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.
Exactly how many elective abortions are performed on 38 week (that’s 9 months, 2 weeks) fetuses each year, Jstevenson? Are there even 5? I very much doubt it. Hell, I doubt there are any – is it even possible to perform an elective D&E at 38 weeks? Is there any medical center in the USA which performs elective 38 week D&Es?
I guess it just makes you feel better.
Could you be more insulting and condesending to people you disagree with? I doubt it. Speculating about the motives of the people you’re arguing with is the lowest form of debate.
Let’s be real people!
No one talking about “38 week abortions” is in any position to be snotty, obnoxious and insulting about other people’s sense of reality.
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.
Aside from the fact that you can’t even keep your pronouns straight, I find this an incredibly smarmy and cheap argument. If you can defend your views with logic, do so. If you have to resort to gross-out descriptions of fictional elective 38-week abortions, then you should probably give up arguing altogether.
* * *
Listen up, folks: the cerebral cortex doesn’t develop until the 20th week, and it’w not really hooked up to the brain in a functional way until the 25th week. You can argue about banning elective abortion past the 25th week, but if you want to ban abortion before that point, then please explain to me a non-religious theory in which something which has never been capable of thought or of feeling, and which has never been capable of anticipation or desire, has human rights.
The vast, vast, majority of elective abortions take place before the 25th week (according to Guttmacher, 99% of abortions take place by week 21).
Let’s be real people!
Sure. Then we can dismiss horror stories about 38-week D&Cs on perfectly healthy fetuses. Those are rarer than legally shot bald eagles. I know that you know that Roe allows states to ban such abortions except to preserve the mother’s life or health.
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
Thank you, Barbara.
It’s telling that Hugo parroted the term ‘inconvenience’ not out of having the slightest understanding of what pregnancy and childbirth entail, but because another pro=lifer said it.
Ampersand writes:
“Listen up folks:”
I’m listening.
“the cerebral cortex doesn’t develop until the 20th week, and it’s not really hooked up to the brain in a functional way until the 25th week.”
Sounds like a good argument for legalizing abortion before the 20th or 25th week, depending on what seems like the best scientific definition of a human brain. I think I’ve heard earlier figures for cortex development, but I’m willing to follow whatever direction the evidence leads.
Maybe we’re getting somewhere in this discussion. That would be weird.
It’s telling that Hugo parroted the term ‘inconvenience’ not out of having the slightest understanding of what pregnancy and childbirth entail, but because another pro=lifer said it.
What’s even more odd about Hugo’s reference to M. Theresa’s use, is that it seems to me that, she seems to object to the term inconvenience. (Although for different reasons than I do.)
The fact is, words have nuances in English. The nuance of inconvenience is that it’s something its not a big deal. A flat tire is an inconvenience; you change the flat tire and go on your way. An outhouse is an less convenient than indoor plumbing, but you can still use it.
A pregnancy is more than an inconvenience, and everyone knows it. Even women who very much want to give birth know pregnancy is more than an inconvenience! (And, if we want to consider other nuances, I understand few would refer to the feelings during labor as discomfort! )
Can you find quotes using ‘inconvenience’ some other way? Sure. Sometimes authors like to resort to dramatic understatement, knowing people recognize it.
Luckily, feminists believe that women should be treated as humans regardless of their sexual function. That means that Ma Teresa is a woman, but it ALSO means that those of us who do have sex are not inferior.
J’s cruel reference to his children as “abortion survivors” belies the fact that this is about male control/female submission. Men conceive children and then oh-so-unfairly, have nine months in which the woman has total possession over those babies, as evidenced by her legal right to kill them at any time. Men will never, ever have that much right over it–it’s not fair! They made it, didn’t they?
I think that’s why men tend to be more flexible over time in their views on abortion–how many times have I heard, “I used to be pro-life but then I started wanting children…”? It’s another one of them male privilege thingies–you are allowed to view pregnancy as nothing more than a waiting period in order to get children.
I don’t know how it’s possible to get the idea that there are 38 week old fetuses being aborted all over the country, because it’s not true.
