I've long been a reproductive health advocate. While I live in Canada, I follow repro health stories from around the world: cringe when you cringe, cheer at the small victories [there is no criminal regulation of abortion in Canada... though it's by no means a moot issue here, it's nothing like the battle currently waging in the US]. It's an issue that I am very passionate about, because access to reproductive health options is so important to me.
So it was when I found myself pregnant last week that I also found my foundations shaken.
This is not to be read as "suddenly, the white light poured over her, and the rationale of the sanctity of the fetus' right to life opened her cold, cold heart". This is most certainly not the case. It shook the foundations of what my arguments in support of abortion sounded like.
It's easy to say we can't restrict abortion because some women are single and living on limited means. Or in an abusive relationship, to which a child would be an additional tie. Or that a pregnancy is a result of rape or incest and carrying it to term would be additional hardship. Or the woman is young, or unable to support herself alone. Maybe that the health risks of carrying a child to term outweigh the benefits of continuing that pregnancy. Perhaps, she already has children. Or maybe a woman may feel she is just not cut out for parenthood at all. These are my favourite points and I tend to drive them home with passion. I'm convinced it's the right thing to do.
There's a million good reasons, I'm sure, but I don't meet a single one of those "requirements". I'm healthy, in a stable relationship with my partner, I have a job from which I can support myself, I have the desire to be a mother some day... all of my favourite champion points do not apply to me, and yet I find myself contemplating the big A, because I just don't think now is the right time.
The hardest part about my decision is that I don't fit into my own mantra of women who are perfect examples of those who "need choice". The disconnect has made me feel guilty and anxious about even considering having an abortion, just because of a birth control failure.
All this has made me realize, that I should be championing, also, for the women for whom it is simply not the right time. Even though it may seem the harder argument to make; the step into the slippery slope BS that props up pro-life rhetoric, erasing from the conversation that abortion is also there for women like me only adds to the shame and guilt heaped upon women already making a tough decision.
Getting over that choice is something you can exercise, even when you're not in an irreconcilable position has been hard for me. Something time-sensitive I'm still struggling with. So from here on out, I promise to include this kind of choice into the dialogue and stop erasing the existence of women who just want to wait. They deserve choice too.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Shaking up my paradigm: what does Choice really mean?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16568
Thanks for sharing your story!
I think you make a good point -- choice needs to be available to all of us, regardless of whether we fit into the categories that are often used to persuade others of the need for abortion availability. Sometimes when making the case for abortion, we need to use examples which will persuade people -- the rape victim, the poor mother who cannot afford to support another child, the woman for whom giving birth would pose a significant health risk. These and other cases can persuade people that abortion should be a choice made available to ALL women, because it's not the government's choice to decide what categories of women are "deserving" of abortion. Persuading people that someone like you "needs" the abortion option is tricky, because some people see abortion as a necessary evil in certain cases and would think that it's morally wrong in your case. When trying to connect to those people, cases like yours aren't persuasive... but that's no reason you shouldn't speak out about your story, and make your decision about abortion based on your own moral compass and no one else's.
Summary: Situations like yours get left out of the dialogue because they are unpersuasive to a lot of potential allies on reproductive rights... but you still have the right to get your story heard and include women like you in the dialogue. Rock on!
PS: Good luck making your choice. Know that you have the support of this community with whatever option you choose, and we wish you all the best in your emotional and physical health through this potentially-difficult experience.
Of course you deserve choice too. One thing I have come to realize about the whole abortion debate is that it is actually not really about abortion at all, but about one side believing that women are human beings and deserve the right to own their bodies and not let anyone put restrictions on them based on whatever criteria, and the other side believing that they have more right over womens bodies than the women themselves. You have the right to make any decision you want, and even if someone else may not find that to be a good decision, they cannot butt in and start making laws to restrict your choice. They can tell you why they do not agree, but that's it. You should not feel bad because you do not fit into one of the categories that you mentioned. If you just don't feel that it is the right time, then that should be enough for anyone. Unfortunately, you have religious nutjobs out there that believe that a fetus living off of your body has more rights than you as an already existing human being. Or they just want to control you in general. But don't let em :) Good luck in your decision!
I consider you very brave for exploring such a personal topic on here. Good luck with ou decision-making.
Thanks for posting this!
There are just as many reasons for abortion as there are women who have them. Each person has their own story in life. Each person has their own experiences, and their own beliefs, and you can not judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Whether or not a woman is having an abortion because her life is in danger, or if she's having one because she just doesn't want children or isn't ready, she still deserves her rights. All kinds of women have abortions, and no woman should feel bad because she doesn't fit into the "right category"!
