What's Wrong With the World Wednesdays: Abortions for Earth?

With the great success of my "What Exactly is Wrong with This Country" post (based on how much fun I had writing it and engaging in commentary) I thought I would create a series of themed posts to feature on Wednesdays with whatever quirk of humanity irks me that week. This article has irked me since last November, so this should be fun. I invite readers to chime in, suggest topics, and while disagreements are heartily encouraged (as I expect many of them), I request that we all try to keep things civil.

This week I invite you to ponder: Is a vegan who has an abortion in order to save the planet from its unborn child's "carbon footprint" a hypocrite?

I vote yes, this woman disagrees, but let's see where we're both coming from first.

Abortion is an issue where pure logic fails me. I cannot bring myself to conclude that abortion is anything but ending a life that has clearly begun. The images of that movie we all had to watch in 4th grade about where babies come from are indelible in my mind. I can remember the narrator describing how a sperm finds an egg and a zygote is formed and multiplies, thinking, "That's a baby?!" It is to me. Furthermore, there are myriad private organizations ready and willing to help mothers who feel they cannot raise a child. There are few reasons that make sense to me to abort a pregnancy.

However, I am deeply torn over this issue. My understanding has always been that a woman who drives herself to such a decision has been befallen by tragedy. Either suffering from severe medical complications, detrimental effects of poor decision-making, or horribly, being violated. I've always felt that a woman who chooses abortion has hit a low in her life, led to her choice through complex social and personal beliefs. I don't feel I could do anything but lament for her and hope she gets the help she needs.

I'm hopeful one day science will provide a solution where an "aborted" child can survive outside the womb to full term pregnancy. I thought no one would be in favor of ending life if science provided a solution, until I read this article.

Not only did this woman from the UK, Toni Vernelli, have no problem with having an abortion, she was thrilled, imagining she was performing a benevolent act for Mother Earth! Her boyfriend presented her with a "congratulations" card after her abortion-sterilization procedure. She justified her actions by arguing abortions help save the planet by eliminating the carbon footprint of the unborn child. Wow, I must have fallen asleep at that point in "An Inconvenient Truth." While I can get irritated by people overly-dedicated to the green movement, this is sickening.

I'm baffled how a vegan committed to treating animals humanely and saving the planet decided to limit her sacrifices to her preferences, not her principles. Toni indicates her lifestyle is nicer because she side-stepped child care costs and is pleased she can afford the price and carbon waste for an annual junket to South Africa due to the net gain from the thwarted life.

If someone doesn't want the difficult task of raising a child, I can respect that. However, there is tremendous responsibility that comes when someone swears they don't want children, yet continues to engage in the sexual act that leads to procreation while fertile. Call me crazy, but there's a surefire way not to get pregnant. Oh wait, abstinence is cruel to humans, right??

Instead of abstaining from vaginal sex (there's plenty of other varieties to choose from if she was that desperate) while waiting for the removal of her reproductive organs, she relied on birth control (which has marginal failure rate anyone prescribed it is warned of) and decided to remove her offending body parts only after they became a viable home to budding human life. Seriously? I suppose it made a better PR piece to claim it was "for the planet." I could respect a woman who took a vow of celibacy for the planet's sake while waiting to find a doctor to perform a sterilization procedure; while Toni preferred to gamble with God, recklessly romp, and risk abortion.

Far from taking responsibility for her "mistake" pregnancy, in the article she irrationally blames a handful of doctors she met who wouldn't perform a sterilization procedure. I find her accusations a weak defense given her violent hatred for the waste of human life. There are scores of doctors ready and willing to perform dramatic and risky sex change operations after psychological tests and social behaviors are monitored and addressed. I can't imagine there wouldn't be a doctor willing to accommodate her less-drastic sterilization request. What is more likely is that doctors questioned her motives (standard medical practice), she lost stamina, and took matters into her own hands by ignoring the real possibility that pregnancy, which she called her "worst nightmare," though easily and 100% avoidable, could become reality.

Additionally, I find it hypocritical that in her photos, she is a glaring example of ignoring her own mantras and conservationist maxims. I mean, consumption=consumption. If she was ready to sacrifice her unborn children, you'd think she could have forgone the make-up, hair products, fancy faux-zebra top, and jewelry!

