Pages

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Abortion, "God's Plan," and "Selfish" Women

I've often said that when I was pro-life it was because I honestly believed the embryo/fetus was a person with a soul. This is true, but there's something more. The reality is that I had no idea what women who found themselves with unplanned pregnancies faced. I had no understanding of the reasons someone would choose to end a pregnancy. 

I was raised by a stay at home mother who had baby after baby without ever a threat to her health or the family's finances. No pregnancy was planned, but every pregnancy was welcome. No pregnancy was ever inconvenient or any trouble at all. I couldn't conceptualize what it would be like to want only two children, or none, or to face an unplanned pregnancy on a tight budget or as a working mother. Things like maternity leave or daycare costs were foreign to me. I had but one word for women who had abortions: selfish.

I believed that it was women's role, as laid down by God, to have children. Many children, presumably, because children I believed children were always a blessing and never a burden. And child bearing was what women were made for, after all. It was also women's role to remain within the home, cooking, cleaning, and rearing and educating the children. It was laid forth by God. Women whose chose anything else were selfish, seeking personal fulfillment over the needs of their families. Women who wanted to limit their family size were selfish. Women who felt their hearts sink rather than leap at a positive pregnancy test were selfish

The problem was not unplanned pregnancies. The problem was not tight economic situations or a work environment for women that does not always accommodate pregnancy. The problem was selfish women, women who didn't want to be pregnant, women who didn't want to be mothers, women who didn't want to stay home and care for their children. If women would just stop being selfish and realize the role they were created for, the whole abortion issue would disappear. 

Today, I don't want a dozen or more children. I don't even want eight children, or five. I don't want to be a stay at home mom. I don't want to spend ten full years pregnant or twenty years changing diapers. I don't actually particularly enjoy being pregnant. I want to work, to continue on a career that I find intellectually stimulating and fulfilling. I want to raise only a few children, but to invest in each one and raise them well. I want to choose when and if I become pregnant, to be able to have my economics and work situation in order, to be as prepared as possible for each child I decide to bring into this world. I have become one of those selfish, selfish women. 

Except that I don't feel selfish. I feel responsible. I feel loving. I feel happy. 

The truth is, not wanting a large family isn't "selfish." Not wanting children at all isn't "selfish." Wanting to plan when and how many children to have is not "selfish." Wanting to work outside the home isn't "selfish." Feeling your heart sink when you learns that you are unexpectedly and inconveniently pregnant is not "selfish." In fact, it's kind of normal. 

You know what strikes me as selfish? Thinking your own choices are the only acceptable ones and wanting to impose those choices on everyone else. Telling other people how they should live. Expecting every woman to fit a one-size-fits-all mold you've fashioned from your reading of your holy book. 

Many women have abortions not because they are "selfish" but because they are responsible. Sixty percent of women who have abortions already have children. For some women, an abortion is the only financially acceptable option. For some women, an abortion is needed so that they can properly care for the children they already have. For some women, an abortion allows them to finish their education so that they can someday give their future children better lives than they themselves had. Women don't have abortions lightly or on a whim. 

It's often stated that women faced with unplanned pregnancies should just go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption. This is the "selfless" thing to do, and those who choose to abort rather than offer their child for adoption are "selfish." There are several problems with this argument. 

First, not everyone is comfortable with the idea of having a child and letting someone else raise it, probably without ever seeing it again or knowing if it is having a good life. I know I'm not comfortable with that idea. 

Second, pregnancy is an extremely difficult and arduous and invasive and inconvenient process. Pregnancy means losing control of your body for nine months, facing debilitating nausea and food aversions, a lowered immune system, a swollen belly and altered sense of gravity, physical discomfort and potential back problems, and finally, the painful and difficult process of labor, followed by a recovery that takes months. Oh, and did I mention that pregnancy includes having to buy a whole new wardrobe and answer questions from family, friends, and ever-friendly strangers? 

When I was growing up, I saw adoption as the solution to the problem of abortion. I threw the idea out there flippantly, like it was so obviously a simple and easy solution. I now realize that it absolutely isn't. If a woman wants to go through the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption, great. But no woman should be expected or forced to do so. 

Today I understand abortion as a much more complex issue than I did growing up. If I still thought that an embryo/fetus was a person with a soul and all that, I would likely still oppose abortion, but I would at least understand it as a much more difficult question than I had thought it was. Abortion isn't about "selfish" women flouting "God's plan" for their lives. Abortion is about women in tight situations trying to make the best decisions for themselves, their current and future children, and their families. Sometimes, there are no easy answers. 

