OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.
First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.
Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.
However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.
And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.
But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.
I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.
And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Several things. While I appreciate your position and the way you stated it, you seem to think this is not something pro-choice people have considered or may even believe themselves. And while I suppose I can appreciate the regret you claim to feel for essentially enslaving women, I admit I find myself limited to find relief in this, though I commend you for at least being consistent in your application of this concept which is not something I frequently find when discussing this issue with people who are anti-abortion.
The number of situations in which a woman finds herself in need of these medical procedures, and that is what it is, are so numerous it is impossible to legislate it all without harming women. It just is. It may surprise you to know that many pro-choice people personally dislike abortion and would personally disapprove of many reasons why some women may choose to get one. However you can't legislate feelings; you can't legislate no-abortion-just-because-you-regret-that-decision-that-one-night. Why? Because women will simply lie and obtain what they want anyway. Obviously. So you legislate against the procedure. The problem is there are women who need those procedures for many reasons that I would assume you would be ok with. Savita Halappanavar was suffering from a miscarriage - the fetus would not survive. This was not in question. But because there was a fetal heartbeat, the hospital could not intervene and as such she died due to complications of carrying a dying fetus. In what way is that just or ok? The procedure now more commonly known as "partial birth abortion" (which is a misnomer) is now banned even though it was most commonly used, and originally created for, removing a dead fetus from a woman after a miscarriage because it had the least impact on her body. You actually personally know of a woman who had a D&X due to a miscarriage. But out of a misguided belief about what the procedure was, grieving women now must undergo far more invasive procedures to deal with a dead fetus inside them, a fetus that is (more often than not) very much wanted. Because of the Hyde Amendment preventing any tax payer money going towards abortive care, female federal employees who require medical intervention due to a late term miscarriage now have to shoulder that entire financial burden, which can be thousands of dollars because their health insurance is forbidden to cover it because the procedure that would be used is deemed an abortive procedure because of "pro-life" politics. How about the life of the mother? What about when that hangs in the balance? Angela Carder, cancer survivor, was pregnant with a VERY wanted pregnancy and in her 2nd trimester, her cancer came back and was incredibly aggressive. She could not wait to have her baby before starting chemotherapy without gravely risking her own life so she chose to abort the pregnancy. Mind you, this could not possibly be an easy decision. This was not an accidental pregnancy, she wanted this very much. She also very much wanted to be alive. The hospital however disagreed with her choice and they manipulated the system to not only prevent her abortion, but they forced her, forced as in against her will, to have an emergency c-section at twenty-six weeks, which in 1987 was not viability. Neither Carder nor the fetus survived. This woman was essentially murdered for the sake of protecting a fetus when she was trying to save her own life.
That is for women who did want what is deemed an abortive procedure. Now how about how "pro-life" policies are affecting pregnant women who wish to KEEP their pregnancies? Women the country over are having their very liberty threatened because people now treat the fetus are superior to the woman. Laura Pemberton was literally strapped down to a table against her will and forced to undergo a c-section because the hospital disagreed with her decision to have a VBAC because it would be "detrimental to the fetus;" nevermind the fact that Pemberton went on to have several more children successfully by VBAC. Samantha Burton was placed under house arrest in the hospital because she refused to go on bed rest for her pregnancy, a medical tactic that is greatly debated in the obstenstrics field for effectiveness, and the stress of this lead to her miscarrying. Christine Taylor fell down the stairs in her home during her second trimester and went to the hospital concerned her fetus was injured. While in the hospital, she confided in a nurse that when she first found out she was pregnant she wasn't sure if she was going to keep it, but she decided that she would. The nurse then took it upon herself to report Tayler for attempted feticide and Taylor was incarcerated for two days, while pregnant, until her charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. Women who have substance problems who seek help while pregnant, you know to provide for a better life for their eventual child, face incarceration - very "pro-life" to discourage women to seek treatment for the BETTERMENT of their families. I can continue for a very long time in this vein but hopefully my point is made.
