Cand86 feminist, queer, kinky

After the Havoc: I Don't Understand the Logic (Or Lack Therof) of Pro-Choice Feminism

OK, I’m really sick of hearing, “it’s my uterus”, “don’t tell me what to do with my uterus”, “I am a uterus-bearer”, etc. UTERUSUTERUSUTERUSUTERUSUTERUS, ok? Do we have that out of the way now? Yes, I know you love the attention and shock value, or the freedom the internet gives you to talk about your female anatomy, but come now, is “uterus” really that fun of word? Enough with it.

But I get it. You’re proud to be a woman. I would be too. But why is abortion such a feminist-empowered thing? Wouldn’t you think it would be the opposite? After all, woman having the strength and courage to carry a pregnancy to term, unwanted or otherwise, is a beautiful and powerful thing that can ONLY be associated with women. So why is taking the easy way out the thing that feminists say is so empowering to women?

And don’t say it’s not the “easy way out”. I understand that an abortion is something that is traumatizing and upsetting for sure. But compared to carrying a child to term, of course it’s the easy way out! If a “medical procedure” is as hard a decision to make or harder than childbirth and/or raising children, then why does aid “medical procedure” exist? It wouldn’t help women at all.

By the way, this is not dealing with rape victims. Readers of my blog already know the statistics and facts and differences as far as that goes.

Thanks.

Why I believe that abortion rights is a feminist issue:

* The legality of and access to safe abortion is something that makes a direct impact on the lives of women in a given country. Feminism is about improving women’s lot in the world, about making our lives better. And right now, 55,000 abortions a day (over 20 million a year) are unsafe. The World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions cause the deaths of at least 200 women each day, over 70,000 women each year, yet it is “one of the most easily preventable and treatable causes of maternal mortality.” Between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion, but sustain long-term damage or disease. The most frequent complications are incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus. Long-term health problems include chronic pain, pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths. If feminism is about improving the lives of women, guaranteeing access to safe, legal abortion should be high up on any feminist’s list.

* Being able to control your fertility (of which one’s tools include abstaining, employing contraception, and having abortions) is integral to feminism’s goals. A woman who is constantly at risk of unplanned pregnancy for the entirety of her sexually active, fertile years is one who cannot compete with men who have no such “handicap”, as it were. Pregnancy discrimination still happens in the U.S.- 6.5% of all discrimination claims in 2006 involved pregnancy discrimination. Of course, the answer to pregnancy discrimination is not to simply advocate that women never get pregnant, but it is important to understand that women face far more difficulties doing the same things men are able to do- completing higher levels of education, establishing careers, moving up vertically within their professions- if they cannot postpone motherhood until when they choose to do so. If feminism is about leveling the playing field for women and ensuring that women who want to pursue careers can do so the same as men, access to contraception and abortion is crucial. And it’s not just me saying that- it’s the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

* And lastly, feminism is about respecting women as intelligent, independent, autonomous individuals. Regardless of what you believe about abortion’s morality, pro-life/anti-choice legislation does not have the same view of women. When a state proposes a bill that would allow doctors to lie to women seeking abortions, that is the antithesis of feminism. It infantilizes women, treating them like stupid, ignorant children who must be “protected” from “making a mistake” by their paternalistic authority figures. Late-term abortion provider George Tiller’s motto said nothing about abortion; all it said was “Trust women.” Two simple words, encompassing the belief that a woman seeking an abortion is doing what is best for her and her family. To doubt that fact, frankly, smacks of misogyny.

Also, as far as the whole “After all, woman having the strength and courage to carry a pregnancy to term, unwanted or otherwise, is a beautiful and powerful thing that can ONLY be associated with women.” thing goes, well, I’ve written about that before. Not only does this statement co-opt the rhetoric of empowerment, but it also seems to gloss over the term “unwanted’ … as if an unwanted pregnancy is on par with a wanted one, that the two are not substantially different, and as if being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will is not really, truly terrible.