Couldn't she save more energy by living in trees, shaving her hair, using it to help fertilize an organic garden from which she exists solely as a subsistence farmer, fashioning clothing from home-spun hemp strands?? It is possible. But no, I'm being too extreme, abortions are much more reasonable and eco-friendly. WTF??

Furthermore, Toni assumed authority to the spout groundless belief, "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet." I don't know who she polled for this tidbit, but maintaining my genetic line has little to do with my hopes to be a mother one day. In fact, adopting is something I've seriously considered: I'd care for someone else's genetic line and even helping reduce the carbon footprint by forgoing having at least one my own children.

What saddens me is that I wonder: did this woman ever consider she could raise a smart, ethical child who would continue a legacy of proper stewardship of the planet and possible technological innovation? I guess not.

*Updated: This post was carried on BrazenCareerist, and great rebuttal from Andrea Zak at Schizofrenetic. The comments are flying on all three sites, so check them out!

Want More? , , , ,

24 Comments:

  1. Wow... some people...

    On a different note, I wonder how long it will be until we have organic/green contraceptives?
    ReplyDelete
  2. @A.J. -

    Green contraceptives, like organic condoms??

    I think there are already things like that. I wouldn't know. However, not to be totally crazy and let strangers know everything about my life, I follow the temperature method which is charting your body temperature (orally!) over the month to determine fertile times. I've had a 100% success rate so far. But I'm also married and don't care if I become pregnant, so I don't know if single people should go there.

    But as far as "green" methods go, it's the most natural I can think of!!! : P
    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm pro-choice, so I can't say I agree with you there, but I don't agree with this woman either. What a ridiculous publicity stunt. I'm all about being open and honest with our experiences to ease the stigma of "evil" activities, but that's not what this was woman was about.

    When I told my BF I wasn't sure I wanted to have kids, I semi-joked about not overpopulating the Earth. He replied, "Actually, if everyone had one kid, the world wouldn't be overpopulated." So I guess that blows her theory too.

    I don't think you can really understand the decision unless you've had to make it. I've never known any woman who was happy to do it (um, I have a hard time believing this woman did either - perhaps this is some kind of overreaction to the emotions that come along with it). It's not one that I would make twice. This woman certainly doesn't help anyone understand the difficulty in deciding what is right for you, not for the rest of the world. Literally.
    ReplyDelete
  4. @Holly Hoffman -

    I feel bad for this woman. She parades what is obviously a horrible think as if we should be giving her a medal.

    I'm not looking to pick a fight here, but as a pro-choice person, do you still view abortion as a negative thing or neutral? I really am interested to know, as I cannot grasp how even if someone made the decision, they wouldn't feel horrible about it.
    ReplyDelete
  5. @Milena: I personally don't view it as a horrible thing, morally. When it comes to personal decisions (and I do view it as a personal decision, not one for the government to regulate), I say to each their own.

    Here are the things I believe (and I don't impose them on anyone else):
    I don't believe in abortion as birth control (I've heard of/known women who don't use contraceptives and have multiple abortions).
    I don't believe in post-first trimester abortions, unless for medical purposes. They are risky for the woman.
    I believe that it is a woman's right to choose. It's a big deal having a baby, even if you give it up for adoption. I don't need the government imposing a moral imperative on me.
    As a personal decision, I believe it should be kept personal, unless your experience can help someone. This woman should've dealt with her choice privately with her significant other, as so many other women do.

    It's not an enviable situation to be in, for sure. Most women who have abortions have to go through some kind of grieving for what they decided, even though it was conscious and thought out. To realize that in some capacity, whether it is financial, emotional or willingness, you are unable to provide a home or family, it is a difficult thing.

    Like I said, it's a personal thing. I don't see it as 'murder' or 'killing' something. I also don't think it's something that should be taken lightly or frivolously. It's a delicate subject and one that should be treated as such, from both sides.
    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not know if you guys believe in God, Ghosts, Angels and Devil, Karma, Heaven, Hell and all that sort of things. But, I hope you acknowledge there are many things that are LARGER than our lives on this planet.