It is my experience that in virtually every state, it is simply not possible to get an abortion after 24 weeks gestation, the current cut-off medically and legally for viability unless the mother’s health is in serious jeopardy, even where the fetus is seriously compromised. Doctors, even politically progressive doctors in major metropolitan areas, are not interested in staking their career on providing loopholes for women unlucky enough to be in this situation unless they really believe there is serious risk of harm to the mother (in which case, they are not imperiling themselves). There is not a bevy of ob-gyns who will automatically certify that a woman will suffer profound psychological harm so that they can do a procedure that most aren’t even comfortable doing. This is an argument from fantasy.
A more interesting question, and one that speaks to Hugo’s claim to be a feminist, is why he would choose to use the word “inconvenience” at all.
He’s too intelligent and educated to really believe that pregnancy is nothing more than an inconvenience. I’m sure he knows full well that pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman’s life. So why is he so disingenous? Why does he call pregnancy merely an inconvenience when he is quite aware that is so much more than that?
The only plausible reason, it seems to me, is the desire to portray women who choose to have an abortion as selfish and irresponsible. If pregnancy is merely an inconvenience, why wouldn’t a woman be willing to endure it to save a human life, even a much lesser form of life than a baby? If human life is precious, why wouldn’t a woman be willing to suffer a mere inconvenience to protect it? Because she’s mean and selfish, that’s why.
That’s the inference Hugo is inviting us to make. And that’s why I don’t believe he’s a feminist. That’s why I don’t believe he’s honest. That’s why I don’t believe he’s arguing in good faith.
Exactly, Don.
Hey Amp, I wrote that in response to Don P’s statement — “No abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. What additional legal restrictions on abortion do you seek?”
I actually thought that statement was insulting. Perhaps he meant that any abortion done before 24 weeks or maybe no abortions before 13 weeks. The point of my grossly exaggerated scenario is that there is an abortion that could be the moral equivilent to infanticide.
In my opinion, an abortion done anywhere between 24 and 40 weeks would easily be morally equivalent to infanticide. Where that moral equivilent would start is of course a matter of personal moral fortitude. I would suspect only a minutae would not consider an abortion performed at 32-40 weeks the moral equivilent to infanticide.
Thanks for the English lesson. I actually hate when people use “there” grammar improperly.
“J’s cruel reference to his children as “abortion survivors” belies the fact that this is about male control/female submission.”
Amanda, I do not want to control women and certainly do not want women to be submissive. My wife is a combat pilot for God’s Sake:-). Even if I wanted her to be submissive it would not happen. Now perhaps I would like my middle daughter to be submissive every once in a while. But that is just so she won’t run out in the street, just because I told her not to.
As for referring to them as “abortion survivors” it is the truth. My wife was sitting in the ob/gyn asking me what I wanted her to do and I said it is her choice. Of course, I could have made my choice known, but that would not necessarily be fair. I am a lawyer and would not want to put that kind of persusive pressure on her. To have our two children was her choice and if she did not want to leave the clinic, then our children would have been victims of abortion, just like our first one. Regardless, the pregnancies were our fault, not the governments — not men wanting control. The fact that we had them was her choice. She decided she wanted to remain pregnant and she decided that we were going to have more children. I wholly supported her for that decision.
Of course pro-abortion fanatics (as distinguished from pro-choice adovates) would improperly impute some make believe pressure or control that I gave her because of some crazy notion that I wanted to squeeze five people into a California home. They also believe that I just wanted her pregnant so I could control my wife by making her go to Iraq to fight for some God forsaken land/people.
“J’s cruel reference to his children as “abortion survivors” belies the fact that this is about male control/female submission.”
Amanda, I do not want to control women and certainly do not want women to be submissive. My wife is a combat pilot for God’s Sake:-). Even if I wanted her to be submissive it would not happen. Now perhaps I would like my middle daughter to be submissive every once in a while. But that is just so she won’t run out in the street, just because I told her not to.
As for referring to them as “abortion survivors” it is the truth. My wife was sitting in the ob/gyn asking me what I wanted her to do and I said it is her choice. Of course, I could have made my choice known, but that would not necessarily be fair. I am a lawyer and would not want to put that kind of persusive pressure on her. To have our two children was her choice and if she did not want to leave the clinic, then our children would have been victims of abortion, just like our first one. Regardless, the pregnancies were our fault, not the governments — not men wanting control. The fact that we had them was her choice. She decided she wanted to remain pregnant and she decided that we were going to have more children. I wholly supported her for that decision.
