Mmm, Babies! They Stay Crunchy in Milk.
Published by Lisa Kansas October 23rd, 2008 in Bodily Autonomy, Lick My Jackboots of Love, Purposefully Inflammatory, Reproductive Rights, Rights? What rights?, Soapbox, What Patriarchy?I like babies. They’re cute. I have about 50,000 pictures of my sons as babies and with the slightest encouragement, especially after a glass of wine or two, I will happily haul them out of the closet and make you admire each and every one of them.
However, I am pro-choice. I say “however” because clearly, there is a fair contingent of people out there who genuinely believe that people who are pro-choice don’t give a rat’s ass about babies. Sometimes, they even seem to believe that what pro-choice people really, secretly want to do is rend and splatter as many babies as possible limb from limb, and the only reason women are out there still getting abortions is because they just don’t realize that that’s what abortion is really all about. For example:
Oklahoma’s new [abortion] statute dictates that either the doctor performing the abortion or a “certified technician working in conjunction” with that doctor do the ultrasound, “provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting,” and also “display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them.” The law goes so far as to specify the doctor’s script: The physician must describe the heartbeat and the presence of internal organs, fingers, and toes.
Widdle fingers and toesies! (ahem) I repeat, WIDDLE FINGERS AND TOESIES!!!!! To be smashed, crushed, torn, shredded into bloody BITS!!!!
Next up! Addendum to the statute: “Doctor (or a certified technician working in conjuction with doctor) must describe embryo’s desperate screams of ‘No, Mommy! Noooo! Don’t let them rip me apart, Mommy! I love you!’”
(Sigh.)
Usually, I’ve tried to shoot for compassion in my dealings with the pro-life mentality. As I said, I like babies and I think they’re cute. However, I’ve noticed that with the passage of years, my patience has shrunken gradually down to, well. The size of an eight-week old embryo. This big: ——-.
I’ve gone into great detail about my abortion stance and my feelings about the pro-life stance on more than one occasion already; I won’t rehash them yet again. I believe, though, that I am officially “done” with attempting to extend any sort of respect at all towards those who self-identify as “pro-life.” Seriously, why should I extend respect to people that have codified it into law that they have not only no respect, but anti-respect for those who self-identify as “pro-choice?” That does not mean that I will cease to extend respect towards those who personally would choose to never have an abortion; that is an eminently respectable position. It definitely doesn’t mean I will cease to extend compassion to any woman who was pressured into or otherwise regrets her abortion; that is a personal, not political, matter. However, anyone who affiliates himself or herself with any group of persons seeking to pass legislation that restricts, in any way, the right of women to choose..? I consider you fair game the minute you open your mouth (or heat up your keyboard) to say so. Be warned.
Agreed.
As an MRA, I’ve been accused many times of wanting to restrict women’s rights in this area. I’ve been accused of wanting to be able to force a woman to give birth. I’ve been accused of wanting to be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I doubt I am anywhere near alone in this as an MRA.
So, to avoid misinterpretation, I believe men should have the right to decide if they wish to be parents within the exact same timeframe allowed women (Usually 3-6 months after conception). The caveat is that his rights end at the tip of her nose. Ergo, if he wants a baby, and she doesn’t…tough titties for him.
I myself am pro-choice. I also can’t understand the mentality of someone who would want to make an already difficult decision even more traumatic. Frankly, as an MRA it makes sense to support the right of women to choose. Think of how many more illegitimate children there would be.
As for placating the anti-abortion crowd, one would think education that abortion is not a good form of birth control would be more effective, AND humane.
I believe men should have the right to decide if they wish to be parents within the exact same timeframe allowed women (Usually 3-6 months after conception)
What exactly do you mean by this? If she wants the baby and he doesn’t he can bail before the six month mark?
“However, anyone who affiliates himself or herself with any group of persons seeking to pass legislation that restricts, in any way, the right of women to choose..? I consider you fair game the minute you open your mouth (or heat up your keyboard) to say so.”
That is a very good and reasonable distinction.
“Ergo, if he wants a baby, and she doesn’t…tough titties for him.’
