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

All Abortion, All the Time

Jill

I know it probably feels like Feministe has turned into abortion-blog. I’m getting tired of writing about it, too — and as soon as wingnut legislators quit attacking the rights of the uterati, I’ll stop. So here’s your daily dose of repro rights links:

1. Whites to be minority in New York. Why is this filed under “reproductive rights”? Because any time white dominance is threatened, you hear the racist crows of “Breed, white women! The brown people are out-producing you!”

2. Bill Napoli is an abhorrent misogynist asshole. I’m not a violent person, but when I read his quotes, I want to pull his intestines out of his ass with a wire hanger. Just to let him know what it feels like.

3. Wiliam Saleton misses the boat again. Guess what, Billy: You didn’t invent the idea that contraception prevents unintended pregnancies, and hence lowers the abortion rate. That’s exactly what the pro-choice side has always said, so cut the shit about “changing the pro-choice rhetoric.” You just used our rhetoric and claimed it as yours. Scott does a better job at evaluating this than I could.

4. Support NARAL’s Day of Action. Let’s see if the baby-loving pro-life GOP supports these common-sense measures to lower the abortion rate.

5. Amanda is as tired as I am with the “late-term abortion” strawwoman. Women are not having late-term abortions because they forgot to terminate their pregnancies earlier. It’s not because they wake up six months into pregnancy and decide, you know what, I’d really like to get a pedicure today and this pregnancy is preventing my from seeing my feet. Abortion time! It’s a complicated decision. It’s a rare decision. And barring it is not “pro-life.”

6. A challenge in the European Court to a ruling about one woman’s right to implant her frozen embryo fails. This is an interesting case. The woman who filed the suit is infertile after having cancer. An embryo exists, which was created with one of her eggs, and she wants to use it to attempt to become pregnant. But the man whose sperm helped create the embryo refuses to give consent, despite the fact that he went through IVF treatment with her (the couple split up after the treatment). The court has ruled that since he isn’t giving consent, she cannot have the embryos implanted. Thoughts?

6. A must-read op/ed: The truth about the SD abortion ban. It will punish women.

7. The only moral abortion is my abortion.

8. Politicians are usually not scientists or doctors, and they routinely ignore biology in the abortion laws they push.

This belief, that the state of gestation or development does not matter, is unsupported by science. I know no biologist who would agree with it. Any biologist will tell you that life is a continuum, that the egg and sperm are alive before they unite, and thus that life obviously does not “begin” at conception. Once egg and sperm unite something has undeniably changed, but only the biologically naive mistake a fertilized egg for an unborn child. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg, nothing more, nothing less. Imbuing it with mystical properties of personhood is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Declaring that an “unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person” poses additional problems. Biomedical research reveals that about two-thirds of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or still birth.

9. Shorter version of this op/ed: I’m pissed that my girlfriend had an abortion, because the fetus was male and I wanted someone to carry on my name. Plus, I “sired” that fetus.

10. The “pro-life” position: Rape and incest survivors shouldn’t be able to prevent pregnancy.

11. The secret lives of U.S. abortion providers.

The only abortion clinic in South Dakota has four doctors on its staff and all live a cloak and dagger existence.

Mindful of the threat to their lives, and the precedent of other doctors killed by “pro-life” zealots, each flies in once a month to perform up to 30 operations and leaves the same day.

Ah, those “pro-lifers.”

12. Religious people shouldn’t have the basic tenants of their faith infringed upon by state or federal law. Right? Well, count me as a member of the Church of Reality. And quit infringing on my rights.

43 thoughts on All Abortion, All the Time

  1. 6. A challenge in the European Court to a ruling about one woman’s right to implant her frozen embryo fails.

    Some interesting things I noticed about this article:
    1. The headline is “Embryo woman loses court battle.” Embryo woman? Was there no better way to describe her or this case?
    2. This quote from the embryo woman stood out: “I just want what every woman wants – to have a baby.”

    As for the question of who should control an embryo outside the body, it seems fair that both parents retain control. The embryo “belongs” to both of them. As sad as it is for Ms. Evans (embryo woman), it would probably not be good precedent to give one parent sole decisionmaking power over embryos.

