In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Blogging for Choice: On Trusting (and Not Trusting) Women

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that secured abortion rights for women in the United States. Sally already wrote a great post about this year’s theme, “Trust Women.” Jos over at Feministing has also written about what “Trust Women” means for her, especially in light of Dr. Tiller’s murder.

For me, though, “Trust Women” rings a little bit differently — because, quite frankly, I don’t trust women to always make the right decision or the best decision any more than I trust men to. At the end of the day, human beings do foolish things all the time — we make bad choices, we lie, we cheat, we mess up, we hurt other people, we make mistakes. We do things we regret. We regret not doing things. It’s part of being human.

So, no, I don’t trust women to always make the right choice or the best choice. And one consequence of that is that I sure as hell don’t trust any other woman (or man) to make the best decision for me about my body.

Part of being human is accepting that no one of us is perfect or infallible, and that in structuring our laws and our society, one goal is to mitigate harm as much as possible while giving individuals as much freedom as possible. For me, “trust women” isn’t a rallying cry because women are the best decision-makers or because women don’t make mistakes or because every choice is a good choice; it’s a rallying cry because it emphasizes that women are human. We are imperfect, we are fallible, we will not always choose what any given outsider thinks is best — but we nonetheless deserve the right to determine, for ourselves, how and when and why we reproduce.

Why? Because who else is going to do it? To put reproductive rights in the hands of anyone but the individual whose body is doing the reproducing is to radically infringe on the most basic of human rights. It is in essence to say, “Your very being is not as important as my opinion.” And if we don’t trust individuals to make their own choices about reproduction, given their own unique set of circumstances, why in the world would we trust outsiders — who know significantly less about the whole of any one individual’s circumstances than the individual involved — to make such important decisions for them?

Trusting women doesn’t mean believing that women are morally superior or magically able to make the best choices all of the time. Instead, it means giving women room to be human — and trusting that no choice is perfect, that no human being lives in a vaccuum, and that we mostly do the best we can given our circumstances. And sometimes we don’t, and that’s ok too.

Here, I’ll echo Miriam’s point: That choice matters, and trusting women matters, but changing the circumstances within which women make their choices matters too. Women should have the right to determine their own reproductive lives, but that right is too often limited not only by anti-choice laws, but by the day-to-day injustices that women face because of their race, class, body, or a myriad of other factors. Actually work to give women a full range of real choices, and then I’ll take a little more seriously anyone who would put their opinions on abortion before a real live woman’s fundamental right to be free from bodily harm and physical intrusion.

Because make no mistake: Infringing on abortion rights does real, tangible harm to women. The abortion debate is often framed as an individual’s right to terminate a pregnancy, but that’s only half the story. It’s also about an individual’s right to be free from government intrusion when it comes to the most personal and fundamentally human things — choice, desire and self-determination in sex and reproduction. For me, the pro-choice position isn’t just “women have the right to abortion” (although it’s that, too); it’s also saying, “The government does not have the right to come in and tell me when and how I must or must not reproduce.” Putting the decision to have a baby (or not have a baby) in the hands of the government, or in the hands of anyone other than the person doing the having, is an unconscionable violation of physical integrity and human rights.

So I trust women, and I don’t. I trust myself, at least, to be the best moral arbitrator when it comes to how and when I reproduce. And I am not so arrogant to think that my opinion is more important than another woman’s evaluation of her own unique reproductive circumstances. So I trust her to do the same. And I trust that, because we are all human, we will not always handle our choices in a way that X, Y or Z person thinks is best. We won’t always handle our choices in a way that we ourselves think is best, at the time or down the road. It will be messy and imperfect. But at the very least, we will try to self-preserve. At the very least, to trust women is to say, “You, too, are a human being and you, too, deserve sovereignty over the little flesh-and-blood space that only you occupy.”

I trust that allowing all of us that basic bit of humanity is the least we can do.


101 thoughts on Blogging for Choice: On Trusting (and Not Trusting) Women

  1. Today was an interesting day for me. I’ve been taking a Human Sexuality course with a wonderful professor over winter break at my university. On today, our final day of instruction, we finished birth control methods and finally broached the topic of abortion.

    I was on the edge of my seat. My professor, a clever woman by anyone’s guess, had yet to broach the topic, but I suspected she was probably pro-life from her other carefully-worded opinions regarding sex-positive education and the like. I wanted to see how things would shake out.

    Turns out that she is, in fact, pro-life, and a devout Catholic. But she has done two things a lot of lifers have managed not to do:
    1) Live the choice. In that: she got pregnant, out of wedlock, and had the kid.
    2) Not get pissed at other women for making the other choice.

    “My priest doesn’t talk to me anymore,” she said. “He told me, ‘You’re really in the position where you can make a difference. You are a sex educator. You can change girls’ minds.’ I told him I was for choice.” She looked out at us; a room full of women, all watching her, waiting, and she just paused to look at us. “You know what’s right for you.”

    I respect her deeply, as a woman and as a human being. I also trust her.

  2. More than anything I am for women making their own reproductive choice. Laws requiring abortion as population control are as repugnant as the anti-choice movement. Great post.

  3. Related link: the 1992 documentary “When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories” is available for free download at archive.org. If nothing else, I think it well argues the case that to be pro-choice is to be for life (Women’s and girls’ lives matter, too.)

    http://www.archive.org/details/when_abortion_was_illegal

    It’s a short documentary, a half-hour or so long, but it was tremendously affecting, and I found myself pausing it frequently to wipe my tears away.

  4. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I think people on the other side of this issue would challenge your premise that this is a “my body” issue alone – they would argue that another life is at stake and the normal liberty interests of allowing people to manage their own bodies is outweighed by concern for this other life.

    To more effectively win over people to our side we should reframe the arguments with that in mind.

    1. Melancholia, I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that framing the debate in someone else’s terms is all that helpful. I mean, I agree that it’s worth addressing the life question, to a degree — but at some point, even if the fetus is a life, if people believe that fetal life outweighs a woman’s right to life? Meh. I don’t think they’re worth convincing.

      I guess my point is: I’m not in this to win over people, necessarily. I’m not focusing my arguments on people who think fetal life is more important than my life.

  5. @melancholia, but it’s not a matter of another’s life. If technology was available to transfer any fetus outside a woman’s body to another incubating device, pro-choice supporters would *never* support the destruction of that fetus. The focus on bodily integrity and self-determination actually *is* the proper focus. If the “other side” wants to change things, go out and invent something new. I’d be happy with that technology. Change the game, change the rules, don’t try to shove people back into traditional models.

  6. Oh, wow, that was excellent. I saw it was 10:17pm and forgot it was Blog for Choice day so I threw something together. I really like that—why would we trust women anymore than we do men? We trust ourselves to know what’s right for us and our bodies. That’s that.

  7. melancholia: To more effectively win over people to our side we should reframe the arguments with that in mind.

    Pro-lifer claims that preventing women having access to legal abortion are all about “saving fetal lives” are lies: we shouldn’t answer the liars as if we believed their lies. People who value human life do not seek to prevent women having access to full reproductive healthcare, including abortion.