Thank you for sharing your story, and I wish you the best of luck!
You could always give the baby up for adoption if you are unsure about an abortion; most (all?) workplaces will give you maternity leave or you can have an induced birth at a convenient time. But whatever you do, feeling guilty about giving the child up for adoption or aborting it may suck, but its not as bad as feeling guilty about keeping the kid but having to take care of it for 18 more years.
Just imho. I don't see why you should have an abortion if you are feeling guilty already about it, as long as you don't get emotionally attached to your fetus and keep it and then regret it later.
I mean- if I had to, I would have an abortion (as a pro-life person). The doesn't mean that I wouldn't be pro-life anymore, it would just mean that I had to have an abortion and I wasn't idealistic about it. And you can be pro-choice, give your child up for adoption, and then still be pro-choice.
I think you missed the OP's point. Not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term is a sufficient reason for an abortion. No woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, regardless if weather or not she has some other reason for terminating.
I didn't really get that vibe; it seemed to me more like the OP didn't want the child, but definitely is feeling unsure about the abortion thing (hence the post). Not really any mention about carrying the child to term, unless I have totally misread this (which is completely possible, and most likely probable).
Eh? She's talking about how her situation is making her re-think how she frames her advocacy for access to abortion.
I don't know what "vibes" you're talking about, but her plain words are right there...
And I'm not entirely sure how you're going around saying you're pro-life and yet would have an abortion if you had to - being "pro-life" means you advocate for the legal ban of the procedure. How does that even line up?
I really am feeling quite confused now. I thought the whole bringing up the pregnancy and the pro-choice standpoint and the whole unsure feeling of the post was about how she isn't sure about having an abortion because she doesn't "need" one unlike the people she mentioned?
I probably have just totally missed something somewhere. Anyways, I believe the fetus has rights no more or no less than anyone else; accordingly, if it('s existence) will cause me death, I would not see any problem with having an abortion, just like if someone else would cause me to die I would act out in self defense.
I understand the logic behind your position, but you're forgetting one major issue.
Who decides what constitutes enough of a risk to your life you ought to be allowed an abortion?
If abortion rights are rolled back, it won't be you.
Who decides? Well, same as for killing a born person, I would decide; hopefully my reason would stand up in court for killing someone as being in self defense either way.
But as PDXHopeful just pointed out, it WON'T be you. A pro-life position, no matter how you swing it, takes decisions out of the hands of the women who need to make them.
Okay. But I disagree with that kind of pro-life viewpoint.
I mean, I realize thats an overly simplistic and non-problem-solving view to take, but I don't really know what else to say. I disagree with the majority of pro-life people, but I really don't think I can say anything to support them since I don't see a need to. I realize that if any pro-life laws come into effect, they will probably be from the God-fearing, woman-hating, emotional majority, but I still don't see what I really can do about it (as far as my beliefs go).
There is something you can do, and that's work at this until you have a position to promote that's not so, by your own admission, simplistic.
You have your own moral standards, and that's fine. It's absolutely a valid choice to *not* have an abortion except under certain circumstances. However, when it comes to applying moral standards to others, you have to be a lot more careful.
Eh, well, what's wrong with a position one can explain in simple terms? Also, my pro-life position I intend to be applied to everyone; I think it is correct (obviously since I am believing in it) and I see no reason why I should have different standards than anyone else, so there you go.
Simple terms is fine but being simplistic - meaning overly simplifying things and ignoring the real complexities of a situation - is a fault in one's reasoning. It's weakening your position.
Your belief in its correctness does not automatically justify you in forcing it on others any more than my belief in a particular religion would justify me forcing it on others. Also a weak argument.
Finally, even setting those issues aside, you've not even attempted to offer a solution to the issue of having your life hang on the decision of a person who might not agree an abortion was warranted until it was too late.
Since your belief is ultimately based in religion or faith (the belief that a fetus is a conscious human being has not been supported by any scientific literature), it is a violation of the separation of church and state to want your religious beliefs held over others-- for example, held over most Eastern religions, which accept abortion as an unfortunate, but neccessary, occurance and do not consider a fetus to be a distinct human being.
My belief is not based in religious faith. I am basically an agnostic. Thanks for the stereotype though.
"Since your belief is ultimately based in religion or faith (the belief that a fetus is a conscious human being has not been supported by any scientific literature),..."
She didn't say they were necessarily based in *religious* faith.
... fetus has rights no more or no less than anyone else: Really? Right to freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble peacefully? The vote? When's the next fetus convention?
