Does the value of an embryo depend on what its mother thinks?

Solely. Next!

I know.  It’s stuff like that where I’m like,  you just don’t even want to get it, do you?  The relentless downplaying of women’s work and women’s authority and women’s right to define our own experiences.

Mushy middle types will say they support abortion, but not if it’s used for birth control.  Or that they’re against abortion except when it comes to rape

It’s these examples that are really telling, I think.  The mushy middles, in some ways, are the ones most obsessed with controlling female sexuality.  They’re the ones who think of both female lives and fetal lives as being fungible, with a whole sliding scale of morality and disapproval.

The True Believers, who really, honestly, 100% think of fertilized eggs as citizens, are really more consistent when they say that they don’t believe in exceptions for rape and incest.  Once you grant their assumption about what a fetus is, you really do have to give it the full rights of a citizen, and that means not punishing it for the circumstances of its conception.  It’s a worldview that means you have to believe that the infant mortality rate is somewhere around 75%, given how many fertilized eggs do not implant or spontaneously abort.  But fine, whatever - if Sperm Magic or God the Father or Warren Jeffs gives a soul to every blastocyst that make it exactly like a person, then there you go.  And said deities are also murdering those ensouled people at an astounding rate, but it’s no more or less believable than most fundamentalist religious dogma.

And while we’re on the subject of true believers and their utter insanity, this was pulled from Free Republic thread about the plane crash:

  what goes around….comes around….

  all those little babies got together and sought some revenge….

  I can just see all those little babies jiggling the wings of that plane…

That is not a person who lives on the same planet I do.

Mikey, by that same logic, why is North Dakota under a Noachian Deluge alert a scant two weeks after their legislature declared God the greatest criminal ever (as He kills more fertilized eggs by far than abortion ever has).

When Lord Salineton gets pregnant, he can decide what he thinks about the embryo and what he wants to do about it.  Otherwise, he is exhorted to mind his own fucking business.

“That is not a person who lives on the same planet I do.”

...if only that was literally true.  Unfortunately, they do live on the same planet as the rest of us, just not in objective reality. 

Carl Sagan called it “The Demon Haunted World”, and that about sums it up.  His solution is the proper application of science and the scientific method.  But how do you do that with such irrational and religiously zombified people?...

I have to admit, when I saw that he’d written this, I was like, “Finally!” and then I was disappointed that he completely ignored the issue of women’s autonomy in favor of lofty stuff about how he’s challenging me to think about fetal life because I otherwise would not. 

I don’t know why I expected him to address anything but strawmen.

“When Lord Salineton gets pregnant, he can decide what he thinks about the embryo and what he wants to do about it.”

...Nature, in its infinite wisdom, gives each of us control over the womb inside us.  It’s not nature’s fault men lost theirs…

Bluntly put, I think the amount you think a fetus (especially in the first term) is a person is inversely proportional to how much you value women’s work.  I also think unease with abortion is related to a sense that sexual women are irresponsible hussies, and my continued exposure to pro-lifers tends to confirm this.

What bothers me is that Saletan really wants to believe that anti-choicers mean well, and that their belief in fetal life is unrelated to their attitudes about women’s value.

As usual in the abortion question, I agree with what Amanda explicitly writes in this post, but I also cannot help to notice what is left unsaid. Ok, the post exposes Saleman’s hypocrisy. Sure, it’s very transparent that views on abortion are heavily influence by sexism and prejudice. But at some point we must treat arguments as if they are presented in good faith if we hope to make any progress in the discussion.

Treating a fertilized egg as human life is absurd. But hardly anyone defends the right to abort up until one minute before birth either. Therefore, we really cannot escape the “analyzing, over and over, how much value we give to fetal life depending on how many cells there are”, in hope of finding one acceptable criterion.

The central problem of abortion is very similar to the problem of minimum age of voting or driving. You must establish a “yes or no” rule on a gradual process, so every threshold “date” seems inadequate: people do not suddenly gain maturity on their 18th birthday, and a fetus doesn’t magically “become human” on a given gestation day. I’m all for denouncing pro-lifers ridiculous positions, but there are limits to which this can contribute to a serious discussion on abortion.

...and even names his post after a commenter using the corny term “lady parts”

How vulgar.  Everyone knows it’s “lady business.”

Goatse guy says, “Dang, that Will Saletan is a gaping asshole.”

I asked.

Nimed- I do.

In fact there are some potential medical reasons that would absolutely require abortion one minute before potential birth or during labor. It often gets muddled in the concept of stillborn, but there you go.

In short it is an autonomy issue and the fetal object doesn’t mystically have more rights than its parent or any other born human being to use another person without their consent.

On the biological side, the only argument that could be made is potential for sentience, aka “that which separates us from the apes”. The brain develops last so that potential isn’t one until very late so even if one was trying a false equivalent/ the “baby” is “innocent” just because it isn’t fleshy enough to have sinned yet argument, it rather falls flat in that the displaced emotion and issues about sexual morality has no potential of human equivalent existence until very late in the third trimester and potentially not even until after birth as most of the brain grows and develops in the first months after birth.

There’s a reason ancient “doctors” would characterize life as beginning with breath and often see stillborn or septic pregnancies as the influence of ill spirits rather than lost babies.

The whole “innocent” fetii parsing is a newbie in response to the loss of male power and the complete destruction of the homonculii myth. Men who are told their power rests in their control over everyone else don’t seem to handle well the idea that there is something they are practically meaningless to. Since it’s directly related to so many of the reasons they view themselves superior to women to begin with, we get the desperation to characterize fetii as special super innocent people that are simply better than born people with no acknowledgment of how few make it to term after the point they deem “the most important part”.

As a biologist, the debate is even more annoying, because people are fetishizing something less demonstrably human than most tumors and is really only possible to hold because we have no public acceptance about women’s right to consent. We don’t believe women should have a say in any use of their body and it is directly born out of the rape culture where a women’s sexuality is “owed” to men.

It also ties into the whole gun post thing in how it relates to our ideas of “innocent” and “guilty” and how we devalue the lives of guilty people to the point of being disposable. Thus, there is this whole undercurrent where the woman has already proved her guilt by being fleshy and having fleshy sex and thus is disposable in order to save the “innocent” who is defined solely by what they haven’t done and is thus prized above all others.

Set on a large scale, it’s also the origin of our whole “quiet lives of desperation and conformity” thing. The only way you retain your value as an innocent and thus retain life privileges is by not doing anything frowned upon by society, either legally or socially and thus denying a whole swath of human emotions from oneself. No wonder it drives the wingnuts crazy.

Thus, there is this whole undercurrent where the woman has already proved her guilt by being fleshy and having fleshy sex and thus is disposable in order to save the “innocent” who is defined solely by what they haven’t done and is thus prized above all others.

This.  This describes my whole squick factor over people who want to save “innocent” babies verses, I suppose, their guilty mothers.  The idea that sexual women are completely disposable, whether you’re talking about abstinence only sex ed, rape victims, or pregnant women.

But at some point we must treat arguments as if they are presented in good faith if we hope to make any progress in the discussion.

Why? Is this supposed to be some kind of general proposition? Because quite often, arguments one hears (on any subject) are quite obviously not being made in good faith.

It also happens, not just on this but many subjects, that one encounters people who clearly are “sincere,” that is, they aren’t aware of the ulterior, bad-faith reasons behind their illogical “reasoning.” This is because ideological thinking is commonplace. Ideology is reasoning that papers over manifestly bad motives by developing a conceptual frame to obscure them; it often has a good deal of logic and sense to it in some cases, but breaks down in others. I believe that such conceptual frames have often been evolved in our kinds of societies because these societies are based on systematic injustice across the board; this is why we are used to such bad faith and forgiving of it—not only is it necessary to be reasonably polite to most people we run in to, we are aware that we ourselves live, not so much in a glass house but a house of funhouse mirrors, and have good reason to fear that if we start throwing stones soon everyone will be hip-deep in nasty shards. (And our aim won’t be worth much either, what with our eyes being used to distortions…)

So it feels kind of mean and unfair and hypocritical to try to hold everyone to a sane standard, or to doubt that conventional=sane. But darn it, do you really think you can contort your mind into “seeing their point of view” without also seeing clearly why that point of view fails? For those of us who took some time to change our minds on this and other issues—doesn’t it feel better to get away from the warped thinking, and wouldn’t going back to it feel like going to prison?

Treating a fertilized egg as human life is absurd. But hardly anyone defends the right to abort up until one minute before birth either. [Nimed]

Nimed- I do.
Cerberus on 03/27 at 12:13 AM

And so do I. Assuming women are actually reasonable, there are all kinds of good reasons why late-term abortions probably would only happen for grave reasons—especially if we remove all barriers, including social stigmas, against freedom of choice in these matters.

Therefore, we really cannot escape the “analyzing, over and over, how much value we give to fetal life depending on how many cells there are”, in hope of finding one acceptable criterion.

