eNews Updates
A Person's a Person -- Unless She Has a Uterus?
Sarah Seltzer, RH Reality Check on March 13, 2008 - 9:45am
Published under: Contraception | Sexuality Education | Access to Abortion | Contraception | Sexuality Education | abortion | Pop Culture | Doctor Suess |
 As soon as the teaser posters for the animated film adaptation of Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who!" began showing up in the New York City subway system, I was miserable with anticipation. Not because I dislike Dr. Seuss -- like many American kids, I was raised on his whimsical but profound picture books -- but because the anti-abortion fringe has picked up on this book as a rallying cry, particularly its refrain, "a person's a person, no matter how small." "Horton Hears a Who!" is the tale of the eponymous elephant, one of Seuss' most gentle and heroic characters. He encounters the Whos of Whoville, a group of people living in a miniature world on a speck of dust. Horton must defend their existence to a group of dismissive jungle-dwellers. In the end, all the Whos join their voices together and shout, and the animals finally hear them, believe in them, and agree not to harm their infinitesimal home.
The book was written in 1954, long before Roe v. Wade and the modern framework of the abortion debate. If Seuss' simple rhymes do contain social commentary, they appear to be a condemnation of Cold War era paranoia. But context doesn't matter to the anti-choice crowd -- in fact a quick internet search reveals that there are many out there who believe that God spoke through the decidedly liberal Seuss' pen, willing him to write this line that can now be used to justify a movement he didn't support. They are undeterred by Seuss' widow's support for Planned Parenthood and an interview with Seuss Scholar Philip Nel, who said that the author threatened lawsuits against anti-choice groups: "It's one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that." Death of the author, indeed. This past Saturday a group of anti-abortion protestors filtered in to the Hollywood premiere of the "Horton" film, voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell and Carol Burnettt, and others. They interrupted the screening with a coordinated protest, shouting during the film and then walking around with tape over their mouths. It was a bizarre stunt, onsidering the fact that most of the audience was made up of children who doubtless missed their political message, and Hollywood journalists who made fun of them. But these kinds of shenanigans, while frustrating, weren't exactly shocking. Despite lawsuits and voiced disapproval from Dr. Seuss and his widow, the "a person's a person no matter how small" line has snowballed and is now a de facto motto for the anti-abortion movement. Just google the line: some pro-life sites show up above Dr. Seuss. Is there anything lovers of reproductive justice (not to mention classic children's literature) can do to reclaim Dr. Seuss' inspirational story, or should we content ourselves with reading more obviously lefty Seuss fare like the Lorax and the Butter Battle Book? We definitely shouldn't abandon poor Horton, even if we feel stymied by his persistent misuse. Let's start with a little basic literary analysis. The Whos are not groups of cells, after all: they are sentient, independent people with their own society, even a mayor. Their small size is a metaphor, you see (trust the anti-abortion crowd to take a parable literally). Seuss is making a point about people who are different, and the ignorance that keeps others from metaphorically not seeing or hearing them. My guess is the kids in the audience absorbed the actual symbolism onscreen, the whole bit about accepting each other, more than the zealots with red tape over their mouths ever will. The anti-choice protesters, incidentally, were happy to ruin the afternoon of hundreds of those kids, too busy advocating on behalf of blastocysts to pay attention to real people -- real "small people," in fact. This kind of behavior sums up the hypocrisy of a movement that would give personhood to a fertilized egg while denying health care to children and physical autonomy to women. The problem is that those who are particularly proud of saying "a person's a person" don't care about actual persons. Unfortunately, that means any attempt at reasoned discourse about Horton's message will likely fall flat. But there's plenty of inspiration that pro-choice women can get from the book on our own terms. "Horton's" climactic moment is when all the Whos, even Jojo the youngest and smallest, join their voices together. At that moment, the Whos cease to be inaudible. While the book is a critique of prejudice and misunderstanding, it's also about the importance of collective action, the power of a group to make itself heard and understood. So we can take away our own message and speak up as one for the rights women deserve. And to paraphrase another Dr. Seuss book, let's tell the anti-abortion movement, which is so fond of simplistic slogans, that we don't like their hypocrisy. We do not like it in a house. We do not like it with a mouse. We do not like it here or there. We do not like it anywhere.
50 comments
nothing says join the cause like gross generalizations that make the opponent look stupid. until both sides give up ridiculous childish tactics and start making relevant arguments i say "abortions for some, tiny american flags for all." To be "fair and balanced", you have to ignore the actual behavior of anti-choicers. Because if you point out the facts, the facts make them look stupid and ridiculous, which biases people against them.
Remember: It's not the showing up at a children's movie and yelling over it that's wrong. It's the acknowledging that it happened that's wrong. I don't understand why "pro-choicers" feel it is okay to kill a living being, regardless of how small it is. What about the fetus' ability to continue developing? If left alone, it is most likely that is what would happen, so how is that not a person (at least eventually)? There are plenty of children waiting for adoption - please sign up.
