thoughts on the “value” of an embryo at each stage of development?”
Laws would be few indeed if everyone had to agree to the morality of their enforcement.
For example, I think child abuse should be illegal. Would it make sense to say: “you can believe it’s immoral, but if you make it illegal you’re trampling on the rights of parents who don’t value children as much as you do”.
Or another example: I think racial discrimination should be illegal. But the employer down the street thinks her business would do better if she hired only white people, and doesn’t see this action as immoral. Well, society is still justified in making laws to protect the rights of racial minorities.
And another example: Someone who’s rich feels morally justified in keeping all their money. But others think that person should pay a higher proportion of taxes, based on moral ideas of fairness and equitable distribution of wealth. Does a higher tax rate “impose morality” on the rich person? I guess you could call it that, but it seems quite justifiable to me.
In other words, if I’m “imposing my values” when I support legal protection for a fetus, this is no different from what I do when I take a stand on any issue.
Okay, let me start again.
1. I think it is vitally important to establish that most so-called “pro-lifers” (whether they believe “life” begins at conception or not) are, from a practical standpoint interested in engaging in a line drawing exercise. Why is this important? Because many won’t admit it as it puts them at odds with some very powerful forces who do not agree that’s what is going on — and there’s no way to have a discussion if only the very extreme positions are on the table. And that’s where we are now. So unless “pro-lifers” are willing to stand up to those generally in their own orbit and say this, there is no point in having a dialogue with someone like you, however reasonable you may be.
2. Impractical laws or laws that are for show are worse than no laws at all. They subtly and not so subtly undermine the rule of law (if for no other reason than because sometimes they will be enforced, often highly selectively, such as with anti-sodomy laws). So coming up with a scheme in which — wink, wink, all you need to do is make up an excuse — as far as I am concerned, is a bad law enacted more for the purpose of making some people feel morally superior than for any other reason.
3. Using neurological functioning as a standard may be a place to start, for approaching a consensus on restriction related dates, but see 1. In addition, this would get you to about 16 weeks (as in, “several weeks” after the end of the first trimester, and a lot later than 10 weeks). At any rate, this is what I understand from some independent reading on the subject.
4. I am enclosing a link to CDC statistics on abortion for the years 1973 through 2000, which demonstrates that fewer than 6% of abortions occurred during or after week 16 in the year 2000. (Only about 6 percent are between weeks 13-15, which is to say that approximately 88% of abortions occur during the first trimester). I would bet money that a high proportion of the other 12% are related to problems in the pregnancy, including serious fetal defect.
Which takes me back to 1 and 2 — what needs to be regulated? What is wrong with saying that, give or take some issues at the margin (10 wks versus 12 wks) you are more or less satisified that abortion does not need further regulation because it appears to be subject to a form of “self-regulation” (or more likely, a form of professional self-regulation)?
Is it that important to be viewed as “pro-life” by the most extreme elements who use that label?
I’m not going to go too much into the law and morality discussion. Laws do reflect morality, but none of your examples (including the discrimination one) impinge on an individual’s autonomy in such a direct way. For those who don’t agree with your view of the fetus, this type of law is much more like laws against private action (sodomy) with no particular corresponding public gain.
The URL is http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm, so that you can see I am not making this up.
Responding to Barbara:
According to the website you gave, there were approx. 860,000 abortions in 2000. You can probably see where I’m going with your assertion that 6% after 16 weeks is unimportant, so I’ll quit here.
To Barabar P:
“Appeal to authority” is a perfectly acceptable argument, it’s the appeal to a FALSE authority that is a bad one. I’m actually not sure that Sagan and Druyan are the best authorities, but I think they have a reasonably articulated position, and their names give someone a basis for further research. Sorry to nitpick, but the appeal to authority argument is something that I pick up on.
You’re right, Trish. Now I feel bad. How about only forced vasectomies for people who classify themselves as “pro-life”?*
*Attention–this is an attempt at humor. I do not want to force vasectomies on anyone.
Brian – I see your point. Sorry if I came across as insulting. That was not my intention. It was more like a lame attempt at humor.
Other Barbara – I will try to address each point, but I may have trouble going into great detail due to time constraints. Please forgive me if I miss an important detail.
1) I associate with very few people who are pro-life, so it’s very difficult for me to stand up to pro-lifers on this issue.