Sure we can. We can just say, “It’s the pregnant woman’s call, whether she wants to end her pregnancy or decide to have a baby—free and willing choice should be where babies come from.” Problem solved—the “acceptable criterion” is, choice.

From this viewpoint “Roe v Wade” is already an irrational compromise with the anti-choice brigade—one we can pragmatically live with, precisely because those women who have to jump through hoops for late-term abortions are overwhelmingly those whose only reason to seek one is a severe medical problem; as long as doctors and civil authorities are decently reasonable, it works out OK. The problem is, in our systematically misogynist society they often aren’t reasonable and the result has been trauma, even death, for women caught in this trap. The answer is not to compromise the compromise!

The central problem of abortion is very similar to the problem of minimum age of voting or driving. You must establish a “yes or no” rule on a gradual process…I’m all for denouncing pro-lifers ridiculous positions, but there are limits to which this can contribute to a serious discussion on abortion.
Nimed on 03/26 at 09:06 PM

What you’ve done here is swallow the ideological frame, hook, line, and sinker. In that frame, the anti-choice people “win” automatically, no matter where you draw the compromise line. As the bumper stickers say, “It’s not a choice, it’s a child!” Unless you break the frame completely and understand it is a choice, whether or not there will be a child.

If you define “serious discussion” as having to take place within this frame, then you are demanding surrender in advance. As it happens, while the ideology is pervasive, so is dissent against it on this subject. People say one thing, and actually do another when faced with the reality in their case. I think it’s best to just call bullshit on the “pro-life” arguments and let people know there is an alternative to dogma, then let them vote with their feet.

As far as I’m concerned, it comes down to one thing:

Either a woman is a first-class citizen with the same rights of autonomy and control over her body as a man, or she isn’t.  If she does, she has the absolute right to abortion, birth control, and sex whenever and with whomever she wishes.  Restrictions on abortion, birth control, and choice of sex partner force her into a condition of second-class citizenship, which also implies that a woman can have her behavior restricted in other ways, up to and including denial of jobs, housing, individual credit, bank accounts, and the right to vote.

Either a woman has the same rights under the law as a a man, or she doesn’t.  Period.  End of statement. 

And when I’ve put it to “pro-lifers” just like this, they usually stammer and try to weasel out of the implications of discrimination, slavery, etc.  It’s sort of like the ones who freeze when asked what jail sentence a woman who has an abortion should receive.  They haven’t thought it through, and the idea that they are actually arguing for a return to the early 19th century in terms of a woman’s legal status is shocking.

(of course we get lunatics like the Quiverfull sorts, but I refuse to dignify them with a reply.  I’m also waiting for the TLC series on Michelle Duggar’s nervous breakdown after she hits menopause and can’t get pregnant again, but I’m a sadist that way).

I really like the incest and rape exceptions.  Those are neat ways to make abortion illegal and still throw a bone to unthinking middlers on the issue.  Think about it:  How are you going to prove it was rape?  How long does it usually take to bring an accusation of rape into the court room?  I assume they would require a judgment of guilty on the part of the perpetrator before they allow the abortion to go through.  By that time, it’s either too late in the pregnancy, or gestation is over, there’s a newborn now.  And this is assuming things go smoothly.  We all know it will be the victim on trial.  I don’t even want to think about the incest portion. 

Can we stop even discussing these two “exceptions” like they’re put out there with any sense of sincerity or concern for women?  They are carrots dangled to the middle so the pro-lifers can pretend they care about us as people.  If you think about it with any kind of analysis, you’ll realize it’s total bullshit and an impossible exception.

My experience—both personally and rhetorically—is that the mushy middle is simply an unexamined perspective. They rely on comforting platitudes to do their thinking for them. For example, the “I believe abortion should be legal, but I don’t like that women use it as birth control” chestnut:

1. If the act of abortion makes you uncomfortable, then you need to square with that, and take a good hard look at a 5-week old embryo and decide if that’s really “human life.” Because if it is a human life and abortion is murder, and preventing that murder is more important than your financial future and your girlfriend’s or daughter’s future, then there isn’t some magical number of abortions that is *not* murder and once you cross a threshold of 3 or more abortions suddenly it *is* murder. Either one abortion is murder, or none of them are.

2. Of course abortion is birth control. What else would it be? And do you honestly think that there are women out there who prefer to have a $300-400 surgical procedure rather than spend a few bucks on a pack of condoms? Women who have multiple abortions are typically in relationships where the power dynamic is such that they can’t insist on birth control. They understand that a pregnancy and child added to that equation would make their situation much, much worse. Yes, they should get out of that relationship, but pregnancy is going to make them more (not less) likely to stay with the father. But frankly I suspect the “abortion as birth control” meme was something that was invented by people who like to stake out Planned Parenthood and see women who go in regularly for things like the birth control pill and health checkups and decided that since all Planned Parenthood is good for is abortions, that these women are getting an abortion every few months or so.

3. Fine, let’s run with it. Let’s say there’s a woman who is so completely irresponsible, and such a total slutmobile that she has an abortion every few months. She’s so flakey and such a hedonist that she can’t be “bothered” to use forms of birth control that are cheaper and less invasive. And you think she would make a good mother why!??! If I had a friend who needed her 10th ride to get an abortion I would drive her rather than have her bring a child into the world that she’s obviously not fit to care for. And no, the answer here is not “adoption” for more reasons than women are not cows that will moo for a few days after you take the baby away and then forget about them—a woman who is so completely irresponsible that she’s off to the abortion clinic every five weeks can’t be trusted to follow her prenatal appointments, not smoke, not drink or do drugs, or any other of the activities that would make a child that could be adopted out in seconds have issues that would make that child languish in a state home their entire life.

I find that once you challenge people on their own Mushy Middle Lazy Logic, they tend to think a little harder about the abortion issue beyond simple, easy platitudes. Honestly, if it makes someone more pro-life, I honestly wouldn’t be that upset because at least there’s consistency there. But more often than not, forcing someone to examine the issue makes them much more pro-choice. Especially when you make it about them

Nimed, the problem is that we already did that.  Roe v. Wade said no legal value in the first trimester.

What Saletan wants is some sort of moral hand-wringing over the issue, and I don’t see why, except to make it harder for women who need abortions to feel good about themselves.  Why does one want women to suffer, except that you’re uneasy about their sexual status in the first place?  (Not you, Saletan.)

There is, in fact, a simple solution the problem Saletan presents, even in good faith: The value of a fetus depends on the woman carrying it.  We grant lots of things relative value.  The same plant, depending on where it grows, could be a weed or a beloved member of a garden.  The decision depends entirely on the garden’s owner. 

Now, obviously, this metaphor ends at birth, when the baby transfers out of a woman’s body and becomes an interest of the state’s.  Or, really, before, depending on the circumstances, according to Roe.

Thus, there is this whole undercurrent where the woman has already proved her guilt by being fleshy and having fleshy sex and thus is disposable in order to save the “innocent” who is defined solely by what they haven’t done and is thus prized above all others.

This is especially proven by the Catholic Church sanctifying or whatever it is they do any woman who lets herself die to give birth.  Apparently, suicide is acceptable if it’s passively committed by a woman to show that her virginal baby’s life is worth more than her own.

Saletan is high.  The pro-life movement is just as vehemently opposed to contraception as it is to abortion.  That’s a fact!  That the pro-life movement itself doesn’t dispute!  In fact, prominent pro-life Republicans have said as much to his damn face!  What more is it gonna take for him to get the message?

As a biologist, the debate is even more annoying, because people are fetishizing something less demonstrably human than most tumors

FTW!

Seriously - what is a growing infant but an extremely well-organized, barely growth limited tumor.

Or, more snarkily, a tumor is what happens when human cells adopt the philosophy that wall street evinces toward regulation.

Bingo, speedbudget.  They’re a throwback to the era where women had to grovel before a jury of male doctors to get an abortion, and back then, you had to prove you were mentally unstable to get an abortion.  Which reinforced the idea that sexual women were mad.

Apparently, suicide is acceptable if it’s passively committed by a woman to show that her virginal baby’s life is worth more than her own.

Having known a family where a woman valued her twin feti more than her own life (melanoma), I think this is partially enabling Catholic policy, but it can also be a comfort for women who decide for themselves about their own troubled pregnancy.

The downside of choice is that some will decide to choose a fate that you or I might not.  The upside is that a woman who wouldn’t hesitate to get an abortion and start chemo and a woman who values her very much wanted pregnancy above her own life both get to choose their own fates.

Abortion should be legal because women deserve to be treated like citizens, not because women are defiant and won’t obey the laws put on our bodies.  I don’t even have the words to explain this in more detail, honestly.

Thank you for that concise summation of the issue!

I’m not even willing to discuss this stuff anymore. It’s just so blatantly fucking obvious to anybody paying the slightest attention that “pro-life” in all of its manifestations is really all about denying full autonomy to women. Any “mushy middle” idiot who doesn’t see this simply doesn’t WANT to see it, and can kiss my ass.

Steve, that’s your perogative, of course, but I see Mushy Middle as simply the remnants of the culture that we live in clinging to what would otherwise be a logical, intelligent perspective. You don’t just wake up one morning and get rid of all of the misogynistic, woman- and slut-shaming crap our culture has steeped us in from day 1. I’ve had a lot of luck holding up the mirror to people and getting them to take a few minutes to logic away the Mushy Middle crap.

When you stop talking about “some woman” and you start talking about “you” or “your girlfriend” or “your wife” or “your daughter” then people are forced to be a little more discerning in their opinions than simply regurgitating what they think people will want to hear.

I always wonder how these “no abortion, no birth control” people would feel if we ever got really daring (or possibly stupid) and said, “Ok, we’ll see you your no abortion / no birth control, if you’ll package it with legislation that mandates:

1. Mandatory DNA testing to find the father, hereafter “sperm donor”.
2. Sperm donor has to contribute at least 50% of the necessary labor and finances to bear, raise, educate, feed, clothe, and otherwise provide for the child.”

I’m not suggesting this at all, because I’m totally there with the “women’s autonomy” reasons, but I’d love to see their heads explode if they considered that actual, toothy legislation could force men to take care of the babies that those slutty women keep generating. I don’t mean this $50 a month crap or whatever that (1) wouldn’t keep a kid in breakfast cereal, and (2) can be so easily dodged that it’s practically a joke. I mean, ACTUAL money. How much does it cost to create an adult these days? Half a million dollars or something like that? Wouldn’t suprise me.

My cynical guess, though, is that the politicians and religious leaders would still support the legislation, because it’s about the power of the over-class at least as much as it is about keeping women down. And the Joe Plumbers would support it because they wouldn’t know enough not to. I don’t know.

It seems that expressing any attitude other than abortions are the awesome is patriarchal chauvinism? I’m overstating the case I know. Can’t I be fully pro-choice with no doubt in my mind that it’s right and still be saddened by abortion? I’ve helped a friend run the gauntlet at a clinic in New Hampshire (one of those meet us a block a way things before the protesters started getting RICO-ed). I never gave it a second thought after the initial incident. We might be pregnant with our third child and we really, really can’t afford it. it would lower the quality of life for our other two children dramatically. So, we (?-is we allowed—I would never try to stop my wife from having an abortion if that’s what she felt she needed to do) are seriously discussing an abortion. Actually, we’re discussing how to pay for it. We’re both sad. We know it’s not murder, but we miss the potential. I’m not mourning the loss of my magic sperm. Or, the power I should have over my wife’s bodily decisions. I’m sad I can’t find a job so having an extra kid would be a good idea. I’m sad that it would probably hurt my wife’s career if she took another maternity leave (nor could we afford the lower pay while she’s on it/plus, they were pretty upfront about thinking she was done with kids when they hired her). I’m sad that even if we had the $ my wife’s health would make pregnancy an iffy bet at best. We’re sad that we have to take this all into account when all a child does is make you happy.

I understand your take down of Lord Salad Days & I think you’re spot on about his framing. It just seems, reading the comments, that there’s no place for not liking it no matter your position on access to abortion. Am I mourning the loss of my male power? I don’t think so. My whole life has been about subverting it and mutating it away from how the culture male-ed me. I’m not shedding tears for all the lost “babies”, or judging women for getting the procedure—I guess what I’m up against is a lack of language to describe something I fully support but don’t personally like but not really, really, really bothered by. Like eating beets.

I’m not moaning because you’re attacking male priorities and I want to prove I’m a Nice Guy. I just never see this perspective here and I want to know what you think.

Mighty Ponygirl- you’re absolutely right, somebody does need to patiently lead these people by the hand, gradually, to sanity. I admire those who can still stomach that task, but personally I just can’t. My blood pressure is already high enough.

Essie—you’re right, it would be exactly like it was Pre-Roe—the people who had the money to jet off to get abortions in other countries would just have to do that, and the people who couldn’t afford to do that would be screwed (well, we sort of have that now with the inavailability of clinics in some areas).

I still think that most of the anti-choice movement is more interested in restoring an aristocracy. When the underclass can’t control their fertility, they pump out a lot of cheap labor. When you see how positively weepy some people get at this notion of returning to a better time of great old manors and live-in domestics, it makes a lot of sense that they want birth control to be done away with so that the supply of cheap labor can explode so that they can have a bunch of maids and footmen and such. Because naturally, they themselves would be on top. If you watch the PBS docu-reality show “Manor House,” it really brings home how the privileged benefited from a large pool of poor, desperate labor.

Can’t I be fully pro-choice with no doubt in my mind that it’s right and still be saddened by abortion?

I hope you’re not insinuating that people other than you are happified by abortion.

Can’t I be fully pro-choice with no doubt in my mind that it’s right and still be saddened by abortion?

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that Amanda is going to approve of your ideological take on the issue. You have your opinion and she has hers. I don’t see why you should expect her to approve of a viewpoint of which she happens to disagree.

dooflow, it suonds ilke you’re less “sad about the abortion” and more “sad about the fact that we have pretty much no choice and have to get an abortion”. Totally different things, and, yes, you completely should be sad that you basically don’t have a choice in the matter because of the situations you’ve described.

Some people are made very happy and relieved by their CHOSEN abortions. But forced abortions? They can suck.

dooflow, your personal feelings about not being able to have another child right now strike me as something completely separate than what we’re talking about, which is anxiety provoked by the very idea of abortion.  That it’s sad for you doesn’t mean—-or shouldn’t mean—-that you should get upset if someone else who has no ambiguity about her feelings has an abortion.  Does that make sense? 

Let me put it this way.  Your story, if it was about relationships and not about child-bearing, would go something like this: Your marriage is amicable but the fire is gone, and after a long, sad process, you and your wife have decided to divorce.  You know you’re always going to have second thoughts about it, because there’s still feelings there, but in the end, you feel it was the right decision. 

Ideally, this doesn’t make you question other people’s massive relief at ending a really bad marriage.

So, I’d say regret over your own personal circumstances is a much different thing than feeling like a widespread social practice that has a great deal of liberation potential for others is something to feel bad about.

  Nimed- I do.
  Cerberus on 03/27 at 12:13 AM

And so do I—Mark Foxwell on 3/27 at 7:02 AM

Me too.  Really, I completely support any decision to abort or not made by a pregnant woman, right up to the minute before the baby comes out.  I trust women to make these decisions for themselves and really, it’s not my business or anyone else’s either.

Honestly, it’s guys like Saletan who make me want to get pregnant again just so I can have an abortion and then tell them about it.

Amanda, that divorce analogy was really beautiful.

What 50%, Essie? If you’re going to go with no abortion, no contraception, then the only reasonable position is “female choice”, in which women who so choose can opt out of parenting and leave the sperm donor with 100% of the labor and finances. The sperm donors may then petition the court for a nominal support payment, as long as that payment doesn’t affect the woman’s lifestyle in too substantial a fashion.

I think the people who have Saletan tagged as a “moderate” have it perfectly. He’s the prolix equivalent of “centrist democrats” in the Senate. He doesn’t want to be anti-choice, because that would inconvenience some people around him and probably get him disinvited from some dinner parties. But even more than that, it would prevent him from having the double-barreled moral superiority of being pro-choice and at the same time so much more ethical than those nasty women who don’t feel terrible guilt at terminating their pregnancies.

The fact that this makes him a useful idiot for the anti-choice folks is just icing on the cake. More invitations.

Essie hit it on the head. You went were my tongue couldn’t negotiate.

Tyro-I’m questioning if every stated disappointment with abortion is some form of caving to the patriarchy. I’m not asking for agreement but clarification. No, I’m not insinuating others are happified by abortion (good song idea, though). Something bothered me about the comment thread and the article and I’m trying to get at it. What is this wriggling worm? Is it valid? Is there an internalized meme I need to root out? For example: I worked at a mostly Mexican school. I’m doing bathroom duty for lunch time and I realize that I have to keep telling the white kids to wash their hands. Then I realize that I’m surprised that I don’t have to tell the Mexican kids. I was pretty ashamed with myself for that, also glad that I was able to recognize a part of the virus we’re infected with and kill it. Is this one of those moments?

Amanda, very well put. It’s true my personal is shadowing my rational. I’m not upset by anyone getting an abortion and that’s where I’m trying to go. Jean Genet would have figured a good way to say it.

dooflow, no one suggested that, and I understand that you’re in pain, but really, this isn’t about you, and I think you’ll feel better realizing that.  Saletan wants to have an objective measure of the value of a fetus at X stage of development.  I’m saying that the right to define the value belongs to the pregnant woman.  Which means not that I think you or anyone else is obliged to say that a fetus has no value.  I’m saying that you and your wife have a right to define that for yourself.  (Which you have done.) But I’d probably feel different if I faced a similar dilemma, and that’s my right, too, and I resent Saletan for implying that I should feel anything deeper about the fetus’s life than that. 

It’s okay for you to feel sad.  It’s okay for someone else to feel relieved.  Saletan’s problem is that he wants everyone to feel sad.

Thanks, dooflow.  I hope the last comment I posted (before I saw your reply) didn’t come across as harsh.  I’m rereading it and it seems like it might be insensitive.  I promise, I feel you.  Actually, this is, to a degree, about you and everyone who faces this decision.

I respect you and believe that you are doing what you think is right. That’s why I’m so angry at anyone who dares question you or thinks that they have a better read on the morality of the situation than you and your wife.

it was about reducing women’s status, creating a legal double standard where women who had sex had to resort to criminality, whereas men who had sex were able to be law-abiding citizens.

I might even go so far as to change that “whereas” to a “so that”—the availability of abortion even when it was officially illegal was one of the mechanisms by which men could protect their own reputations.

It seems that expressing any attitude other than abortions are the awesome is patriarchal chauvinism?

I, myself, believe that every abortion begins in a mistake—maybe one as simple as a contraception failure, or perhaps one much more serious. As such, I can’t possibly be “happified” by an abortion except insofar as it addresses the mistake.

Ellid, I’m with you. I do believe that Michelle Duggar is on a constant high from the pregnancy hormones. Once the process of menopause starts, there’s going to be a lot less patience with everyone around her.

“I’m questioning if every stated disappointment with abortion is some form of caving to the patriarchy.”

It depends on what you mean by that, though.  If you’re talking about people who express disappointment about the experience of their own abortion, not really.  There are more unassailably valid reasons an individual can have for feeling disappointment about her experience of her own abortion, or that a couple can have for feeling disappointment about their shared experience of abortion, than you can shake a stick at.  Same thing goes for pretty much any aspect of reproduction.

If you’re talking about disappointment re: abortion as a nebulous, unified thing, then it’s hard to see how it’s not in one way or another a form of caving to the patriarchy.  It’s trying to take something that covers everyone from the victims of rape to the sufferers of ectopic/molar pregnancy to mothers trying to save at least one of their fetuses or keep food on the table for their existing children to women who just aren’t ready for kids yet to women who never want kids to women who don’t want to be tied to a batterer via a shared child, erase all of those experiences, and stuff it into a hairshirt for no discernible social gain.

I’m questioning if every stated disappointment with abortion is some form of caving to the patriarchy. I’m not asking for agreement but clarification.

Part of the problem is that pro-lifers have been telling us for 30 years that there is only one moral dimension to abortion, and that moral dimension is that you’re a murderer if you have one.  That leaves no room at all for the true ambivalence that a lot of people feel that goes hand-in-hand with any difficult decision that has no good answer.

It’s like Ms. Kate’s example at 9:18 am.  Some women with cancer choose to abort.  Some of them choose to continue the pregnancy.  Both of those groups will wonder if they made the right choice, and agonize about what might have happened if they had made the opposite choice.  That doesn’t mean that the abortion itself was morally wrong.  It means that they’re human beings who can think about the pros and cons of a situation and make a decision based on that.

That’s part of what bugs me about the pro-lifers:  they act as though doubt and regret are not (or at least should not be) part of the human condition.  Frankly, it’s unnatural to expect that every decision you make in your life will be an easy one and that you will never, ever have any regrets whatsoever about any decision you make, and you only make people feel worse by declaring to them that their situation is easily solved if they’d just listen to you.

We might be pregnant with our third child

Aw, so cute that men get to be pregnant too! 

Get this: Your WIFE is pregnant. YOU are NOT pregnant.  If YOU think that YOU are collectively pregnant with your wife, you are NOT being supportive, you are taking credit for all of the risks and difficulties that your WIFE is taking ON HER OWN.

</petpeeve>

Amanda-I didn’t take your first comment as harsh. No worries. I think Mnemosyne has it right there. I don’t want it to be painful. I don’t want to think of the what ifs. I want it to be the moral equivalent of downloading a Fugazi album. I feel bad, because they’re so awesome and do great things but I really, really want the album right now. End of moral quandary.

I wonder if our insistence on strict demarcations (gender, age, etc) makes moral ambiguity so difficult. I love wallowing in complexity and not letting things firmly settle—but, that’s usually an intellectual exercise not real life decision.

That’s part of what bugs me about the pro-lifers:  they act as though doubt and regret are not (or at least should not be) part of the human condition.  Frankly, it’s unnatural to expect that every decision you make in your life will be an easy one and that you will never, ever have any regrets whatsoever about any decision you make ...

Exactly.  They also make all these claims about depression and guilt and distress among women who have abortions ... but they don’t want to find comparison populations of women who chose to bear and keep or bear and give away their children because they know damn well that they would find similar or greater levels of regrets and distress complicated by the presence of a needy child.

Dooflow - I know that was harsh - consider it a general comment and not a direct personal one.

Treating a fertilized egg as human life is absurd. But hardly anyone defends the right to abort up until one minute before birth either.

Skipping ahead over what I hope are many similar posts, but I most certainly defend the right to abort whenever a mother decides to, include one minute before birth.

Why?

Because women are human beings with full faculties.  I trust them.  The only reason a woman would abort in the third trimester is to save her own life or because the fetus, or baby as you will, has conditions incompatible with life, or, perhaps, because the fetus has already died.

Women do not cavalierly decide to abort.  Women think about abortion and what their feelings about it are long before they ever become pregnant.  Faced with a reality, they may change their minds, but at no point does any woman unthinkingly and randomly decide “Oh, I’m tired of being pregnant.  Think I’ll pop into the abortionists this afternoon. Then I’ll go shopping!”

——-
More to the point of the post, I have no problem with granting a blastocyst human standing.  It is a human.  However, like any other human, it does not have the right to commandeer any one else’s body.

It will die if I don’t allow it to glom onto me like a parasite?  Not my problem, unless I choose to make it my problem.  Just b/c it is a special snowflake blastocyst doesn’t give it more rights than the already living, breathing, independent, tax-paying woman within whom it wants to gestate.

Ms Kate, I actually like the “We are pregnant” framing, as it tends to indicate - to me - that the man is 100% behind the pregnancy, supportive of the wife, helping out in every way that he can, etc. I prefer “we are pregnant” far, far more than “she is pregnant” or “my wife is pregnant” which can indicate displeasure with the idea or a distance from the whole thing (as if it’s really just her problem).

Different strokes for different folks.

MP, I think you’re spot on about anti-abortion stemming, for many people, out of a desire to over-populate. Those butlers and maids and nannies need to come from somewhere, dangit.

Michelle Duggar is on a constant high from the pregnancy hormones. Once the process of menopause starts, there’s going to be a lot less patience with everyone around her.

She’s also getting off on all the attention she gets—she surprised her whole family on national TV announcing her latest pregnancy.  WHO DOES THAT? 

Someone who gets lots and lots of positive feedback for being pregnant.

When she hits menopause, it’s going to be rough b/c her entire persona has been built on her capacity to bear many many children.  Who is she when she’s not pregnant or nursing a newborn?  I hope she figures it out, but I think she’s going to have a huge amount of despair when she’s not Uber-QuiverFiller anymore.

dooflow-

I do get in trouble for being overly biological about the issue, but there is no demonstrable harm in treating a fetus as a potential person or reveling in that or even enjoying very common but enjoyable myths (like that it can hear singing, etc…). We cherish a lot of things that aren’t fully true (such as justice, etc…) because of what they represent and mean for us. Letting that fantasy continue isn’t even harmful (unless it moves into advancing anti-choice frames, etc…) and I would leave the job of emotionally defining the potential human life form as the mother sees fit.

Medically there is a set definition that defines certain prioritizations especially in the possibility of something going wrong, but the emotional level is not something to always be dismissed outright (especially if it causes no harm to others) and is to be respected in so much as we relate to it and respect the wishes of the mother carrying the life form.

The problems of course more come in when people like Saletan try and use that emotional definition and try and universalize it as a medical or shared reality to all fetii and thus implore pro-choicers to accept unscientific anti-choice frames about the role of women in society.

It is much like having a stereotype applied externally to you by force that defines how everyone treats you rather than privately forming a nickname or an in-joke for yourself or your partner that helps emotionally connect you. One is creepy and offensive, while the other is often sweet and caring. The reason being is the respect, choice, and autonomy of the humans in the interaction.

And I wish your wife luck in an easy pregnancy.

dooflow, you concern is noted.

No where have I ever seen people claim abortions are teh awesome.  They suck, as people here repeatedly state.  They are invasive surgical procedures and are much inferior to having had birth control that worked.

Your in a bad position where your wife is pregnant and it’s not really feasible to continue it.  That sucks.  Everyone here can sympathize with the shit position you and yours are in.  The difference is we also will support whatever decision your wife makes, including her decision to make it with you.

I’m sorry your birth control failed, and that you have to reevaluate your decision to procreate with a more tangible reality.  Seriously, you are in bad place. 

Being fully supportive of abortion in any circumstance doesn’t negate feeling sympathy for the women who find themselves in need of one.  Exactly the opposite.  It’s the pro-lifers who don’t give a shit about the pregnant woman and her needs and concerns.  They’re the ones who have already made a decision for you and have decided to judge you accordingly.

Giving Saletan all this attention is caving to patriarchal norms. He has a penis. He should shut-up.

All did this all start? I remember watching the start of the segment on “No Balls Has Chris Matthews” with THREE males discussing abortion. I turned it off, as I considered it beyond stupid.

Saletan has no standing to discuss abortion Neither did the other wingnut type. Least of all Matthews, who is a moron pretty much continuously. They all need to back off and get onto the public financial scandals that are affecting every American citizen right now. That would take real guts.

“She’s also getting off on all the attention she gets—she surprised her whole family on national TV announcing her latest pregnancy.”

I think ‘surprise’ is a relative term, though.  We’re talking about a woman with no (known) fertility problems who doesn’t believe in artificial contraception, weans early in order to avoid natural contraception, and seems to be shooting for enough kids for a family baseball league.  The appropriate response to “I’m pregnant again!” seems like it would be “Duh.”

Treating a fertilized egg as human life is absurd. But hardly anyone defends the right to abort up until one minute before birth either.

Untrue.  In fact, everyopne defends that right, generally much more vigorously than the right to terminate earlier in pregnancy.  You see, pregnancies that advanced are terminated by induction of labor or C-section.  That’s it on the choices.  And women these days who want to terminate their pregnancies at a convenient time and place routinely schedule inductions and C-sections without them being medically necessary.  A minute before giving birth is, unfortunately, the only time in a pregnancy at which a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is absolutely protected.

Remember, abortion rights and birth control rights are about women and their bodily autonomy.  The right to get an abortion is the right to terminate a pregnancy safely and promptly.  If the safest, promptest way to terminate involves live birth, that’s what the right to get an abortion encompasses.  There is no right not to be a parent, except to the extent that the right to bodily autonomy allows one to take steps to prevent parenthood.  Just ask anyone who’s ever objected to paying child support for a child he or she never sees.

So Saletan lauds the people who wrote in offering financial support for the surrogate mothers so they will avoid abortion, and then posts a snippet from the lawyer involved in the case who says that all of the surrogates have decided to continue carrying the pregnancies to term, despite lack of financial support/reimbursement.

Then Saletan says to his readers, addressing those people who offered financial support:  “And I hope you’ll stand by your offers even if no abortions are at stake.”

This is what I’m curious about.  I would like to see a follow-up piece addressing how much financial support was provided by those people who pledged it, *after* they found out the surrogates were NOT going to abort.

preying, I’m reminded of this.  I miss Bill Hicks.  Someone needs to be here to point out that if you have 18+ children, then it’s ridiculous to treat pregnancy like a miracle.

“Entire nations have crusted and flaked off the hair around my navel.  That is special.”

“Someone needs to be here to point out that if you have 18+ children, then it’s ridiculous to treat pregnancy like a miracle.”

Though on the other hand, I suppose it would be kind of tempting to keep treating it like a miracle.  I mean, god must love you thiiiiiiiiiis much if you keep getting full-blown miracles every single time you pray for one.  You transform yourself into a six-fold saint just by not using condoms.

Saletan:

And I write about the value of unborn life because that’s the problem my fellow pro-choicers don’t like to talk about.

Totally untrue.  He’s under the impression that his fellow pro-choicers don’t like to talk about the value of unborn life is because (1) we don’t all talk about it in the same way that he does and (2) we don’t all come to the same conclusions that he does.

ignore the extraneous “is”

Because women are human beings with full faculties.  I trust them.  The only reason a woman would abort in the third trimester is to save her own life or because the fetus, or baby as you will, has conditions incompatible with life, or, perhaps, because the fetus has already died.

Women do not cavalierly decide to abort.  Women think about abortion and what their feelings about it are long before they ever become pregnant.  Faced with a reality, they may change their minds, but at no point does any woman unthinkingly and randomly decide “Oh, I’m tired of being pregnant.  Think I’ll pop into the abortionists this afternoon. Then I’ll go shopping!”

Ah, but why trust them under the assumption they’re rational people who know what’s best for them when they behaved so irrationally and irresponsibly in the first place, by having unprotected sex - or, as some anti-choice wingnuts say, having any kind of sex?

I think the problem with saying “I trust women” is that many people know women they don’t trust:  Women who repeatedly make bad decisions regarding relationships, personal health, education, lifestyle, etc.  It’s a really easy reach to believe your opinion about when and if those irresponsible women should bear children should supersede their own.  I mean, isn’t that a feature of patriarchy?  That women who make mistakes (should) lose their right to continue to make independent decisions, and that the social collective (should) now rightly do it for them?  You have to earn the autonomy freely given to men.  You have to work for it; they’re born with it.  Any mistakes of your own or fate’s making?  Social collective steps in.

deep6, to that argument, I would return to the “if she’s so irresponsible and she can’t be trusted to not swan in and abort on a whim at 8.89 months, then whyever would we want such a dingbat in charge of a baby?”

I’m not on the Mushy Middle but I don’t feel comfortable with abortion as birth control. Not because we should punish sex or because I idolize a blastocyst. It’s because there is no need for it if the woman is sexually mature.

Killing “things” bothers me. My right wing uncle and aunt have a female cat which they won’t neuter because “it’s not good for her”. Nor they will keep the cat indoors. Guess what ? Every spring there’s kittens. His solution ? He drowns the kittens. :(

It’s cruel and idiotic. There is a perfectly sensible way for them to avoid their cat getting kittens every spring, but they just won’t bother with it. They won’t get out of their confort zone for it. It is easier for them to just kill newborn animals.

I feel the same about abortion as a birth control method. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy while enjoying a fantastic sex life. Relying on abortion as a tool, and not as a last resort is stupid and cruel. While I do agree that people that immature are not ready to be parents and shouldn’t be forced to be, I do feel upset about their actions.

Don’t get me wrong. Abortion should be available to all women who decide they need it. It is their choice. Sometimes I will not agree with those choices but those aren’t mine to make. I just wish abortions were left as a last resource, not as a practical, trouble free birth control.

Unfortunately, Mighty Ponygirl, they can come right back at you with “We wouldn’t. The baby would be taken away from her at birth and given to a more deserving couple.”

Thanks, Mighty Ponygirl.  I actually have used that argument once (during a discussion with my “centrist” pro-choice brother and his equally “centrist” girlfriend) and he sort of reluctantly nodded and agreed.  So it works short-term.  But the more I thought about it after, the more I was uncomfortable with it because it was still an appeal to the social collective.  It was still discussing a woman’s life within the frame of what we (in the generic) should let her do; it just happened to be a good argument within the frame to get my brother and his gf to agree with me.

“I just wish abortions were left as a last resource, not as a practical, trouble free birth control.”

Considering it’s surgery, not a teleporter, you’re kind of tilting at windmills here.  When given the option of a non-abortion birth control method, very few women keep going for the surgery/induced miscarriage.  It’s expensive, painful, and can result in the same complications of any other surgical procedure.  That having been said, you do realize that you’re comparing apples and oranges when you tie something that’s been born and is capable of experiencing suffering to something that quite likely doesn’t have a brain yet, right?

That’s also an issue.  What do people do when birth control and abortion isn’t available?  Sometimes, they drown the kittens.  I remember hearing about one pre-Roe crime ring that involved people telling pregnant teen girls that they’d take their babies to be adopted, then collecting them and whatever money the girl could spare for her baby’s care.  They found several full freezer chests of infant corpses when they were arrested.

Seriously though Renmiri, i’d kidnap your uncle’s cat and get the poor thing spayed.  That’s just vile.

Karalora—but the more deserving couple wouldn’t want the baby, because they couldn’t be sure that mom didn’t do something during her incredibly irresponsible pregnancy that won’t result in the baby being TAINTED. Like drinking! or smoking! or shooting heroin!

deep6, I look at it as fighting fire with fire. If they want to view women as irresponsible sluts, I don’t know that there’s a lot that can be done about that.  So I usually fashion my response in such a way as to point out that they’re being misogynistic as I use their own logic against them.

“So if these women are such complete failures and they can’t be trusted to take a pill daily or ask to use a condom, how can we trust them with a baby? Is every woman who needs an abortion a complete irresponsible bimbo? What if your daughter made a mistake and needed an abortion?”

Everyone who says “I don’t think abortions should be used as birth control” can fuck themselves sideways with a chainsaw as far as I’m concerned.  That comment reflects the speaker’s ignorance of the reality of many women’s lives and relationships and is about as close as you can get to saying you basically think women should be punished for fucking.  And like Amanda, I am NOT for this meeting anti-choicers in the middle horsehockey.  My official position on all matters regarding my reproductive apparatus is MYOFB.  Compromising with anti-choicers leads to shit like parental notification laws.  Saletan proves what a suckers game it is every time he writes a column about abortion or goes on TV to talk about it.

I feel the same about abortion as a birth control method. There are many ways to avoid pregnancy while enjoying a fantastic sex life. Relying on abortion as a tool, and not as a last resort is stupid and cruel.

I would like someone to produce one of these straw-women who “use abortion <instead of> birthcontrol”.

EVERY women I have EVER heard of who used abotions instead of birth control fell into one of two categories:

1. Literally could not GET any other kind of birth control, for various good reasons.
2. Literally could not USE any other kind of birth control, for various good (medical) reasons.

And even then? That’s about 5 women there. That’s 5 women I’ve HEARD of, online, no less. I haven’t met a single one in person that uses abortion that way.

The meme is insulting. The idea that there are women who get an invasive, dangerous, EXPENSIVE abortion once every two months because they can’t be bothered to use a free condom from Planned Parenthood is incredily condescending. And, Renmiri, because you don’t seem to GET that, I can’t help but think that you are male. Or stupid. Or both.

Sorry, not trying to flame, but sweet jeezus, that whole argument burns my biscuits.

Wow.  Yeah I totally missed the whole rest of that because I couldnt’ see past dead kittens.

...yeah, you’re a moron.

The idea that there are women who get an invasive, dangerous, EXPENSIVE abortion once every two months because they can’t be bothered to use a free condom from Planned Parenthood is incredily condescending.

Look, I am a woman and pro choice, and as I said before, even if I don’t like the idea of abortion being used as birth control, I don’t believe it is my place to make this choice for other people. Even if it was, I wouldn’t want to force parenthood on someone who relies on it as birth control.

And as you see on the comments above, those “5 women” do exist:
Everyone who says “I don’t think abortions should be used as birth control” can fuck themselves sideways with a chainsaw as far as I’m concerned… My official position on all matters regarding my reproductive apparatus is MYOFB

It’s not stupid or condescending. It’s reality. Pretending all women are perfect is as silly as pretending all woman are whores and very condescending too.

PS: And yeah, my uncle’s solution to his cat’s birth control is vile. Thank heavens his old female died and we convinced him to get a male this time. Which he still refuses to neuter :(

Women who repeatedly make bad decisions regarding relationships, personal health, education, lifestyle, etc.  It’s a really easy reach to believe your opinion about when and if those irresponsible women should bear children should supersede their own.

I don’t think so.  We’re talking about bodily autonomy and the right to be treated as an adult human being.  Everyone makes bad choices.  Many people make choices that others disagree with.  Sometimes there’s no right answer.

To decide that someone else always knows what’s best for a pregnant woman is totally fucked up thinking that relies on the assumption that women are incompetent and not fully-functional, mentally-competent adults.
——-

It’s because there is no need for it if the woman is sexually mature.

BZZT!  Fail.  No birth control is 100%  effective, meaning there will always be need for abortions.

I just wish abortions were left as a last resource, not as a practical, trouble free birth control.

Yes, because women love having invasive surgical procedures for shits and giggles. 

Seriously, this is why the “abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control” argument is so idiotic.  No one wants to have an abortion.  No one treats abortions at trivial. 

It’s a medical procedure, and any woman who needs one should have one without judgment.  Fuck it.  What is so hard to understand about the fact that a pregnant woman is a human being with rights to bodily autonomy?

2. Of course abortion is birth control. What else would it be? And do you honestly think that there are women out there who prefer to have a $300-400 surgical procedure rather than spend a few bucks on a pack of condoms? Women who have multiple abortions are typically in relationships where the power dynamic is such that they can’t insist on birth control. They understand that a pregnancy and child added to that equation would make their situation much, much worse. Yes, they should get out of that relationship, but pregnancy is going to make them more (not less) likely to stay with the father.

This is a point that needs to be made, and often.  I am so glad for the discussions around contraception and the social impediments to women being able to use it here on Pandagon.  Rarely do people acknowledge the fact that many men (including nice progressive ones) refuse to use condoms.  And it’s not like there’s a Planned Parenthood on every corner so women who don’t have health insurance and don’t live in a near a big city are pretty much fucked where reliable contraception is concerned. 

As usual, IBTP.

the “abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control” argument is so idiotic.  No one wants to have an abortion.  No one treats abortions at trivial.
In this very thread I’ve seen someone saying it should be a valid argument. At least that is what I understood, I hope I’m wrong.

But there ARE people who get so frustrated with the anti-choice that they go gung ho the other way: Any abortion is desirable. And that’s my point. It isn’t and people who treat abortion trivially do a lot of harm to the rest of women who don’t.

Wow.  Yeah I totally missed the whole rest of that because I couldnt’ see past dead kittens.

...yeah, you’re a moron.
Hate to burst your ideal world but a 6 month old fetus is as aware as a newborn kitten. There is a reason why many pro-choice women frown at late term abortions.

No we shouldn’t ban them . I’m not even in favor of legislating them “for health or rape”. I too trust most women. But I do FEEL uncomfortable with late term abortions, particularly after giving birth to a premie myself. Yet unlike republicans - and some here on this thread - I don’t wish to use my feelings as base for legislation. I just don’t want to pretend mistakes and bad decisions are never taken by women. Or men.

So what? Why is it so important that women you don’t even know, and who are getting abortions for reasons you’re not privvy to or whose business is none of yours—know that you FEEL uncomfortable about what they’re doing?

“No birth control is 100% effective, meaning there will always be need for abortions.”

Don’t be silly.  Even in non-burst, non-ideal worlds, contraception is 100% effective and wanted pregnancies never take dramatic turns for the worse.

“And as you see on the comments above, those “5 women” do exist: “

You are aware that not having a problem with something is not the same thing as thinking that it’s the best thing for someone to be doing, the best thing for you, personally, to be doing, or it being something you yourself have done, right? 

If not, allow me to demonstrate: I do not have any sort of problem whatsoever with kitty-abortions.  And yet, I have never personally taken my knocked-up cat in for a spay.  I don’t think the best time to spay your cat is after she’s gotten pregnant.  I also don’t think it’s the optimal approach to limiting cat populations.  In spite of all that, I still don’t have any sort of problem with it or attach any huge hang-wringing moral weight to it.

Hate to burst your ideal world but a 6 month old fetus is as aware as a newborn kitten.

The kitten’s already been born, doll.  Again, it’s about whether you should be able to be forced by the government to continue a serious medical condition, not about how cute you think a fetus is.

This is not a power anyone should have over anyone else, ever.

Why is it so important that women you don’t even know, and who are getting abortions for reasons you’re not privvy to or whose business is none of yours—know that you FEEL uncomfortable about what they’re doing?
Because Amanda wrote this:
I tend to think even with the mushies, the axis on which they base their opinion is not “life”, but female sexuality.  Mushy middle types will say they support abortion, but not if it’s used for birth control.  Or that they’re against abortion except when it comes to rape or the mother’s life being in danger.  And that shows exactly what axis this is on—-abortion should be restricted on the basis of how closely you fit the opinion-holder’s view of a good woman

I disagree. I am a woman and have no problems with female sexuality. And my objections to abortion as birth control do onto come from the fact of my views on what a good WOMAN is but on my views of what a good PERSON is. I see my male uncle who drowns newborns kittens because it’s “practical” as a creep. I see a woman who has no qualms on using abortions as birth control as an idiot - if she is doing it early on the pregnancy - and as creep if she leaves it to do it past the 6th month.

But more than my views, I believe that this positions are bad for us pro-choice. It makes us look cold and heartless or deluded, unable to see that there are creep selfish people in the real world and some of them happen to be women
a) Pretending that women who treat abortion as birth control don’t exist
or
b) Supporting abortion as birth control method
Are bad attitudes for the pro-choice movement.  By taking a black and white approach that all abortions are valid we lose the power of our very sensible argument. That PEOPLE have the right to decide what to do with their bodies.

Not all of those decisions will be wise and some of those will give you and me pause. But it is still their right and best outcome. Because a creep who could abort a fetus past the 6th month without pause is not ready to be a parent. And all others who had to do it for many valid reasons will still have the right to do so uncontested.

I see a woman who has no qualms on using abortions as birth control as an idiot - if she is doing it early on the pregnancy - and as creep if she leaves it to do it past the 6th month.

Much more likely is unable to get it done before the 6th month than just puts it off - I have a hard time believing people do that, and a harder time believing doctors will agree to a third trimester abortion “just because” in the vanishingly rare circumstance it might happen.  I see where you’re coming from, but I do think that attitude shifts the discussion away from where it should be on abortion.  But I apologize for calling you a moron.

That said, people who view abortion as justifiable homicide are still not on the same wavelength as me at all.

I am perfectly willing to still call you a moron.

  By taking a black and white approach that all abortions are valid we lose the power of our very sensible argument. That PEOPLE have the right to decide what to do with their bodies.

If PEOPLE have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, then the abortions ARE fucking valid. They’re just not “happy shiny rainbows”, which last I checked was not a requirement for validity.

So quit fucking burning your strawbitches. You know goddamned well that a vanishingly tiny percentage of women behave as you’re describing. Nearly one third of American women will have an abortion in their lives—do you really think there are literally millions of late-term, casual, “eh I just didn’t bother showing up at week 8” abortions going on? Really? If you do, you’re more of a moron than I thought. Use the google. It’s not happening.

And “using it as birth control.” What does that even fucking MEAN? When is it “birth control”? if you have more than one ever? More than one a year? More than one a decade? When Renmiri gets the creeps, because lord knows she’s an unbiased center of morality? Fuck that noise. It’s birth control because IT PREVENTS A BIRTH. THAT IS WHAT BIRTH CONTROL MEANS. NO MORE, NO LESS, QUIT TRYING TO FUDGE THE TERMS.

Gah.

That said, people who view abortion as justifiable homicide are still not on the same wavelength as me at all.
Same here.

If PEOPLE have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, then the abortions ARE fucking valid. They’re just not “happy shiny rainbows”, which last I checked was not a requirement for validity.
Guess you too get the creeps on them, then ? If they are not “happy shinny rainbows” for you.

They aren’t happy shinny rainbows for me either. And I think trying to pretend they are hurts the pro-choice cause. Yes there are very few “vanishingly tiny percentage of women behave as you’re describing”. And I’m unwilling to pretend they don’t exist and that they don’t disgust me.

I am still pro-choice, it is the best law on a flawed, not perfect reality, where we humans exist and make mistakes.

And as you see on the comments above, those “5 women” do exist:

Renmiri, kindly go fuck yourself sideways with a RUSTY chainsaw.  Concern trolling jackass.

Renmiri, you feelings, your moral discomfort, are not places to decide or safeguard the bodily sovereignty of any person.

YOU and Saletan hurt the pro-choice position by even considering that either of your discomforts count for anything. A woman’s bodily sovereignty is inalienable and inviolable. This society is completely in the wrong when it treats female bodily sovereignty as otherwise.

I’m sorry—I’m in favour of abortion being fully legal, but to me it seems childish and unproductive to basically refuse to discuss the issue with people who disagree. Merely asserting that anyone who feels there are ethical issues involved are actually just being lazy or secretly view women with contempt does not count as discussion.

Engaging in actual debate would not be a sign of weakness.

NoraS: I’m sorry—I’m in favour of abortion being fully legal, but to me it seems childish and unproductive to basically refuse to discuss the issue with people who disagree. Merely asserting that anyone who feels there are ethical issues involved are actually just being lazy or secretly view women with contempt does not count as discussion.

This comment comes at the end of an extensive set of comments discussing this issue with those who disagree.

How much more discussion, how much more debate, how long do we have to really analyze the issue before everyone is satisfied? My guess: endlessly. Forever. One thousand years. Or until everyone agrees that those whose feelings are really, really hurt by women having abortions (even though they should be allowed to! Not saying they can’t, they just need to really, really, REALLY think about it first! Gosh) are correct.

Sweet mother of Christ.

Merely asserting that anyone who feels there are ethical issues involved are actually just being lazy or secretly view women with contempt does not count as discussion.
Yes, my point exactly

YOU and Saletan hurt the pro-choice position by even considering that either of your discomforts count for anything. A woman’s bodily sovereignty is inalienable and inviolable.
I disagree. People like you hurt the pro-choice movement by demanding no dissent

Laws are made to work on reality. Which means they have problems and can be criticized. You don’t like criticism perhaps you should join the right wing. They hate dissent and nuanced thinking there too.

until everyone agrees that those whose feelings are really, really hurt by women having abortions (even though they should be allowed to! Not saying they can’t, they just need to really, really, REALLY think about it first! Gosh) are correct
Don’t want to make everyone agree but when Amanda wrote she “tend(s) to think” about people who hold opinions similar to mine that the axis on which they base their opinion is not “life”, but female sexuality I wanted to say that she is wrong about me and probably wrong about a lot of people who are pro-choice but don’t like late term abortions or abortions used as birth control. This kind of talk turns a lot of people off.

It’s easy to call people names when they don’t agree with us 100%. But it doesn’t help our cause. It doesn’t help anyone actually.

Renmiri, what I think that everyone who has called you an idiot or a moron or told you to go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw is getting at, minus the name calling, is that it doesn’t matter what your feelings are about any abortion that isn’t your own. 

Go ahead and be creeped out because some woman somewhere who may or may not actually exist has an abortion every few months because she can’t be bothered to be on the pill or use a condom as birth control.  Quite frankly, if I thought that mythical woman existed, I’d think she was an idiot too (not because I’m squicked by abortions—I’ve been pregnant and I have children who I love and I’m not in the slightest bit sentimental about pregnancy and I don’t place any particular value on a fetus at any gestational age—but more because that seems like a pretty inefficient method of birth control). 

But your feelings and mine don’t matter one bit.  And the absolute insistence of discussing your feelings about it as if they matter even the tiniest microscopic bit (and not just you, but all of the ‘mushy middle’) is nothing but slut shaming.  Even if you don’t mean it that way, even if you really, really, REALLY don’t have a problem with anyone having all the sex they want (just issues with their particular method of birth control), that’s how it comes across and it just isn’t helpful at all.

And that’s why everyone is, by varying degrees of politeness, calling you a concern troll.

“Guess you too get the creeps on them, then ? If they are not “happy shinny rainbows” for you.”

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy, here.  It’s either “Hurray, third-trimester abortions are fucking awesome, everyone should try it!”—which nobody is saying, if only because late-term abortions are much more physically painful and risky for the woman—or “Well, you can have them, but you might as well spend your weekends chucking puppies into woodchippers in front of kindergarteners.” If you’re not the one, then you must be the other. 

There are, in fact, feelings that fall between hi5 and honoes.  You seem to be deliberately ignoring that in favor of trying to shove everyone who’s not doing another version of the “I’m pro-choice but I would never have an abortion” dance into a box labeled “cavalier baby-killers.”

Laws are made to work on reality. Which means they have problems and can be criticized. You don’t like criticism perhaps you should join the right wing. They hate dissent and nuanced thinking there too.

Jesus Fucking Christ on a cracker.  Abortion-banning laws are made to work on reality?  Which reality is this?  The one where 1/3 of American women have abortions in their lifetime?  The one where 90-something percent use birth control?  The one where not only are late-term abortions medically necessary, but also are generally for the actual woman involved in gestating a (usually) hoped-for child to still be alive? 

It’s really nice and useful to know that you feel sorry for those awful sluts who “use abortion as birth control” because you know, they’re good friends of yours and all.  And also your gay friend totally doesn’t mind it when you call someone a “fag” because it’s just good fun!  Plus!  Everyone has the same privileges you do!  And you know everything!

You cannot legislate morality.  The womanI know who’s had the most D&C;‘s (which I’m sure count in the national number) is a woman who’s had multiple incomplete miscarriages.  What with the trying to have a baby thing.  But incomplete expulsion of the dead fetus.  Which is totally birth control - she still wanted to be able to try again afterwards!  Do you know what the word control means?

You seem to be deliberately ignoring that in favor of trying to shove everyone who’s not doing another version of the “I’m pro-choice but I would never have an abortion” dance into a box labeled “cavalier baby-killers.”
No, quite the opposite. I’m protesting being called an enemy of female sexuality and female rights just because late term abortions and frequent abortions disgust me.

Getting disparaging labels on you from people who don’t agree with us 100% doesn’t feel good does it ?
Be it “baby killer” or “woman hater”, both labels are wrong. Amanda was putting a broad brush on people who don’t like “birth control abortion”, I merely tried to point it out to her and other readers that a) It’s not true and b) It’s not very productive.

To be fair, I don’t think Amanda was referring to my particular case - someone who feels disgusted by it but still is pro-choice. As many people said above, my particular feelings are irrelevant on someone else’s life decisions. And I’m ok with that, so I still support choice, donate, etc…

Also, the responses to me here prove - with a few exceptions - that most people here also dislike the idea of abortion as birth control. Some even deny it exists, ever. I think defending abortion and choice should focus a lot more on THAT, i.e. the reasons it is stupid to think abortion is a desirable birth control method for pro-choice people and that it happens in big numbers, than disparaging and offending people who have problems with it.

I know pro-life people can drive me bonkers so I don’t take the rusty chainsaw comment to heart. I just think the person who said it is way to angry to make sense. That doesn’t help change people’s opinions and gain support for legislation.

Dear stupidhead,

We are well aware that there are no babies being killed and that you think you don’t hate women.  However, being “nice” about a made-up issue, like deciding that abortion *isn’t* birth control - since when is deciding to not have a baby not birth control? - when the result is legislation that is clearly not “nice” to people who have/had/need/want an abortion, for whatever reason, is NOT PRODUCTIVE!  Ignoring reality doesn’t change it.  Get off your Womenz-iz-icky high-horse.

“No, quite the opposite.”

You’re communicating it very poorly, then.  When someone says “It’s not happy, shiny rainbows,” and you assume they must agree with you and be horribly squicked out based on them not being moved to burst into song, you’re pretty much doing precisely that.

“Getting disparaging labels on you from people who don’t agree with us 100% doesn’t feel good does it ?”

You say that like it’s some novel and heretofore unseen thing.  As opposed to something that’s pedestrian enough to have a March Madness Top Troll series going on over at Feministe as we speak. (Which I recommend, by the way.  There are truly some very special pandas in the running this time.)

“It’s not very productive.”

It might not be for you.  I’ve found Amanda’s posts on the topic to be quite productive.

Amanda:

But I tend to think even with the mushies, the axis on which they base their opinion is not “life”, but female sexuality.

Renmiri, first post:

It’s because there is no need for it if the woman is sexually mature.

Thank you for illustrating Amanda’s point perfectly.  Now take your concern trolling, “abortion as birth control makes me feel icky”, moronic ass somewhere else.

I know pro-life people can drive me bonkers so I don’t take the rusty chainsaw comment to heart. I just think the person who said it is way to angry to make sense. That doesn’t help change people’s opinions and gain support for legislation.

Well, darlin’, as the originator of the rusty chainsaw comment (which was prompted after you characterized me as a woman inapable of viewing abortion as anything other than a default birth control method), I can tell you that I STILL want you to fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.  It’s uncanny, really.  Yeah, honestly, nothing has changed.  And you know what?  If women are “using abortion as birth control” it’s still none of your ever-loving business.

And Renmiri, I am not angry at all.  I am the opposite of angry right now.  I am calm and patient.  I want you to fuck yourself with the rusty chainsaw with deliberation and precision.

Everyone gets so angry and insulting, and the whole conversation slides off point. Renmiri—your disgust at hypothetical women making serious decisions about their pregnancies, and really the course of the rest of their lives, is unbecoming. I had a medication abortion two weeks ago. I am married with two children. I was recently accepted to graduate school. I run a small business. We have woefully poor medical coverage and high expenses living in a big city. Even if the circumstances of my life were different, however, I wouldn’t want another child.

How did I become pregnant? Well, you see, Valentine’s Day we got a babysitter, went out to dinner, drank a bottle and a half of wine and fell into bed like teenagers. We’ve been married for 10 years. We don’t use condoms. We have small children. Our sex life is woefully intermittent. We use the withdrawal method because when I took birth control pills in college they killed my libido. This method has never failed us in the past, and it didn’t fail us this time either. We threw all good sense out of bed. Using no birth control at all, the likelihood of getting pregnant is only 20%. That means we had an 80% chance of NOT GETTING PREGNANT! I should have gone to the pharmacy the next day for Plan B. I didn’t. I thought I was far enough past the ovulatory part of my cycle that the real likelihood of pregnancy was something like 2%. I missed my period. I’m never late, and I never miss periods. I waited a few days to take a pregnancy test. I did some hand wringing. My husband likes the idea of having three children. We have enough stress in our relationship as it is. It wasn’t something I wanted to introduce at a topic of discussion or consideration. So, I called Planned Parenthood and a few days later spent the morning going through their system to get the abortion pill.

I used abortion as birth control. I don’t care what you think. I’m sick of talking hypothetically about abortion as though people who have abortions aren’t us. I live in a place where preschool costs $15,000 a year. Even if I lived someplace else, I wouldn’t want another child right now. I’m all set to start grad school in September. Even if that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t want another baby right now. I work 60 hour weeks and run a household. Even if I had a lot of free time and a servant to cook and clean I wouldn’t want another child right now. 60% of women who have abortions already have children. I’m tired of the fact that we’re forced to pretend like circumstances forces us to have abortions with great hesitation and misgiving. There are always circumstances. But I can say unequivocally that no matter what the circumstances, I don’t want to have another child right now, and I would guess that a very large percentage of mothers who have abortions feel very much like I do, despite any degree of willingness to the mythology that circumstances have pushed us to make an awful, heartbreaking choice.

Unbelievable that people are apologizing to, and criticizing me for, being impolite to an obvious concern troll who types - with a straight face - that women “shouldn’t be using abortion as birth control”.

Donna, I was and am a bit stung by the accusation Remiri made that those who won’t agree that abortion is problematic are therefore refusing to engage responsibly in debate with those who do. But upon reflection, I said what I meant to say upthread and stand by it. There are probably plenty of people who are currently either confused about the ethics of abortion or convinced they are against it who can be “reached,” but I don’t think words, however honeyed and poised, will do it. Only thinking about real situations and realizing that the anti-choice stuff is a mixture of blue-sky strawman scenarios and outright misogyny (and the strawmen are generally misogynistic too) will do that; it is best for us to be forthright and unapologetic and let the light shine where it will.

As for abortion being problematic—well of course it generally is, more or less. We’ve had a fair acknowledgment of the cons right here in posts that on the whole, are forthrightly glad that the particular abortions they talk about did happen. Some months ago, there was a woman who shared her reasons why the abortion she chose filled her with sadness despite her conviction, then and now, that it was the necessary thing to do. I respected her and her reasons, in part because she did not project her own experience onto others.

The whole “you’re taking abortion too lightly!” meme is insulting because I think the women involved do not take it lightly at all. Believing, as I do, that the principle of choice is a straightforward and even easy solution to the alleged ethical and political conundrums of abortion doesn’t mean there aren’t any problems; it means that the women who make the decisions for themselves are stuck with tackling those problems head-on. For society as a whole the matter is or should be easy; not so for the women involved! This sucks. But then, so does our whole mode of reproduction, no matter how emotionally attached we may be to it.

Renmiri, I live with my ultra-right-wing Catholic parents. I face the “debate” at any random moment. When just about any of our relatives or my parents’ friends visit, I just get piled on more. They say I am insane. Oh well. I remain convinced that their attitudes come from fear based on a world-view that is dysfunctional, in part because I was more dysfunctional myself when I shared it, in part based on what they say when we get drawn into one of these fights. My brother, for instance, is against abortion because his wife had a hard time getting pregnant herself (at any rate this is an argument he used with me, because he is no longer a faithful Catholic himself). Well, I’ve never had a child at all and I’m much older, but that doesn’t seem like an argument for forcing third parties to undergo pregnancy! His wife “pointed out” that I’d hardly want to be involved with the “kind of woman” who would have an abortion; I replied that actually all the women I’ve been in a relationship with have, and I don’t regret any of those relationships, nor did the women feel they should have done otherwise in retrospect.

If it helps, Renmiri, I deleted from my post far above a couple sentences about how I figured that few to no women would carry a fetus nearly to term and then arbitrarily terminate without some pressing reason; this makes it easier for me to believe as I do. But even if you proved otherwise, in a handful or even hundreds of cases, that wouldn’t change the reasoning based on the fundamental human rights of the woman. It’s just that I have good reason to think that it doesn’t come to that because women are people too and have better sense than that; after all aside from ethical issues, it isn’t very practical, certainly in this society, to become visibly pregnant and then not have the baby. I could list several categories of reasons against it, aside from the shaming aspect (which ideally our society ought to get rid of). Anyway the facts as I understand them bear out the reasoning—essentially all late-term abortions are done for pressing medical reasons, by women who had hoped to bear a child but tragically could not in this case.

But I deleted it in part to save space as my post was over the word limit, and because I thought it weakened the fundamental point. My feelings about the outcomes, which doubtless can influence my perception of the facts, have no bearing on the question at hand.

And enlisting negative “feelings” by whatever means handy—which rarely if ever includes the truth—is what opposition to choice is all about, however calm the demeanor of the rationalizer is.

In this very thread I’ve seen someone saying it should be a valid argument. At least that is what I understood, I hope I’m wrong.

But there ARE people who get so frustrated with the anti-choice that they go gung ho the other way: Any abortion is desirable. And that’s my point. It isn’t and people who treat abortion trivially do a lot of harm to the rest of women who don’t.

quote, please.

renmiri:

“I see a woman who has no qualms on using abortions as birth control as an idiot - if she is doing it early on the pregnancy - and as creep if she leaves it to do it past the 6th month.

But more than my views, I believe that this positions are bad for us pro-choice. It makes us look cold and heartless or deluded, unable to see that there are creep selfish people in the real world and some of them happen to be women “

quit the concern trolling. you sound awfully judgmental for someone who’s “pro-choice.”

Late to the party, but I had to share this.

My brother walked into my room, just after I’d read this post, and we made small talk.  He goes “oh hey, you know how at Church they do the ‘prayer request’ ‘lord hear our prayer’ thing that you don’t really pay attention to?” [We were raised Catholic, I humor my mother on Easter and Christmas, but that’s it] “Yeah?” “The priest said ‘pray for an end to abortion’ and I started ‘Lord hear ou- wait no, I’m not doing that.’ That’s just dumb, it’s the parents’ choice*.  Crazy Catholics.”  I just kinda sat there dumbfounded; he’s FOURTEEN and smarter than Saletan.  I could only say something like “Yeah, I trust people to make the best decisions for themselves” as he was heading downstairs for a snack.

*I let that go; his intention was clear enough, no need to get into a semantic argument over that.  Yet.