And last, but not least: uterus. I don’t know if I say it all that much, but I can tell you why I approve of that word getting thrown around a helluva lot. I like it because it reminds people of where pregnancy takes place. Far, far too often, pro-life/anti-choice folks talk about fetuses as though they’re sitting in a crib. The fact that pregnancy takes place in a body, in the body of a person, the body of an individual with a name and some pretty strong emotions either way about what’s taking place inside them. Talking about uteruses forces people to remember that pregnancy entails them, and their owners. Also, it seems to piss off Republicans who think it’s a dirty word. I like reminding everybody that it’s not.

Not Exactly: “A fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby”

dez-ray:

Devaluing something that you perceive others to over value is just as bad.

It is a fetus, that given the opportunity will grow into a baby. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop calling the fetus a parasite. You do nothing to further your cause.

Oooh! You know, I’ve had this lingering in my drafts, needing some finishing touches, and then what comes up on my dash? prolifehypocrisy reblogging someone using the exact argument I’m debunking! So without further ado, my original post, tailored a bit here as a response:

One of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve ever heard is the idea that “a fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby” or “a fertilized egg, unmolested, will become a baby.”

This is simply not true- human fertilized eggs are not like avian and reptilian eggs. We don’t simply deposit them in a safe spot and presto! you’ve got babies after a suitable period of incubation. (Which itself is rare and limited to few species, like turtles; most animals that lay eggs do incubate them or intermittently attend to them even when they use warm sand as an incubator).

Human pregnancies require a womb and a plethora of hormones and nutrients in order to gestate. An embryo in a petri dish will not become a baby. To say that a fertilized egg or fetus automatically becomes a baby is to either be woefully ignorant, or to believe that a woman is nothing more than warm sand, not a person, but literally an incubator.

The “fertilized egg, unmolested, will become a baby” is not an original argument, but rather, a response. It has long been a tenet of anti-choice rhetoric that a fertilized egg represents potential life (well, plenty of anti-choicers do not even use “potential” as a qualifier, so I suppose it’s the more moderate folks who soften their tone in that way). Of course, this argument is somewhat weak- potential life is not only found in blastocysts and embryos and fetuses, but also in sperm and ova. After all, all of the above require something (or many things) in order to continue their development from potential to realization- sperm need an ovum, an ovum needs sperm, a blastocyst, embryo, and fetus all need a uterus in which to gestate, and the aforementioned hormones and nutrients. If they all represent potential life, and destruction of potential life is anathema, this certainly puts male masturbation, nocturnal emissions, menstruation, and all forms of birth control in a suddenly more sinister light.*

And so, because of this conundrum, the anti-choice response has been to clarify their position: “potential life” must refer to a fertilized egg, a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus. Talking about this “potential life” while referencing the pregnant people never sounds good- after all, in comparing “potential life” to actual life, most people understand that the latter deserves more consideration. Reality trumps potential. And therefore, for your argument to be effective, you must remove women/folks with uteri from the equation altogether. Don’t even mention them- and maybe nobody will have to think through what forcible pregnancy actually means for the person who will be forced to remain pregnant. That is how you arrive at the statement “a fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby”, even though it’s missing that huge, vital piece of what human reproduction entails.

Oh, and as far as comparing the fetus to a parasite- it’s the only metaphor that works. Every anti-choicer seems to try to compare abortion to something else. It’s like murder! It’s like killing your two-year old kid! It’s like euthanizing someone in a vegetative state! But the fact remains that there is nothing like abortion except for the parasite/host model. That is the only example of a person who has a separate, unique organism inside his or her body. Does it sound shitty? You betcha. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Parasites are creatures inside your body that you do not want there- so if a woman is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, her fetus is in essence a parasite. A creature who lives inside your body that you do want there, even if it takes something from you, is engaging in a symbiotic relationship- ergo the fetus of a wanted pregnancy is in essence a symbiont.

I don’t typically use the “parasite” argument, but if someone tries to create a false equivalency between abortion and some other situation that doesn’t fit, you bet I will invoke the fetus-as-parasite argument, because it really is the only comparison that works.