2) I see your point about undermining the rule of law, but I think it’s the best that can be managed in a complex situation. I don’t think it’s about feeling morally superior as much as protecting a life.
3) I probably could be persuaded to move the “line” that I drew based on scientific findings, etc. What I came up with is based on other information I heard. As much as that’s an important question, I think it’s kind of a side issue to this one.
4) I don’t really think that the current abortion rate reflects much on a philosophical question of legality.
5) “Professional self-regulation” has some of the same weaknesses as a law with no teeth. Besides, I don’t think that abortion is much subject to self-regulation in it’s current state. Certainly that self-regulation won’t continue if people are convinced that abortion is only about a woman’s choice.
6) You’re right that for those who disagree with me, it seems like I’m just imposing on their private behavior. A discriminating employer may disagree that she’s causing harm to anyone, and that laws preventing her from doing so are imposing on her private decision of who to hire. An abuser may feel like I’m butting my nose into what should be a private family matter. In the case of (consensual) homosexual sex, one would be hard-pressed to say who’s being hurt by that action. In the case of abortion, this is just not so clear.
In other words, if I’m “imposing my values” when I support legal protection for a fetus, this is no different from what I do when I take a stand on any issue.
Presumably, when you take a stand on any other issue, you consider the balance between individual rights and other values. For example, we prohibit firing people on the basis of their race because we believe preventing racial discrimination is a higher good than allowing employers complete freedom. We don’t prohibit firing “at-will” for most other reasons, though.
In the case of abortion, this is just not so clear.
This is begging the question. You believe it is not clear; others of us believe it is a pretty clear decision.
I said:
“In the case of abortion, this is just not so clear.”
mythago said:
“This is begging the question. You believe it is not clear; others of us believe it is a pretty clear decision.”
In my earlier statement I was comparing abortion rights to the right to have consensual homosexual intercourse. The latter “more obviously” does not impinge on anyone else’s rights.
“Unfortunately, the abstinence-only sex education prompts the many men (most of whom read Maxim and the like) to view sex as masturbation into a woman.”
Umm, yes. Exactly.
And also: I happen to like fucking. I’m also 41 years old, have never wanted children & never will want them. I have also never had the money to have sterilisation surgery, even if I would have considered it a viable option. So, the only “solution” Hugo et al. can offer me is that I should spend my entire adult life without ever once fucking?
Don’t get me wrong: I am not about not being responsible. I have always used condoms, and, briefly, the Pill (before it gave me life-threatening side effects), and have never actually been pregnant–not to my knowledge anyway. However, as we all surely know by now, there is no method of birth control that is 100% effective, so, even though I have for decades been careful and responsible, if I happen to get pregnant I’m supposed to just deal with it?
Come on, the agenda here is beyond ridiculous: this is more of the same old anti-woman rubbish we’ve all had shoved down our throats all our lives. You don’t have money, so you don’t get to have sex……………EVER. The arrogance that these men are displaying here is unbelievable.
And why exactly is it that they think their opinions are in any way at “feminist”? Because they say so? Well I have a piece of news for them: they are NOT, and never will be.
All “pro(fetus’s)-life(the mothers can all fuck off and die)” arguments come from the same rotten core, and that is hatred of women and sex, and the equation of both with uncleaniness and “badness”. It’s not about saving widdle babies, it’s about controlling women and making sure they aren’t fucking, full stop.
“it’s about controlling women and making sure they aren’t fucking, full stop.
Who wants to control women and make sure they aren’t fucking — Men? That can’t be right because men want women to _ _ _ k more! I guess it must be women who are trying to control women — that’s right, let’s “blame the women”. don’t want to be too cliche :-) Just kidding Amp.
In all seriousness, misogynist women are part of this, too.
I’m all for fucking.
I’m not for disposing of the consequences of said fucking because they happen to be inconvenient.
Hugo:
Anyone who thinks an unwanted pregnancy is a mere “inconvenience” is so utterly clueless about the nature and implications of pregnancy to a woman’s life and health that it’s hard to take their opinion seriously.
It’s not about fucking itself. It’s about women fucking who they like when they like that is the threat. Women’s sexual functions are quite appreciated as long as they are micromanaged. An entire history of selling women, punishing female adultery but not male adultery, bridal customs built around passing ownership of women from one man to another, veiling, slut shaming and other forms of punishment for women’s sexual behavior outside of direct male control all should convince us not to poo-poo this problem.
