Women aren’t stupid. We know it’s a baby that is growing just like we did in our mother’s wombs. That is why most women who feel they have emotional and financial support don’t have abortions.
and answer them like this:
It’s true. Women aren’t stupid and the reason they get abortions is because they know what’s growing inside them will turn into a baby one day. And they don’t want to have one, a possibility that FFL denies outright with their attempts to claim that abortions are primarily caused by lack of emotional or financial support. My feeling is they invoke the hazy notion of “emotional support” to explain away why so many women like me have the financial means to have a baby but simply won’t do it—the reasoning then would be that I don’t have the “emotional support”, i.e., if my man was more patriarchal and patronizingly took care of me in exchange for subservience, I would suddenly have a light go on in my head and want babies. But that’s just my guess. Maybe they’ll clarify this in future installments.
I despise what Pandagon calls feminism because it tends to be selfish self-centered BS focused entirely on personal pleasure versus what used to be known as caring about family and society. I think it's very telling when someone says that they want an abortion (but presumably didn't mind the process of creating a baby) because they just don't want kids. It definitely flies in the face of the way NARAL and NOW describe women facing abortion:
While it's critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.
It's a nice, sanitized way of saying what was repeated on Pandagon's site. Here's a few examples in the comments:
CourtneyMD: What the fundies fail to realize is that all abortions are obtained for the exact same reason: because the woman chooses not to carry the pregnancy.
Everything else is merely a circumstance: a circumstance of conception (rape, incest, birth control failure); a circumstance of finances, future plans, relationship, personal health, family completion, etc; a circumstance of embryonic health/viability. A circumstance is merely a set of attendant conditions. Circumstances change, but the basic motivational driver does not: this particular pregnancy is simply not worth the risks and burdens.
Cycles: In the charts above, I don’t see a category for "I don’t like kids." Oh the horror. I don’t like kids. I’m not "Not ready for a(nother) child/the timing is wrong." I’ll never be "ready." The "timing" will always be wrong.
I also don’t see a category for "There are already too many damn kids on the planet."
Patricia: Or, even worse, be happy about it. Trust me, there’s even some who call themselves pro-choicers who will get uncomfortable if a woman is happy about getting an abortion. Many otherwise well-meaning people (*cough*hillaryclinton*cough*) will say that abortion is a "tragedy that no woman wants to experience." No, it’s a twenty-minute surgical procedure* that saves someone from a lifetime of misery.
*Or two days, if one goes the medical route.
ks: Hell, even those of use who already have kids that we planned and adore get told that we’ll ‘change our minds’ when we say that we don’t want more. It’s plain infuriating. People (even family) actually believe that I must not love the kids I have (and had on purpose, at that) because I absolutely will not have another child and I’m quite open about it. I’ve even been told that ‘accidents happen and we’re sure you’ll love that one as well.’ Well, accidents may happen, but if something unplanned does, my husband will be driving me over to the clinic as soon as I see two lines on the stick. Because I will not have more.
So, there you have it. The next time someone tells you that the pro-choice movement is actually about "freedom of choice," think about these women and what they think "freedom of choice" is all about.
Umm...freedom to choose whether to create a child without having to be celibate?
ReplyDeleteJust a guess.
There are ways to do that. You can have a tubal ligation and never have to worry about pregnancy again. If you've decided you really, really, really, really don't want to have children (which all of these women obviously have), making sure you never have one is a better decision than trying to convince yourself afterwards that an abortion was your best choice.
ReplyDeleteSee how you do that? You're determining for them what their best choice is. Have you ever tried to have a tubal ligation below a certain age? Because I know women who have. And thanks in no small part to the kind of mindset that you display, it's a ridiculously drawn-out process, and for women of limited means or in small towns(i.e. no ability to doctor-shop) it can be literally impossible.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, contrary to your assertion, I only see two out of the four quoted women as "never" wanting to have children.
I can see how telling people who seemingly do NOT want to have children that sterilization is their best choice would be a terrible thing to do. Because it takes away their choice to kill the baby later. I hope you apply the same logic to the anti-gun lobby, environmental interests, zoning boards and others who think limiting "choice" in a variety of circumstances is what being civilized is about.
ReplyDeleteagh. good job being somebody's doctor for them. the point is, YOU don't get to choose what medical procedure somebody ELSE has -- whether you support a tubal ligation, an abortion, a lobotomy, or an appendectomy. not your call. the end. duh.
ReplyDeletenot to mention, in your zeal to play doktor you completely sidestepped all of auguste's very true, very relevant points about how damn difficult, or even actually impossible, it is for many women to get permanently sterilized -- even if THEY decide they are willing to undergo the procedure. sigh.
-pandagon reader
sigh. sorry. to be specific, the problems with "tubal ligations for everybody!!" that i assume auguste was pointing out (even aside from simply, say, "i don't like surgery", which is perfectly legal and legitimate) are as follows:
ReplyDelete1) many, many doctors won't perform them if you're under a certain age or have fewer than a certain number of children (usually between 1 and 3).
2) most insurance plans don't cover them if you're under a certain age or have fewer than a certain number of children.
3) surgery is always pretty expensive, but very very much so if you're uninsured.
4) since they require serious anesthesia and major surgery, they present complication risk (much more so than vasectomies, for example, which are an outpatient procedure).
5) major surgery also requires you take time off from work afterward for recovery (anywhere from several days to two weeks even if things go fine, more if there's a problem), which not everybody can afford to do.
...just to be clear.
I think it's very telling when someone says that they want an abortion (but presumably didn't mind the process of creating a baby) because they just don't want kids. It definitely flies in the face of the way NARAL and NOW describe women facing abortion:
ReplyDeleteWhile it's critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.
Um, how does what you said above contradict NARAL's statement at all? If you do what you can to prevent unintended pregnancies, but the condom breaks, or the EC fails, etc., then NARAL wants you to be able to abort.
Oh yeah, and nice dig about how sluts who like "the process of making the baby" deserve what they get. Sweet.
I'll let you know when my doc green-lights my tubal ligation. He told me he can't perform it for another four years...
I despise what Pandagon calls feminism because it tends to be selfish self-centered BS focused entirely on personal pleasure versus what used to be known as caring about family and society.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting assertion. Isn't it just as logical to state that slaves demanding freedom are focused entirely on personal pleasure versus the needs of the economy and country?
I'm all for people choosing to care for family and society. The operative word there is "choice". When you start limiting freedoms in the name of "family and society", then the difference between you and someone advocating slavery is just a matter of degree, not kind.
I don't have to be anyone's doctor to know that you can avoid pregnancy by not having sex or by being sterilized. Or your partner doing it. Does it sound harsh? You bet, but so does killing babies because you "hate children" and any of the other comments left.
ReplyDeleteI always love the way the pro-choice crowd screams they are for choice as long as their choice doesn't leave them dealing with the consequences of behavior.
what? "harsh"? that's not it at all. the point about how you're not anyone's doctor is that you are in no position to tell any individual woman what is best for her health or what medical procedures she "should" undergo. that's all. it's all well and good to say "oh just get your tubes tied!", but that glosses over a HUGE portion of the population for whom that simply isn't an option, AS WELL AS the portion of the population for whom that isn't an appropriate solution (want to have children someday, JUST NOT NOW), AND the portion of the population that is not interested in a major operation. how did you get so confused about what i said? was it too harsh?
