Pro-lifer John (link via Hugo, I think) notices something about pro-choicers:
At the protest outside the Hospital, we were counter-marched by a dozen or so pro-choicers. I looked at them, curious. And in their eyes, I saw the same hatred, the same deadness, the same fear…
Ah, the infamous “dead eye” condition! We pro-choicers may pretend to be regular human beings; but our dead eyes give us away every time. Curses, foiled again! Damn our dead eyes!
To be fair, I was struck by the similarity to this comment by a pro-choicer, quoted on After Abortion:
Standing there with their “My abortion hurt me” and “I regret my abortion” signs, eyes glazed over, cheering their glorious leader….They look absolutely dead, inside and out.
Is it just me, or is this sort of thing becoming pro forma in the abortion debates? No matter which side of the debate you’re on, it’s just expected that if you write about abortion you should include the ritualistic mean-spirited attack on the characters of everyone who disagrees with you. No one even takes these comments seriously anymore (the comments to John’s post include several respectful replies by pro-choicers); it’s the equivalent of, I don’t know what. Pro-wrestlers trash-talking each other?
What was most interesting about John’s post was his analogy between pro-choice sentiment and anti-disabled bigotry:
I was born with cerebral palsy. I didn’t learn to walk until I was 4. I fell over a lot, and even now, after several surgeries and bouts of physio, I walk badly, lopsidedly. […]
People were afraid of me because I was a reminder. They hated me because I demonstrated something they tried very hard to forget. They are not in control. A car crash, ten minutes without Oxygen, a natural disaster, and as I am, thou shalt be. That’s an uncomfortable thought. We like our lives controllable, in little boxes, safe, and comfortable.[…]
At the protest outside the Hospital, we were counter-marched by a dozen or so pro-choicers. I looked at them, curious. And in their eyes, I saw the same hatred, the same deadness, the same fear, that stares out at me from people on the street. We were a reminder. An inconvenience. They wanted us, and the unborn child who had wrecked their lives by existing, to go away. Why? Because, like the weak everywhere, the unborn child bears witness to our lack of control. “It’s a woman’s right” Pro-choicers say. A woman’s right “to control her own body”. Some things aren’t controllable. Some things just happen. Some things are graces, miracles.
I highly recommend reading the entire post.
The problem with John’s logic is that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to control things. Having open-heart surgery rather than dying of clogged arteries is trying to control something; is it therefore wrong to have heart surgery? Is having heart surgery the equivalent of anti-disabled bigotry? How about taking medicine that makes heart attacks less likely?
Wanting to control things – even things which, ultimately, can never be fully controlled – is not always a bad thing.
I think that John’s right that fear and disdain of disabled folks is rooted in fear of what we can’t control. Having an abortion is also related to control – a woman’s desire to control if and when she has children. That, however, is where John’s analogy falls flat – just because they’re both about control doesn’t mean they have anything else in common.
Bigotry against the disabled is wrong because it’s harmful to people who are disabled. Abortion, if it’s wrong at all, is wrong because it’s harmful to people who are zygotes, embryos and fetuses. But that’s a big “if”; there is legitimate, good-faith disagreement over whether a zygote or embryo or fetus is a person.
If I’m right, and there is no person to be harmed when a zygote or embryo or fetus is killed, then John’s comparison between abortion and anti-disabled bigotry is specious.
But that means that – as always – the argument over abortion isn’t really an argument about control, or about the rights of the disabled, at all. The argument over abortion is an argument over what rights women have to control their own bodies, and what rights zygotes, embryos and fetuses have at all. Talking about dead eyes and control issues and all the rest is really just a red herring.
* * *
What’s below the fold is just a slightly-edited reprint of what I said yesterday; so if you read it yesterday, skip it today, is my advice.
Here’s my concern: Why are pro-lifers so uninterested in asking “in the real world, what policies are associated with the world’s lowest abortion rates?” You’d think this would be an essential question for anyone who thinks abortion is a terrible moral wrong. Yet I’ve almost never seen a pro-lifer consider the question seriously.
I’ve said this before. It deserves being said again. Without exception, every country in the world with a very low abortion rate has either legal abortion, or bans so toothless that abortion is effectively legal. But what those countries (Belgium, West Germany, The Netherlands, etc) also have are cultures that strongly promote effective use of birth control, and that have strong social support programs that support poor parents – not just before birth and in the first year of infancy, but for life.
The abortion debate in the US can go on forever. We can have yet another round of clever, heartfelt essays like John’s, implying that the other side has cold, dead eyes; or, if we want a better debate than that, we could argue for the zillionth time about how to define personhood. But that will never get us anywhere. I will never, ever convince John that there is a fundamental moral difference between herself and a seven-day-old embryos; John will never convince me that it is sane, when running into a burning building and having a choice between saving a three-year-old child or a petri dish containing 10 seven-day-old embryos, to even remotely consider rescuing the petri dish instead of the child.
Rather than rehash those questions, I’d like to ask John: Will there ever be an abortion ban in the United States that vastly lowers our abortion rate?
Are pro-choicers going away? Are we going to give up, give in?
Can John point to a single case, anywhere in the world, where banning abortion has turned a country with a high abortion rate into an abortion rate comparable to Belgium’s?
If the primary purpose of the pro-life movement is to punish women who get abortions, then the pro-life strategy we’ve seen in this country makes sense. But if the primary purpose is to make the US abortion rate as low as possible, then it would make a lot more sense to look instead at strategies that have actually produced low abortion rates in the real world. And the pro-lifers, by and large, have demonstrated no interest in that.
John thinks that feminists and Democrats have fearful, dead eyes. But in the end, dead eyes or not, feminists and Democrats aren’t the people standing between the USA and a low abortion rate. Banning abortion does not, in practice, lower abortion rates by a large degree. What would lower abortion rates to a large degree would be free birth control, high-quality, high-quantity education about birth control, and generous state support of single and poor parents. And what’s standing between the US and these steps to a much lower abortion rate are John’s pro-life allies, most of whom would rather have a high abortion rate than take the steps that, in the real world, have actually brought about low abortion rates.
But Amp… open heart surgery stops a beating heart…!
I’ll get me coat…
Emotive rhetoric about people who disagree with you having “dead eyes” is a cheap trick, I agree. Despite that, I think the point John makes is a very important one. Standard pro-choice rhetoric is riddled with prejudice against the disabled, and that’s the major reason why I can not call myself pro-choice. (Possibly even worse is when pro-lifers make exceptions: abortion is always wrong except maybe if the foetus is severely disabled.)
At the protest outside the Hospital, we were counter-marched by a dozen or so pro-choicers. I looked at them, curious. And in their eyes, I saw the same hatred, the same deadness, the same fear, that stares out at me from people on the street.
Ha! Has it not occured to him that it’s perfectly natural that pro-lifers picketing an abortion clinic are going to get icy stares? What does he want? A cookie? A warm hug? “Thank you kind sir for passing judgement on me, my sexual choices, my family life, and calling me a murderer.”
Damn right. There’s a difference between someone staring at you with rage and even hatred because they feel that you’re doing something very wrong, and staring at you with rage and hatred because you have a visible disability.
I give that same dead-eyed vicious stare at men who yell, “Faggot!” at me. And at the guy who stands on Powell with the “NO ILLEGAL SEX!” sign. And yesterday, I shot a pretty hate-filled look at the woman who nearly shoved me off the subway platform. Does that make me a bigot? Does that mean I don’t believe them equal to myself? Is it somehow disrespectful towards them to like them less because of their behavior?
The analogy would hold if the pro-choicers and abortion clinic patients were staring at _the fetuses_ with hatred. Although I guess John thinks of abortion itself as proof of that. He is, after all, the same person who characterized a young woman getting an abortion as a flighty, spoiled brat who didn’t want to miss her trip to the French Riviera.
I find it curious that certain disabled activists have such a strong emotional connection to the fetus, but seem to sidestep the issue of how devastating lack of abortion choice could be for many disabled women. Some choose to become pregnant, and, depending on their condition, will need extensive medical support to bring the baby to term. I believe that these women have a right to start families, and that should be supported (which is iffy in the current environment, given cutbacks in health insurance, etc.) But for others, a pregnancy could be devastating. Anybody remember the severely mentally disabled woman in Florida who was apparently raped by a group home employee who couldn’t get an abortion? The one who was apparently prone to seizures and had the IQ of a small child? She never did get an abortion as I recall, thanks to Gov. Jeb and all. I wonder what it was like trying to get a woman like that through labor, when she would have no comprehension what was happening to her. Unbelievable.
Excellent point, silverside.
You know, I’m sick of these straw men. And compared to some of the epithets and accusations that get thrown my way for being pro-choice, an icy stare would be quite welcome.
An icy stare? A “dead” look? Well, Amanda makes a good point–what did they expect? What did the self-righteous jerkoffs who yelled “whore” at me and my friend expect when I took her to the clinic? A fucking Hallmark card? Shall I blow them a kiss? No, a cold glare and stony silence while we get into the clinic will suffice.
First we naughty women who have abortions are whores who are trying to get out of punishment for our crime of having sex.
Then we are bigots because heaven forbid! Some people may not be able to care for a child with severe handicaps. Apparently, this makes me obligated to breed against my will.
