(no subject)
Apr. 30th, 2010 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theatokosI’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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-30 02:27 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2010-04-30 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-30 04:55 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2010-04-30 05:09 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2010-04-30 07:48 pm (UTC)Heh. No ... that's why I think we can at least say we are consistent!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 02:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 05:40 am (UTC)This is different from abortion because individual women make the choice about their bodies.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:43 pm (UTC)As
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
no subject
Date: 2010-04-30 04:51 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2010-04-30 05:13 pm (UTC)Sign me up.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:52 am (UTC)I'm not sure if this is what you were saying, and I apologize if it isn't, but please see the zillions of studies that show that children with married parents, even if those parents do not have a great relationship with each other but retain a low-conflict marriage, are far better off than children from divorced, single, or even cohabitating homes. I think that some aspects of the patriarchy - like maintaining a home with two parents, preferably married parents, especially biological as statistically speaking, non-biological stepfathers and mother's boyfriends are most likely to commit child/sexual abuse - are good, and benefit the mother, the children, and the family as a whole. The earning potential and standard of living drastically increase with marriage and the family flourishes within the environment of commitment and idea of permanence. However, when these families divorce, the mother and children experience a drastic decrease in their economic situation while the economic situation of the father, in many cases, rises by approximately 10%. High-conflict divorces account for approximately 30% of divorces, while the rest of divorces are low-conflict; when a specific survey sampled unhappy couples considering divorce, they found that I think 86% of the couples that had stuck it out were actually "very happy" compared to their previous "unhappy" status, with a five-year difference between the past "unhappy" and the present "very happy."
I don't know if smashing the patriarchy, to you, means dismantling the influence and presence of fathers, especially in relation to the mother of his children, but I know that that is the meaning held by many, and I just wanted to state my position and offer what I've learned from my research - as a student, as a child of divorced parents, and as a single mother. ♥
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 05:39 am (UTC)However, wanting to dismantle the patriarchy (or more accurately, kiriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy), is not the same as hating men. Let me repeat that: HATING THE PATRIARCHY IS NOT HATING MEN. There. Just so's we're clear.
Men are not the problem. Privileging men (specifically, white Western men of high income and power) over the lives of women (and well, every body non-normative, ie male) is the problem.
Those zillion studies are on to something. I absolutely 100% agree that kids need more than one adult to parent them. Kids need positive attention, security, and consistency. It can be very hard for an isolated single parent, especially a single mother, to provide those things. This is where I think the nuclear family is a lie and a myth. Extended families help provide the attention, care and consistency that parents alone can't always provide. And I don't think that parental figures need to be one man and one woman. I think the conclusions drawn from these studies point to more than one parental figure, but we assume it must be man/woman because that's what's normative and kids will more secure in a world where they aren't different from the other kids.
And of course incomes are higher with men - women continue to make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes! STILL.
"The earning potential and standard of living drastically increase with marriage and the family flourishes within the environment of commitment and idea of permanence." But what about marriages where there isn't an environment of commitment? Or even of respect? I have known too many women who wait around in marriages where they are treated poorly - should they stick it out for the kids' sake? Hell no. All they are teaching their kids is that is ok for women to be treated with disrespect, that it's fine to miserable.
I think fathering is a privilege. (So is mothering, but since women are almost entirely the ones who raise children.) Your son's father? A sperm donor. Not a father. Why bend over backward for deadbeat dads and privilege them with that title?
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:57 pm (UTC)Let me repeat that: HATING THE PATRIARCHY IS NOT HATING MEN. There. Just so's we're clear.
I know. :) I just know that some individuals see the family structure as caving to the patriarchy, and I wanted to make sure THAT was not the point.
And of course incomes are higher with men - women continue to make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes! STILL.
And THAT is something with which I COMPLETELY disagree. Although I would be curious to learn what the statistical basis for that is (in a way that won't make my mind explode - I'm NOT a fan of numbers). I mean, logically, I'd think that if you work in retail, you'll make the same in the same position regardless of your gender. Even doctors - how do they differentiate billing between a male doctor and a female doctor within the same practice, with the same level of experience?