* Don’t be so quick to protest this as ludicrous; religious folks on the extreme ends have often believed attempted procreation to be mandatory. One interpretation of the Old Testament story of Onan is that it demonstrates that God viewed the failure of sperm to connect with ova as tantamount to not allowing a child to come into the world. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae states: “Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. So some birth contraceptions aren’t as good as other ways Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Poor Richard's News: New mother arrested for dumping baby in hospital trash can

poorrichardsnews:

A new mother in Olympia, Washington, was arrested yesterday after her baby was found dumped in a hospital bathroom trash can.

The sad irony here is that while every decent person will (and should) be outraged at this 23 year old woman’s selfishness, had she decided to kill her baby moments before giving birth instead of shortly after, pro-abortion activists would be standing up for her. Late term abortion is still performed in Oregon, and it is indefensible.

Thankfully this baby will now survive and have a chance to live a full life.

“Moments before”. Really? Are you kidding me? Nobody is having an elective abortion moments prior to labor and delivery, and it is literally deceitful for you to write that.

And you know, on a side note, it’s funny to re-read this commentary and the line “every decent person will be outraged at this 23 year old woman’s selfishness”, because I’m not outraged at what you deem her “selfishness”. I’m shocked and horrified by her actions, saddened for that newborn, and I’ve got a whole other host of reactions, but judging her for supposed selfishness isn’t one of them. I’m always tryin’ to give anti-choicers the benefit of the doubt, but they keep on insisting on inserting these little rhetorical points in that hint not at outrage over what happens to fetuses and newborns, but outrage over women who have the audacity to want to reject or postpone motherhood.

fuckyeahchoice:

teatimewithsylviaplath:

fuckyeahchoice:

frannymars:

Let Me Live!!

The only reason someone that far into their pregnancy could legally obtain an abortion is if their life is in danger or the fetus is not viable(some states, not then)

Obviously I don’t need to explain to you that a fetus cannot talk, think or reason. And when elective abortions are legal cannot feel pain.

I hate pictures like this. I think it’s insulting to any person who has ever had an abortion. It’s not an easy decision, it’s not a happy time in their life, but they shouldn’t be targeted by your stupid website or pickets because you value a fetus over the quality of life and rights of an actual person.

Do most people out there think that the majority of women seeking abortions really do so this far into term? Ads like this disgust me.

Because if they showed a picture of the majority of people who get an abortion procedure they wouldn’t look pregnant enough to scare people. Pro life seems to cater more towards an emotional response, so scare tactics and trigger words is probably the best advertising.

I’m just starting to get my preggo belly at 20 weeks. Everyone’s different but this lady looks like her due date could be any day.

Okay, seriously? Worst image ever! My first thought when I saw those outstretched fetal hands (which look, um, rather huge and a little alien-ish) was “OMG that baby is trapped! It’s being held inside against its will! Not so much ‘Let me live!’ as ‘Let me out!’”. At least the images of peacefully curled up fetuses evoke thoughts of innocence, helplessness, comfortable slumber, yada yada, but this … yeesh.

Also, all the above commentary. But mostly, really bad choice, whoever made that image.

Sometimes I feel like I talk too much about abortion … but I can’t let it go when I hear about some of the things that are going on. One of Jezebel’s tags for their posts on abortion is “Roe vs. World”, and it seems dead-on.

I don’t even understand how they’re trying to justify this; at least other attempts to stop abortion usually fall under justifications that sound good and right (i.e. “We just want to protect women’s mental health!” or so on). I mean, as the video points out, if this is about safety and health, why aren’t other outpatient procedure clinics being subjected to the same regulation? And for that matter, what horrible event occurred in an unregulated abortion clinic that made Ken Cuccinelli realize the horrible oversight and need for two gurney-wide hallways?

Oh, there wasn’t one? Gotcha.

You’ve Got To Be Shitting Me

Remember how once upon a time in America, white people in the South used to own black people and treat them like chattel? This horrible event- known as slavery- included the black men and women being forced to live inside of the white folks. The slaves couldn’t do anything- being uncomfortably squished inside of the white folks’ bodies, they didn’t have much choice; you can’t work the fields, pick cotton, cook, or clean when you’re housed in someone’s abdominal cavity.