Then pregnant rape survivors who want abortions are selfish because they are killing a baby (even though it’s not a baby), a blameless being. Apparently, these rape survivors must breed and to hell with what they want. They were forced to submit to sex, now they can submit to breeding.
Then we are either just like the Nazis, or worse than the Nazis for promoting access to effective and affordable birth control, sex education, and abortion. Even though the Nazis actually outlawed abortion.
Then we are horrible mean people for expecting pharmacists to do their jobs and fill the perscriptions for birth control that our doctors wrote for us. I mean, the audacity! How dare we think that our personal lives are our business. We must be like the Nazis to even think that we and our doctors can decide upon a regimen of the pill without comments, intrusions, and obstacles from the peanut gallery.
How about this–these pro-lifers can drop the straw men. I’m sick of it. I’m oh-so-glad that there are people out there who would never choose abortion. Good for you. Stay out of my face–my choices are none of your business, and I’m sick to death of the hysteria and the slander on the part of pro-lifers. It amuses me no end that while calling us Nazis and whores and babykillers is just dandy for them, reacting with any kind of anger to this vitriol is horrible for us.
This fight is about control–it’s about who control’s women’s bodies. Will it be each individual woman, or will it be a pack of relatives, friends, and total strangers who don’t have to take on the risks and potential complictions of pregnancy?
Has it not occured to him that it’s perfectly natural that pro-lifers picketing an abortion clinic are going to get icy stares? What does he want? A cookie? A warm hug?
Oh, probably yes. They are morally superior to us after all and they want recognition for being such saintly crusaders. What with their picky holy scripture quoting, strong religiously driven judgemental attitudes of others, and accusations comparing pro-choicers to Nazi eugenicists.
Yep, some people just don’t get it that if you call someone a murderer and damn them to a not-so-nice place like “Hell” according to your religious dogma, then they’re not going to be that eager to happily embrace your particular stance on an issue.
Piny said:
“He is, after all, the same person who characterized a young woman getting an abortion as a flighty, spoiled brat who didn’t want to miss her trip to the French Riviera.”
So in John’s world view this same flighty, spoiled brat whose immaturity placed the value of a trip to the French Riviera over that of a “life” should have been forced to become a mother. Sounds like a perfect candidate for parenthood!
Reminds me of one of my favorite slogans: “If you can’t trust her with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?”
Oh, right, silly me, once you are forced to carry a fetus to term you will be filled with magical maternal instincts that will make everything perfect for you and your precious miracle regardless of your history, personality, circumstances, resources or philosophy. Besides, it’s not like “normal” women have any actual agency when it comes to the “evils” of abortion (or anything except motherhood for that matter), it’s their wicked boyfriends, doctors and lesbian witch friends who brainwash them into doing it!
Standard pro-choice rhetoric is riddled with prejudice against the disabled…
Can you give some examples of standard pro-choice rhetoric that is prejudiced against the disabled?
Another pro-forma you should adopt is the term ‘anti-abortion’ instead of the overly inclusive “pro-life” . don’t give these people any more credit than they deserve.
And as far as the debate about who is more concerned about the disabled: It is not the Democrats, or the pro-choice people who are closing federal Vocational Rehabilitation offices all over the country and cutting Voc Rehab funds. It’s our anti-abortion Preznit who is doing that.
–
Ah, the old “pro-choice=hatred of the disabled” argument. I remember that one. It’s pretty ingenious, actually, because one of the reasons to have choice is, indeed, to prevent the birth of a disabled child that the mother/parents don’t feel able to care for. Who might then be abused or neglected.
If I were disabled, maybe that would make me anti-choice. But I think it is actually the same argument made the other day by the woman who was an unplanned fetus who might therefore have been aborted. If you as you did not exist when the abortion took place, then horror over your lack of existence is nonsensical.
If I were disabled, part of the pain of the disability would be the knowledge of how much my family might have to sacrifice to allow me to survive. In our cruel society, families of the disabled get a small fraction of what they need to take care of their loved ones–and every parent of a disabled child has the overarching fear: what happens to them when I am gone? There is little to no provision for this possibility. Will your disabled child become the homeless man begging on the street because you could not leave enough money behind to provide for him?
My mentally retarded great uncle outlived his parents and siblings, and ended up dying under painful, frightening and lonely conditions because no one else in my family had the resources to look after him adequately (and he was stubborn about staying in the facilities we did find for him). I wouldn’t wish that life or death on my potential child. And if I knew the child that I would bear would live a life of pain and suffering, then I would indeed have to face the fearful responsibility of deciding whether to carry them to term. And I am the natural person to have that responsibility, because the fetus’ existence is taking place in my body, and because I will be one of the primary caregivers for the rest of my life. There is no one else more qualified.
There is some assumption that prochoice people are automatically anti-disability-rights. I have not found this to be the case, and in fact some of the older local activists are also activists in DR.
As I mentioned in the previous thread, prospective parents generally do not abort disabled fetuses with expectations of minimally functional range mental ability (able to learn to dress, eat, play, etc). The exception may be in families with known recessive genetic disorders and living children who already have a severe disability – the families may feel they don’t have the resources to take care of two severely disabled kids.
Can you give some examples of standard pro-choice rhetoric that is prejudiced against the disabled?
I’m particularly fond of the slogan “If you can’t trust me with a choice, then just give me an AK so I can kill me some disabled people.” March on, noble abortionists.
For those not familiar with me, the previous post was made entirely in jest.
Has it not occured to him that it’s perfectly natural that pro-lifers picketing an abortion clinic are going to get icy stares? What does he want? A cookie? A warm hug?
Y’know, I suddenly have a desire to go forth and greet anti-abortion protesters with hugs and cookies (maybe iced with pro-choice slogans?), just to watch the effects of the brain reset button. Well, if they’re going to call the pro-choice side ‘heartless’ and ‘unfeeling’…
“Another pro-forma you should adopt is the term ‘anti-abortion’ instead of the overly inclusive “pro-life”? . don’t give these people any more credit than they deserve.”
These people are definitely not pro-life, but calling them simply “anti-abortion” also gives them more credit than they deserve. They aren’t just about outlawing abortion: they’re about limiting all of women’s reproductive choices. Many mainstream anti-choice organizations not only oppose abortion, but contraception, comprehensive sexual health education, and even some fertility treatments. They believe that the only acceptable choice is to get married (to someone of the opposite sex) and have as many babies as God gives you. Trying to control the number and spacing of children is immoral and sinful.
Of course, this doesn’t apply when you’re a woman of color, especially if you’re poor. Then you’re a greedy welfare queen who pops out babies so she can rip off the government.
So it’s not just about abortion. It’s about removing every reproductive choice except the one they find acceptable. It’s about controlling women’s lives and women’s bodies. This is why I say anti-choice, not just anti-abortion.
Thank you all for your responses to my post. Perhaps a few clarifications are in order, given the tone of some comments.
1. I shall respond to Ampersand’s substantive points (ie: the ones involving logic and statistics, as well as those involving substantive argument) in the next day or so on my own blog, once I’ve had the chance to do some research.
2. Many of you attacked me, and what I said, based on things I didn’t write. I never said I oppose contraception, for instance. I don’t. I never said pro-choicers were heartless, or fearful. Indeed, in my post the next day (“Him who overcomes”) I said they were motivated by compassion. Misguided compassion, but compassion none the less. I never said anything about Democrats (not even our home-grown Labour variety), or feminists. I wanted to tell you my story, and I offered to hear yours. Many took me up on the offer of dialogue, both in the comments, and by email, some of which dialogue is continuing. I renew the invitation to all of you.
3. Our protest at the Lyndhurst Hospital was to mark the anniversary of the Abortion Act. It was a silent protest, with no blocking of any entrances, no shouting, no screaming, no name-calling, no pictures. Perhaps you are projecting American conditions where they do not exist. Both SPUC NZ and SPUC UK oppose blocking clinic entrances. We stood on the footpath, holding identical signs which simply said: ‘Abortion Kills Children”. We picked a Sunday afternoon precisely because we didn’t want to hurt or discomfort anyone, and there was no-one in the clinic at the time. We were counter-picketed by 10 or so pro-choicers. My memory is that they were all men. I remember because I was suprised; I thought abortion was a “Woman’s Issue”. I did write that they had dead eyes, and I stand by that. I was there. You weren’t. It’s only a “cheap shot” if it’s not true. No doubt, had you been there, you would only have seen ten brave freedom activists being ‘attacked’ by 500 stationery and silent Christians, but I refuse to apologise for excercising my democratic freedom. We had and have every right to stand silently and pray, and so we did. Our message might have bothered some people, (“Abortion Kills Children”), but that doesn’t make it any less true for all that. So abortion does kill children, and I refuse to apologise for stating that truth either. We did it quietly and civilly. We weren’t the ones shouting. They were. I don’t know about the US; from your comments, it appears that there is a large amount of argy-bargy outside clinic entrances, here, it is quite simply not the case.