    Now, if they had agreed that the embryos belonged to one parent, then the answer would be obvious. But where two people go into this with the understanding that the resulting embryos would belong to both, then the courts shouldn’t come along later and decide to give sole custody to one. I think the courts got this one right.

  3. Let’s see if the baby-loving pro-life GOP supports these common-sense measures to lower the abortion rate.

    Thanks for the Depends Moment.

    Their only measures are “Keep your dirty legs shut, you sluts” and “If you’re married, of course you’re going to joyously welcome every single pregnancy no matter how poor, overworked, overextended, stressed or sick you are. Now get your bitch-ass back in the kitchen and make me a pie!”

  4. Whoa Zuzu – first Ann establishes that you aren’t a feminist and now it appears you aren’t actually a woman! Rough morning 😉

  5. Zuzu, if you’re not a woman, I guess I’m not either. I’m thrilled to have a cat and a horse as my babies, and that ‘s where it ends.

    Please, keep up the focus on women’s abortion rights issue!!! Don’t let it fade into obscurity!!! Keep it up in their faces, and let them know we are going to fight! I rely on this blog and other sources to assist my work with Planned Parenthood, as well as to increase my knowledge!!! All abortion, all the time, until our rights and reproductive freedoms are fully protected and accessible!!!

    Oh, and have I mentioned I’m a HUGE fan of Friday cat blogging??? 🙂 Minks wants another shot at exposure (how’s that for shameless begging?)

  6. I’ve been amusing myself over at the Abortion Debate LiveJournal community, and yesterday ran into someone arguing against the use of birth control to prevent more unintended pregnancies, using the reprehensible logic of “the use of contraception causes people to see babies as aggressors to be protected from, which makes them less able to gladly welcome the child that will come when contraception fails.”

    Of course, if you see it as a burden, then you’re less likely to welcome it, but who knew that it was the availability of contraception that causes women who don’t want babies to be less able to welcome them? And who knew it was better to have millions more women stuck with unwanted pregnancies, and millions more threatened into abstinence, than to have a few women with unwanted pregnancies however less prepared to “welcome them gladly” contraception makes them?

    *waiting for the space-time continuum to implode from the terrible logic*

  7. Tenets. Tenets tenets tenets tenets tenets.

    I swear, the next time I see someone write “tenants”, I’m snapping.

    You won’t be able to tell the difference, but inside I’ll know.

  8. I submit that birth control (and abortion, and any other type of activity regulating pregnancy) makes babies more precious because they are wanted. In some ways, we are victims of our own success. With a planned pregnancy comes more attention to every little nuance – every kick, ultrasound, pre-natal checkup is anticipated and the child-to-be is fully projected in the mind of the happily expectant parents.”Every child a wanted child” has been internalized, but of course, once the ability to plan a fully participatory, wanted pregnancy is removed, then, whoa! We’re back to the place where pregnancies are denied, pre-natal care is ignored, children are treated as burdens and yet-another-mouth-to-feed or pair of hands ot help with the other babies.

    So it’s a circle- through our ability to micromanage pregnancy, we have contributed to the cult of motherhood and babies by obsessing over our pregnancies (just read the insufferable NYT articles about neo-natal yoga and massage and music therapy and light therapy and on and on and on, like gestating a fetus was the equivalent of getting a Masters degree).

    Of course, I think that planned pregnancy is a good thing, and once the “planned” part is removed, we’ll remember why embryos were not always considered little Marie Curies and Albert Einsteins while still in the womb.

  9. And speaking of every little nuance, I was out shopping Saturday, and saw a sign advertising “Full-Color Fetal Photography”.

    I’m not kidding. Speechless. What the fuck??? What now, send pics of the little fetus to relatives? Make it the christmas card?

    Seems the tactics of the anti-choice crowd are to elevate the status of the fetus to that of a fully-realized human being (which it’s not), and one whose rights would trump those of the pregnant woman (who actually already is a fully-realized human being).