Do women participate in the problem? Yes, especially if they have been convinced that other women have sexual freedoms they do not have, I’ve noticed. Sister-punishing is not mysterious, and that it exists is no argument against feminism.
Barbara P:
Now, what qualifies as a “serious complication”? I realize this is extremely difficult to determine in real life. So I would be OK with abortion being perfectly legal/unquestioned up to 10 weeks (even if morally, I might be iffy about it). The 10-week mark has to do with the lower relative value I perceive the fetus as having at that stage. After 10-12 weeks, I think it needs some kind of justification, legally. A woman should at least *claim* a specific health/mental health reason. If there are some who would abuse this and just lie, well, that’s life – but at least the restriction is there.
Why 10 weeks rather than 5? Or 15? Or 20? Is it just an arbitrary number, or is it rationally related to some association between the value you attribute to the fetus and its physical/mental characteristics?
And wherever you draw your line, if you’re going to permit a broad health exception, then it’s not really a line at all. If the only burden a woman must meet to obtain an abortion after 10 weeks (or however many weeks you decide on) is to claim that continuing the pregnancy will adversely affect her health then your restriction isn’t really a restriction at all.
Another restriction that I agree with is parental notification laws. If only because any surgical procedure requires the permission of a parent or guardian, and I don’t see why abortion should be an exception to this. I’m not saying that I have a lot of love in my hearts for parents who would refuse either necessary surgery or necessary abortions for their children. I’m only saying that parental agreement makes sense as a general rule both for surgery and abortion. And as far as I know, specific cases may be overruled by a judge in both scenarios.
Do you mean parental notification or parental consent? They’re not the same thing. You say “notification” but you then talk about parental permission, which suggests that you mean consent rather than merely notification.
I see no real value to either kind of law. You say you support a judicial bypass option. On what grounds do you think a judge may justly deny a minor’s request for an abortion without the consent of her parents or guardian?
J Stevenson:
How did pro-lifers cause 70,000 women to die every year from unsafe abortions?
“Cause” is too strong, but pro-lifers obviously bear substantial responsibility for those deaths through working to deprive the dead women of access to safe and legal abortion.
I would agree with your point if they were forced to have an abortion, but if they had an abortion on their own free will . . . ?
Let’s say you work to ban seat belts. Your actions help to make seat belts illegal. As a result, the number of motor vehicle accident fatalities skyrockets.
You would claim you bear no responsiblity for those deaths, on the grounds that you didn’t force the victims to drive, right?
Sex always has consequences, Don; one of those consequences is — for straight, fertile folks — pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is indeed a profound inconvenience. Fucking is great, but if fucking leads to pregnancy (which should not be a shock) the child conceived from all of this fucking is still there — damned inconvenient and unwanted, but there. Sex comes loaded with consequences, and one of those consequences is pregnancy. I am in favor of any method of preventing conception — abstinence, masturbation, condoms, barrier devices. But abortion — no.
Don P — I like your analogy. As such, I did not say pro-life policies had some implication in the deaths of 70,000 women. I would say substantial responsibility would be too strong also. My perception is that those who broke the law, bear the greatest responsibility for the outcome of their actions.
Hugo:
Sex always has consequences, Don; one of those consequences is — for straight, fertile folks — pregnancy.
The fact that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex does not imply that a pregnant woman has a moral duty to complete her pregnancy and give birth to a child, still less that she should be compelled to do so by criminal law.
An unwanted pregnancy is indeed a profound inconvenience.
No, it is not in any meaningful sense a mere “inconvenience.” Completing an unwanted pregnancy and giving birth to an unwanted child is a life-changing event. It is likely to have serious consequences to a woman’s health, to her economic status, to her job or career, to her relationship with her husband or partner, to her ability to care for her children or other dependents, or to any other aspect of her life. The reason you call it an “inconvenience” is because you seek to trivialize the nature and consequences of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, and thus to portray women who seek to avoid that burden by terminating their pregnancy as selfish and irresponsible.
Fucking is great, but if fucking leads to pregnancy (which should not be a shock) the child conceived from all of this fucking is still there — damned inconvenient and unwanted, but there.
