Pro-choice and pregnant
| July 12th, 2005There are some cells in my uterus at the moment that aren’t usually there. I call these cells “my baby”, and spend much of my time planning the future that they may have, once they’ve finished developing into a human being. Other women, with similar cells, plan how to remove the cells as quickly and painlessly as possible.
A favourite pro-life argument is to seize gleefully on the similarities between the two groups of cells and demand how you can possibly justify the vastly different ways of treating them. If the fetus has no value, they ask, why do pregnant women often feel a close bond with their unborn babies? If it’s nothing more than a bunch of cells, why can a miscarriage be so devastating? Tempting as it is to dismiss this as so much irrelevance, it’s worth exploring the apparent contradiction for the insights it can offer into what pro-choice really means.
My baby is not yet a human being. Even with special care, it is very unlikely to be capable of surviving on its own if it were removed from my body. It needs my bloodstream and my uterus to have even a chance of becoming a human being. Although it’s genetically distinct from me, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to view it as a part of my body. A part that could, given the right conditions, become a separate person, but until that happens a part of me.
We all see our bodies differently, and we all give different values to different parts. Some people welcome body hair because of the cultural value it has; others remove it for much the same reasons. A transsexual man could be delighted at the removal of his breasts; a woman with breast cancer is more likely to feel mutilated. The same body parts, but very different reactions.
The cells inside the uterus are just another example. I give mine a very high value and watch their development with delight; other women give theirs a low value and can’t wait to be rid of them. The belief that we both have the right to assign value to our own bodies for ourselves is the essence of being pro-choice. If a woman places a high value on her fetus, removing it against her will is just as unacceptable as forcing a woman to retain, against her will, a fetus she gives a low value to.
This is partly why miscarriage can be so devastating. A woman who anticipates with joy the time when her fetus becomes a fully-fledged human being invests those cells with a great deal of value. If they are destroyed, she’s lost a part of herself that she loved and welcomed, and will naturally feel a degree of grief. The pain could well be made worse by the attitude that women are walking incubators, but that’s another question entirely.
The contradiction turns out to be no contradiction at all. I care passionately about my baby; every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom it would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Well, congratulations!
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Nick Kiddle, an excellent and well thought out post.
“The contradiction turns out to be no contradiction at all. I care passionately about my baby; every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom it would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice. “
Exactly. It is a woman’s choice. Or should be.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Though they are not functionally autonomous, zygotes, embryos, fetuses are not technically part of the body. They are discrete organisms. On the issue of abortion I agree with Peter Singer. I think that the value of a creature’s life is roughly correlated with its level of consciousness which is presumably correlated to its intelligence (I’m only talking really huge differences here; the difference between a mouse and a dolphin, not an idiot and a genius.) In my view, if you abort a three-month-old fetus it is like killing a lizard or something. A viable fetus is pretty close to human, depending on how close to birth it is.
This comment was written by Piter.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Great post, Nick. Pregnant and pro-choice myself, I’ve had this conversation quite a bit given the current political climate. The best way I’ve been able to express it has been by saying this:
The pro-choice pregnant woman in essence is every bit as much the embodiment of choice as a woman having an abortion. She is choosing to nurture the pregnancy to term, in order to bring a new life into the world.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
wow. great diary.
i am pro-choice, but when my wife was pregnant, i couldn’t explain how different i was feeling about the babies from the very beginning. if something horrible had happened either time, i would’ve definitely felt like we’d lost a child not just a fetus. but that’s ’cause our fetuses were wanted babies. anti-abortion relatives used that feeling against me in arguments and i was stymied for a reply. i wondered how i could still be very commitedly pro-choice and be so eager to go to every pre-natal exam with her & listen to that tiny heartbeat.
but you used the one example that made everything clear for me. my mom’s mastectomy (breast cancer) was devastating to her. yet mine, as a transman, was liberating. same event. same tissue. different desires & attachment to body parts.
it makes perfect sense now. thank you.
This comment was written by stay at home dad.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
For me, I don’t base the right to abortion on what a fetus is. It makes no difference to me how it’s perceived. Bottom line, I have the right to decide who and/or what uses my body for sustenance. I have that right no matter what the other being is, how old it is, or what it might become.
I think you’re using the term human being here as synonymous with person. I would agree that not all fetuses are persons–that’s a cultural identification, not a scientific one. However, they’re all human beings.
And again, it doesn’t matter. A person walking into my apartment is a human being regardless. However, some people who walk into your home are welcomed family or friends–and some are dangerous to your safety. With fetuses it’s the same. My very wanted daughter caused me some pretty serious health problems early in my pregnancy, and I very seriously considered abortion for that and other reasons. (It didn’t help that her dad freaked out on me.) I’m glad I didn’t get one, but had I continued having the autoimmune reaction that swelled my knees up like inner tubes, made all my other joints hurt so that I could not turn over in bed or get up from the couch unassisted, and sent me to both an emergency room and an urgent care in the span of a week and a half looking for effective pain relief… well, I guess I would have been somewhat glad to end the pregnancy too. And any idiot who tried telling me I should value the right of a “baby” to live more than my right to live pain-free would have gotten the rough side of my tongue. Not to mention the business end of any heavy, blunt objects lying about nearby.