Of course pro-abortion fanatics (as distinguished from pro-choice adovates) would improperly impute some make believe pressure or control that I gave her because of some crazy notion that I wanted to squeeze five people into a California home. They also believe that I just wanted her pregnant so I could control my wife by making her go to Iraq to fight for some God forsaken land/people.
Amanda: “J’s cruel reference to his children as “abortion survivors” belies the fact that this is about male control/female submission.”
I do not want to control women and certainly do not want women to be submissive. My wife is a combat pilot! :-). Even if I wanted her to be submissive it would not happen. Now perhaps I would like my middle daughter to be submissive every once in a while.
As for referring to my children as “abortion survivors”, it is the truth. My wife and I were sitting in the abortion clinic and she kept asking me what I wanted her to do and I said it is her choice. Of course, I could have made my desires known, but that would not necessarily be fair. I am a lawyer and did not want any kind of unintended persuasive pressure on her. Not aborting our two children was her choice and if she did not make the choice to leave the clinic, our children would have survived that visit to the abortion clinic — our first baby did not make. Regardless, the pregnancies were our fault, not the government’s — not men wanting control – or any other nefarious reason that can be concocted to abdicate us of failing the risk we took the possible “fallout” of sexual pleasure. The fact that we had them was her choice. She decided she wanted to remain pregnant and she decided that we were going to have more children. I wholly supported her for that decision.
Of course pro-abortion fanatics (as distinguished from pro-choice advocates) would improperly impugn some make believe “pressure” or “control” I put upon her because of some crazy notion that I wanted to squeeze five people into a California home and contribute 90% of my comfortable living to perpetuate the human race. I also speculate that they believe I just wanted my wife pregnant so I could “control” her by making her go to Iraq to fight for some God forsaken land/people.
As for referring to my children as “abortion survivors”, it is the truth.
No, they would be “abortion survivors” if your wife underwent an abortion and they were born alive anyway. Please note that your wife exercised her choice to carry to term. Nobody arrested her, and you, for conspiracy to commit murder, removing your children from your custody when they were born. Which would be the case if a fetus were treated as a human being from the moment of conception.
You’re also quite mistaken if you think every pro-life advocate would calmly accompany his wife to an abortion clinic, reassuring her that it was her choice.
I don’t really see any reason to draw the line at 24 weeks.
Mythago: “I don’t think any pro-life advocate would accompany his wife to an abortion clinic.” I am certainly not a pro-life advocate. I wholly supported my wife’s choice and would do so again if she decided to have another one. I just disagree with “sugar coating” abortion. It seems by defining our embryos as a “fetus” it becomes less than human. Regardless of it being a fetus or a child it is human — albeit, a human child may have more “value” to someone than a human fetus.
As for not seeing a reason for drawing the line at 24 weeks — that was exactly my point regarding Don P’s statement. When, in your opinion, would you morally equate abortion to infanticide? 6 wks? 36 wks? Never?
I don’t have a problem with infanticide, necessarily. As cold as it may seem, infanticide, like abortion, rids the population of unwanted children. That in turn creates less of a burden on our society. With that precept in mind, I feel that when the fetus ceases to be a “bundle of cells” — meaning a beating heart and working organs — gets close to my interpretation of the “moral equivilent of infanticide”.
Amp uses the issue of a working cerebral cortex, as do many other pro-choice advocates in justifying 24 weeks as a cut off. Doctors do not pronounce people dead until their organs stop functioning and their brain functions cease. With that in mind, a human would be someone who has working organs and a working brain, just basic enough to maintain organ functioning. Whether or not they are capable of higher thought is not an issue when we actually see the person in front of us. It is easier to to stomach what abortion is if we rate a human fetus lower than a chicken egg, by saying it cannot live outside of the womb or it does not think.
Again, I have no problem with abortion. My problem is lying about what it really is to justify the “moral equivilent of infanticide”.
“Maybe we’re getting somewhere in this discussion. That would be weird.”
I would LOVE it if that could happen. I, for one, am tired of being characterized as someone who wants to control women’s bodies or calls them selfish when I do everything I can in my life to fight against such forces.
I find it amusing that the people who know me (and my feminism) do everything in their power to convince me that what I believe is “actually pro-choice”. They *know* how feminist I am, so they can’t put me into their “pro-life” stereotype. They’d rather alter what they think are “pro-choice” views!
Barbara: They’d rather alter what they think are “pro-choice” views!