Let's be real, please. You can use as much "human rights" language as you want: A fetus is not "equivalent" to an adult or even a child in multiple ways. A fetus cannot think, breathe, speak, dream, it has no friends or family members who depend on it or who will suffer for its loss, it doesn't know what's going on, it doesn't know it's alive, it cannot survive on its own outside its mother, it suffers a mere fraction (if any) of the emotional and physical pain suffered by adults. On the other hand, THE WORLD and OTHER PEOPLE have INVESTED time, money, and effort in children and adults. Is mere TIME worth nothing? Education? Wisdom?
I'm pro-choice, but I don't really think the logic you're using here holds up. Sure, there are a lot of differences between a fetus and a baby, just as there are a lot of morally relevant differences between a baby, a teenager, and an adult. If you're saying a fetus isn't a person because "THE WORLD and OTHER PEOPLE have INVESTED time, money, and effort in children and adults." But actually, for planned and wanted fetuses, this is a different story. If I want a baby, then I invest sexual energy, 9 months worth of my physical energy, emotional energy, and money on that fetus, not to mention the health care which may be government-subsidized. Hopefully my partner will invest time, energy, and money too! And if I lost a pregnancy that I wanted to keep, I would feel deep pain, as I know many women do in this situation. And we rightfully consider murder of pregnant women to be especially serious.
I don't think we should be talking about fetuses like they are morally insignificant, or that they mean nothing to no one. A fetus is still a genetic individual in the process of developing into a person. So when we recognize that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she wishes, we're saying it's because the rights of an adult woman to control her body should take precedence over the fetuses' status as a developing person.
Or the rights of any individual on how to use his or her body trump the right of someone else who needs to use it to survive.
With the rights we usually grant toward bodily autonomy ALREADY, we don't need to make a special rule that relates only to women, and furthermore, only to women who are pregnant. 'Cause we all know mandated blood and organ donations would never fly.
And I definitely felt a little at odds with allegra's comment, too - it seems to be ignoring the reality of how people feel about planned babies. I think any pro-choice rationale that requires us to think differently about wanted vs. unwanted fetuses is problematic. Pregnant women who planned their pregnancy suffer when they miscarry, they call their fetuses "the baby", etc. etc. What doesn't change is that women who want to abort and women who want to carry to term are all entitled to their bodily autonomy, an absolute right over how their body is used - that never changes, no matter what pro-life people argue about the status/quality/etc. of the fetus. If life starts at conception, my right to bodily autonomy doesn't change.
You expressed it so much better than I could! Thanks!
Well, also, I was thinking, people can hardly argue that we DON'T differentiate "human" or other rights based on age or level of development. Children have, in my opinion, fewer rights than they should; they can't quite fully make their own decisions (but, again ... what does this actually mean? What does this mean for teenage women who want abortions?). Parents can choose what kind of medical care (if any) their kids will have. There is definitely power - some of it reasonable, some frighteningly unreasonable - wielded over children. We restrict what children can do with their bodies.
I guess none of this cancels out the woman's-bodily-autonomy argument. Just some more things to think about.
Yes, I know what you mean. I completely agree; I'm not trying to argue that a fetus is not significant or not human. Hardly. But too much abortion (esp. anti-choice) rhetoric speaks of a fetus as in fact equivalent in every way to an adult or wanted child, and so simple "rules" of "human rights" should apply. This just isn't and can't be the case. The mother's human rights cannot be separated from the baby's human rights. There is no discussion of, e.g., pain reduction, the fact that a woman suffers far more from a botched abortion than a fetus suffers from an abortion. As you say, I just don't think the "bodily integrity" of a fetus that doesn't even know it exists can be quite elevated to the status of the bodily integrity of a woman, much less trump HER OWN human rights and rights to her body. And I think it's important to acknowledge things like pain-reduction and, well, humaneness.
The factor that differentiates here, for me, is whether the baby is WANTED, also as you say. Plain as that. Which again comes down to the mother's bodily integrity and choice.
I also fundamentally agree with commenters below: Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is akin to forcing someone to donate his/her body and/or body parts in order to keep another human being alive. Until people can be forced to donate blood or other organs to "save lives," this just doesn't fly.
OK, I can agree with that. A fetus can have the same rights as any infant -- but no more. Born people do not have the right to use another person's blood and organs without consent, even if they would die without that person's blood or organs. Born people do have the right to freedom, which includes freedom to make choices about one's own body, like deciding whether or not to let other people make use of their blood and organs (mandatory organ/blood donation? nope). Even if you grant a fetus the same rights as born people, they still do not have the right not to be aborted. Abortion isn't heartless women killing the poor babies, who are floating innocently in a softly-lit, detached chamber, minding their own business. They're living inside another person, leeching off her organs, in many cases against her will. Nobody has the right to do that. Nobody.
