theatokos: (Default)
theatokos ([personal profile] theatokos) wrote2010-04-30 02:40 pm

(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.

[identity profile] ewigweibliche.livejournal.com 2010-04-30 04:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not arguing that abortion isn't killing off something human. It is indeed killing. But we don't talk about eating animals in terms of murder and killing. So what the debate about is more than 'life.'

[identity profile] snowcalla.livejournal.com 2010-04-30 04:55 pm (UTC)(link)
It's about how we value different human lives differently, not what is life itself. The lower the vale, the more easily we can kill them, dismiss them, mistreat them, etc.

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.

[identity profile] ewigweibliche.livejournal.com 2010-04-30 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
No, no I got that. Sorry. I was distracted. Bennett is using me as a jungle gym.

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?

[identity profile] snowcalla.livejournal.com 2010-04-30 07:48 pm (UTC)(link)
"And we're not doing so well in any arena, are we?"

Heh. No ... that's why I think we can at least say we are consistent!
ext_40352: Danny & Lindsay snuggling (3x24) (Default)

[identity profile] so-sporktastic.livejournal.com 2010-05-01 02:09 am (UTC)(link)
*raising hand*

Pro-life vegetarian who is iffy on the death penalty (although I did eat meat for nutritional purposes when I was pregnant and breastfeeding). I don't believe my state (MA) maintains capital punishment (or if they do, they haven't offed anybody in awhile), but the cases of individuals exonerated due to DNA evidence and advances in technology make me leery about capital punishment.

HOWEVER, I will have to say that I'm a lot more "down" with capital punishment for people like Tim McVeigh, who irrefutably killed numerous numerous people and AFAIK never showed remorse. He was executed my freshman year of high school, and while I remember sitting in my (religion!) class and watching it, I don't recall what exactly happened. It was before I was into politics and law. I've been to Oklahoma City NUMEROUS times (it's pretty much my second home), I've been to the memorial, I've seen the spray-painted graffiti. My son's grandfather was actually on one of the rescue teams. That? I can get behind. Someone who has irrefutably done something horrific and unjustly stolen the lives of an individual or individuals, especially someone who lacks remorse for the harm they have imposed upon the victims and their families. These people have committed horrific crimes and should be punished. By committing a crime, any crime, you sacrifice some degree of your rights/privileges when you are found guilty. Your freedom to go from place to place? Welcome to prison. Your freedom to eat what you'd like to eat? Welcome to the prison cafeteria. As a student of the law, and as a member of a law-enforcement family, I have a tremendous respect for the law - for criminal law especially (because I have issues with no-fault divorce and of course the Roe, Doe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Griswold, etc torte rulings which became case law and stare decisis). People who commit crimes know this. They have been found guilty (in the case of criminal law) beyond a reasonable doubt (or by preponderance of the evidence in a civil matter). "You do the crime, you do the time." You commit a horrific crime in a state that exercises capital punishment - you HAVE GOT TO KNOW that execution could be a possibility. I'm pretty sure that's the reasoning behind those who are "pro-life" getting behind the death penalty while maintaining an opposition to abortion - because the unborn child hasn't committed any sort of crime for which s/he "deserves execution."

It's about how we value different human lives differently, not what is life itself. The lower the vale, the more easily we can kill them, dismiss them, mistreat them, etc.

This is the mentality for murderers and other violent criminals. The justice system aside, what sets us apart from them? What keeps one individual from being a killer and incites another individual to kill? A sense of human value, value of all, and taking into account the life and rights of others when making a "choice." (Generalizing a bit here, but I think my point is made. Sorry. Brevity is not my forte.)

ETA: To add the bit about law and the reasoning behind pro-life vs. death penalty, although I'll freely admit that capital punishment is one aspect of law which I have not entirely studied.
Edited 2010-05-01 02:17 (UTC)

[identity profile] ewigweibliche.livejournal.com 2010-05-01 05:40 am (UTC)(link)
I am absolutely 100% against the death penalty. I do not want the government deciding who can live or die.

This is different from abortion because individual women make the choice about their bodies.
ext_40352: Danny & Lindsay snuggling (3x24) (Default)

[identity profile] so-sporktastic.livejournal.com 2010-05-01 01:43 pm (UTC)(link)
This is different from abortion because individual women make the choice about their bodies.

As [livejournal.com profile] snowcalla said, it's not solely "their bodies" that are to be considered. WITHIN their bodies is a baby. By virtue of human reproduction itself, babies grow and are nurtured within the body of the mother before birth. There's no way to get around that. We don't lay eggs, we haven't yet figured out how to do an "artificial womb" yet. If you use that way of thinking, it's an absolute losing battle on the side of the child, because they CAN'T be physically separated from the body of the mother. However, this does NOT mean that they themselves are the mother or simply an extension of her body.

I believe that individual women should make the choice about their bodies. But a child is not part of "their bodies" although they are contained within. Completely separate and different DNA, sometimes a different blood type. A mother can have cancer without passing it to the child. IIRC, a mother can even have HIV without passing it directly to the child.

I don't want to get into a ginormous debate about capital punishment, because I'm not really for or against it strongly - but I think that it is a COMPLETELY different case from abortion, as you also think (given that you see abortion as acceptable and capital punishment as unacceptable).

I do not want the government deciding who can live or die.

This isn't like Nazi Germany where they just go through a crowd of people picking out who dies. If capital punishment is being considered for you, you have already been judged as guilty or innocent by either your peers (jury trial) or judge (bench trial - and the defendant chooses the method of trial, not the prosecution), and you have been judged as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With the emphasis on DNA analysis, the chance is slimmer and slimmer that modern-day cases will be unjustly decided with regard to guilt. I know the statistics on capital punishment. I've taken enough CJ courses to that effect, and read enough books.

When you commit a crime - a crime severe enough for capital punishment to be sought - YOU CHOOSE TO COMMIT THAT CRIME. That crime is typically murder, typically grisly or horrific. Often multiple murder. YOU CHOOSE to take the life of another (without due process). YOU INITIATE that action. YOU KNOW what can happen if you commit that crime - you do it anyway.

You know me. I'm BIG on the law. Big on natural consequences. Big on just punishment for crimes committed. By no means do I agree with an across-the-board "eye for an eye" deal (although idealistically, I think it's a damn good idea because that's the kind of person I am and I don't see why Joe Killer should take another breath when he's admitted to killing Mr. and Mrs. Innocent and their kid Baby Innocent, but practically, hell no). But at the same time? I'm OKAY with irrefutable guilt and capital punishment as the punitive response to the commission of a serious crime. If you're a part of our nation, you are bound by the laws of the nation. If you commit a crime and are found guilty, you are bound by the punitive guidelines regarding the complaint for which you are found guilty.

Choices have consequences. If you choose Door A (not committing a murder), you don't have to worry about the consequences for choosing Door B (committing a murder). If you don't kill, statistically speaking, the judicial system won't sentence you to death.

I WILL say, though, that The Life of David Gale is an excellent argument against capital punishment - which is why I'm not entirely FOR it. I think that if some kind of adequate punishment could be substituted, that would be preferable, but with the way "inmates' rights" are going these days, I don't know if staying in jail is really a ZOMG HUGE punishment. So many of our punitive measures are a catch-22. It is REALLY difficult.

And I've probably just confused the hell out of everyone, including myself. This is an issue I'm struggling with, because there is SO MUCH that goes into it on all sides. I find the abortion issue to be a lot more cut&dry, as [livejournal.com profile] snowcalla has explained.