The recent announcement that Chelsea Clinton is up the spout, as they say, seems to have caused some confusion in the forced-birth camp. There seems to be some kind of idea that being pro-choice amounts to being anti-baby and anti-pregnancy. All abortion, all the time.
It's not so. I am staunchly pro-choice. I happen to like babies a lot. They're cute. Mine were adorable and are growing up to be awesome people. I also happened to mostly enjoy my pregnancies, although I grew to miss my ankles after a time.
I also never, ever want to be pregnant, or have babies again. Ever again. I don't think anyone who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy should be forced to whether by legislation or by circumstance and lack of resource.
.
The confusion of the anti-choicers seems to stem from the insistence of Ms. Clinton, along with grandparents-to-be Bill and Hil, in referring to her impending offspring as a baby.
Part of choice involves the decision to imbue meaning on a pregnancy. I'm reminded of the passage from The Little Prince, where the fox explains if the prince were to tame him, to establish ties with him, that to him, the fox would "be unique in all the world" and vice versa.
In a sense, a person who is carrying a wanted pregnancy has established ties to the fetus, has began thinking of it as a baby. The pregnant person has made a choice (whoa, there's that word again) to establish ties with what is growing inside. In the story, the Prince does decide to tame the fox, although in the beginning, he has misgivings about having much to see and places to visit. He makes the choice to tame the fox anyway, and the fox says to the prince that "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."
That's a big deal and a choice that should not be foisted on someone. But more, it's a decision made by a pregnant person, followed by their partner and eventually their friends and family, to establish those ties. So, it is not hypocritical for a pro-choice person to refer to a wanted pregnancy as a baby as opposed to a fetus, once they have made the choice to establish that tie, to give it such meaning.
First off, my apologies for what is probably a ridiculously unoriginal post title. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I simply MUST be the first one to come up with such a clever play on The Iceman Cometh. But anyway, that is neither here nor there.
Back to this particular man o straw. For this playing along at home, here's a little 101 level info for you:
Strawman (def): a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. - Merriam Webster
A few folks have posted a link to this article from Natural News claiming that an MSNBC anchor basically endorsed infanticide by stating that parents decide when their children are in fact children and go on to make this out to be part of some kind of death cult that believes it is okay to murder children up to three months in age. They're claiming that this is part of a radical-left desire for 'Post-Birth' abortion (Hi, not actually a thing).
The quote from the article from anchor Melissa Harris-Perry reads as follows:
When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science.
I clicked through to some of the sources and found a longer clip that gives some context to Harris-Perry's statement, which incidentally, seems to deal only with pregnancy and not with the question of infanticide.
The argument she's presenting here is one that I have come across in abortion debates - when does the fetus become a baby? I've taken parts in debates where one side refers to zygotes and fetuses and clusters of cells and the other to babies and children and innocent life. The latter may respond that they NEVER thought of their babies as just clusters of cells.
And that's totally valid.
There have been people who have described a sense of relief post-abortion, as though a burden had been lifted.
Also valid.
No one is obligated to feel sad about terminating a pregnancy. Nor are people obligated to be nonchalant in the face of losing a wanted pregnancy, whether by miscarriage or through having to make a heart-breaking decision due to health or financial constraints.
However, Natural News turns this into a straw man argument by equating pre-term abortion with infanticide and coming to the conclusion that if you agree with one, you must agree with the latter, when they are two separate entities, and some studies have shown that in areas where abortion services are more widely available, infanticide rates drop as unwanted pregnancies are terminated well before birth.
As far as the "poll" asking people whether they'd support 'Fourth Trimester' abortion, I'm inclined to think that this is less about people approving of infanticide and more about people not having the slightest clue about pregnancy and how it works. You can people to agree to fucked up stuff if you word it in vague and confusing ways.
It was only a matter of time wasn't it? Only a matter of time until the horrid shitshow attack on reproductive rights (aptly termed the War on Women by the media) started to creep its way north of the border.
Today Parliament, in spite of Steve-O's empty promises not to reopen the abortion debate, is debating whether to have a big old special committee to discuss the whole “Does life begin at conception” thing. I caught a snippet on the news this morning regarding the debate, and later came across the story through Twitter (via @creativetweets).