Good compromise. Of course, part of that compromise is that such an impasse is grounds for an annulment if there’s a marriage, with the refusal as equivalent to abandonment of the marriage; and reason to just leave if there’s not. And no, this is not a restriction on her right to chooose to give birth or not; she is still free to make that choice. She is just not entitled to hold a man to a relationship she has unilaterally altered.
Jim2-
The whole divorce thing really isn’t relevant to the topic at hand. But, in any occasion, no one has any right to compel anyone to stay in a relationship, for reasons frivolous or otherwise (and I think wanting a child when your partner doesn’t is definitely a non-frivolous reason).
Anna: “What exactly do you mean by this? If she wants the baby and he doesn’t he can bail before the six month mark? ”
Factory: Yup.
Everyone’s rights, regardless of gender or relationship, stopping at the tip of the nose of another person, regardless of gender or relationship, is exactly as it ought to be. Bodily autonomy, folks; the most basic right there is.
Now, we can start a different thread about legal parenthood and whether or not people of either gender should be forced into it against their express wishes, but I’d rather not derail this one off of abortion–so unless you’re arguing that men should be allowed to either force a pregnant woman to abort if he’s the paternal contributor or force her to carry to term if he’s the paternal contributor, let’s keep that off this thread. If you ARE arguing that one person should have the legal right to control the usage of someone else’s internal organs, though, let me know and we can certainly rip that argument to the shreds it deserves to be in. Er, discuss it, is what I meant to say, of course. Let me know.
If Factory were posting at Pandagon, he’d be banned for thread-jacking. I’ve rarely seen someone who is as intent on shutting down discussions of women’s rights. In fact, I suspect if you said, “Hey, look at that woman over there,” he’d freak out and scream, “SEXIST! WHY DON’T YOU LOOK AT ME? I’M A MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.”
Anyway, I was amused earlier doing some sound editing on an interview with a South Dakota pro-choice activist. Her baby was crying in the background and she was talking to me and trying to herd him. Anti-choicers who’ve convinced themselves that pro-choice=anti-baby would probably explode from cognitive dissonance. But seriously, can they thing that the majority of Americans—and the majority is pro-choice—hate babies?
Considering that the Supreme Court case everyone is worried about reversal on (Roe v Wade) legally allowed abortion based on 4 main reasons, 3 of which were related to financial/emotional readiness for parenthood, and only one of which was female-specific, I’d say you’re dead wrong in your assertion that discussing that aspect is “derailing” the discussion off abortion.
In fact, I contend that if men were extended the same right at the time, this “issue” wouldn’t even be on the political radar.
How much of the ProLife side is sour grapes, do you think? An insignificant number?
“My body, my choice” is a slogan, not a legal decision. Infringement upon the rights of another is not mitigated through legal permission.
Antigone,
And I likewise think no one has any right 1) to compel anyone to become a parent or 2) go through a physically dangerous process, however natural that process may be.
You are right that divorce is a side issue, but it is directly connected rather than irrelevant. It is relevant if someone is in a marriage, with all the life chances invovled in leaving, and finds that the spouse is unwilling to have a child, either way. Because this is certainly NOT the legal situation:
“But, in any occasion, no one has any right to compel anyone to stay in a relationship,”
When one spouse ants to keep the other in a marriage, that spouse can make it very, very expensive to leave. and we all know that.
Furthermore, once there are other children, simply leaving for whatever reason rips their home up. So there are lots of considerations when it comes to just pulling stakes.
So there you are stuck with someone who doesn’t want your child. I have to admit though that I would have a pretty low opinion of someone who had some kids with someone already and wanted to get pissy because the wife didn’t want to just keep popping them out.
“Bodily autonomy, folks; the most basic right there is.”
Yes, but society ignores it all the time and no one puts up much of a fuss; there is at least on big exception in law and custom that we all know about. If you don’t know what I mean, as a mother of sons, you will when they turn 18. So that bodily autonomy door is already open.
Good thing I’m not at Pandagon then hey Amanda?
How exactly is this thread jacking? What am I supposed to do, be all outraged and shit? I’m sorry, I just can’t feel outraged that someone might have their rights lowered to more closely mirror mine. Oh the injustice of it all!
