“I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it”
| July 15th, 2005In the comments to Pro-choice and pregnant, Robert said
Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.
Ignoring for the moment the question of whether that was intended as deliberate provocation, I wanted to address the question of whether it’s even accurate. I’m not sure it is.
“Decided not to…” implies that the possibility has been given some consideration, however fleeting; I might say, for example, “I thought about buying the Kaiser Chiefs album but decided not to.” If the option hasn’t been consciously considered and rejected, it doesn’t really make sense to imply a decision has been made. I wouldn’t say that I’ve decided not to move to Milton Keynes, become a chartered accountant or take up underwater basketweaving, and nor would I say that I’ve decided not to terminate this pregnancy.
Before I became pregnant, I spent a long time considering the possibility of having a baby. I passionately wanted a family, and although I don’t believe there’s anything special about biological, as opposed to adoptive, parenthood, I decided the simplest way to have a baby of my own was to give birth to one. So to say that I “decided not to adopt” is completely reasonable: I considered the possibility and rejected it.
The decision to become pregnant was less positive: the timing never seemed to be quite right and I wasn’t sure I had the right to inflict myself on a child. I hesitated, and circumstances came together to help me decide. I had the opportunity to have unprotected sex at the appropriate time of the month. I took it, and three nervous weeks later a blood test confirmed my pregnancy.
Abortion never entered my mind as a possibility. Pregnancy was something I’ve longed for, hoped for and occasionally put myself at risk in search of for most of my adult life. Now that I finally have what I always wanted, why should I consider throwing it away? If the pregnancy had been especially difficult or scans had revealed a problem with the fetus, I might have had to examine the option, but so far everything has gone smoothly and I’ve had no reason to consider abortion.
So why does Robert think I “decided not to kill” my baby? Does he believe that every woman, pro-life or pro-choice, who sees a pregnancy through to the end has decided not to have an abortion? If it’s unreasonable to say that a woman at the farthest extreme of “fetuses are people too” pro-life philosophy has decided not to kill her baby, what makes it more reasonable to say it about someone who made a deliberate choice to become pregnant but respects the choice of other women to avoid pregnancy?
There’s another distinction to be made here, as important as the one between a wanted and an unwanted fetus: the distinction between wanting to do something yourself and supporting the right of others to do it. I am pro-SSM, but I wouldn’t even consider marrying a woman. I believe in free speech, even speech that I personally consider repugnant. And I am pro-choice, despite the fact that my choice was made long ago.
Why do I support a right I have zero desire to exercise for myself? All sorts of reasons. People I care about may well make a different choice, and I want it to be open to them if they need it. I don’t want to live in the kind of world where women can be forced to sustain a pregnancy against their will to satisfy someone else’s idea of morality. I want the world to know that I’m having this baby because I deeply and passionately want it, not because I couldn’t get rid of it.
Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you think abortion is wonderful. It doesn’t mean that when the doctor’s receptionist confirms a very much wanted pregnancy you immediately think “of course, I could always have an abortion”. It simply means you believe the decision whether to become pregnant or the decision whether to continue with a pregnancy is the woman’s to make as she sees fit.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:12 am
That’s a pretty creepy comment, but I think it reflects the attitude of a lot of pro-lifers fairly accurately. I suspect that they really do believe that pro-choice women are so callous that, every time we may find ourselves pregnant, we will naturally ask ourselves “I wonder if I should kill this one? Too difficult to decide really, maybe I should flip a coin.”.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Like I said, the underlying assumptions are deeply disturbing. I’m anti death-penalty, but that doesn’t mean that I assume that everyone who is pro death-penalty has some deep-seated desire to kill people just for the fun of it.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 5:53 am
Personally, I always wonder how much the anti-choicers are projecting. I’d bet a nickel or two that Robert has encouraged his partner to get an abortion at some point in the past…
This comment was written by Scooter.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 6:42 am
Thank you — this post helped me to understand something that really threw me overboard a few years back. I’m pro-choice, like Nick, because I believe that women should have this choice. My mother, however, is a pro-life activist.
This comment was written by bvt.In the city where she lives, there was a big campaign to build a billboard or giant poster or something with pictures of “babies who were ’saved.’” She thought it was a fine idea to take the baby pictures I had sent her of my two children, and add them to the poster.
It makes me almost crazy to even think about this, but to me, she was implying that my children needed “saving” — and from who? Apparently, me.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Nick wrote:
Well, no, it’s not. In the other thread of Nick’s, a couple of people drew a parallel between forced organ/marrow donation and forced pregnancy. These procedures, too, can have major benefits but also create moral conflicts within individuals. I’d say that while there’s nothing particularly wonderful about the act of abortion, it’s also not “horrible,” to use Kos’ words from a month ago. I may not be willing to strut around like the Goddess of Everything if I get an abortion, but I’m not going to spend the next thirty years hanging my head in self-loathing over the “horrible” thing I’ve done, either.
When guys say this kind of shit, you wonder if it ever occurs to them that the woman across the breakfast table from him (his wife, mom, sister, daughter) may well have had an abortion in secret, that she can only have the life with him that she has because she had one, and that some part of her is withering inside because the person closest in the world to her would think she was a “killer” or “horrible” if he knew. :(
It’s a damn good thing to be a woman and live in a culture where you can choose when you want to breed and when you don’t. Even if the answer to “When do you want to breed” is “Never, Thanks.”
Britgirl wrote:
Yep. I feel the same way about folks who go into the military, which makes me a total sop by the standards of some other anti-war Lefties, but so be it. The power of life and death over another is a difficult issue, but I sure as fuck wouldn’t waste my time going to Military Families Against the War or a similar site to call vets “killers.” Blecch.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:00 am
“Why do I support a right I have zero desire to exercise for myself?”
But is your pro-choice stance really just out of solidarity with other women? You mention in the same post that you might consider abortion if there was a problem with the pregnancy or the fetus. I’m not sure there are any women who desire to someday have an abortion, but when faced with an unwanted pregnancy it feels *necessary* for some reason. I hear the old “I’m pro-choice but could never have an abortion” line a lot. It always sounds to me like a way of distinguishing oneself from those other women. Unfortunately, you never know what tough situations will be sent your way.
This comment was written by Sara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:16 am
For the life of me I can’t imagine a man having to write a second blog entry surrounding a personal choice that he has made with his body. If a woman has never felt like public property before, there is nothing like her pregnancy to bring it to light.