This calls to mind our current situation today, where the ones doing the unpaid, forced manual labor is actually fetuses. Harrowing, indeed, to see them toiling out there, being treated liked property.

If that describes the world, the comparison of slaves to fetuses is fine. If you live in the real world and that isn’t the case at all, THEN STOP COMPARING FETUSES TO SLAVES.

I don’t mind people who hold the belief that a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are people from the moment of conception, but I really hope that the same people who hold those beliefs can also realize the ludicrousness of this argument (not to mention the racial insensitivity and co-opting of civil rights as mentioned in the article).

I mean, honestly. What. The. Fuck.

I hate bringing up the whole “parasite” argument, because I do think it’s pretty awful, but it’s stuff like this that really makes me want to say “Fine, you think it’s a person with the right to life? Well, right now it’s trespassing on my body so I’m gonna pull the sucker off and you can have it.” Because seriously, if anybody is a slave in this scenario (a comparison I wouldn’t use in the first place), it’s the woman. The government has never forced private citizens to care and provide for other private citizens, and they’re more than happy to take those for whom you cannot do so, either forcibly (Child and Adult Protection Services, foster care) or willingly (Child Drop Off centers, orphanages).

I am not an incubator. If you want, take the thing out of me and put it in your own goddamned incubator, because the women wanting abortions don’t want these “slaves”, as you call them. And masters not wanting their slaves is a really shitty example of slavery, Colorado.

fuckyeahchoice:

And everyone who posts this doesn’t have a very good grasp of this whole debate.

You are comparing humans with well established memories, feelings, families, friends, pain, dreams and you know, a life.

With a fetus who has no memories, no thoughts, no life(I didn’t say it wasn’t alive) and can’t even feel pain when almost all abortions are preformed. Abortions after 24 weeks are always because of the woman’s health or the viability of the fetus. In addition to all of this, a fetus is physically dependent on only it’s biological mother. It cannot survive outside or without. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want.

p.s. Reagan sucks.

Ah, time for epic logic!fail. The problem with this argument is that the two statements are fundamentally different, but are trying to present themselves as the same in order to draw a comparison.

The first statement, regarding slavery, is one that is falsifiable. In order to prove it false, all you have to do is to find just one slave who supported slavery. Until you do, it can be assumed to be true.

The second statement, however, is not. You cannot falsify it, because there is no way to query the opinions of those who were never born. It’s as ridiculous as saying “Everybody who supports cremation is still alive.” for your anti-cremation rhetoric. It’s not as if you can speak to someone who has been cremated and ask “Okay, now that you’ve been through the process, do you still feel the same way about cremation?” in order to falsify the statement. And no, you cannot query people who have never been born.

In the vacuum of falsifiability, this argument seeks to imply that those who were not born do not support abortion … but there is no good reason to draw that conclusion. It is just a valid assumption to believe that all those who were not born do support abortion. (All of this paragraph, of course, is on a theoretical level because again, as demonstrated above, you cannot ask someone who was not born).

It’s really, really easy to get drawn into a big debate about what constitutes a person and all that with this argument, but the simplest way to deal with it is to expose it as a fallacy:

One question that must be asked about any doubtful proposition or conjecture is, “how can this be disproved if it is false?” If there is no way to test if the proposition is false, there are no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true.

RainyAutumnTwilight: Posted because I have never in my life heard a pro-choice argument that was the least bit compelling and this is why...

This is a reblogged post- you can read the entirety here. The pertinent parts of her post are in blockquotes, with my bolded responses underneath each.

rainyautumntwilight:

Everyone agrees that abortion kills something that’s alive. After all, death [sic] things don’t grow! But whether it’s right to take the life of any living being depends entirely on the question: What kind of being is it?

Some people want to ignore that question altogether. They simply assume the unborn are not human beings like you and me.

Here’s now you clarify things: Whenever you hear an argument for elective abortion, ask yourself if this particular justification would also work to justify killing toddlers or other humans. If not, the argument assumes the unborn are not fully human, like toddlers. But again, that’s the issue, isn’t it?