4. I do admit to saying something resembling 4., and in that, I am guilty perhaps of rhetorical overkill. I apologise for that. However, I note that no-one has troubled themselves to provide an ounce of context. Here is what I wrote in its entirety:
“I am referring to Choice for Men. I do think men ought to be allowed to be involved in the decision (to kill or not to kill the unborn child which is a part of both of them), especially if one partner is pro-life, but the issue is rarely framed in that way. The argument is usually “We fooled around, then she got pregnant, and I was trapped into fatherhood because I couldn’t make her have an abortion”. I find such dishonourable avoidance of one’s responsibilities to be profoundly nauseating. They weren’t trapped, they chose fatherhood by having sex. For the record, I also think many women are equally as selfish (“I can’t put off my holiday to the Riveria to have a BABY! I just wanted sex. I feel trapped!”). There are arguments for legal abortion and situations much more tragic and hard to deal with; (although none of them are ultimately convincing) but the one advanced by Choice for Men (at least as I have heard it) is not one of them”
I was referring to men (and sidenoting women, in order to head off the objection from the MRA that I was picking on one sex) using a certain excuse to justify abortion; namely “I just wanted sex, now I’m trapped. I can’t have this inconvenience, therefore I shall get rid of it”. I stand by what I said. That reason for abortion is indeed plain wrong. I should like to think that many pro-choicers would agree with me on that. As I said, there are other, much harder situations to deal with, this is not one. I also said I find none of these harder situations convincing; obviously I don’t, otherwise I wouldn’t be pro-life.
This comment is already too long, and I shall definitely post on the subject, attempting to answer some of the valid objections raised here. I’ll put a link in the thread when I do. But before I do, do me the courtesy of reading and attacking me for what I actually said, and not lumping me in with every nut-case from Fred Phelps downwards who has ever annoyed you.
My point (or one of them) in my post is that some things are beyond our control. However much heart medication, contraception or whatever one uses, sometimes, things like heart attacks, and pregnancy happen. We don’t like them, since they demonstrate we aren’t in control. We then have a choice; what to do. The other point, which Ampersand skirts around but never touches, is that the look given me in the wheelchair is a denial of personhood. The rhetoric of both abortion and eugenics is the same. (Margaret Sanger anyone?) The foetus (Latin: Little one. Little what? Little human) is also denied personhood. That’s the link. If you want a decent sampling of The culture of death, read Singer’s “Practical Ethics” or “Should the Baby live?”. When I did Bioethics, large numbers of pro-choice philosophers also supported some form of what amounted to Eugenics. (I admit, Judith Jarvis Thompson was an exception to the rule). At any rate, I’m starting into substantive arguments; that’s tomorrow’s job.
Hold on, on re-reading, I did say fearful. Fair call. All the rest remains unchanged.
But the point, John, is whether the foetus is truly a person (the fact that the name suggests personhood is a non-argument, a name is a label, nothing more nothing less). Just becuase a foetus is denied personhood is not an injustice unless it is truly a person, wherein, as Amp said repeatedly, lies the true argument. Monkeys are denied personhood, and the fact that a foetus is alive also is a non-argument as well. Flowers are alive. So are bacteria, but that doesn’t mean they have the rights of a person.
See the problem is, as Amp wrote, there is legitimate debate as to whether a zygote or foetus is human and therefore worthy of protection under the law.
As for the Eugenics part, come on. Give us some credit. Most people here are pro-choice, and no one believes in Eugenics. The Eugenics movement died with the Third Reich. Any Eugenicist pro-choicers have no bearing with the reality of the world. On the other hand, mny pro-lifers do oppose birth control and comprehensive sex education, and such people have a strong voice in the movement and work hard and are in fact too often successful in getting such views implemented as policy, so such arguments do have some validity.
I have to say that I have never heard a woman say she wanted an abortion because it would interfere with her vacation.
Most women having abortions are more concerned with just getting by – abortion is disproportionately used by the poor and the young, who have a harder time affording reliable contraception, which in the US is not paid for by the government. Middle-class-born women have abortions to ensure that they can stay middle class by finishing college, by delaying onset of parenthood until careers are established. The US does not have childcare support, and cost of adequate childcare is substantial. In general, in the US men do not provide familial child care, and so the “opportunity cost” of childrearing falls on women. It is conceivable that the single thing that would make abortion obsolete (except for medical catastrophe, rape, incest) would be a cultural system in which it was assumed that the woman’s job was the 40 weeks of gestation, and the man’s job was the 18 years of being the primary caretaker.
John said:
“I just wanted sex, now I’m trapped. I can’t have this inconvenience, therefore I shall get rid of it”. I stand by what I said. That reason for abortion is indeed plain wrong. I should like to think that many pro-choicers would agree with me on that.”
No actually. It’s not a person, so no guilt or consequence unless you believe in a sky ghost. We’re not harming society, so go live your own life according to your own beliefs and leave us alone. We’ll gladly return the favor if you do. Deal?
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the eugenics movement had a “positive” as well as a “negative” aspect. That is to say, eugenicists were as likely to focus on selfish genetically-superior women who were refusing to have children as to advocate birth control for the supposedly genetically-inferior. Many eugenicists used language strikingly similar to yours: they were fond, for instance, of dismissing women’s objections to pregnancy as trivial, much like your “holiday in the Riviera” stuff.
I’m not saying that I think you’re a eugenicist, but I don’t think that either pro-choice or anti-abortion folks can claim a pristine history on that score.
In the U.S., incidentally, people who oppose unrestricted abortion are much more likely to revert to language that sounds eugenicist to me. Many Americans oppose abortion on demand but think women should be allowed to abort a “defective” fetus. To me that’s much more offensive than the pro-choice position.
And then no more abortions (other than the exceptions you mentioned)?
Deal. Have your people draw up the paperwork, and I’ll route it back to my supervisors at the vast right-wing conspiracy for their approval.
Obviously, I agree with Raznor agreeing with me. :-) However, to clarify, I would say that there is legitimate debate as to whether a zygote or foetus is a person.
The problem with using the word “human” is that it has more than one possible meaning in this context, which tends to confuse discussion, in my experience.
Where to start, where to start… There are many things that deserve to be said about this subject, so I’ll divide my comments in two separate posts and try to be orderly. Well, to begin with, John, I don’t see when ad hominem attacks were directed to you. Irony and harsh words are certainly being used against your arguments, but this has got nothing to do with dismissing them (along with your right to think) based on who you are. And I don’t think it’s a small point. If you want people to build their own critical opinions, you need debate, and that can’t happen if any argument is tantamount to a personal insult. Arguments are put under fire, dissected, and even declared rubbish thanks to everybody’s use of reason. If there is a huge fallacy in logic somewhere, we shouldn’t have to feign interest and awe just to spare anyone’s feelings, right ?
If valid points are made against your opinion, that is, of course. In this case, there are plenty. For starters, you say that “abortion kills children”. In a sense, it’s true. Abortion kills prospective children. Are they children at that point in time ? No. Simply no, really. I don’t see how there can be a legitimate debate about that, Ampersand, in fact. “Person” means a human being who has a unique identity, which is so much more than just genetics. A person can never be replaced by any other, can they ? They have feelings and thoughts which cannot pertain to anyone else. (And I’m thinking that a misunderstanding of the above explains the notion that “pro-choice rhetoric is riddled with prejudice against the disabled”.
When I say thoughts, I’m certainly not referring to convoluted, Nobel-like theories . It has nothing to do with being able to utter “brilliantly” in a civilized conversation, or solve binary equations at school, even though our occidental society seems to pride itself on being the best at those (which is wrong, besides) in order to discriminate against those “inferior”. Even the most severely impaired of mentally disabled people produce some thoughts. It maybe in a childlike way, but they analyze the world and come to conclusions, no matter how wrong they may be, in order to understand their place in it and interact. As long as there is something resembling “2+2 =…1400” in their brain, they engage in a thinking process, and are since fully-fledged people, period. No subjective notion of “quality” -of any kind- is inferred when defining a person as a person. There is no way embryos and disabled people are being compared when we talk about abortion )
The reason we all have feelings and thoughts is our nervous system, which does not exist until several weeks of pregnancy ( I’ve checked, and synapses are created only after 10 weeks, but perceptions and conscious reactions aren’t possible until 22 weeks, so I don’t know exactly what moment is scientifically admitted. It seems that the nervous system isn’t fully conformed until a few weeks after birth). Anyway, as you can see, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise beginning of consciousness in a fetus . What may help is knowing the following two elements. First, prematures have no chance of surviving unless they’re at least 22 weeks, and even then it’s a long shot. And secondly, the law acknowledges a person only after birth (from the moment he can survive outside his mother’s baby, even under heavy medication. Prematures are legally people). Thus, to me, it seems logical to consider these 22 weeks as a turning point, though what this means concretely I don’t know. The overlaps between personhood and consciousness make the matter of abortion deadlines very interesting, and reflect the disparities between national legislations. That would make for an enlightning debate.
However, it is very clear that zygotes and embryos (until the 8th week) can’t be put on the same footing as fetuses, neither scientifically nor ethically. They may all be prospective children, but if you equal prospective children with children, then you might want to read the recent discussion that was held after a nearly-aborted woman decried abortion on such a flimsy ground. In a few words, every activity that distracts women from having sex means a particular “person” is not born (which means pregnancy prevents potential children from being born too), and “pro-lifers” should dedicate all of their energy to finding a scientific way to prevent all elimination of embryos, including the 60% that occur naturally.