    Had the traffic not been so heavy, I would have stopped and defaced the sign. Believe me, I wanted to do so. Badly.

  10. Good grief. I’m a mother, and I wanted children, not babies. It’s like these wackos think children are only valuable from conception to about age one, and then after that they’re an enemy to be managed.

  11. Had the traffic not been so heavy, I would have stopped and defaced the sign. Believe me, I wanted to do so. Badly.

    So the fact that some people choose to view their offspring as important and alive at an earlier stage than you like enrages you?

  12. Yes, Robert, it does, particularly given that they now seek to impose that view on everyone by restricting and/or outright banning womens’ right to abortion.

    You can think whatever your want about your own body, but your rights stop short of codifying your beliefs into law, thereby restricting the options of others who think differently from exercising other choices based on their own beliefs.

  13. OK, Kelley, but you aren’t talking about pro-life activists who want to shut down abortion clinics and ban abortion. You’re talking about people who want to take pictures of their kids in the womb.

    I have pictures of my daughter while she was in the womb. What’s wrong with that? What about that makes you want to get out of your car and deface someone’s ad for the same service? If I put my pictures up on my blog (too late), are you going to want to hack the page and take them down?

    What’s your beef with the parents, in other words?

  14. My beef is not with the parents. It’s with the overall trend to equate fetuses with fully-realized human beings, and to allow “fetal rights” to trump those of pregnant women.

    Tactics such as this can easily be co-opted by the anti-choice movement under the “see, fetuses are people, too!” banner. That is why it annoys the hell out of me.

  16. Politicians are usually not scientists or doctors, and they routinely ignore biology in the abortion laws they push.

    Absolutely agree. This is surprising? If so, why? These conservative politicians have learned from their liberal colleagues that ignoring biology and proposing ill thought-out inane laws is a very effective method of foisting your ideology onto the nation. Here too the Right is perfecting what the Left has originiated.

    racist crows of “Breed, white women! The brown people are out-producing you!”

    I didn’t read anything in the article that could be construed in such a fashion. Further, the empirically based sociological data on different outcomes doesn’t make a discussion of differential fertility rates racist. A likely outcome for New York City is a lowered standard of living for residents, less tax revenues, less income transfer hence higher marginal tax rates, and deteriorating levels of public services. Perhaps you’re right though – it’s better to close our eyes and pretend that there are no consequences to shifting demography.

  17. My beef is with the politicians and anti-choice people that shout and stamp for ‘life’ while stripping the poor of decent housing, decent education, health insurance, any kind of future and an astonishingly horrible future! If a wealthy woman gets pregnant, she can go somewhere and get a lega abortion…if you’re poor…well…to bad…so this is also about money and class. I was raised with one of the biggest ‘pro-lifers’ in RI. As a child, he was easily led….he still is. I think much of this political war against women & children is a distraction from the real problems…..

  18. Tactic = overall trend to equate fetuses with fully-realized human beings. This opens the door (at least according to the anti-choice crowd) to having “fetal rights” trump the rights of the pregnant woman, and all women, for that matter.

  19. My beef is with the politicians and anti-choice people that shout and stamp for ‘life’ while stripping the poor of decent housing, decent education, health insurance, any kind of future and an astonishingly horrible future!

    You haven’t presented any argument to advance a causal link between these outcomes and pro-llife advocates. As for the link between politicians and these outcomes, it isn’t incumbent upon politicians, nor the taxpayers they represent, to provide decent housing or any other of life’s amenities to people. People need to earn these outcomes for themselves and not rely on hand-outs that they feel are their birthright.

  20. OK, that isn’t what “tactic” means, but never mind.

    Is it your suggestion that those of us who do believe that our children were human beings while in the womb should pretend not to believe that?

  21. Is it your suggestion that those of us who do believe that our children were human beings while in the womb should pretend not to believe that?

    You’re free to believe that, or in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But your freedom ends at putting into law that the rest of us have to live our lives according to your beliefs.