41 comments:

  1. Paula G V aka YukimiFebruary 7, 2012 at 7:36 AM

    Nicely said ^__^
    If I got pregnant now in the middle of my education(which with all the measures we take would be nothing short of a miracle) my boyfriend and I have already decided I would get an abortion and I don't feel selfish at all for that. In the future I want to have kids and adopt at least a child too but that will be when I have finished my medicine degree and have a job with which to be able to maintain them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You know what strikes me as selfish? Thinking your own choices are the only acceptable ones and wanting to impose those choices on everyone else. Telling other people how they should live. Expecting every woman to fit a one-size-fits-all mold you've fashioned from your reading of your holy book." There it is 'Clap Clap Clap'!

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's a quote from a recent Terry Pratchett book that sums up much of the whole abortion question for me. "Let it be said here that those who live their lives where life hangs by less than a thread understand the dreadful algebra of necessity, which has no mercy..."

    In other words, sometimes there is no "good" choice, there are just choices.

    To truly reduce the number of abortions, contraceptives need to be easily available and the public must be educated to use them effectively. Unfortunately, that's something many of the "Pro-Life" camp will not agree with for fear it will cause promiscuity... sigh. My brain hurts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As someone who has had an abortion, I agree with everything you say here. This needs to be said over and over!

    I also want to point out how prevalent this attitude is. It's everywhere, not just in the Quiverfull or super-fundy crowd, but in normal conservative culture, in mainstream Christian publications, in very standard Christian discourse. I have heard so many, many times how selfish women are if they consider abortion an option; how "easy" adoption is; and how women who flaunt God's plan (for home and childrearing) are just asking for a breakdown of society and Christendom.

    When I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy, I was in grad school and had just (finally) broken up with my emotionally abusive then-boyfriend. He didn't want a child and couldn't have supported one. I certainly didn't want a child that would yoke me to him for the rest of my life. I had no money, no job, and no way to "hide" a pregnancy even if I'd wanted to. I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of having a child and then giving it to someone else to raise. I was terrified at the thought of my conservative parents' reaction to my pregnancy. There was really no other good option. These are not minor issues--finishing school and not being bound to an ex-boyfriend are really, really important!

    The other thing this makes me think of is how women are so often expected to be the ones that suck it up. If we do anything that is looking out for our immediate or long term needs, anything that doesn't include babies, anything that results in not conforming to the "women are nurturers!" ideal, we are "selfish" and "corrupt" and "flaunting God's plan." We are *expected* to give up our freedom, sometimes our very personhood, and our dreams in order to fulfill the ideal. The guys who get girls pregnant in a situation where abortion is the only option...are they ever called selfish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The other thing this makes me think of is how women are so often expected to be the ones that suck it up."

      Amen! Women are supposed to "sacrifice." Sacrifice for your husband, sacrifice for your children, sacrifice for your family, sacrifice for your community. It's just what women are supposed to DO! If women instead think of their own needs, they're SELFISH.

      Delete
    2. Qui bene from all that sacrifice, eh? That's all you need to look for...none dare call it religious exploitation.

      Delete
  5. Yes, yes to your post, LA, and to the comments above!

    My question for the anti-abortion crowd who claims fetuses are persons with a soul from the moment of fertilization--what form do they think these fetuses will take in Heaven? Just consider how many fertilized eggs never implant and fetuses that spontaneously abort, not to mention abortions in situations described here--how the heck can you logically make a case that they will all show up in Heaven? The place will be overrun with them!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, I couldn't agree more. And men are only called selfish when they are cast as the evil callous boyfriend (never husband of course) forcing the poor helpless woman to get an abortion. I wonder how much this passive, agency-free expectation feeds into the "women must be selfless" refrain...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interestingly, studies have shown that when women have the number of children they *want* (as opposed to how many their husbands/culture think they should have; in other words, when women are simply given the option of family planning and self-determination in using it), it turns out to be the best way to obtain sustainable population numbers.

    Part of the problem with the fundamentalist mindset is that it tends to confuse free self-determination of a woman's life and family with "selfishness" and condemns the whole bucket. That's because they think the women *owe them something.*

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a wonderful, clearly explained, pro-choice statement that is the kind of thing that actually has the hope of convincing someone, or at least making them think a little harder about the topic. A refreshing contrast from the hate-filled vitriol so often spewed by both sides of this argument.