    Do you ever marvel at how each life created (by God, if you believe in Him) are so wonderful - how each of us are different, how we grow from just a pair of sperm and ovum and evolve into who we are? No matter how you believe it, the baby in your body is a life and abortion is killing a life – a purely innocent life that cannot even protect him from being killed. If you kill a grown-man, maybe it is better as he sure has sins and he can protect himself. Of course, according to many country/planet laws, abortion is not a crime where killing a grown man is. But, as I said there are larger forces in this universe than our lives and this planet.

    There are many beliefs that the child that got killed will become revengeful and come to take back the life of the next child. There are many cases of this, which happened to people who are very close to me so this is not bullshit. Or maybe you can say it is just coincidence or there is scientific explanation to these.

    All I want to say is - Please do not kill a life, just use a f***ing condom.
    ReplyDelete
  7. While I do think the whole thing is a publicity stunt. I can't fault her right to choose, but to be proud of it? That I am not so sure of, the choice I would think would at best be a sad one. Denial maybe?

    The only thing is, that doctors will not let a woman sterilize herself until she has reached a certain age of borne a certain number of children, they just won't do it. Now perhaps, you could go to another country, but they don't make the choices easy.
    ReplyDelete
  8. @IT Pilgrim - I was looking for details on what you say about only women of a certain age being able to have that procedure. Any links you know of? I'm not so sure about that statement that doctors "just won't let a woman sterilize herself". Perhaps if she doesn't fight for her right, which I believe is hers. A 12 year old girl just won the rights to a sex change in Britian. The details surrounding it could be debated, I suppose, but she made it happen. My guess is Ms. Vernelli could have had a bit more gumption than a 12 year old.

    All that aside, I think the legal age of sterilization is still meaningless. This woman shouldn't have been having sex while fertile, plain and square. She is vehemently opposed to having children, yet was still having sex, which I consider reckless. She used abortion as birth control, as Holly Hoffman said above.

    @No One in Particular, Just Ranting - After talking to my husband about this post last night, he really illuminated some questions I had about pro-choice rationale. It really got me thinking.

    I agree that the government shouldn't decide what we do to our bodies. That's our business. However, when a woman decides to abort her child, she is therefore claiming the child is not a legal individual, therefore she gets to remove it legally, as if removing her arm of her own volition, just as Ms. Vernelli removed her reproductive organs after her abortion. Again, I would agree 100% that a person should be able to do whatever they want to their body, however I happen to disagree that a child in the womb is not a legal individual and can be treated just like the rest of a woman’s body.

    It is spotty logic, putting it kindly. When exactly does a child become a child? If I were to become pregnant, people would ask, even within the first two weeks, "How is the baby?" Not, "How is that blob of pre-human matter doing?"

    I understand some people also argue the parasite/host relationship justifies the mother deciding. They claim because a child is dependent on its mother completely for its survival, it is still within the mother's realm of judgement to abort at will. For that case, a newborn meets the criteria as well as an adult paraplegic, if not moreso. At least a baby in the womb is just hanging out in there, you take it wherever you go, doesn’t make noise, don’t have to change it’s diapers or schedule it’s own feedings or buy special food mashed up in jars.

    Like I said in my post, if I met a woman who has had an abortion, I would never ridicule her or claim she should be tried for murder, not because I agree with the choice, but because I accept the unfortunate fact that the zeitgeist has agreed: a child inside a womb is not a legal individual and is not protected under the same rights as a child outside the womb.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I find it hard to believe she couldn't get her tubes tied. An older mentor of mine had her tubes tied at 21. In America. Without having any children. This is a pretty cool story in that she got sober later, felt called to have a child, tried to have her tubes untied, and had to have an ovary removed due to cancer. She has a lovely 14-year-old now. Pretty crazy.

    At any rate, the 'when is a fetus a human' question is an enduring one. Endangering a fetus and harm to a fetus, including death, are punishable, at least under Texas law. It's a sticky wicket, as they say.

    I think it's important for the conversation to continue, because where we become belligerant, standoffish and close-minded (ahem, @susan), we lose the ability to grow our opinions, expand our sphere of knowledge and learn more about our opinions and those in the world around us.

    You can feel passionately about your beliefs while listening to others.

    Thanks for keeping the conversation alive, civil & illuminating, Milena.
    ReplyDelete
  10. It's actually pretty difficult to find a doctor to ok a tubal ligation if you're a young woman of child bearing age without kids. Doctors think there's a chance you'll change your mind, and the costs is prohibitive to reverse it or use IVF, so they say no -- and prescribe other BC methods.