As for your religious convictions, that’s your life, and as was already said, if a woman freely refuses abortion, nobody’s going to force it upon her. It would be her choice, and guess what, pro-choicers would actually endorse her decision. Oh the irony… No matter the circumstances, they’d want to support her, since they’re also pro-contraceptive rights and thus fight for a true welfare state, where every parent would be given the means to raise their kid with dignity. Even if it was a poor wingnut with seven kids trained to shoot bazookas, even if she was constantly on the brink of exhaustion and couldn’t stop her kids from bullying the entire neighborhood, no pro-choicer would force her to have an abortion. If that was her choice, we’d let her. Would we be happy about it ? Certainly not. Would we try to explain to her the benefits of a manageable family ? Yes. But we’d be happy she had that right. You need not endorse one’s choice to fight for their right to make it. That’s in part what living in a secular society means.
It really is not as if pro-choice partisans wanted everybody to abort or copy their reproductive positions. Those titles of honour are reserved to eugenicists and “pro-lifers”, as a matter of fact. And I’m not saying those two categories are one and the same, before you accuse me of invidious comparisons, but I’ll leave this for the other post.
…It’s a cheap shot if it’s a misrepresentation of the situation, or if it involves a willful refusal to acknowledge the politics at play. Honestly, if I saw a bunch of _silent_ abortion protesters outside a clinic, ones with signs saying that I was about to go kill a baby, I’d give them the same angry glare. Or, were I a better person than I am, I might attempt to school my features into a bland mask so as not to let my anger show. And if I were dealing with, say, the stress of an unwanted pregnancy, or if I knew a woman who had, I might very well start screeching. I’m not going to _smile._ I’m not going to walk up and shake their hands. The response abortion protesters get, however angry, however vituperative, however disrespectful, is not to be compared with hatred or bigotry towards the disabled. There is a difference between being really, really angry at someone _because you find their beliefs reprehensible_ and being really, really angry at someone because they have a disability.
I eat meat. (Mind, I’m not likening eating animals (or not) to abortion, or to eugenics, or to bigotry against disability.) I know a lot of vegans. I’ve met some very angry vegans, vegans who have screeched at me the same way that pro-choicers have screeched at you. And I’ve met other vegans whose rhetoric has denigrated meat-eating in vicious terms. This pisses me off, certainly. But I’d be an idiot if I saw that treatment as similar in any important way to, say, people who glare at me and screech at me because I’m a transsexual.
And as far as the “French Riviera” thing goes…eh. I don’t know if implying that _some_ women who seek abortions are selfish bitches is any better than implying that they all are. Especially since, “Oh, shit, I’m pregnant. I don’t want to carry this baby. I’m getting an abortion,” _is_ the rationale for many if not most women who seek abortions. Yes, John, they do want to (shock horror!) have sex without dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Which category do you default women into, heartless jetsetters or rape victims on dialysis?
“The other point, which Ampersand skirts around but never touches, is that the look given me in the wheelchair is a denial of personhood. “
Yet you have no problem denying women our own personhood. You have no problem telling me, a living, breathing, factual person, that your religion, your unprovable beliefs are worth more than my autonomy, whether or not I believe as you do. To you, my body and my life should be subject to your will.
Forgive me if I find it ironic that any of your argument against a women’s reproductive rights has to do with looks that you *interpret* as denials of your personhood, when you, in word and deed, are in the practice of *actually* denying that same status for others.
All through these pro-life arguments is the theme of punishment. If these sluts play, they should pay.
And frankly, what smush said. When someone calls me a murderer and glosses over the real reaons (here’s a hint: it isn’t interrupted vacations) that women terminate pregnancies, it’s my personhood–the personhood of women–that is denied. We’re the ones who physically bear the burden and carry the potential health risks and issues of pregnancy. No one has any right to force that on me or any woman.
Connecting the dots between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-disabled is an exercise I have never understood. I don’t confuse a fetus with an infant, therefore, I am not at risk of advocating for the “termination” of “unwanted” babies or adults because of their disability. In fact, I don’t know how it is assumed or who it is that assumes that because one is disabled one is ipso facto unwanted. That is a pro-life bias, not mine.
There are many parents of disabled children who love them to pieces but would never choose to replicate the experience. They are among the couples who are most likely to choose genetic screening and act on adverse results. If you can’t hold this “paradox” in your head without making it explode, I am very sorry, you don’t have to have an abortion, ever. But it pisses me off to be accused of being anti-disabled because I am pro-choice.
I might add, the people who vote pro-choice also tend to support medical and social services for the uninsured or underinsured, policies which ease the lives of the disabled. Our anti-choice governor is eliminating early childhood services to disabled children, as a budget cut. A non-wealthy prospective parent who has been given alarming news by the obstetrician may look at this health care situation and say, I can’t afford to have this child and give him/her the health care necessary, so I should have an abortion.
Now, for the more sociological comments… John, several of your assumptions contain deeply troubling philosophical biases and incoherencies. Well, I shall start with the obvious, which Ampersand has already pointed out, the problem of “control”. You believe that once conception happened, the natural course of action is for the woman to carry her pregnancy to its term, and that interfering with this process is contrary to natural order. Do you realize what this means, I wonder ? If somebody is shot and is bleeding to death, the paramedics and doctors who try to stop the bleeding are also severely disrupting natural order. There is, after all, nothing more natural than dying of blood loss. He’s been shot, no way to undo that, the past can’t be changed, so we should just accept it and watch him die.
It is exactly the same thing. Yes, it is. You exercise control when you see a young child sinking and you rush to his aid. You exercise control when you take your infant daughter to a doctor when she suffers from a high fever. You exercise control everytime you act, it’s as simple as that. We humans interfere, that’s how we live. We decide to learn and thus interfere with the natural decadence of our brains; we jog in order not to become couch potatoes; we even watch television in order not to be left to our own mental devices. The only way not to interfere would be to sit somewhere and wait for death. And you know what ? We’d still be interfering. With a mosquito’s flight, with the growth of some plant, who knows ? We exist. We are in this plane. So the only question is how we choose to interfere.
And I suppose you are aware of that. I don’t think there is a single human being who can deny his own existence, since he needs to acknowledge it to deny it, anyway, and no amount of stupidity, however unfathomable, can accomplish that. So I’m not treating you as if you were dumb. The only reason I’m reminding you of such a beautiful, obvious evidence is because you’re condemning control and displaying a holier-than-thou attitude where you are just as guilty as charged as anyone of us. We all try to steer things in what we believe is the right direction, and I don’t think any religious devout would want to pretend he doesn’t , right ? So how and when we decide to intervene can be reduced to one question, why. We want to act according to our precepts, our beliefs, our convictions, our own faith.
So this is my question. Why do we try to save lives ? Why do we feel rage, that most wonderful of feelings, when confronted to torture ? Why do we seek to make the world a better place ? Why do we try to love, for that matter ? Because we cherish life, indeed.
But not just life. We cherish life because of what it means. We don’t just live. We want our lives to be odes, somehow. We live to experience freedom, we live to reach dignity; we live to feel alive, simply put, and gifted with consciousness as we are, it means we need, desperately need, to feel good with ourselves. In this context, an antonym to the latter would be “comfortable”, yes. A synonym, on the other hand, would be exalted, euphoric, joyous, awed. Truly immortal, in my opinion. You don’t just perpetuate life to perpetuate life. You perpetuate life to give to every single form of life the amazing chance to transcend itself and give a new meaning to Life itself. So how is it possible that pro-lifers claim moral superiority when they undermine the ulterior meaning of life ?
Because let me tell you, John, if you deny somebody their rights, you’re doing nothing for the grandeur of life itself. You’re making humans a means to an end. Perpetuate life. Women are not vessels. Their bodies are not for the taking, neither from irresponsible twits who just want to shag them, nor from preaching pillars of society who just want what is best for them, of course.
And you know what ? I find your assumption that abortion is “a woman’s issue” deeply insulting. You say you want men to be part of the decision process, and yet it is you who reduce their possible approval of abortion to a flight from responsibility. So the father is just trying to escape unscathed after uploading his sperm ? It cannot be because he has thought about it and views the world as a place where children should be born to parents who can wholly embrace them. It can’t be because he has talked with his companion and agreed on waiting until later, or waiting for the right person.
We make mistakes, deal with it. There is no magical remedy such as parental instinct to make sense of our lives and give them the ultimate purpose. There is no painless decision when in hard times. Your analogy of the French Riviera has already been discussed, but how can you think that such an invasive operation doesn’t hurt the women who choose it ? They have to surrender their bodies, however temporarily, (furthermore, intimate body parts generally create an immense vulnerability when “accessed”), and I don’t see many women who will have or have had an abortion prance around singing gaily about it, even decades later. They choose the lesser of two evils.