  8. Jemand:

    ” If technology was available to transfer any fetus outside a woman’s body to another incubating device, pro-choice supporters would *never* support the destruction of that fetus.”

    I don’t quite agree with you here. In the case of fetuses who are expected to become children with disabilities, I think that some self-described pro-choicers would support their destruction – because many of them do cast the abortion decision, in those cases, as something in the ‘best interests of the (potential) child’.

    Totally agree with you about bodily sovereignty being the prime directive here, for ALL pregnant and potentially pregnant people, with ALL pregnancies and potential pregnancies; not just some.

  9. I don’t quite agree with you here. In the case of fetuses who are expected to become children with disabilities, I think that some self-described pro-choicers would support their destruction – because many of them do cast the abortion decision, in those cases, as something in the ‘best interests of the (potential) child’.

    What makes a person pro-choice, in any case, is simply this: They’re willing for the pregnant woman to be the one who gets to decide whether to terminate or to continue.

    Arguments justifying why the pregnant woman should be the one who gets to decide, which shift away from the basic position of “because women are human beings, and ought not to be treated like slaves or incubators or breeding animals” do often use justifications with regard to a woman being forced to bear a child with disabilities that the woman does not feel she can cope with; or even with ablist thinking that specific disabilities make life not worth living. (The most common basis for that argument that I have seen, however, is that a life measured at best in months filled with unceasing pain is not worth living.)

    This is why I think it’s always a mistake to move away from the basic and unchallengable pro-choice position: it is never right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, no matter what the woman’s reasons are for wanting to terminate.

  10. Katie: Thank you for that link, it was very illuminating video.

    This is why I think it’s always a mistake to move away from the basic and unchallengable pro-choice position: it is never right to force a woman to bear a child against her will, no matter what the woman’s reasons are for wanting to terminate.

    This is what I think too.

  11. “Pro-life” is a rather inaccurate term, given how very little these people have actually thought about how in the heck is a fetus a “baby”. My dad completely perplexed these people by holding up a sign saying “my finger is a human being. Saying it does not make it so.” The usual response is, “well, it’s alive!” (to which my dad says “so is bacteria”).

    The real reasoning is to punish women for having sex outside of serving a husband, which has been mentioned elsewhere. I don’t think it’s about “not trusting women”, but a fear that women would have sex outside of marriage more when there isn’t a looming threat of pregnancy and financial doom. These folks can be rather inconsistent by having various exceptions (with of course some scumbags making none), since their main focus is on “must punish the sluts”.

  12. “What makes a person pro-choice, in any case, is simply this: They’re willing for the pregnant woman to be the one who gets to decide whether to terminate or to continue.”

    I have a big AND on the end of that: “And they are working, in whatever way they can, to create a world in which either/any of those choices is fully supported by society, no matter what other issues exist or arise.” Confining the pro-choice definition to purely Abortion Y/N missing enormous swathes of reproductive justice. If a pro-choice position purely rests on women getting to say Yea/Nay on TOP, where does that leave women forcibly sterilised? Denied repro tech because of their sexuality or disability or police record? Trying to parent while disabled with minimal societal support and the threat of child removal hanging over her?

  13. @lauredhel, I did think about that while posting… I guess I don’t really consider such people really “pro choice,” rather as being sort of eugenically ablist. And that, maybe they *wouldn’t* really support aborting a “normal” child while they would severely disapprove of carrying to term a “disabled” child. Anyway, I do think once you’ve crossed the line of “I don’t want this inside me” to “I want this *destroyed*” you aren’t necessarily pro-choice anymore and probably don’t have a really ethical position anyway. The fact that both those conditions are equivalent today, I think, is only temporary, at some point I believe, a distinction will technologically be made.

  14. “If technology was available to transfer any fetus outside a woman’s body to another incubating device, pro-choice supporters would *never* support the destruction of that fetus.”

    Errr…
    First of all, ditto what Lauredhel said about feti who are possibly disabled.
    Second of all, no. If, gods forbid, I ever got pregnant I’d want the fetus terminated. I have no interest in adding more humans to the western world, I have no interest in being a parent or an egg-doner, and furthermore I see nothing morally wrong with terminating a fetus.
    An egg is not a chicken.
    But then, I’m politically pro-choice & personally pro-abortion.

    PS y’all: Men can get pregnant and have abortions too!
    I’m one of them.

  15. “If technology was available to transfer any fetus outside a woman’s body to another incubating device, pro-choice supporters would *never* support the destruction of that fetus.”

    Wrong. I would support destroying a fetus under many circumstances even if it wasn’t completely necessary. For starters, if the fetus were allowed to survive, the woman would have to live with knowing that her child was out there somewhere in the world. This is something that adoptive mothers must deal with all the time and it is not very pleasant for many of them.

    Plus, there really are far too many people already living on this planet. The fewer that are born and survive at this current point in history the better. We do -not- need more human beings on this planet right now.

  16. but if it is no longer inside your body, why would you have the *right* to terminate at all? Given that other people can and do see it as a person, and could care for it themseves? If it was no longer in your body, you have no more right to terminate it than if it were in somebody else’s body today. Or an infant. If you have ethical reasons not to be adding any more humans to the western world, get sterilized.

  17. It’s also about an individual’s right to be free from government intrusion when it comes to the most personal and fundamentally human things — choice, desire and self-determination in sex and reproduction.

    Of course, I would like to remind readers that government and medical intrusion on a person’s body is regularly practiced today in the form of forced medical treatments (or forced lack of wanted medical treatments) and institutionalization. Women face this intrusion on their bodies, this assault on their right to choose, every single day. And there is nothing more fundamentally human than continuing to exist the way a person wishes to exist: to live without pain, or intrusive patterns of thought, to keep one’s own bone, tissue or organs from destroying themselves. Simply continuing to move and act as you do in your daily life, but the way you choose to do it. You have to be able to do that before you can even get to sex and reproduction…

  18. “If it was no longer in your body, you have no more right to terminate it than if it were in somebody else’s body today.”

    Well, how is it going to get out of my body without my consent? As long as it is in my body, it is my choice to make – and for that matter, if it were surgically removed, how do you ethically reconcile the double standard in regards to my privacy and my own medical waste? At what point does the state have more of a right to my fetus than I do? And how does that manifest in the physical realm? What about the psychological trauma that an individual could possibly suffer from knowing that they had been forcibly removed from their mother’s womb to be raised by the state in a mechanical incubator?

    “The focus on bodily integrity and self-determination actually *is* the proper focus. ”

    And how does self-determination look to a human that has been artificially birthed and has been put in queue to find other humans who will raise, socialize, and love him/her? Why should technology be the litmus test of viability?

  19. “but if it is no longer inside your body, why would you have the *right* to terminate at all? ”

    Correct. But it’s still the woman’s choice as to whether it -can- be removed in the first place. If we had the technology for the fetus to survive outside the womb, I would support a woman’s right to make the decision to have it removed for her person and supported. I would also support her right to -not- have it removed and instead have it terminated.

    “If you have ethical reasons not to be adding any more humans to the western world, get sterilized.”

    I already have, thanks. However, not all women want to take that route, nor do all women have access to sterilization.