  22. A tactic is a device for accomplishing an end, according to Merriam-Webster. Thus, attempts to confer fully-realized human status on a fetus that is only the potential for a fully-realized human being is a tactic (device)for accomplishing the abolition of womens’ reproductive freedom (end).

    So, yes, tactic is the appropriate word.

    My suggestion to those of you is to let you believe what you want, while you simultaneously let others believe differently, and base our reproductive choices on our beliefs, not someone else’s.

  23. But your freedom ends at putting into law that the rest of us have to live our lives according to your beliefs.

    I’m not an advocate of laws barring abortion.

    I am an advocate of cultural change, and an embracing of the culture of life.

    We are free to work for those cultural changes, which includes the celebration of the lives we create, even if people who believe differently don’t approve, and want to get out of their cars and tear down our posters.

  24. But your freedom ends at putting into law that the rest of us have to live our lives according to your beliefs.

    When liberals dismantle their own political structure that depends on just such an outcome, then you’ll actually have a valid point. Until then it’s mere hypocrisy.

  25. A culture of life would include access to abortion and contraception, since these help improve women’s lives. A culture of life would also improve health care, if not make it universally accessible. A culture of life would eliminate homelessness and poverty. A culture of life would eliminate violence against women.

    So far, the anti-choice movement has done none of these, while crowing about the sanctity of life. If they really cared about life, these are the issues they would be addressing.

    As for Tangoman:

    The type of conservatism you espouse in a couple of previous posts was summed up succinctly by columnist Rob Salkowicz, while describing the Katrina response:

    “It’s moments like this when you need a party in power that actually believes in the affirmative power of government to help its citizens, rather than the party that sees government’s role as protecting the property of the well-off from the predations of the underclass. It’s when the true ugly soul of American conservatism is borne out for what it is: a rationalization of selfishness and the hysterical denial of community. America is about to see what happens when the government is staffed by people appointed to their jobs precisely for their disdain for the whole notion of policy in the public interest. It’s won’t be pretty.”

    I always like to refernce that portion of the Preamble to the Constitution which notes that the Constitution was ordained and established, among other reasons, to “promote the general welfare”.

  26. If they really cared about life, these are the issues they would be addressing.

    Yah, and if those pro-choicers really cared about choice, they’d address MY laundry list of non-pro-choice initiatives!

    (Rolls eyes.)

  27. When liberals dismantle their own political structure that depends on just such an outcome, then you’ll actually have a valid point. Until then it’s mere hypocrisy.

    You are senseless, as usual.

  28. Except that your laundry list of non-pro-choice initiatives would be antithetical to reproductive choice, which is the focus of the pro-choice movement.

    The whole point of choice is to make sure women have one. If you would not have an abortion, fine. That’s your choice (theoretically, as I”m assuming by the name that you are male).

    However, your choice ends at codifying your beliefs into law and thereby removing said choice from those who would choose otherwise.

    Protecting and liberalizing abortion rights does not force those who are anti-choice to get an abortion, or support abortion rights. It merely protects and preserves the option for those women who would choose it.

  29. Kelley,

    to “promote the general welfare

    There is a world of difference between promoting the general welfare and promoting your welfare.

    Chicklet,

    It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re probably not grounded in classical liberal prinicples. Classic liberals used to adopt general principles and then apply them to specific issues and policies. Modern Leftists support ad-hoc issues that appeal to them and then hunt around, post hoc for a principle that can use to rationalize their support. Using these modern day tactics invalidates argumentative calls to principle.

  30. As for the link between politicians and these outcomes, it isn’t incumbent upon politicians, nor the taxpayers they represent, to provide decent housing or any other of life’s amenities to people.

    “Amenities”? I seem to remember pretty clearly from sixth-grade that the things necessary for human survival were food, clothing, and shelter. Aka “housing.” “Amenities”? I guess you didn’t make it as far as the sixth grade?

  31. Chet,

    Read the statement from Janis again, and then my response. She wrote: stripping the poor of decent housing

    She’s not talking about providing shelter but instead is focusing on the qualities of the shelter, the decency level. If you want to pick apart my comment at least respond to the substance of it.