It’s not a child, it’s a fetus. Our law and culture have always recognized a profound moral difference between children and fetuses. But even if it were a child, a woman does not have a duty to use her body as a physical life-support system to sustain and develop its life any more than she has a duty to donate a life-saving organ for a born child. It’s her body. Not yours. Not your church’s. Not the government’s. Hers.
JStevenson:
My perception is that those who broke the law, bear the greatest responsibility for the outcome of their actions.
So if you lived in a state where all sex was a capital crime, and you were executed for having unlawful sex, the greatest responsibility for your death would be yours, would it? I think you have a profoundly warped view of the relationship between law and responsibility.
If a law is profoundly unjust, as laws banning legal abortion are, then the primary responsibility for the adverse outcome resulting from that law rests with its advocates.
Just one more reason to serious consider boycotting heterosexuality. I wonder what percentage of pro-lifers think that preventing abortion through willful homosexuality is a great idea.*
*Note: This is a joke. I do not think that people can change their sexual orientation so easily. I firmly believe that sexual orientations of all sorts involving consenting adults are just fine, and every effort possible should be made to keep from using disease, death, and babies as punishment for people having sex we don’t like or are jealous of.
Hugo, you have never been pregnant, and I get the impression you haven’t spent much time with anyone who is, or you wouldn’t be making inane statements about pregnancy being “inconvenience.” It is not “inconvenient.” Breaking a nail is inconvenient. Pregnancy is a physically demanding, and often life-threatening, condition that lasts the better part of a year and (if unchecked) terminates in labor.
I’d ask you to tell a laboring woman that she seems to be “inconvenienced,” but I’d hate to be responsible if you sustained physical injury as a result.
An STD is also “inconvenient”; should we perhaps not treat these, as they are forseeable possible consequences of sex?
I assure you, mythago, I don’t use the term “inconvenient” lightly. And I’ve been around many a pregnant woman, and in many a maternity ward. (And in my pre-conversion incarnation, was a NARAL volunteer and a fairly significant Planned Parenthood donor. But I don’t think I’m capable of establishing my bona fides here; my sex and my politics makes it impossible to do that in this environment).
Suffice it to say, I can find plenty of pro-life women who will use the term “inconvenient”, and thus make the case more effectively than I.
Absolutely we should treat STD’s. We just should not blame the government because we got one.
Don P: Whether or not a law is unjust is a matter of opinion. I am sure the baby who is 26 weeks post conception does not think abortion laws are unjust.
FTR, I believe in choice, I just believe it is disingenuous to blame someone else for the condition my partner and I put ourselves into.
I took the risk and I live with the consequences within or out of the confines of the law. Speeding is a good example. I get there faster, but sometimes I get caught. It is my responsibility not the governments.
Brian, no I don’t see where you’re going. Not at all. Do you mean that 6% of 860,000 is a large number? But then, I happen to believe with a fair degree of confidence that this 6% corresponds to the at least 6% of women who definitively undergo abortion for their own health or because of serious fetal defect. Are you saying you want to stop women on this front as well?
Ummm… Brian… you DO know that a traffic ticket isn’t a baby, right ? You pay your fine and move on. Pregnancy doesn’t work like that. Yeesh.
Hugo:
I assure you, mythago, I don’t use the term “inconvenient” lightly.
During the 9-month course of pregnancy, the size of a pregnant woman’s uterus increases by a factor of 500 to 1,000. Her body weight increases by 25 pounds or more. Even healthy pregnancies are typically accompanied by frequent urination, water retention, nausea, vomiting, labored breathing, back pain, and fatigue. Every pregnancy entails substantial medical risk. According to the American Medical Association, up to 30% of pregnant women experience a major medical complication, and up to 60% experience some kind of medical complication. Labor and vaginal delivery impose unique and painful physical trauma that can last for many hours, or even for days. C-section, required in one out of four live births under current medical practise, involves invasive surgery, abdominal incision and general anaesthesia. A woman is about 10 times more likely to die from completing a pregnancy than from terminating it. Pregnancy and childbirth also impose substantial risks to a woman’s mental health, including a significant risk of clinical depression. Pregnancy is also likely to increase the risks from any pre-existing medical condition a woman may suffer from, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease.