Well, you’ve already said that you don’t support a ban in the vast majority of cases. So at least as I’ve defined the term in these posts responding to Hugo, you’re not pro-life. Looking at it more broadly, I’d say you’re a mix of pro-choice and pro-life (regaridng the narrow issue of banning abortion), but in most real-life cases you’re pro-choice.
I don’t understand why you set a value of .9 on a fetus that hasn’t yet developed a functioning cerebral cortex. Why attach so much value to something without thought or feeling?
Although I disagree with a ban for post-cortex abortions (a ban starting at week 24, for instance), I can at least understand them. Bans before that point just seem like imposing personal religious beliefs on those who don’t share your religion.
You wrote: 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?)
What makes you think Democrats oppose that idea?
The majority of Democrats in the Senate – including John Kerry – have voted for late-term abortion bans with life/health exemptions. I don’t know if Kerry has addressed the issue recently, but Bill Clinton said several times that he’d sign a late-term ban if it included a health exemption, and Al Gore pledged the same thing while he was debating George Bush.
I posted a little bit more about the kind of ban Democrats have favored here and here.
I defy you to find a single doctor who would say that an adult human without a functional cerebral cortex has a “working brain.”
In fact, it’s perfectly legal to kill adult humans whose cerebral cortex no longer functions – only we don’t call that “killing,” we call it “unplugging.” That’s the issue in the Terri Schiavo case – Terri’s “defenders” aren’t claiming that it’s immoral to allow a patient with no cerebral cortex to die; they’re claiming that Terri has a working cerebral cortex.
Since it’s legal to kill adult human beings if they don’t have a cerebral cortex, I don’t see any reason to make it suddenly illegal – or immoral – when the human in question is a fetus.
You claim that killing a fetus without a cerebral cortex is “the moral equivilent of infanticide.” Can you make even a single logical argument to support your view, other than accusing people who disagree with you of being liars or sugarcoaters again and again? If you can’t make a logical argument to support your view (and so far, you haven’t), why on earth should I continue reading your posts?
My problem is lying about what it really is
If the fetus is really a baby or is really human, how can you have no problem with it?
When, in your opinion, would you morally equate abortion to infanticide? 6 wks? 36 wks? Never?
Birth.
Not aborting our two children was her choice and if she did not make the choice to leave the clinic, our children would have survived that visit to the abortion clinic — our first baby did not make.
Ummmm… [scratches head] What ? This makes even less sense than that time I tried to read *Finnegan’s Wake* after drinking three rounds of Tullamore Dew with old eps of *SCTV* blasting in the background.
Does anyone else find it sort of pathetic how the Pro-Lifers have to keep going on and on about how “It’s not the government’s fault…” blabbedy blabbedy blah ?
Compassion for fetuses out of one side of the mouth and a thinly-veiled desire to avoid spending one dime of their own money for the public good out the other. It reminds me again of the study done a few years back that correlated stronger anti-abortion laws in states with laws in the same states that were hideously neglectful and/or outright cruel to mothers and children.
Which is why I feel perfectly comfortable substituting the term “fetus-worshippers” for “Pro-Lifers.” Worship an ideal –the fetus– to the point of elevating it to Godhood. Spend a huge amount of money and time in the process. Whenever possible, call in the government to help you do it. Then shrug your shoulders at the hapless parent(s) who may have scant resources at hand to deal with the REALITY of caring for a baby and say, “Don’t expect the government to spend MY MONEY to help your with YOUR PROBLEM !!”
I actually have no problem with my tax dollars paying to feed, clothe, educate and so forth a family of ten, despite the fact that I don’t understand why in blases anyone would want ten children. I consider the support of the children and families of fellow/sister citizens part of the social contract.
Funny how, as usual, the fetus-worshippers don’t want to return the favor and help pay for my abortion if I am unable to. As I explained to Joe, you can’t really compare the sides as if they occupied an equal distance from the same central pole, as if they were perfect opposites. They’re not. Pro-choicers leave a certain lattitude for people who don’t want to live their lives in a way that we would necessarily approve of personally. Fetus-Worshippers allow no such lattitude. They’re right. You’re wrong. And they’ll force you to live as THEY BELIEVE YOU SHOULD LIVE no matter how long it takes and how much money they have to spend. (Lobbying the Government to legally bully you, anyway. They won’t spend a dime to ask the Government to assist you. Ick.) Really fucking sad. No matter how many times I see the “philosophy” in action. Just. Really. Fucking. Sad.