Underline emphasis mine. There’s some crucial aspect about the difference between fetuses and toddlers/other humans that seems to be missing from this argument … can you put your finger on it? I’ll even give you a hint: it’s not about being “fully human” or anything like that. No? Nothing jumping out at ya? Well, let’s move on to the next point and see if it starts to become apparent …

1. “Women have a right to make their own private decisions.”

Imagine that a woman has a two-year-old in front of her. May she kill him or her as long as the killing is done in the privacy of the bedroom? Of course not. Why not? Because the child is a human being. If the unborn are also human, they should not be killed in the name of privacy any more than we’d kill a toddler for that same reason.

Of course, abortion advocates respond that killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two different things, like comparing apples with oranges. But that’s the issue isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That’s the one issue that matters. We can’t escape it.

If you haven’t grasped it yet, time for the big reveal: THE TODDLER ISN’T INSIDE HER. The privacy that we talk about in regards to abortion, reproductive rights, and Roe vs. Wade actually isn’t about the privacy of your bedroom. In fact, it’s the right to privacy of your body. So let’s stop with this “killing a toddler in your private bedroom” thing, eh? That’s a plain, flat-out wrong analogy. Are the unborn human beings like toddlers? That’s irrelevant. What makes the two situations different is the fact that fetuses reside inside the woman- not just in her bedroom.

2. “But many poor women cannot afford to raise another child.”

When human beings get expensive, may we kill them? Suppose a large family collectively decides to quietly dispose of its three youngest children to help ease the family budget. Would this be okay?

Abortion advocates agree it’s wrong to kill the children, but insist that aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a child. Ah, but that’s the issue: Is unjustly killing a fetus morally the same as unjustly killing a two-year-old? So, once again, the issue is the same: What is the unborn?

YOUR THREE YOUNGEST CHILDREN ARE NOT SQUATTING IN YOUR UTERUS.

3. “A woman should not be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world.”

Abortion advocates sometimes argue that killing a fetus is the more humane thing to do. “Who wants to be part of a family that rejects you? Everyone has a right to be wanted.” And if you aren’t wanted, may we kill you? Suppose a toddler is unwanted and we have good reason to think that by the time he’s five, he’ll also be abused and neglected. Should we kill him now to spare him future trouble?

The answer is obviously no, but it brings us back to the one issue that matters: What is the unborn?

It’s fascinating to me that this statement started out with “a woman”, but the response doesn’t mention her at all. It has the word “unwanted” in it, yes, but the meaning is that women shouldn’t have to undergo forced pregnancy. It’s kind of telling, in fact- so much anti-choice rationale ignores the woman and focuses on the fetus, so the misconstruction of this quote is precisely what you might expect. Either way, whatever a woman’s reason for seeking an abortion, her right to do so comes from one place: the fetus is inside of her. The legitimacy of her reasons, or lack thereof, are irrelevant.

4. “No woman should be forced to raise a child with physical disabilities.”

Suppose that you have in front of you a small boy you is mentally disabled. He’s not very bright, cannot speak or understand much of what is said, and looks strange from head to toe. Would it be morally permissible to kill him because of his condition?

Abortion advocates agree that we cannot destroy him, that we should treat him with the same care we provide all disabled human beings. But again, this raises a prior question: If the disabled unborn are humans, like the disabled toddler, should we kill them for not meeting our standard of perfection? Thus, the issue that matters most in the abortion debate isn’t disability. It’s “What is the unborn?”

“IN FRONT OF YOU” ≠ “INSIDE YOU”. If I’m starting to sound like a broken record, there’s a reason for that.

5. “Every woman has a right to decide what is right and wrong for herself.”

Would you force your morality on an abusive mother who was physically mistreating her two-year-old? You better. No human being should be abused.

You see the issue is not about forcing morality; it’s not about privacy; it’s not about economic hardship; it’s not about physical disabilities; it’s not about unwantedness. The issue is reduced to one question: What is the unborn?