In addition to the purely medical risks, pregnancy may also cause severe disruption to all other aspects of a woman’s life. Her husband or boyfriend may desert her, or abuse her, or neglect her. She may lose her job, or lose important and irreplaceable opportunities in her career or education. The pregnancy may also severely interfere with her ability to take care of her existing dependents, such as children or an elderly parent. A child is also an enormous economic liability. The direct economic cost of raising a child from birth to adulthood is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if a woman completes an unwanted pregnancy and then gives the baby up for adoption, she may experience lifelong guilt and emotional trauma as a result.
But not to worry; Hugo assures us that all of this is merely an inconvenience. Not a life-changing event. Not an experience that risks turning a woman’s life upside down, jeopardizing her health, her career, her family life. No, it’s none of that. It’s just an inconvenience.
And of course we have to respect his opinion because he assures us that he would not use the term “inconvenience” lightly.
Hugo, what color is the sky in your world?
jstevenson:
Absolutely we should treat STD’s. We just should not blame the government because we got one.
If the government has failed to provide information about or access to the means needed to avoid STDs it certainly deserves some blame for STD infections.
Don P: Whether or not a law is unjust is a matter of opinion.
No kidding. As is the matter of who is responsible for the death of a woman from an illegal, unsafe abortion. All questions of morality, justice and responsibility are “matters of opinion.” So what?
I am sure the baby who is 26 weeks post conception does not think abortion laws are unjust.
I am sure the fetus who is “26 weeks post conception” has no idea what abortion is, what law is, or what justice is, so it’s hard to see how the above claim is meaningful at all.
Pretending that fetuses can think and feel like born human beings is not a serious argument.
I took the risk and I live with the consequences within or out of the confines of the law. Speeding is a good example. I get there faster, but sometimes I get caught.
No, you don’t live with the consequences. If your speeding causes a crash, you would expect to be treated for your injuries. You would expect your wife and children riding in the car with you to be treated for their injuries. You would expect the government or someone else to pay for the injuries to other people that you caused by your speeding. The idea that you would assume all responsibility for the consequences of your choice to speed is laughable.
“I’m not for disposing of the consequences of said fucking because they happen to be inconvenient.”
Well, enough people have already replied to the horrific arrogance of your calling pregnancy a mere “inconvenience”, so I’ll just continue to say that I still recognise your lamentations about poow ickle babies for what it is: a red herring.
This IS about your attitudes towards sex, and how people should (or shouldn’t) be having it. It’s also about your fear of uncontrolled women, out there doing what they please without even having to suffer dire consequences for it (because of course all women who abort do it without a second thought). Maybe you don’t go the full Fundamentalist hellfire and brimstone route, but you’re still full of moral indignation over those people who just want to fuck for the sake of fucking. Unless, of course, they are nice middle-class people who can afford surgical procedures that they need just because you say so.
And, of course, the risk & financial burden of this surgery will be on women (who in their right mind is going to trust a guy who says, “Don’t worry: I’ve had the chop”???). So, surprise, surprise, it’s women who will in your world be forced to undergo the more expensive, invasive and dangerous procedure if they want to have sex. How feminist of you.
Another thing that makes it obvious that this is not about babies, let alone feminism, is the fact that if it WERE, your priorities would be changing social attitudes and legislation regarding aid to parents and children, medical care for children, support for working mothers, and on and on to include all those societal ills that make having children so unfeasible & therefore exacerbate the need for abortions in the first place. But no, that’s not your focus: your focus is on stopping abortion (the only solution for many women) and telling people to abstain from sex. If you were at all serious about women OR babies, you’d start working to make the world better for them FIRST, and then, only when those goals have been achieved, you’d move on to the question of whether abortion is really necessary. Though I would still have to question why any man would presume his opinion about issues around pregnancy should carry any weight anyway.
The fact that you aren’t going about it by trying to make life better for mothers and childre first, before even bringing up the topic of abortion, shows you up as just another man trying to control what women do with their bodies. As if we don’t see enough of those every day of the week.
“Ummm… Brian… you DO know that a traffic ticket isn’t a baby, right ? You pay your fine and move on. Pregnancy doesn’t work like that. Yeesh.”
Actually, Alsis, I’m betting he DOESN’T know that. For a lot of men, bringing a baby into the world is of LESS consequence to them personally than getting a traffic ticket. Even if they do paricipate minimally in the pregnancy, many of them are more than willing to just move on either before or after the baby is born.