And let’s just be clear about this, because it’s a crucial point. The right to abort, in its core, has nothing to do with the prospective kid. It isn’t legitimate because of who the child might turn out to be later, it isn’t legitimate because of the fact that he might be handicapped, or the fact that kids who were not wanted/were not raised in an affluent family will undoubtedly be screwed up in their heads (which is wrong, of course). Life is always surprising, and you cannot control the destiny of your child. Who he becomes does not entirely depend on you and how he was raised. A racist sociopath can have an amazingly gentle son, and a long line of illiterate drunkards can give birth to a wonderful bookwriter.
You can never know with human beings, simple as that, aborted or not. Abortion isn’t about the outcome, unlike eugenics. It’s about a woman’s right not to breed if she doesn’t want to. She will never know if she made the right choice, and how her life would have been like. She knows, however, that she didn’t want the baby, and that is all that matters. Why would anyone else’s will overrule that of the person who has to bodily suffer the consequences of bringing life to this world ? Why would your mother’s decision to make you a plastical surgeon predominate on your dream to be a rat breeder ? Why would somebody’s else decision to shoot you in the chest mean doctors are bound to respect the naturality of your death ?
If somebody else’s will was that you renounced your religion, would it be fair ? So since not everybody considers himself a Christian, you cannot expect everyone to conform to your set of beliefs. You’re still welcome to try to convince them that you’re position is right, of course. But you have to appeal to their reason, and in this case, you’d have to prove the personhood of the fetus, which has already been discussed (I’ll spare you an encore). So how come you do not involve science in your arguments ? And how come you won’t spontaneously research the best way to prevent abortions, instead of the most vicious way to punish it, as Ampersand says ?
But you know what really sets me off ? Your talk about “misguided compassion” from pro-choicers while you simultaneously assert that none of the “harder” circumstances justifies abortion. You talk and talk about how abortion is murder. Why do we condemn murder ? Out of two elements, justice and compassion. And yet, you do not display an ounce of compassion towards those who have to take the difficult decision to get an abortion. How could you say that no circumstance justifies abortion if you were not completely ignoring the pain a raped woman has to go through ? And nobody is saying that rape abortions should be allowed because the baby might turn out to be a rapist. Once more, it has nothing to do with a “defect” in the child. But how can you expect someone else’s decision to have sex with a woman to bind her, no matter what ? Into 9 months of pregnancy and a lifetime of motherhood ? He decided to have sex, she just has to live without it, is that it ?
And you know what’s even worse ? Excuse me since I am about to be blunt, but you completely disregard the painful situations some disabled people and their families are in. What about the point Silverside made ? How can it not be completely unethical to let that woman have a baby when she probably didn’t even realize she was having one, let alone made the decision to keep it ? Moreover, NancyP’s first comment addresses an infinitely delicate situation. What about families where a recessive genetic disease has already struck one of the kids, and already demands all of the family’s attention ? How can you not feel compassion for a mother who has already lost two kids before they were 15, after taking care of them night and day for almost 15 years each and had to see them wither and die in the throes of agony, and who suddenly discovers she is unfortunately pregnant (the reason why makes no difference here), and cannot even begin to consider going through the same thing once again ?
What are you implying ? That she lacks courage, patience, virtue, faith ? How dare you ? She might have loved the first two kids with all of her heart and dedicated herself entirely to them, but you get to judge on whether or not her decision is the right one?
Disabled people have the unquestionable right to exist, but I cannot begin to understand your hypocrisy when you go on and on about miracles and graces and still strive to transform some people’s lives in an unending hell.
A “denial of personhood” ? It is just as bad when it is directed to a fully-fledged person who happens to be in a wheelchair as when it is directed to a fully-fledged person who happens to have the possibility to develop life within their body.
After this long rant, I’ll be quick in pointing out two things. The question of eugenics is really interesting, and as Sally said, neither pro nor anti-abortionist have a pristine record. We already have one side of the equation with the Nazis. As for the other side, I think you’ll be surprised to know that eugenics didn’t die with the Third Reich, as Raznor claims. In Sweden, a country commonly upheld as a model of socialdemocracy, eugenicist policies were implanted until the 70’s, since the “undesirables” (mentally disabled people and religious minorities in particular) were forcibly sterilized, under the most whimsical of pretexts sometimes. Now, it’s true that this can partly be explained by the influence of the Nazis, who invaded Sweden and made sure 90% of doctors were pro-eugenics, but it’s still highly significant that the State applied those policies afterwards, at the peak of Welfare State in the world.
And lastly, NancyP declared that the only way to outlaw abortion without penalizing women was to legally ensure that the father provide for everything as the child grows. I strongly disagree (but I suppose it was a jest), since the 9 months of pregnancy would still be slavery if the woman didn’t want to be pregnant. Imagine if the world spiraled on its axis and religious wingnuts decided to follow this suggestion just to piss us off…
Just a small point, as I don’t want to reiterate the wonderful longer posts that others have provided here :)
I am always interested when the anti-choice people trot out the “selfish woman trotting off to vacation and needs to abort in order to do such” or the variation”selfish woman just wanting sex without consequences.”
Now, I am not saying anyone here is using these, and to a certain extent by simplifying such I am doing a ‘straw-man’ here, but for the purposes of this argument, it works.
Why I am interested in this, is that they seem to be constructing these women as getting pregnant on their own. I know I’m lesbian, and pregnancy is a whole different process for us, but I am pretty sure I didn’t miss the bus where this has been happening.
The zygote/fetus that can be produced from an act of het sex is as much a product of a guy as it is a woman, and if she is being selfish and irresponsible then honestly, I think he has to be positioned similarly.
But guys AREN’T positioned similarly in the anti-choice blame game. It’s all about these bad women, who not only have sex, but then make rational choices about the consequences. And nothing is mentioned about the guys having sex, because that is what they are supposed to do.
And, as an aside, I’m YET to hear ANY anti-choicer address the fact that countries with legal (and accessible) abortion provision have significantly lower abortion rates. They seem to ignore that completely. That, and the above, tells me it’s more about controlling sexuality, and in particular women’s sexuality, than anything to do with reducing abortions.
Sarah in Chicago
A little disability perspective from a pro-choice disabled feminist:
Silverside said in comment # 5:
I find it curious that certain disabled activists have such a strong emotional connection to the fetus, but seem to sidestep the issue of how devastating lack of abortion choice could be for many disabled women.
While lack of reproductive choice is certainly a concern important to all women, access to abortion is not nearly as big a problem for disabled women as freedom from coercion to abort (and more generally just being treated as sexual adults). Some of what you may perceive as “a strong emotional connection to the fetus” is ambivalence to a “choice” that has been used to oppress disabled women’s freedom to parent. Someone mentioned Sweden’s sterilization policies as late as the 1970s — the U.S. did the same, and a quieter form of coercion still goes on.
Jake Squid asks:
Can you give some examples of standard pro-choice rhetoric that is prejudiced against the disabled?
I am pro-choice, but here’s a discussion everyone has heard or even participated in:
“Do you want a boy or a girl?”
Pregnant woman: “I don’t care as long as the baby is healthy.”
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a heathy child, of course, but a logical extension of this is that an unhealthy child is not, objectively, what anyone wants. And when choice is thrown into this mix, some people faced with an unhealthy child in their future will choose abortion. (Over 90% of women learning they have a fetus with Trisomy 21/Downs’ Syndrome will abort.) There is a pattern to abortion that reflects a bias against giving birth to disabled children — and the more prenatal testing that becomes available the more this seems to be true. That the choice may not always be entirely palatable is one of the costs of supporting choice. It may very well be irreconcilable with freedom for women (though there is much that could be done to more honestly prepare prospective parents for what a life with a disability realistically involves), but this prejudice is nevertheless there. (Despite Barbara’s insistence of exactly the opposite in comments # 30 and 31.)
In comment # 11 jrs says:
And as far as the debate about who is more concerned about the disabled: It is not the Democrats, or the pro-choice people who are closing federal Vocational Rehabilitation offices all over the country and cutting Voc Rehab funds. It’s our anti-abortion Preznit who is doing that.
I completely agree that the Democrats more readily support programs that help disabled people, but to claim Democrats are committed to helping disabled people would be like saying Democrats are committed to women’s issues. The lack of understanding about the disability nuances in the abortion debate is one example of how even a basic knowledge of facts is missing among liberals, nevermind a commitment to disability rights.
I actually agree with John’s analysis of the fear in nondisabled people’s eyes when they see the disabled. But he seems to base much of the passion behind the essay he wrote (and his life-long commitment to anti-choice policies) on a skit he saw at church when he was six. That speaks to the power of theater, not any particular truth about abortion. Or disability. There is nothing inherently bad about wanting control, and it should be a basic human right for every woman to control her own body. But neither should liberals pretend a woman’s choices are value free.
I do think that there is a certain pressure to abort severely disabled fetuses from the knowledge that there is no certain support system out there for the extra medical and educational and social care needed. Very often the mother needs to quit her job to care for the child full time, and if the mother is single, or if the wage-earning husband deserts the family, they may be up shit creek. SSI alone doesn’t cut it for supporting a family – and that supposes that disability SSI will even be around in the future. I gather that many families just have to institutionalize the severely disabled child in order to make the child the ward of the state so that the child gets care and the family can earn a living and care for the rest of the children. All I can say is, a woman in shaky circumstances just has to hear one or two such stories from those she knows in order to seriously consider abortion. Of course, not all cases are so dire or need extensive support. And of course, the disability rights advocates who write so eloquently are a class much less likely to be aborted, because they have brains that function well for social interaction, and in a just society would be capable of considerable or total independence. They have little in common with trisomy 18 children (most of whom die in infancy or in utero). And in fact, the majority of DR activists that I have met or read about have had acquired disabilities.