To your ultimate point, you believe fetuses are children. Many people agree with you. There are two main reasons however why this, legally and politically speaking, is irrelevant. 1) You cannot prove it. At best we can prove that a fetus has the potential for life. People can debate back and forth about what they believe, but the FACT remains that you cannot prove the fetus is a child. So you have an actual, provable, legally protected being and you have a potential being - you are demanding that the actual being's rights be compromised for the potential. There is absolutely no other situation where we, or would we, demand this. 2) Even if you could, it would not matter. Say you could prove the fetus is a child with all the endowed rights and protections we provide people. In no other situation do we demand a person suffer a physical detriment for the betterment of another. In no other situation do we demand a person even suffer slightly for the LIFE of another. Forget physical detriment, we don't even obligate blood donation which has been proven to save lives and we make more of that with practically no detriment to ourselves at all except for the pin prick. Why? Because such obligation would be a violation of personal liberty and freedom. Yet a woman...ah she must put herself in position for grave physical detriment because she's pregnant? This doens't make the fetus a child. This doesn't make the fetus a person. This makes the fetus super human. This endows the fetus with rights no born person possesses. The fetus would actually give up rights upon being born.
Now, does this matter morally? Arguably no. If you want to remain steadfast against abortion morally, you will receive no argument from me. If we had a moral discussion about abortion, while I would probably still be more for it than you, you would find that I agree with you in more situations than I do not. Frankly, you will in many facets of your opinion be joined by many people who politically are pro-choice. But while you accurately place this as a moral argument, it is ALSO a legal argument and it will remain a legal argument so long as people who are morally opposed to abortion continue to make it a legal issue. All attempts to legislate against abortion have lead to women, and their families, being incredibly harmed and damaged (presumably) in ways the laws and its supporters never intended. Why? Because this situation is far too complex for legislation. Just like every woman is different, so is every scenario which is why it is best left to each woman and the people she decides to include in this decision. If you want to do whatever is in your power (so long as it is also honest, moral, and legal) to convince women to your perspective so that they choose not to abort? More power to you, and I mean that honestly. Lying is not illegal, nor should it be, yet I do my best to convince everyone I know to be honest. I know it is odd for an attorney to say, but the law does not fix everything. And as long as you and people like you continue to make, or support it being made, a legal issue, you will be opposed by people like me in defense of the millions of women who refuse to be collateral damage in your moral crusade.
Anticipated Serendipity:
A dead foetus can still be removed by intact D & X, so your objection to the partial birth abortion ban is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst.
SLW: I know women who have been told that D&X is not available to them in the case of a late term miscarriage because of this ban. I have also researched the policies of many hospitals that I was engaged with for one reason or another and they listed policies banning this procedure and they cited the legal ban as justification. Through academic studies I've read and conducted, there are many hospitals that don't use the procedure even for miscarriages because of fear of litigation due to the stigma and legal consequences around the procedure. Furthermore several states have specifically banned the procedure, not merely its use in for an abortion.
This topic unto itself can be discussed at great length, so I apologize if in my brevity on this one issue for the sake of talking about many other points I was misleading. That was not my intent. But my main point on this issue remains - the procedure is largely unavailable to women facing a late term miscarriage due to anti-abortion legislation regardless of the fact that this procedure is easier for a woman, in qualifying medical scenarios, to go through. Which bolsters my larger point that anti-abortion legislation and politics are having massive negative consequences for women's reproductive health and choice outside the realm of abortion.
Hi Tara! Ok, I have been putting off responding to this for a couple of reasons, but the principle one is that I've been a zombie all week, and I haven't had the energy to deal with this much material. This is actually why I have a rule against really long posts. I know you well enough to know that this is simply how you talk, but it impedes conversation.
The second reason is that I've been debating about how to respond. Quite frankly, none of what you said addressed my main point, and I found that very disappointing. The fact that you attempted to name my main point, and that you got it wrong suggests to me that my post may have lacked clarity. It is true that I tried really hard to not be offensive, and I think that it may have caused my point to be lost in all of the side points I included.
So here is my actual response. I want to be clear that the main point of my post was rhetorical, not substantive. My point was that the abortion debate should not be lumped in with the topic of equality. I addressed this in two ways.
First, I argued that such a categorization was inaccurate. I probably spent the majority of the post making this point.
Second, I argued that such a categorization undermined equality initiatives. Indeed, I wrote this a month ago, along with the post going up Monday (though that's not addressed to pro-choice people like this one is), when Governor Cuomo's equality initiatives were under discussion. Regardless of whether or not his initiatives actually would help, his goals were certainly laudable, and it was a conversation that needs to happen. But it was drowned out because he included abortion with the initiatives, and the whole thing was defeated, in part, because of this. That is unfortunate, but also predictable and avoidable.