When we say that every woman has a right to decide what is right and wrong for herself, we’re referring to her own body- not to anybody or anything that exists outside the barrier of her skin. So what are you talking about?

Look- if a woman was standing in front of an incubator that, through the magic of technology that does not yet exist, was holding a 12-week old fetus (the majority of abortions happen during the first trimester), and she killed it, I would absolutely consider it immoral, wrong, and illegal.

But that’s not what we’re debating. The fetus is inside of her. And her body is just that- hers. She gets to choose what happens therein, period. The answer to that repeated question- What is the unborn?- is simple: the unborn is inside of a woman. You can’t compare it to anything else, because there is nothing like it.

I’m very open to debate, and I’ll listen respectfully and offer up my thoughts if someone wants to reblog this, but if the anti-choice position boils down to “We must protect fetuses!”, then my position comes down to protecting the right to bodily autonomy against intrusion by the government (or anyone else, for that matter). Nobody should ever be able to force you to have an abortion- and the other side of the coin is that nobody should never be able to force you to get or remain pregnant, because your pregnancy happens in your body- not someone else’s.

prospectiveprospector:

I have a problem with this. I completely think that abortion is a woman’s choice and no one should ever be made to feel bad about having an abortion but this isn’t a just argument. If abortion is illegal then the person supplying the service would be punished, not so much the woman. Just like it’s illegal to get a tattoo under 18, you can’t get arrested for having a tattoo at 16 but the person who gave it to you could be punished by law. I do think this video is important for the people they asked, so that they can really reflect on their position but I don’t think that question really proved anything else.

I’ll take just a brief moment to do away with that false analogy; it is illegal to give a tattoo to a minor because legally, a minor cannot enter into a legal contract/render informed consent for such a procedure. Applying that logic to criminalizing abortion only works if you believe women cannot give informed consent regarding their uteri- or if you don’t believe they should be allowed to.

Now, to the main point: this ignores the reality that abortion- particularly when illegal or difficult to access- is often self-induced. Women who do not want to be pregnant but have no one to help them terminate- legally or illegally- will use wire hangers, knitting needles, toothpicks, pencils, and other sharp objects to try and puncture their cervices. They will drink bleach, mild poisons, and consume substances with proven or rumored abortifacient properties, in order to cause miscarriage. They will throw themselves down stairs and beat their abdomens. And plenty of women have set out not necessarily to self-abort, but rather to intentionally cause bleeding, knowing that if they show up at a hospital, they will receive competent medical care to finish the abortion and ensure there are no complications. If the law was made to punish those who provide abortion, rather than those who seek it, then this is definitely the biggest loophole that exists.

What’s more, if you want to make the argument that the provider is the one actually perpetrating wrongdoing, then logically (and according to legal precedent), she pregnant woman at the very least would have to be charged the same as those who engage in contract killing (i.e. hiring a hitman).

Portraying those who seek out abortion services as innocent victims of the “real criminals” who provide it is not coincidental- it is the calculated tactic of a movement that knows it they will not get far if it demonizes women.

(Source: lasthenia)

samanthab:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

via: unreasonablefaith

OMG PEOPLE. Do you not understand what “illegal” means? This makes me absolutely furious. (Not to mention that it’s fascinating that a large chunk of the same people believe that making guns illegal would not stop those who want guns from getting them, but they’re just absolutely certain that making abortion illegal will somehow magically put a stop to all abortions.)

Let me reiterate this, because it’s important: Wanting others to make the choice you think is appropriate is not the same as removing their freedom of choice.

It’s why all the praise Sarah Palin got for “choosing life” is such complete and utter bullshit. Either it’s a legally-protected choice and you can celebrate your not choosing it, or it’s illegal and the response to that cover should be “As if you had any other option!”. You don’t get to have it both ways.

Remember how brilliantly Samantha Bee covered this topic on The Daily Show?

(Also, on a related side-note, it’s pretty sad … I once asked my dad what he thought the punishment for women who got abortions should be, sure that I had him ideologically cornered. Without hesitation, he responded that they should be forcibly sterilized. So depressing.)

(Source: lasthenia)