  20. “but if it is no longer inside your body, why would you have the *right* to terminate at all? ”

    Correct. But it’s still the woman’s choice as to whether it -can- be removed in the first place. If we had the technology for the fetus to survive outside the womb, I would support a woman’s right to make the decision to have it removed for her person and supported. I would also support her right to not have it removed and instead have it terminated.

    “If you have ethical reasons not to be adding any more humans to the western world, get sterilized.”

    I already have, thanks. However, not all women want to take that route, nor do all women have access to sterilization.

  21. “Well, how is it going to get out of my body without my consent?”

    It would not. Assuming the risks of abortion and extraction for artificial incubation are equal, you can make the choice to extract it, or to carry to term. Why in the world would you have the right to destroy something that many consider life, if it *doesn’t* have anything to do with your body?

    “As long as it is in my body, it is my choice to make – and for that matter, if it were surgically removed, how do you ethically reconcile the double standard in regards to my privacy and my own medical waste?”

    It’s another genetic entity, with it’s own capacity for consciousness. And technically, you don’t have any right over your medical waste, the hospital does. Look up the HeLa strain of cancer cells. Even if we DID give individuals rights over their own medical waste, this would not be yours, but another person.

    “At what point does the state have more of a right to my fetus than I do? And how does that manifest in the physical realm? What about the psychological trauma that an individual could possibly suffer from knowing that they had been forcibly removed from their mother’s womb to be raised by the state in a mechanical incubator?”

    Now all you’re doing is making an argument against adoption. Adoption occurs ALL the time, notwithstanding that SOME people view “their” infants as property to keep, or destroy, or who are not concerned about killing, because they aren’t conscious enough or something. The fact that a foster care system may have problems doesn’t mean we ought to just kill the children in it as a better solution.

  22. “‘If you have ethical reasons not to be adding any more humans to the western world, get sterilized.’

    I already have, thanks. However, not all women want to take that route, nor do all women have access to sterilization.”

    Well, of course all women should have access to sterilization if they want it. And all women should have the right to incubate, or not incubate a fetus in her body as she sees fit. But if it is just as easy and harmless to remove and care for a living fetus as to destroy it, than I see NO right for the woman to insist on its destruction. That is no longer a question of her rights over her body. So, if someone has an ethical insistence on not adding any more people to the world, and such technology exists, than the only surefire thing to do would be to get sterilized.

  23. melancholia –

    they would argue that another life is at stake and the normal liberty interests of allowing people to manage their own bodies is outweighed by concern for this other life.

    To more effectively win over people to our side we should reframe the arguments with that in mind.

    Then they would just move the goalposts or stick their fingers in their ears. Lots of people have made the evidence-based argument that making BC and abortion available actually saves more lives and raises the quality of more lives than banning reproductive choices. They don’t care. They just want women and girls who have sex to be punished for it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMzX-xpl0ww

  24. Why in the world would you have the right to destroy something that many consider life, if it *doesn’t* have anything to do with your body?

    Because woman are human beings, and it’s wrong to treat human beings as slaves or breeding animals, even if improvements in technology ensure that a woman no longer needs to be treated as an incubator.

    It’s a woman’s right to choose whether she’s going to produce a child: it’s no one else’s right to decide that for her.

    <Adoption occurs ALL the time, notwithstanding that SOME people view “their” infants as property to keep, or destroy

    Or sell. Some people view infants produced by other people as their property to sell on the market – the basis for the infant adoption industry in many countries, including the US.

    I repeat: if a woman is not a slave or a breeding animal, it’s her choice to decide if and when to reproduce, regardless of what technological help may be available to her.

  25. but in that future technological environment, once a fetus exists, *she has already reproduced.*

    Unless she decides to have an abortion. In which case, she hasn’t.

    And that’s her choice, no one else’s.

  26. how would that be different than infanticide? The biological entity which is her child already exists. She can regain complete control over her body by safely removing it. How the heck can you justify killing it? Am I the *only* pro choicer who truly believes that it is women’s bodily autonomy, nothing else, which justifies abortion?

  27. “But if it is just as easy and harmless to remove and care for a living fetus as to destroy it, than I see NO right for the woman to insist on its destruction.”

    But it wouldn’t be just as easy to remove and incubate. Removing a viable fetus would require a woman undergoing a cesarean or actual birth. Both of those activities would do far more damage to the woman’s body than a simple abortion.

    But besides that, it is still the woman’s decision as to how the the contents of her body are handled. If something is inside me, it is for all intents and purposes my property. I decide – me – how that something should be handled, not anyone else.

  28. jemand: how would that be different than infanticide?

    The same difference between abortion and infanticide now. Are you seriously arguing that there’s a moral case to be made for forcing women to reproduce against their will just because you have the technological capacity to (a) perform surgery on her body against her will (b) remove fetus from her body against her will (c) place the fetus she conceived in an incubator and bring the fetus to term against her will?

    The pro-choice case remains, regardless of technological or medical achievements: a woman is a human being, and it’s wrong to force her to reproduce against her will.

    Am I the *only* pro choicer who truly believes that it is women’s bodily autonomy, nothing else, which justifies abortion?

    Plainly, you don’t believe a woman has bodily autonomy, since you are arguing that if you had the technological capacity to incubate a fetus to term, you’d have the moral right to violate a woman’s bodily autonomy and do so.

  29. “But it wouldn’t be just as easy to remove and incubate. Removing a viable fetus would require a woman undergoing a cesarean or actual birth. Both of those activities would do far more damage to the woman’s body than a simple abortion.”

    No. If it requires a ceserean, than obviously it doesn’t have equal risk and the woman of course can still decide between the external incubation or abortion. But early in the pregnancy it would be extremely easy to remove a fetus through the cervix– the same way an abortion evacuates the contents of the uterus.

    You DO realize, don’t you, that an abortion removes a fetus from a woman’s body, right? The ONLY question here is whether or not the woman has a right to insist that said fetus is DEAD after removal, when it means nothing one way or another to her body.

  30. “But it wouldn’t be just as easy to remove and incubate. Removing a viable fetus would require a woman undergoing a cesarean or actual birth. Both of those activities would do far more damage to the woman’s body than a simple abortion.”

    I think you’re getting bogged down in technicalities, here. What jemand is asking (and jemand, I apologize if I’m getting this wrong), is that if a hypothetical procedure were developed that allowed a fetus to be removed from a woman’s body at the same or a lesser risk than an abortion, AND a technology that allowed that fetus to be brought to term independent of another human being’s body, should that procedure replace abortions? It doesn’t matter what that procedure is — imagine they use Star Trek transporters to beam the fetus out, if you prefer.

  31. @Tom Foolery, exactly. You are completely correctly representing my question. Though I believe such a technological confluence is going to occur much sooner than any Star Trek transporters, I think in a generation or two, this will be a reality.

  32. jemand: ? The ONLY question here is whether or not the woman has a right to

    choose whether she’s going to have a baby or not.

    Yes, she does.

    The notion that anyone else has the right to decide for her that she’s got to have a baby – don’t get yourself bogged down in technological folderol justifying it – is profoundly anti-choice.