This comment was written by Dana.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
[applause for Nick]
In a much less “direct” fashion, I can feel happy for my friends when they show me an ultrasound of their future kid. Why should this be when I don’t want kids of my own ? Probably because I want my friends to have the life they want for themselves. I’m happy to see that ultrasound because it’s part of the life they want. I’d feel the same way if a friend adopted, of course.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
As a woman who has had an abortion and a miscarriage, all I can say is well put (and Mazel Tov)
This comment was written by ol cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Seeing as this is an SAT raised culture (my apologizes to overseas and Candadian bloggers) maybe this could easily be explained to anti-choicers as such:
Sex is to rape as a wanted pregnancy is to an unwanted pregnancy.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Well put. I was amazed at how my first pregnancy sharpened my pro-choice beliefs. Even though it was wanted and I was happy, all I could think of was women who were in my situation but didn’t want to be and couldn’t do anything about it. No woman deserves that.
This comment was written by Krupskaya.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
Great post. And I think that outside the philosophical issues, it’s important to point out that being pro-choice or even having an abortion is not incompatible with being a mother.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
“And I think that outside the philosophical issues, it’s important to point out that being pro-choice or even having an abortion is not incompatible with being a mother.”
Very true, as it is that way with both of my sisters-in-laws. Both have had abortions, are pro-choice, and are wonderful, hardworking mothers. If they didn’t have those previous abortions none of my nieces or nephews would be in existence today, because those pregnancies probably would have taken them down different paths, and they probably would have never met my brothers to begin with. And the “what if’s” when it comes to fertilizations, implantations, pregnancies, and abortions are almost infinite.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 6:13 am
Exactly. Every time I hear someone talk about how wonderful and fulfilling and all the rest it is to have babies, I think “Yes, it is, provided you’re doing it by choice.”
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Well put. My wife’s pregnancy has strengthened by pro-choice stance as well. She also had an abortion at 20 while in college. She’d too would have had a very different and more difficult life. No disrespect to her ex, he’s a great guy with two little ones himself. I’m sure his life would have been very different as well. Her second pregnancy, 15 years later, was non-viable so she had a D&C to prevent infection. Same procedure, but it resulted in grief while earlier, relief. We were both so looking forward to being parents. Thankfully, the third time is a charm and this one is almost ready to be born. :)
This comment was written by Ron O.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 7:36 am
What can I say that everyone else hasn’t? Other than adding to the bravos, I’ll say thank you as well. As a pro-choice mom I share the same feelings. I went to a pro-choice rally when I was very, very pregnant and still the anti’s came after me asking me if I wanted to abort my 8-month-old fetus or not. They know no distinction (until it’s them that’s pregnant!) and will offer us none.
This comment was written by Roni.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 9:16 am
AWESOME post! I couldn’t have said it better. (Literally couldn’t–I’m not pregnant.)
Antigone–Utter brilliance from you, too. One could also point out the similarity in the thought processes of a)pro-lifers who think pro-choice means anti-life, and b)rape excusers who when a non-virgin is raped, insist that “she said yes to another man, she must have said yes to this one.”
Piter–NO life, no matter how advanced it is, is ever of the value that its right to life includes a right to be kept alive by another person against that other person’s will. Right to life means a right to breathe and not be forced to stop breathing–to not have one’s own autonomous survival interfered with. If one can’t survive autonomously, one can become dependent EITHER on a machine (which has no opinion on whether it wants to support a person or not) or a volunteer (an organ donor, a woman who wants to be pregnant, etc). You can’t force a woman to support a fetus she doesn’t want, any more than you can go up to a random stranger with your blood type and demand he donate you a kidney. Having someone use their body to keep you alive is not a right. It is a privelge, granted or not granted by the person who inhabits that body.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Just wanted to say, hey, me too! Going through this pregnancy has clarified my pro-choice stance, not made it more difficult. Pregnancy is hard, exhausting, often painful, and contains as much worry as it does joy. This baby is planned for and *very* wanted, but there were days, especially at the beginning, when I was so sick and depressed I thought I couldn’t take it for five more minutes. If this pregnancy was not wanted, I can only imagine how much worse it would be. I would never force that on anyone.
To add another analogy, I have told people that pregnancy is much like climbing Mt. Everest. It’s challenging, potentially rewarding, but also sometimes life-threatening. Thus, no one should ever have the power to either compel you to do it, or compel you not to do it. Only the person whose health and life is being risked has the right to make that decision.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Thanks fo this. That pro-choice rhetoric too often ignores the concept of a wanted fetus is disturbing. You have not only addressed this concept, you’ve directly faced the difference between a wanted and an unwanted one. By so doing, you have advanced your cause, both in argumentation (rhetoric) and morally. Congratulations, and good luck.
This comment was written by Simon.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 12:25 am
So we’re basically endorsing the Peter Singer ethic here: if a real person loves , then is a valuable and wonderful thing; if real people are dismayed by or disapprove of , then is garbage with no value. The community of real people is a self-referential group of all the entities that value one another; any entity not valued by a member of the group is disposable. The initial nucleus for the group is any entity, I suppose, that is capable of valuing itself and which/who convinces some other entity to join the game.
Charming.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Ooops, I forgot that WordPress munches brackets. Rewrite!
So we’re basically endorsing the Peter Singer ethic here: if a real person loves X, then X is a valuable and wonderful thing; if real people are dismayed by or disapprove of X, then X is garbage with no value. The community of real people is a self-referential group of all the entities that value one another; any entity not valued by a member of the group is disposable. The initial nucleus for the group is any entity, I suppose, that is capable of valuing itself and which/who convinces some other entity to join the game.
Charming.
(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Real fucking charming, Robert. Back to the innuendo’s of the killer women and their selfish desires to control their own body.
What would a thread about pregnancy and pro-choice be without your trolling it to tell us all how you, in all your self-righteous incapable of child-bearing knowledge, know better than us and are ever so much moral than us because of it.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 4:24 am
Robert said:
Robert, you can be a real Asshat sometimes.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 5:01 am
Robert, you can be a real Asshat sometimes.
One tries.
What would a thread about pregnancy and pro-choice be without your trolling it to tell us all how you, in all your self-righteous incapable of child-bearing knowledge, know better than us and are ever so much moral than us because of it.
I am describing, in neutral language, the ethic you are espousing. Even if you are referring to the “killing it” crack, which I acknowledge is not a particularly Christian statement, there too, I am expressing a simple, and neutral, truth - I’m glad she’s not killing it.
If a description of the moral game of telephone being engaged in is upsetting, perhaps it is not the description that is the source of the dismay.
As far as my moral superiority goes, I pretty regularly affirm, and I repeat the admission here, that I am not an intrinsically good person, that I have a lot of moral problems - and for that reason I require external checks on my actions, because my internal clock is not reliable. You, if I’m not mistaken, reject that view and believe that you are moral and make good decisions without such an external check. I’m not sure how that ends up with me claiming to be more moral than you. Quite a bit less, it would seem.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Dear Robert
There are many ill people who will die unless someone donates an organ or bonemarrow. Since we as a group shouldn’t be able to decide over our own bodies I am certain that you are very happy with a development that would force you to give away a kidney and do a bonemarrow transplant, aside from donating thrombocytes once a fortnight. While it would cause you some physical discomfort it would after all ensure an others life. It would also be far more efficient than forbidding abortion - after all we are all certain that these people actually ARE developed humans.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 5:30 am
You, if I’m not mistaken, reject that view and believe that you are moral and make good decisions without such an external check. I’m not sure how that ends up with me claiming to be more moral than you.
No one has ever said that we don’t have external checks; that would be your interpretation so that you can denigrate our moral decisions as not having any larger (shall we say “Godlike”) approval. You wish to believe that our moral framework sprang into being from nothing — pretty miraculous that — so that you can claim that your beliefs come from an ultimate and eternal source while ours have no such authority. It’s an exemplar of moral smugness and self-righteousness.
As for the “baby killer” insult, as one who spent her childhood being regularly called a “Christ killer,” I’m quite familiar with the technique. If you can turn a particular group into moral monsters, then it becomes quite easy to claim that they are less than human and exempt from normal considerations.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Robert, for a christian you certainly seem to forget who god is. Shame on you for your pharisical judgments.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 6:47 am
“(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.)”
Oh, come on: surely a comment as gratuitously hateful as THAT one has to be beyond the bounds of acceptability here?
Sincere congratulations from me, Nick, and thank you for showing that loving children and being pro-choice are not in opposition.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Let me add my congratulations hon. Too often the ‘choice’ focus is on the ‘choice’ to have an abortion (and this is partly our fault even though I would say the majority of the blame lies with the anti-choice crowd). Thank you ever so much for the reminder :)
You are one of the far multitude of women we can show in response to the “what if your mother were pro-choice?” rhetoric from the other side.
(Oh, and ignore Robert’s dickhead comment).
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 9:29 am
It doesn’t seem revolutionary to say that we place a higher value on what we want than on what we don’t want. Nor that, since the fetus is incapable of placing a value on itself, it can only derive its value from the value others place on it. You can wrap that up in whatever rhetoric gives you pleasure, but please try not to use that rhetoric to insult viewpoints other than yours.
I’d find it a lot easier to accept your congratulations if I believed they were sincere. (Thanks, btw, to all those who have offered sincere congratulations on this thread.) But when your remark about being glad I decided not to kill it leaves me doubting your sincerity, to say the very least.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:05 am
your remark about being glad I decided not to kill it leaves me doubting your sincerity
I’m confused. Are we, or are we not, talking about deciding to kill, or not to kill, a fetus?
You have a fetus. You are glad about it. You have decided not to kill it. I am happy that you have made that choice.
Why would I not be sincere in saying so? I like fetuses, and what they become, and I wish more people were making your choice.
It doesn’t seem revolutionary to say that we place a higher value on what we want than on what we don’t want.
It’s not revolutionary. But it’s incomplete.
To complete the statement, we have to define what value we assign intrinsically, regardless of the additional increment or decrement provided by our feelings.
There seems to be a set of pro-choicers who assign an intrinsic value of zero. That’s the Singerian group - the one that believes our feelings concerning the fetus are the sole determinants of that fetus’ value, and worthiness of life. It’s not all pro-choicers (just as not all pro-lifers assign an intrinsic value of infinity.)
But it’s enough to chill the blood of people who know the history of this idea, and its usual consequences.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Especially since given this thread and others, it means that an awful lot of mothers must also be “killers,” right ? At least in Robert-land. Perhaps if a fetus is the same as a baby, the state should step in and take away all babies born to mothers who have previously had abortions. I mean, once a woman gets a taste for “killin’,” she probably can’t stop. It’s like potato chips or something. Yeesh.
Spot-on again, Nick.
Robert, you’ve dug yourself enough of a hole as it is. Perhaps you’d like to put the shovel down now. >:
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:23 am
The general English term for the deliberate termination of life is “kill”.
Alsis, why does having this action correctly - even clinically - described with a one-word term, cause you so much apparent anguish?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:24 am
But it’s enough to chill the blood of people who know the history of this idea, and its usual consequences.
Too bad you aren’t equally “chilled” about the history and consequences of the idea that women have no right to control their own bodies.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Too bad you aren’t equally “chilled” about the history and consequences of the idea that women have no right to control their own bodies.
What makes you think I’m not?
I see abortion as a conflict between the rights of two or more people. Women exist in my moral calculus, as much as some folks would like to pretend that they don’t. (Ironically, these are generally the same folks whose moral calculus disappears fetuses, and who become angry when this is described.)
I believe that women, like men, have a right to control their own bodies. But that control - like most rights - is subject to some parameters and some boundaries. This far and no farther, etc.
I don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
That doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:54 am
don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
I see, so as long as the reason for abortion satisfies your “moral calculus” then we’re not baby killers; otherwise, we’re criminals.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Because only a smug, rude jackass polutes a thread not meant to be about semantics with his own opinion about women who have had abortions being “killers.” For abortion to be “killing,” it follows that mothers must also be “killers,” which I find a remarkably low blow even coming from you, Robert.
It’s enough of a struggle for some women to find peace within themselves after abortion in a society that tells them every day that they must be passive and self-sacrificing under all circumstances, and that if they fuck, they must be prepared for societal condemnation– at least once society can find visible evidence that they’ve fucked (ie– a pregnancy). You’re not helping, Robert. You’re being a shithead.
The kindly –dare I say, “civilized” thing to do, would be to apologize to Nick, and to request that Amp take your comments off this thread. You do that, and I’ll ask that my post-congratulation comments be taken off, too. What do you say ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Congratulations Nick!
Robert - the intrinsic value of the fetus does not have to be zero. It is just lower than the intrinsic value of the autonomy of the mother.
Just like the value of my FIL’s life is not zero, but it is lower than the value of your autonomy (within some limits). Otherwise - do you match him genetically? I’ll be right over with the transplant doctor for that spare kidney you have lying around. And how about some bone marrow while we’re at it?
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 10:57 am
I see, so as long as the reason for abortion satisfies your “moral calculus” then we’re not baby killers; otherwise, we’re criminals.
There is no law against killing fetuses. Why would you be a criminal?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Actually, I wasn’t. I never considered abortion because my baby was wanted from conception. So there was no such decision to be made in this case.
To be brutally blunt with you, I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Congratulations on your pregnancy!
I just wanted to add that I share your views. I have two small children, and I am pro-choice. My pro-choice stance was only reinforced by my pregnancies. Both my children were wanted, but I had horrible pregnancies. I would never force anyone to undergo a pregnancy they didn’t want, and I can’t understand the mindset that would do so.
This comment was written by Kristin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
“I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice.”
Bingo.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:33 am
“I believe that women, like men, have a right to control their own bodies. But that control - like most rights - is subject to some parameters and some boundaries. ”
This is only true to an extent. Men have a right to control their own bodies based on the uniqueness of the male anatomy. Women have the right to control their own bodies only up until that point at which they diverge from male anatomy.
That really isn’t a right.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:30 am
There is no law against killing fetuses. Why would you be a criminal?
This is such fucking bullshit. Don’t hide behind the “clinical” meaning of the word “kill,” Robert. You said what you did for one reason and one reason only: to piss people off. You had to know that your comment would come across as snide and spiteful. And you chose to say it anyway. Real classy behavior. Don’t be surprised now that people are calling you on it.
Nick, I don’t know you, but congratulations and best wishes.
This comment was written by Linnet.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:32 am
“Developed humans.” I like it. But I think one of the reasons that it’s easy for pro-lifers to dismiss the parallel between forced childbearing and forced donation is precisely because the embryo/fetus is such a perfect, unformed “ideal” of a full-grown human. It can’t pee, barf, and crap on you, or keep you awake all night while cutting teeth. It can’t gripe non-stop becaause you can’t afford to buy it this new toy or that new jacket. It can’t argue with you, or choose an education/career path or political stance that you don’t like. It can’t cloud your day by actively appealling for your benevolence and charity, as could a relative in need of a transplant. Hell, in the pro-life mindset, it’s better than a live human, which also helps explain why states that are the most rabidly anti-abortion tend to be the most uncharitable towards struggling moms and children, not to mention other needy groups (ie– the homeless).
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:29 am
You have a fetus. You are glad about it. You have decided not to kill it. I am happy that you have made that choice.
I don’t think it’s any of your freakin’ business what Nick decided, Robert. Just be happy she’s doing what she wants to do.
Good point, alsis, about the anti-choicers fetishizing the fetus as the perfect child, yet dropping them when they’re born.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
>>(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.) >>
Careful, Robert. Now the selfish harpy might decide to murder her preborn baby out of pure spite.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
>>To be brutally blunt with you, I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice. >>
And, of course, to criticize _you_ in an extremely vituperative way for supporting them in that choice. It was a venomous thing to say. Robert, who’s brilliant at pointing out semantic quibbles, knows that there’s a difference between “technically accurate” and “sincere.”
Oh, and I’d like to offer my sincere congratulations–to you and your child, in fact. Anyone would be lucky to have you for a mom.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:14 am
What’s so striking to me here is that no one looks at it from the other end. You, too, were once a zygote, embryo, and fetus. Do you like to think that your entire value and your very existence depended on the chance of someone else’s wanting or not wanting you? It did, of course. But does that make you feel like you’re just lucky, or like your own value kinda rests on shifting sands? Doesn’t the conviction that you, as a woman, have a right to control your own body suggests that a fetus too might have a right to have its own body? The one-sidedness, the double standard, is breathtaking. You might say that abortion violates the Golden Rule: you wouldn’t have wanted someone to do that to you.
What’s more, women are talking here as if they’d been assaulted by an unwanted fetus, the way a rapist assaults you with unwanted sex. It may feel that way when you’re trapped and scared, but feelings aren’t facts. The embryo, obviously, has no intent to harm you. It didn’t even ask to exist. Its existence is generally a consequence of your own actions.
And I am pro-choice, first trimester. That is, I don’t believe early abortion should be outlawed. But I do believe in doing everything possible to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I’ve written about my own conflicted feelings on the issue in “The AmbivAbortion Rant,” Part I and Part II.
This comment was written by amba (Annie Gottlieb).Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:42 am
For crying out loud, people! I’m *drastically* pro-choice, and pro-personal-autonomy in almost every circumstance you can think of. I *don’t* believe a fetus has any inherent value, frankly.
But Robert is the only one in the second half of this thread with a *cogent* argument at all. He’s pointing out, in pretty neutral language, a potential inconsistency in your thinking — and you’re diving all over him for things he hasn’t said or even implied.
What he HAS said: “I don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
That doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done. ”
And he’s right. You are killing a fetus. That IS value-neutral language, whatever you’d like to think. Whether that fetus has any value (and as previously mentioned, i don’t think it does), you are killing it. You kill thousands upon millions of bacteria every time you brush your teeth. That’s ALSO a value-neutral statement, as written.
And alsis, your phrase “a thread not meant to be about semantics” brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:
“Any time i hear someone put the word ‘mere’ in front of the word ’semantics’, i bite my tongue hard and remind myself that i, too, am greatly ignorant.” — Spider Robinson
The point being, of COURSE it’s about semantics. If you think that there’s ANYTHING in modern political discourse, or for that matter *human existence*, that’s not partly about semantics, you’re sadly misinformed or deliberately naïve.
I’d echo Robert’s question to you: why does his use of value-neutral language seemingly fill you with such anguish and anger? It doesn’t *me*, and i have as much pro-choice, anti-pro-lifer street cred as you do, i suspect.
This comment was written by alienne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:22 am
I don’t have a problem with Robert stating that abortion kills fetuses as a general statement about the way the world is. Abortion does, undeniably, kill fetuses; the discussion is all over whether that’s acceptable.
My problem is with the statement “I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill [your baby]“. It strikes me, as it has struck everyone else who’s heard it, as rather rude to say the least, value-neutral or not.
I wonder whether Robert habitually expresses his congratulations to pregnant women in such terms, and if not, what it is about me that makes it appropriate.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:25 am
One of my favourite sig-line quotes is “Just think, if your father had masturbated just once more before your conception, you would not exist.” There are many things that could have led to my not existing, and the vast majority of them aren’t subject to the same debate that abortion is.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:27 am
I pretty much agree with this.
That said, there’s a difference between objecting to the word “kill” - which, in the context given above, is value-neutral - and saying to a pregnant pro-choicer, “congrats. I’m glad you decided not to kill it.” I think context makes the latter clearly provacative, not neutral, and I can understand people being pissed off.
I also think there’s a tendency in the abortion rights debate - not unlike the gun rights debate - for the defenders to feel that they can’t retreat even a centimeter. Once I got into an argument with a gun rights dude who was so comitted to his “if people don’t have guns, they’ll kill in other ways” position that he refused to admit that a gun could be a more dangerious weapon than a pool cue.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Amba, welcome. Although I don’t always agree with you, I’m a regular reader of your blog, which I think is excellent.
However, I think you’re making an unjustified assumption here - that it hasn’t occurred to the people here that we, “too, were once a zygote, embryo, and fetus.” Of course that’s occurred to me, and I suspect it’s occurred to nearly everyone here. Frankly, it’s obvious.
However, I don’t understand why that should make any difference to me. There are billions of chance events which could have made me no longer exist, as Nick says. That’s life - each and every one of us is vastly against the odds. It’s an interesting philosophical point (and one that’s essential to the end of Watchmen), but it’s not a logical reason for me to think any differently about abortion - or birth control, or train schedules, or masturbation, or my older sister’s sleep schedule when she was an infant, or any of the other billions of things that might have led to me not being born.
Whether or not I in particular was born is a matter of very minor consequence to society - much less consequence than the question of if the government will be used to force pregnant women into childbirth against their will. If I had been aborted, I wouldn’t have known or cared or minded, so who cares? (I know from reading your blog that you’ll dismiss my saying that as “insincere”; but it’s not, it’s just the truth. That you have to assume I’m lying is a flaw in your logic, not mine.)
Here’s something that perhaps you haven’t considered (although maybe you have; you mention it in passing on your blog): Very often, abortion not only ends a life, it creates an opportunity for a different life. If you read “Alas” regularly, you’ve probably seen photos of Sydney Quinn. I’m absolutely mad for Sydney - I adore her so intensely it’s kind of scarey. But Sydney wouldn’t exist if her mother hadn’t been able to get an abortion. The life course that led to Sydney’s parents meeting and marrying and having children would never have happened if the government had forced Sydney’s mother to go through with her earlier pregnancy.
No doubt that the child born if Sydney’s mother had been forbidden abortion would also have been wonderful and unique, just as Sydney is. But I don’t see any reason to imagine that that other child would have been superior to, and more valuable than, Sydney; I don’t see any reason to believe, as pro-lifers believe, that the world would somehow be a better place if that other child existed and Sydney didn’t.
From the point of view of society, I think we’re better off that Sydney’s mother was able to control her own childbearing timing; there’s a lot of social science data indicating that Sydney’s mother is now in a better position to raise happy and healthy children than she was years ago. The child that might have been born instead of Sydney would have been unique and wonderful - but she also would have faced higher odds of being unhappy or facing grave difficulties. More importantly, the freedom of Sydney’s mother, and other women, is an important positive in and of itself.
Here, you’re assuming what’s actually at issue in the abortion debate: that a woman and a fetus are comparable and have the same rights.
That’s not something that you can assume as if everyone agrees on it. There is a “double standard” between what’s appropriate to do to a fetus and what’s appropriate to do to a woman, and logically there should be a double-standard; the two things are not the same in many of their essential characteristics.
To really argue that a double-standard between a fetus and a woman is inappropriate, you’d have to first establish that there are no important differences between women and fetuses. Until you’ve done that, I don’t think your “golden rule” and “double standard” arguments hold weight.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:54 am
alienne wrote:
“Anytime I hear someone quote Spider Robinson, who is surely one of the most pathetic, overrated, self-important hacks to ever shame the English language with his trite, hopelessly pretentious bullshit, I bite my tongue hard and remind myself that there is truly no accounting for taste.” –alsis 39
As I told Robert, I think that just for once, in the thread where Nick talked quite passionately about how she looked forward to the birth of her baby and why this was not at odds with being pro-choice, he could have kept his snide, nasty remarks about “killing babies” to himself. Perhaps if you spent more time on this board dealing with Robert, you’d understand why he is quite exasperating in even small doses. Or why it can be a real drag dealing with someone who has scolded me before for “behaving badly,” (to a sexist man, of course) yet thinks nothing of behaving badly to an expectant mother.
Do you really not understand why his remark was incredibly rude ? Please, don’t ever come to my baby shower, in the unlikely event that I ever have one.
Oh, and thank you for letting me know that I am “sadly misinformed” or “naive.” Please accept my “sadly misinformed, naive” wishes that you cram your patronization where the sun doesn’t shine. I don’t need it.
As I stated earlier:
I don’t care for the term “killing a baby” because it implies that this is a “crime” comparable to shooting an adult or strangling a toddler. Because it implies that an embryo, zygote, or fetus should have the same legal rights as toddlers or adults.
I don’t care for it –also as I state earlier– because for there to be a “killing,” women who have had abortions, including mothers, must be “killers” comparable to those who shoot adults or strangle toddlers.
Do you really not understand why this would bother me ? Do you really not understand why accepting this cedes ground to pro-lifers ? The English language, far as I can tell, has no term we can use to which all sides will agree. So we’re stuck debating terms until something better comes along. If you have one to contribute, go for it. Why not ask yourself WWSD (what would Spider do) ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Nick and Ampersand (and Alsis),
I agree: Robert’s last remark was incredibly rude, and pretty uncalled for. It’s the *rest* of his points, though, that i was defending. I think jumping down his throat on everything else he has to say because of a snide closing remark is missing the point. Sure, it was unworthy of him; but it doesn’t invalidate the REST of what he had to say.
Alsis,
I *do*, in fact, spend a lot of time on this board. Certainly, Robert can be exasperating and rude and nasty. As far as i can tell, that places him on an even footing with most of the *rest* of the regular commenters here, of all ideological stripes. There’s a reason i don’t comment more often.
And i don’t care for the phrase “killing a baby” either. But to think it implies moral equivalency with “shooting an adult” is, i think, bad semantics. I certainly prefer “killing a fetus”, since as far as i know, the definition of a baby involves being *born* — and that makes “killing a baby” to refer to the act of abortion ALSO bad semantics, and manipulative besides.
I’d like to point out, too, that only in his snide remark does Robert use “killing a baby” as a construct. Why not forget that one, just for the sake of argument? Everywhere else in this thread, he *does* use the much more value-neutral “killing a fetus.” Which i’m perfectly fine with, both as a construction and an action.
This comment was written by alienne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Suit yourself, alienne. I smell another break coming on. My head hurts. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Alsis:
I don’t want to sound like a smart-ass, but the term “abortion” is just fine by me, and I think the pro-lifers who pretend not to understand the “I had an abortion” are just trying to push the semantics toward their side (killing a fetus-> fetus is an unborn baby -> so women having an abortion are killing a baby, albeit an unborn one -> baby-killing! [and I suppose we are all "undead corpses", that is just as technically true as the fetus/embryo = unborn baby thing])
So pro-choicers are certainly right to not want play such games with the moderates and pro-lifers.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Congratulations to the original poster, a wanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing, I suspect.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:41 am
[Sigh.] You’ve convinced me, Tuomas. Now all we have to do is convince everyone else.
Better yet, just tell me how hard it would be for me to learn Finish. I had so-so grades in French and in Spanish, back before my college days. :/ My partner knows a smattering of Russian and Czech. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Sorry, I should have separated the rest of my comment from the the abortion term, or maybe not said that at all. I agree with your comments, and I didn’t mean to sound patronizing and I don’t feel I need to convince you of anything. (Maybe just to convince some lurkers/moderates).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
The funny thing is I was once an egg and a sperm too but no one gets all up in arms about me having a period or a guy jerking off.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
You didn’t exist until the egg and sperm met. Had they never met, you wouldn’t be here. If not aborted a sperm will not grow into person. If not aborted an egg will never grow into a person. If not aborted (and not killed by natural causes) the sperm/egg combo with genetic blueprints to decide everything about a person will undoubtable grow into a person.
My eggs can sit inside me all day long and not become a baby. This is basic biology.
Nick talks about all the factors that go into making a person exist (i.e. the “if your dad had masturbated” comment.) That doesn’t suggest that we are all haphazard mistakes, but reinforces the uniqueness and preciousness of every human life. Nick is unique to the point where no one will ever have her fingerprint or DNA- if she were killed, we wouldn’t get another Nick. She’s a one-0f-a-kind original and as such, she has intrinsic value. Every unborn child from conception has unique DNA and is a unique person. They also have intrinsic value. If your mom dies, someone that looks, acts and talks like your mom cannot replace your mom. You mourn your mom because she was a unique person. So are unborn babies. You don’t imbue them with value. A diamond has value whether you want it or not. So do all human beings.
Either all human beings have equal values regardless of age, gender, ability, race or other discriminating factors-and I’m sure they do- or we are ALL in deep trouble. I bet you wouldn’t be prochoice if someone was allowed to decide for you if you should live or die. It’s easy to be prochoice if you’re not the one being killed.
But, hey- pro-abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.
This comment was written by Jacqueline.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
I don’t like the idea of abortion any more than the next person. It should remain a matter between a woman and her physician, and her family, if she has one. Robert is an asshat, and now an infamous asshat. Enjoy the notoriety, asshat.
The same goes for euthanasia. I want the right to have the choice, and if I am not able to make the choice for myself, I would want someone I trusted to do it for me.
http://criterion.uchicago.edu/issues/iv6/wang.html
This comment was written by congratulations.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
I >>agree: Robert’s last remark was incredibly rude, and pretty uncalled for. It’s the *rest* of his points, though, that i was defending. I think jumping down his throat on everything else he has to say because of a snide closing remark is missing the point. Sure, it was unworthy of him; but it doesn’t invalidate the REST of what he had to say.>>
Oh, but it did. There’s nothing unreasonable about calling it out for the horrible insult it is.
Either all human beings have equal values regardless of age, gender, ability, race or other discriminating factors-and I’m sure they do- or we are ALL in deep trouble. I bet you wouldn’t be prochoice if someone was allowed to decide for you if you should live or die. It’s easy to be prochoice if you’re not the one being killed.
But, hey- pro-abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.>>
Actually, I would not have wanted my mother to bear me against her will. And I would be horrified if she were to tell me that she had been forced into carrying me to term. I respect her right to bodily autonomy such that she should make her own choice as to whether to continue a pregnancy. I do realize that the right to abort could very well have included me, or a potential brother or sister. How do you feel about the potential effects that a ban on abortion could have on your female relatives?
And most of us, ftr, are not “pro-euthanasia.” Even if that were an accurate assertion, it’s about as relevant as a flippant comment about how pro-lifers, with their opposition to stem-cell research, will lose valuable members to MS, ALS, and Alzheimer’s.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Jacqueline said “If not aborted a sperm will not grow into person. ‘
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.How exactly does one abort a sperm? Are you suggesting that a sperm, which typically spends most of its time residing in the body of a man, is capable of growing into a baby all by itself? Or are you suggesting that a man masturbating is is committing a form of abortion? If so, I’d like to point out that there are a whole lot of men out there you might want to have a word with about their evil sperm-killing ways.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
And Amp, thanks for the pics, Sydney is indeed ridiculously cute.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2005 at 5:50 am
That second if is a pretty big one. I read earlier in my pregnancy that one in six clinically recognised pregnancies end quite naturally before the end of the first trimester. And that’s not even counting the sperm/egg combos that fail to implant and disappear without becoming a pregnancy.
That being the case, I can’t see anything special about a fertilised egg, and certainly nothing to justify imposing on a woman the responsibility of acting as life-support for nine months.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2005 at 6:12 am
BTW, for those of you who love fetuses or are interested in the progress of my pregnancy, I’ve put the picture from my 20-week ultrasound up over at the Iron-On Line.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Why not forget that one, just for the sake of argument?
Because Robert is an intelligent person and not given to verbal flatulence. Why are you so eager to say “nothing to see here, move along” when he makes a point you dislike, in order to call attention to the points you like?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
… That’s assuming she doesn’t have an identical twin, in the case of DNA, and really, a fingerprint is a lousy criteria for uniqueness. A person’s unique value is determined by more things than having an unique DNA (placentas have unique DNA, you don’t see the pro-life movement fighting for placentas rights).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2005 at 8:30 am
A fascinating discussion, and one I read often on the NYT Bioethics Forum. We have a Robert, named ken, and have come to see him as a good advertisement for what is wrong with the RTL crowd, sort of an ad for the extreme. No matter the rhetoric, his motivation for choosing his language is transparent.
Nick, my boys are 21 and 23 now, but I remember the similar feelings of kinship with all women during and after my pregnancies. I had ended a pregnancy earlier in my life and had come to a place where I could safely support and provide for our child’s life. Someone at the time expressed condolences that we had required C-section as somehow a failure of our “right” to a natural birth, as though I had been forced to participate. We didn’t feel the need to explain the medical reasons, but I have always remembered her comment as incredibly limited in terms of the overall joy of the occasion.
Jacqueline’s comments about “euthanasia” reflect her ignorance on the issue. Euthanasia is when action is taken to end the life by someone else. I’m pretty sure she’s referring to assisted suicide, within the Right to Die movement, which is a completely different issue and process. Euthanasia occurs when we take our animals to the vet to be “put down”, and within capital punishment, when we end the lives of criminals with lethal injection. Assisted Suicide is a self-directed option available to those who have illnesses or conditions which present a prognisis of unrelenting suffering or loss of function which is intolerable for them. They are provided with the means for suicide after painstaking evaluation and treatment to relieve their suffering. Most do not follow through, but they report a sense of peace with the knowledge that they have the option. I personally do not support euthanasia for human beings, preferring hospice and palliative care, but I wholeheartedly support a persons choice in how they die, when death and/or suffering are inevitable. I think it is very important to understand the difference between these ideas, as it is a debate that will be on the national table over the next 10 years.
Thanks for the opportunity to share in your thoughtful discussion.
This comment was written by zennurse.Report this comment to the moderators
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:50 am
These are really thoughtful posts. Anti-choice candidates have been too successful at suggesting pro choice voters don’t understand the complexity of the issue or are heartless. I am politically active and this complexity pointed to here only makes me more committed to electing pro-choice candidate and particularly pro-choice women candidates. I suggest people who are sympathetic check out Jennifer Lawless’ pro-choice campaign against one of the house’s most radical (democratic) anti-choice male congressmen, james langevin. Her website is http://www.lawlessforcongress.com and she recently made headlines because sarah weddington, who argued roe vs. wade is coming to rhode island to campaign for her.
This comment was written by rilibdem.Report this comment to the moderators
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:51 am
I should have added the campaign is picking up but definately needs donations. I think this is a great place for those of us who care about this issue to join Weddington and to send support.
This comment was written by rilibdem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
the moment.) I started looking at adoption blogs. This led me to infertility blogs. Infertility blogs led to pro-life blogs. Pro-life blogs led to conservative/Republican blogs. At this moment, I am attempting to focus. I’ve narrowed the field to here,here
This comment was written by Macaroni from scratch.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I just wanted to add in the general support for this article. I’ve always been pro-choice (okay, from the age of 14 onwards - prior for that I hadn’t a developed sense of empathy for others and just thought babies were visually cute …). I’m now pregnant and feel almost frightened by the number of people who seem to think I and other pregnant women shouldn’t have a say in what happens to our own flesh and blood. Like Nick, I have decided not to “kill my baby” because I want a child and am willing to go through the risks involved for that. As she points out, it is no real “decision” as it’s based on pre-existent priorities (I wanted to get pregnant) and it’s no more or less “selfish” than having an abortion.
I don’t see any value in assigning certain rights to a fetus if the minute a baby is born, these rights become conditional upon whether the baby is male or female. I don’t yet know the gender of my child but I want him or her to have full bodily autonomy throughout his or her life. I know others don’t think this way and perhaps that is part of the obsession with human “potential” so evident in pro-life thinking - the unknown fetus might be male, rather than a breeder whose individual status always hangs in the balance.
This comment was written by Victoria.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
“But hey- pro-life abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.”
This argument is irrelevant. You are comparing two completely different subjects here. Although they do both deal with death, they arise from completely different situations. A woman should have a right to chose whether or not to abort a baby, just as someone should have the right to chose to die peacefully. Having a baby at a time that is not right in a woman’s life could forever harm not only the woman herself, but also her baby. The upbringing of an unwanted child will be much different than a planned, wanted child. Every situation with abortion is different, I realize that. Some women may be just as qualified as the next to have a baby, but that’s not you or anyone else’s call. As far as euthanasia stands, if someone id terminally ill, it should be left up to their discretion as to what to do. Yes, at some point, we all will become old and weak. If we truly feel this way about our viewpoints, so be it that they are the end of us. At least we stand by our words until the death of us.
This comment was written by Alissa.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
“I care passionately about my baby, every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom is would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice.”
I know at this point these comments are arguments against each other’s comments are arguments against each other’s comments, but I would like to discuss the actual posted article.
As a nineteen year old college student, I can wholeheartedly agree with this comment here. God-for-bid some unexpected occurrence were to happen and i were to find myself pregnant, I would hope that I could make my own decision regarding to resolving the issue. The baby would in no way, at this point in my life, bring me joy. I am a motivated student with a life still ahead of me and plans I would like to carry out before I even think of having kids. A child would completely ruin my goals and ambitions in life. The author of this article is correct in stating that a baby brings joy to some, while not to others as well. Every person’s life situation is different and just because one woman is elated to be pregnant doesn’t mean another feels the same.
This comment was written by Alissa.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
If a human being must be independent, then newborn babies are not human, because if left alone they too will die. If human beings must be independent, then children with disabilities that cannot survive on their own are not human. And the elderly who are no longer independent are not human.
What is right and what is wrong transcends how people feel.
This comment was written by Maria.Report this comment to the moderators
January 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“The cells inside the uterus are just another example. I give mine a very high value and watch their development with delight; other women give theirs a low value and can’t wait to be rid of them. The belief that we both have the right to assign value to our own bodies for ourselves is the essence of being pro-choice. If a woman places a high value on her fetus, removing it against her will is just as unacceptable as forcing a woman to retain, against her will, a fetus she gives a low value to.”
I think there is a great point made here in that much of the value a woman places on her fetus should be directly related to her right to de