Do you have any thoughts on these points?
But it is about equality. It's about my legal right to be treated equally as a full fleshed human being regardless of my reproductive status like my male counterparts.
The basic issue comes down to this - based on a medical condition, women face higher scrutiny, invasion, and loss of medical freedom that men do not face. Now, to those who are against abortion, this limitation on equality is not a problem as you can justify through your beliefs on the rights of the fetus. Pro-choice people view it as a problem because they do not recognize any rights of the fetus. Regardless of your stance it's an equality issue as they are not being treated equally under the law. So it is treated as an equality issue, and lumped in with equality measures, because it is in fact an equality issue. And as long as those who are against abortion continue to use legal methods to try and enforce their perspective, this will remain an equality issue.
But surely that is a categorization error. Pregnancy is a special situation that only affects women, but when it comes to medical practice in general, Pro-life people want men and women to be treated the same. To say that men and women should be treated to same in the context of pregnancy makes no sense because of biology.
Just because to things are not the same, it doesn't mean one is dealing with societal inequality. All women see a gynecologist. Men do not have to see an androcologist. Is this inequality? It is certainly different treatment. Why should women have to pay more money just due to their reproductive status? Is that unfair? Of course not, because medicine is based off of biology, and biologically men and women are not the same. It simply doesn't follow that a difference is the same thing as inequality, at least not in this context.
Men have doctors they see for their reproductive health - a urologist. So this is not an inequality. And frankly, women pay more for healthcare due to largely anti-abortion initiatives like mandated pregnancy tests or ultrasounds. And there is an equivalent to pregnancy - it's other medical conditions. Medical conditions are medical conditions and they shouldn't cause one to be treated differently. However certain segments have decided that due to a medical condition that only effects women, women who have that medical condition are subject to heightened invasion and scrutiny. Now that segment believes they are justified and apparently we're not going to talk about why that is or if it's valid, but regardless of whether or not you agree with that justification, they are demanding women be treated unequally.
Inequality is pervasive in our society and frankly it always will be because sometimes the inequality is justified. Children are not equal in our society. Discrimination is allowed so long as it's rationally related, like only hiring women to be bikini models. Just because it is accepted and understandable doesn't magically make it not inequality. Furthermore, people are always entitled to be unequal in their own opinions and actions so long as it doesn't violate or involve social policy or laws. Your issue here is that since you feel you're justified you're trying to say it's not an equality issue. No. You're justified so you find the inequality just. It remains an inequality issue, and a social inequality issue because you, or at least you support, bringing the public sphere into it by involving law and government. It remains a CONTESTED issue because literally millions upon millions of people disagree with you. Contested inequality social policy measures are the ones that require social response for obvious reasons. If you take it out of the public sphere and make this a private issue - one you attempt to convince others to think like you rather than enforce your position through legislation and public policy - THEN you have no social equality issue.
Again, so long as those who are against abortion, and therefore are for removing autonomy from women, this will remain an equality issue.
Furthermore, important to note, anti-abortion agendas impact women regardless of pregnancy status, so it goes beyond that medical condition and does in fact become a gender one. I have been refused medical care because I refused to consent to a pregnancy test because the medical condition I was seeking care for had nothing to do with my reproductive system. There are medications my doctors have steered me from because, due to my age and gender, I may become pregnant and therefore they didn't feel comfortable giving me that medication. It didn't matter that I said I wasn't pregnant, had no desire to become pregnant, and was taking active steps to prevent becoming pregnant - it could happen and therefore that medical choice was taken way from me. Up until very recently, my hormonal birth control was covered at a lower percentage, or at times not at all, because health insurance providers were allowed to discriminate against it. Again, not actually pregnant. I've been advised about the importance of making my body prepared for my eventual children because I am in a state of "pre-pregnancy." Consider that concept for a minute - there are medical professionals who have power over my medical choices who do not view me as an autonomous woman but view me as "pre-pregnant." Please tell me again how this does not involve gender inequality.
"Inequality is pervasive in our society and frankly it always will be because sometimes the inequality is justified. Children are not equal in our society. Discrimination is allowed so long as it's rationally related, like only hiring women to be bikini models."
If this is the manner in which you are defining inequality, then we are defining the word differently, which would certainly be part of the problem. To me, and probably to most people, inequality specifically refers to those instances when it is not justified. I think if you polled most people, you would find that most people would agree with me. Thus the problem would shift from the use to the word, to how the word has become to be misunderstood within our society. Either solution is fine with me.