  33. no, when a woman schedules and goes in for an abortion, she is consenting to have the fetus removed from her uterus. The question is, were it technologically possible, does she have the right to KILL that fetus, if it were possible for it to be removed from her uterus intact and carried to term outside her.

    She has an absolute right prior to conception to use birth control or get sterilized, after conception, she has an absolute right to her own body and it’s use. But, technology permitting, she does *not* have an absolute right to destroy another living being, provided her rights to her body are respected. An abortion is nothing more than removing a fetus from her body, whether that occurs in one piece or several is immaterial to her regaining complete control over her body. It also, incidentally, completely equalizes the rights and responsibilities of men and women in the equation.

  34. Again, not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman (there are men & nonbinary folks who can & HAVE been pregnant and/or given birth).

    I want all medical waste from MY body (including feti) incinerated. Doctors and the medical industry have not been kind to trans* folks, ND, & PWD & my waste and I won’t be anyone’s research experiment or whatever.

    I do not consider a few cells a baby. AN EGG IS NOT A CHICKEN!!!
    I also do not have to allow it to become a chicken. A clump of cells will be medical waste, no matter if they’re a tumor, a fetus, or a skin tag.
    They’re my cells & a fetus isn’t a baby until it leaves my body alive (which will NEVER happen–a shot to my head would happen before that).

    And *~*~fyi~*~* I do intend to become sterilized (it is a side-effect of the procedures I intend to have for my medical transition as well as a personal preferance) but here, in the real world, not everyone has access to medical procedures–no matter how necessary.

  35. mostly, I am taking my moral philosophy from Judith Jarvis Thomson, and her 1971 (and yet still relevant) article “A Defense of Abortion” http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

    It was awhile since I read it, specifically near the end, where she says:

    “Second, while I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child. It is easy to confuse these two things in that up to a certain point in the life of the fetus it is not able to survive outside the mother’s body; hence removing it from her body guarantees its death. But they are importantly different. I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument. A woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and never seen or heard of again. She may therefore want not merely that the child be detached from her, but more, that it die. Some opponents of abortion are inclined to regard this as beneath contempt–thereby showing insensitivity to what is surely a powerful source of despair. All the same, I agree that the desire for the child’s death is not one which anybody may gratify, should it turn out to be possible to detach the child alive.”

    I had forgotten that she had prefaced her closing remarks by saying that such moral philosophy does not allow what many abortion advocates wish to allow– namely the ability to secure destruction of the fetus regardless of any consideration of a woman’s bodily autonomy. Since I had forgotten that section, the opposition I got here came to me as a complete surprise. I am now slightly less surprised, and somewhat more disappointed.

  36. Also, Jemand, if you want others to think a clump of cells is a living person, then I think you need to be a breathetarian and anti-antibiotics since I think a fetus is just as much a person as a carrot or bacteria–since my morals about killing are just as important as yours. (if a fetus is a person, and a fetus is on par with a carrot/bacteria, therefore a carrot/bacteria = a person)
    🙂

    (Remember, sometimes a smiley is just a smiley. But sometimes it’s a passive-aggressive piece of shit.)
    🙂 🙂 🙂

  37. Jemand,

    I call bullshit. Abortion as it stands is ‘allowed’ because a few clumps of cells are not considered by science capable of thought or feeling or if the gestation and/or birth would harm the parent. It has jack all to do with whether abortion would be allowed if a few clumps of cells could be removed to a favored test tube for watching. Unlike most people, I actually do have a few memories from before speech and I certainly didn’t formulate thoughts exactly then as I do now, and I’ve no doubt there was – no – thought when I was a previous clump of cells, or even three or four months along. Feel free to shove off on whatever high-tech futureistic moral speculation you’ve brung to this thread – you’re doing no one with even a semi-working uterus any favors.

    I also think you’ve derailed the thread on a speculation that sometime in the future, maybe, you can remove that clump of cells and hope the technology doesn’t fail and an eventual human will someday result. I think you’ve taken a good-ish post and brought in a bogey-man for people to argue against. You assume life is upon conception. Not everyone has that view (far from it) and there’s no reason for me to discuss things with you as if it does, let alone when you’re bent on constructing a moral high ground that doesn’t exist.

    That grown-in-a-tube whimsy, again, has nothing to do with abortion rights now and shouldn’t in the future, either. From your argument on whether cells could possibly be babies if helped along, I’m indescribably surprised you’re not also arguing that every sperm and egg is sacrosanct and should be donated to science because, if combined and left in your dream-tube, they’d also probably make a human. Eventually. Because that’s where your train of thought is headed if it goes in a straight line.

    As for the rest of this thread, do remember that women aren’t the only people who could possibly have children. Had ascare many years ago wrt pregnancy, decided on abortion forthwith if it turned out I needed one – I didn’t. It was unlikely in the first place due to my reproductive system but then again, I’ve heard stranger tales.

    Either way, I’d appreciate it if everyone in the rest of the thread (barring Drakyn) would quit describing everyone who might possibly have use of the abortion processes as a woman. It’s pissing me the fuck off.

  38. @Drakyn, I find it interesting you mention PWD, because I find it profoundly ablist that apparently it is ok to destroy a fetus simply because it hasn’t achieved “normal” human ability, *regardless* of any imposition on you.

    All of you would certainly see it as an obvious case of ablism if any other class of disabled, or temporarily disabled human DNA carrying beings were considered fit for destruction purely due to their condition. And yet when it is fetal humans, you insist that they have to be ripped to pieces or you won’t be satisfied. Even if an abortion removing such a fetus in little pieces had the same physical results to you as a procedure removing it alive.

  39. btw, I’m sorry for the “woman”/”she” language, I wish I could edit to “person.” Really don’t have any excuse especially since I posted the last “woman”/”she” post after such a notion was already mentioned… my bad.

  40. Lawlz. I love that you’re accusing me of ableism for wanting to control my body and it’s medical waste. And that whole “ripping to pieces OMGz” anti-choice bull.
    Dude!!!! Think of all the poor bacteria and viruses you’re harming/killing when you blow your nose!!!!!!!!!!! And what about the carrots???? Go and be a breathetarian for fucks sakes.

    Being a fetus is not a disability. I find it really fucking ableist that you’re saying a fetus is automatically a pwd.
    Why don’t you first prove that a potential is the same as an actual? You are arguing from that premise, yet nowhere have you proven it.

    *sigh* I really shouldn’t be feeding the troll. >_>

  41. Is it me, or has it gotten a little ridiculous in here? If frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their asses when they hopped, but I certainly wouldn’t bring that up in a biology class.

    It seems absurd (and rather disrespectful of real women who have to make real choices in the real world) to be debating the finer points of ethics pertaining solely to imaginary situations instead of having a genuine conversation about abortion and choice (or lack thereof), especially in the comments of a post that was obviously very thoughtfully written.

  42. …and since about a jillion comments came between me and the “Star Trek” business way upthread, I’d like to be clear that it’s the “…but if (absurd circumstance), then what?” tangents that are rubbing me the wrong way. I fail to see how the potential presence of magical incubators and spiffy transportation beams sometime in the future has any bearing on the legal or ethical reality of abortion TODAY.