Also, men don't have the "mommy tax" that mothers have. S has been able to work and go to school full time and do all of that, while I've had to juggle my education, work, and childcare.
This is where I think the nuclear family is a lie and a myth. Extended families help provide the attention, care and consistency that parents alone can't always provide.
One of the texts just addressed that - that the nuclear family is a gateway to the extended family. I mean, S's family is AMAZED that they have access to Pirate. Redneck MIL* knows so many people from work who have grandkids that they don't see because it's the son's kid with his girlfriend, and the son and the girlfriend don't get along, and the girlfriend would rather raise the child on her own. I mean, even my godmother (who married a man with two biological children after he and his VERY abusive wife divorced - when my godmother first saw the kids, they were scratched up and bruised - and she's the nighttime head of the local ER) doesn't get to see one of her granddaughters. She has two, both from her stepson, who has never been married and has been in and out of jail for as long as I can remember. The elder just turned 12, the younger is 2. Two different women. She's had custody of the elder since SHE was 2. Marriage creates a bond that is not as easily dissolved as a dating relationship. Our family is lucky - Pirate's family is interested in him, and I have an interest in encouraging and fostering their relationship, because that's the kind of person and mother that I am. But many aren't like that.
*For anyone reading along, Pirate's dad and I were engaged. Pirate's paternal grandmother is from Kentucky, and I've always referred to her as "Redneck MIL" even after Pirate's father (S) ended things with me.
"The earning potential and standard of living drastically increase with marriage and the family flourishes within the environment of commitment and idea of permanence." But what about marriages where there isn't an environment of commitment? Or even of respect? I have known too many women who wait around in marriages where they are treated poorly - should they stick it out for the kids' sake? Hell no. All they are teaching their kids is that is ok for women to be treated with disrespect, that it's fine to miserable.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:57 pm (UTC)I think fathering is a privilege. (So is mothering, but since women are almost entirely the ones who raise children.) Your son's father? A sperm donor. Not a father. Why bend over backward for deadbeat dads and privilege them with that title?
I don't know how to word it so that it makes better sense, but when we remove that privilege from men, even demeaning their piss-poor efforts (like the way S is when we're present - because when we're present, he is a good dad) we take on all the obligation, all the responsibility, all the "work." What should be a shared job becomes one taken on singlehandedly, and it should not be so.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:43 am (UTC)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
Date: 2010-05-01 03:40 am (UTC)Although I am pro-choice I hate this dance we seem to do around abortion. I've heard people say it's just a clump of cells or it's no different from having a cyst removed. People will do everything possible to NOT refer to the baby as a baby.
It's a baby.
If you can't deal with the idea that you are getting ready to kill your baby, then perhaps you shouldn't have the abortion. If you can't state that you support other peoples' right to kill their baby, then you haven't really faced up to what abortion is. I understand what it is and I'm still pro-choice.
I also think that men should be part of this discussion and should have a say in if the child can be aborted or not. It may be your body, but it's also his child. The mother would get financial support during the pregnancy and have her medical paid for by the father. If there are loss of wages and other hardships the mother faces, there could be compensation for that, as well. Then he gets custody and the mother can pay child support. I suspect that occurrence would be pretty rare and would be complicated by not being able to prove who the father is.
As it is now...we have possession being 9/10th of the law and so the female gets to make the whole decision on her own. ;)
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:51 am (UTC)If you can't deal with the idea that you are getting ready to kill your baby, then perhaps you shouldn't have the abortion. If you can't state that you support other peoples' right to kill their baby, then you haven't really faced up to what abortion is. I understand what it is and I'm still pro-choice.
This is why I support the OK law requiring an ultrasound (well, my basic knowledge of the specific law - that's on my research list for research for my paper).
I agree with the point about men. The reason I didn't go through with my abortion is because my child's father spent three hours on the phone begging me to not do it, even to the point of saying that if I just carried him to term, he would take our child, and that would be that. I knew I'd lose him if I did that, though, and I didn't want to.
