(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: 2010-05-01 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
Date: 2010-05-01 07:56 pm (UTC)Those that are pro-choice place more value on the happiness and
earning potentialbodily integrity 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 potentialbodily integrity of the mother.Hmmm.....happiness and
incomebodily integrity vs being alive. That's kind of a cold blooded rationale, isn't it?And I know you know that I have issues with the premise of women who have the time, support network, and capability to breastfeed their children but don't want to because they state that, "My breasts are for me and my husband/boyfriend/Martian lover and breastfeeding is gross." Apples and oranges, but I'm not really finding a spot-on analogy for the situation, so I hope you'll forgive me for that. I'm one of those people who understands things via analogy.
♥ you.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 08:05 pm (UTC)[Because you can open the abortion debate to the thousands of WHAT IF? scenarios, I'm going to go with the general context of the, single-person-gets-pregnant-from-consensual-sex-with-poorly-used-if-any-at-all-birth-control situation that, statistically speaking, appears to be the most common.]
I was going to make a point but I think it ran away. :( Sorry. Pirate and I got home not too long ago and he JUST fell asleep, and I'm working on homework (for my Sex, Marriage, and Family class!).
no subject
Date: 2010-05-01 09:19 pm (UTC)