I have a serious problem, though, with people doing dumbass shit like this. The woman is pregnant already. She has good reasons for making the choice she did. Making her feel shitty isn’t going to make her less pregnant, nor is it going to change the conditions in her life that caused her to make that decision.
It’s stupid, and it’s wrong. And I’ve said that already.
I also offered a potential avenue for the ProLife people to try and accomplish their goals…through Persuading people it’s wrong (there’s that Canadian-ness coming through). Hammering people over the head and making demands only goes so far. Eventually, people start tuning you out - which then means force is “necessary” to “get them to listen to you”….sound familiar?
Simply pointing out that this is a right that has been enjoyed by women, and not men, since it’s inception takes nothing away from the debate. If anything, it ADDS to it.
YMMV
Amanda,
Gimme time, coping with this massive and constant influx of people with, shall we say, a Conflicting Agenda is new for me. I am trying to figure out how to handle it in a way that (a) maintains as much of everyone’s ability to express himself or herself as freely as possible while (b) keeping the comments on each posted topic revolving primarily around the topic at hand—not everyone’s perspective is the same and I do value differing perspectives, even radically different ones. However, I don’t value deliberate attempts to disrupt discussions about one set of real issues with insistent derailings onto topics that the derailer has decided are more important.
Factory,
I can’t decode your post. Are you saying that men should have the right to terminate or refuse to allow termination of a woman’s pregnancy that he participated in engendering? Or are you talking about legal parenthood rights? If the second, that is not the topic of this thread. I can certainly and probably will post on that, but this thread is about abortion rights. So please say…clearly…which you’re trying to discuss.
I suppose what I’m saying is that I fundamentally disagree that “abortion rights” and “the right to decide if you want to be a parent” are in any way separate. They are interconnected by nature, indivisible.
You disagree.
Legal parenthood rights (to me) would be in such cases as “1st right of refusal” for fathers in adoption cases and such. Abortion is inextricably linked to the right to decide to be / not be a parent. And THAT has nothing to do with Gender OR biology.
Arguing it’s “your body, your choice” also entails the last of the triumvirate, “your responsibility”.
If you argue that abortion should only be allowed in cases where the pregnancy would harm the mother, then sure, I can get behind the “my body, my choice” sentiment.
Is that in fact what you argue?
There are a bunch of posters up around my university suggesting that “abortion advocates” think babies are “the enemy”. They’re slightly hilarious. There was also, for a time, one comparing pro-choicers to Nazis which was removed after a complaint from the Jewish Students’ Association (I think).
My favorite, though, is the one that simply states when a developing fetus’s heart starts working. It wouldn’t be especially amusing, except that they put it in the Biological Sciences building, where most people already know that.
No. I argue that anything anybody wants to do with his or her own internal organs and anything contained therein is his or her complete and utter right and absolutely nobody else’s on earth. Do you have a different belief, and if so, which of your internal organs are you willing to put up for grabs and why?
I don’t advocate any kind of infringement at all on your use of internal organs. In fact, I bet they’re highly desireable, and hope they get as much use as you deem fit. The only organ I put up for grabs is (mostly) external, so I can’t help you there.
What I am saying is you cannot separate the equation in two, and only look at one side. Chemical engineers likely know this stuff - I’m not a math guy, so I wouldn’t know for sure, but it doesn’t make sense to do so.
Freedom of person also entails freedom to use your person as you see fit. Being forced into parenthood is immoral, and was in fact the impetus behind Roe v Wade in the first place. Ergo, the reason you HAVE a “choice” is based on the very same argument I am making.
How is this a separate issue?
Tell ya what. Drop it here, because it will derail this thread, and I promise I will whip up a post on it in the near future and we can go into that then. The thrust of THIS post is strictly abortion and its legality or lack thereof, and as you’ve already stated you’re pro-choice, that’s pretty much that for here. Actually, a post discussing forced parenthood would probably be a good Feminist Dissident article and may well become one, though I had been sorta contemplating a different topic.
Sounds fair to me. I look forward to chewing it to pieces.
Just to make my position VERY clear, I agree with you, Lisa, that Oklahoma’s new law’s a poor one. Targeting a woman once she’s decided on an abortion is cruel and inhumane. It’s also locking the stable door after the horse has bolted (from the POV of reducing abortions).