  43. akeeyu: It seems absurd (and rather disrespectful of real women who have to make real choices in the real world) to be debating the finer points of ethics pertaining solely to imaginary situations instead of having a genuine conversation about abortion and choice (or lack thereof), especially in the comments of a post that was obviously very thoughtfully written.

    It is absurd and disrespectful. Jemand is an anti-choicer concern troll: s/he has made clear s/he believes that the state has the right to force a woman to have a baby against her will. Very Ceausescu. The Star Trek nonsense is just trying to make up a technobabble justification for it.

  44. @Jemand
    @Jemand
    Pretending there would be enough homes out their for all those children after you magitec is real is unrealistic. As an adoptee and someone who keeps track of the adoption industry, I know it’s harder to find homes for babies who aren’t white and able bodied, even with the numbers of people wanting to adopt babies. In my personal case, my parents got a discount on me, becuase I am black and the doctors assumed I’d be cognitively challenged. The whole adoption industry is pretty racist and ableist, as a reflection of who our society thinks has worth.

    Secondly, no one who bears a child or has a fetus magically saved should have to deal with their offspring running about in the world without them, unless that is what they freely choose. My older brother, also an adoptee, met his mother around 2 years ago, and she thought about him every single day. Pushing people who don’t want their DNA to become a child into letting it happen is wrong.

  45. Personally, I don’t know why the abortion debate remains. If a woman needs an abortion, so be it. May they be safe, legal, and if the need exists, funded.

    Actually, I’m concerned about genetically engineered foods, and, arsenic in the water and carbon monoxide in the air, to channel Maureen Dowd (on arsenic and carbon monoxide).

  46. “But, technology permitting, she does *not* have an absolute right to destroy another living being, provided her rights to her body are respected. An abortion is nothing more than removing a fetus from her body, whether that occurs in one piece or several is immaterial to her regaining complete control over her body. It also, incidentally, completely equalizes the rights and responsibilities of men and women in the equation.”

    Jemand,

    I’m not going to debate with you any longer. As others have already pointed out, your hypothetical assertions are really not relevant since they -are- hypothetical. But I will say this: Assuming you actually are pro-choice, I seriously do not think you’ve thought this through AT ALL.

  47. I think the chicken and egg comments are going in circles. If the fetus is just potential and is removed in tact via extremely pre-mature labor it is no longer in her body and no longer invading her privacy or bodily autonomy. It thereby places her in the positon of cis males who have fertilized an egg. She would no longer have control over what happened because a fetus delivered alive is considered a baby no matter how premature it is (unless you’re in the UK then if you go into premature labor before 26 weeks and you WANT your pregnancy, they will not help you continue the pregnancy via stopping labor and let your baby die in the room with you because they consider the baby to be “medical waste”).

    The D&X abortion procedure is actually just this. Partially delivering a fetus that does NOT need the life support of another human being AND killing it for the sake of avoiding parenthood. If you agree with women having this choice, which is ironically MUCH safer than ripping apart a fetus that size inside of her uterus and then etracting it, then you really can’t argue about sustaining earlier abortions.

    Abortions are BOTH pregnancy AND parenthood choices because it addresses both issues.

  48. @ thetroubleis, I disagree with that because it solves as a direct attack on a person’s right to NOT have an abortion via the fact that not every person who gives birth does so with the sperm donor’s “permission.” Many MRAs argue that Pushing people who don’t want their DNA to become a child into letting it happen is wrong.

  49. @thetroubleis:

    Exactly. My DNA is my property, and I deserve to have final say over whether it is perpetuated.

    @Azalea:

    Phrased like that, I kind of see the MRAs’ point. No one should have the right to force anyone into unwanted biological parenthood.

  50. The D&X abortion procedure is actually just this. Partially delivering a fetus that does NOT need the life support of another human being AND killing it for the sake of avoiding parenthood.

    Oh look, another anti-choice canard. Has anyone got the bingo cards?

  51. Partially delivering a fetus that does NOT need the life support of another human being AND killing it for the sake of avoiding parenthood.

    What is wrong with people that they think there are great parents around every corner waiting to take your foetus?

    I do not trust other people, and there is no damn way I would adopt out. No matter what made up scenario we’re living in.

  52. If technology was available to transfer any fetus outside a woman’s body to another incubating device, pro-choice supporters would *never* support the destruction of that fetus.

    This fantasy needs to quit being trotted out. Realistically speaking, women and those in their lives they involve in their decisions choose abortion because they don’t want to have that baby. And this solution you propose involves having that baby, thereby defeating the purpose.

    Yes, I realize that men are in a similar situation, where the ultimate choice to have a child is made by someone else, but that’s a marginal issue in the real world. If I could give men more control over their own reproduction, I would, but when it comes to a dispute about pregnancy termination, the final word has to go with the person who is pregnant, in the same way that a dispute over something on your property goes to the property owner. The vast majority of cases, however, do not involve a dispute. So focusing on that instead of the realities is a problem.

    If I got pregnant on accident, taking the fetus and incubating it outside of my body would not be a solution for either me or my boyfriend, since we don’t want children, full stop.

  53. Hmmm. OK, let’s say we utilize the Star Trek option and stuff all those unwanted fetuses into the dilithium powered holo-womb. This means that engineer Scott is going to be producing over one million babies a year in the US alone. Now, exactly what is Scotty going to do with those millions of new, parent-free kids that he manufactures each year? I suppose he could send them off to colonize a new world in the Trifid Nebula, or something, but I’m guessing that those kids are going to wind up dumped into the already over-taxed adoption system.

    So, there you go. Millions upon millions more children brought into the world each year without parents, left in the hands of overburdened government institutions.

    Pure genius.

    Wait. I’ve got a solution. Why don’t we let the folks who can give birth actually decide if they want to bring children into the world? I know this sounds kinda crazy, but I’m willing to bet that a person would want a say in whether their child might suffer through a childhood without someone to love and care for them.

    No, wait! In the future, we’ll have holographic parents for all the little kiddies that popped out of the holo-womb. Problem solved! Every little orphan kid gets to have Robert Picardo take care of them. Sweet!

    Doncha just love sci-fi?

  54. @Miss Incognegro- Agreed, entirely. I feel the same way about gay marriage. Like, “wait, are we still fighting about this?”

    And ditto to the other concerns you brought up.

  55. This is the worst thread on abortion I have ever read. I think it was Kate Harding who wrote (or at least it was on her blog, and this is paraphrased): “thoughtful discussion is one thing. Intellectual masturbatory discussions of the real life problems of real life individuals is another”.

  56. OK for those calling me anti-choice because I actually had the audacity to unapologetically proclaim d&x for what it is, I’d advise you to look it up. NOWHERE in my post did I say that D&X was wrong! I simply stated what it was, if it offended you I think you should look down at your feet and be sure of what side of choice you’re standing on.