I’m getting there with my response, but to help me out in preparing it, are you basing your abortion stats primarily on Henshaw Singh and Haas 2000, which was published in “Family Planning Perspectives”, or have you better sources of info. I haven’t found yet?
Blue Lily, I didn’t base my philosophy on a skit! I just mentioned it as a way to start the piece, because it’s the first thing I remember. Actually, Dr. Nathanson’s “The Silent Scream” had a greater impact, also seeing the baby in formaldehyde. There were other things too.
Some complain I haven’t addressed stuff; be assured, I shall, in the next day or two.
I should say that my essay was a personal story, not a detailed philosophical argument. I shall try and do better in terms of substance (including clarifying “control”, and some of the other stuff you raise) for you in a day or two.
I see a baby in formaldehyde at least on a yearly basis. It is a cyclops, probably from about 1960s, part of the anatomical museum cabinets lining one of the teaching labs at my university. Since I teach in that lab, I see it, and various tuberculous lungs, gigantic bone tumors, and the like.
I clicked on the link in your post to where you have “said this before” (About the low abortion stats, mean) in the hope that you cited a source (that is, one apart from Henshaw et. al.), but the link doesn’t work. Just thought you should know.
Sarah in Chicago asks why the anti-choice rhetoric is directed against “selfish women” and points out that men are expected to be promiscuous.
Sarah, I think you’re right, but you haven’t covered the entire picture. Abortion has been framed as a “women’s issue”; it’s all about “her right to choose” and “her body.” That effectively cuts men out of the picture in terms of making decisions/taking responsibility for the pregnancy. It’s the downside of taking control of a woman’s body away from men.
“Abortion has been framed as a “women’s issue”; it’s all about “her right to choose”? and “her body.”? That effectively cuts men out of the picture in terms of making decisions/taking responsibility for the pregnancy. It’s the downside of taking control of a woman’s body away from men. ”
Downside? What “downside”? Look, this is just me speaking here, making no claims to do so for all feminists, let alone all women, but I don’t particularly worry about that one. In the world I want to see, not only would women have complete freedom to choose abortion, those who *want* to carry to term would be supported–in meaningful ways, ie financial support, affordable childcare, etc. (I can hear all the non-socialists tearing their hair out at the roots)–in that choice, too. Because, bizarre as it may sound, in the world I want to see, children would be valued and not considered nuisances, mindless pieces of personal property, and/or parasites.
So really, whether the fathers in question “took responsibility” or not wouldn’t be much of an issue. I have no problem with fathers who wish to be involved. In fact, I think it’s nice. But I also think trying to force them into taking responsibility of any sort for the seed they spread is next to a useless exercise: after all, one of the most common arguments for abortion is that women who are forced to be mothers are not likely to do an exemplary job of it. If you took away the reasons which make it necessary to “rope men into” paying child support–namely, that the women and children involved couldn’t get along without it–there is no reason that an unwilling father would have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy at all. And I just have no problem with that.
BUT: first so many attitudes have to change. Not only do women and children have to be considered Actual Real Human Beings first (something that, on both counts, is depressingly far away), but a different concept of wealth distribution has to take hold (again, I don’t see that happening any time soon), AND attitudes towards both men’s and women’s roles in sexual activity must change, with an acceptance that yes, sex is a wonderful thing, but that as responsible adults we ALL–not just the woman involved–must take steps to ensure unwanted pregnancies don’t happen (not much chance of that, either). And, it would be nice if men weren’t socialised to think that they should be soulless sexual predators, and women weren’t socialised to be victims (not too hopeful about that one going away any time soon, I must say). Finally, and this is a biggie: society as a whole would have to learn to see children as valuable members who are deserving of support not because they “produce” anything or “contribute” to “economic growth”, but for no other reason than that they exist. And no way will we see that happen in the foreseeable future unless there is a seismic shift in societal values.
What we have now is a situation that is shit all round, so naturally its effects are pretty much shit all round.
LS –
You raise a good point, and it is a valid one, but I think you subtly missed precisely what I was saying.
I was not referring to how choice is framed as a women’s issue, because honestly, as an aside, I think it is. I completely agree with Crys T’s points immediately above in that regard.
What I _was_ arguing was that women are constructed as ‘bad’ or ‘irresponsible’ for not only wanting to have sex (which has been constructed in our society as evil for a long time) but also sex without consequences.
In effect, they are seen as bad or irresponsible for taking an approach to sex that men have been allowed in our society. An approach men aren’t censured for (or at least to no way the same degree).
Why I brought up the above was that this is interesting because women’s ‘irresponbility’ regarding their sexualities is couched in language by those that would deny choice that is all about fetuses/zygotes, whereas any censureship (if there is any) of similar behaviour in men isn’t.
This, and the legal abortion thing, is why I was arguing why this is more about control than any mythical approach to savings lives.
Hope that clears things up :)
Sarah in Chicago
Well, I’m sure you’re already tired of my comments, but I couldn’t resist putting my two cents on the question of fatherly responsibility, because LS’ post seems to imply that the feminists’ position necessarily removes fathers off the picture by insisting on women’s rights, whereas it is actually the patriarchial ensemble which sees its coherency jeopardized by pro-lifers.
When feminists emphasize “the women’s right”, by no means do they mean that the woman in question is the sole person implicated in the decision-making process, it means she is the ultimate responsible for the decision. The difference is huge, for why else would feminists insist so much on the social context and the importance of financial support from the State ? If a woman in a healthy relationship finds herself pregnant, it seems obvious that she will look at her situation including her environment, and talk with her partner (otherwise, I don’t see how it could be a healthy relationship). It is when no consensus can be reached between the pregnant woman and her immediate surroundings that her decision should prevail, no questions asked. Before coming to a conclusion about abortion, women examine what having a baby would mean to them, and no factor will weigh more than what their environment augurs for the future. It is thus elementary that fathers (or lesbian partners, for that matter) bear a tremendous responsibility in the choice.
Problem is, when a father washes his hand of the matter (“I will have nothing to do with this, bye-bye”), pro-choicers find it very convenient to put the entire responsibility on the woman, by merely qualifying circumstances as superfluous to grasp the heart of the matter (no abortion is ever justified, remember ?) , and thus place 100% of the responsibility on the woman’s shoulders, just so that she can be completely guilty amidst her isolation. A simple mathematical analogy would be that nothing is withdrawn after the partner’s decision. If X is the importance of context (for simplification purposes, let’s just assume it’s the role of the partner), always different from zero, then you have magical religious arithmetics, where 100 – X = 100 !!
And that’s where pro-choicers fail to understand the broader consequences of that process for the patriarchal system . In order to let the whole weight of the guilt fall on the woman’s shoulders, they need to discard the role of the father. So they may deem him as irresponsible, but he is irresponsible for having sex, NOT for being involved in the actual decision concerning abortion.
Therefore, cutting families from the choice is not the downside of taking away men’s control over women’s bodies. On the other hand, handing all the keys of human reproduction to women is the logical outcome of the conservatives ‘ utter loathing of aborting women. Who is pro-family and pro-father’s rights, I wonder ?
I would say they dig their own grave if I could bring myself to believe these are people who seek foolproof reasonings and truly want to apply critical thinking…
blue lily writes:
Jake Squid asks:
Can you give some examples of standard pro-choice rhetoric that is prejudiced against the disabled?
I am pro-choice, but here’s a discussion everyone has heard or even participated in:
“Do you want a boy or a girl?”?
Pregnant woman: “I don’t care as long as the baby is healthy.”?
Sure, we’ve all heard that said, but that is not part of “pro-choice rhetoric”. You hear anti-choice folks say that all the time as well. I’ve never seen a pro-choice rally or speech or pamphlet that states that all “unhealthy” or disabled fetuses should be aborted, or even that only unhealthy/disabled fetuses should be aborted. The pro-choice rhetoric that I’ve seen says that it is a woman’s choice, no matter the reason.
I’d really love to see an actual (and, hopefully, common) example of pro-choice rhetoric that is prejudiced against the disabled. Anybody? Except you Raznor – one example causing beverage to splatter on the screen is enough by anybody.
Well, Jake, I take the beverage splatter remark to be a compliment, so glad to be of a help.
Hmm. I don’t think it’s pro-choice rhetoric to argue that disabled fetuses should be aborted. That’s not something that you hear shouted at pro-choice rallies or included in NARAL’s literature. And there are plenty of anti-choice people who would make exceptions for disabled fetuses. But I do agree that pro-choice people have difficulty with the idea that some abortions are immoral and that just because people ought to have a choice doesn’t mean that every choice is right. I think we feel so besieged by anti-choicers that we have trouble acknowledging any moral complexity at all.
As I said over on feministing, I think of this as being akin to abortion for sex selection. It’s not ok that there are people who abort female fetuses just because they’d one day be girls. But the solution to that isn’t to outlaw abortion. It’s to work on the status of women and girls, so that families aren’t inclined to dread the birth of girl children.