    There's definitely been that pattern across a number of the blogs I read. Interestly, the research shows that women in their 20s who ALREADY have kids are more likely to regret sterilization than ones who don't have any. Counterintuitive, right?
    ReplyDelete
  11. since you bring up your BC method of choice (and not caring if you do get pregnant) and are pro-life -- do you plan on not ever having sex again after you have the desired number of kids or do you think God is going to decide how many kids you have for you?

    we seem to be in overshare mode
    ReplyDelete
  12. @zak - "It's actually pretty difficult to find a doctor to ok a tubal ligation if you're a young woman of child bearing age without kids." Sure, it might be difficult, but doesn't mean impossible. Someone who considers having a child her worst nightmare might put a bit more effort into this.

    Furthermore, see above. A 12 year old has recently won the rights to a sex change in Britain, Ms. Vernelli's home country as well. I'm saying that despite the fervor of her lip service to her cause, she never displayed that fervor in her living or in the efforts to get sterilized.

    "...do you plan on not ever having sex again after you have the desired number of kids or do you think God is going to decide how many kids you have for you?"

    To answer this two part question: No, I plan on having as much sex as I like, avoiding fertile times to avoid pregnancy, and yes, I personally believe that children are gifts from God and would accept them freely into my life.

    What I think you might be getting at is that I shouldn't make my personal morality grounds for my political opinions, and if so you'd be wrong about that. I don't claim to know what is good for other people. If someone wants to use various forms of birth control, that is their business. What I don't think is their business is to abort a fetus, as I consider it to be a human at conception, therefore having legal rights in the laws of our country - which while it coincides with my religious beliefs also stands independent of them by the laws of our country which should protect individual rights.

    I also think you misunderstand my method of birth control, as it is extremely effective. I am so thrilled I never have to use condoms or other forms conventional birth control again (as I have in the past and HATED them.)

    As for how I choose to control my chances of pregnancy, I am currently actively avoiding getting pregnant and only have sex when I'm not fertile/ovulating, which has been 100% successful (i.e., I'm not pregnant) for about 1 year. It requires some effort, like charting my waking body temperatures on a daily basis and reading the chart for patterns or irregularities, but it's pretty amazing and I can tell very precisely when I will have the most chance of getting pregnant, thereby not having sex at those times.

    I'm absolutely not moralizing on the basis of my religion. What I do is my business, and I don't judge people on their sex lives - except when they use abortion as birth control. Furthermore, I'm not a puritan. I never said people HAVE to be abstinent, but it would be impossible to argue it is not the only 100% foolproof way to avoid pregnancy. My point was that if they aren't abstinent, and get pregnant, it shouldn't be a huge shock, nor grounds for abortion!

    While waiting to be sterilized, Ms. Vernelli could have enjoyed a whole variety of sexual acts that wouldn't lead to pregnancy. Am I wrong??
    ReplyDelete
  13. Milena,

    plenty of women do have go from doctor to doctor to find one who will be willing to sterilize them. Again, this is a matter of privilege. The frycook at McDonald's doesn't have the luxury of going to 16 gynecologists in the hopes of finding one that will perform the procedure. The college grad on the corporate track probably has a more flexible work schedule and the insurance coverage to allow for repeated absenses for medical appointments.

    We fundamentally disagree on when life begins, so we need to set that issue aside and focus on other aspects of the pro-life/pro-choice arguments.

    The rhythm method with typical uses leads to 1 in 4 women getting pregnant per year. It's just slightly more effective than coitus interuptus, with 27 in 100 women getting pregnant each year. So it's dangerous to promote it as very successful; in general, it is not.

    It's better than nothing, but hardly as effective as other options like the pill (8%), condoms (15%), Depo-Provera (3%).

    I cite the Kaiser Family Foundation's guide to safe sex
    http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/1311-index.cfm

    Forcing a woman to gestate a pregnancy she doesn't want is akin to sexual slavery.

    The purpose of an erection is for penetration and ejaculation. Men average 11 erections a day. Are they meant to have sex 11 times a day if God or evolution gave them that capability? Are they denying their reason for existence by not having sex 11 times a day?

