![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I’m a little dismayed at how my last post (immigration and food politics) was derailed by the topic of abortion. However, all the big issues are intertwined and I’m sure we could find a link between abortion, food politics and immigration if we tried. All the comments, as well as another thread elsewhere, and my ‘at home’ reading got me thinking again about when ‘life begins.’
Two years ago I spent two days discussing abortion with tenth grade boys in a Catholic high school in California. It was a great experience – for everyone I think. I was 5 months pregnant at the time. In my preparation for the presentation I came across many differing ideas about when life begins. I think the discourse around this needs to be changed from ‘life’ to ‘personhood’, because we are not debating life, we are debating what makes a clump of cells – indisputably alive! - a sentient human entity. If life is what the abortion debate is about then the life of dividing cells, the life of a person-shaped squidlet with spine, eyes, heart and brain clump, is given a lot of weight and other creatures with similar characteristics need to be given the same consideration. This means no animal testing of any kind – rats and monkeys are easily more advanced beings than a fetus at 12 or 20 weeks gestation. This means that eating meat is murder of advanced forms of life. There are many anti-abortion* advocates who are vegetarians, but as a whole the movement needs to address the fact that what we are debating is personhood.
Personhood is more than about whether or not something is alive. Cancer cells are ‘alive,’ mosquitos are alive, that spider you squashed is alive, that chicken is alive. We are talking about placing a priority on human sentience. Now sentience is more than intelligence because I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the less intelligent, the developmentally disabled, the infirm, the insane, etc are less than human. So what exactly does being human mean? I would like to see the anti-abortion advocates address this issue. Is it potential for human life? In that case, male masturbation, female menstruation, birth control methods, and any sex that is not intended to procreate are hindering the potential for human life. (Hey! That’s the Roman Catholic position! At least they are consistent.) What about miscarriages? Approximately 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage – often women just experience a heavier period, not knowing that the egg had in fact been fertilized. What do we say to those women?** ‘Potential’ is such a tricky word.
Personhood is about more than ability or potential. Whatever definition of personhood we choose says something about what we believe about humanity and its/our role in the greater picture. Many theologians who delve into this issue of personhood (theological anthropology – an area I love) talk about dignity, particularly the Catholic theologians. I think this is also a murky word. If Catholics and Evangelical and other forms of Protestants (though, again, not all) believe that life begins at conception (a belief that is enabled by modern science!) what do others believe?
Muslims (broadly, as with any large group there are bound to be many exceptions) tend to see personhood as beginning at the first sign of quickening (the first movement felt by the mother). According to David Abrams in The Spell of the Sensuous, Australian Aboriginal cultures believe that the spirit of the baby is inserted into the womb at the first quickening as well. What’s interesting is that this is usually between the 4th and 5th month of pregnancy – after the risk of miscarriage, once pregnancy has firmly taken root. This makes so much sense to me. Some Jewish traditions do not consider the baby a person until its head is outside the womb. Until that moment it has the potential (that word again!) for personhood but isn’t considered a full member of humanity until it is born.
This makes sense in a less scientific world, with less advanced medical care. So why shouldn’t we advance our standards with science? Because I don’t think our lived human experience aligns with that of science. So we can now see a baby-shaped squidlet at 8 weeks. I admit, seeing that is deeply mysterious and profound. But it is a disembodied experience: my mostly still flat belly is rubbed around with a cold instrument (or at this early stage a desexualized dildo is inserted) that produces a blurry black and white digital image. But I still can’t feel the baby. It is still experientially abstract. Our brains know, but our lived experience doesn’t. Women still miscarry – something that is considered shameful. The older I get the more I realize how many women have miscarried and how few of them speak about it. Obviously there is something shameful about this experience if we cannot speak openly about it and comfort one another.
*I have just decided to quit using the term pro-life because I think it is a misnomer. The issue isn’t life – it’s personhood. Most ‘pro-life’ advocates eat meat and are in favor of the death penalty, both of these would fall under ‘against life’ in my logic. ‘Anti-abortion’ states clearly what the group is about. Pro-choice however is more an accurate fit as it indicates that this group is in favor of… choice. I personally would never choose to abort and I feel that I share some of the reasons and emotions of the anti-abortionists, but I believe very strongly in defending this choice.
**I would be really really sad if I thought I was pregnant and miscarried. Those who are trying to have a baby are (usually) saddened no matter when the miscarriage occurs – 3 weeks or 13 weeks. But miscarriages happen for all sorts of reasons, usually ones that do in fact support life. I firmly believe that life wants to perpetuate itself so if a pregnancy miscarries there is most likely a very good natural reason for it.