It’s that knowledge that they will never truly have to be accountable for any baby, either during gestation or after birth, that allows the Hugos and Brians of this world to have an opinion about abortion the first place. It’s all so easy and clear when you KNOW you’ve got that option of just walking away whenever you damn well please.
And I know that all the men’s right types are going to start their whingeing about paternity suits and that rubbish, but the facts of this world say that those fathers are who are actually caught and held to account are only a small number of those who walk away free.
Hurricane Hugo struck Alabama, inconveniencing the residents.
[roll on snare drum]
Hugo, as someone who was sick with morning sickness around the clock for four months straight and then saw my blood pressure drop to the point of fainting for the next two months and then saw my blood pressure rise shortly before having my son pulled out of me with one of those suction thingees (he was a conehead for a month), I can vouch for the fact that my pregnancy was not a mere inconvenience. I’m disappointed in you that you referred to a pregnancy in that manner, even one that ends in an abortion. I had an abortion when I was in my early twenties and by no means was that a mere inconvenience. It hurt like hell. I had non-stop morning sickness (more like 24 hour per day sickness) before the abortion. I had a bit of hemmoraging after. It wasn’t like having a wart removed, believe me. I also don’t regret having the abortion. It was a necessary choice I made at that time in my life and I didn’t take it lightly.
Don P: I am not saying the government policies do not contribute to the deaths of women who get unregulated abortions. My point of contention was that comments like “cause . . . carnage” and “punishment for women’s sexual behavior outside of direct male control” and “controlling women and making sure they aren’t fucking” — perpetrates the “anti-feminist” belief that pro-abortionists want to place the majority of the blame on the government OR men for the deaths of these women, while abdicating the parties involved for the choices they made.
Blaming others for the choices one makes is a victim mentality that will never reduce “unnecessary” abortions. Nor will it make life better for women. If one does not take responsibility for their actions they will always view themselves as a victim (just go to the corner liquor store near my boyhood home in Philly — “it’s the white man’s fault that I am drinkin’ and can’t get a J-O-B). If you view yourself as a victim chances are others will treat you as one. As such, blaming the government for the deaths of 70,000 women is not a feminist principle and is actually “anti-feminist” and not certainly not cliche.
Crys T: You are completely right — “mommy’s baby – father’s maybe”. That is exactly why I am pro-choice. However, I still can empathize with anti-abortion advocates, when I see my two little abortion survivors running around the house (for two of our kids we sat in the Ob/Gyn’s office at 11 and 24 weeks respectively). Our first child did not survive our first visit to the Ob/Gyn — We like to call it the son we helped to kill. Both my wife and I take full responsibility for that choice — not the government, but we place a little blame on Ortho-Tricyclene and Trojan.
“FTR, I believe in choice, I just believe it is disingenuous to blame someone else for the condition my partner and I put ourselves into.”
and
“If one does not take responsibility for their actions they will always view themselves as a victim ”
Hi,
I know this has been said before, but… having an abortion is taking responsibility for the situation that one has found themselves in. Also, I don’t think that women who chose to abort are “blaming” the government or someone else for their condition.
. . . certainly not cliche.
Just so you know where I get the term inconvenience, folks:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”
–Mother Teresa, 1994 (source: Feminists for Life and Wall Street Journal)
Of course, she didn’t fuck, so I guess she doesn’t know much about being a woman.
Hugo:
Of course, she didn’t fuck, so I guess she doesn’t know much about being a woman.
Whatever Ma Teresa knew about being a woman, she certainly didn’t have any first-hand experience of being pregnant.
But this idea that because you can find female anti-abortion fanatics who also call unwanted pregnancy a mere “inconvenience” the word is an honest and meaningful description of that condition is just ludicrous. This may come as a surprise to you, but anti-abortion fanaticism can blind women as well as men to truth and honesty.
Now explain to us how an event that turns a woman’s life upside down, threatens her livelihood, her health, her relationships, her family, her economic security is merely an “inconvenience.” You assure that you’re not using the term “lightly,” so presumably you think you are capable of defending your absurd choice of words.
“Of course, she didn’t fuck, so I guess she doesn’t know much about being a woman.”