Granted, the definition of the current law, which basically states that life begins when you fall out of your mom's vagina, is rather outdated seeing as it's based on a British definition that goes back about 400 years. Any woman who has had her ribs bruised to shit by a fetus that seems to fancy itself the next Bruce Lee will tell you that this definition doesn't quite ring true.
But I am not, for one second, buying that this debate is being held in the name of clearing up an old definition in the name of being more scientifically accurate and “in line with 21st century medicine”. Especially when you consider that Stephen Woodworth, the Conservative MP who brought it to the table, all but admitted that the motion is linked to abortion.
Woodworth wants to have an honest discussion but I think it's a discussion that should be kind of moot. Regardless of when government rules ‘life’ begins, does one ‘person’ (or fetus') right to life cancel out another person's right to NOT have another person take residence in their body for up to nine months, possibly to the detriment of her own health?
I'd say no, regardless of how this fetus or person got there (ie, the ‘good' abortion vs the ‘bad' abortion) and no regardless of whether the reasons for abortion are considered selfish or noble/tragic. Pro-choice means choice for all, even if we don't like or agree with those choices. Anything less and we run the risk of allowing our rights over our bodies to be eroded.
I'm glad to hear that at least the NDP is planning to vote along party lines with the idea that the right to choose is NOT up for debate. Conservatives, we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look good. Rae has said that the Liberals will likely be allowed to 'vote their conscience'..
A few months ago, when my older daughter celebrated her 10th birthday, I wrote about how I found out I was pregnant, and about the day I was born.
I'm not going to do that today.
For two reasons, mainly:
Back in May, I had regular access to a working computer. So that's something.. I've still not got the home comp fixed so I'm forced to blog in spare moments here and there.
Second, the time of Reegs' birth was not a particular happy one for me. I'm sad to say, I've blocked a lot of that period of time out of my memory. The parts I remember tend to make me a little stabby and rage-filled, even after all these years. In the name of keeping things upbeat, I'll avoid the specific events of the day. Maybe another day I'll go into them, but now is not the time.
What I will say is that there was, once upon a time, a decision I had to face due to circumstances that were beyond my control. A decision that, had I chosen otherwise, would have meant that I would not be sitting here writing this today because there would be no happy birthday today. I chose what I felt I needed at that time.
The love that I felt for this little girl was probably the only thing that kept me sane during what was, up to that point, the worst period of my life. Okay, even to this point, it was still the worst period of my life.
*Knocks wood.*
She was, and continues to be, a smiling, giggling, thoughtful, beautiful, mysterious beacon of hope that I thank the great unknown forces of the universe for on a daily basis because I don't know what I would do without either of them in my life. Although I love Tierney every bit as much - she was my first, she made me a mother - I have a special place in my heart for my Reagan, maybe because of the circumstances of her birth I feel more protective of her, feel more of a need to be sure that no matter what, she knows that she is loved and wanted by all those around her.
The birth of your sister forever changed my life and who I was for the better. Yours saved me.
Happy Birthday Reagan.
Jezebel posted an article today about a Republican in Indiana who voted down a exception that would allow abortion to be an option for victims of rape and incest because it might encourage women to lie about being raped in order to get abortions. The exception was voted down because it would create a 'giant loophole' and that "someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they've been raped or there's incest."
This bothered me on a number of levels. I might have an easier time with this if the concern was that it may result in wrongful rape convictions, then I could say well, that's a good point, kind of. Lord knows, we don't need people wrongfully imprisoned, nor do we need more people to doubt the validity of actual rape accusations.
She's just saying he raped her because she wants an abortion.
Yeah, let's add THAT to a list of handy rape defenses.
But there's no mention I've seen about this concern. The GOP still seems mainly concerned with making sure that sexually active women face the 'consequences of their actions'. Besides, if the concern WAS an increase in false accusations of rape/incest, then it'd be just as easy to avoid such a situation by NOT restricting availability to cases of rape and incest, thus negating the need to lie about it.
The other thing that bothers me about these lines of rhetoric is that the right-wing and the pro-life movement seems to be under the impression that women fighting for reproductive choice are simply clamoring for the opportunity to have an abortion of their very own.
I want to make this very clear. No one WANTS to go through this.
The way some folks put it, however, you'd think there were thousands of women out there, getting themselves knocked up on purpose so they can be ready for that uber-trendy photo op outside the abortion clinic.
We're not Johnny Cash here. We're not shooting men in Reno, just to watch them die.
I'm seeing a lot of stuff going down in the American media concerning the apparent war that the religious right seems to be waging on women's reproductive rights and all I can say is:
"What the fucking fuck, America?"
It's becoming pretty damn obvious to me that the term Pro-life is a misnomer and would be more correctly referred to as Pro-Fetus, since if you are a woman, or low-income, or both life suddenly becomes pretty friggin' neglible.
And this isn't one of those situations where I can sit back and feel smug in my Canadian-ness like I did when it came to the Social healthcare debate in the U.S. (and I did, I admit it). Because, let's face it, as America's hat the stuff that's been going on could happen here too. Think back a bit.. Our own PM, Steve Harper, cut funding to womens groups focused on women's health in developing nations who wouldn't "...shut the fuck up" on the abortion issue. If old Steve-O is willing to cut funding to developing nations over a conservative ideology, well, it's just a small step before cuts start here in our own country, which is what basically happened in the U.S. today when the House voted to cut funding to Planned Parenthood because they provide abortion services, even though the funding provided cancer screening and access to contraceptives to thousands of low-income families.
As my brother-in-law, Frank, is usually quick to point out, what happens in the States stands a good chance of affecting Canada in the long run, which is why the House's decision has my panties in a bunch.
I'm sure Margaret Atwood never really thought she'd see this kind of Handmaid's Tale stuff played out in her lifetime.
First there was the issue of the nun getting ex-communicated for allowing a woman to receive a life-saving abortion in a catholic hospital, because clearly the merciful thing to do would have been to let the woman die on the off-chance the fetus might have been viable, which to my understanding, it likely would not have been. Very Pro-Life indeed. This story was disturbing enough, but because the situation was so entrenched in the inner workings of the Catholic church, the level of threat was not the same, because a simple solution to someone whose life hung in the balance would be don't go to a Catholic hospital.
Last week I heard a story that a law is on the table in South Dakota that would allow killing in the defense of a fetus to be considered justifiable homocide. Now, unless it is worded very carefully this could leave a lot of holes for the killing of doctors and nurses who perform abortions. It's my understanding that the idea is that it would protect pregnant women from being attacked in domestic disputes, but let's be realistic and admit that this law would have more than likely been used in the former situation rather than the latter. For now, it looks as though the law has been shelved, thankfully.
This latest news about the defunding of Planned Parenthood is upsetting at best, as it presents a huge step backwards in reproductive rights and in access to healthcare for low-income people. Jill at Feministe puts it well in saying that this goes well beyond just being about abortion and has become an all out war on our reproductive rights, as well as a war on the working class and those below the poverty line:
This isn’t about abortion — it’s about cutting access to health care for women. One in five American women has used Planned Parenthood’s services. The vast majority of care — more than 90% — offered at Planned Parenthood health centers is preventative. Every year, Planned Parenthood carries out nearly one million screenings for cervical cancer — screenings which save lives. Every year, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses give more than 830,000 breast exams — exams which save lives. Every year, nearly 2.5 million patients receive contraception from Planned Parenthood — a service which prevents enormous numbers of unintended pregnancies and, by extension, an enormous number of abortions. Every year, Planned Parenthood administers nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV — tests and treatments which save lives, extend lives, preserve fertility, and maintain reproductive health.
What the anti-choicer's are not realizing here (or perhaps they are fully aware of) is that cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is not going to save any significant number of lives, even those of the unborn. This will not reduce the number of abortions being performed - it could even increase the number, when you consider the fallout is reduced access to contraceptives and family planning information. What it will reduce is the number of safe abortions being perfomed. But of course, as we touched on earlier, Pro-Life is really just Pro-Fetus, and the life of the evil, bad, dirty secks-lovin' woman is neglible, as is the rape victim, or the married couple whose condom broke.
In a rather moving speech given to the House, Rep. Jackie Speier made a bold move and spoke about her own experience in having an abortion for health-related reasons.
Speier hits the nail on the head. Most times, this is not a decision that anyone takes lightly. And for the few who do, that is unfortunate, but the idea of choice is that we have choice, whether or not we use that choice responsibly. I used to rail against women that used abortion as a form of birth control, and you know, it still bugs me. But it is not my body.
I'm going to get a little personal here. I've always maintained that being Pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. The idea of being Pro-choice is that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body, under any circumstances. It is our right to decide whether we are physically and emotionally ready, willing and capable to carry a child to term. And this is something close to my heart because I've been there. My ex left when I was six-weeks pregnant with my youngest daughter. And I faced that choice. In my heart of hearts I know I made the right choice and I wouldn't trade my baby girl for anything in the world, but the point is that is the choice I made was my own and what was good for me, is not always good for others.
It's also close to me because I know there's a possibility down the road that I could face that decision again. After I had Reegs (and I might add I will always be glad to be able to look her in the eye and tell her she is here because I WANTED to have her..) my OB told me that carrying another child could and would likely kill me. On that warning I took the precaution of having my tubes tied because A) dying is bullshit and B) Two kids is more than enough for the less-than-maternal type. But even though tubal ligation is considered 99% effective against pregnancy, well, simple math states that 99% is not 100%. There is a chance, albeit ridiculous slim, that down the road I could find myself in the position of having to choose between terminating a pregnancy or trying to carry to term and possibly leaving my children motherless.
I cannot fathom what I would do if a lack of resources, or my beliefs, or a piece of legislation were to force my hand in such a situation.
I've been frustrated as hell over the last day or two because I've been seeing all these calls-to-action to support Planned Parenthood, but being in Canada I generally have been unable to sign petitions, so all I can do is talk about it. Access to family planning is important to everyone. If you are able, please show your support.
I came to the conclusion this weekend as I witnessed two very dear friends of mine pledge themselves to each other before friends and family that although I love the idea of weddings, in reality, when it comes down to attending I'm not a fan at all. I just seem to forget this when not there in the moment.
I'm infatuated with the idea of getting dressed up and the joviality and the romance of it all. This fantasy tends to shatter in the moment when I am faced with the grim reality of my own social awkwardness. That awkwardness was compounded this Saturday by a grinding headache resulting from a not-so-pleasant encounter with my car door. Imagine if you will, there I am feeling rather sexy and sophisticated, dressed to a tee, and as I lean into the car to place the gift in the backseat.. WHAM! Head meets door hard enough to draw blood, tears and a few choice obscenities. Life likes to take me down a notch every so often.
That said, it was a lovely ceremony. My own grumbles about social conventions aside, it's heartening to witness the hope and optimism that weddings bring, especially when you can see excitement written on the faces of the newlyweds as clear as though it had been written in sharpie marker.
Yesterday while picking the girls up from their father's place, I ventured up to the highway to get gas and return some movies. It was there we had the unsettling experience of happening upon a pro-life demonstration that was taking place in front of the mall. My girls, both competent readers for their ages, began asking about the various placards reading such things as 'Abortion Kills Children'.
I can only imagine what was going through their heads. Was this something they should be concerned about? Was it perhaps some monster that eats small children in the night? What a subject to be broached on a Sunday afternoon in the car. *sigh* I attempted to handle the situation as diplomatically as possible, explaining as simply as I thought necessary for a 6 and 8 year old to process.
Being what I consider pro-choice (not the same as pro-abortion) I had a fantasy of running into Staples for bristol board and magic marker and creating my own placard in the name of presenting a dissenting opinion. (for some reason this fantasy involves me in a lawnchair smoking a cigarette - there must be some subconcious association between smoking and rebellion at work here). It could have been an opportunity to teach my children about speaking out on your beliefs. It could have also been an opportunity for my children to witness their mother in the midst of an idealogical melee, which wouldn't have been quite so cool.
So I drove home, feeling somewhat impotent and disappointed in myself. For as much as I may disagree with the folks out on the highway, they had the conviction to stand which was more than I could say for myself that afternoon.
stuff played out in her lifetime.