I am happy that you are pregnant; I am pissed that some man thought that his opinion was more important than your pregnancy.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:17 am
It’s a fair question. I would consider abortion if circumstances seemed to warrent it, but unless the pregnancy presented a serious threat to my life, I think I would conclude that I couldn’t end it and live with myself afterwards.
I suppose I am distinguishing myself from women who feel more able to choose abortion, but not out of any wish to criticise their choice. I just want to emphasise that women are a diverse lot and there’s room for all sorts of personal choices under the “pro-choice” umbrella.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:46 am
very well said!
This comment was written by acm.thanks for writing.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:48 am
How rude. And of course the underlying implication is that women are naturally murderous. Actually, I would characterize it more as resentment that it’s our choice whether to allow what a man’s done to us or not–pregnancy is still very much seen as a man’s work through a woman’s body. In the rush to characterize any woman who dare reject this role, our very nature has to be constructed as murderous, because we don’t get pregnant every time we have sex. And often even fertilization occurs but not pregnancy, meaning that women are unconsciously destroying men’s work, aka “murdering babies”.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Sara said
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.“I hear the old “I’m pro-choice but could never have an abortion” line a lot. It always sounds to me like a way of distinguishing oneself from those other women. Unfortunately, you never know what tough situations will be sent your way. ”
This argument has been vexing me too recently, so I’m going to go a step further.
If I discovered I was pregnant right now, I would have an abortion. I would not need to sit and give it a lot of thought, I would not agonise over it, I very much doubt that I would feel guilty for doing it. This is not because I have some kind of deep-seated murderous tendencies, it is because I do not want children. I have always known that I do not want children. I’m married., and my husband doesn’t want children either.
Because I know I don’t want kids I am very careful about contraception, and I have never been pregnant as far as I know (I am aware that women frequently miscarry and don’t even realise it). I intend to continue being careful. But, if all my precautions should fail and I should find myself pregnant, I am going to have an abortion. People who do not want kids should not have kids. I like kids, and I’m a great aunty, but I just don’t want any of my own. I think there are lots of women out there who feel like me, and who have been intimidated into silence, sometimes even by people on the pro-choice side. The insistence that all women agonise over abortion and suffer terrible guilt afterwards is bullshit. Some do, some don’t, everyone is different. I’m not going to apologise for how I feel, and if anyone doesn’t like it they can kiss my ass. It’s my body and it’s my choice, not their. End of story.
By the way, Nick, this rant is in no way aimed at you. It’s aimed at the growing pressure from idiots like Kos who want us all to adopt the anti-choice framing on this issue and are too stupid to see the implications of doing so.
I feel much better now. If there are any lifers on here who feel like giving me a lecture - bite me. It’s my body and it’s none of your goddamned business.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:22 am
Well written Nick. I also applaud BritGirl’s direct and to the point speech above.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:26 am
I think every woman has to come up with her own decisions about both having and not having children. If a woman supports a decision that she wouldn’t make for herself, I don’t think we should be castigating her. Unless she starts making moral judgments about women who have abortions, then I’m willing to take that statement to mean “I don’t think it is right to apply my decisions to other woman” and be glad for the support.
I made the decision many years ago not to have children. So you could say that I made the decision not to have an abortion and thus my support of choice for others is suspect. On the basis of my decision, you could also doubt my support for pre-natal care, children care, and IVF. I, of course, would disagree; I wouldn’t have kids, I wouldn’t’ have an abortion, and I do strongly support all aspects of women’s reproductive rights.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:47 am
The irony of Robert’s sarcasm and indeed of the pro-life movement itself is that abortion has made joyous pregnancy more possible, and adoption an option for women with unplanned pregnancies. I remember reading a book by a Brazilian writer (Jorge Amado? Can’r remember) years ago about how the poor women of the favela would never go to the “angelmaker” for their first, happy pregnancy, but would go for subsequent ones in an effort to make their lives and their children’s lives less wretched. And that’s what no abortion and especially no birth control does- it makes women and children’s lives wretched. It devalues pregnancy and children because they become unwelcome burdens in too many households.
I have often wondered what would happen to the “loving option” - adoption, if abortion were made illegal, or if indeed BC were restricted as many seem to want as well. Would American women drop off their babies at orphanages to be neglected as happened in Romania? Even if the US could cope with the glut of unwanted kids, what would happen to all of the foreign children who find loving familes in the US now? I think we can imagine what would happen- orphanages and a sad existence.
In the book “Freakonomics” the authors posit that abortion has lowered the crime rate. I would like pro-lifers, so-called pro-lifers, to think about that and to remember that life can be cheapened in more way than one.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Like Sara and BritGirl, I’ve heard this a lot - heck I’ve said it, not to distinguish myself from women who had abortions, but because I honestly couldn’t imagine myself being in that position. I found myself in that position at 19, beat myself up to make sure I wasn’t terminating for “selfish” reasons (though a pregnancy was not in my best interests at that time) and came to the realization that my legitimate concerns about my own health and embryonic/fetal anomaly due to exposure to known teratogens were considered selfish reasons by those who oppose abortion (even those who support exceptions for rape & incest). I honestly think that the majority of women who said they support the right to make a decision they wouldn’t make themselves aren’t trying to stand a moral high ground, they’re (in general) adding the caveat to illustrate that just because a certain decision may not be right for them, that doesn’t mean it’s not the right decision for someone in different circumstances.
I think the snide comments from those who oppose privacy in life andmedical decisions just lend credence to dadahead’s excellent suggestion for re-framing the debate at Liberal Avenger.
This comment was written by ol cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 10:12 am
“I want the world to know that I’m having this baby because I deeply and passionately want it, not because I couldn’t get rid of it.”
I love this line. It’s pretty much my general reaction when flag-burning amendments, and other laws designed to restrict choice rather than protect people, are suggested.
Regarding the “I’m pro-choice but could never have an abortion” discussion, I realize that many women who say this are trying to simply make a point that supporting freedom means supporting freedom for everyone, not just people like you, but I think the way that’s it’s usually phrased/used makes it come across as seperating onesself from those women who would have abortions. (I’m saying this as someone who has been guilty of doing the latter at times when I was younger).
My mother was actually the first person I heard utter this, and she did so in a conversation in which she was trying to explain to me that not everyone who finds themselves knocked up was simply being irresponsible. She had pointed out that only one of her four children was from a planned pregnancy and my parents were using some form of birth control all of the other times she got pregnant. (Her purpose was not to seperate the responsible unwanted preganancies from the irresponsible pregancies, but to poke holes in my assumptions).