Two years ago I spent two days discussing abortion with tenth grade boys in a Catholic high school in California. It was a great experience – for everyone I think. I was 5 months pregnant at the time. In my preparation for the presentation I came across many differing ideas about when life begins. I think the discourse around this needs to be changed from ‘life’ to ‘personhood’, because we are not debating life, we are debating what makes a clump of cells – indisputably alive! - a sentient human entity. If life is what the abortion debate is about then the life of dividing cells, the life of a person-shaped squidlet with spine, eyes, heart and brain clump, is given a lot of weight and other creatures with similar characteristics need to be given the same consideration. This means no animal testing of any kind – rats and monkeys are easily more advanced beings than a fetus at 12 or 20 weeks gestation. This means that eating meat is murder of advanced forms of life. There are many anti-abortion* advocates who are vegetarians, but as a whole the movement needs to address the fact that what we are debating is personhood.
Personhood is more than about whether or not something is alive. Cancer cells are ‘alive,’ mosquitos are alive, that spider you squashed is alive, that chicken is alive. We are talking about placing a priority on human sentience. Now sentience is more than intelligence because I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the less intelligent, the developmentally disabled, the infirm, the insane, etc are less than human. So what exactly does being human mean? I would like to see the anti-abortion advocates address this issue. Is it potential for human life? In that case, male masturbation, female menstruation, birth control methods, and any sex that is not intended to procreate are hindering the potential for human life. (Hey! That’s the Roman Catholic position! At least they are consistent.) What about miscarriages? Approximately 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage – often women just experience a heavier period, not knowing that the egg had in fact been fertilized. What do we say to those women?** ‘Potential’ is such a tricky word.
Personhood is about more than ability or potential. Whatever definition of personhood we choose says something about what we believe about humanity and its/our role in the greater picture. Many theologians who delve into this issue of personhood (theological anthropology – an area I love) talk about dignity, particularly the Catholic theologians. I think this is also a murky word. If Catholics and Evangelical and other forms of Protestants (though, again, not all) believe that life begins at conception (a belief that is enabled by modern science!) what do others believe?
Muslims (broadly, as with any large group there are bound to be many exceptions) tend to see personhood as beginning at the first sign of quickening (the first movement felt by the mother). According to David Abrams in The Spell of the Sensuous, Australian Aboriginal cultures believe that the spirit of the baby is inserted into the womb at the first quickening as well. What’s interesting is that this is usually between the 4th and 5th month of pregnancy – after the risk of miscarriage, once pregnancy has firmly taken root. This makes so much sense to me. Some Jewish traditions do not consider the baby a person until its head is outside the womb. Until that moment it has the potential (that word again!) for personhood but isn’t considered a full member of humanity until it is born.
This makes sense in a less scientific world, with less advanced medical care. So why shouldn’t we advance our standards with science? Because I don’t think our lived human experience aligns with that of science. So we can now see a baby-shaped squidlet at 8 weeks. I admit, seeing that is deeply mysterious and profound. But it is a disembodied experience: my mostly still flat belly is rubbed around with a cold instrument (or at this early stage a desexualized dildo is inserted) that produces a blurry black and white digital image. But I still can’t feel the baby. It is still experientially abstract. Our brains know, but our lived experience doesn’t. Women still miscarry – something that is considered shameful. The older I get the more I realize how many women have miscarried and how few of them speak about it. Obviously there is something shameful about this experience if we cannot speak openly about it and comfort one another.
*I have just decided to quit using the term pro-life because I think it is a misnomer. The issue isn’t life – it’s personhood. Most ‘pro-life’ advocates eat meat and are in favor of the death penalty, both of these would fall under ‘against life’ in my logic. ‘Anti-abortion’ states clearly what the group is about. Pro-choice however is more an accurate fit as it indicates that this group is in favor of… choice. I personally would never choose to abort and I feel that I share some of the reasons and emotions of the anti-abortionists, but I believe very strongly in defending this choice.
**I would be really really sad if I thought I was pregnant and miscarried. Those who are trying to have a baby are (usually) saddened no matter when the miscarriage occurs – 3 weeks or 13 weeks. But miscarriages happen for all sorts of reasons, usually ones that do in fact support life. I firmly believe that life wants to perpetuate itself so if a pregnancy miscarries there is most likely a very good natural reason for it.
no subject
I fully agree with much, if not all, of what you posted here. I've never heard it framed this way, but I think you are absolutely right, it is not about 'life', it's about personhood. Defining the moment where life turns into person is tricky - but for me, this whole debate boils down to the fact that no governing entity should have control over my body. Period.
no subject
"Defining the moment where life turns into person is tricky - but for me, this whole debate boils down to the fact that no governing entity should have control over my body. Period."
yes. yes. yes. this is exactly where i stand as well.
no subject
no subject
I'm avoiding that post entirely. It's a very difficult issue for me, and my viewpoint is unpopular.
no subject
But I believe that a human is created at conception. What else would it be? A dog? A plant? No. It's a human.