I’ve got no problem at all with women having a termination, should that be their choice, but the use of abortions as birth control concerns me (and most of the UK’s sexual health service providers).
In this country, abortions have risen consistently year on year (in 2007 by 2.5%). What’s worse is that our Government has been pumping money into sexual health advice, contraceptive availability (condoms are free in schools and sexual health clinics), and made morning-after pills available over the counter (and they’re not expensive).
Despite all that (and they’re now planning to roll out sex education/relationship guidance to 5 year olds), 89% of abortions in 2007 were carried out at less than 13 weeks, of which 68% were at the less than 10 week stage.
In 2007, 84 girls under the age of 16 had an abortion EVERY WEEK! 2 of those each week were under 14 (linking back to your post about school guidance perhaps Lisa).
These terminations aren’t down to concerns over handicaps/disabilities in the foetus (less than 2% in 2007), they’re being used in place of sensible birth control measures.
Setting aside the very real physical health concerns for the woman (and I’m always going to assume that, as women, you’re way more informed than I am on that), there’s an emotional cost too.
The problem I often come accross is that ‘pro-choicers’ (and I realise that in the US they’re fighting something of a rear-guard action so it’s understandable) see ANY concern over the abortion-as-birth-control issue as an attack on what they (and I) see as a fundamental right. I’ve seen statements along the lines of “no woman would ever choose to use an abortion as BC” when clearly SOME (quite a few in the UK unfortunately) clearly do.
Oklahoma’s ‘tactic’ is shameful, but abortions are not desirable procedures and effort has to be put in to reducing the number procured. Perhaps you have your own ideas, as a parent, on how?
I don’t think any feminists would be against a man’s right not to be forced to impregnate a woman. However, if you’re talking about child support, that’s a right that children have, that adults don’t have the right to give up on their behalf. Now, if you want to change the system so that everyone pays into a fund regardless of whether their genetic material has caused another person to exist (much like schools) that is then used to compensate whomever the primary caregiver of the child is, that would be fine with me. I think tying a child’s resources and opportunities to the social position of the parents just perpetuates entrenched inequality. But thinking that you’re somehow not a parent just because you’re not supporting your kid is pretty silly, and unfair to the child.
Regarding the actual post, it’s interesting to note that according to the CDC’s abortion surveillance, in any given year, about 60% of women terminating pregnancies have already given birth at least once. So these laws are forcing doctors to literally explain to people who are most often already mothers that yes, pregnancy -> baby. It’s absolutely nuts, and indicative of the fact that “pro-life” idiots are willfully uninformed in addition to having a hateful opinion of women that projects their own ignorance onto us.
I am so angry about the canard “abortion as birth control.” First of all, yes, abortion is a form of birth control. It prevents one from giving birth. But I think James H and others are using it to mean “abortion as primary form of birth control,” which is just ridiculous.
First of all, in the US, abortions cost from $350-$650 in the first trimester. After that, the cost can be up to $1200. That’s very expensive birth control! And that doesn’t even factor in the costs of travel (98% of counties in the US don’t have abortion facilities), time of from work, child care, etc.
Abortion is also surgery. No woman wants to have multiple abortions. It’s much cheaper to prevent an abortion even without insurance.
This anti-choice myth is another example of treating women as children who don’t have good sense and need to be taken care of by “Daddy.”
Lara,
You can be as angry as you like, but the ‘canard’ here is your proposition, not mine.
I don’t have the figures for the US, but abortions are FREE in the UK and they ARE being used as a primary method of BC by some women (primary in that they’ve neglected to use a condom, implant or the pill etc).
If you’d actually bothered to read my comment you’ll see that it’s not only my opinion that this is so, but also that of the UK Government, UK charitable-status sexual health clinics (like Brook and Marie Stopes) and the WHO (hardly bastions of anti-choice, whatever planet you’re currently visiting us from).
That they’re used in this way is simply inexcusable in the UK where contraceptives are free, readily available and (if you still risk sex without BC) the morning-after pill is available over the counter for less than £10 (about $15 USD these days).