At the time I translated what she said (I can’t remember exactly how she phrased it that day) as meaning that she would never have an abortion. Looking back I’m fairly certain that isn’t what she meant, even if that’s what she said.
I was born with a congenital heart defect that required constant medicine and frequent visits to the hospital from about 6 weeks until I had open heart surgery at 2. My mother was preganant with my younger brother when I went in for surgery (one of the unplanned pregnancies). I have no idea what she actually would have decided had circumstances been different and, say, my dad lost his job and health insurance about that time and my parents didn’t have family to turn to for help, but I can’t imagine her choice would have nearly as easy or clearcut.
I can’t speak with absolute certainty for my mother, but I think what she was really trying to say was that she is pro-choice even though, given her own feelings and situation, she could never choose to have an abortion herself.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Why does the abortion argument boil down to “pro-choice” vs “pro-life”? Is there not a middle ground? Choice is a wonderful option, and a woman should have that right, but as with all rights it carries resposibility. Choice begins before conception. Should I engage in sex? Should I use contraception? It seems simple that if one does not wish to become pregnant, or impregnate, one should use effective contraception. Granted it’s not a 100% guarentee, but it’s far more effective than using nothing. I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of “unplanned” pregnancies are from failure to use effective birth control. There’s also surgical options, for both sexes, to eliminate one’s child bearing ability.
Not all pro lifers are extremists. Many recognize that abortion is not always an easy decision for a woman. I sense that its not abortion itself per say that disturbs lifers, but rather the number, over a million a year if I’m not mistaken. Instead of arguing life vs choice, why not recognize the legality of abortion but work to reduce the number, and acknowledge that with rights come responsibility. Abortion should not be presented in political debates as something to celebrate, nor should women who choice such be condemed as murders.
This comment was written by Hellcat.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Ahh, but Jenny K, that’s the point–situations change, usually in unexpected ways. So to say “she could never choose” an action in the future given her situation in the present doesn’t make sense, because none of us ever really know what our situation will be in the future. (For the record, I was very very guilty of saying this many times when I was younger, so I’m not trying to castigate anyone. I just think it’s an interesting point to bring up and examine, given how often you hear the “I’m pro-choice but…” thing.)
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Whoops, just re-read your post and realized you might have meant exactly what I just said. (Duh. Must read better now.) If that’s the case, sorry for the redundancy.
This comment was written by AB.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:20 am
“If a woman supports a decision that she wouldn’t make for herself, I don’t think we should be castigating her. ”
I’m sorry if I came across as castigating. I don’t presume to know her reason (or anyone else’s) for using the “I would never have an abortion” line. I think other commenters are right - people say it for lots of reasons, and not all of them are meant to be holier-than-thou.
But what puzzles me about it is that it makes it sound like there are two types of women - those who have abortions, and those who do not. And that I can somehow know what type of woman I am. While our decisions about our reproductive lives are political, politics don’t usually drive those decisions, and they don’t define who we are.
When I was a pre-abortion counselor I met many a “pro-life” woman who wanted an abortion because “the circumstances warrant.” Each one had always believed she would never ever make that choice, but then she did. And the pain from that cognitive dissonance was nearly palpable, because her very identity was at stake.
All I’m trying to say is that playing the “I would never” game is a dangerous way to define yourself. You never know until you’re there.
This comment was written by Sara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:35 am
AB, I’m a bit confused, because that was kinda my point: that if she got pregnant right at that time (or had gotten pregnant other times in the known past) then she could reasonably say that, but she couldn’t say (and wasn’t really trying to say) the same for a future that was very different from her current situation or that she would have made the same choices in the past had her past been different.
I guess to me saying “I’m pro-choice but could never have an abortion” is too absolute, but saying “I would never have an abortion in my situation, but I’m pro-choice” suggests both support of people who would choose differently and acknowledgement that circumstances play a part in the decision.
If you disagree that’s fine, I’ve never been spectacular at conveying ideas concisely - as anyone whose read my plethora of long posts knows :) - but I’m curious if you disagree because I didn’t word it well, or because you think that there isn’t a way of conveying this particular idea using so few words.
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:44 am
hah! AB, that’s ok - see note regarding my not always steller ability to convery ideas :)
This comment was written by Jenny K.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:46 am
There are many women who assume with blithe assurance that they would *never* have an abortion, until they become pregnant. Such was the case of my best friend in high school. I was so sure she would be psychologically damaged by throwing away her principles that I did try to persuade her to rethink. She was sure, and you know what, she survived and prospered, is happily married and so on.
It is certainly possible to regret having had an abortion, or needing one, it is after all an unanticipated and unwanted event that requires planning and money, and can also be quite painful. Not that childbirth doesn’t involve all of the above to one degree or another, at least if the child is unplanned. There is this assumption among pro-life types that once the child is born there will be some sort of epiphany that erases the “unwanted” gloss from forcing a new addition into the family. Sometimes this is true (most likely, if you are already set up with a family), but it is usually an arrogant assumption that is contradicted by a lot of evidence.
In short, you can have bad or mixed feelings about abortion and still not think that what you did was a wrong for which you must atone. But there are lots of women out there who are just suffused with the “cheap grace” that comes with exercising your rights but not assuming fundamental responsibility for the fact that it was, after all, a choice.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:47 am
I assume she = me, and I can assure you I didn’t feel at all castigated. I didn’t say that I would never have an abortion, just that (right now implied but not stated) I haven’t even considered having one. And that, unless the circumstances were extreme, abortion would probably cause me more pain and regret than whatever I hoped to avoid by it.
I don’t see a sharp divide between women-who-have-abortions and women-who-don’t, more of a spectrum from someone who can have an abortion and feel nothing but relief to someone who cannot contemplate, at least in the abstract, going through it. I place myself at one end of that spectrum based on what I know of my personality and my reactions to other situations.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:50 am
These people amaze me with their coldness at times. As if such a decision is ever taken lightly. Okay, yes perhaps to some, but to the majority? No!
This comment was written by Angie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
“Castigating” was probably too strong a word and I apologize for using it. Perhaps I reacted somewhat strongly because the “you never know” was what I heard over and over again when I decided not to have children. Yes, I’m sure that there are women who blithely say “I would never” about abortions without really having thought about it but I feel that I have to be willing to trust their judgments in the same way that I wanted people to trust my decision.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
There are plenty of people, like pretty much everyone in this thread, that say they wouldn’t have an abortion but are pro-choice. Because they know that if they were pregnant, they’d very much want a baby.