ReplyDeleteSharon,
ReplyDeletewhat's with all the talk about 'killing babies'? Noone's running around killing newborn babies. People are terminating the process of making a baby. i.e. the pregnancy so abortion involves the death of a fetus.
A fetus is not a baby because it can't yet exist outside of the mother's body. It hasn't developed enough, you see? Insemination is just the very first step in very many steps towards making a baby.
Going on about 'killing babies' is nice'n'emotive and all but is hardly representative of reality.
roula,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say what you said was harsh. I said that what I said is harsh. I understand that saying someone who doesn't want kids should be sterilized is characterized as "trying to tell other people what to do," but, in fact, society spends a lot of time telling people what to do, including what they can and can't do medically and ethically. I don't have to be a doctor to know those things.
anonymous,
I never met a woman who was happy about her pregnancy refer to what was growing in her as anything other than a baby. The only people who refer to babies in the womb as "fetuses" are either people making arguments for abortions or medical personnel. It's understandable that you want to talk about babies in utero as a process because then it doesn't sound quite so ugly and nasty. But I think "killing babies" is much more honest, just like the commenter who said she was proud of her abortion was honest...brutal, but honest.
medical personnel
ReplyDeleteThat would imply it's a medically correct term, yes? So people who say "baby" instead of "fetus" are actually not using the correct term? The two words are not synonyms. "Baby" implies having gone through the process of birth. The people who use the word "baby" to mean "fetus" are the ones who are emotionally attached to their pregnancy, which is perfectly fine, but it's not a reason to limit the choice of those who might not be emotionally attached to the pregnancy.
You can say a fetus will turn into a baby all you want, but given a sperm and an egg in a petri dish (still separate, but will be allowed to come together), that'll turn into a baby too. Is it therefore wrong to smash the petri dish before the sperm and egg connect?
I never met a woman who was happy about her pregnancy refer to what was growing in her as anything other than a baby. The only people who refer to babies in the womb as "fetuses" are either people making arguments for abortions or medical personnel.
ReplyDeleteAll that proves is that most people are lazy in their everyday speech and/or don't really know what the word "fetus" means. That's a failing of education, not of the terminology involved. That ought to be self-evident to anyone who's even vaguely conscious for more than 10% of each day.
The same applies to creationists and their silly attempts to redefine the word "theory."
It's understandable that you want to talk about babies in utero as a process because then it doesn't sound quite so ugly and nasty. But I think "killing babies" is much more honest, just like the commenter who said she was proud of her abortion was honest...brutal, but honest.
By definition, a fetus ("a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth") is not a baby ("a very young child"). Seriously, look it up.
Words mean things. If you're going to talk about honesty, you're pretty much oblgated to use them properly, and you ought to expect to be called out when you don't.
That means that you don't get to redefine words (or intentionally define them into useless vagueness) just because their proper meanings don't jive with your ideology. Not only because it's dishonest, but also because it's damn near impossible, from a purely practical standpoint. It's much, much easier just to alter your worldview to better reflect reality than it is to attempt to alter reality to mirror your beliefs.
It's understandable that you want to talk about babies in utero as a process because then it doesn't sound quite so ugly and nasty. But I think "killing babies" is much more honest
ReplyDeleteHonest, if that's how you feel about it - that the instant the blastocyst attaches to the lining of the uterus, it's a baby, and removal of this "baby" from its life-support system so that it dies is "killing babies" - but not accurate about what's actually happening.
A baby is created by the process of pregnancy. Sperm meets egg to create a fertilized cell that can become a baby, if a woman decides she wants to put in the 40 weeks hard work of making it so.
I don't believe that a blastocyst or an embryo is a person - at that stage of pregnancy (>6 weeks, the development time during which 90% of abortions in the US will take place) it simply hasn't developed enough. But even if you do believe that at the instant of fertilization, before pregnancy even begins, the fertilized egg is a person with full human rights, providing (as Amanda points out in the post which links to yours) you consider a woman to be a person with full human rights, she still has the right to terminate the pregnancy.
The "person" whom you are saying exists does not have the right - no one has the right - to use another person's body against their will, not even if that is the only thing that will save their life. No one argues with this when it's an issue of being allowed to choose whether or not to donate blood, even if patients are dying because there isn't enough donor blood: or whether or not to donate a kidney, even if a near relative is dying of renal failure.
Yet for some reason the argument that if a blastocyst is granted full human rights a pregnant woman must therefore not have full human rights is made by pro-lifers all the time.
If a woman decides to remove an embryo from her uterus, she is not "killing a baby". There is no baby yet. Neither is she "killing" the embryo, any more than you are "killing" a person dying of renal failure for whom you are a compatible donor if you gave up one of your kidneys.
She is deciding - as any human being has a right to decide - that she does not wish to let her body be used as a life-support system. Without the life-support her body provides, the blastocyst or the embryo or the fetus will die. Early abortions do not in themselves "kill" the blastocyst or embryo: just remove it. One of the ways in which it's clear pro-lifers are hypocrites when they argue that they don't want to "kill babies" is that they are never, ever, pushing for women who want to terminate pregnancy to be able to have the abortion they need as fast as possible. Instead, pro-lifers work to set up artificial barriers to delay access - ranging from terrorist attacks on clinics so that local hospitals in the US often refuse to provide abortions for the safety of their staff, to health insurance policies that won't cover abortion, to legislation that makes it difficult for women on even a middle-class income to access it. Plus of course the ultimate hypocrisy of opposing access to contraception, including emergency contraception, to prevent pregnancies before they start. If "not killing babies" is the goal, why wouldn't pro-lifers focus on free contraception for everyone who wants it, free emergency contraception on request, and abortions as fast as possible after a woman's discovered she's pregnant and decided she wants to terminate? And, to discourage abortions where the only issue may be "can't afford a child", why aren't pro-lifers pushing for free child care, free health care for pregnant women and children, higher wages, paid maternity leave, free diet supplements for pregnant women and nursing mothers, a right to breastfeed at work, paid child sick leave days, welfare support for women who want to stay home and look after a young child, say from birth to 2 years, and the legal right for a woman who does that to get her job back after the 2 year break?
Individual pro-lifers may do some of these things. But the pro-life movement in the US, which I have to assume represents the wishes of pro-lifers involved in it, doesn't do any of those things. Rather, pro-lifers tend to be involved in denying financial help and health care to women, and the pro-life movement is certainly involved in denying contraception to women.
Before I finish this comment, I'd like to say that I do respect you for leaving comments open to all us Pandagon readers who have come over to comment in direct contradiction of your beliefs. I welcome that attitude in the blogosphere, and I hope no one abuses it by personal attacks on you.
I always love the way the pro-choice crowd screams they are for choice as long as their choice doesn't leave them dealing with the consequences of behavior.
ReplyDeleteBut they do deal with the consequences.
They get an abortion.
Our emotional reaction to being pregnant does not change the fact that a fetus is not a baby.