Not aborting our two children was her choice and if she did not make the choice to leave the clinic, our children would have survived that visit to the abortion clinic — our first baby did not make.
Ummmm… [scratches head] What ? This makes even less sense than that time I tried to read *Finnegan’s Wake* after drinking three rounds of Tullamore Dew with old eps of *SCTV* blasting in the background.
Does anyone else find it sort of pathetic how the Pro-Lifers have to keep going on and on about how “It’s not the government’s fault…” blabbedy blabbedy blah ?
Compassion for fetuses out of one side of the mouth and a thinly-veiled desire to avoid spending one dime of their own money for the public good out the other. It reminds me again of the study done a few years back that correlated stronger anti-abortion laws in states with laws in the same states that were hideously neglectful and/or outright cruel to mothers and children.
Which is why I feel perfectly comfortable substituting the term “fetus-worshippers” for “Pro-Lifers.” Worship an ideal –the fetus– to the point of elevating it to Godhood. Spend a huge amount of money and time in the process. Whenever possible, call in the government to help you do it. Then shrug your shoulders at the hapless parent(s) who may have scant resources at hand to deal with the REALITY of caring for a baby and say, “Don’t expect the government to spend MY MONEY to help your with YOUR PROBLEM !!”
I actually have no problem with my tax dollars paying to feed, clothe, educate and so forth a family of ten, despite the fact that I don’t understand why in blases anyone would want ten children. I consider the support of the children and families of fellow/sister citizens part of the social contract.
Funny how, as usual, the fetus-worshippers don’t want to return the favor and help pay for my abortion if I am unable to. As I explained to Joe, you can’t really compare the sides as if they occupied an equal distance from the same central pole, as if they were perfect opposites. They’re not. Pro-choicers leave a certain lattitude for people who don’t want to live their lives in a way that we would necessarily approve of personally. Fetus-Worshippers allow no such lattitude. They’re right. You’re wrong. And they’ll force you to live as THEY BELIEVE YOU SHOULD LIVE no matter how long it takes and how much money they have to spend. (Lobbying the Government to legally bully you, anyway. They won’t spend a dime to ask the Government to assist you. Ick.) Really fucking sad. No matter how many times I see the “philosophy” in action. Just. Really. Fucking. Sad.
Barbara,
I have read all your posts and I can’t understand why you even insist on calling yourself pro-life, because so far as I can tell most abortions that you would make illegal are either already illegal, extremely difficult to procure, or just not really happening. Insofar as I can tell, you would permit the rest to go forward. I don’t call myself anything, I am not adamantly opposed to all restrictions after a certain point, but I know that my views are contrary to what the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves pro-life see as the ideal situation. If you want to insist on a label then expect those around you to misunderstand your meaning if your meaning is more nuanced than 75% of everyone else who uses that label. I love children, I have a few and I’ve lost a few, but I could never talk myself out of the knowledge that restrictions on abortion always seize control of women’s bodies. It’s a definitional imperative, you can’t have one without the other, that’s why I am very careful about explaining what and why I would ever support in the way of restrictions on abortion.
My point, j, is that you often hear from those who cannot ever be pregnant, i.e. men, language that assumes that it’s a child from sperm to 18–anything that linguistically erases the fact that no womb, no pregnancy, no baby. “Abortion survivor” is a deliberately provocative term that insinuates that a fetus is in grave danger from murderous mom until it is delivered into “safety”, i.e. out of mom’s complete control.
You may “let” your wife have her job and may have “let” her have her choice on whether to abort or not, but your word choice goes even beyond what a lot of pro-lifers use when minimizing the importance of the mother in creating a child. It’s quite telling.
“Abortion survivor” . . . insinuates that a fetus is in grave danger from murderous mom. Wow. I did not realize I thought my wife was a murderer.”
“You may “let” your wife have her job and may have “let” her have her choice on whether to abort or not.”
Amanda — You unfairly paint me as some pro-life, misogynist. That, I am not. I watched my wife through all of her pregnancies, I cleaned her feet and messaged them when they were swollen. I made every effort to make her as comfortable as you can be carrying a medicine ball. We cannot get pregnant, so we try our best to make the women in our lives as happy as they can be during that difficult nine-month period. It has nothing to do with control and everything to do with love.