Pun not intended, lol.
I don't think that's entirely true. People just don't have the right to preserve their life through "artificial and extraordinary means", necessarily. Look at it in terms of your own rights that even you can't violate. You can refuse medical treatment (artificial and extraordinary means of preservation), but you can't refuse to eat, since food is a normal and natural means of preservation.
Let me illustrate the difference: suppose that your baby needed a blood transfusion. You were the only donor available, and without the transfusion, your baby would die. You would not *have* to give it one. This is because blood transfusions are artificial and extraordinary means of preservation.
But suppose you gave birth to a baby in an environment in which there was no replacement available for your breast milk. Your baby would either breastfeed or starve; there is no alternative option. In order to avoid starvation, your baby would have to (periodically) attach itself to your body, and use your body as a means of its own survival. You're saying you could refuse to allow it to breastfeed? In any case, how would doing that (or not doing that) be different from abortion, besides not having to feel particularly bad about the latter?
If a woman gave up a child for adoption in that environment, I would not fault her even if it meant the baby died (though I might wonder why she didn't abort). Breastfeeding can be ridiculously hard and painful, drains the system, ties the woman down... if she does not want the child, it WOULD be like a forced pregnancy. Some women also find breastfeeding's sensations to feel analogous to rape; thankfully, formula exists for them.
If she kept the child, then it's neglect, because at that point she has willfully decided to raise the child and not provide said child with nourishment. A pregnant woman has not necessarily willfully decided to raise a child.
The thing is, after birth, infanticide is wrong because there is an easier option than killing the child that allows BOTH parties to be successful and happy-- adoption (I'm not saying adoption is easier than abortion, but rather, easier than infanticide).
People just don't have the right to preserve their life through "artificial and extraordinary means", necessarily. Look at it in terms of your own rights that even you can't violate. You can refuse medical treatment (artificial and extraordinary means of preservation), but you can't refuse to eat, since food is a normal and natural means of preservation.
Let me illustrate the difference: suppose that your baby needed a blood transfusion. You were the only donor available, and without the transfusion, your baby would die. You would not *have* to give it one. This is because blood transfusions are artificial and extraordinary means of preservation.
I disagree that there is a principled difference when it comes to positive rights between "artificial" and "natural". After all, the consequence is the same. What if instead of a mother refusing to breast feed, she was physically unable to for whatever reason. Would it be permissible then to allow the baby to starve to death because infant formula is "artificial" and therefore optional? Is it morally permissible to remove people from life support or withdraw life sustaining medications from people who are sick because they are "artificial"? What if all a person needs is a feeding tube or IV fluids, can they be denied that because it's an unnatural route of nutrition administration?
Your argument that one can't refuse to eat, but they can refuse medical treatment is also unclear. Do you mean to say that suicide is morally permissible only so long as a person is sick or vulnerable enough to require more than food and water to survive?
I bring up these distinctions because just saying "extraordinary means" is remarkably imprecise, but leaves room open for conservatives to demand that women make their bodies available for fetuses but absolves them from any responsibility that they might have to individuals who are sick and vulnerable. In this world view it is truly only the fetus that has any positive rights at all. Social service programs or heaven forbid, socialized healthcare which could save thousands of lives and alleviate much suffering is vehemently opposed by conservatives who believe they have no obligation, finical or otherwise, to fellow humans.
I disagree that there is a principled difference when it comes to positive rights between "artificial" and "natural".
That would mean that there's no difference between refusing cancer treatment, and starving yourself to death.
After all, the consequence is the same. What if instead of a mother refusing to breast feed, she was physically unable to for whatever reason. Would it be permissible then to allow the baby to starve to death because infant formula is "artificial" and therefore optional?
I said "artificial and extraordinary. Not just artificial. Something "extraordinary" is something that cannot be acquired naturally in prinicple.
Your argument that one can't refuse to eat, but they can refuse medical treatment is also unclear. Do you mean to say that suicide is morally permissible only so long as a person is sick or vulnerable enough to require more than food and water to survive?
I'm saying that DNRs are not the moral equivalent of strangling yourself or refusing to eat.
I bring up these distinctions because just saying "extraordinary means" is remarkably imprecise, but leaves room open for conservatives to demand that women make their bodies available for fetuses but absolves them from any responsibility that they might have to individuals who are sick and vulnerable.
No, it would mean something like surgery or chemotherapy. Like I said, "extraordinary" means generally refer to anything that cannot, in principle, be acquired naturally.