ReplyDeleteOur emotional reaction, however, is central to whether we choose to keep the baby or have an abortion. People happy about being pregnant envisage the baby they will have at the end of their pregnancy and thus talk about their baby. People not happy about being pregnant do not want the baby they know will eventually result so get an abortion before the pregnancy is so advanced that the line between fetus and human being able to live independent of its mother becomes blurred. Willing a fetus to be a baby doesn't make it so... or are you advocating replacing biological knowledge with what most people think (when they're happy about being pregnant being the important caveat)?
I don't think 'killing babies' is honest at all. If I was to hear somebody talking about a woman killing her baby, I would assume that person was talking about infanticide which is completely different. If I hear someone talking about abortion/fetuses I know we're talking about a 'potential' human being.
I don't talk about pregnancy as I do because I think abortion sounds 'nasty' or 'ugly'. I
talk about it that way because to me a fetus is not a baby.
Jon said,
ReplyDeleteThat would imply it's a medically correct term, yes? So people who say "baby" instead of "fetus" are actually not using the correct term? The two words are not synonyms. "Baby" implies having gone through the process of birth. The people who use the word "baby" to mean "fetus" are the ones who are emotionally attached to their pregnancy, which is perfectly fine, but it's not a reason to limit the choice of those who might not be emotionally attached to the pregnancy.
I think you are missing the point. The person who calls the contents of her womb "her baby" is just as correct as the doctor who calls him/her "a fetus." Calling him/her a "baby" is perfectly correct because people still know what you are talking about. And I didn't say the terminology dictated whether abortion was right or wrong. Someone else tried to make a point that talking about "killing babies" was emotional. But the whole thing is emotional. You might want to think about why you don't want to consider the baby a baby.
You can say a fetus will turn into a baby all you want, but given a sperm and an egg in a petri dish (still separate, but will be allowed to come together), that'll turn into a baby too. Is it therefore wrong to smash the petri dish before the sperm and egg connect?
Try making real arguments. A baby starts from a fertilized egg. Before that, there is no baby. There's a big difference between the human being (is that an ok term?) that results from conception versus the parts that could make a human being.
So, if I decide to just go with your terminology, and say that my removal of a 2 cm clump of tissue from my uterus is "killing a baby"...well, I'm afraid I'm still going to go ahead and remove it.
ReplyDeleteSo now that I've dispensed with your newspeak, let's talk about why you think i don't have the right to my own body, like the full adult human being that I am. Doubleplusgood?
Dan said,
ReplyDeleteAll that proves is that most people are lazy in their everyday speech and/or don't really know what the word "fetus" means. That's a failing of education, not of the terminology involved. That ought to be self-evident to anyone who's even vaguely conscious for more than 10% of each day.
I doubt that most people don't know both words, particularly if they've been pregnant. No, it's a conscious choice people make about which word they choose. Most of the time, when people want their babies, they call them babies. People who don't want to consider the humanity of the baby (such as pro-choice activists) call the baby a fetus. Doctors and nurses call it a fetus because that is the medical term.
But I think this argument about the medical terminology is a bit disengenuous. I mean, if I say "I broke my leg" instead of "I fractured my tibia," does it really change what I was talking about? You know what I mean, right? So calling the fetus a baby only implies personhood...which is why pro-choicers dislike it so much. That's also why Amanda is trying very hard to distinguish sex from pregnancy.
jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware of fetal development, thank you. You aren't really interested in informed consent, are you? Because that's another subject pro-choice people tend to be against.
I think I've already addressed this "continuum of pregnancy" kind of argument already, but if not here it is: yes, pregnancy is a continuum that starts with conception and ends at childbirth. But regardless of how you feel about it, the vast majority of people understand taht what is going on during pregnancy is the development of a baby. PEriod.
I also understand the legal argument about a woman's right versus the rights of the baby. But as you well know, the hardline drawn at birth is getting moved back quite a bit, particularly with new laws about wrongful death for fetuses and whatnot. Even the courts have struggled with where a woman's right to bodily integrity ends and a baby's right to life begins. That's why pro-choicers are so strongly against the partial-birth abortion law; not because it is such a vital procedure in the abortion doctor's arsenal, but because they know once one procedure is banned, there are other late term procedures equally grisly that most people would object to.
Before I finish this comment, I'd like to say that I do respect you for leaving comments open to all us Pandagon readers who have come over to comment in direct contradiction of your beliefs. I welcome that attitude in the blogosphere, and I hope no one abuses it by personal attacks on you.
I have to admit that I was a bit fearful of what comments I might receive, given what I have witnessed on a lot of leftwing blogs. It's why I put the comments on moderation overnight.
But happily, I haven't seen anyone being abusive and, in fact, I think the comments have been thoughtful (for the most part) and thought-provoking. I welcome anyone to challenge my views here or elsewhere because that's how I get a chance to look at things from a different perspective. I might not agree with you, but your opinions are valuable to me.
A baby starts from a fertilized egg. Before that, there is no baby. There's a big difference between the human being (is that an ok term?) that results from conception versus the parts that could make a human being.
ReplyDeleteAh, okay, so it would be wrong to smash the petri dish just after sperm and egg have joined... so now it's just a... cell. A single freaking cell. Tell me again why there's such a big emotional difference between sperm and egg a cm apart in a petri dish and a fertilized egg in a petri dish?
One's gonna turn into the other under the sperm's own power, so why should the continuum start with fertilization?
You might want to think about why you don't want to consider the baby a baby.
It's that I want to have the freedom to choose (or rather, I want women to have this freedom, since I'm male) whether to consider a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or a fetus a baby. Sure, people who refer to these things as a baby are emotionally correct, and people know what they're talking about. But if they aren't emotionally attached to the clump of cells, why are you coming in and saying they're wrong? You're the one saying that you have to use emotionally charged terminology. All pro-choicers say is that you should have the right to choose to call it a baby or be medically correct and not emotionally attached.
I mean, if I say "I broke my leg" instead of "I fractured my tibia," does it really change what I was talking about?
No, it doesn't. But it's also not a valid analogy. "I broke my leg" and "I fractured my tibia" have the same emotional content behind them. Calling something a baby brings a huge emotional weight to the argument, because nobody really wants to kill babies. You say "let's be honest and call it a baby", but what you're really trying to do is assume that everyone has the same emotional attachment to a fetus as you do.
whoa, since nobody else asked this - you're kidding about "pro-choicers not caring about informed consent", right?
ReplyDeletei don't know if you know this, but the informed-consent paperwork for abortion is longer than for pretty much any other medical procedure, including brain surgeries and heart bypasses and organ removal, all of which have a much higher statistical risk of complications than abortion.
pro-choicers are pissed about that fact, because they know that it's a way to make abortion much scarier than any of those other things (the same way that some state legislatures have forced abortion providers to tack on "and it causes breast cancer", a patent untruth), but i've never heard any of them express ill-will toward informed consent.
in fact, and i don't know if you have thought about this, the modern pro-choice movement and all the people i know who are pro-choice are adamantly against (a) state policies taht until the 1970s allowed "unfit" women to be sterilized without their knowledge, "unfit" meaning anything from mentally disabled to african-american; (b) other countries' coercing very poor women, usually with financial incentives they can't afford to refuse, to undergo abortions or sterilizations or to be guinea pigs for new long-term contraceptives; (c) the u.s. government's continuing policy of allowing pharmaceuticals to "dump" products which are no longer marketable in the u.s. or no longer in sterile packages (like the old IUDs, or depo provera today) onto third-world countries and write it off as charitable donations.
you can bet all of those were egregious violations of informed-consent rights, and also that they all violated women's right to manage their own fertility -- in other words, their right to freely choose whether and when to have children. and all the pro-choice people i know are incensed about things like this. they're pretty consistent.