Well, now we know. You don’t believe that women can be independently defined from their sexual utility to men, eh? No wonder you don’t see the necessity for her legal right to choose what happens to her body! After all, her body is meaningless until she has been fucked by a man!!! And I suppose, quickly meaningless after the fuck is over.
And I know that you will say you meant this sarcastically, as tongue-in-cheek, and that I’ve misinterpreted your point… but I think you’re entertainment of this “joke” is telling.
It isn’t abortion that has turned children into an “inconvenience” (or a burden for some and an economically catastrophic choice for others). We are a society that has withdrawn virtually all public/social support with respect to so-called private choices even as we try to make some of those choices illegal. It is telling that public education is next on the radar screen of the right — one of the few collective forms of support for families that remains.
I will say that even when you are thrilled to be pregnant children are an inconvenience, and usually a lot more than that, as others have already said, and all of which I totally concur with. I have been pregnant five times and never was the condition merely an inconvenience. I was wondering where Don P. had gone and I’m glad he’s back.
The average pro-life sentiment comes down to expecting women to make society better than it chooses to make itself by accepting unlimited self-sacrifice where children and family relationships are concerned. Some women choose not to.
This whole thread reminds me of why I promised myself not to blog anymore on abortion. I find that emotion — anger and grief — blinds me. I cannot find the way to write about this without ending up intemperate; I’ve had some stabs at it at my blog.
But those who would call Mother Teresa a “fanatic”? We are too far apart to have constructive dialogue. I might as well be typing in Farsi while Don and others typed in Tagalog or Swedish. Abortion debates leave me depressed about the human ability to connect across the ideological, cultural, and theological divides.
I’m checking out of this thread. Peace to all. I mean that – and I am sorry if my words have been inflammatory and hurtful.
Mother Theresa was a noble person who alleviated suffering. She never to my knowedge tried to change the conditions that gave rise to the suffering to begin with. That doesn’t lessen what she did do, but it also doesn’t mean that she had all the answers to suffering and social improvement. And yes, Hugo, for good or ill her life was lived as an extremist.
Hugo:
But those who would call Mother Teresa a “fanatic”? We are too far apart to have constructive dialogue.
Yes, Mother Teresa was absolutely a fanatic, opposed not only to all abortion but to all contraception, all sex outside marriage, all gay sex, etc., etc.
But her fanatical devotion to Catholic sexual and reproductive doctrine wasn’t the worst of it, anyway. I would recommend that you read Christopher Hitchens’ expose of her life and work.
Still waiting for your explanation of how unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is nothing more than an “inconvenience.”
I know it’s difficult when talking about something as personal and passionate as reproductive freedom, but I’d like to remind everyone to please keep things civil, if possible. Especially when talking to people whose views are unpopular here – it’s not easy being the minority view.
Barbara:
It appears that Mother Teresa wasn’t terribly interested in either preventing suffering or alleviating it where it occurred. Amoung other things, she apparently withheld pain medication from her patients and advised them instead to offer up their suffering in recognition of the glory of God. Hitchens describes this and much more in his critique of her life and work The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practise.
Wikipedia also describes some of the major criticisms of her here.
The reaction from conservative Catholics to these charges is usually angry denial. Mother Teresa cultivated such an image of selfless saintliness, an image uncritically promoted by a fawning western media, that many people are simply unwilling to accept that the truth about the woman is much darker.
Yes, Don, I’ve heard these things too, though I have no idea whether it’s true (or to what degree, whether taken out of context, or what have you). She did, however, try to alleviate the harshest conditions that many poor people face in a certain part of the world. Clearly, she accepted and was motivated by doctrines that I find problematic — such as the nobility of suffering, and so on.
I don’t think there’s any real doubt that the charges are true. Hitchens and her other critics cite the actual letters, reports and other documents substantiating their claims. I think my favorite example is the letter Ma Teresa wrote to the Los Angeles D.A. asking him to go easy on Charles Keating, the developer who defrauded thousands of elderly people out of their retirement savings and sent the money to anti-pornography crusaders and other conservative religious causes. The D.A. wrote back asking the good sister to return the stolen money that Keating had sent her for her mission. She refused.
For Chrys and Alis:
I didn’t come up with or advocate the speeding ticket analogy, jstevenson did.
For Barbara:
You’ve changed your story some. You originally said, without citation, that you thought “most” of the 6% of abortions after week 15 were for medical reasons. Now you’re saying all of them are.