The complicating factor is that when the whole society favors aborting disabled fetuses, it adds to the perception that disabled lives aren’t worth living and actually worsens the problem. So in a sense, it’s both a symptom and a contributing factor.
And with that, I may have written a comment that’s going to piss absolutely everyone off…
Actually, this feminist believes that it is soley the woman’s choice no matter what the health of the relationship between her and the man who got her pregnant. There is no “father” until a baby is born, so I don’t see how you can talk about a “father’s” responsibility in relation to a woman’s pregnancy. A pregnancy does not a baby make (although it often leads to one!).
John:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you – it always takes longer to reply to things that require research (for one thing, I have to be home to reply!).
I’ve fixed the link.
Henshaw, et al was indeed my source.
And also this comment, from an article published by the World Health Organization:
It’s the woman who gets pregnant, the woman who has to deal with the pregnancy, and therefore it’s the woman’s choice.
Period.
Eep. Um, maybe I should have been clearer. By ‘downside’ all I meant was that, in framing the debate solely as a woman’s right to choose and therefore eliminating men’s decisions from the discussion, we make it very easy for the blame of ‘screwing around’ to fall solely on women, forgetting that “it takes two to tango”, and that for every unexpected/unwanted pregnancy, there’s a man just as responsible for not taking precautions as the woman.
Dear Friends,
The first part of my response is up on my blog. I have a Sunday School lesson to write (After all, someone must train the next generation of anti-choice wingnuts ;-)), and tomorrow is the Lord’s Day, so I shan’t be posting the second half until Monday. My responses to the comments you have made will be in part 2, Part 1 is mostly concerned with Ampersand’s original post. Here’s your link:
http://homethronealtar.blogspot.com/2005/02/apologia-pro-vita-sua-response-to.html
Make yourself at home, and feel free to respond in the comments boxes, if you have something on your mind.
God Bless,
John
NancyP writes:
And of course, the disability rights advocates who write so eloquently are a class much less likely to be aborted, because they have brains that function well for social interaction, and in a just society would be capable of considerable or total independence. They have little in common with trisomy 18 children (most of whom die in infancy or in utero). And in fact, the majority of DR activists that I have met or read about have had acquired disabilities.
The disability rights perspective with respect to selective abortion (and the prenatal testing that precedes it) concerns not only the aborted fetus, but the collective societal prejudices this practice visits on existing disabled people, the disabled children women choose to give birth to, and the families that must make this decision. Medical technology’s ability to diagnose an increasing number of disabilities in utero in order to then allow pregnant women to choose what to do is not a morally neutral activity. The practice of aborting fetuses to avoid having a disabled child is relevant to all living disabled people, just as the practice of selectively aborting girl fetuses in China is relevant to all women everywhere. It’s prejudicial against disabled people as a category, even when it may be a valid individual choice.
Jake Squid writes:
Sure, we’ve all heard that said, but that is not part of “pro-choice rhetoric”. You hear anti-choice folks say that all the time as well. I’ve never seen a pro-choice rally or speech or pamphlet that states that all “unhealthy”? or disabled fetuses should be aborted, or even that only unhealthy/disabled fetuses should be aborted. The pro-choice rhetoric that I’ve seen says that it is a woman’s choice, no matter the reason.
I agree. I wasn’t very clear on that, but I wasn’t mentioning it as pro-choice rhetoric, just a common everyday conversation that shows prejudice many aren’t aware of. Anti-choice rhetoric is actually much more likely to blatantly use disability prejudice as a reason abortion is morally wrong. It wouldn’t be surprising, for example, for a pro-choice visibly-disabled woman at a rally to be accosted by anti-choicers shouting that she would not exist if her mother had access to abortion when pregnant with her.
For some subtler examples of pro-choice arguments prejudiced against the disabled you need only reread the comments above. The logic is often circular. “We support funding to provide resources for the disabled, but adequate funding doesn’t always exist. Therefore, sometimes the decision of the woman to abort a disabled fetus is necessary because adequate resources do not exist.” Compare this to debates about selective abortion of female fetuses where instead we hear outrage that the social structure and culture does not value women enough.
Sally, I appreciate what you’ve said in comment #45. Especially this:
But I do agree that pro-choice people have difficulty with the idea that some abortions are immoral and that just because people ought to have a choice doesn’t mean that every choice is right. I think we feel so besieged by anti-choicers that we have trouble acknowledging any moral complexity at all.
I’ll have to go over to feministing and see what else you’ve said there.
As I have pointed out before, very often the same prochoice people are voting for measures that increase care to the disabled. For example, over the past few years there have been local tax referenda for special schools district, mental health care, and the public transit system (which runs a door to door wheelchair van system). Many prochoice people favor single payer health care. Existence of a safety net makes the woman’s decision vis-a-vis a disabled fetus a more free decision. I am not going to make that decision for her.
I might also add that the population of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis for detection of chromosomal abnormalities or for gene mutations are a relatively small and self-selected group at present. These women either have had a disabled child with a known genetic syndrome, and don’t want to care for a second such child, or they are older(more at risk) and have strong feelings against raising a child with Down’s, trisomy 18, or other nondisjunction abnormality. Most older women don’t do amniocentesis, at least locally. Probably the most useful part of counselling of an older woman considering amniocentesis and then possibly abortion is a referral to a parents’ group.This can deal more effectively with stereotypes than any amount of words in a doctor’s office.
Rayna Rapp, an anthropologist, wrote an interesting study of New York City women considering amniocentesis,Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America.
I can see bluelily’s point that allowing abortion of Tay-Sachs fetuses can be seen as invidious to political efforts of disability activists for better services, since the general public really doesn’t know all that much, and tends to lump degenerative neurologic disorders fatal in early childhood (Tay-Sachs) with mild mental retardation of Down’s, compatible with a reasonably long lifespan and good social interactions, with cerebral palsy of normal or above normal intelligence, with deafness in absence of any other medical problems, with paraplegia acquired in a car crash, with stroke, with a leg amputation due to diabetes – all exceedingly different from each other in the problems they will encounter. I am in a medical field (cancer research), so I don’t perceive disabled people as a single class, but as people with x, y, or z problem. It is hard to remember that some (but I am sure not all) members of the public don’t differentiate.
Again, my stance is that this isn’t my decision to make for another woman.
I’m realizing something in the course of this discussion which hadn’t been obvious to me up to now. It seems to me that in America, the legal right to abortion is based on Roe v Wade, and is framed in terms of the mother’s right to privacy, her right to autonomy over her body and so on. Whereas in the UK, abortion was made legal on the grounds of medical necessity, and while severe danger to the mother is counted as a medical grounds, it’s mostly discussed in terms of the health and wholeness of the foetus. So we have the (to me) anomalous situation that abortion is legal up to 24 weeks for a ‘healthy’ foetus, but up to full term for a foetus with ‘prenatal defects’.
I get the impression that a lot of the pro-choice people in America are arguing from a feminist point of view. They’re a lot less likely than their English counterparts to argue that it’s cruel to bring a child into the world who will have no quality of life. I don’t know anyone who would say outright that they hate or despise disabled people – that would definitely not be ‘politically correct’! But many people will argue in terms which amount to saying that it’s better to be dead than disabled.
John’s original post resonated with me because I’ve heard that line of argument far too often. Likewise blue lily and Sally’s comments. Barbara’s point makes sense to me though: if you simply do not regard a foetus as a person at all, then a disabled foetus is not equivalent to a disabled person. I can sort of see that, at least logically.
Amniocentesis and other prenatal tests are damn expensive, also, and insurance (if you have such a thing) does not cover the cost unless you are provably at risk–over 35, or have a family history of genetic problems, which probably puts you outside of many insurance policies but let’s not talk about that right now. As NancyP says, genetic testing is not exactly something women can nip down and do like getting one’s nails done.
“Whereas in the UK, abortion was made legal on the grounds of medical necessity, and while severe danger to the mother is counted as a medical grounds, it’s mostly discussed in terms of the health and wholeness of the foetus. So we have the (to me) anomalous situation that abortion is legal up to 24 weeks for a ‘healthy’ foetus, but up to full term for a foetus with ‘prenatal defects’.
I get the impression that a lot of the pro-choice people in America are arguing from a feminist point of view. They’re a lot less likely than their English counterparts to argue that it’s cruel to bring a child into the world who will have no quality of life.”
Two points: one major, the other just something that brings out the anal in me like no one’s business. So, let’s get the minor one out of the way first. Firstly, Individ-ewe-al, are you British yourself? If not, I apologise if I seem to be taking you to task, because the error you’ve made is a common (and understandable) one for people who don’t know the UK to make. But if you are, well, you really ought to know better. Because the terms “UK” and “England” are not synonymous. The English may be the biggest nation of the UK, but it isn’t the only one, so when you say “the English” when you mean “the British” or “the people of the United Kingdom”, you are disappearing millions of people who for various reasons would not call themselves English (e.g. many British Asians & Black Britons, the Scottish, the Welsh & those from Northern Ireland…not to mention the Channel Islanders or the Manx…and a lot of Cornish people).