You aren't really interested in informed consent, are you?
ReplyDeleteOf course I am: I am pro-choice. Pro-lifers seem to prefer misleading information or no information at all.
But regardless of how you feel about it, the vast majority of people understand taht what is going on during pregnancy is the development of a baby.
Sure. That's what I said: the development of a baby, beginning with blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, and eventually - if a woman decides to put in the necessary 40 weeks - resulting in a baby. Most people understand that and want women to be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy as soon as possible, well before any issue of conflict between a fetus that might be viable if removed from its life support system and a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy can arise. It's only pro-lifer activists who want to delay and deny abortions to women who need them - and, for some reason, who also support policies to maximise the number of women who need abortions.
. That's why pro-choicers are so strongly against the partial-birth abortion law; not because it is such a vital procedure in the abortion doctor's arsenal,
Well, of course, D and X abortion is a vital procedure: vital in the sense that it saves lives. When a woman has to have her pregnancy terminated late, often the safest way to do it, with least risk to her, will be D and X - what pro-lifers, trying to discourage and make criminal this life-saving operation, call "partial birth". It's a mystery to me why pro-lifers prefer women to risk their life and health just because of squeamishness.
Pro-choicers, as feminists, want doctors to be able to give women the best treatment possible, not to be forced to use less safe procedures because pro-life activists have made the safer procedure illegal out of squeamishness or by threatening the lives or workplaces of "abortion doctors" who carry out such procedures.
I might not agree with you, but your opinions are valuable to me.
That's how I feel.
re: calling Pandagon's brand of feminism 'selfish bs'.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I agree with the gist of your comments about being prepared for the possible outcome pregnancy before having sex. It's just I have a slightly different interpretation; that until you are either ready to have a baby OR able to use contraception and are open to (the very slim possibility)of having an abortion, then you shouldn't have sex.
It's about taking responsibility for your actions. But the big difference between your position and ours is we're not suggesting what all women's attitudes should be towards sex and pregnancy. What is selfish is when you try to impose your moral order on other people.
(And I think this applies equally to men and women. Men who can't handle having a child but can't handle their partner potentially getting an abortion shouldn't be having sex. I've had this argument with men before who see responsibility-free sex as some kind of right when, contrary to what Sharon suggests, women never do)
that until you are either ready to have a baby OR able to use contraception and are open to (the very slim possibility)of having an abortion, then you shouldn't have sex.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't have heterosexual intercourse, you mean? Everyone should go gay (or go lesbian) or - if they must be heterosexual - enjoy other sexual acts than heterosexual intercourse?
I wouldn't agree with that - I think that when people want to have heterosexual intercourse, it's better to tell them "Use contraception! Here's how, and here's access to a free supply" rather than to tell them "Don't do it!"
History (and health statistics) show that operating on a basis of telling people not to do something they want to do will merely ensure they do it anyway, without the safety-net that can be provided if they're doing it legally.
well, jesurgislac- i think that's still in line with what anonymous said, actually. "be prepared to have a pregnancy and baby OR to use contraception and abortion, or don't have sex." that pretty much covers it. i agree with anon in that i think we should do better to help prepare people for ALL of those things -- that is, more support for pregnant women and parenting people, and more contraception/abortion education and access. that way everybody who would like to have heterosexual intercourse can do so! yay!
ReplyDeleteThat's why pro-choicers are so strongly against the partial-birth abortion law; not because it is such a vital procedure in the abortion doctor's arsenal
ReplyDeleteDo you, seriously, have any medical expertise? Do you have any awareness of what D & X is used for? Have you looked at any of the studies regarding the reasons women have abortion, specifically late-term abortions? Or do you think that women just suddenly decide, at the last minute, to have a PBA? I'm sorry, but your entire argument seems woefully uninformed and biased towards the pro-life misinformation campaigns. And your baby = fetus argument has been refuted by medicine and biology for a long time. You, as jon said, are arguing from emotion as opposed to reason. I personally am able to understand that a baby is born, a fetus, while needing nutritional input and other things from the mother, is not born, is not a functional human being, and is subject to whim of the woman who nurtures it, much like any other parasite.
You aren't pro-woman, pro-life, or any other label you want to assign yourself. You're pro-patriarchy.
Ah, okay, so it would be wrong to smash the petri dish just after sperm and egg have joined... so now it's just a... cell. A single freaking cell. Tell me again why there's such a big emotional difference between sperm and egg a cm apart in a petri dish and a fertilized egg in a petri dish?
ReplyDeleteOne's gonna turn into the other under the sperm's own power, so why should the continuum start with fertilization?
You know, I almost started to answer this, but then I realized that it's ridiculous and unworthy of an answer.
It's that I want to have the freedom to choose (or rather, I want women to have this freedom, since I'm male) whether to consider a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or a fetus a baby. Sure, people who refer to these things as a baby are emotionally correct, and people know what they're talking about. But if they aren't emotionally attached to the clump of cells, why are you coming in and saying they're wrong?
Because whether or not someone is a human being should not be determined by whether someone else wants them or not.
You're the one saying that you have to use emotionally charged terminology. All pro-choicers say is that you should have the right to choose to call it a baby or be medically correct and not emotionally attached.
I didn't say I have to use emotionally charged terminology. I said most people who are happy to be pregnant talk about their "babies," not their "fetuses." Pro-choicers need to be emotionally detached from the baby, which is why they use the medical term. But in no way is that saying pro-choicers don't use emotionally charged language. Ever hear of the terms "back alley abortion" or "coathanger abortion"?
No, it doesn't. But it's also not a valid analogy.
Of course it is. It just doesn't support your point. Both contain every day statements ("baby", "leg") and medical terminology ("fetus," "tibia"). And it proves the point that what we call the baby/fetus doesn't change what he/she is.
"I broke my leg" and "I fractured my tibia" have the same emotional content behind them. Calling something a baby brings a huge emotional weight to the argument, because nobody really wants to kill babies. You say "let's be honest and call it a baby", but what you're really trying to do is assume that everyone has the same emotional attachment to a fetus as you do.
I think you should spend more time asking yourself why you are afraid of what you consider an emotionally-loaded word. The problem pro-choice proponents have with "baby" is that it is a positive word for someone they would rather think of in abstract terms. The reason "baby" is emotionally loaded is that we all know exactly what a baby looks like, feels like, sounds like. And when you talk about someone "killing their baby," you understand immediately what that means. It's a vivid image, much like the "coathanger abortion" is also a vivid word picture.
whoa, since nobody else asked this - you're kidding about "pro-choicers not caring about informed consent", right?
ReplyDeleteRoula,
I generalize from what Planned Parenthood and NARAL say about informed consent. They hate it.
i don't know if you know this, but the informed-consent paperwork for abortion is longer than for pretty much any other medical procedure, including brain surgeries and heart bypasses and organ removal, all of which have a much higher statistical risk of complications than abortion.
pro-choicers are pissed about that fact, because they know that it's a way to make abortion much scarier than any of those other things (the same way that some state legislatures have forced abortion providers to tack on "and it causes breast cancer", a patent untruth), but i've never heard any of them express ill-will toward informed consent.