    Now back to the general idea: My post simply pointed out that abortion was TWO fold. In an egg/chicken argument we could call pregnancy the egg and parenthood the chicken. An abortion addresses BOTH issues regardless of when it occurs or why. Even when the pregnancy was otherwise wanted the ends are still the same, there will be no pregnancy and there will be no child. There is only ONE form of abortion in modern times in modern medicine where a pregnancy is ended and a fetus is intact but not alive, D&X procedures or late term abortions. The fact that it is an abortion and NOT simply a premature labor and delivery is a parenting option. Because it would be wholly delivered without incidence to bodily autonomy but WOULD infringe on one’s right to decide when to become a parent.

    As far as it goes for people with sperm (because a lesbian fertile trans woman could find herself without say in becoming a parent too), I would say that because the person gestating is the one whose body will either be used for said gestation or used for an abortion procedure that only the gestating individual has any real rights to determine when or whether or not they will be a parent post-conception to biological offspring.

  57. Azalea, you said:

    The D&X abortion procedure is actually just this. Partially delivering a fetus that does NOT need the life support of another human being AND killing it for the sake of avoiding parenthood.

    And now you’re advising other people to look it up because they don’t understand? I would suggest doing some research yourself. It is not true that dilation and intact extraction abortions are always (or even usually) performed on viable fetuses. They are usually performed later in pregnancy (in the second or early third trimester), but that doesn’t equal “the fetus does NOT need the life support of another human being.”

  58. Also, yeah, this thread has become beyond useless. Back onto the topic of the post, please. And for anyone who may be confused, this post is NOT about hypothetical medical advancements and Star Trek.

  59. @Azalea

    Also you said that it was for “the sake of avoiding parenthood”. Correct me if I’m wrong Jill, but I think statistics bare out that most D&X procedures were done on wanted but unviable pregnancies. I think parents who’ve had to go through that, would find that phrase to be horribly insensitive and insulting.

  60. OMG people, jemand wasn’t talking about inducing labor or doing a c-section. Zie was talking about what if we invent technology that allows us to remove an embryo or fetus, whole and viable, BEFORE they would have been viable anyway, in order to implant them for growing somewhere else.

    And I can see zir point. Once that entity exists, reproduction has already occurred. It is a distinct entity. If nothing goes wrong it will develop into an infant human being. Why destroy it, then?

    If the argument is “I don’t want a kid of mine floating around out there” then you could say it’s acceptable to kill a newborn infant to prevent its being adopted. I’m pro-choice, but even I would not go there.

    I agree that infant adoption is a serious problem with social and developmental ramifications we are only beginning to understand. Also, I am way creeped out by the whole tone of jemand’s argument, because it sounds to me something like “Why would you waste perfectly good product when someone out there would be glad to buy it?” There’s a market for that baby, don’tcha know. And I have seen the adoption blogs and discussion boards where they talk about adopted babies as product to be moved and what if the product is defective and how can you get out of the purchase if it doesn’t “work out.” Creepycreepycreepy.

    But. You’re still arguing that it’s OK to kill something that is separate from yourself because it would make you feel yucky if it kept living. Are you even listening to yourselves? Do you not understand that this kind of rhetoric is exactly why anti-choicers paint you as baby-killers? Because I’d love to think it is only because they see a clump of cells as a baby, but really, when you guys get pushed to think outside the box, this is what you come up with.

    If you’re trying to save Roe, this is not how to do it. And if (note I said IF) you’re that sociopathic then yeah, you better save Roe ’cause FSM knows you ain’t fit to be raising anybody. Now, it is not that I think that is a woman’s sole purpose in life. But I do think it is an important human purpose–creating offspring is part of being a living organism, even if not all of us in this particular species do it, even at the best of times. And it seems peculiar to our brand of human culture that some of us would be unfit and unwilling to go through that experience. Men as well as women.

    I suppose it’s a response to population pressure. I suspect it’s more than that though–I’ve noticed the insidious little ways in which this culture drives us to hate ourselves and I guess this is just one more way it does that.

    By the way, someone compared an egg to a fetus. My WTFmeter is seriously going off over here. It’s like comparing a shoebox to the shoes inside it. We’re not monotremes, people. I know the ‘lifers make that sort of comparison from time to time but for Pete’s sake, they think the planet’s six thousand years old and that Darwin was full of crap. Are you seriously gonna take your talking points from them now?

    Also, I want to add another data point to this whole “choice” discussion. I want to know when women facing a so-called “crisis pregnancy” but who want to keep the baby can find help raising that baby from a pro-choice organization instead of just being referred to the welfare office or having to turn to Birthright or that kind of organization. Maybe there are a few scattershot organizations around the country but I am not seeing a concerted nationwide effort by some national org. (OK, maybe for teen moms sometimes, but usually the rest of us can go hang. There are more older single moms than teen single moms so WTF, people?) I understand some of the more politically active feminists are single women and lesbians who want the right to adopt if they don’t have it already, but that really isn’t an excuse. It’s bad enough the anti-choice groups appear to be fronting for the adoption industry without us not having any allies on this side as well.

    When I was facing losing my son because I ran into trouble after AFDC was changed to TANF and the only people who would help me were the parents of the reason he and I were in trouble to begin with… the feminists I knew pretty much had a “so what” attitude about it. Their stance was I had “chosen” to give my son to my in-laws. No, it wasn’t really a choice. Economic coercion is not a choice. But I don’t see any rhetoric coming from the Official Feminist Camp about this other than “we need to make birth control and abortion more available so these poor/single/uneducated/undereducated/young women don’t have to have teh baybees cuz it will RUIN THEIR LIVES.” No, having a child did not ruin my life. Losing him did. But thanks for playing.

    So yeah. Step up. I don’t want my only choices being “get rid of the brat before it RUINS YOUR LIFE” or “undergo legal unpaid slave labor for some greedy corporation that wants the tax breaks for hiring welfare queens, sit on Section 8 waiting lists for three years and suffer every time I go grocery shopping because someone behind me noticed I bought meat with my food stamp card and picked that time to lecture me about it.”

    Anyone…? Anyone…? Bueller…?

  61. I said:

    “what if we invent technology that allows us to remove an embryo or fetus, whole and viable, BEFORE they would have been viable anyway”

    The first “viable” meaning “can continue to live in a uterus-like environment if implanted there”, the second meaning “can live outside the womb without life support”. Sorry.

  62. After 16 weeks, the fetus can survive without a human being’s body for life support. This has happened numerous times. My statement was not to be insensitive to the nature of wanted pregnancies being aborted due to medical problems but it isn’t usually that the fetus is NOT viable but that parenting that fetus is not a real option for the pregnant person and their partner.

    A woman’s right to an abortion is absolute, I thought we ALL were on the same accord but it seems to me that if you dare say someone aborts a viable fetus to avoid parenting that fetus then you’re somehow anti-choice or against abortions. I support the right of a pregnant person to abort at ANY time for ANY reason and calling the fetus a baby doesn’t sway or strangle my support. I’m truly not understanding why I have come under attack for stating the obvious. A huge number of late trimester abortions are performed on fetuses who have been diagnosed with down syndrom. That doesn’t make the fetus less viable, it can make parenting the child the fetus has the potential to become more than one could handle for the potential parents. That isn’t insensitivity, its fact. Why are we hiding around this?

    1. After 16 weeks, the fetus can survive without a human being’s body for life support. This has happened numerous times.