    Thank you!

    Adele

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hear hear! And wow, what amazing insights from all the commenters (husbands are never selfish--just boyfriends, it is the women who suffer, the scientific evidence, the anecdotal evidence from Anonmymous) Thank you for saying all the important things.

    My husband's ex had an abortion a few years ago. He identified as a Christian at the time, and he is still recovering from the scars created through that unwholesome self-flagellation. And despite a move towards atheism, a deep sense of feminism, and everything else good in the world, so much damange has been done to him. I ache for every person who has contemplated or had an abortion and later feels guitly out of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another great post and follow-up comments! My 2 cents, which may or may not add to anything already here:

    1. Christians who believe the fertilized egg is a full person with a right to life do so because of a point you made briefly: they think it has a soul. They won't say so in the public debate--there it's about arms, legs, a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.--but that's their real argument. Enshrinement of that religious belief has no place in secular laws.

    2. For anti-abortionists, the answer to the question raised a few times here--under what circumstances would you force a woman to give nine months of life support to someone she doesn't know--is "when she has had sex." It's pretty shocking, really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two excellent points. As to the first one, I'm actually planning a post on that, as well as a post on the problem of seeing an abortion at 7 weeks as identical to an abortion at 35 weeks. That'll probably be a two parter. As to your second point, this is indeed the standard fallback. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she just shouldn't have sex. Then you don't have to worry about birth control or any of that either. The moment a woman "opens her legs" when she doesn't want children, she has ceased to be pure and has become the epitome of "selfish." Maybe I should write a post about this, too. My simplest response is that a woman shouldn't have to sacrifice her sexuality to avoid having children. And fortunately, with the advent of birth control (and abortion in the event that that fails), a woman doesn't have to.

      Delete
    2. I look forward to those posts!

      Your description of the attitude is right on: "She HAD choice. Once she made it (to have sex), she has to deal with all possible outcomes. Otherwise, she's selfish."

      I wonder if such people would support the institution of a lottery system: Every time you have intercourse (in or out of marriage), your name goes in a hat. Each day we pull out some names. If yours is chosen, you have to provide such things as blood plasma and bone marrow (hey, they'll regenerate!) to whomever we designate during the next nine months. Would they support it if only women's names could be drawn? If men and women could be chosen?

      Delete
    3. **My simplest response is that a woman shouldn't have to sacrifice her sexuality to avoid having children. **

      I really liked this line. Well said.

      Delete
  11. What seriously shits me about the whole 'oh, just adopt the baby out' attitude is that, aside from what pregnancy actually does to your body, it ignores the attitude society has towards women's sexuality. So much of the discourse is around women 'taking responsibility' which is really just code for 'don't enjoy sex'. The very environment Christians and conservatives have created around women's sexuality makes the idea of carrying an unwanted child to term for adoption an even more difficult decision than it already is. If you choose to adopt that baby out, you'd better believe you will have the full judgement of the right wing machine raining down on you for daring to have sex outside of their very narrow definition of what it right.
    Just another way in which they create the very situation they claim to hate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also it is very difficult to give up a baby after birthing it. Now that we as a society no longer apply severe social pressure on young, unmarried pregnant women to give up their babies for adoption, very few are doing it.

      Delete
    2. I read a stat yesterday that there are about 15,000 domestic infant adoptions annually in the US. Many women who do place are actually rather older than the stereotype of a teen mom. I other words, probably old enough to make the kind of decision that Libby Anne talks about in regard to whether they are able to care for a baby to the standards they wish. Oh and sometimes couples with children who realize that they can't care for another.

      Delete
  12. Petticoat PhilosopherFebruary 7, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    Not only is the charge of "selfishness" ridiculous, it's applied very selectively. I've made this point on the interwebs before but here it is again (because I don't often hear it.)

    What about women for whom the process of trying to have a baby necessarily involves "killing" a bunch of "babies" first? There are some women who have fertility problems that make their likelihood of early miscarriage very high, or who have uteri that just aren't very good at "receiving" the fertilized eggs but still want to have children. I know several women who had multiple miscarriages (and who knows how many unimplanted fertilized eggs) before successfully carrying a pregnancy to term. They'd been informed of their low chances of having a baby in advance by their doctors and they went ahead anyway because they really wanted to have babies.