What the figures show is that the massive sex-education programs we have in place over here STILL haven’t succeeded in educating kids and young adults on the necessity of using contraceptives. As you might gather from my comment (assuming you can read it through that red mist), I am not in the slightest way against terminations. I thought I’d made that more than clear, and took pains to do so.
As you rightly reiterate though, abortions are expensive (to us taxpayers in this country), harmful and (in way too large a percentage) generally avoidable.
I will risk repeating myself in saying that abortions should be available to any girl or woman who wants one, but EVERY effort should be made to cut down the numbers performed - not by shaming women (a la Oklahoma) but by educating them (and young men) and by making contraceptives cheaper or free.
Oh, and the only people I want to be Daddy to are my daughters, thanks.
James,
By “abortions as birth control” I’m assuming you mean, using abortions as the primary rather than the backup form of birth control. Certainly that is not desirable, from a financial or health standpoint. I don’t really get why you include the gestational age data, which is comparable to the US’s except even more of ours occur earlier.
The vast majority of the pro-choice support comprehensive sex ed, which is frequently derailed by others who don’t, which is a big part of the problem. Also, birth control itself is not flawless; it is dependent upon user technique and user reliability, and is also obstructed in terms of distribution and encouraged usage by the same people who oppose sex ed. It can also be prohibitively expensive and there is even a growing movement in the US (hopefully a slow-growing one) to support and encourage pharmacists to refuse to even dispense it. That isn’t a big problem for those of us who live near urban areas, but it can be a very big problem for those who don’t.
(sigh) No, I don’t have any ideas other than pushing comprehensive sex ed and making birth control cheaper and more available. It would be great if it could be made less dependent upon user technique and reliability as well.
eh? abortion IS birth control! what other use is there?
James, the “abortion as birth control” thing is figment. No sizeable number of women find it convenient to pay 600 dollars to have their insides scraped for the sake of contracepting a pregnancy when they could use another form of contraception.
The abortion rate rising likely has something to do with the fact that reproductive rights, education, and access have been constantly attacked over the last few years.
Hari,
Attacked where? Here in the UK or over there in the States?
If the former then I have to politely disagree, (there are pro-lifers here too but they are definitely in the minority) if the latter then you have a point.
And as I pointed out above, it doesn’t cost ANYTHING over here for an abortion and whilst I agree with Lisa that failiures of technique/application in using other forms of BC undoubtedly play a big part in the overall figures, there ARE women that neglect to use BC whilst still being sexually active.
Women who have undergone multiple abortions are not as uncommon as you would seem to like. Are they REALLY that unlucky? Are they just stupid? Or are they using abortions in the same way a sensible person would use a condom/pill/coil?
As I pointed out above, it isn’t just my opinion that suggests that some (and I stress SOME) fall firmly into the last category.
Okay, let’s talk US stats.
In the US, about half of all pregnancies are accidental. About 40% of these, for a grand total of about 20% of all pregnancies yearly, end in abortion.
This translates to only 2% of women of reproductive age yearly having abortions. The other 98%? Not having abortions. Given that, and the fact that 80% of the women who do get pregnant, don’t get abortions, there is clearly not an abortion epidemic in the United States. I can’t speak for the UK, but I have a very difficult time stretching those numbers into a serious, massive, socially disruptive problem.
The abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 women of reproductive years) in the US has been dropping steadily for the past 28 years. Given that Roe v. Wade was only legalized 35 years ago, that is the overwhelming majority of the time it has been legal. Obviously, there is no growing trend of women seeking abortions. If one considers that women seeking abortions is a problem, clearly, the problem has been receeding for the past 28 years.
For those who are having abortions, socioeconomics is clearly a big problem here in the states. To wit: “The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women.” (from the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute)
Before I can comment on how common or uncommon “multiple” abortions are, we need to define “multiple.” Say a woman begins having sex at age 16 and enters menopause at age 50. That’s 34 years x 12 months where she could get pregnant, so, let’s say there are 408 eggs just waiting to be fertilized in her lifetime. What do you consider a “multiple” number of times she aborted? Four abortions would be less than 1% of her possible pregancy events. So, we need to settle on how many times “multiple” might be.