Right now we have a sliding scale on the value of human life. Unborn babies and old people are low on the value scale. In between, there is more value placed on human life. Then enters things like attractiveness, income, accomplishments, etc. Those enter into value as well.
I 100% think it is killing a baby when you have an abortion. But..like capital punishment and self-defense...I think there are times when a person could make the case to society for there being a benefit to killing another human. Although rape and incest gets mentions as reasons - most of the reasons why women have abortions are monetary. Our society DOES seem to value money over humans so this is at least consistent. We want to keep our job, be employable, finish our education, can't afford the costs to raise a child, etc.
The whole "is abortion killing a baby" thing is like an old joke.
A guy asks a lady if she would have sex with him for $10 million dollars. She thinks about it and says "If you really had 10 million dollars, I would do it."
He then asks her if she would have sex with him for $10 dollars. She laughs at him and says, "No way...what kind of lady do you think I am?"
He responds, "We've already established what kind of a lady you are...now we are just arguing over price."
We've already established that babies in the womb are babies, now we are just arguing over at what point in gestation it is not ok to kill them anymore.
no subject
no subject
Which...if you weren't able to get that out of my post...I failed. Damn.
Aside - some people do talk about eating animals as killing and murder. Most vegetarians consider it such.
no subject
I suppose your point is where all the social justice issues intersect. What is it we value? Well, let's look at how we treat people. And we're not doing so well in any arena, are we?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
If you were pregnant and you wanted the baby, if someone tried to do something to harm the baby, you would fight like a woman possessed to keep it safe. That's because you have placed value on it. It is worth something to you.
If you were pregnant and didn't want the child, than you have placed little or no value on the baby - so harming or killing the baby wouldn't raise your anger. Or, at the least, you have decided that you value something else more than the life of the baby. Job, education, freedom, etc.
Those that are pro-choice place more value on the happiness and earning potential of the mother than we place on the life of the baby.
Those that are anti-abortion place more value on the life of the child than the happiness or earning potential of the mother.
Hmmm.....happiness and income vs being alive. That's kind of a cold blooded rationale, isn't it?
I wonder how this will evolve. We, as a society, used to see little to no value in the lives of those who were impaired in some way. Then we decided that they do have value and, as a society, we go to great lengths to care for them. Time, energy, and money.
I also wonder, if we took money completely out of the equation, if that would change the differing values we place on humans. If abortion in cases of crime and impending death of the mother were allowed and money was not an issue - would abortions still happen and/or would they decline in number? Because then we are down to convenience. Those aborting would be choosing their own convenience over the life of another human. Would we, as a society, be accepting of that?
tl;dr - the debate over abortion isn't about life, or when humanity starts or sentience - its about what subjective value we place on another, especially in relation to something else. If the unborn baby has value to us, then it is a human and we protect it. If the unborn baby has no value to us, or we value something else more, then it is not-human enough for us to protect.
no subject
Sign me up.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Although at the end of the day, I am staunchly pro-life in 100% of circumstances. I see your argument, completely agree with it, and come down on the side of the child, who did not choose his or her own creation.
Those that are pro-choice place more value on the happiness and earning potential of the mother than we place on the life of the baby.
Those that are anti-abortion place more value on the life of the child than the happiness or earning potential of the mother.
Hmmm.....happiness and income vs being alive. That's kind of a cold blooded rationale, isn't it?
Agreed 100%.
And because it came up in Niki's previous post (I quit replying to comments because I wanted to lobotomize myself about halfway through - abortion is the #1 topic that "gets" me because of my personal experience) - women who miscarry aren't murderers. I have a terminally ill grandmother. If she dies of natural causes, and I'm with her - I'm not a murderer. However, if I smother her with a pillow, I am absolutely a murderer. It's all about intent. With a natural miscarriage, there is no intent to kill, or at least no intentional action to that effect - it just happens. Procuring an abortion is an intentional act meant to end a life. While the end result is the death of a living human (leaving the "personhood" bit aside for a moment), to compare miscarriage and abortion is like comparing natural death to intentional homicide, or Murder in the First Degree.