    So aren't these women "selfish" by the reasoning of the anti-abortion crowd? Shouldn't they have set aside their own selfish desires to have a biological children, given that they knew their uteri were homicidal maniacs that were far more likely to kill those precious blessings than nurture them all the way to term? By making the decision to try to have a baby, they knowingly murdered countless other babies in the process! What's that? That would be a horribly judgmental and hurtful thing to say to a woman who is dealing with an extraordinarily sensitive and private issue that should be kept between herself and her doctor?

    Why yes, I agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PP, I'm one of those women, only I wasn't warned by the doctor in advance. Joys of PCOS and all. I had so many miscarriages I literally stopped testing and counting, and I know that if I wasn't on medication there's a very high likelihood I'd have even more. And the pro-lifers who tell me I have 4+ children just piss me off. You don't actually think that, stop saying that just to make a political point (I have 1 child and am 2 months away from #2, so officially 1.75).

      *******

      All the decades of rhetoric against abortion really really hurt women. As I said above, I'm currently (happily) pregnant but this is almost definitely the last one. Both my husband and i are pro-choice (me much more so than him), but he was raised Catholic so is personally squicked by abortion. He is currently uncomfortable with the idea of getting a vasectomy, and aside from FAM and condoms no other birth control method are reasonable options. I'm paranoid about an unplanned pregnancy, and he says he'd be supportive of me having an abortion if it came down to it. The thing is, because of his background and his lukewarm feelings on abortion, I don't believe him. If I get pregnant again and don't want to keep it, I'm not sure I could tell him without it harming my marriage. Of course, not telling him in and of itself hurts my marriage. Me keeping it without wanting would also hurt my marriage. It's an awful spot to be in, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Here's hoping I don't ever get pregnant again.

      Delete
    2. Vasectomy vasectomy vasectomy. He needs to man up and examine those feelings and come up with a solution that doesn't risk your health, or risks your health less than the (very small) health risks of a vasectomy.

      That's what I told my partner: we can practice abstinence, we can break up, or you can get a vasectomy. I already had a baby, that's PLENTY more invasive than a vasectomy. (So is an abortion, when it comes down to it.)

      Delete
    3. Actually Rosa, I strongly disagree. Anon's husband does not want a vasectomy and Anon does not want another baby. Anon should of course take HER responsibility and have the surgery. Yes, the male version is less invasive but he does not want one and it is his body. If you support a woman's right to choose for example abortion you must also support a man's choice to not have a surgery to his own body.

      Delete
    4. HI! I have PCOS too & had a miscarriage last year, when I was 41 years old. (I also have a 6 yo daughter). So, I hae 1 child & am old enough now that getting pregnant (which even w/ PCOS my body will do sporadically) and it is no longer safe to get pregnant. The rates of fetal genetic problems rise substantiallly year by year now that I am in my 40s. My doc told me there are new methods of blocking the Fallopian tubes - not just 'tying' any more. Now there is a surgery-free procedure available. They can go up thru the cervic & uterus & place a block in each fallopian tube.

      Just a thought! I for one am glad that with time there are more contraceptive methods and procedures available. In spite of dimbulbs like lil' Ricky Santorum. Best luck anon at 4:49!

      Delete
  13. Another problem with the flippant attitude behind the "Abortion's option: adoption" bumper sticker is that it glosses over another issue entirely--there simply aren't enough families out there to adopt all the babies of women of color who choose to abort. Got a white baby? Fine, you'll have more potential adoptive parents than you can shake a stick at. A brown or black baby? Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think I truly realized the ridiculousness of the "why don't they just have the baby and give it up for adoption" line until I actually had a baby of my own. I have never been so weak and sick as I was during my first trimester. Now I believe that NOBODY should have to go through pregnancy unless they really want to have a baby.
    I also think that having more children than you can care for (both physically and emotionally) is far more selfish than ending an unwanted pregnancy. I get so tired of hearing Moms explain that they can't be expected to meet all their children's needs because they have so many children. If you have too many children to be able to take one to the doctor (speech therapy, counseling, fill in the blank) when they need it, then you have made a selfish choice to have more children than you can responsibly care for.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Elin - I of course support her partner's LEGAL right to do whatever he wants with his body. But I know way too many men who let their feelings of unease at doing anything with their balls trump tremendous risk on their partner's health, largely because they've never been made to think about women's health at all. They should sit down and talk comparative risks and consider what that bad feeling about very minor surgery is, and how important it is in their relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosa, if a couple come to a joint decision to not have babies and the decision is for the man to have a vasectomy I defintely think it is right. I do not however think he should have to have a vasectomy if he is not sure. I would never ever have my tubes tied for a man's sake, only for my own, and therefore I would not ask a man to do the same thing.