    With the use of multiple forms of birth control, any woman should be allowed to enjoy any variety of sex that appeals to her, knowing that if she gets pregnant, she is not held hostage to her uterus and can opt to terminate since she has a constitutional right to privacy.
    ReplyDelete
  14. milena,

    Nothing much to say except excellent post, and I agree. From the article: "But when she was 25, disaster struck." There is something wrong with the world when people consider a pregnancy a "disaster." Unexpected, in this case obviously. Challenging, for sure. Inconvenient, perhaps. Heart-wrenching, sometimes. But "disaster"? A tsunami is a disaster. A pregnancy is a miracle. I say this as someone who's never really been a "baby person" (and still isn't), who used to be firmly "pro-choice." Until I had a child of my own. And then another. Parenthood hasn't always been pretty, but it's never been a disaster.


    zakstar,

    The birth control method milena described isn't "the rhythm method." It's a well established, highly effective fertility tracking method. It's about paying attention to what your body is telling you and making informed decisions, rather than just having sex because you feel like it, and then being shocked that a baby is sometimes the result. My husband had a vasectomy several years ago (he wasn't quite as confident about the fertility tracking method), but I would have no problem with it if he wanted to get it reversed, and I would gladly use fertility tracking as a birth control method, and I would welcome any pregnancy that might come in spite of our birth control efforts. As milena said, only abstinence is 100% effective, and if I'm not willing to be celibate within my marriage, I need to be willing to accept whatever comes.

    No woman is "held hostage to her uterus." We make choices and some of those choices have consequences. The problem with people is that we always want to have our cake and eat it, too, to do what we want without being responsible for the results of our actions.

    you wrote: "any woman should be allowed to enjoy any variety of sex that appeals to her..."

    I'm hoping that isn't exactly what you meant. Sex with animals? Sex with children? Sex in public? There are laws against those things. Would you prefer those laws be revoked? Conversely, if unborn children were granted the constitutional right to be born, would you respect that law?
    ReplyDelete
  15. @zak -

    You say, “Plenty of women do have go from doctor to doctor to find one who will be willing to sterilize them. Again, this is a matter of privilege.” You are citing polylogism as an excuse for bad decision-making. Poor people don’t get a different set of rules. I’m sorry, you have to explain how you come to that conclusion.

    “The college grad on the corporate track probably has a more flexible work schedule and the insurance coverage to allow for repeated absenses for medical appointments.” I’m assuming I fit the “privelaged” bill. When my father was dying of cancer, my job was on the line for extended absences. I wasn’t sleeping, eating, and would spend every morning and night at the hospital praying at his beside, only to squeeze my mandatory 7 hour days in to keep my precious job. The mental and emotional strain I went through ultimately led to me quitting my job, drastically reducing my income for the sake of my personal health. Sacrifices are required at every level of “privelage.” Your example holds no water.

    “We fundamentally disagree on when life begins, so we need to set that issue aside and focus on other aspects of the pro-life/pro-choice arguments.” I require more explanation and justification other than “we disagree.” There must be a basis of logical thought to such decisions as when life begins. It is the crux of the argument, which I do not think can be glossed over.

    “The rhythm method with typical uses leads to 1 in 4 women getting pregnant per year.” You have not done your research in this area. I also never said I used the rhythm method, so I’m not sure why you think I do. I use a sympto-thermal method, which involves charting temperatures and monitoring bodily fluids and cervix positions. It is highly effective, but that is beside the point because I did not say everyone should use it either. Birth control is a personal choice. This one is mine and has been effective. My main point is that abortion should not be a birth control option.

    “It's better than nothing, but hardly as effective as other options like the pill (8%), condoms (15%), Depo-Provera (3%).” Again, your research must be qualified. The symptom-thermal method, when followed properly provides a 99% efficacy rate.

    “Forcing a woman to gestate a pregnancy she doesn't want is akin to sexual slavery.” This makes no logical sense. Unless a woman is the victim of the heinous crime of rape, there is no reason she should feel sexually enslaved by pregnancy. That might be the most ridiculous argument yet. If she is so fearful of pregnancy, why was she having sex?

    “The purpose of an erection is for penetration and ejaculation. Men average 11 erections a day. Are they meant to have sex 11 times a day if God or evolution gave them that capability? Are they denying their reason for existence by not having sex 11 times a day?” Again, I’m not sure where you are coming from here. I never referred to ejaculation or God or how many times a day men are supposed to have sex. I don’t know what you are talking about.