I don’t “let” my wife do anything. I know in Texas things run a little different (I saw how my Black, Northeast raised, Wharton MBA-PhD mother changed after moving to Dallas — just not the same progressive woman I grew up with), but in many parts of the rest of our great country women actually are able to speak their own mind, not because I or any other husband “let” them. Our partnership is so in tuned that we truely (not in a 50’s kind of fashion) split our domestic duties. I do a majority of the cooking and cleaning, she does homework with the kids and makes sure they are ready for bed. She has Saturday morning breakfast and I have Sunday morning breakfast. Really, does she “let” me do the housework? Do I “let” her out of the house too? Is that really controlling her womb?
My wife made her choice, not because I let her. Short of illegal action there is nothing I could do about it even if I wanted. Please, stop projecting your vision of how men “are” in your opinion, on me or any other male for that matter. Imagine, for a moment, how you think men should act towards women and project that picture on me; then re-read my post. I am sure you will come to a very different conclusion than the one posted above this one.
Mythago asks: If the fetus is really a baby or is really human, how can you have no problem with it?
Because we justify killing human beings/fetuses everyday. Regardless, I don’t think a fetus is a human child, I think it is a human fetus. I am sure you would agree with that. I think people should be able to kill a human fetus so that they or their children can live a better life. Isn’t that what pro-abortion is?
alsis38: insert “not” here — our children “___” would have survived and “it” at the end of the statement. Sorry for the confusion, lack o’ sleep.
Because we justify killing human beings/fetuses everyday
Do you include yourself in that ‘we’ and agree with all those justifications?
Isn’t that what pro-abortion is?
No, pro-abortion would be to generally favor abortion over birth. Somebody who thinks the planet is overcrowded and we should all adopt as a first choice, and sees abortion as preferable to birth, would be pro-abortion.
but in many parts of the rest of our great country women actually are able to speak their own mind
Well, yeah, that’s why many of us live in those parts of the country, rather than in (say) Dallas.
jstevenson:
I actually thought that statement was insulting.
Too bad. I think virtually every statement you make about women who have abortions is insulting. I think many of the statements you make about abortion are despicable.
Perhaps he meant that any abortion done before 24 weeks or maybe no abortions before 13 weeks.
No, I meant what I said. No abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide.
In my opinion, an abortion done anywhere between 24 and 40 weeks would easily be morally equivalent to infanticide.
Why? And what is “easily … equivalent to infanticide” supposed to mean, exactly, anyway?
Barbara P:
Like the other Barbara, I am at a loss to understand why you would describe yourself as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice.” As you have described your position, you favor a broad legal right for women to choose whether or not to have an abortion. As you have described your position, the vast majority of abortions that are legal in America today would still be legal. If that is not “pro-choice,” I don’t know what is.
Don P. and Barbara P.
I prefer “semi” or “mostly” pro-choice because I don’t want to be associated with either side’s arguments, since I find both sides’ position unconvincing.
Brian, whatever, but when I hear “semi-pro” I usually think of hockey and soccer teams.
When I first jumped into this conversation (on the original thread) I stated that I often don’t know which to call myself. Like in Brian’s case, neither side speaks to my point of view. (Maybe we *should* coin the term “semi-pro” and it will stop being associated only with hockey or soccer? :o)) I also have used the descriptor of “pro-life tendencies”.
I favor certain types of restrictions. If “favoring restrictions” is the definition of pro-life, then I’m “pro-life”. If not, I’m just… nothing (which is fine by me!). In another post I explained how I see both terms as potentially misleading. Overall, I do not believe that favoring restrictions (even those harsher than the ones I happen to want) is necessarily grounded in a desire to control or punish women; thus, it is not necessarily unfeminist. Even assuming that most pro-lifers *are* all about controlling and punishing women, they’re probably like that in many other aspects of life too. So there are plenty of other ways to combat their sexism without changing one’s views to pro-choice.
Amp,
I understand that Democrats would have supported a ban, but that’s not the same thing as advocating it. Of course, politics being what it is, there’s no way around that. Let’s just say I’m deeply disappointed that a reasonable ban on partial-birth abortion seems impossible to enact.