  32. She’s not talking about providing shelter but instead is focusing on the qualities of the shelter, the decency level.

    Right. Ineffective shelter is not sufficient for survival. The government’s obligation to provide shelter means more than building overpasses for people to sleep under. It means housing in working order, i.e. “decent.”

    If you want to pick apart my comment at least respond to the substance of it.

    I did. Presuming, that is, that we’re both speaking the English language. Your posts often indicate the opposite.

  33. Ineffective shelter is not sufficient for survival.

    Dormitories for homeless people aren’t sufficient for survival? How so?

    The government’s obligation to provide shelter

    Where is this obligation laid down, and upon which principles is it established?

  34. How is my welfare, and the welfare of everyone else in our society, not the general welfare??

    And as for homeless dormitories, why don’t you spend a little time in one to see just how de-humanizing it can be.

  35. Dormitories for homeless people aren’t sufficient for survival? How so?

    Are they decent? If not, no, they’re insufficient.

    Where is this obligation laid down

    Well, we can start with the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

  37. Pingback: Wait, isn’t every man guaranteed the constitutional right to a male heir? at Pandagon

  38. Presuming, that is, that we’re both speaking the English language. Your posts often indicate the opposite.

    That’s priceless – this from the guy who can’t make himself understood over on the Time To Declare War thread writing about female inconstancy.

  39. What everyone’s missing about the frozen embryo thing is what each of them had to go through to create those embryos. She would have had to go through months of invasive treatments, hormone therapy, daily injections, scans, internal exams, all very unpleasant. He? Had to wank into a jar once.
    Do I think that should give her more rights over the embryos than him in a dispute? Yeah, probably– any law is an ass that assigns these very different “parental contributions” equal importance by default. I do think that both parties are attaching too much importance to the DNA thing though. She could still get pregnant with a donated embryo surely?

  40. Kelley:

    Tactic = overall trend to equate fetuses with fully-realized human beings. This opens the door (at least according to the anti-choice crowd) to having “fetal rights” trump the rights of the pregnant woman, and all women, for that matter.

    My suggestion to those of you is to let you believe what you want, while you simultaneously let others believe differently, and base our reproductive choices on our beliefs, not someone else’s.

    That’s nice, but your desire to deface expressions of beliefs which differ from your own seems contradictory to your suggestion that people should be allowed to believe what they want. Do you really want to prohibit free speech on the idea that it “opens the door” for something? Who made you the chief of the thought police?

    Niamh:

    What everyone’s missing about the frozen embryo thing is what each of them had to go through to create those embryos. She would have had to go through months of invasive treatments, hormone therapy, daily injections, scans, internal exams, all very unpleasant. He? Had to wank into a jar once.
    Do I think that should give her more rights over the embryos than him in a dispute? Yeah, probably– any law is an ass that assigns these very different “parental contributions” equal importance by default.

    That’s a nice rationale for devaluing a person’s wishes to control their own reproduction. Would you be so willing to accept a rational-sounding justification if the sexes were reversed?

  41. On second thought, I want to apologize to Kelley. I wrestled with some cognitive dissonance and finally came to the conclusion that my comment about thought police was uneccessarily insulting, and that I’d probably support that action anyways as a form of culture jamming.

  42. Re the “embryo woman”: I think it’s a very sad and hard case, but that the courts have made the right decision. And I guess the lesson to take away from it is: women who are in her position (pre-treatment) should be encouraged to get eggs frozen as well as embryos if at all possible, to avoid having everything staked on one throw.

  43. Embryo can adopt. Then she will have a baby or a child. End of story.

    OK, not quite. People who’ve done both — had bio children, and adopted — were asked: “Do you love them differently?” They replied, “1,000 runny noses, frights in the night, skinned knees, crayon drawings, and so forth later, no, you love them all the same, there is no difference.”

    It’s the *acts* of love that bind us together with our children, our caring for them, them caring for us.

    This woman is just being selfish, and definitely doesn’t have the right to subject this man to being a parent if he wishes not to.

Comments are currently closed.