"What about the fetus' ability to continue developing? If left alone, it is most likely that is what would happen.." No embryo or fetus that is left alone continues to develop into a child - without the use of a woman's body, at least until viability, this is impossible. Using a womans body is not the equivalent of being left alone. By "left alone" I meant "not murdered". I assume you think that "using a woman's body" to grow a new life is akin to a parasite living off of its host that should be removed. It is unfortunate that someone could feel that way about a PERSON. This is not a tape worm we are talking about here. IT IS A PERSON!!!! That is a fact that "pro-choicers" try so hard to deny in order to get rid of the guilt of killing a baby. Whatever you want to call an embryo (alternatively I could call my unfertilized eggs "un-conceived babies", "unborn babies", or persons too) ... a person does not have the right to use a woman's body to maintain their life. A newborn does not have this right even though they are recognized by law as a person. Women have the right to stop an actual person from using their body to maintain the others life, even if the required resources to do so are in her body and she takes an action to stop this use of her body. "A newborn doesn't have the right to use a woman's body"? As if the newborn somehow chose to be there? If you don't want children, get your tubes tied; why allow yourself to conceive and then use murder as birth control. What happened to you that made you feel the way you do about human life? Something is horribly wrong with your perspective. Yours are by far the unhealthiest defenses for abortion I have ever heard. I am truly concerned for your emotional well-being. I am not saying that to be mean, or because I disagree with you; I am truly concerned for you. Something is horribly wrong about my perspective or un-healthy from pointing out that a newborn does not have the protections that you'd give to a fetus? What do you know about my method of birth control anyway? Or my desire to have children? Or any children I already may have? Please, stop with the assumptions and accusations. Let your body be used to maintain the life of an existing child -don't be 'un-healthy' or 'horribly wrong' as you call it - value a child to the extent you'd value a fetus, instead of just 'valuing' life when it means having someone else actually make the sacrifices to maintain it. As soon as I heard that they were making this movie, I knew this would happen. Beautifully put. A googled it. Dr. Seuss quotes comes up first. A website mentioning the pro-life movement doesn't appear until halfway down the page. Number eight to be precise. In regard to whether something is metaphorical or not: Just because something is intended to be a metaphor does not mean that it can't be adopted by a group of people to serve a higher purpose. The pro-life people chose this as a rallying cry for a movement whose sole purpose is to save the lives of unborn children. Since the book itself advocates speaking out for those whose voices can not be heard, I don't see where the problem is. However, I don't advocate people rallying at a children's film opening and spoiling the movie for the children whose lives have been allowed to flourish. After all with all the shouting going on they're liable to miss the message: A person really is a person no matter how small. Even if that person is residing within his or her mothers uterus. Ignoring the fallacy of the movement being about saving the lives of unborn children...fetuses don't have voices to be heard or otherwise. They have no ability to make choices or have views. I would call it a political strategy pure and simple. The antichoice movement most certainly does not have as its sole purpose "to save the lives of unborn children." If this was the sole purpose, why don't antichoice organizations support contraception access? Family planning funding and access? Comprehensive sexual health education instead of failed abstinence only programs? Why don't antichoice organizations actively lobby for funding for prenatal health care access for low income women? What about the lives of born children - do antichoice organizations rally their base around affordable childcare? Headstart programs? They do not. And it's because the anti-choice political cause is not at all about "saving unborn babies" or helping actual living, breathing children- it's about ensuring that women and their families are not able to make personal decisions for themselves but instead live by the rules set by a small, self-empowered, conservative, far right movement. The issue is not whether one personally would choose to have an abortion or not. You are free to choose not to access abortion if you become pregnant unintentionally. You are free to make that choice. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. The issue is whether one would advocate for the criminalization of abortion - that is to make the choice for all women that abortion is not a safe, legal option any longer but an unsafe, illegal option only. The higher purpose here is to ensure that our government does not have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and birth a baby she does not want to have. Or to take away from women and their families the ability to make personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. As Sarah so articulately puts it, Theodore Geisel did not intend his book to be used in this way as he was not antichoice in his views. So to take a children's book written with one intent by an author who opposes this particular philosophy and use it for political purposes, as a rallying cry, is disingenuous at best and, as we saw, invasive and destructive at worst. It always amazes me that the pro-abortion proponents refuse to call a spade a spade. Instead they use rhetoric that claims that an unborn child is a lump of tissue or a group of cells. I've seen it from both sides. I chose to support abortion as a young person, but my reasoning was never that a baby was not a baby. I believed that abortion was justifiable homicide. This child's life so affected the mother's that she (the mother) should be able to end that life if she so chose. I never skirted around the fact that a child was a child whether it was developing in the mother's womb or living and breathing outside of her womb once delivered. That's taking responsibility for your own actions. Enough with this crap that life isn't life. If you're pro-choice then you are pro-homicide, justifiable or not. So if you want to call the pro-life people anti-choice, then call yourself pro-death and get over it. All the rhetoric in the world doesn't disguise what the facts are. Be honest with yourself. If you think its a baby then if you are sexually active (or when you start having sex) make sure to have each tampon inspected for the common case where your 'baby' flushes out with your period. Your 'baby' deserves the same recognition, and also a proper investigation into the actions that you have done/not done/reproductive tract which contributed to its death plus jail time - just as a real child's death is investigated for acts of both commission and omission by the parents. You can't give birth in a field and leave the baby to nature, failing to feed or shelter it...you can't give it substandard food/shelter resulting in its death..you can't play the ignorance card either - 'pre-born' babies deserve the same protection. Take responsibility for your actions. Call yourself 'pro-death' according to your own criteria or give these 'babies' equal recognition. Better yet, abstain for life then you will never be complicit in 'pre-born' infanticide. the tampon question. A certain portion of the time, a fertilized egg washes out during menstruation. It goes on the tampon to be thrown away. If the fertilized egg is a human being, (a baby), then why aren't we trying to either A. resuscitate these beings on the tampon, or B. provide funerals for them? "A person is a person no matter how small". But if they are on a tampon, you can throw them in the trash. Can any pro-lifers explain this contradiction? Another question, how much jail time should a woman get if she has an abortion? If its murder, it had better be at least the minimum sentence for murder. You may need to check online for the minimum sentence, but we'll wait. We're always waiting for the answer you can't seem to give... You wrote..the tampon question. A certain portion of the time, a fertilized egg washes out during menstruation. It goes on the tampon to be thrown away. If the fertilized egg is a human being, (a baby), then why aren't we trying to either A. resuscitate these beings on the tampon, or B. provide funerals for them? It died of natural causes. Duh! Had you gone in and ripped out that baby as you do in a D&E or other abortion procedure, you murdered them. Euphemisms fade away, but not what something really is. One pro-lifer who read this sick blog. Wait, if I'm a pro-lifer, you must be "pro-death". Thanks for that! you mean like a hurricane or other natural disaster? Aren't we obligated to try and save it? It is a human being after all. Unless you believe the embryo only becomes a baby after a few months past conception, then I could start to understand.
do you believe that the embryo is a human being at conception, or some point later? If later, how much later? If you believe conceptions the magical question, you still haven't answered my tampon/natural disaster question. We are still required to act when an infant is in danger, whether the danger is natural or person-made. So: conception, some time later, or when? "It died of natural causes." You just described what happens to each newborn if no one takes actions on their behalf either. But instead, a woman giving birth and leaving the newborn to die naturally is investigated and prosecuted as infanticide. The state also takes steps to prevent lack of active care when possible (suspicion of neglect or substandard care). So the issue stands - but I guess protecting life isn't important when its 'inconvenient' for pro-lifers. Federal health care and health research spending would have to change too – the loss of these innocent shed ‘babies’ is a much higher occurrence annually/or similar in number to many diseases such as heart attack that in contrast often have contributing lifestyle components. Yet the latter gets a lot funding for research/public health by the NIH/other federal agencies - tampon babies do not. No more ranking of the leading causes of death without including these - these tampon 'babies' would be deserving the highest funding for research and health spending for preventing their deaths in terms of both their complete innocence and the sheer numbers of this health disaster...moving health care dollars away from their current allocations. actual numbers, or just estimated percentages of fertilized eggs which fail to implant? I'm just asking because a pro lifer on a yahoo board I haunt said there is no evidence. And the lack of hard data bothers me... Hi ruthless, I've seen references in Lee Silvers book...Challenging Nature is a good read anyway. This is a quick google search - its a busy day - and here's what I pulled up - this one is an actual study on women, if that is what level you are driving at, that captures this data. These aren't necessarily prior to implantation though, but do have the case where women themselves didn't even know they had been pregnant - only enrollment in the study caught the embryo existence and loss. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990611074751.htm
Here is a link that includes ACOG statement on percentage that never 'fully' implant. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
There is hardly the case for 'no evidence' - on the contrary there is clinical evidence as in the study above that embryos do currently flush out, one could disagree on the percentage is all. Its hardly right for them to turn their backs completely and not try to do something....after all - one newborn left to die without acting on its behalf would be one too many. I hear your words on mitigating favtors and different degrees of murder. But at some point some women would have to serve jailtime, because not all killers are insane, or using self-defense. Would you support giving jailtime to a woman who had an abortion, if she was proven not insane, or if mitigating factors didn't work. They can't work all the time, can they? -- My other question is if you truly believe the fertilized egg is a human being, as human as we are, such that terminating it would be murder? Or do you believe it becomes a human being sometime later in pregnancy? How much later? I'm assuming that at whatever time you deem right, that fetus would be a murder victim if aborted, correct? Which gets back to the issue of jailtime for women, because I imagine that some would have to serve, but which ones? What would qualify such a woman for jail time? I understand that the punishment for murder will be increased or decreased depending on certain factors. We agree on that. But should one of those factors be "abortion-murder" vs. "born-person-murder"? In other words, should women who get abortions generally get lighter sentences than women who commit other , standard types of murder: guns, choking, etc. If so, why? Are you saying murder by abortion is not as bad as murder by other means? Or is there some other reason for the general rule of lighter murder sentences for abortion compared to other, more recognized forms of murder? Or do you feel that this general rule should not apply - that lightening of the sentence should not be based on whether its abortion or standard murder. Because murder of the unborn is just as bad as murder of the born. Your answers? Failing to act on behalf of the unborn is somehow okay, yet its currently considered infanticide for the newborn. So instead, the girl that gives birth and walks away just has to claim she had no bad intentions, newborn dies naturally so no investigation needed at all? "Conversely, many infertile couples grieve with each new period." - totally agreed, but not just infertile couples - some fertile couples similarly grieve when this happens too. What's up with the reply function? The tampon concept is not a "strawman" because these things could logcially happen if pending "egg as persons" laws are passed in Colorado and Georgia,et al. It all depends on how far people are willing to let women's rights be trampled on by the state. what if it didn't actually die of natural causes? what if the woman was drinking coffee (known to cause miscarriages in some women), or if she was participating in strenuous activity (like, say, excercise or manual labor) that caused the "miscarriage"? what if she was stressed out or not eating enough, and that caused her body to abort the fetus? if a person is a person, no matter how small, then at the very least she should be investigated for neglect, the same as when an actual baby dies of SBS or SIDS. she may or may not actually be complicit, but if it is in fact a person, then ignorance is no excuse. To answer your "tampon" strawman, not everyone who has a miscarriage has a funeral for the baby nor an investigation into the cause of death. Conversely, many infertile couples grieve with each new period. The crux is the issue of intention. Tying in to Horton, he is aware of the existence of the Whos as living individuals and he sticks up for them. Geisel's possible intent notwithstanding, Horton resonates with pro-lifers who identify with his stand on values against the "polical correctness" of his environment. The "jail-time" question seems to be the latest fad. It betrays a nearly total ignorance of how homicide is currently litigated. First there are different degrees of homicide: first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc. Second, there are mitigating factors: self-defense, insanity. From a legal viewpoint, there are also the circumstances of the death: the killers of Terri Schiavo and of John Wayne Gacy were never charged, let alone sentenced. Into this system you want to create one, uniform, mandatory sentence for abortion? I'm honored to be paired with Harry. The tampon babies are not a strawman as long as its infanticide to leave a child to the elements. No matter what the intent, failing to care for a newborn is a form of infanticide. You want to put variations on how its prosecuted - fine - but failing to take steps to protect it is illegal when its a newborn. If they are supposed to be equal, then these embryos should be treated equally by the law.
Intent flies in the face of the suggestion by the other pro-lifer above, that Harry caught, of the doctor automatically being sentenced greater. The doctor may simply want to give the woman the lowest risk health care, she may have worse intentions.
Some women have abortions because their intent is to not have their body be used for the sake of another, same right they have with real people who may need their body. Same intent, same result - another person can't live at the expense of their body, the woman has the right to stop it and doesn't go to jail.
Speaking for the personhood of the "unborn" is all well and good, except when it IGNORES THE PERSONHOOD of the girl (possibly raped by her father? or an uncle or even a boyfriend?) or the woman (who may have other children she needs to feed etc. or an abusive husband, or simply needs to have her own life.) Speaking for the personhood of the "unborn" is all well and good, except when it IGNORES THE PERSONHOOD of the girl (possibly raped by her father? or an uncle or even a boyfriend?) or the woman (who may have other children she needs to feed etc. or an abusive husband, or simply needs to have her own life.) Actually, since those who advocate making abortion a crime would literally like to give women no choice over their bodies, I (obviously) think the semantics are fine. Certainly more accurate than the linguistic doubletalk of so called "pro-lifers" who have no problem with bombing children in Iraq and denying health care to children here. Please do not tar all with same brush... I for one believe in abolishing the root cause of abortion--the denial of nonviolent sexual and reproductive choices---NOT in criminalizing women. I believe in and advocate for comprehensive sex education, contraception, government policies that support diverse family forms... I have been fighting for decades for full health care access not only in the US but globally. And I have actively opposed the war since before it began. And 'm not alone in this. I have plenty of company, though we don't get much notice. Some of us *really do* care about life before, during, & after birth. And if you don't believe me, you are welcome to visit the websites linked on my RH Reality Check profile. So, kindly please do not assume "those people" are uniformly "antichoice." I most certainly am not, and I can prove it. I do my best not to assume not all pro lifers are anti choice beceause assuming makes an "ass" out of me. Plus,you are just the latest one I've "talked" to who doesn't march in lockstep with the national "leaders" of the pro life movement. We could ratchet down the hostility level so much by recognizing the vast spectrum of opinions on both sides. You don't like an accurate description, because you're aware that most people, if they knew what the anti-choice movement was, would marginalize you. Only by misrepresenting yourself and your actions, can you get any social sympathy.
That our side can be completely honest about our goals and motivations, and yours has to hedge, deny science, and even lie should tell you something, I'd think. You might be a little better than the others, but the fact that you're in denial about the others should tell you something. Until you can be completely honest, you've lost the moral high ground. Of course, I think as long as you think women have lesser rights than embryos, you have lost the moral high ground, but the dishonesty doesn't help.
That's great if you're for birth control, etc. You are in a vanishingly small minority of anti-choice activists. And if you're anti-abortion rights, you still fall into a weird worldview where a man's sperm magically removes a woman's right because it hits the right spot. Amanda, I will ask you something I've wondered before, and wonder again: Are things so utterly reducible, as you seem to imply here, and in so many of your writings, to Prochoice Hooray-Women Good Versus Antichoice Troglodyte-Misogynist Evil? How about some nuance, how about some spark of human recognition that the "Enemy" may not be so wholly and completely "other"? Any political movement has people who will lie etc. to be expedient. No matter the justice/injustice of its agenda. There are people who oppose abortion who lie, and there are prochoicers who do the same. Lying is not prolife or prochoice, it's a failing that occurs among all groups of human beings. Endless arguing over who's really the sleazy dishonest party in this debate and who isn;t doesn't get a thing accomplished, say to create coalitions for expanding Title X family planning funding for lowincome women or guaranting a living wage or realizing any other measure that gets at the root causes of abortion (as well as being a worthy goal in its own right). One of the Big Lies of the abortion debate is that one "side" or the other (take your pick) has an exclusive monopoly on all the goodness, truth, rightness, and justice, and the other side is just pure (insert favorite synonym for excrement here). So, could it possible be that...I am *not* lying when I say that the word "antichoice" is not an accurate description of *me* or *lots of people with similar/parallel views.* We support sexual/reproductive choice--indeed, actively promote it-- as long as it does not involve what we conscientiously, thoughtfully consider to be unjust lifetaking that stems from and perpetuates injustices against women. And we do *not* do this out of some "weird worldview" that idolizes the Almighty Patriarchal Sperm. Just as I am sure that you and other prochoicers have your own good reasons for your own stances on abortion, not out of some "weird wolrdivew" that "hates babies" or anything like that. That's why I refrain from the epithets that some level against prochoicers--you all don't want to be called those ugly words any more than I want to be called "antichoice." Those ugly words disrespect you and your prochoice peers as human beings, they just bulldoze right over the reasons and motives you all possess, just like "antichoice" bulldozes over, for example, my own reasons & motives & decades of working for issues that you might also identify as sexual/reproductive rights. Incidentally, "vanishing minority"? Something like 85% of people in the US who identify as prolife/antiabortion endorse contraception. As for the rest, not everyone who has religious beliefs against contraception is out to ban it for people who don't share those beliefs. And the ones who are out to ban it--what makes you think I'm sitting idly by looking the other way while they try to do that? No way! I *don't deny for one minute* that some people who oppose abortion also oppose measures necessary to reduce abortion and to support already-born as well as unborn lives. Do you seriously think I haven't noticed that profoundly destructive contradiction, that I have just blithely pretended it's not there, that I haven't challenged it? That I've shut it all out to lie, to hedge, to wheedle for social sympathy such as myself can never hope to merit? If that's what you think, you are deeply mistaken. And anyone who's known me from Adam over at least the last 25 years or so (my adult life as an activist) could back me up on this. I have spent *years,* whenever & however I can, challenging this contradiction with my big and yes feminist mouth. I have especially spoken out against the stereotype that women have abortions for reasons of "convenience." And how this attitude, along with shaming women for nonmarital or nonprocreative sex, *directly causes* abortion. When you call me "antichoice," what I hear is this: Amanda Marcotte, you don't know me, you don't know my history, who I am or what I am about--let alone the parallel things about similarly minded people. But if you want to know more about what's on the other side of that label "antichoice," you are welcome to ask. It may not be what you expect or hope to find, but it is what it is. I'm not asking you to "propagandize" for a cause you disagree with. I am asking for mutual respect and understanding. The blanket condemnation "antichoice, just like insults against prochoicers, gets in the way of that. I've always heard 'anti-choice' used in the context of someone that was against legal abortion. I know several people who have moral concerns about abortion but still support it being legal as they see moral concerns on the other side too- they are not anti-choice and personally I welcome them. I also happen to know anti-choice people that are anti-birth control and some that are fine with birth control.
I don't know where Marysia stands on the legality as I've never seen it explicitly in her comments (perhaps I missed it). If someone is against legal abortion then yes they are anti-choice. Even though they'd allow women preventative or birthing options, this 'left overs menu' of birthing options for reproductive care if contraception fails are ones the woman may not want to pick from - and its highly unethical to limit ones medical care choice to options that are designed to support another. Or maybe the woman would rather accept medical treatments that are contra-indicated in pregnancy. Women cannot be put in a single box - I don't believe life begins at conception and its not something that can be forced upon me, I disagree for a multitude of reasons including what Amanda describes as 'sperm magic'- so I don't believe there are some quick fixes that will make me more accepting of being an incubator if I don't want to be.
As far as birth control - I understand the whole 'natural transmission of life' argument against it. In the end, I don't end up taking the side that 'nature' is best, but these people have their points too no less than anti-abortion advocates - but I guess I can see either view since I see life as continuous instead. They are free to live their own lives but I want left alone. Anti-choice has always been anti-legal abortion. The term "antichoice" I object to the word "antichoice" because antiabortionists/prolifers find it so deeply insulting--including of course me. And because it is obvious that it is being used as a weapon and discrediting tactic, even against people who can amply prove it does not describe them and what they are about. I don't think anyone should be using words for the sake of purposefully hurting others, in the service of whatever cause, although I do understand that many prochoice people do not use "antichoice" to intentionally insult. But in effect, it is experienced as an insult. For that reason, I feel that in general people should be called by the words they would prefer to describe themselves. If you don't feel comfortable calling a particular "antichoice" individual or group "prolife," then "antiabortion" is an acceptable term. I myself use this term to describe abortion opponents in general, while reserving "prolife" for those who show some actual wideranging concern for human being after as well as be before birth. Janine, please think of how you would feel if someone called you something like "anti-life." That someone would never be me, and this is why. yes, I do believe abortion to generally be unjust lifetaking. But I also understand that that is not how you see it, that you would find the term "antilife" to be rude and insulting, and that reasonable, compassionate people can disagree over this question. And of course that many prochoicers engage in work that I would also define as life-affirming. So I would call you by the name you prefer for yourself, "prochoice." And it would be really nice if you and other prochoicers would reciprocate! Maybe we could learn to understand each other better and cooperate more on shared concerns. On the "other choices" In my view, they're not "leftovers"...quite the opposite.... On the matter of the law This is not my emphasis or focus. At all. I can't say it enough. To my understanding, the much deeper and more decisive questions is this: "What can we do to alleviate the root causes of abortion so that the violence of it touches no women/as few women as possible, no/as few as possible unborn children, no/as few as possible other people who are involved?" Whichever way the law goes, women will have abortions if the root causes of it go untouched. A legal ban cannot make abortion magically, suddenly go away. And I'm just as much concerned to reduce illegal as well as legal abortions around the world. So that's what I want to give my energy, time, and passion to, alleviating the root causes. Do I have other opinions on the matter of the law? Yes, but I don't often feel like there is a need to bring them up. Not because I'm hiding anything--I will tell you directly when asked. It's just that, as I mentioned, the matter of the law is not my focus, for the reasons I have described. I think Roe v. Wade itself is an unfortunate relic from a time I am old enough to remember. I don't advocate going back to that time, either. I advocate going way, way beyond it. Roe pits woman against fetus, and it reflects a view of the world as isolated individuals struggling for survival of the fittest. Thus it lets the society as a whole completely off the hook for its obligations to respect and promote the lives and wellbeing of the pregnant woman and the unborn child alike, for example, by promoting what I call nonviolent sexual and reproductive choices. For one, it does not seriously engage the question of male partner responsibility, let alone the need for public/governmental or other community responsibilities. I wish US abortion law would model itself instead on the laws of some European countries, which have much, much lower abortion rates, and which, not coincidentally, while permitting abortion in some circumstances: (1) recognize and actively support, through excellent social welfare systems, the right of women to prevent undesired pregnancies and to comprehensive support for pregnancy and beyond. And these countries do so in part for the express purpose of preventing abortions. (2) while permitting abortion in some circumstances, recognize the life of the fetus as worthy of protection if at all possible (3)seriously call men to responsibility But I think the US first needs to greatly scale up its social welfare system and its commitment to nonviolent choice before such a law could be even drafted. yet another reason my focus isn't on the matter of the law. On the parameters of choice Although I disagree with those who believe, "Overturn Roe and everything's hunky-dory," I do not want to be defined as prochoice on the specific matter of abortion. Other things, yes; abortion, no. But, once again, "antichoice" is not apt. Why? Well, I would suspect that no one here believes that human beings have the right to do anything they wish in whatever circumstances. Each of us draws parameters around what we consider to be valid or acceptable or socially promoting (or at least nonharming) human behaviors.(whether in terms of ethics, law, religion/spirituality/philosophy of life). Different people may draw the line in different places, but we all draw that line somewhere. Obviously, Janine, you and I draw the line differently on the matter of abortion. Please imagine if you saw it as I did, as a matter of lifetaking. I am not "antichoice" per se (in fact, I am too leftist-libertarian for the politics of my own country, the US). So the label doesn't apply--any more than the label would apply to you or anyone (including me) who advocates gun control or alternatives to tobacco use. On who counts as a human life Since I am going on too long about things already...while I understand that not everyone who shares these identies shares my take on abortion (though many do, & for parallel reasons).... my understanding of fetal lives and desire to prevent their destruction while at the same time affirming the lives and wellbeing of the pregnant women involved is deeply, deeply shaped by being a person with disabilities, by living in an interracial (black/white) family/household and community, and by being a woman--including the experience of bearing and rearing an unplanned child. physical difference has so often been used to set one kind of human beings out from "the rest of us"...including human beings at their earliest stages. Marysia, by saying above that I didn’t know your views on legal abortion I couldn’t begin to frame you in the my own definition of anti-choice, where I was agreeing with earlier commenters. I was leaving this part open because I didn’t know where you fit, not sure that it matters to any debate that I personally have the exact details….and apparently, leaving this part open wasn’t enough.
I have been called anti-life, anti-baby, pro-death – I survived my teenage years with my father working in a medical building that got regular protests/bomb threats because an abortion provider was also in the same building. I’m fairly numb to the names– these names simply mean to me that I stand up for I believe is right and the name caller is mad about it.
Agreed – remaining reproductive choices aren’t ‘leftover’ choices for you or any other woman if you’d choose them - not a problem there…I’ve consented to two C-sections that were not performed for my own health reasons. It's an issue when a woman doesn’t want these. Yes, I do come down very differently on whether the right to life includes another’s body – and whether this should just be protected for fetuses. However, I agree again - for some women, more support is the answer – I don’t want a woman feeling compelled to have an abortion that doesn’t want one, hardly a plus for people who believe in choice. I volunteer and financially support a maternity home that includes women working there who disagree with legal abortion. We get along and its civil. I have no problem with people who work to reduce the incidence of abortion by providing willing women the resources – this is why I help there, I want to empower women in whatever choice they make. I also volunteer at Planned Parenthood for the women that many times are seeking the same services that the maternity home provides, a broader range of reproductive health options and many who choose differently. Peace. The Good Dr. Seuss: A quiz Green Eggs and Ham [Pastor John Van Sloten, New Hope Church, Calgary] The Gospel According to Dr. Seuss by James W. Kemp, Judson Press, 2004 First of all, let me say that I don't use labels like pro-death or anti-choice as they divide people and are used as epithets, to drown out debate. My position is clear, I am opposed to legalised abortions, except where the life of the mother is in danger. I will explain my position further after answering a couple of the questions raised. I don't expect that I will convert anyone here, but a dissenting voice is always useful. --- --- --- Individuals are, or should be, responsible for their own actions. If someone has consented to sex, they are responsible for the consequences, as they have knowingly consented to the possibility (however remote) of a life being created. They have tacitly consented to support that child. This does not only affect the woman - if a man has sex with a woman, he had better expect the State will ensure he will support that child until he/she is eighteen. It is a matter of personal responsibilty, actions have consequences. If you don't want a child, don't have sex. Vasectomy and other methods of birth control are not 100% reliable. If you don't want a child, but still want to have sex, you have to accept the responsibility if you or your partner does become pregnant. Regarding Sex-Ed: There are many arguments concerning such programmes, why must those who oppose abortion, accept your views on that? It is no more sensible than a "pro-lifer" telling you that if you support abortion rights, you must also support abstinence education. Sex-ed policies, like government initiatives, are seperate issues that have little bearing on this important issue. --- A more important question to ask, is how long should the person who carries out the abortion serve? --- The article is misguided, because it is arguing about something that is not relevant. The author's intent for Horton does not matter. A group has found a theme, an idea and a phrase, which they are using to promote their own cause. The people who protested may very well have understood the plot of Horton and the authors intent, but they saw an opportunity to get their message out and they took it. As a piece of political rhetoric, it is perfect. --- At what point does a clump of cells become a human being, life, worthy of protecting? To my mind, conception, as there is no other point at which it can logically be said to begin. At what point can you say, "that is now a human life." fourteen weeks? Why not thirteen weeks, six days, twenty-three hours and fifty-nine seconds? What change occurs that gives a clump of cells, life? Why is it human life now, when three mintues ago it was cells? If a baby in utero is not 'life' then why do many people who support legalised abortion consider it acceptable to stop abortion during the 2nd or 3rd trimesters? I believe it is because in their heart of hearts, they know that life begins at conception, but support abortion rights for political or other reasons. It is easier to support abortion when you can convince yourself that "It's just a bunch of cells" than when you can see it is a small baby, with identifiable features. As a society, we have divorced sex from procreation, that is why we are in this predicament. People want the option of having an abortion to indulge in their active sex-life (whether promiscuous or in a monogamous marriage) safe in the knowledge that they can avoid the possible consequences - pregnancy. They want to have the option of terminating the life of the child they created for their convenience. So by suggesting abortion be illegal after 14 or 24 weeks, they give themselves freedom to continue with their lifestyle but shield themselves from the hideous realities of abortion. We need to change our culture so that people understand that sex and procreation are effectively inseparable - no matter what precautions you take, if you have sex, you just might become pregnant and because it is a risk you are choosing to take, it means supporting that child for eighteen years (or giving it up for adoption). One of the most important things is to ensure that absent fathers are held accountable for their actions and forced to pay child support, so that the burden does not entirely fall onto the mother. The point of my post is that it is taken so frivolously by many pro-lifers, and am questioning it…. I cannot claim I did not know a child was alive as a defense to abandon a newborn – even when its status truly is iffy. I have a responsibility to it as does the state. One legislator in Virginia actually tried to be consistent here and pass a law on behalf of the known miscarried fetuses, yet had to pull it back due to outrage. So much for the pro-life lobby. Some people grieve over a miscarriage – some do not. They have different reactions – they always have, with many known miscarriages flushed down toilets or otherwise similarly discarded throughout time. Not protecting/investigating these known or unknown embryos simply because their ‘location’ is not in a woman’s uterus is hypocritical if abortion is made illegal.
Life exists prior to conception. A dead egg or dead sperm do not ‘create’ life – therefore the most ‘pro-life’ attitude toward sex would be no abstinence. Does not matter that you do not believe it is a full human being - people can be praised for valuing life over ‘convenience’ at all stages – indulging in an active sex life would be a great thing and promiscuity should be a compliment. And perhaps one day we’ll have a test to find out how many people I was after conception due to twinning, combining, etc. – one, two or ½ - then if I’m really two people I’ll stop being denied my second set of voting rights.
As far as the man’s money – let us ensure the father takes the often assumed ‘consequences’ too. We’ll switch prenatal treatments. I’ll pay for one while he gets medical care to his body on behalf of the fetus and next time we can switch. Until then I’ll continue to get only the standard medical treatments relating to my health that are not changed to accommodate/assist the fetus….hello chemo.
Many health issues have often large behavioral components that factor in even with heart attacks, etc. Don't divorce other consequences either, instead of just focusing on sex where the greatest burden can be thrown on women – eat too much and face the consequences with medical treatments disallowed to overcome these. By limiting those who took risks and are suffering consequences we could free up more medical resources to care for young children who truly did not choose to engage in risky behavior. "Choose not to have sex" Yep, because sex is SO BAD that it is an offense punishable by nine months of pregnancy. Unless a woman is willing to be a living incubator, she does not deserve any physical pleasure. This hatred of female sexuality is immature, narrow-minded, and scornworthy. I wonder how many others feel a woman should face jail for an abortion. I hope they speak their views as well. Can you encourage your like-minded collegaues to be more open an honest of what they think? Though I will say, that the woman is not necessarily less guilty than the doctor. You implied that she might deserve a lesser sentence, because she was scared and the doctor was the cold-blooded, premedidated guy. I think that might apply to several situations. The same thing goes for many other murderers. They are "scared" and kill for reasons that might constitute an insanity defense. But not always. We would never assume right off the bat that a murderer was of unsound mind. We don't give every killer the insanity defense. And certainly women are not all sorry for the "crime" of abortion: http://www.imnotsorry.net/newstories16.htm That link is the stories of women who never regret their abortions. With this possibility in mind, I'd suggest that the women can be the premeditator and the doctor would be the "murder-for-hire". When someone hires a hitman, the hitman is guilty for sure, but the real scum, the one at the top, is the person who hired the hitman. That said, if you could be sure that the pregnant woman was of sound mind, would you consider the maximum penalty for murder if she got an abortion? You stood for giving the doctor life in prison. I'd imagine the same would go for the women, especially the women who - like in that link - were not sorry, no regret, "cold-blooded". If you feel women deserve jail time for having an abortion and you feel that woman can qualify for maximum sentences, like life, then would you please be more open with your friends when you have a political discussion on abortion. In fact, the next time you find one of your friends has had an abortion, tell her your thoughts on where you think she should go. Write to the media. Tell everyone you can that you and those like you firmly believe a woman who gets an abortion should be in prison. Be honest about what you believe.
And about 'diminished capacity' - what is that? how does that figure into sentencing an otherwise normal woman hiring someone to kill existing children....can she too claim this and get a lesser sentence? or is this supposed to be a pregnancy 'condition'...if a woman is pregnant she can have existing children killed and claim 'diminished capacity' to get her sentence reduced? Some of my own thoughts...
The union of sperm and egg may be the beginning of life, but it's no guarantee of life continuing. Because a percentage (estimates vary) of eggs fail to implant and are washed out with the mentruel flow. A further percentage implant, but miscarry (aka spontaneously abort) in the very early stages. If fertilized eggs are given citizenship rights, how do you think the government should proceed to prosecute these women for murder?
It is human life from the get-go, but it's not a PERSON,deserving of the right to force it's mother to carry it to term. I ask you again,how can you divine the wishes of a non-sentient fertilized egg, a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus? Telephathy,perhaps?
Because the fetus becomes viable during the 2nd trimester. Most women who make it that far obviously WANT that pregnancy to continue.
It is the height of arrogance to claim you know people support this choice because they are mendacious and have some kind of "agenda". Personally, I support a woman's right to decide because I trust other women to make the choice which is right for them.
Oh dear, the old "abortion is responsible for all our ills and if we'd only ban it, everything would be hunky-dory" argument. Sex for purely pleasure has been around for thousands of years,but I really doubt abortion is resorted to on a whim just so we can go back to having sex. And the "convenience abortion" angle is so old,it's growing a thick carpet of mold. IMHO: There are a lot of hideous realities out there, but none of them are abortion. Let us contemplate the "hideaous realities" of child abuse,racism,sexism,homophobia,poverty,homelessness,hunger,et al. I believe it is because in their heart of hearts, they know that life begins at conception, but support abortion rights for political or other reasons. It is easier to support abortion when you can convince yourself that "It's just a bunch of cells" than when you can see it is a small baby, with identifiable features.
I just have to add that I don't believe, in my "heart of hearts" in what I like to call Sperm Magic, which is the thinking driving this quote. The notion that a man's sperm imbues a soul and personhood onto a lifeless egg is offensive to my feminist sensibilities, and scientifically inaccurate.
In my heart of hearts, I believe that babies are made by a 9 month process called pregnancy. I believe anti-choicers try to ignore or diminish this, because then they will have to admit that it is women who make babies, and they prefer a story where men have all the creative powers of the world. And I see how many angry, bitter men show up in the comments here, and I see men who are trying to shore up their own ego by claiming that the male effort into making a baby is the only one that counts, even though it's self-evident that men do .01% of the work, and women do the rest. Horton Hears a Who? was not intended to start pro-life propaganda, but it has inevitably become that. I am a History major, 3rd year, and what pro-lifers do not understand is that women have been fighting for their right to have an abortion, and it was only legalized in Canada since 1988. There were days when a coat hanger was used, and it was not pretty, and it's not fair to women. Pro-lifers are removing women's agency by taking away their choice to abort a child. Before abortion was completely legalized, women had to go before a COMMITTEE to decide if she could get an abortion. As much as I think the world has moved on from mistakes made in the past, it's obvious that the world hasn't changed one damn bit. If killing a cell inside a woman's body is murder, then it is tantamount to stepping on ant, or killing chickens as a food source. Pro-lifers should become vegetarians before they protest. Anyone who is pro-life... simply ask yourself, if you were walking home late night, and someone grabbed you, raped you, and got you pregnant... would you still say that "a person is a person, no matter how small" ?? If you were poor, and could not support a baby, would you still have the baby even though it would not be taken care of? Having an abortion is probably a better choice, than having children who grow up poor, hungry, in low-income areas, who will grow up and realize the only way to make a decent living is the join the army and fight Bush's war. by the way, I am MALE, and I fully support women's rights and agency, and right to abortion. and if having an abortion is pro-homicide, then I guess we're all murders, because having a child who will grow up in poverty, and hunger is just wrong. Take a look at what is going on in Africa, and you'll get a clue. |
1From Inside Prisons, Mothers Long for Their ChildrenBy Christy Hall on May 9, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments  The Politics of Motherhood, the Capacity for ChoiceBy Carolina Austria on May 9, 2008 - 8:35am | 1 comment  2New Moms in Africa Fight Postpartum DepressionBy Masimba Biriwasha on May 9, 2008 - 8:20am | 0 comments |