    “With the use of multiple forms of birth control, any woman should be allowed to enjoy any variety of sex that appeals to her, knowing that if she gets pregnant, she is not held hostage to her uterus and can opt to terminate since she has a constitutional right to privacy.” No woman is ever held hostage by her uterus. What an impossible claim. Again, the crux of this argument lies in determining when human life begins. Without clear, accurate determination, your arguments will not be based in logic, which is what I’m arguing for.
    ReplyDelete
  16. @amy - thanks for the support! Great comments!
    ReplyDelete
  17. Amy -- two or more consenting adults are more than welcome to engage in activities with eachother that they deem pleasurable, provided they are not including individuals who can't or don't consent (children/animals) and are not infringing on the rights of others.

    I believe in the right to body autonomy and integrity, which court rulings suggest are protected by our Constitution. And I"d be first online to March in Washington if legislators tried to take that right away from women.

    In choosing to be responsible for one's actions, terminating a unwanted pregnancy is well w'in a woman's right to be autonomous. It is one of many options available to her and has been one of many options since the dawn of human life.

    I'm not suggestion the poor get a different set of rules. I'm suggesting we all need to understand that middle class, college educated individuals live a very different life than say, high school dropouts or Donald Trump. Understanding privilege and the lack of a level playing field means that we can't force our preferences, based on our own world view, on others because we can never truly understand what is to walk in someone else's shoes.

    The rights that grant women to choose to or not to become a parent don't infringe upon YOUR personal choices in the matter. It's problematic when an individual wants to enforce laws that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of other individuals. The Courts have decided that women have the right to privacy in making medical decisisons with the doctors.

    The question of when life begins has been debated since the dawn of man. No clear answer has ever emerged because there are too many biological, philosophical, religious/moral, and social arguments that makes it impossible to reach a concensus. Thus women are left to decide for themselves the answer to that question. For me, that "life" in question isn't a independent human until somewhere between the 5th and 6th month of pregnancy. Up until that point, women should be free to choose. After that, medical issues comes into play, and the decision gets murkier.

    Allowing women choice, doesn't force anyone to have an abortion, just as it doesn't force anyone to have an unwanted baby. It's about as utilitarian as it gets, because you can live according to your own moral code.
    ReplyDelete
  18. @zakstar - You say, “I believe in the right to body autonomy and integrity, which court rulings suggest are protected by our Constitution.” Court rulings don’t always provide a basis for what is morally just. You have obviously heard of how innocent men can be persecuted, or guilty let free.

    You say, “In choosing to be responsible for one's actions, terminating an unwanted pregnancy is well w'in a woman's right to be autonomous.” You still provide no substantiation for why you believe it other than you think so, or a fallible court said it’s okay. Having options doesn’t make choosing any of them correct. Does having the option to kill someone I dislike make it acceptable? No.

    You say, “I'm not suggestion the poor get a different set of rules.” You are in fact saying that when you suggest I not discuss this topic from my “place of privelage.” Why make such a division if you are not suggesting it? You continue, “I'm suggesting we all need to understand that middle class, college educated individuals live a very different life than say, high school dropouts or Donald Trump. Understanding privilege and the lack of a level playing field means that we can't force our preferences, based on our own world view, on others because we can never truly understand what is to walk in someone else's shoes.” You only display fundamental misunderstanding of logic with your previous statement. Again, you are presenting the very definition of polylogism: the theory that the logical structure of the human mind differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result the ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified classification of men.

    I have no inability to understand the point of view of a poor woman who gets pregnant. You seem to have completely ignored my example of struggles at every level of so-called privelage. I didn’t choose that my father die of cancer, it was a terrible event and disruption to my daily life and has irrevocably changed every fiber of my being. Furthermore, even through the pain and trauma I have experienced, I have a found a way to consider this horrible event to be an opportunity to learn and grow as a human. I did not have the option of not letting such an event affect me deeply, despite what you call my place of privelage.

    Your delineation makes no logical sense. Tragedy affects everyone, at every level of class. Additionally, I find it offensive that by your delineation you suggest that a woman of lower social status would not have the facilities of self-control to avoid pregnancy, or seek out help should she find herself in such a predicament.