Actually, I think you just did. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ok'd informed consent, but left it up to the states to figure out what they considered "informed consent." Pro-choice organizations, like Planned Parenthood, hate the documents you mention because they know that it can and does change some women's minds. Isn't the idea of informed consent so that women can make the choice whether they want the risks? And keep in mind, the Supreme Court has also stated that states can "take sides," so to speak, in the abortion debate. In other words, they don't have to be neutral, which is why the informed consent forms are so long and detailed. The state is saying abortion is a bad thing and something to be avoided. They have that right.
in fact, and i don't know if you have thought about this, the modern pro-choice movement and all the people i know who are pro-choice are adamantly against (a) state policies taht until the 1970s allowed "unfit" women to be sterilized without their knowledge, "unfit" meaning anything from mentally disabled to african-american; (b) other countries' coercing very poor women, usually with financial incentives they can't afford to refuse, to undergo abortions or sterilizations or to be guinea pigs for new long-term contraceptives; (c) the u.s. government's continuing policy of allowing pharmaceuticals to "dump" products which are no longer marketable in the u.s. or no longer in sterile packages (like the old IUDs, or depo provera today) onto third-world countries and write it off as charitable donations.
Yes, I'm aware of these things. I hope you are aware of the roots in eugenics of Planned Parenthood, as well. Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP, thought that offering abortions, contraceptives, and forced sterilization of mentally disabled women was a good way of keeping the "wrong people" from having kids.
you can bet all of those were egregious violations of informed-consent rights, and also that they all violated women's right to manage their own fertility -- in other words, their right to freely choose whether and when to have children. and all the pro-choice people i know are incensed about things like this. they're pretty consistent.
But those policies are in the past. What are they incensed about now?
Sharon:
ReplyDeleteI doubt that most people don't know both words, particularly if they've been pregnant. No, it's a conscious choice people make about which word they choose.
I doubt that choice is even slightly conscious, at least not in the intentionalist way that I think you mean. Most people don't really think very hard, if at all, about the words they use in everyday speech.
People who don't want to consider the humanity of the baby (such as pro-choice activists) call the baby a fetus. Doctors and nurses call it a fetus because that is the medical term.
People call it a fetus because that's what it is. The ones who believe that words alter reality are the same ones who whine about how evolution isn't real because it's "just a theory."
You're intentionally arguing from an imprecision in terminology, which is, frankly, pretty much the textbook definition of intellectual laziness. The fact is that common, everyday speech is not at all well suited to making coherent logical arguments. It's simply too imprecise, and more often than not serves to confuse the issue rather than to resolve it.
But I think this argument about the medical terminology is a bit disengenuous. I mean, if I say "I broke my leg" instead of "I fractured my tibia," does it really change what I was talking about?
"I broke my leg" is vague common speech. That statement contains no information whatsoever about where the break occured or what kind of break it is. An argument on bone-setting procedures that relies on such imprecise terminology is going to fail before it even gets off the ground.
In the same way, an argument about abortion that relies on an imprecise and often inapplicable word like "baby" is likewise a non-starter.
You know what I mean, right? So calling the fetus a baby only implies personhood...which is why pro-choicers dislike it so much.
Actually, it's because the entire concept of "personhood" is a red herring. You can imply personhood all you like, but that doesn't do anything to change the stark reality that a fetus is not a baby, by definition.
I import personhood to my cats all the time. But it'd be stupid to argue that they're people just because of that. All this anthropomorphicization you're doing is just a rhetorical trick. It doesn't actually alter the reality.
That's also why Amanda is trying very hard to distinguish sex from pregnancy.
Actually, I kinda thought she was making the distinction because sex and pregnancy are axiomatically and self-evidently distinct. Unless, of course, you're a forced-birth advocate. QED.
Do you, seriously, have any medical expertise? Do you have any awareness of what D & X is used for? Have you looked at any of the studies regarding the reasons women have abortion, specifically late-term abortions? Or do you think that women just suddenly decide, at the last minute, to have a PBA?
ReplyDeleteI've read quite a bit about the specific partial-birth abortion procedure discussed both in the current Supreme Court case and the Carhart decision. Have you done that?
I'm sorry, but your entire argument seems woefully uninformed and biased towards the pro-life misinformation campaigns.
Gee, I guess the fact that I'm pro-life would, in your opinion, make me woefully uninformed and biased. That there are other techniques doctors use for late term abortions must be an uninformed pro-life argument, right? That the procedure discussed during oral arguments of the current case is used rarely must be another uninformed pro-life argument, right? Please try to make logical arguments instead of using rash generalizations like the ones you presented here.
And your baby = fetus argument has been refuted by medicine and biology for a long time.
I don't recall making an argument about the clinical terminology for babies in utero. Can you point out where I did that?
You, as jon said, are arguing from emotion as opposed to reason.
God, I love it when pro-choice people make this sort of statement. Really? *I* and arguing from emotion? I suppose all of your previous generalizations were from your arsenal of facts, right? And, of course, only pro-life supporters appeal to emotion (see previous posts on this).
I personally am able to understand that a baby is born, a fetus, while needing nutritional input and other things from the mother, is not born, is not a functional human being, and is subject to whim of the woman who nurtures it, much like any other parasite.
Ask an obstetrician if a baby in utero is not a "functional human being." I'd be surprised if he/she told you they were not. That they are not able to survive outside the womb doesn't make them not functional. And, gee, the word "parasite" doesn't have any emotional baggage attached to it, right?
You aren't pro-woman, pro-life, or any other label you want to assign yourself. You're pro-patriarchy.
Thank you for making that "choice" for me.
agh. wrong, wrong, and wrong. working backward:
ReplyDeletethe policies are NOT in the past, and it would be responsible of you to learn about this. 2 of the 3 i mentioned continue today (US states enforcing sterilization does not).
yes margaret sanger was a proponent of eugenics. by the by, what many people don't know (i didn't until recently) was that that was later in her life, and in fact after a sort of conversion she had in which she basically abandoned the women's movement. on the other hand, it's really not relevant because i was really specific that i was talking about the modern women's movement and modern-day pro-choicers. you're the one who was saying that "these feminists" have got the wrong idea about what feminism "really is", so surely you completely understand that reprehensible eugenics ideas of the past are not my responsibility, and that it's possible for me to be pro-choice while strongly condemning reprehensible forced-contraception of today (in fact, it's CONSISTENT).
no, i didn't express ill-will toward informed consent at all. in fact, my valuing informed consent means that i think it's dangerous for legislatures to interfere with medical informed consent scripts, such as the "and it causes breast cancer" falsity i mentioned. so if by "informed consent" you meant "states' attempts to propagandize in the doctor's office," then yes, i'm against that. but in reality informed consent has to actually contain ACCURATE information. i am FOR that.
i've read a lot about d&x and the current oral arguments, actually. i do think that you're wrong. it's a silly situation: the distinction between d&x (which is supposedly the one under review) and d&e (which is supposedly not going to be affected) is very minimal with regards to the effect on the fetus, but significant with regards to the effect on the woman.* so in fact it IS a vital procedure and simultaneously the proposed legislation against it is trivial. i'm not sure how you and i ended up with different conclusions.