      The majority of babies born at 23 weeks don’t survive, let alone at 16. Just because something has happened doesn’t mean that “the fetus can survive without a human being’s body.” A few fetuses have done it, but it’s hardly the rule. Viability is a very blurry line. I’m not saying that you’re anti-choice, I’m just saying that we should all make sure our facts are straight before we start arguing in favor of abortion rights by saying that women regularly terminate viable fetuses. To suggest that D&X procedures are universally (or even mostly) performed on viable fetuses is flatly wrong.

      1. Also: Where did you find a record of a baby born at 16 weeks surviving? If it has happened, it is extremely rare. I googled around and can’t find any stories about a baby surviving that early.

  63. This is the worst thread on abortion I have ever read. I think it was Kate Harding who wrote (or at least it was on her blog, and this is paraphrased): “thoughtful discussion is one thing. Intellectual masturbatory discussions of the real life problems of real life individuals is another”.

    Quoted for emphasis and seconding.

    Next up: would women have the right to be jezebels and abort the baybeees if they were kidnapped by aliens and impregnated, or do those life forms count?

    Not for nothing people–that technology of which you speak only exists in the movies or Star Trek reruns. It’s almost as if talking about women as living, breathing human beings with rights and stuff squicks some people out.

  64. another Dana: so… you’re okay with coerced reproduction? I assume you intend for there to be State power behind the implementation of your technology? Why even bother being a human being then, if technology and the State trump your own existence?

    Personally? I don’t think anyone else’s life has the right to force me (or any other human) into reproduction. My desires, my will, my DNA, belong to me – not to any other human being. Technology is a tool – not a replacement for the human experience.

    Men use technology every.single.fucking.day to kill other human beings. Every day. I don’t see you being all shocked and awed about *that*.

    So, yeah, the root issue really is about trusting women. I mean, we trust men to kill other human beings… but a woman killing a human! Aaaaaaaggggghhhhhh. Find me the smelling salts, pronto!

  65. another Dana: so… you’re okay with coerced reproduction?

    I think that’s the point, yes. AnotherDana and Jemand are trying to find ways to make out their belief that coerced reproduction is A_OK by coming up with hypothetical/impossible situations.

    Way back when Star Trek was new, the idea was that Trek depicted an improved future – not just improved technology, but improved respect, kindness, human rights, justice, freedom.

    It saddens me still, old Trekkie that I am, to see creepy misogynists arguing that Star Trek technology could and should be used for coerced reproduction.

  66. The irony of it all being that it was technological advances (surgery) that brought women aborting their pregnancies into the greater public light. It’s not like women haven’t been aborting their pregnancies since we first figured out that reproduction is *not* always necessary and is often detrimental.

  67. but we nonetheless deserve the right to determine, for ourselves, how and when and why we reproduce.

    So, why don’t men get that right?

    1. Heh, men have that right. They have the same reproductive rights as women — rights that begin and end with their own body.

  68. No, having a child did not ruin my life. Losing him did. But thanks for playing.

    Dana, friends of mine have been in similarly tragic situations, so I would not want to diminish that at all. It’s kind of like, when people balk at the monetary rewards given to mothers in the Russian Federation, for example, without seeing the immediate context – how poverty puts people in situations where they cannot keep their families together. I’m starting to get to that point where I’d like to have a child in a few years, but I am also aware of my reality: student debt, can’t afford health insurance, tiding myself over at my grandmother’s flat in Ukraine for God’s sake – it depresses the crap out of me to even consider the possibilities, or lack thereof.

    At the same time, I don’t understand why you’re calling a bunch of people in this thread sociopathic. There’s nothing inherently sociopathic about wanting to control your own DNA. No?

  69. Oh no! What happened to my comment? Trying again…

    No, having a child did not ruin my life. Losing him did. But thanks for playing.

    Dana, friends of mine have been in similarly tragic situations, so I would not want to diminish that at all. It’s kind of like, when people balk at the monetary rewards given to mothers in the Russian Federation, for example, without seeing the immediate context – how poverty puts people in situations where they cannot keep their families together. I’m starting to get to that point where I’d like to have a child in a few years, but I am also aware of my reality: student debt, can’t afford health insurance, tiding myself over at my grandmother’s flat in Ukraine for God’s sake – it depresses the crap out of me to even consider the possibilities, or lack thereof.

    At the same time, I don’t understand why you’re calling a bunch of people in this thread sociopathic. There’s nothing inherently sociopathic about wanting to control your own DNA. No?

  70. @Azalea:
    OK for those calling me anti-choice because I actually had the audacity to unapologetically proclaim d&x for what it is, I’d advise you to look it up. NOWHERE in my post did I say that D&X was wrong! I simply stated what it was, if it offended you I think you should look down at your feet and be sure of what side of choice you’re standing on.

    But you did say that it’s used in cases of a viable fetus, which it isn’t. (Also, “canard” =/= “person.”)

    After 16 weeks, the fetus can survive without a human being’s body for life support. This has happened numerous times. My statement was not to be insensitive to the nature of wanted pregnancies being aborted due to medical problems but it isn’t usually that the fetus is NOT viable but that parenting that fetus is not a real option for the pregnant person and their partner.

    Er, no, you’re still wrong.

    A huge number of late trimester abortions are performed on fetuses who have been diagnosed with down syndrom. That doesn’t make the fetus less viable, it can make parenting the child the fetus has the potential to become more than one could handle for the potential parents.

    Second trimester =/= viable.

  71. @Azalea:
    OK for those calling me anti-choice because I actually had the audacity to unapologetically proclaim d&x for what it is, I’d advise you to look it up. NOWHERE in my post did I say that D&X was wrong! I simply stated what it was, if it offended you I think you should look down at your feet and be sure of what side of choice you’re standing on.

    But you did say that it’s used in cases of a viable fetus, which it isn’t. (Also, “canard” =/= “person.”)

    After 16 weeks, the fetus can survive without a human being’s body for life support. This has happened numerous times. My statement was not to be insensitive to the nature of wanted pregnancies being aborted due to medical problems but it isn’t usually that the fetus is NOT viable but that parenting that fetus is not a real option for the pregnant person and their partner.

    Er, no, you’re still wrong.

    A huge number of late trimester abortions are performed on fetuses who have been diagnosed with down syndrom. That doesn’t make the fetus less viable, it can make parenting the child the fetus has the potential to become more than one could handle for the potential parents.

    Second trimester =/= viable.

  72. “But. You’re still arguing that it’s OK to kill something that is separate from yourself because it would make you feel yucky if it kept living.”

    This is getting really old.

    If a fetus is inside my body, it is not separate from me. Sorry, but it isn’t. It’s INSIDE me and ultimately a part of me, for heaven’s sake. If it’s inside me then it is not separate!

    What exactly is it about that fact that is so difficult for so many people to understand?

  73. After 16 weeks, the fetus can survive without a human being’s body for life support. This has happened numerous times.

    That is completely and utterly untrue. There is one case of a fetus surviving at 21 weeks a couple of years ago. 24 weeks is generally the earliest most hospitals will even begin medically intensive interventions and, even then, the odds of survival are only about 50%. At 16 weeks, a fetus isn’t even producing it’s own blood cells yet, there is no way it could survive outside the womb.