Interestingly enough, I have to write a paper for my legal ethics class on abortion this week... so this discussion is helping me steel myself for the last bits of research I'll have to do.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I also wonder, if we took money completely out of the equation, if that would change the differing values we place on humans. If abortion in cases of crime and impending death of the mother were allowed and money was not an issue - would abortions still happen and/or would they decline in number? Because then we are down to convenience. Those aborting would be choosing their own convenience over the life of another human. Would we, as a society, be accepting of that?
This was the point I stated in the previous post (the one re: immigration) citing Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood) statistics giving self-reported reasons for procuring abortions, and I was told that I was pretty much discounting women and their various reasonings for abortion - which I don't think is the case AT ALL, speaking from, among other things, personal experience with making an appointment for an abortion because I didn't want to tell my family (or his) that I was pregnant, I didn't want to pause my education or my employment, and I didn't want to change my life. Me me me me me. Convenience, Party of 1!
*I'm not going to touch the caveat of finances right now, but I get your point and agree.
tl;dr I agree 100%.
Sorry for blowing up your inbox, Niki. I just have been rereading my comments and know that with this sort of issue, I have to tread carefully or my point - my unpopular point - will be misunderstood.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I think it's a lot less problematic to talk about the rights of the being at best developing sentience when it's not living inside someone else. Since we cannot know that a foetus is sentient giving them greater right at the expense of the mother, a being we know for certain is sentient, is vastly immoral to me.
For the record I am a mother, my son was unplanned (using contraception!) and is the light of my life. I can look at him with a full heart and be glad I made the choice I did, and yet be even more glad that I had the choice in the first place.
no subject
Yes.
no subject
An uncertain potential does NOT equal an actual person- particularly when that potential is within, entirely dependent upon, and utterly devastating/transformational to it's host.
(and completely tangential- awesome hair!)
no subject
no subject
I think "personhood" is ultimately a question for theological anthropology, even if you're an atheist and your "theology," as it were, is not centered on God. This is why I think choice is wrapped up with religious freedom and can never be disentangled from it, in a U.S. context.
no subject
no subject
And to hijack this thread with the topic of immigration, I think that issue is just as hopelessly compromised by oppressive and exploitative systems as reproductive choice is. You're right to say that anyone who buys food to eat is implicated, but unless you really can grow all your own food or buy it from your neighbor, what are you gonna do?
(no subject)
no subject
The other thing that really sets me off is all ALL of the arguments about abortion, even late-term abortion, are framed around the woman being young, single, and not well-established in the world. The support systems most commonly mentioned to help reduce the number of abortions are things like educational programs and better access to contraception. What about the forty-year-old married woman with three kids and a mortgage, living paycheck to paycheck, whose 99.8% effective birth control fails? The whole just-be-abstinent argument doesn't really work in that case, does it? Adoption in this case would be traumatic not only to the mother, but to the child's siblings. The whole convenient/inconvenient argument isn't about how to support a young woman as she finishes her education, but about a family of five possibly facing bankruptcy.
And that, of course, bleeds into the cries from the right about personal responsibility. What would the responsible thing for a married couple in such a situation to do? Stop having sex? Forced sterilization? Are those REALLY the only two alternatives?
no subject
Off the top of my head...they could use birth control. Or get fixed. Or get an IUD that would last for the next 10 years until the female sails into menopause.
I have about 2% pity for people who know they do not want a child and end up pregnant. 2%. Because that's the failure rate of a properly used condom.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Exactly. Once we start farming fetus in glass jars then we can privilege them as complete entities unto themselves. But for now, they're grown in female bodies. ;)
no subject
In a way that is tricky to explain, this statement surprises me. As a person who highly values motherhood and the "transformational" experience of pregnancy, as I believe you do as well, doesn't this remove pregnancy and motherhood from the equation, albeit hypothetically? When we "farm" them, we don't have the experience of quickening, of an ultrasound, of birth. We may or may not have the biological/chemical/hormonal responses to pregnancy and birth. To me, "farming" them is akin to a woman getting general anesthesia and having a C-section (the procedure alone - I know that it is necessary, but I'm referring to the procedure alone and not the reasonings behind it). What birth experience do you have? How do you compare the videos/experience of a natural homebirth or even an epidural-assisted vaginal birth with the experience of getting an IV/injection and waking up later with a pained body and a baby?
NO FLAMES PLEASE regarding the C-section thing. I wanted to address the difference as I see it and meant no insult or injury to someone who has undergone that procedure, with or without general.
(no subject)
(no subject)