ReplyDelete*to be clear: the bill proposes to ban a procedure crushing the fetus' skull and then removing the fetus whole, but to continue to allow a procedure crushing the fetus' skull and then removing the fetus limb by dismembered limb. the fetus dies the same way in either of these procedures. the only difference is that the first one (the one the ban purports to focus on) is much safer for the woman because fewer "swipes" with the instruments have to be made and there is a lower risk of dead tissue being left behind and causing infection.
ps the reason for crushing the skull in both cases, in case anybody wanted to know, is that a woman's cervix can't be dilated as wide as it is during full-term labor, and a fetus' skull is comparatively huge.
ReplyDeleteLet us also note that, while crushing the fetus's skull is indeed an unpleasant thing to think about, the consequences are generally worse. An abortion is only performed that late in a pregnancy if there's something seriously wrong with the fetus, seriously wrong with the mother, or if the fetus has already died. Yes, apparently statistics on late-term abortions include those performed when the fetus died of natural causes in utero. In which case removing the body quickly is a very good idea, owing to the fact that rotting tissue inside a woman's uterus is extremely bad for her heatlh and her future fertility. Waiting around for a stillbirth to occur on its own is much less safe.
ReplyDeleteIn cases of live fetuses, this procedure is usually performed when there is a neural tube defect incompatible with life. The fetus cannot survive outside the womb. If born rather than aborted, it will die not long after birth. We're not talking about disability here, we're talking about babies with major organs that have never developed, dependent on the placenta not in the way a healthy fetus is (i.e. a dependence that ends at birth), because it will never be able to sustain life without the life support system of the placenta.
And then we have the abortions performed on an otherwise healthy fetus because pre-eclampsia, HELLP, or another serious conditions means the woman has to choose between her pregnancy and her own life or health (by which I mean that she will not die, but her health will be permanently and drastically lowered). If she wants to stick around to raise the child or children she already has, maybe we should just let her make her own decision. She's the one who has to live with it (or not), after all.
There are no possible good endings here, the least women can do is pick the least bad one for them. And the least the law can do is get out of the way so that a woman can decide in consultation with her doctor what is the best way to handle this problem (often occurring during planned, wanted pregnancies, incidentally). Lawyers and judges are not health care professionals, and they're not qualified to know what a given woman can handle. One woman may decide that the risk of having a stroke or going blind or dying is worth continuing the pregnancy. Another may not. But the lawyers and the judges and the activists aren't walking in her shoes. And they're not the ones who have to raise small children while severely disabled due to a preventable condition. They're also not the ones who have to tell family members and friends that a pregnant woman has died.
Let us also note that, while crushing the fetus's skull is indeed an unpleasant thing to think about, the consequences are generally worse. An abortion is only performed that late in a pregnancy if there's something seriously wrong with the fetus, seriously wrong with the mother, or if the fetus has already died. Yes, apparently statistics on late-term abortions include those performed when the fetus died of natural causes in utero. In which case removing the body quickly is a very good idea, owing to the fact that rotting tissue inside a woman's uterus is extremely bad for her heatlh and her future fertility. Waiting around for a stillbirth to occur on its own is much less safe.
ReplyDeleteIn cases of live fetuses, this procedure is usually performed when there is a neural tube defect incompatible with life. The fetus cannot survive outside the womb. If born rather than aborted, it will die not long after birth. We're not talking about disability here, we're talking about babies with major organs that have never developed, dependent on the placenta not in the way a healthy fetus is (i.e. a dependence that ends at birth), because it will never be able to sustain life without the life support system of the placenta.
And then we have the abortions performed on an otherwise healthy fetus because pre-eclampsia, HELLP, or another serious conditions means the woman has to choose between her pregnancy and her own life or health (by which I mean that she will not die, but her health will be permanently and drastically lowered). If she wants to stick around to raise the child or children she already has, maybe we should just let her make her own decision. She's the one who has to live with it (or not), after all.
There are no possible good endings here, the least women can do is pick the least bad one for them. And the least the law can do is get out of the way so that a woman can decide in consultation with her doctor what is the best way to handle this problem (often occurring during planned, wanted pregnancies, incidentally). Lawyers and judges are not health care professionals, and they're not qualified to know what a given woman can handle. One woman may decide that the risk of having a stroke or going blind or dying is worth continuing the pregnancy. Another may not. But the lawyers and the judges and the activists aren't walking in her shoes. And they're not the ones who have to raise small children while severely disabled due to a preventable condition. They're also not the ones who have to tell family members and friends that a pregnant woman has died.
Raincitygirl
raincitygirl at livejournal dot com
P.S. I second Phoenician's thanks for keepign the conversation civil.
You know, I almost started to answer this, but then I realized that it's ridiculous and unworthy of an answer.
ReplyDeleteIt's supposed to be ridiculous, Sharon. It points out the silliness that is the arbitrary line of conception. I would be very interested in hearing an actual answer, though. I personally don't see a difference between a sperm and egg pair vs a fertilized egg. I see a huge difference between that fertilized egg and a human being.
The true question is, of course, when does a developing baby acquire the right to life? Personally, I think that as long as the life is completely dependent on one person's body (which is practically the definition of the word parasite, though I do admit that is emotionally charged terminology), that person whose body is being used should have the right to decide whether her body is used in such a way.
I said most people who are happy to be pregnant talk about their "babies," not their "fetuses." Pro-choicers need to be emotionally detached from the baby, which is why they use the medical term.
For what it's worth, I have no disagreements at all with this. I think you have every right to think of what's growing inside you as a baby. It is much harder to deal with "killing a baby" than "terminating a pregnancy", which is why pro-choicers generally use the latter term. But it's also the medically correct term, so how can you fault them?
Though you say I didn't say I have to use emotionally charged terminology., you also said But I think "killing babies" is much more honest, implying that those who do not use your terminology are liars, or at least dishonest. So while you don't "have" to use emotionally charged terminology, per se, you do if you want to be honest?
Where it gets interesting (and this is slightly off-topic, but not really) is when pregnant women are murdered, or when they're stabbed and the baby is killed. Should the perpetrator be held liable for the death of the baby? I can't imagine a way to legislate this, but I think he should be if the woman chose to consider what was growing inside her a baby. In that case, she's lost something very special to her. But another woman might miscarry due to an attack at an early stage of pregnancy (ie, before the decision was made about an abortion) and be relieved. In that case, the attacker shouldn't be held liable for the death. It should all depend on the perspective of the woman in question, and that is where pro-choicers really make their arguments from - that each individual woman has the right to her own body and anything completely dependent on her own body.
PS - I said this:
ReplyDeleteBut another woman might miscarry due to an attack at an early stage of pregnancy (ie, before the decision was made about an abortion) and be relieved.
And as I read it, I realized that many women would be angry at the attacker just for taking away her choice on the matter, even if she would have made a choice for abortion in the future. My point was simply that it should be up to the woman who was attacked. Again, I would have no way to actually implement anything like this, it was merely a rhetorical point to say that all pro-choice arguments stem from an individual woman's right to her own body.
I generalize from what Planned Parenthood and NARAL say about informed consent. They hate it.