Approximately five years ago, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi agreed that they would support legislation that would ban ALL abortions after a certain gestational date (I don’t remember exactly what it was), with clear exceptions for the health of the mother. It didn’t go anywhere, not because the Democrats wouldn’t go along with it but because for many politiciaqns “pro-life” is a strategy to keep “pro-life” forces up in arms in perpetuity so that Democrats never get credit for what was an incredibly significant offer of compromise. The partial birth abortion issue is a non-issue, because it won’t stop a single abortion, it will just arguably make some abortions more dangerous. Maybe that’s the point. It wouldn’t surprise me.
Barbara P.:
Overall, I do not believe that favoring restrictions (even those harsher than the ones I happen to want) is necessarily grounded in a desire to control or punish women; thus, it is not necessarily unfeminist.
Perhaps those who support abortion bans don’t have a “desire” to control women–but that’s exactly the result of such bans, regardless of whether you think abortion is a right or murder. They literally limit the choices a woman can make about her body. Since, in this case, intent matters less than effect, favoring restrictions can indeed be described as unfeminist.
Put it another way: You must agree that controlling women’s reproductive capacity is a reasonable price to pay in order to protect a developing fetus. Ergo, you “intend” to control (actually, curtail) a woman’s atonomy over her person, even if you regret it. Intent under the law doesn’t require you to be happy about the result, just that it be foreseeable as a consequence of your actions — and this one isn’t just likely, it’s inevitable.
I’m not trying to be confrontational but I really hate sentimental, euphemistic or wishful thinking.
Because of technology, controlling a woman’s bodily autonomy has started to become a separate issue from killing a fetus, and the separation between the issues will increase in the next 10-30 years. Medical procedures will make it increasingly possible for pregnant woman to end their pregnancies without automatically killing the fetus. This creates a moral question for people who consider themselves pro-choice on the basis of bodily autonomy alone.
I’d say that defining personhood on the basis of brain development provides a good answer to that moral question.
You painted yourself to be a hero because when she asked you what to do, you let her make the choice. I don’t think you’re a pro-lifer, but you adopt their terms. Your children are also miscarriage survivors, survivors of the possibility that you didn’t have sex that night, and survivors of the plague. But you only chose abortion to be something they survived from–use a provocative term and prepare to answer for yourself.
“Put it another way: You must agree that controlling women’s reproductive capacity is a reasonable price to pay in order to protect a developing fetus. Ergo, you “intend” to control (actually, curtail) a woman’s atonomy over her person, even if you regret it. Intent under the law doesn’t require you to be happy about the result, just that it be foreseeable as a consequence of your actions — and this one isn’t just likely, it’s inevitable. ”
What I mean when I say restricting abortion “is not necessarily a desire to control women” I mean an overall control. Obviously the restriction in and of itself is a form of control! I didn’t think I needed to clarify that. In other words, if I wish to make a restrictive law on women that *cannot* be applied to men for physical reasons, it is not necessarily rooted in a desire to control women in all other areas of life (like wanting women to be punished for having sex or wanting their role to be centered around motherhood and family).
Let’s say tomorrow a miracle occurs and a man becomes pregnant. I would support the same restrictions on him as I would a woman as to whether he can get an abortion. This may be theoretically impossible, but I know this is how I would react. Why? Because I don’t care how he ended up in his “pregnant” state, whether or not he had sex with lots of women or chased women or had casual sex. Nothing like that fazes me. It’s more a matter of there being another life involved in that situation.
But I can’t change the fact that men can’t be pregnant. I guess in the end I’m hoping for Brian’s idea where a fetus can be separated from a woman’s body without killing it. It would completely transform the debate, and maybe I would no longer have to be considered anti-woman because I want legal protection for innocent life… :op
Gah – that’s both sentimental and wishful thinking. Oh, well. There it is. You can stop arguing with me if you like. I for one am getting sick of this discussion and would rather move on to something where I actually agree with most of the people on here. I’m sure I will seem very logical and well-spoken when I agree with the premise…
Barbara, you are the first woman I’ve ever heard wistfully say that if only fetuses didn’t grow in women…..
Seems to me the entire point–anti-abortion laws are about making sure that nefarious women don’t harm men’s property (their children) during that inconvienent time (pregnancy) that the property is percolating inside the incubator (the mother). If only, if only, women weren’t necessary to reproduce. *sigh*
For Amanda,
As my original post said, separating the fetus from the pregnant mother does not answer the moral question of who should decide what happens to the fetus. I didn’t see an answer in your post, just a sigh. All I can say is, *sigh*
Who cares what the pseudo-legalistic justifications for such wishful thinking are? Naturally, a fetus that isn’t inside a specific woman is not hers–for instance, if one of my coworkers were pregnant, I have no claim on her fetus. But neither does her husband until it’s “separated”, aka birthed, from her, at which time everyone has a claim in it–he does, she does and technically as that fetus is a child and a citizen, we have a stake in his future.
But, sadly, no woman, no uterus, no fetus to fight over. If we could just separate the two from the beginning, then we wouldn’t have these problems….
Sorry if that annoys me. Perhaps we would also have no problems if there were no men to impregnate women and the only babies were made by cloning.
Amanda, you said “technically as that fetus is a child and a citizen, we have a stake in his future.”
That makes me more pro-choice than you under many circumstances (in the near future). Before cerebral cortex development, I wouldn’t consider the separated fetus to be a child/citizen/person, any more than I consider fertilized embryos at fertility clinics to be people.
Wow, that was one of the more blatant attempts to pull a quote out of context–let me explain this to you very, very carefully.
“Separating” a fetus from its mother is something that happens everyday–it’s called “giving birth”. I was pointedly making fun of the fact that using “separate” is just one more way women’s contribution to creating children is erased by pro-life language.
I know it’s frustrating that a fertilized egg takes nine months of mom’s effort and time to make a baby and I’ve heard plenty of pro-life men wish the egg could just be handed over the second a sperm touched it for “safe-keeping”. Get over it. All the wishing in the world and slipperly language isn’t going to change the fact that in order for babies to be born, women have to be pregnant, and there’s a huge span of time and effort between when the sperm touches it and a baby is born.
This isn’t the pro-choice Olympics, anyway. Everyone is made uncomfortable by late-term abortions, Brian. But that doesn’t change my point, which is not that a fetus is a child, but that’s it’s not until it’s born.
Okay, I re-read your 11:10 a.m. posting, and you’re right, I had misunderstood it. My apologies. I thought you were answering the question I had just posed about who decides the fate of the fetus when “abortion” and “terminating a pregnancy” are no longer synonyms.
Amanda:“You painted yourself to be a hero because when she asked you what to do, you let her make the choice.”
If I came across as “painting myself as a hero” that was not my intention. I guess it is a no-win situation. I was trying to counter your statements that jadedly paint all men as having some alterior motive, leveled in some kind of control of women, instead of what most of today’s post baby boom men actually place themselves. Validly, attempting to be better men, who love the women in their lives as best they can.
Perhaps giving men the benefit of the doubt in their general attempts to understand and support women, not because they are some hero, but because it is better for society, will give you a less jaded perspective on life. However, I understand the handicap you live under whilst living in Texas among those “manly men”. :-)
Don P.: “Too bad. I think virtually every statement you make about women who have abortions is insulting. . . “
Don P — your zeal to find fault and angst in those who may disagree with you has morbidly blinded you. Please point to any statement I have made regarding any woman who has had an abortion other than my wife. As for her, I challenge you to find where my statement regarding my support of her choice was insulting. Perhaps you believe it is insulting for men to support women who have abortions? If that is so I am truely sorry for the life you must live.
Look, j, beyond whether or not you get a cookie for you enlightened beliefs is not the issue. The term “abortion survivors” is incredibly offensive. “Survivor” is a term just to describe someone who has survived an actual event, not a potential event. Rape victims are called survivors. Attempted murder victims are called survivors. Dig?
Texas has its fair share of enlightened males who “let” their women work, too. And, since we’ve got a rousing amount of poverty here, we have all sorts of men who would rather not “let” their women work, but don’t have a choice.
Amanda — I apologize for my insensitivity. Thank you for enlightening me to your perception of “abortion survivor”. It is a point that I have never considered.
As for comments on Texas . . . they were made tongue-in-cheek. My brother lives there; being Yankees of the Philly type (about as true Yankee as Bostonians and much more than the city that usurped the name) I take great personal enjoyment in deriding his change into a “Southern Gentleman”. Please accept my apologies if you took any Texas comment personally.
Don’t worry, I took them tongue-in-cheek. Technically, Texans invented that kind of humor. Yee-haw!
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views