OK, on to the real point: I don’t think that the Brits have such a focus on abortion as a way of eliminating birth defects. Of course, abortion itself is not nearly such a hot topic here as it is in the US, but when I do hear people discuss it, it’s usually in the practical sense of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. In fact, I don’t actually recall anyone talking about it in terms of disabilities at all. Maybe on TV medical reality shows where it’s an issue specific to the people appearing, but not in real life amongst people I know.
Health issues may be the reason abortion was legalised in the UK, but that doesn’t mean that this is the way the population at large is using it or thinks about it. I do agree that in the US, the discourse around abortion from pro-choice people is more openly feminist, but I think that has much, much more to do with the fact that the right to an abortion is much more under threat in the US than it is here. If the government here were making as many anti-choice noises, and taking as many anti-choice actions as the American one does, I think British pro-choicers would get vocally feminist in pretty short order.
to my shame, i’m a compulsive nitpicker.
a few days ago, Ask wrote:
which turns out to not be quite correct – possibly s/he was confusing Sweden for either Norway or Denmark, both of which border on Sweden, and both of which were invaded. the Swedes remained neutral throughout WW2, although in practice their tacit allegiance shifted with the fortunes of the belligerents. how much indirect influence the Nazis might have had on Swedish social policy, i do not know and can’t tell.
John: The fact remains that early enough in pregnancy, a fetus is not a child. No amount of repetition will change this fact. Given this simple biological reality, forcing a woman to carry such a fetus is a serious crime.
Hey, Nomen Nescio,
you’re absolutely right to expect historical accuracy from me. Indeed, Sweden was not invaded during WW II. My bad. I foolishly tried to oversimplify the situation, so let me correct my statement.
Even though the country was not invaded by the Germans, and apparently fully preserved its sovereignty, it wasn’t so in facts. When it became clear that the Nazis were a military force to reckon with, the government caved in to most German demands, and it is quite clear (as with Spain) that there was no such thing as neutrality during the War. Sweden allowed German troops to pass through its territory (while forbidding it to Brits and French), it was the first country to make the J stamp mandatory on Jews’ passports, and its economical cooperation allowed Germany to fight the war (its highly coveted iron ore reserves were used for all Nazi weapons), between other things.
Anyway, the point is that the government (whether or not it had much leverage) took the cowards’ way out, and even if Sweden didn’t have an altogether horrific role in WW II (Raoul Wallenberg comes to mind), there are many things to be said about its submission to Nazi ideals, partly because of the widespread appeal of Aryanity ideas in people. This becomes particularly obvious with eugenicist policies, which were applied from 1935 to 1976, and concerned first the “mentally-ill” and then the “asocial” (it resembles too closely Nazi denominations to be anything else than ominous). One possible explanation (if you’re interested) is the fact that Sweden, for the longest time, never looked back on its history during WW II, shielding itself from criticism thanks to its “neutrality”, and thus completely avoided denazification.
When you consider that 80% of the national association of doctors were card-carrying members of the Nazi party at some point, you can imagine the effects… 63 000 people ended up forcibly fertilized (only “negative” eugenics were enforced, lest the benefits of the welfare state were undermined by “parasites” of society, so in fact, there also was some latent “positive” eugenics, only much less dramatic or undemocratic).
So you can see it’s really a complex issue, and it proves how pernicious the fantasm of genetic “purity” truly is for those who wish to rid themselves of the “undesirables” amongst them, be them from the left or from the right, I’m afraid.
I am a pro-choice feminist and I am very late to this party.
Blue Lily, excellent work in this thread!
Nancy P said, “I might also add that the population of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis for detection of chromosomal abnormalities or for gene mutations are a relatively small and self-selected group at present. These women either have had a disabled child with a known genetic syndrome, and don’t want to care for a second such child, or they are older(more at risk) and have strong feelings against raising a child with Down’s, trisomy 18, or other nondisjunction abnormality.”
This is not entirely accurate. Non-invasive screening tests like the maternal serum screen are becoming commonplace. Many OBs recommend them for all pregnant women. Pending positive test results on the triple screen or quad screen, more women are undergoing additional diagnostic prenatal testing including Level II Ultrasound and amniocentesis.
As Blue Lily pointed out, a vast majority of those who learn that they are carrying a fetus with a congenital defect choose to terminate, regardless of whether they consider themselves pro-choice or “pro-life”. If we don’t improve education and awareness about living with various disabilities, increasing numbers of women will make choices based on ignorance and fear.
Nancy P also said, “prospective parents generally do not abort disabled fetuses with expectations of minimally functional range mental ability (able to learn to dress, eat, play, etc).”
How would one determine this prenatally? There are some trisomies that are generally incompatible with life. But the most common trisomy in live births is trisomy 21, Down syndrome. From the above, it seems that you are suggesting that individuals with Down syndrome have an expectation of “minimally functional range mental ability.”
This is a common misperception. Certainly, individuals with Down syndrome are more likely than others to have several significant problems. But as far as “mental ability” is concerned, the bell curve is one standard deviation off from the typical curve. In other words, there is an overlap between high-functioning individuals with Down syndrome and people of “normal” intelligence.
No one is guarenteed to be smart, healthy, perfect. But women shouldn’t delude themselves that by choosing to terminate a fetus with trisomy 21 they are necessarily terminating the existence of what could only become someone without the ability “to learn to dress, eat, play, etc.”
Sarahlynn wrote:
Non-invasive screening tests like the maternal serum screen are becoming commonplace. Many OBs recommend them for all pregnant women. Pending positive test results on the triple screen or quad screen, more women are undergoing additional diagnostic prenatal testing including Level II Ultrasound and amniocentesis.
Amniocentesis for women 35 and older was established as a practice because the risk of the procedure causing miscarriage is about equal to (or just less than) the chance of finding chromosomal abnormalities at that age (around 1 in 200). This makes the test acceptable, then, if the woman has an “equal” fear of losing any fetus as she does of giving birth to a child with chromosomal abnormalities. The gamble takes for granted that abnormalities found result in selective abortion, otherwise the gamble would not be worth the risk. I don’t have any sense, though, of how clear this gamble is to the individual woman taking the test, since the standard is not based on the actual fears of women 35 and older, but on an assumption that spontaneous abortion rates from the test equal selective abortion rates (of about 100%) for those who do find a problem.
Most of the current pre-natal screening that occurs is driven by fears of malpractice. “Wrongful life” suits have been given legal standing in at least 26 states. This is where the parents of a child born with impairments (some like Tay Sachs, incompatible with life) sue for not having had the opportunity to abort.
Prenatal testing is a mixed blessing, that’s for certain. Sarahlynn is correct in that much less invasive tests now allow doctors to screen for women at potentially higher risk of chromosomal anomalies no matter what the age of the mother. However, as it stands now, almost every pregnant woman (certainly in major metropolitan areas) gets a level II ultrasound at around 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. Major defects show up on this test. I know this from personal experience. At that point your choices are to do nothing, get additional testing, or terminate based on u/s. The additional testing would be an amnio, but you won’t get definitive information for two weeks or more and you don’t have a lot of time to become knowledgeable about children with Down’s Syndrome, for instance, if the diagnosis is T-21, because in most states there is a cut off for termination. Getting information so late is one reason why so many people proceed in what appears to be panic mode.
It’s true that there are no guarantees where children are concerned, but it’s also true that as a society we have an exceptionally meager safety net that justifies much of the very negative view people have on what it’s like to be the custodian of a truly special needs child. I do not think there are any easy answers but so long as we live in a society that plays the equivalent of tar baby with regard to the families of any child who is not fully functioning, we are asking a lot of couples to willingly take on this risk.
The way some lefties feel about disability issues in general (and especially prenatally diagnosed disabilities) skirts dangerously close to pressuring women into having abortions. Denying choice is the real issue with regard to abortion, and it’s equally wrong no matter in which direction the force is applied.
Barbara said: “However, as it stands now, almost every pregnant woman (certainly in major metropolitan areas) gets a level II ultrasound at around 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. Major defects show up on this test. ”
This is actually not true. My daughter has trisomy 21 and was born with a major congenital heart defect. I had an ultrasound at 18 weeks (by an experienced professional at a respected clinic in a major metropolitan area) and neither condition was detected. When I talked to the OB about this later, she said that the heart condition was almost impossible to detect with that sort of ultrasound at that gestational age. Ellie didn’t exhibit any of the major soft markers for Trisomy 21, so that went undetected by the initial ultrasound as well. Ultrasound is not considered a diagnostic test.
Also, “Level II Ultrasounds” aren’t routinely given to all pregnant women. Clarification about Level II Ultrasounds: “What is often referred to as a Level II scan merely indicates a “targeted” examination where it is done when an indication is present or when an abnormality is suspected in a previous examination. In fact professional bodies such as the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine does not endorse or encourage the use of these terms. A more “thorough” examination is usually done at an a perinatal center or specialised clinic where more expertise and better equipments may be present. ” (http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/)
I’d also like to respond to your comment about “any child who is not fully functioning” to refer to children with special needs.
WTF? Please. That’s incredibly offensive.
I believe that there is “an easy answer.” The answer is for all of us to work hard at acknowledging our own prejudices and educating ourselves and others about real disability issues.