Other notes: My point about gynecologists was related to the fact that women have to visit them even if they are not pregnant. I have never visited an urologist in my life, and few men my age have. But the point is moot given my above comment.
Any legislation that affects women who are not pregnant is not justifiable within my book. I understand that part of the problem is what about women who might be pregnant, but that is an issue I am willing to let go. In either case, I am only going to defend things which I myself support. If I agreed with everything every pro-life person said or did, or every law that got passed, I wouldn't have put up the post this past Monday criticizing Pro-life rhetoric.
Tara,
I do have to apologize. I thought I could temporarily delete your comments and then restore them later. Apparently blogger doesn't let me do that, so I am going to have to simply publish them. I think you were confused with the moderation which automatically kicks in after 10 days, so your 3rd and 4th posts seems to be rephrasing of your first and second. Ironically, it was trying to find time to go through all four that caused me to delay in publishing them. The length of your first two comments, even together, was actually fine, and I apologize for the confusion.
Tara,
I do have to apologize. I thought I could temporarily delete your comments and then restore them later. Apparently blogger doesn't let me do that, so I am going to have to simply publish them. I think you were confused with the moderation which automatically kicks in after 10 days, so your 3rd and 4th posts seems to be rephrasing of your first and second. Ironically, it was trying to find time to go through all four that caused me to delay in publishing them. The length of your first two comments, even together, was actually fine, and I apologize for the confusion.
Originally published by Anticipated Serendipity:
1) women only HAVE to see the gyno every year because of pro-life initiatives which have effected insurance and pharmacy policies. Many insurances mandate that if a woman misses her annual, she forgoes it being covered in the future. additionally, to obtain hormonal birth control, a woman still needs a prescription even though there has been medical testimony for years about how this isn't necessary and could be done over the counter.
2) on a personal note, you should see a urologist. Just because you haven't doesn't mean its not a thing men shouldn't do. Loads of evidence shows that ED, low T, and prostate problems that men now attribute just to getting older are likely caused by health issues earlier in life that could be caught by maintaining their reproductive health.
3) your post is that this isn't an equality issue, not whether or not you agree with all aspects of the public pro-life political stance. The reason this is an equality issues is BECAUSE of the public pro-life political stance. So while I acknowledge and support your critique on that stance, until that changes this will remain an equality issue.
Originally published by Anticipated Serendipity:
Btw, the inequality distinction IS important to understand. I agree that most people only use the term to reference unjustified inequality. But take our current discussion - you don't want to define this as inequality because you find the distinctions you are championing just. I don't, therefore to me it is unjustified inequality. The crux of the matter is that REGARDLESS it IS inequality - we are debating whether this inequality is justified. I brought up the other examples to show, and to be academically honest and forthright, that inequality unto itself is not necessarily bad, wrong or unjustified as people so often believe. If you were to tell me that you believed this was inequality, but was justifiable for whatever reasons you present, while I would still disagree with you I wouldn't make you out to be some ogre who hates women and wants us to be unequal because I acknowledge that there is such a thing as justifiable inequality.
Alright, I've been meaning to respond to your comments here, but it has been difficult.
First of all, I think my point in my original post may have been better served if I had said that the debate isn't about sexism. I was generally defining the term inequality to refer to how people think, instead of the way in which institutions operate.
Second, when I have looked up the term 'inequality' in various places, I have not found the neutral definition that you are using. Now, my point has to do with rhetoric in the public sphere, so if you are used to some kind of specialized definition that nobody in the public sphere is using, I question the veracity of its use.
Third, that said, the definition that I have found is still not in line with how I used the term in my original post, that is having to do with motivations and ideas. Again, it has more to do with the practical actions of institutions, that is when an institution treats a particular segment of the population unjustly, or causes them indirectly to be treated differently. This definition doesn't fit either of our uses, but certainly does support certain points that you have made involving certain legislation that has overreached what I feel is the appropriate scope of the pro-life agenda.
To be honest, after this analysis, I don't realy know where this leaves us. I still see that there needs to be a check on pro-choice rhetoric, especially since the pro-life movement isn't sexist. But that term doesn't get explicitly tossed around as much. I suppose it is the implicit use the concept that is more problematic since the entire point of my original post was to engender more positive dialog between the two camps, rather than as a presentation of my own position.
Post a Comment