      I know there are irresponsible men out there, but asking someone to make what is often a permanent change to their body and they do not want to is abuse in my view. Making the alternatives divorce or vasectomy is to me exactly like when a boyfriend of a friend of mine told her to choose abortion or he would leave. In fact, demanding a vasectomy might be worse, a woman having an abortion can for the most part become pregnant again later while a reversal in complicated and there are not guaratees to it being a success.

      Delete
    2. But the man is demanding that his partner risk pregnancy, or use a form of birth control she's not comfortable with.

      I really don't see an alternative to "figure something out we can agree on" - and that includes really looking at the side effects - or "break up". "I won't consider this so you figure something out" is not a joint decision kind of approach.

      I don't think it's coercive to leave over a basic values issue like this. It's a two-way street, right? He doesn't like the idea of vasectomy, she doesn't like the risk of pregnancy with a partner who might not support her right to abortion. Why is his demand less unreasonable than hers?

      But I wouldn't sleep with a man who was "lukewarm" on abortion rights in the first place. so maybe I don't see breaking up as the awful threat some people see it is.

      Delete
    3. And, rereading, I realize I'm making an error here: the situation we're talking about, it sounds like both partners are (at least marginally) comfortable with condoms.

      I was dragging in the context I've seen the vasectomy conversation come up, which was when men resist/are careless about condom use. I've seen it happen to friends a lot "I hate using condoms, you should go on the pill!" It sounds like that's not fair to Anon's husband.

      Delete
  16. I have to disagree with this line of thinking. The essential question is whether or not a fetus is a person. If its not, then hardship can certainly be a deciding factor for the woman involved. However, if the fetus is a person, no amount of potential hardship can justify elective abortion.

    If hardship were a justification for abortion, a parent could easily make the same claim for say, a child who is paralyzed in an accident. Both situations (unexpected/unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and the injured child) can certainly result in hardship but in the later one would be jailed for ending the life for the child.

    Although I disagree with them, I can at least understand those who believe the fetus is not a person. If one accepts that premise then of course abortion is justifiable, its no different than removing a wart from a moral standpoint. As long as those arguing for elective abortions to be legal start with that premise, its at least justifiable. But to argue for legality of abortion, regardless of personhood, based on potential hardship? I just can't buy that.

    Thats not to say hardship isn't important to consider. From the standpoint of how we, as a society, choose to act I would argue that we should absolutely care about the hardship of pregnant women by providing services to help ease those problems. Neonatal medical care, counseling and support groups, knowledge about child raising, adoption, etc. Regardless of where one falls on the abortion debate I would hope we all can agree that the right thing to do is to help those in need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually fetal personhood doesn't have to be relevant. People also have a right to control and privacy over their own body, which can trump others' right to life. For example I'm pretty sure a person being raped (and say the rapist was mentally ill and not responsible for their own actions, if that's an issue) would have a right to self-defense that goes up to killing the other person if necessary. And pregnancy is waaaaaaaaay more invasive and life-changing overall than rape.

      Of course pregnancy and rape are two totally different things, which is why while I said fetal personhood doesn't have to be relevant, it doesn't have to be irrelevant either. But the point is the issue of bodily autonomy is also important, and which one trumps the other when is a complex question.

      Delete
    2. Man deliberately imposing his self onto a woman for his own pleasure and her complete degradation = Unborn child, guiltless and helpless, conceived in a woman whose bodily resources he/she needs to stay alive...
      ???

      You may have admitted they were totally different things, but you also lumped them together as if they were both responsible for the woman's misery.
      Self defense (look up *defense*) and shooting the brain of a person that's simply inconvenient to us are two completely different things. That is what makes the personhood of the baby completely relevant.