  74. In the original post, Jill said:

    So I trust women, and I don’t. I trust myself, at least, to be the best moral arbitrator when it comes to how and when I reproduce. And I am not so arrogant to think that my opinion is more important than another woman’s evaluation of her own unique reproductive circumstances. So I trust her to do the same. And I trust that, because we are all human, we will not always handle our choices in a way that X, Y or Z person thinks is best.

    (emphasis has has been added by me)

    In a nutshell, I believe this lies at the heart of being pro-choice. Being pro-choice entails the recognition that there are no moral absolutes in this situation. Different people will approach an unwanted pregnancy in different ways. Some people—myself included—see abortion as a morally and ethically valid response to an unwanted pregnancy. Other people do not.

    The big smoking mess that this thread has degenerated into illustrates this point. Even among self-described pro-choice people, there is no ethical/moral agreement regarding how abortion should be viewed.

    Given that there is such discord over this issue, I sure as hell wouldn’t trust some third party to decide what should happen to a child whose existence I might be responsible for. I can’t trust that some third party—be it a medical doctor, a priest, or a government bureaucrat—is going to make a decision regarding a potential child coming from my body that I believe is right and just.

    To me, this is a matter of looking people of an authoritarian mindset in the eye and saying, “You are crossing a boundary that should never be crossed. Your sense of ethics and morality is not so superior that you get to control the most intimate details of my life. Now, back the fuck off!”

    I see plenty of other situations in which people think they have such a degree of superior insight and morality, that they believe they should be able to control whether people can marry each other, have sex in particular ways, structure families in particular ways, transition from one sex to another, and on and on. Generally, most of these situations involve classes of people who experience some form of oppression and as a function of that oppression, are viewed as incapable of being trusted with important life decisions. That list of people includes, but is not limited to: ethnic minorities, women, trans people, immigrants, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the poor, and so on.

    It’s all related, as far as I’m concerned, and I think those who feel they can make decisions for any oppressed group of people who is deemed “morally suspect” should be told exactly where they can put their authoritarian, morally superior attitude.

  75. That was meant to say 26 not 16. The scodn trimester includes weeks 26 and 27. Dr. Tiller primarily performed abortions in the late second trimester and throughout the third. And yes many late trimester abortions are performed on fetuses that have been diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome or another mental illness and ARE physically viable.

    Why does it matter that they are viable, does that all of a sudden make you uncomfortable, if so again I ask why? Abortion is about ending a pregnancy AND ending the prospect of parenting THAT fetus. It’s the pregnant person’s right to do so.

  76. The Star Trek transporter stuff aside, women should have the right to do what they need to do.
    But:

    Amanda Marcotte 1.24.2010 at 9:07 pm
    …I realize that men are in a similar situation, where the ultimate choice to have a child is made by someone else, but that’s a marginal issue in the real world.

    Are you nuts? It’s a HUGE issue. Arguably it is the second most important issue out there, unless you think that the state ‘wins’ over the biological father.

    It’s just that the choice issue is even huger, so choice wins.

    The men’s stuff is less important than choice. But marginal? No.

  77. I know this has been addressed a couple of times, but just for emphasis fetuses DO NOT survive at 16 weeks. It’s not possible. The youngest fetus to ever survive was somewhere around 21 weeks and even that was an absolute miracle. At 24 weeks it’s dicey. It’s not up until the third trimester when the fetus even has a good shot of making it and babies born as late as 30 and 31 weeks can spend a lot of time in the NICU. My friend’s son was born at 32 weeks and spent two months there.
    Dana, having my children didn’t ruin my life either and losing my son did. It was a horrible, painful experience that I would never wish on anyone. But my feelings about losing my own son (who I was 27 weeks pregnant with when he was born) have not one goddamned thing to do with choice, with the exception of the fact that I realize how lucky I was that I got to make my own choices about my pregnancy and my body and how important I think that right is. I think it’s useless to talk about hypotheticals because they do not matter at all in the here and now, and calling people psychopaths doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

  78. Sailorman: Arguably it is the second most important issue out there, unless you think that the state ‘wins’ over the biological father.

    Huh? We’re agreed that the state may not get to make the decision about whether or not people can reproduce.

    Whether or not men wear condoms should be entirely up to them: a man who decides not to wear a condom has voluntarily given up his right to decide what should happen to his sperm once he shoots it, because once it’s inside a woman’s body, it’s her choice.

    (Obviously, I hasten to add: condoms can break, this is not infalliable: but a man who is using condoms is certainly exercising his reproductive choices, and no one should try to override his right to do so. The realities of biological reproduction are that his decision whether or not to reproduce is made much earlier – and, if the condom breaks or otherwise fails, her right to decide trumps his.)

  79. It’s a HUGE issue.

    Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, Sailorman….but the only people I’ve encountered that are vocal about it being a huge issue are: men who do not want to get a vasectomy yet also do not want to wear condoms. (both IRL and on feminist boards)

    Now maybe, that’s just my bad luck.

  80. Hmmm. I am adopted and a man. Guess I am an anathema here.
    First, being adopted != (does not equal) being socially or mentally damaged. Issues in the adoption practices of U.S. and around the world? Yes. Adopted=damaged? No.

    Second, men are marginal? It doesn’t just take a broken or ‘hole in it’ condom. Sometimes they simply don’t work. 98% effective if used properly. Pill 99+% I believe. So, even if both are used properly, then still small chance of pregnancy.

    Men, potential fathers, are marginal? That is just sad.

  81. “Men, potential fathers, are marginal? That is just sad.”

    I’d give further explanation (I didn’t say men are marginal, nope, sure didn’t! But I’m sure that’s what you think I said!), but I suspect it would be a pointless waste of my time. So I’ll go spend my time doing something that will actually bear metaphorical fruit, so to speak.

  82. Grad student, I know plenty of adoptees who are very pro-choice. Put the straw away and read the OP already. The only one who’s saying that being adopted means you’re damaged is. . .YOU.

    There were women on this thread talking about how painful it was to RELINQUISH CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN but Hades’ forbid you actually develop any reading comprehension.

  83. Grad student, the point isn’t that putting up a child for adoption guarantees that the child will be damaged. The point is that the adoption system has difficulty placing many children for adoption, but certainly not all children. So, if you put your child up for adoption, there’s a chance that the child might be placed with loving, caring parents and that’s wonderful. Unfortunately, there’s also a chance that the child may fall through the institutional cracks and never be placed. That’s a terrible situation because children need to experience the love of having a parent. Consequently, putting one’s child up for adoption is kind of like playing Russian Roulette with your child’s future. For this reason alone, I could see many people choosing abortion over adoption (not to mention the emotionally wrenching nature of parting with one’s child after one has carried the child inside of hir/her/his body for nine months).

    Oh, and another reminder to folks: although most people who give birth are women, there are also men who can and do give birth (i.e. trans men). Also, there are people who give birth who don’t even identify on the woman/man male/female binary. So, out of respect to everyone concerned, can we please continue to use gender neutral language?

Comments are currently closed.