I would say that if more than 100 abortions annually are somewhere between just morally dubious and up to the equivalent of infanticide, then it’s an issue that is at least as important as capital punishment. I still don’t buy the “most abortions are fine, so chill out about the remaining ones” argument.
From my semi pro-choice perspective, I’d say my position offers a credible way to defend abortion rights for the vast majority of women in the vast majority of circumstances, and that’s a better pro-choice position than one that doesn’t offer a credible theory about personhood.
Brian:
I would say that if more than 100 abortions annually are somewhere between just morally dubious and up to the equivalent of infanticide, then it’s an issue that is at least as important as capital punishment.
No abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. What additional legal restrictions on abortion do you seek?
From my semi pro-choice perspective, I’d say my position offers a credible way to defend abortion rights for the vast majority of women in the vast majority of circumstances, and that’s a better pro-choice position than one that doesn’t offer a credible theory about personhood.
I don’t know why you think the two are in conflict. And our law and culture already embody a credible “theory” about personhood–it begins at birth.
I think, Brian, that the phrase I used was a high degree of overlap or correlation or something like that. Which I do believe to be the case. I don’t think I’d ever state something categorically because there’s no way for me to know.
I don’t like talking about personal experience, but it is my experience that it is difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to obtain an abortion after the first trimester. After about 16 weeks, one almost always needs to be hospitalized for a day to obtain an abortion because of the possible medical complications. It is also much more expensive, needless to say.
Most women who get to that point have accepted their pregnancy. I’m sure not all have, but most. Therefore, at that point, if they decide to undergo an abortion, it is usually because something unexpected has occurred. Which leads me back to my original question with an example: If you find out at 21 weeks that your baby has an unsurvivable defect and that it’s more dangerous to the mother to simply let nature take it’s course, do you think abortion should be illegal in that situation?
If you look at the stats I provided, you will see that the rate of second trimester abortions has actually declined. I’m actually a little surprised over this because of the state of prenatal monitoring (which has made incredible advances over the last five years or so).
I don’t know what it means to be semi-pro-choice, so I can’t credibly respond to your entire post. My basic position is that I think abortion is often the wrong choice, but that it’s right enough and early enough often enough that I believe it imperative to give women the benefit of the doubt.
it’s not easy being the minority view.
It’s not easy constantly trying to have a reasoned conversation with people who see one as a fetus-generator first and a human being second, either.
Don P: “No abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. What additional legal restrictions on abortion do you seek?”
I am not a doctor, but a D&E performed on a 35 week old fetus would pretty much seem like infanticide. Perhaps it would make things easier to understand if their was an ultrasound and heartbeat monitor facing you while your 38 week old, healthy fetus, inside the womb of the woman you love, was getting was getting his arms sliced off after her crushed skull has passed through her cervix.
I know I make some off the wall comments sometimes, but certainly you have to believe that abortion, at least in that case is at least the moral equivilent of infanticide. It is willful ignorance to not call it like it is. Abortion is extinguishing a life, just like anything else. In the case of abortion however, it is “justifiable” just like the death penalty, “heat of passion” killing or putting animals “to sleep”.
We give more respect to alligator, bald eagle and turtle fetuses than we do our own species. It is funny how the same people will fight to save the stinking whales say abortion is not actually killing something. I guess it just makes you feel better. Let’s be real people!
For Barbara:
I’d say I’m 90-95% pro-choice, supporting the right up to the not-clear point of when a fetal brain is sufficiently developed to be considered a person, sometime during the second trimester. That’s what I meant by semi pro-choice. Keeping abortion rare prior to that time isn’t a moral issue to me, it’s just a health issue. Birth control is a far better way to control pregnancies than abortion.
After personhood develops, you have to figure out scenarios that would not be that different from dealing with a 9-month old fetus minutes before it’s delivered. For the scenario you gave, go ahead and terminate the fetus – I support euthanasia too.
In the special cases of rape and incest, there are justifications for allowing the mother to surgically remove a viable healthy fetus even after personhood develops, along the lines of the “Unconscious Violinist” scenario developed by a pro-choice ethicist. You should be able to find that on the web if you haven’t seen it before – it provides a credible reason for distinguishing rape and incest pregnancies from other ones.