In this world view it is truly only the fetus that has any positive rights at all. Social service programs or heaven forbid, socialized healthcare which could save thousands of lives and alleviate much suffering is vehemently opposed by conservatives who believe they have no obligation, finical or otherwise, to fellow humans.
Once again, the natural and normal vs artificial and extraordinary distinction is crucial. America is a more or less equal opportunity country, so people who don't make as much money as other people are generally reponsible for that. So they obviously don't deserve to have the same quality of life. I don't want to go off on a tangent here, so I'll ask my question again:
A baby is born into an environment in which there is no replacement available for its mother's breastmilk. The baby either breastfeeds or starves. If the mother refused to let the baby breastfeed, this would be maternal infanticide - so how is abortion different?
It's not maternal infanticide because there is no such environment.
But let me ask you this in turn: In this hypothetical environment, should women who CAN'T breastfeed because they don't produce enough milk or the child can't latch or because of allergies of the child to the mother's breast milk then be charged with manslaughter?
It's not maternal infanticide because there is no such environment.
You can't refuse to answer a hypothetical because "it would never happen." Moral philosophy is full of hypothetical that would never happen; they are very useful at bringing abusrdities within ethical systems to light, and for illustrating points as well. And I'm sure that this scenario has actually happened in the past - you're saying that a woman and her baby have never been in an environment in which there is no replacement available for her breast milk? Women have never given birth in isolated regions?
But let me ask you this in turn: In this hypothetical environment, should women who CAN'T breastfeed because they don't produce enough milk or the child can't latch or because of allergies of the child to the mother's breast milk then be charged with manslaughter?
You just said that hypotheticals were useless, and now you're using the same hypothetical that you said was useless, in order to prove a point! She wouldn't be charged with manslaughter, because she was not culpable for her inability to let her baby breastfeed.
I made a hypothetical to illustrate how ridiculous your hypothetical was.
But I'll bite.
MY answer to your hypothetical is that no, the mother would not be guilty of infanticide because she isn't culpable for the lack of other options for feeding the baby. It's not the mother's fault there are no wet nurses, formula, or other feeding options available.
But then again...
Lets say that the fetus is not causing serious physical harm to this woman for the sake of argument.
Lets suppose that Bob is a severely mentally disabled person. He also, for some reason (you really can't come up with many comparisons for a pregnancy, so just make up whatever works for you here), must stay on your property or he will die.
He didn't ask your permission, thats for sure. But then again, he is so disabled he can't talk, or understand words, or anything. In fact, its his disabilities that forces him to be on your property.
And this is causing you annoyance. He eats your food; you have to buy more. He lives in your house, and takes up space. You have to be careful around him because of his disabilities. But-- he isn't posing any threat.
Should you kill him? Sure, he may be costing you money, time, nutrition, and causing alot of irritation, and you definitely do not want him there, but would it be right to kill him? He isn't going to be there for even a year, you just have to be patient with him until then.
Because you can't just arbitrarily say that normal people aren't allowed to use your organs without permission, you have to give some kind of comparison that could actually apply to adults.
I don't think it's unreasonable to order anyone off of your property if they are draining your resources without your consent, even if doing so will end in their death. If this were a real situation, you better bet I'd be calling the cops to get Bob off my property and out of my life no matter how helpless he is.
I once put the cutest baby mouse out in below freezing weather because I couldn't abide it in my apartment. I'm sure my doing so ended in it's death, but I was under no obligation, being the person in charge of that apartment, to provide for anything squatting in it without my permission.
You don't get to debate real-life issues by "making up whatever works for you."
OMG, what if you had an alien parasite in your stomach, but if you removed it, THE UNIVERSE WOULD END? Is it fair to kill that alien parasite? Clearly abortion is wrong!
This analogy fails because there is no such thing as a completely safe pregnancy. Pregnancy is always medically risky and there is no way to know if any given woman will develop complications or suffer or die as a result. And on top of that, comparing the intrusion of someone on your property to someone IN YOUR BODY is...insulting.
This doesn't actually apply to adults either... it would never happen.
I can't be forced to give my best friend in the whole wide world a blood transfusion, a kidney, a skin graft if I don't want to. That's analagous.
How is replacing this analogy with something you made up that isn't even possible a better example? You can't compare real human experience to impossible hypotheticals and come out with any sort of rational argument. Impossible hypotheticals are for physics, math and philosophy... not everyday real life.
I really don't read the OP as all that unsure about wanting an abortion.
What's making her feel strange is that she doesn't fit the usual images we present of someone who needs access to abortion - she's not in an abusive relationship, 12 years old, very poor, etc. Next to those big-gun reasons, it just not being time for a baby seems sort of anticlimactic and puny.