      Delete
  17. **Both situations (unexpected/unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and the injured child) can certainly result in hardship but in the later one would be jailed for ending the life for the child.*

    But these situations aren't the same. In terms of the pregnancy, that results in the women's physical body being used for at least nine months. In terms of an injured child, there isn't the same biological dependence. And that's a key point in the pro-choice argument: should the woman be forced to remain in a situation that requires her to act as life support? As others have argued, there is no other circumstance where people are forced to donate organs for the survival of others. All the support groups in the world won't help if the woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @OneSmallStep - Yes, it is true that upon becoming pregnant the woman will have to bear the baby for 9 months, an arduous situation, granted. However, except in cases of rape, it was the result of voluntary action. By choosing to have sex there was always a possiblity, however slim, that pregnancy could result. She made that active choice, and for any choice there are consequences. Again, and let me emphasize this, I recognize that pregnancy can cause great hardship and inconvenience. However, that can still not be justification for murder. If one accepts personhood of the fetus, then elective abortion is murder and as a society we have long ago decided that murder for the sake of convenience is unjustifiable. A parent has to provide life support for their children even after birth, clothes, food, shelter, etc. To not do so is a criminal offense. So it should be for the unborn person (if, again, it is a person).

      Morally abortion can only be defended in two or three cases. The first is medical necessity, the second would be rape (although some even debate this), the third is that the fetus is not a person.

      I can respect and understand those who are pro-Choice who argue from the position of non-personhood of the unborn child. I am unable to do so for those who accept personhood and still argue for legal, non-medically necessary abortion. I fail to see how ending an innocent life is justifiable.

      Delete
    2. David, what even is "personhood?" It never seems to be well defined at all.

      I haven't met any pro-choice individuals, by the way, who argue that a fetus is a "person" entitled to the legal and human rights you and I have, but can be aborted. People who are pro-choice don't see abortion as being about ending an "innocent life" at all. I have never, ever met a pro-choice activist running around saying "yay, let's kill babies!" I'm not sure where the idea that people would think that way comes from.

      Delete
    3. Petticoat PhilosopherFebruary 9, 2012 at 6:57 PM

      I echo Libby in saying that I have never met a pro-choice person whose position is "Yes, fetuses are persons but it's totes okay to kill them." This is nonsense, a straw man to end all straw men.

      And here's something I don't understand. If a fetus really is a person, then why is abortion even acceptable in the case of rape? Rape is terrible but murder is worse, right? If I seriously thought that a fetus were a person, a person just like you or me, then rape would not be a justification for killing it. Something bad happening to me does not make it okay for me to kill somebody else. Of course, none of this is an issue, because I don't think a fetus is a person. But for those people who DO think fetuses are persons, how do they work it out so exceptions in the case of rape are okay? Repulsed as I am by people who think that women should be forced to have rapists' babies, their position seems much more consistent. This is why, honestly, I have to wonder if a lot of the people who claim to believe in fetal personhood are really, truly willing to wholly accept that position and all its implications.

      Because if you do, rape does not get you off the hook. Just sayin.'

      Delete
    4. "A parent has to provide life support for their children even after birth, clothes, food, shelter, etc. To not do so is a criminal offense."
      Is it a criminal offense for them not to donate their organs to their children ?

      Moreover parents can relinquish custody of their children, some find themselves forced to do so when their children have special needs and they are completely unable to afford decent care for them. So it isn't even true that they "have to" provide even financial support to their (natural) children. (obviously they have to care for their *legal* children)

      @Libby Anne and Petticoat Philosopher : I've never met any pro-choice person who went around going "yay let's kill babies !" either, but I have seen pro-choice people say that fetal personhood is irrelevant - i.e. they would still be pro-choice if fetuses were persons, for the bodily autonomy reason.

      Delete
  18. David,

    **, it was the result of voluntary action. By choosing to have sex there was always a possiblity, however slim, that pregnancy could result. She made that active choice, and for any choice there are consequences. **

    This comment, for me, is coming way to close into turning pregnancy and childbirth into a "punishment" for voluntarily having sex. As Libby Anne says in a prior comment, women shouldn't have to sacrifice their sexuality to avoid having children. But under this line of thinking, then the embryo/fetus has more rights to the woman's body and life than she does. The state itself has more rights to the woman's body than she does, forcing her to maintain the pregnancy. Again, as I said, there are no other circumstances where we force one person to use their bodily organs for another - I think even corpses are allowed to keep all organs if they haven't made arrangements for donations while alive.