I do think, though, that involving men in the situation - because there is always a "flip side" or slippery slope regarding law - would result in a scenario much like the man who had a casual sexual encounter and ended up "accidentally impregnating" the woman. He was furious and wanted her to get an abortion. She refused. His argument was, "Well, you can get an abortion if you want to, whether or not I want you to keep the child or abort it. Why shouldn't I have the same right?"
If that was the case - men being able to give up paternal rights at will, with nothing stopping them, because women can do it through abortion and men don't have that physical option - I suspect we would see many more abortions, many more women and children living in poverty, and an even further breakdown of fatherhood and the "family structure." As a single mother (although admittedly not one who has gone through the court system, as my child's father and I are able to handle things peaceably on our own) that is NOT something I want to see. EVER.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 05:54 am (UTC)I want this to be a good thing, but I do believe that every child is of two parents. But legally, this is very disturbing. I think men already have quite a lot of say in the lives of children and women. What to do if a man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't? Legally, I think men shouldn't have a say, but that we should work as individuals and communities to nurture healthy relationships to make this possible.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 01:59 pm (UTC)If the issue is one of the ones addressed by the Guttmacher Institute study - about not being ready to be a parent, not being financially "together" or not wanting to interrupt a job or education to be a parent - I don't see how it's that difficult to sign over parental rights to the father upon the birth of the child. You don't have to be a parent, the child lives, the father willingly takes on the responsibility.
Again, I see that as a very slippery slope, but I think that there is some validity to the "male-abortion" argument, as I stated above.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 07:49 pm (UTC)dude. there are myriad issues here. the loss of body autonomy for 40 weeks and the emotional impact of having a child but making the decision to have no part in raising it being two of them.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 02:22 am (UTC)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
Date: 2010-05-01 06:00 am (UTC)I agree that money seems to be the ultimate value, but I don't think that blaming individual women, ESPECIALLY if they don't have any money!, for making a choice to sustain their own economic futures is the way forward. I think we need to look at the bigger systems.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 02:03 pm (UTC)I was questioning the method of analysis and description, because that was omitted from the text.
I agree that money seems to be the ultimate value, but I don't think that blaming individual women, ESPECIALLY if they don't have any money!, for making a choice to sustain their own economic futures is the way forward. I think we need to look at the bigger systems.
I daresay that when you compare pregnancy and parenting, parenting is the FAR more expensive of the two. Part of the reason why American couples seek overseas adoption is because domestic newborn adoption is very difficult to achieve. If money is the issue, why not carry the child to term and either put him or her up for adoption or, as often happens, decide that the conditions are adjustable and decide to raise your child despite the conditions?
As long as abortion remains a way out of a situation that you don't like - I know a woman who had an abortion with her second pregnancy/child, because her first pregnancy/child was premature and she didn't want to go through another NICU stay! - things won't change. Things change in response to demand for change. If people are content with the status quo, abortion as the answer to a perceived unsustainable "economic future," then nothing will change.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 03:16 pm (UTC)THIS is absolute truth. I suspect that at a fundamental level you and I are seeking a similar outcome and we see the way to get there as very different paths. One of us is going around the mountain and one is going over, but I think we both want to get to other side:
A world in which all humans are treated with respect, where people take responsibility for their choices, where social injustices are no more, where children are safe and loved.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 07:12 pm (UTC)Idealism at its finest. :( Short of nuking the hell out of the world, which I think would be counter-productive in theory to the world we'd like ("How did our world become so wonderful?" "We nuked all the dissents." Yeeeeeah...).
People are always going to be selfish and stupid and ignore the "call of duty," if you will.
where children are safe and loved
As long as abortion exists, IMO, there will always be the mentality that children are second-class and disposable. The idea that all children are a blessing has disappeared. Instead children are a burden, especially the ones who are aborted - because if the child within your womb wasn't a burden in some way, why would you have an abortion?
A world in which all humans are treated with respect
I'd like to see human babies within the human womb included in this category.
♥ you.