ReplyDeleteIf Planned Parenthood "hate" informed consent, what's your theory why Planned Parenthood provide detailed, up-to-date information on all abortion procedures and all alternatives, and that their basic principles are all about choice and consent? If they hate informed consent, why would they be providing so much information, and operating on a principle of choice and consent?
NARAL is a political campaigning organisation, focussed on preventing pro-lifers from taking away alternatives from women.
You yourself support the principle that women shouldn't be allowed to consent, so I can't imagine why you would oppose organisations on the grounds that they "hate" informed consent. And I find no evidence whatsoever that either Planned Parenthood or NARAL do "hate" informed consent. Is the key word here "informed"? You object to women consenting: do you object to informed consent?
Now her sycophants have come to explain why the "choice" to kill one's offspring is so important that pointing out the selfish nature of their arguments is verboten.
ReplyDeleteUm, I thought we were keeping the conversation civil, Sharon?
Thank you for making that "choice" for me.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have to. It's all over your anti-woman screeds.
Thank you for making that "choice" for me.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, Sharon. We forced you to be pro-patriarchy and anti-woman. It's our fault that you advocate having your own bodily autonomy stripped away from you by people who are more interested in punishing you for the apparently unforgivable crime of having a vagina than they are about "protecting innocent life," whatever the fuck that means. We're the ones who want you barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
And I'm the Queen of England.
The really sad part is that if any of that were true, we'd at least be honest enough to admit it.
If Planned Parenthood "hate" informed consent, what's your theory why Planned Parenthood provide detailed, up-to-date information on all abortion procedures and all alternatives, and that their basic principles are all about choice and consent? If they hate informed consent, why would they be providing so much information, and operating on a principle of choice and consent?
ReplyDeleteThey do those things because it's the law. They didn't provide that information before the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.
Um, I thought we were keeping the conversation civil, Sharon?
Would "minion" have been better? I vacillated between the two.
I didn't have to. It's all over your anti-woman screeds.
How patriarchal of you! I suppose expecting women to make their "choices" before engaging in sex would seem anti-woman if you don't think women can make that choice.
That's right, Sharon. We forced you to be pro-patriarchy and anti-woman. It's our fault that you advocate having your own bodily autonomy stripped away from you by people who are more interested in punishing you for the apparently unforgivable crime of having a vagina than they are about "protecting innocent life," whatever the fuck that means. We're the ones who want you barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
Yes, you made the choice for me as to what label I would have. See, I would have used something like "intelligent, thoughtful queen of the universe." But I'll just add "anti-woman" to my proud list of labels lefties like to call me. It's a badge of honor.
The really sad part is that if any of that were true, we'd at least be honest enough to admit it.
The same way pro-choice organizations advertise the real reasons women have abortions?
Yes, you made the choice for me as to what label I would have.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but nobody gets to pick the labels that other people apply to them, not even you. The irony, of course, is that you're whining about how all us big, bad meanie liberals are making choices for you in comments on a post in which you openly declare your desire to take choice away from others.
The worst kind of hypocrisy is petty hypocrisy.
See, I would have used something like "intelligent, thoughtful queen of the universe." But I'll just add "anti-woman" to my proud list of labels lefties like to call me. It's a badge of honor.
I can't tell if you're inadvertently confirming that you're exactly as pompous and self-obsessed as you seem, or if you're just trying to be clever. It's so hard to tell with you people.
The same way pro-choice organizations advertise the real reasons women have abortions?
The fact that they're not telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.
You answered this question yourself, anyway: "What the fundies fail to realize is that all abortions are obtained for the exact same reason: because the woman chooses not to carry the pregnancy."
Frankly, beyond that, it's none of your fucking business why someone would want an abortion, and it's monumentally arrogant of you to demand — or even to suggest, for that matter — otherwise. I'd hope that most, if not all, pro-choice organizations will tell you the same thing.
They do those things because it's the law. They didn't provide that information before the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.
ReplyDeleteOh, right. I see. By "informed consent" you mean that Planned Parenthood are now required to talk up the health risks of having an abortion. You don't mean what Planned Parenthood always did provide - solid information about all the real options open to women. And your problem with consent is still that you don't think women have a right to consent.
I suppose expecting women to make their "choices" before engaging in sex would seem anti-woman if you don't think women can make that choice.
What, your argument is now that if we support women's right to make choices before, during, and after sex, that means in your eyes that we're arguing that women can't make choices before sex?
You are arguing that you don't think women have the right to make any choice at all, neither before, during, nor after sex.
JackGoff: reading back through Sharon's posts for November, I see she is also in favor of doctors being required to use the less-safe alternative for late-term abortions. So, "woman-hating" isn't really an exaggeration...
ReplyDeleteSorry, but nobody gets to pick the labels that other people apply to them, not even you. The irony, of course, is that you're whining about how all us big, bad meanie liberals are making choices for you in comments on a post in which you openly declare your desire to take choice away from others.
ReplyDeleteIt's so sad when irony is lost on some people.
The worst kind of hypocrisy is petty hypocrisy.
And the worst kind of stupidity is...well, stupidity.
I can't tell if you're inadvertently confirming that you're exactly as pompous and self-obsessed as you seem, or if you're just trying to be clever. It's so hard to tell with you people.
You know, it's odd because I had the same feeling when you started talking about me being anti-woman and whatnot. I couldn't decide if you were really trying to be dumb or not. It's hard to tell with you people.
The fact that they're not telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.
The fact that they only tell the most emotional reasons without the most common ones (as displayed here and at Pandagon) is deceitful
Frankly, beyond that, it's none of your fucking business why someone would want an abortion, and it's monumentally arrogant of you to demand — or even to suggest, for that matter — otherwise. I'd hope that most, if not all, pro-choice organizations will tell you the same thing.
Of course they would. They want the money.
Oh, right. I see. By "informed consent" you mean that Planned Parenthood are now required to talk up the health risks of having an abortion. You don't mean what Planned Parenthood always did provide - solid information about all the real options open to women. And your problem with consent is still that you don't think women have a right to consent.
I mean that Planned Parenthood either didn't inform its patients of side effects or downplayed side effects because it didn't want to scare off clients. And until they restrict abortion much more than it is now, I'll take informed consent over no informed consent.
What, your argument is now that if we support women's right to make choices before, during, and after sex, that means in your eyes that we're arguing that women can't make choices before sex?
The arguments made here suggest that none of you think a woman should think about the consequences before having sex. I'm suggesting that it is at that time that women should be thinking about it. You know, planning ahead.
You are arguing that you don't think women have the right to make any choice at all, neither before, during, nor after sex.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I am all for women making choices before, during, and after sex. I just don't think that killing one's offspring is a good choice.
I mean that Planned Parenthood either didn't inform its patients of side effects or downplayed side effects because it didn't want to scare off clients.
ReplyDeleteCan you offer any actual examples of this? Abortion is an extremely safe procedure (far safer than childbirth) especially in early pregnancy, when over 90% of abortions are carried out. If you're claiming that there was some actual risk that Planned Parenthood actually didn't (prior to 1992) warn people about, you surely have a specific example in mind.
. I am all for women making choices before, during, and after sex.