But there are people who say that, like the Kos example, who want to strike a balance between passing judgement on women who get abortions and people who don’t want it to be made illegal. Because of that attitude, though, women like me who would abort immediately and without regret are silenced and the anti-choice movement gets to define women who choose to abort, or would if they got pregnant, as selfish sluts.
Well, I’m not. I’d be a wretched mother, so it’s kind of me not to inflict myself on a child.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Amanda wrote (emphasis mine) :
Maybe we could start a support group ? :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Well, I’d say a Discoteque, but that would definitely get condemned, probably far more than the “I had an abortion” T-shirts.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
I’m in, if we can have a Feminist Jazz Snobs Night once a month.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Hmmm, while I know I’m not at all far from the norm, I think it’s worth pointing out that I’m pro-choice, mother of one, and pregnant for another and HAVE had an abortion. It’s not like people are either baby-havers or baby-killers. Choice means just that, and is based on the situation. In my current situation, abortion hasn’t even been a consideration - like Nick, I’m extremely happy about the baby I’m nurturing into being, and it wasn’t a situation that warranted me needing to consider ‘exercising’ my right to choose.
The fact is, though, that most women who have had abortions or will have abortions also will bear children. Of the - lessee - eight women I am either related to or know well whom have had abortions, only two of them have not also had children. Each woman has a different story as to what provoked her choice, and a different level of comfort with the choice itself.
Contrary to the portrayal offered by many anti-choice folks, being pro-choice is about women having the right to exercise choice over their own body, not about ‘killing’ babies.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
being pro-choice is about women having the right to exercise choice over their own body, not about ‘killing’ babies.
OK. What are they choosing?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
“If a woman supports a decision that she wouldn’t make for herself, I don’t think we should be castigating her. “
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.I had no intention of castigating anyone either. My point was that I see many pro-choice people using this language as a sop to the lifers, an attempt to “meet them half way” and I think it’s politically unwise. There’s really no way we can meet lifers halfway without accepting their framing of the issue, and accepting in principle that other people have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. We can’t compromise by advocating for better contraception, because they want to restrict access to that too. Attempting to engage with the lifer position is a losing strategy, and it’s going to end up hurting women. Look at the Dems suggesting that we should “compromise” on 3rd trimester abortions. Most 3rd trimester abortions are performed because of severe fetal abormalities and/or danger to the mother’s health. How the hell can we compromise on that?
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Robert, they’re choosing to put off childbearing until later. That’s the case with, I would guess, the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions. They end up having the one, two or three kids they always would have, under different circumstances. And some, like my friend from high school, end up choosing the child-free life that she always wanted.
By requiring “regret” and making snarky statements like “I’m glad you decided not to kill it” pro-lifers are trying to shift the conversation in an effort to elicit the tacit agreement of even those who support abortion rights that abortion equals infanticide. I am not going to play your game.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Some of us don’t want children. And we don’t need any sanctimonious meddlers trying to bully us into liking the idea of having our own children. That’s our choice, and I for one don’t intend to let meddlers or their apologists (ie- Kos) shame me into pretending otherwise. I’ve known since my own age was in the single digits that motherhood was not for me. I knew this as surely as I knew I was left-handed and had some artistic skill. These things are central elements of my personality. They will not be altered to please the dictatorial instincts of others. That’s final.
IOW, what BritGirl said. Those who are determined to label me some kind of potential “killer” would do well to support expanded access to healthcare and to stop spinning elaborate justifciations for shithead pharmacists who think their own “consciences” should get to intrude into my fucking womb when I ask for birth control or EC. I’ve been fortunate to reach the ripe old age of 39 without more than one or two false pregnancy scares. But I shouldn’t have to rely on luck alone to arrange my life the way I want it. I’m a full-fledged citizen, and I won’t be treated as chattel by patriarchal assholes.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Robert, they’re choosing to put off childbearing until later.
Ignoring the fact that you’re directly contradicting the women who have explicitly stated that they do not intend to ever bear a child:
What means are they using to exercise that choice?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Lay off the trolling, Robert. Barbara is speaking for the women she is most familiar with, as is Kim. The fact that women like myself, Amanda, and BritGirl probably make up a tiny fraction of pro-choice women doesn’t make us any less deserving of choice. You have heard me, and others, explain what we have done to avoid the necessity of abortion. You have also heard any number of times why even with the best will in the world, all our efforts could still fail and we could still find ourselves pregnant. (Rape culture thread, anyone ? Do you think most rapists stop to put on condoms, or check to see if their target is on the pill ?)
You’re not that dumb, Robert. You’ve gotten your answers a dozen fucking times. If you don’t like the answers, that’s not our fault. We don’t exist to please you. So if you’ve got nothing original to contribute, why don’t you just drop it ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Actually, Alsis, I haven’t gotten answers. I’ve gotten some abuse and a whole lot of tap dancing, all of which seems designed to avoid for as long as possible a simple acknowledgement of the simple fact that an abortion kills a life. No, no, it’s about “choice” and “privacy”. Choice to do what, and privacy behind which to do what - where apparently an acknowledgement - a bare acknowledgement - of what “what” covers would break the sisterhood, or something.
Although it’s none of my business, you’ve discussed your reproductive life and intentions enough to lower the privacy barrier. If you are bound and determined to not have any children, why don’t you get your tubes tied?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
Robert, plenty of pro-choicers have concurred with you, despite your bleating about “tap-dancing,” that an embryo or fetus is “alive.” What we don’t appreciate is your constant assertion that its status is equal to that of the life of the woman carrying it.
I don’t know why you think you get to decide how lowered the “privacy barrier” is any more than you think you’ll get sympathy for kvetching about how you’re being “abused” –when you could have avoided this latest round by simply not being such an asshole to Nick in the first place. If I liked and trusted you, I’d be happy to discuss my medical status in your presence. But, frankly, I neither like nor trust you, so I consider it none of your fucking business. Maybe you’d like to amuse yourself by waltzing over to some MRA sites and asking the men there why they all don’t get vasectomies. Maybe you could give Planned Parenthood a buzz and offer to anonymously fund a few sterilizations out of your own pocket.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Growing up, I always had the view that I couldn’t think of a scenario outside of rape/incest/health when I’d agree with abortion BUT that this was entirely not my decision to make and my opinion didn’t matter.
Until, of course, a very close friend had a pregnancy scare with an abusive boyfriend. Then, I openly urgerd her to consider abortion and learned to never assume an absolute on this issue.
Still, I and most progressives would take the approach of “Safe, legal, and rare” on abortion. Part of that is promoting birth control use to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Indeed, this should be a major part, but it is stymied by right-wingers who find the notion of birth control to be immoral who are still fussing of the judicial activism of the Griswold decision (which I think had something to do with being able to by birth control while on a family vacation). Safe is also undermined by efforts to intimidate providers in many parts of this country where a safe and legal abortion is extremely difficult to procure. I want as many people as possible to never have to make the choice to have an abortion, but I still want them to have that choice. Its theirs to make, ultimately. Not mine. The myth of the pro-abortion is left is one of the most disgusting creations of the radical right and its highly disappointing to see Robert engage in such petty misrepresentation and insult of those he disagrees with.
This comment was written by BStu.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
What we don’t appreciate is your constant assertion that its status is equal to that of the life of the woman carrying it.
Since I’ve never asserted that, and don’t believe it, you can increase your level of appreciation however you see fit.
When you regularly refer to your pregnancy scares and your sexual life and your intention not to bear kids, that’s to me a lowering of the privacy barrier; kind of like when a vet brings up how he lost his arm in the war, you can generally feel comfortable asking him if its hard to cut his meat with just one hand. Apparently I was wrong. Never mind.
What is most disturbing about the extremist position that you, and a few other pro-choicers, stake out is the absolute insistence on freedom from any interference, outside judgment, or social control. Very few groups or individuals ask for that level of autonomy from the larger whole (not even the hardcore libertarians do) and those that do are usually pretty worrisome; Randian nutjobs and the like. In general, people need some social control over their actions; very few of us are capable of handling absolute autonomy in a way that is compatible with a healthy social environment. People who believe they need or deserve absolute autonomy are pretty scary, and usually for pretty good reasons.
Your allies in the pro-choice movement might want to consider how much support from moderate people who have objections to some, but not all, abortions is lost by having abortion-rights absolutists in the ranks. The moderate pro-choice position is reasonably defensible; most Americans either hold it or understand and sympathize with it; you can count me in the latter group. The absolute position, on the other hand, is just nuts. You demonstrate yourself that you know its nuts by the strenuous lengths you will go to in order to avoid a simple, technical description of what abortion is. If an absolute right to that practice is so great, why can’t you bring yourself to just say what it is?
That said, it’s obvious that there’s nothing to be gained in terms of information or understanding from my continued participation in this discussion, and I imagine it might be hurting the feelings of some people whose feelings don’t deserve to be hurt; I’ll bow out other than to answer direct questions.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
I’ve actually thought long and hard about the “safe, legal and rare” strategy for ensuring women’s reproductive choice, and initially I thought it might be useful. But then, the niggle in the back of my mind that always suggested a problem with it came fully into focus; namely, how it comes down to shaming women about having an abortion, and more than that, having sex.
Some may argue it’s about minimising the amount of potentially dangerous medical procedures. But I think that’s honestly bullshit, as a wellperformed abortion is actually far more safe for a woman than a pregnancy itself.
If the anti-choice people honestly were simply interested in reducing the numbers of abortions, then they would have responded to the reaching out from pro-choice organisations with efforts to increase sex education and subsidise and provide access to birth-control, as both these things have been shown to decrease abortions, whereas making abortion illegal hasn’t. But no one has seen anything other than a trickle of movement in that direction from the anti-choicers. This seriously suggests to me there is something else going on here, and it has very little to do with descreasing abortions rates.
Moreover, there are a lot of women out there, as have been evidenced here, that weren’t conflicted or traumatised about accessing abortion services. Strategies such as the above would alienate them. Abortion doesn’t have to be a traumatising event AND for some it is. It’s not a ‘but’ argument, it’s an ‘and’ argument; just as there are a diversity of women, there are a diversity of approaches to accessing abortion, so allowing for this is the best strategy, not taking merely one perspective. We shouldn’t be telling women how they should orientate themselves to abortion; that’s for them to decide; that’s the point. It’s not our role. It’s our role to provide services and support should that be what a woman articulates she needs.
Of course, I say this as a woman that can’t get pregnant (something I have known since I first started college) and as a lesbian. Pregnancy has never ever been something I have had to consider, worry about, or whatever. Sometimes I get wistful, but then I’ve also always been whigged out by the idea of passing something the size of a football … ouch.
Oh, and as to Robert’s comment, I said this on the previous thread, and I’ll say it again here; it was, and still is, a dickhead comment.
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Robert:
What abortion is:
Abortion is an ending of a pregnancy by removal of a E/F. That’s what abortion is. Anything else is trying to reframe the debate to make women look like killers.
And I highly doubt that a women who gets an abortion makes that decision entirely in a vaccuum…at the very least she has to consult with a doctor. But she probably consults her close family, friends, maybe a religious leader, and of course, she has to consult with her own morals.
I don’t think it’s overzealous of any women to demand that she choose what, when, and where her body gets used for. That’s the definition of autonomy. That doesn’t mean she gets to dictate what anybody else wants to use thier body for, or that she doesn’t get a network of friends…but the final decision must rest with the women making the decision.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Since you directly addressed me:
Abortion is an ending of a pregnancy by removal of a E/F. That’s what abortion is.
An “E/F”. You can’t even type it.
“Removal”. You have to euphemise it.
You’re making my point for me, Antigone.
Anything else is trying to reframe the debate to make women look like killers.
Or using simple and direct language instead of euphemisms and acronyms.
It was alive. Now its dead. In the middle, you did something that you knew would move it from alive, to dead. That by me is killing.
By you, it’s “removal”. Of an acronym.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
I wasn’t aware that I mentioned pregnancy scares prior to this particular thread. I wasn’t aware that I’d been discussing my sex life in graphic detail, either. Projection is a bear, Robert. Watch out for it.
Your comparison to a hypothetical war vet is funny (strange, not ha-ha) on a number of levels. For one thing, I don’t regard my lack of desire for children as a disabling situation. It just is, and always has been, a part of my life. Very strange analogy on your part there.
It’s also rather funny (strange, not ha-ha) that you yourself have repeatedly failed to respond, for instance, to the folks who have wondered aloud whether you would support forced surrender of your organs or bone marrow to save somebody else’s life. I’d say if anyone in these never-ending exchanges could be said to be “tap-dancing,” Robert, it would be you.
What kind of “social control” do you want, exactly ? For someone who repeatedly reserves the right to define each and every term/subject in a debate, Robert, you are quite vague about this. Furthermore, I don’t understand why you assume that women who are sexually active and yet work to avoid unwanted pregnancy are not excercising sufficient “control.” What exactly beyond do they need “society” to do ? We are adults, and you seemingly trust our male partners to conduct themselves responsibly without your quasi-benevolent assistance. So why can’t we adult women have the same consideration ?
If you have been reading this thread and the related threads, I think you will find that my allies understand the dangers of purges pushed upon them by people like you. I think that my allies understand that the danger of letting someone like you define “absolutism” means that they, too, run the risk of being vilified as “absolutists” at some point– even if they themselves don’t feel like they are.
And again, I reiterate that being an abortion-rights “absolutist” is not in any way a true counterpoint of being a fetus-rights “absolutist.” I don’t believe that I have the right to tell another woman to abort or use birth control. Funny that while you feign concern for “non-absolutists” like Kim, you fail to notice that they don’t have any problems with seeing my POV. Sounds to me like you are unhappy that you can’t pit mothers and non-mothers against one another. Sad for you. Not so much for us.
So you get to decide which woman is worthy of getting an abortion and which one is not ? You really can’t grasp why that’s so noxious and nasty, do you ? You would never want me to intervene in your own family life and tell you how many children you could have, and when, and how– yet you cannot extend me the same courtesy. Shame on you, Robert. If that’s “moderation,” I’ll pass.
My desire to not intervene in the lives of other women or to project my own desires upon them–and to expect the same consideration from them– is “nuts” ? Really. That would be funny if it wasn’t so sadly indicative of the upside-down view that so many men have of women’s rights. Well, you know the old saying about how madness is a reasonable reaction to a society that is insane, don’t you, Robert ?
Your description, such as it is, is hardly “technical.” You have gotten as much acknowledgement from me as you are ever going to get as to the nature of how much of a full-fledged “life” an embryo or fetus is, Robert. It’s not my problem if you want to poo-pooh my opinion because I won’t sign onto your interpretation that a woman who aborts –for reasons you don’t like, of course, as you are oh-so “moderate”– no matter how many times you stamp your foot and demand that I look at the world the same way you do.
If you had cared about people’s feelings, you would never have made that snide, hateful remark to Nick in the first place, Robert.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Oh, Antigone, you bad, wicked woman. Using an abbreviation. Don’t you know that every time you abbreviate, God kills a kitten ? Or something. Into the lake of fire with you !! :p
Sarah, great to see you again !
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Robert: On the off chance that you are actually interested in some of the whys and why nots of tubal ligation-
(Firstly, it’s a sterilization procedure, so only applicable to those that don’t want to ever be pregnant again. But you knew that.)
Firstly is that it’s an elective procedure, which affects insurance coverage and also whether or not a doctor will be willing to perform it. Many simply deny it to women under 30, or women who haven’t had kids, etc.
Secondly, it is surgery, with all the risks and complications associated with surgery. When weighing costs and risks of a ligation vs. condoms and the pill/patch, ‘regular’ birth control obviously is going to win out a lot.
Of course, you aren’t interested in the actual whys and wherefores of the matter, you simply want to get into a flamewar about how women who don’t want children and don’t get their tubes tied are shooting bullets into a crowd, metaphorically speaking.
This comment was written by Kerlyssa.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Robert,
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.You had said that you were going to bow out of this debate. That was a good idea, and you would have been well advised to stick to it.
But I’ll bite, just to remove your ability to indulge in this particular bit of rhetoric (”you can’t even type it” - how patronising).
Abortion involves the killing of a fetus. Note that I used the word fetus, not the word baby. Most of us have differing opinions as to when a fetus becomes a baby, and the most common opinion seems to be “when the fetus would be viable outside the body”. This immediately excludes all of the first trimester, and about half of the second trimester. Most abortions happen in the first trimester. The efforts of the pro-life movement to restrict abortion have, in a case of great irony, succeeded in making it so hard for many women to get access to early abortion that there are more and more abortions happening in the second trimester. This is not what the pro-choice movement wants, and it’s not what either women or their doctors want. Second trimester abortions are more risky, more painful. The main reason that more of them are happening is because people like you have made it very difficult for women to get abortions in the first trimester. This is a bad thing for everyone, and most of the blame for it rests on the shoulders of the pro-life movement. Congratulations lifers on making the “problem” that you claim to be fighting worse.
Also, you keep coming back to the idea that pro-choice women just aren’t doing enough to avoid pregnancy. This is disingenous bullshit. Plenty of women right here have gone out of their way to point out how careful they are to use birth control. Birth control is fallible. As to your suggection that pro-choice women should have tubal ligations, I invite you to take your suggestion and shove it up your ass. You have no right whatsoever to tell someone else that they must submit to surgery in order to meet your personal moral code. And even if they did, it’s still not completely fullproof. There have been cases of women who have become pregnant after tubal ligation. It also would not be covered by most people’s health insurance, so if you really think this is such a great idea you might try suggesting that some pro-life groups offer to help pay for it. I’m guessing you won’t get very far with that strategy. It is interesting that you didn’t suggest vascectomy for the partners of these women though. Interesting, and very telling.
I’ll even give you another analogy, a bonus if you will. I have two first degree relatives who had breast cancer. This puts me in a high risk group. I am of course doing all the smart things that one does to decrease one’s risk of cancer. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink to excess, I eat healthy foods, I exercise, I maintain a healthy weight. In spite of all this there is still a chance I may get breast cancer. Would you suggest that I get a double mastectomy now, just in case? Am I acting irresponsibly if I do not do so?
Also, what about the possibility that a woman who does not think she wants kids now might change her mind later? Do you assume that you have the right to tell her that she must deny herself the ability to keep her options open by having a tubal ligation now?
Which again brings us back to the central issue. None of this is any of your business. These are not your decisions to make. Given that you are fairly intelligent, none of this should be difficult for you to understand.
And one more note RE late-term abortions. Most of these are done because of major developmental problems in the baby and/or health risks to the mother. Do you really think that you have the right to dictate to a woman that she should risk her own life to bring a child to term? Do you actually think that the life of the baby is always more valuable than the life of the mother? Or that a woman should be forced to committ the rest of her life to caring for a severely disabled child? That’s a pretty big committment, and I remind you that if these children are put up for adoption their chances of actually being adopted are very low. They would probably spend the rest of their lives in an institution, and that’s a pretty horrible fate. Bearing all that in mind, do you really think that you have more right to make these decisions than the woman actually carrying the child?
Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
BritGirl, check your email. There’s a pro-choice rally in SF tomorrow. (Sorry for the late notice).
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Brian, thanks but I can’t go! Ironically enough given the topic here and our friend Robert’s assumptions, it’s my niece’s first birthday party tomorrow and her mother would never forgive me if I missed it. So, evil baby-killing feminist me will be spending all day shopping for baby clothes and cooing over an infant.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Thanks for keeping me in mind though. Next time…
Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 2:54 am
Robert:
Abortion is ending a pregnancy by killing and removing the embryo or fetus. See? I have no problem stating it, and I’m about as extreme a pro-choicer as you’ll ever encounter.
Meanwhile, try to find a pro-lifer who doesn’t become enormously uncomfortable when pro-life policies are accurately described as state-enforced childbirth for pregnant women. For that matter, try to find a pro-lifer who is willing to say what penalties a woman who has an abortion should recieve - five years in prison? Twenty years? Lifetime? Death penalty?
It may be, as you say, that some pro-choicers aren’t entirely comfortable talking directly about what abortion is. But the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers are just as uncomfortable when asked to talk about the reality of criminalizing abortion.
(If they are comfortable, it’s generally because they favor virtually no punishment for the woman at all - a position that’s completely incoherant when combined with the view that abortion is murder.)
No one is saying that people shouldn’t be free to make unkind judgments about women who get abortions. Rather, people are saying that they’ll make unkind judgements upon the unkind judgers in turn.
Frankly, I don’t see much unique about the position that “I should be able to do _____ without being interfered with, as long as what I’m doing doesn’t harm another person.” I should be able to draw whatever cartoons I want, for instance, without social controls telling me what I can draw or can’t.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 4:16 am
Robert said:
Your allies in the pro-choice movement might want to consider how much support from moderate people who have objections to some, but not all, abortions is lost by having abortion-rights absolutists in the ranks.
To be honest, it is the “moderate people” out there who scare me the most. It’s that “some, but not all” thing that makes me nervous. On the one hand they pat us on the head: they tell us not to worry, they support abortion, they support a woman’s right to choose. But then they turn around and start making exceptions, putting conditions on when, where, and how a woman can choose to abort. They assure us it is still our right to choose, but they want to decide, set limits on what, when, and if we get to choose. Because they know better than we do. Because they are more informed than we are. Because they are more moral than we are.
Robert describes himself as a moderate. He thinks that the pro-choice folks should be grateful for the moderate “some, but not all” view on abortion. He thinks that we are not reasonable because we don’t want to make concessions, because we don’t want to accept limits and restrictions on what we can do with our own bodies. But the problem with making concessions, with letting other folks set limits is that they don’t ever seem to want to stop. If we agree to one limit or restriction, they think we should agree to the next. If we give up one thing, it is easier to give up the next thing.
So we are placed in a position where we can’t make concessions, where we can’t agree to limits. Either we are in control of our own bodies or we are not. And if we can’t even control what happens to our bodies, to the one thing that is ours, then we are less than a person. We are chattel, we are breeders, we are body parts, not people.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 4:17 am
Robert, what do you think constitutes an absolutist position on abortion?
As to the desire to be free of “any interference, outside judgment, or social control,” what kind of social control, exactly, are you proposing? A morality squad that will judge the suitability of a particular decision (”she used five types of birth control, she gets to have an abortion; she didn’t use any, so she doesn’t deserve a break”)? That kind of social control? And my life would be bliss itself if I could command the right to be free of outside judgment, but I don’t think I’m going to waste a lot of time pursuing that as a goal.
You accuse us of trading in euphemisms, but the average pro-lifer can’t or won’t put together a coherent explanation of why, for instance, he or she would be in favor of abortion in the case of rape or incest but not failure of birth control, or as Amp says, what kind of penalty would apply to a woman who arranges an illegal abortion, or for that matter, her partner, because these things are rarely done alone. Scratch 1 mm below the surface of an average pro-lifer and you find that a fetus is a baby with an asterisk. So here’s a thought: “Life begins at conception” is a euphemism greater than anything the average pro-choice person has ever concocted. It avoids all kinds of pesky questions about logic, compassion, autonomy and a host of other values that I, for one, find important to living in a free society.
I favor unrestricted abortion up to about 16 weeks, with a more complicated and nuanced view on availabiltiy after that point. Somehow that makes me an absolutist, while those who take the view that a zygote is equivalent to a “human being*” are “moderate” in their views? And apparently this is because I’m not willing to require regret and mourning for those who avail themselves of the right to abortion?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 5:08 am
Robert: What is most disturbing about the extremist position that you, and a few other pro-choicers, stake out is the absolute insistence on freedom from any interference, outside judgment, or social control.
So Robert finds it disturbing that women think they ought to be able to trust their own moral judgments when making decisions about their own pregnancies but he has no problems with other people trusting their own moral judgments about denying women emergency contraception or even birth control. And Robert thinks it is better to preserve the “innocence” of kids that to provide them information that might help them prevent unwanted pregnancies later in life.
And while Robert insists he supports abortion when it meets the requirements, as yet unrevealed, of his “moral calculus”, he insists that we all use his morally-loaded phrasing (”killing a baby”) to describe abortions — I guess this is his way of letting us know that even if he will concede in some instances that abortions might be acceptable, any woman who gets an abortion is automatically morally corrupt.
And Robert wonders why we are so resistant to having “moderates” like him as allies.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 7:43 am
I hate the way pro-lifers believe that feminists are baby killing monsters who have abortions for fun, although I know that is all part of their rhetorical strategy. It’s beyond insulting when abortion is a very difficult decision for most women. Mind you, I do think as feminists we need to have another look at the abortion/pro-choice issue. I’m involved in a feminist group in Wales and recently someone joined wanting to run an abortion campaign. I was surprised to find that very few people really wanted to be involved. Although they identified themselves as “pro-choice” feminists a lot were uncomfortable with the idea of having an abortion or actively campaigning on the issue. I don’t know whether this is because pro-life rhetoric has made deeper inroad than I’d previously imagined, or if there is a general shift occurring in young women’s attitudes to abortion.
This comment was written by Winter Woods.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:08 am
It does not take emotional or verbal gymnastics to be pro-life. If there was no growing life (dead things don’t grow) then there would be nothing to kill. You know you are killing something and you must do semantical sommersalts in order to not think that something is a human being. What is it then? A duck? A dog? You know you are killing something. You know that something is your child. You just so desperately want to maintain your lifestyles that you’ll make human sacrifices to see that happen. It’s the baby’s body and not yours to dismember. If you want to burn yourself in saline or have your limbs torn off then be my guest. Doing that to your child- be she born or not-yet-born is child abuse. I don’t care if she lives in your house or in your womb.
As a woman, I’m disgusted that you would paint yourselves as so much more important than your children that you have a so-called right to end her whole life at your whim. I have an advanced degree and a wonderful career. Having a baby at this point would hinder my doctoral plans and my career advancement, but I don’t think that my situations justify stealing my child’s whole life from her. My job is to CARE for and nurture the life I helped create. Abortion is truly a selfish act. Abortion paints women as completely self- interested and oppressive towards those that depend on her for care and protection. Women are not killers by nature. It takes significant delusion to think that abortion is not killing a child. It takes propaganda pieces written to CONVINCE self and others that you believe as you do. I don’t need a peptalk, and my children are safe with me.
This comment was written by Jacqueline.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Oh gee, those selfish, selfish women. How dare they want autonomy! How dare they not be repentant of having teh sex!
It’s a fetus, or more likely, an embroyo, that I’m killing. I end up killing more living things when I scrape my knee. Hell, I kill more complex creatures for lunch. A ZEF is there at my disgression, and thus I can do whatever I want to my body. If I want to make my uterus a hostile envirnment, guess what? It’s my uterus. Unless I want it, it’s a kin to someone holding me hostage.
MY LIFE is important. I don’t give a damn if you think that’s me being selfish or not, it’s the truth and I refuse to let people wrap this up in “It’s child abuse” nonesense. For it to be child abuse, it has to ACTUALLY BE A CHILD. Until the moment it can survive outside of me, it is not more or even equally worthy life as mine. If you say I MUST give childbirth, you are putting a potential life above my not disputed life. You know what I say to that? Fuck you.
Go to the orginal post, and read the tread there. I said it when Nick first said about her pregnancy, and I’ll say it again right here:
Sex is to rape and a wanted pregnancy is to an unwanted pregnancy.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Sorry, didn’t mean to put it up yet:
In fact, it’s selfish of the state and others to DEMAND that I give birth, selfish in the sense the word was supposed to be taking. They are taking something that doesn’t belong to me (my body) and dictating what I’m supposed to do with it. Whereas I’m taking something that DOES belong to me, and something that I do have jurisdiction over (my body again) and deciding how to use it. That’s not selfish, that’s doing with my own property what I want.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 8:58 am
They’re choosing to remove another organism from their body that is essentially parasitic. Sadly for the fetus-worshippers, there’s not really a way to remove this organism without also killing it, but I would say there’s no desire on the part of the woman to specifically kill the fetus: it’s just a side effect of the removal process.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:07 am
As a human being, I’m shocked that you can come out with such inflammatory nonsense. It’s not disgusting to suggest that a fully-grown woman is more important than a bunch of cells that could turn into a person with the co-operation of the woman. If the pregnant woman was killed, the fetus would die too, whereas the converse is not true: doesn’t this suggest that we might be onto something at least?
Well, that’s just wonderful for you. I have a degree too, and planned before I discovered I was pregnant to train as a teacher. It seems like I’m going to have to put that on hold for the time being, but I don’t use this as justification for dictating to other women what their choices should be.
You remind me of nothing so much as the hearty people who tell depressives that they too have suffered much in their lives and you don’t see them moping, so the depressives should just get on with it and quit whining. Not all people are the same, and ability to cope with either pregnancy or abortion is amazingly variable between women.
You see where I’m coming from? You can’t look at some other woman and magically know whether she’s capable of supporting pregnancy, so you don’t have the right to make her choice for her. Only she can do that.
That’s a job you gave yourself, not one that is yours by divine fiat. If you enjoy that job, as I do, that’s wonderful. But other women don’t, and I don’t see how you have the right to say they ought to.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:13 am
Jacqueline:
Then do it. If you are pregnant, have the baby. Who here has said that you can’t, or shouldn’t.
No. It’s you who aparently had to drop your so-important-I-had-to-brag-about-it-to-the-unwashed doctoral work and come here to paint us as baaaaaaaaad baaaaaaaad people. Get this through your arrogant head, Jacqueline. I don’t give a damn whether you think I’m selfish. I don’t give a damn if you can’t tell the difference between an embryo and a child. My body is not yours. Nothing grown in it or coming out of it is yours. Frankly, I find you an arrogant, self-righteous shitheel for prattling on as if my life and my body were any of your fucking business. Leave it, and me, alone. I’ll be sure to do the same for you.
Do you plan to call for us selfsih, eeeeeeeevil aborters to be jailed for “child abuse” ? Good luck with that. It may very well be that your fellow pro-lifers are a lot queasier about that than you.
You know, reading this sort of stuff from Robert and Jacqueline makes me think that perhaps the terms “moderate” and “extremist” have outlived their usefulness, and should be tossed out. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:47 am
You had said that you were going to bow out of this debate. That was a good idea, and you would have been well advised to stick to it.
So difficult since women’s uteruses are, after all, public property. You are denying him the right to tell you what to do with something he, as a member of the public, as partial ownership over.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:50 am
MY LIFE is important.
Better double check to make sure you don’t have a vagina before you go spouting off like that.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Wow, you have an advanced degree … I’m so impressed … let me see, I have … oh, I don’t know … 4 of them, and … what do you know … I’m working on my 5th … I must be insanely qualified then to tell every other woman on th planet what they can or can’t do with their bodies and what kind of people they are depending on their choices.
In case you missed it, that was sarcasm, to demonstrate the patently arrogant nature of your post, Jacqueline.
This kinda of troll behaviour from anti-choice people just shows how incredibly right a position that allows women to control their own reproduction is. We don’t tell women what they can or can’t do with their bodies, and moreover, we don’t tell them what kind of person (and particularly, what kind of a moral person) they are for making a particular choice.
It’s about supporting women and respecting and defaulting their choices as valid, regardless of their education level or career privileges.
Simply having a different conception of what abortion is or isn’t is not ‘verbal gymnastics’ and again, it’s the height of arrogance to suggest that there is only one way of lookin