But, when it comes down to it, it's as valid and sufficient as any other if that's the choice she makes. That's the bottom line.
Seriously, nobody... of course I've thought about adoption. But this post isn't about adoption. This post is about how my experience made me realize that we frame abortion arguments in the most paltable form we can, and it erases the women who maybe aren't in some dire, heart-wrenching situation. Choice is valid in my situation too. The only guilt I feel is because I erased my situation from my own rhetoric, and the reconciliation was difficult.
Ah, I see. Apologize for the misunderstanding.
Revelations like yours are very important to pro-choice activism. Most women having abortions do so because they do not want to have a child. Period. The "noble" reasons people come up with to justify the procedure are only there to assuage cultural pressures instead of facing the issue head on. The reality is, some pregnancies are valued, and others aren't. People have babies all the time who can't afford them, or feel they are too young, or put there career on hold, or are in an abusive relationship, etc. When it comes to activism, the focus should not be on the reason for the choice, but the choice itself. Otherwise, we marginalize ourselves.
Really, I have to be honest: Most of our pro-choice hedging about "privacy" and "We don't like abortion, either, but it's a necessary evil" are bull. Women need abortion access, on demand, for any reason, right now, no questions, no guilt. Because, to me, abortion is a matter of BODILY INTEGRITY. It is a matter of my NOT being a baby incubator, a matter of ... men NEVER allowing someone to hook them up to a machine for nine months just so they could nourish "another person" as punishment for having sex. It is a matter of my not having my morality judged. It is a matter of abortion being legal to protect a woman's health, not only for certain sorrowful circumstances as they are judged crappy enough by certain outsiders like white male politicians.
Your comments show the extent to which we've all absorbed anti-choice arguments which essentially erase women from their own pregnancies. The woman might as well not even exist; somehow her rights, her BODY, have been forgotten. It's all about the fetus now, the FETUS'S rights, the rights of those who don't even EXIST yet. To hear anti-choice activists, you would think a fetus was probably going to run for president in 2012. Unfortunately, a fetus is simply not equivalent in every way to a grown person, and, in my opinion, the grown woman's mind and body at this point trump any potential being inside her.
You're right that a lot of anti-choice rhetoric comes from a place of privilege. This privilege may influence some people's decision to keep a baby (e.g., Bristol Palin); there's nothing wrong with that. One will always think of his/her economic situation when considering having or keeping a child. But no matter how privileged a woman is, the fact remains: It's her own fucking body, and the fetus is part of her body, and you cannot separate a pregnancy from the woman's body. Even privileged women may have reasons for not wanting a child: to finish college, to complete higher goals like law school, because they're unsure of the father or unsure of a current relationship, whatever.
Anti-choicers also base a lot of their arguments on the belief that the longer they can force a woman to carry the child, the more likely her automatic (or socially conditioned and enforced, but that doesn't matter to them) selfless mothering instincts will kick in, and then she'll decide she really wants to keep the baby after all and how could she ever think such a horrible thing about having an abortion, etc. A lot of their logic rests on the "mommy instinct." Sorry, folks, but NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE AUTOMATIC MOMMY INSTINCT and sometimes there's just NO REASON FOR IT AT ALL.
I mean- if I had to, I would have an abortion (as a pro-life person). The doesn't mean that I wouldn't be pro-life anymore, it would just mean that I had to have an abortion and I wasn't idealistic about it.
Wow, then you are a gigantic hypocrite. So you'd get an abortion if you "had to have one," but you take a position that aims to deny that right to all other women.
If you shall read my latest comment (in response to alixana), you shall understand exactly what I am talking about. I do, however, appreciate your judging me before I had a chance to explain my position.
I knew that "life of the mother" was what you meant by "HAD to have one." It doesn't change my opinion. You still think that YOU get to decide when a mother's rights trump the rights of the fetus, and you want to force other women to abide by that decision. So your hypothetical abortion's okay, but the abortion of a woman who doesn't feel that a fetus's right to use her body for nine months trumps her right to bodily autonomy is not okay. ALL pregnancies carry a health risk, so I'm not sure why you think you should get to dictate what's acceptable risk and what's not. And you would still be taking advantage of a procedure you want to deny to other women (unless they measure up to YOUR criteria). Basically: the only moral abortion is my abortion. The only moral justification for abortion is MY justification.
I never would have thought that abortion warrants so much guilt, but it most certainly can. And it is hard to ward off guilt when you don't have the 'right' reasons to validate your decision. What you articulated is absolutely right though. Wanting to wait, is a right reason. Not wanting to do it, is a right reason. Not wanting to devote the rest of your life to someone as a caregiver, is the right reason. Because we have choice, any reason we have to choose, is the right reason.
The decision is purely your own, and dare I say that I think you deserve the ultimate choice of how to deal with this situation. But you are right that so often we let anti-abortion position statements define our own discourse and thus negotiate and advocate on the defensive rather than sticking to our guns.
I am okay with abortion in theory but I can imagine not being okay with doing it myself if I actually became pregnant. On the other hand there are people who are pro-life until they actually become pregnant accidentally. Thus, I say it's a really personal decision and I will trust women to do what's right for them whether that's get an abortion or not. I just wish more people would tell women that they trust them to do what is right for them.
This is how I understand the debate: I agree that a fetus is a potential human life. I don't like the way some pro-choicers completely deny this fact - ignoring something that significant to the debate, which the opposition bases its argument on, only continues the debate.
I'm not exactly sure I agree that a fetus deserves all the same rights as a full-grown human being, but even if it did, the pro-lifers who claim that have just backed themselves into a wall. If a fetus is equal to a born human and deserves equal rights, then its rights end where yours begin, just like any other born human. The fetus doesn't have the right to occupy your body. If a person on the street was hungry, do they have the right to eat you? Even if they only take a little nibble? If someone's horny, do they have the right to rape you?
No. If a fetus has the same rights as you, that means it has no right to use your body without your permission because you reserve the right to not allow it.
No. If a fetus has the same rights as you, that means it has no right to use your body without your permission because you reserve the right to not allow it.
Suppose your baby breastfeeds or starves. It would have to attach itself to your body, and use your body for its own survival. In those circumstances (which are analogous to pregnancy), you're saying your baby wouldn't have the right to breastfeed? How would refusing to let it breastfeed be substantially different from having an abortion, other than that you don't have to feel as guilty about the latter?
In that worst-case scenario, adoption should still be legal. Maybe another mother could breastfeed. Luckily, we do not live in such a world.
Have you donated all your extra organs yet? Spare lungs, kidneys, etc? People are dying because you won't give them up.
Do you donate blood and bone marrow every month (even though it's only healthy to do so much less often)? There are critical blood shortages, don't you feel horribly guilty that you're KILLING people? A child will probably die of leukemia that your bone marrow would save.
How is your not donating your extra kidney substantially different from having an abortion, other than you don't have to feel as guilty about the former?
It's your body. You have a right to it, yes, even if it means someone else-- anyone else-- will die. Even a child. Even one who is biologically related to you. The ONLY exception is when you have willfully taken responsibility for a child and agree to care for them; in that case, as their guardian, yes, you have a responsibility to feed them, and yes, you should donate bone marrow or a kidney if need be (no parent would argue that they should not give up a kidney for their child). However, until you willfully make that decision to care for them, you are not obligated to nourish them, protect them, etc.
It's a hypothetical that's analogous to pregnancy. I said "there is no other option." If she refused to let the baby breastfeed, and abandoned it or let it starve, we would call that maternal infanticide. Abortion is no different from this.
So we're agreed - abortion is the human rights equivalent of maternal infanticide.
?
Saying refusing to breastfeed in a hypothetical where adoption doesn't exist and formula doesn't exist and other nursing mothers don't exist is analogous to abortion is horribly disingenuous.
Firstly, in the developed world, that hypothetical simply does not exist. So yes, we hold mothers responsible for children they have given birth to, because they made a conscious decision to not only carry that child to term, but also not to pursue adoption, or substitute another form of nourishment such as formula or wet nursing/co-nursing/cross nursing. Failing to feed a child at this point is called "Child neglect causing death". Even if you are poor, there are government programs available to give a child the minimum standard of care (as crappy as minimum standard of care is...).
However, this hypothetical might exist in a country ravaged by famine and drought. A woman who cannot even feed herself, in a community of starving people, may find it impossible to breastfeed her child and be provided with none of that above options. If that infant dies, we call it tragic, not maternal infanticide.
Try something else...
It could easily happen. You could get stranded in your home during a blizzard, etc. The difference between not donating blood to your friend and having an abortion is the difference between not donating your blood to your friend, and letting your baby starve. Like I said, abortion = letting your baby starve. You just don't have to feel particularly bad about doing it, since you haven't seen or bonded with it yet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Human_fetus_10_weeks_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg
Check it out. It's not gross, I promise. It's a fetus in the embryonic sac at ten weeks (removed during surgery).
Just because you keep saying it's analogous, doesn't mean it is.
Starving a child = making a choice to have the kid, birth is like a social contract to doing everything in your ability to keep the kid healthy and happy (unless you've made other arrangements). This makes you culpable.
Having an abortion = finding out you're pregnant, often not by choice. You have no obligation/contract at this point to carry a pregnancy to term. Why? Because you have the right to bodily autonomy, and have not wilfully created a social contract in which you agree to let the foetus take nourishment from your body, unlike starving a born baby.
That is the difference. The two examples are not the same.
Also, the picture was entirely unrelated to your point...
You could make the hypothetical be in a point in history in which abortion was not available. Say you accidentally got pregnant in some society in which abortion was unavailable, and ended up giving birth to the baby. It either breastfed or starved. This is analogous to the situation you're facing. In this situation, you never decided to get pregnant, and never had an opportunity to abort. You're saying you could let the baby starve?
Wet nurses have always been around. I believe Moses had one.
I'm done with your lousy "analogy"
Oh, you again.
If you have to invent hypothetical situations that bear no resemblance to reality - your argument fails.
In the real world, notably in the US and I'm sure many other countries, we have options. If a mom can't breastfeed, there are breast milk banks. There is adoption. There are wet nurses. There are safe havens at hospitals where you can leave a baby with no questions asked. There is formula. There is nothing in the mom's milk that requires the baby to have its mom's milk and only its mom's milk.
You're only hurting people when you refuse to talk about real women's situations when debating this issue.
I like how you applied real word legal interpretation to your hypothetical land. Seems like someone is making up their own self-serving rules as they go along... sure you're not the.past.of.conservatism.?
If we're talking about a situation where the options are breastfeed or starve the child, we're already talking about an unusual survival situation. The lack of other options implies social and economic collapse (no child welfare organization to give the child too, no ability to buy formula, no one in the community who is able/willing to help, or a severely abusive relationship in which the woman is imprisoned).
I don't think those circumstances remove a woman's right to sovereignty over her body. To my mind they highlight the need for all people to have basic human rights, including the right to terminated a pregnancy before coming to the point of breastfeed or starve the infant.
Gotta say right on to the freedom of choice - I've had a couple of abortions myself and it's never easy (at least not as easy as some people imply), but it was the right thing for me to do at the time, so my regrets aren't huge.
This whole debate and all the comments remind me of a conversation I had with my sister many years ago - this was before I'd actually had one, we were just discussing our positions on it. I remember her friend was anti-abortion, for a lot of the reasons people have put here; I was pro-choice; and my sister was somewhere in the middle, saying she could see why some people get them but she personally wouldn't have one.
But the one thing we all agreed on was this - the choice is down to the individual, how you feel about it is down to you, and no one has any right to dictate to someone else what to do or think - even our hard line anti-abortion friend was only hard line with herself, and I fully support her CHOICE to do that.
I've been contemplating this myself recently.
I found myself pregnant at 26. I had a good job and owned my own house, but my relationship with the father had already ended. He was not a responsible person, not a good person to be having a child with.
I half-heartedly contemplated abortion, but went ahead and had the baby. I spent a couple years as a single mother, with minimal support from the father. I then met a great guy, we got married, he adopted my son, and we went on to have another.
My younger child is now 7. I've recently taken a more high-pressure job that I enjoy. My husband is starting his own business, and spending more time at home with the kids. Because the kids are older, we've started to travel and do stuff we were never able to do because we always had young kids around, even when we were dating. We are in the happiest place we've been in years, and financially secure.
I recently had a small pregnancy scare (very unlikely I was, but my period was late, probably due to job stress) and I found myself thinking that if I were pregnant, i would seriously consider abortion. Much more seriously than I considered it when I was going to be a young single mom. But on the surface, I have many fewer "real" reasons to do so, except for my own feelings.
Luckily, I was not pregnant and am very unlikely to become pregnant, so this won't be an issue. But those few hours made me appreciate even more that abortion needs to be a choice for everyone, with no questions or judgements attached.
I completely agree with you--we don't need a reason to have an abortion.
However, that being said, what does "the right time" mean?
I guess, for me, a lot of people, that means being mentally prepared for having a kid. It also might mean that I want to travel in the next 5 years of my life and one of my values is that I don't want to cart my kid around when I'm doing that.
Let me clarify----"not the right time" means something different for everyone so whether that means "not financially stable" or "I really like sleeping right now" everyone, including society, is a winner when women choose when they want to have kids.
Thefutureofconservatism (more like same-old-same-old) is a repeat offending troll that has been banned several times, http://www.feministing.com/archives/018245.html#comment-306267.
Report, please.