Your arguments have all been anti-choice for women. You're against women choosing to have sex: you're against women choosing to use contraception rather than have a tubal ligation: you're against women choosing to have an abortion because they don't want a child: you're against women being enabled to choose to have a child rather than be forced to abort out of economic necessity: you're against women choosing to have children while unmarried.
All in all, I can't think of a single instance where you've argued for women making choices, and many instances where you've argued that you think women ought to have no choice at all.
I'm suggesting that it is at that time that women should be thinking about it. You know, planning ahead.
ReplyDeleteYou mocked and ridiculed Amanda and others for planning ahead, before they had sex, and after. Going to apologize for doing so, now you've changed your mind and admit they were right to do so?
Can you offer any actual examples of this?
ReplyDeleteGo read the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The plaintiffs (which included Planned Parenthood) objected to the various restrictions in the Pennsylvania law on the basis that they were unconstitutional. Therefore, PP was not providing their clients with this type of information before they were required to do so by law.
Your arguments have all been anti-choice for women.
Not at all.
You're against women choosing to have sex:
Nope.
you're against women choosing to use contraception rather than have a tubal ligation:
Wrong again. Please give citations.
you're against women choosing to have an abortion because they don't want a child:
Oh, this you did get right.
you're against women being enabled to choose to have a child rather than be forced to abort out of economic necessity:
No, I'm not. Women are always free to have children.
you're against women choosing to have children while unmarried.
Yes, because it is not in a child's best interest.
So, you got a couple of instances right. The rest is your own projection. I'm for women making mature decisions before they have sex. I'm for women taking responsibility for their sexual activities by (a) using contraception and/or (b) living with the consequences if they become pregnant by either having the child and keeping him/her or giving him/her up for adoption. That's not anti-woman. If anything, it's believing that women are capable of being responsible and, in fact, should be responsible for their decisions.
Okay I see our problem.
ReplyDeleteSharon thinks it's irresponsible to have an abortion. It's dodging the consequences of having sex.
What Sharon doesn't realize is that abortion is one of several ways in which a woman takes responsibility for her actions. She makes an active decision, based on her financial, social and emotional situation, and decides that she cannot and should not continue the pregnancy. Then she pays a large amount of money for a painful procedure that people like Sharon will hate and despise her for the rest of her life. But she makes that choice because it's the best one for her life, for the lives of the other children she has (or is going to have, as 50% of women who have abortions go on to have children later, per PP's fact sheet --- there's a significant chunk of the population who probably wouldn't have been born had their mothers not aborted earlier pregnancies, and unless you know all your mother's secrets, that might be you too).
Sounds responsible to me, but then I promote forced vasectomies for all males over the age of ten with reversals granted only with notarized affidavits from women who intend to have children with them, and with the vasectomies reperformed after the children are born. Let's take away men's choices for once.
Sharon thinks it's irresponsible to have an abortion. It's dodging the consequences of having sex.
ReplyDeleteI would have said that it is forcing the baby to pay the price for the parents' behavior.
What Sharon doesn't realize is that abortion is one of several ways in which a woman takes responsibility for her actions.
I realize that it is a way a woman runs away from the responsibility of her actions.
She makes an active decision, based on her financial, social and emotional situation, and decides that she cannot and should not continue the pregnancy. Then she pays a large amount of money for a painful procedure that people like Sharon will hate and despise her for the rest of her life.
And she might just despise herself for it, as well. Especially if she does have more children.
But she makes that choice because it's the best one for her life,
No, she makes the choice because she has decided that it is what she wants to do. At least, that's what all the Pandagonistas said.
there's a significant chunk of the population who probably wouldn't have been born had their mothers not aborted earlier pregnancies
And you think this is an argument for having an abortion? So you can get a do-over and get the kid you want?
and unless you know all your mother's secrets, that might be you too).
Not likely. And yes, I do know my mother's secrets. Who did your mom kill to have you?
Go read the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The plaintiffs (which included Planned Parenthood) objected to the various restrictions in the Pennsylvania law on the basis that they were unconstitutional. Therefore, PP was not providing their clients with this type of information before they were required to do so by law.
ReplyDeleteSharon, you need to reread the oral arguments. The object was not to providing informed consent, the objection was to a state law mandating specific language be included in the informed consent, and in a 24-hour waiting period from consent to procedure.
"MR. PREATE: The petitioners already do that right now. They
already tell their patients, the physicians and the counselors that there
are medical risks associated with this procedure.[question]In Pennsylvania's general informed consent law, applying to every
single contact between the doctor and a patient, there is the same information
that must be presented and that is, the doctor must tell the patient about the
medical risks of the procedure and the alternatives to it."
Ms. Kolbert, representing Planned Parenthood makes objection only to specific wording required by the law on non-medical information, and to the waiting period.
I would have said that it is forcing the baby to pay the price for the parents' behavior.
How do you figure this works? How does the fetus get punished exactly?
I realize that it is a way a woman runs away from the responsibility of her actions.
Are there any other outpatient medical procedures that you feel enable patients to "run away" from their responsibilities? You seem very stuck on the idea that an abortion is some kind of easy out, that it permits women to not deal with the results of their behavior. It suggests that the only proper result of vaginal intercourse is a child, and that the child should be a burden. Which is odd, because all the pro-choice folks I know think that nothing is better than someone having a child they want to have. Seriously, if it's all about saving the life of the baby, shouldn't you lighten up and pretend that you think babies are a good thing?
The object was not to providing informed consent, the objection was to a state law mandating specific language be included in the informed consent, and in a 24-hour waiting period from consent to procedure.
ReplyDeleteKaethe,
You need to reread what I wrote which was this:
"Therefore, PP was not providing their clients with this type of information before they were required to do so by law."
How does Planned Parenthood objected to giving out certain information differ from "Planned Parenthood was not providing their clients with this type of information"? Of course PP didn't want to give the information the state was requiring. The information might discourage women from getting abortions, which was the point of the law. One of PP's main objections was that the law was not "neutral." But the court determined that the state doesn't have to be neutral. It can be pro-life. So even if PP objected to having to give women information that might discourage them from getting abortions, they were required to do so. THAT was their objection.
How do you figure this works? How does the fetus get punished exactly?
The fetus dies, right? When the mother decides she just doesn't want to have a baby? That's pretty punishing on the baby, isn't it?
Are there any other outpatient medical procedures that you feel enable patients to "run away" from their responsibilities?
I don't know. You want to name some that kill a human being for the convenience of another? I'd object to those as well.
You seem very stuck on the idea that an abortion is some kind of easy out, that it permits women to not deal with the results of their behavior.
Did you read the comments I posted? It sounded to me like the women commenting thought it was an easy way out, as well. It was no big deal, just "a 20-minute procedure." You read that, right?
It suggests that the only proper result of vaginal intercourse is a child, and that the child should be a burden.
Gosh, I guess you didn't read any of this post or its companion posts or the threads because it's been the pro-abortion supporters who discussed children as a burden, one they shouldn't be forced to deal with. I, on the other hand, think children are a wonderful blessing even when they aren't planned for.
Which is odd, because all the pro-choice folks I know think that nothing is better than someone having a child they want to have. Seriously, if it's all about saving the life of the baby, shouldn't you lighten up and pretend that you think babies are a good thing?
Try reading more. There are lots and lots of posts about the wonderful things that children do for society.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete