Musings on floods and reproductive rights
Dec. 29th, 2004 03:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsI saw a bit of footage about the tsunami today. Unlike the Hollywood images of a wall of water slamming into a town like Godzilla, this showed water just rising. No waves, no ripples at all, just rising - and rising and rising and rising, at the rate of about an inch per half-second. Slow, quiet, relentless.
I have a sudden understanding of the Genesis flood story. I know that Bob Ballard supposedly discovered "how the Biblical flood happened," but can't you also see this? Another earthquake. Another tsunami. The water washes all into the sea, and over time the story goes "the village was covered and almost all died," to "the island was covered and they all died" to "the world was covered," to "the world was covered and stayed covered for a week" "No a month!' "Forty days and forty nights..." And so on, whisper-down-the-alley style until legends are put into writing.
Closer to home, I'm ending up in a reproductive rights sidebar fight/discussion with someone in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ginmar's comments. Basically, she asked for Gin's comments on her thoughts on abortion. (Boiled down: for the life of the mother/cases of rape=okay For contraceptive failure=not okay. In those cases, the mother should bear the child and put it up for adoption or otherwise face the consequences. She later pointed out that she meant "consequences" and not "punishment" because kids aren't really all that bad.)
She got my comments instead, and you can probably imagine them. (Kefir, I did mention your brother as a rebuttal to the notion that kids are naturally good.)
I've invited her here to discuss the issue, or at least to look at the news I've found on the subject. This is the open thread for discussion on the topic.
I have a sudden understanding of the Genesis flood story. I know that Bob Ballard supposedly discovered "how the Biblical flood happened," but can't you also see this? Another earthquake. Another tsunami. The water washes all into the sea, and over time the story goes "the village was covered and almost all died," to "the island was covered and they all died" to "the world was covered," to "the world was covered and stayed covered for a week" "No a month!' "Forty days and forty nights..." And so on, whisper-down-the-alley style until legends are put into writing.
Closer to home, I'm ending up in a reproductive rights sidebar fight/discussion with someone in
ginmar's comments. Basically, she asked for Gin's comments on her thoughts on abortion. (Boiled down: for the life of the mother/cases of rape=okay For contraceptive failure=not okay. In those cases, the mother should bear the child and put it up for adoption or otherwise face the consequences. She later pointed out that she meant "consequences" and not "punishment" because kids aren't really all that bad.)She got my comments instead, and you can probably imagine them. (Kefir, I did mention your brother as a rebuttal to the notion that kids are naturally good.)
I've invited her here to discuss the issue, or at least to look at the news I've found on the subject. This is the open thread for discussion on the topic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
People like that, IMO, are not really pro-life ...
Date: 2004-12-29 10:16 pm (UTC)As for the "put the kid up for adoption" argument, that's pretty ridiculous. There are 125,000 kids available for adoption in this country right this minute, according to AFCARs. How does increasing the surplus help at all? (And for those who argue "But people want baybees," I say "Too bad for them." If they are that desperate to be parents, they should be willing to accept an older child.)
Argh.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 10:20 pm (UTC)First, in the case of the life of the mother or rape or incest, it should always be okay to abort. If a mother will not survive the birth, then I don't see the purpose in possibly having two deaths on your hands when she tries to give birth, and I also would not ask a person to carry a child to term when it was due to rape.
Now, the tricky bit comes when you try to define "contraceptive failure". What defines failure? Failure to use, failure of the contraceptive, what?
Mind you, I do not like the idea of people using abortion as a method of contraception, but I cannot in good concience stand in the way of someone getting one... especially if that contraceptive failure was due to no fault of their own (even someone who's on several forms of contraceptives has a minor chance of getting pregnant). And I firmly believe in being able to use the morning after pill.
Quite honestly, while I wouldn't do it myself unless put in a position where I had to (face it, at this point in my life while a child might put a crimp in my lifestyle, I could afford to have the kid. The only thing that might make me think otherwise were if whatever meds I'm currently on would be guaranteed to produce a child who wouldn't live long or who would have horrible nasty health problems for life as a result of those meds), I think I would never even try to stop someone in the first trimester from having an abortion. I personally believe that until that kid is of an age that it is viable outside the womb, I don't consider it to be a problem. However, once that kid is more than halfway through "cooking", you have a possibility that the kid could survive outside the womb, and in that case, I honestly think that they need to finish and carry the kid to term.
The problem is, most people see it as either black or white. Either you allow abortion or you don't, because if you allow abortion only in certain cases, you have the slippery slope thing. Personally, if I had to make a choice between allowing all abortions or not allowing them at all, I'd allow them, albeit reluctantly in the latter half of pregnancy.
I can kind of see the point she's making (without actually looking at the original), but at the same time, there's that "black and white" issue dealing with it that just throws things all up in the air.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense today, so let me know. ;)
Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-29 10:24 pm (UTC)-----
The majority of birth defects can't be detected any early than 2nd trimester at best ... and most women will seek second opinions. Late term abortions are, sadly, done on much-wanted pregnancies that have gone wrong, not on women who want a "mulligan" on the whole thing. :-( Even though I'm childfree by choice, I have the utmost sympathy for women who have to make such a horrible decision.
Re: Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-29 10:44 pm (UTC)Life/health of the mother/child is something I will never fight someone on having an abortion for.
But there are actually some women out there, who because they either didn't do something about it soon enough or couldn't afford to do it soon enough, will try to have a non-health related abortion later in the pregnancy. And that, I cannot in good conscience support.
I know people who've had late-term abortions, yes. And in every case, it was because the health of the mother was at stake. If a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, then I have always been firmly on the side of giving the mother her life. The woman can survive without the child, but the child's likelihood of survival without the mother is another question.
I do not envy the choices some women have had to make in late term, either due to their own health or the health of the child, it is a horrible experience to have to go through. If it is because of health reasons, I will never even think of standing in the way. But if it is because "I don't want to", I have an objection to it.
As I said, if it was a choice between "allow them all" and "don't allow them at all", I'll go for the choice of allowing all of them... but I won't like the ones that are later term.
Re: Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-30 12:28 am (UTC)-----
So you did ... and I stand/sit corrected on the issue. :-)
Re: Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-30 02:29 am (UTC)'cause off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen things I wouldn't do with a gun to my head, but I don't have a right to tell other folks not to do 'em...
My point in the original conversation is more that life, particularly reproduction, isn't tidily black and white. There are so many shades of grey, and then you get into the question of "I don't like that shade, but I wouldn't stop you from coloring with that crayon" to "Now, that's just not right, period." I keep throwing shades of grey at her to see how she adjusts black and white thinking to it.
Re: Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-30 02:51 am (UTC)The thing that always blows people away is that I used to be just as ignorantly anti-choice as the individual in question. Then I got out into the world and discovered that, as you point out, there are a myriad of grey shades.
She does, however, remind me of my favorite quote by Oscar Wilde: "I am no longer young enough to know everything."
Re: Here's the problem ...
Date: 2004-12-30 01:24 pm (UTC)Heh. My dad phrases it "You're never as smart in your life as the day you graduate from high school."
no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 10:49 pm (UTC)While I have issues with people who do use abortion is a form of birth control (it's safe, but not as safe as contraceptives; it's such a waste of potential; religious issues, which I still can't resolve) I will always come down on the side of abortion remaining legal and available. The alternatives are horrible. The number of attempted abortions wouldn't go down, but the number of women who'd survive them would. This may be a societal problem, that there aren't enough homes for those un-adopted kids, that we value babies and the illusion of 'always ours' over creating a family. It might be a problem with the shame some feel, still, over having unplanned kids, and the utter lack of social services when it happens... doesn't matter. Some children, are, sadly, unwanted. Until those guys at Operation Rescue are willing to pony up child support, they should shut up. Maybe if they protested more for decent day care, drug abuse treatments, and welfare, I'd be able to take them seriously.
Ahem. That may sound a little militant. Especially in light of the aforementioned religious issues. But that slippery slope goes both ways, if it exists at all. Personally, I look at it as a slope with a lot of mountaineering clamp-ons along the slide down.
I've never heard how Pro-Life people feel about the morning-after pill given to rape victims, either. It seems to be something they don't talk about, if they don't make the rape=okay-to-abort distinction. Given that fertilization hasn't happened within the first 24 hours, why do they have a problem with someone taking RU-249 even if they haven't been raped? *sigh*
"Abortion is sometimes necessary, sometimes not, always sad. It is to the woman what war is to the man -- a living sacrifice in a cause justified or not justified, as an observer may decide. It is the making of hard decisions-- that this one must die that that one can live in honor and decency and comfort. Women have no leaders, of course; a woman's conscience must be her General. There are no stirring songs to make the task of killing easier, no victory arches and medals handed around afterwards, merely a sense of loss." - Faye Weldon, The Hearts and Lives of Men
Weldon sounds like she doesn't support abortion there, but I think she makes some good points. Abortion is too personal a decision to be left in the hands of those who "think they know best". We should always debate it, always question if it's necessary. But forbid it outright? No. The day we cease going to war, we can make that 'moral' choice. The day we cease executing criminals. Until then, we life in an imperfect world where these choices have to be left in the hands of those it effects most.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-30 02:36 am (UTC)Depends on the group. There are those who equate contraception and abortion (that's the whole "life begins at conception" thing). For them, anything that interrupts implantation is Bad, period. And since it's impossible to know when fertilization actually happens, any chance that the sperm and the egg have met up equals pregnancy.
They're a fringe, but a loud fringe, and I truely believe that they (and not the person I've been talking to) actually intend to recriminalize contraception. They're already lying about condoms to try to drive down condom use, and that's a barrier method.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-30 02:48 am (UTC)That is amazingly beautiful and rings true to me.
Seriously, if 25% of the money and energy on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides were spent on providing options to prevent the unwanted pregnancies (other than abstanance, thubit to those think that is a useful thing to insist on to the exclusion of all others), I would be happier.
I am pro-choice. I think abortion is a horrible scary thing. I can't convince myself that at ANY point the baby is "unviable" -- it's a baby, if the pregnancy was carried to term it would be viable, quibling about at what point it could survive outside the mother's womb but in a hospital ward seems pointless.
So yeah, I see abortion as killing viable babies. Which means I hate it. But Goddess, the alternatives? Bringing children into the world who are not wanted and not loved? There are hundreds of couples who want to adopt, but few of them can do the time-honored "pay for the mother's health bills and give her $20,000 to go away" thing that you see on TV. A woman in a pregnancy she did not want with a child she does not want is not as likely to take good care of her health. How many people want to adopt children that might have birth defects -- not crack babies, but poor health from the mother being in poor health during her pregnancy?
I want some hard stats, you know. Break it down by socio-economic strata. Who is getting abortions, and who wants to adopt? The poverty-line African-American girl who got pregnant because her boyfriend refused to wear a condom is who I would think would need legal abortion the most.
Gah. Making no more sense. *head in sand*
You want hard stats?
Date: 2004-12-30 02:54 am (UTC)http://www.cdc.gov
They have an abortion surveillance report there. I do not have a specific link (I changed ISPs and my link library is still being rebuilt). However, you can use "abortion" as your search word and see the data.
Re: You want hard stats?
Date: 2004-12-30 04:56 am (UTC)I think the bit that is most relevent to what I was getting at was:
"Most abortions were obtained by white women, unmarried women, and women less than 25 years of age. As in previous years, about one-fifth of women who had abortions were 19 years old or younger. Of the women who had an abortion, 39 percent were known to have had no previous live births."
So 20% of abortions are teenagers, and at least 40% are abortions from women who had not had live birth (60% either have children, or unknown).
no subject
Date: 2004-12-30 06:57 pm (UTC)I hold certain principles to be true:
1. Just as death occurs at brain death, so life occurs at brain life. At the beginning of the second trimester, the normal fetus begins to exhibit electrical activity in the structures that will develop into the brain. Before that point, I have absolutely no moral qualms about abortion for any reason.
2. It is not right to be kinder to a pet than to one's own child. If the child will be born with a severe, debilitating condition -- particularly one that will lead to an inevitable early death -- then it is better to abort as early as possible, rather than let that child suffer at length.
3. The mother's life and health must be preserved. If there is a good chance that continuing the pregnancy would be dangerous to the mother, then an abortion is a medical necessity.
Note, I am not talking only about emergency situations. Last year I attended the visitation of a lovely and much-loved 24-year-old woman. Recently married and pregnant with her first child, her doctor had advised her to abort the pregnancy, since the epilepsy medication she took could be harmful to the child. The young woman was a religious Baptist, and would not consider aborting. Instead, she discontinued her medications. During her fifth month of pregnancy, she had a severe seizure while she was at home alone, and suffocated. I wish she had had an abortion, instead.
4. The mother's life and health may be endangered by severe depression and shame, as well. If a woman is very distraught over an unplained pregnancy, it may be life-saving for her to get an abortion. I cannot tell what may be unbearable for another person; that must be left up to each woman who finds herself in that awful situation.
5. Adoption is an option, but a very, very difficult one. Immediately after birth, a new mother's body is typically flooded by "bonding" hormones, that make her extremely attached to the new baby. According to my OB/Gyn, who has been practicing for 30 years, he has known many patients who intended to give a baby up for adoption but could not bring themselves to do it once the baby was born. He has known only one patient who actually signed the adoption papers -- but she changed her mind shortly afterwards, and after a nasty legal battle got the baby back from the adoptive parents. Once the hormonal effect wears off, many women are amazed that they did not go through with their plans. Without an intensely negative social stigma against keeping the baby, most women will not give the baby up for adoption, no matter how economically difficult it is.