    **A parent has to provide life support for their children even after birth, clothes, food, shelter, etc. To not do so is a criminal offense. So it should be for the unborn person (if, again, it is a person).**

    No, these are not the same. Pregnancy involves a biological life support system. After a child is born, parents do have the recourse of seeking out help, or in some circumstances, can surrender the child so that others can provide the food and shelter. A pregnant woman does not have that recourse.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What could possibly be more selfish than thinking that the creator of the whole damn universe - with dozens of sixtillions of stars - has some special plan just for you, while millions of people are dying around you?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Someone once told me that when I had children of my own, I would understand the anti-choice position. I've now gone through a pregnancy and I have my son, and I'm still pro-choice.

    I had an amazing pregnancy. I had no complications, I never threw up, and I was still running at eight months. Truth be told, I loved being pregnant - I've never felt healthier, sexier, or more confident than I did with that big ol' belly. But even so, it consumed my life. Keeping my son healthy meant watching what I eat all the time. Gone was my ability to just veg out on the couch when I had a bad day, or even to have a glass of wine with my meal. Being pregnant meant endless doctor appointments and test, and getting prodded with more needles than I'd care to count. Being pregnant meant difficulty even with simple tasks, like peeing in a public restroom stall (which are far too small, by the way) or sitting through a meeting at work without having to excuse myself to pee. Being pregnant meant having feet so swollen that I had to buy new shoes two sizes larger. If I worked at a job that required standing, being pregnant would have meant losing my job.

    And then there's labour. I'm sorry, but no one gets to tell anyone that they should have to go through that against their will.

    Easy as my pregnancy was, it would have been unbearable if I didn't have my husband and family to support me, and if I wasn't looking forward to having my son at the end.

    As for the adoption argument, all I can say to that is that it's an easy thing for white people to say.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was in a physically/emotionally/verbally abusive marriage for six years while in grad school. I got pregnant twice, and then with the third pregnancy, I KNEW I was living in an abusive marriage and I felt damned for bringing the first two into the world and giving them this homelife that we were living. I figured I'd brought two children into a screwed up home life and they were going to grow up to be abused or be abusers as well according to the statistics. I felt wrong and ashamed for even bringing them into the world, but I could excuse myself a little because I didn't REALIZE it was abusive when I'd given birth to them.

    With my third one, I couldn't claim ignorance any longer. I seriously contemplated aborting my third pregnancy. I really wanted to graduate, get a job, and be financially independent enough to get away from the psycho-husband.

    A friend talked me out of it, completely by accident. When I told him I was pregnant, he responded so positively and encouraging to me, I knew I could do it. Despite all my doubts, despite all my guilt for even being pregnant in this situation. His encouragement and positive attitude for me, gave me the strength to believe that I could keep my baby and still graduate and still get free from my marriage.

    So, I did give birth to my third child two years ago. I did get out of my abusive marriage, but not until about 4 months ago. And I am going to graduate in the next four months, and I have a full scholarship to another program and I'm moving myself and three kids there in July.

    I'm so so glad, that I chose to have my baby. He's truly been a sunshine and a blessing to my life. And I can offer him an abuse-free home, and I can raise him to be his own person and not to be an abuser or an abuse-victim. And I can see the bonds forming between the three children, and I know that they're happy to have eachother, despite the upheaval my home initially went through when my X moved out.

    I have a lot of friends in my domestic violence support groups who did not make the same decision as I did. Some of them have struggled with their abortions, some of them were pressured into abortions by their abusive partners, and some of them have no regrets aborting a baby secretly while in an abusive relationship. I don't judge any of them for their decisions, everyone is forced to make survival decisions when they're in difficult situations, and honestly, at those moments, sometimes you just have to choose the best of all the bad options before you. One person's "best of the bad options" might not be another person's "best of the bad options".

    But I'd just like to personally encourage any woman out there, to know that there is hope regardless of which choice you make. I'm happy with my decision, it wasn't easy. I wanted to know that I was bringing my baby into a happy healthy home with two healthy happy parents, but I couldn't. And I felt it was wrong of me, even selfish of me, to bring a baby into a marriage/family that I KNEW was unhealthy and abusive.

    So in that scenario, I felt either option COULD have been considered selfish of me: To have the baby-and bring it into an unhealthy home, or to abort the baby and not even give it a chance to make it's own life regardless of the family dynamics.

    imo either choice was the "selfish" choice if someone wanted to be judgmental about my life.

    I'm happy with my choice, but I can't make the choice for everyone, and everyone's lives are different. Whatever you choose, I highly recommend getting the support you need from a support group, community resources, etc. And make sure you surround yourself with people who are POSITIVE and LOVING in your life.

    I love the quote: "Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, look around and make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes."

    ReplyDelete