    You say, “The rights that grant women to choose to or not to become a parent don't infringe upon YOUR personal choices in the matter.” I never said they did, you are inferring things I never said. A woman who chooses abortion is infringing on the babies’ rights. And continue, “It's problematic when an individual wants to enforce laws that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of other individuals.” Exactly right. Women shouldn’t be allowed to kill their babies who are individuals.

    “The Courts have decided that women have the right to privacy in making medical decisions with the doctors.” First of all, if I kill someone in secret, and no one finds out, does it make it right? Secondly, I won’t deny the Courts are powerful enough to fashion laws that will acquiesce to desires of certain factions of humanity. But just because a court has decided that certain classes of humans are not legal individuals doesn’t make it right. Courts once ruled that slave masters had the right to own slaves. I think we can all agree there are glaring violations of human rights that have been ruled legal by courts past.

    “The question of when life begins has been debated since the dawn of man. No clear answer has ever emerged because there are too many biological, philosophical, religious/moral, and social arguments that makes it impossible to reach a concensus.” This statement is also based on faulty logic. A consensus is not required, nor is it a sound argument to allow abortion.
    You say, “For me, that "life" in question isn't an independent human until somewhere between the 5th and 6th month of pregnancy. Up until that point, women should be free to choose.” This vague personal tally-mark should not be the basis for logical decision-making. I’m not sure if you are answering this question but are you saying that a preemie born at 21 weeks could still be considered non-viable and a candidate for abortion, i.e. murder? You can draw and re-draw the line all you want, none of the re-drawings provide a logical division, other than conception.

    “Allowing women choice, doesn't force anyone to have an abortion, just as it doesn't force anyone to have an unwanted baby. It's about as utilitarian as it gets, because you can live according to your own moral code.” Unfortunately, you have not provided a single sound argument for abortion other than your own personal moral code. I have provided a number of arguments based in logic and reason, which you have attempted to paint as stemming from my personal religious beliefs, but they do not.

    Furthermore, despite your commendations for utilitarianism – there are many heinous acts that are utilitarian that have been agreed upon as immoral: murdering someone you hate, raping someone who arouses your desires, stealing someone whose things you covet. There are basic standards of morality for all humans based on individual rights. What is true for all people – this does not stem from personal, religious, or philosophical divisions.
    ReplyDelete
  19. I think life begins at conception, and therefore, although I agree with you that any particular woman's decision to have an abortion or not doesn't infringe upon MY rights, I would argue that abortion infringes upon the unborn child's right to live. I would say that even a full term baby is nowhere near to being an "independent human," as he or she is completely dependent upon others for survival. As are many elderly people. And disabled people. Shall we deny them rights because they aren't "independent?"

    I see the points you are making regarding Constitutional rights, but I I see unborn babies as "people," and you see them as "fetuses." I agree with Milena and don't see how the question of when life begins can be left out of the equation. To me, it's the whole point of the equation--how a woman's choices have effects on more than just her own, personal, private, independent life--effects on a child that her actions helped create.

    It still comes back to the point that if you don't want to have an unwanted baby, avoid the activity that causes unwanted babies. That's perfectly within every woman's rights, and infringes upon no one's.
    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi there Milena - long-time lurker, first time commenter here. I'm pro-choice, and while I agree that life begins at conception - to argue otherwise would be to stand in the way of that great lorry-truck of logic, science - I think trying to argue that 'basic existence of life'='individual with rights' is a long bow to draw. The notion of the 'individual' is a subjective one stemming from religious, sociological, and psychological theories and is unfortunately not the moot point you would have it be. So I don't agree that your argument is based on 'logic and reason'. It's based on your own moral code - which is also not a moot point.

    I'm also pretty disappointed in the way you've treated Zak here. I get the distinct impression that every time you responded to one of his comments, you did a little victory dance - "I'm winning I'm winning I'm winning!" You keep accusing him of using bad argumentative technique but you, lady, have used the dirtiest trick in the book - ignoring what your opponent has actually said.

    Case in point:
    Zak: It's actually pretty difficult to find a doctor to ok a tubal ligation if you're a young woman of child bearing age without kids.

    Milena: Sure, it might be difficult, but doesn't mean impossible. Someone who considers having a child her worst nightmare might put a bit more effort into this.

    Zak: plenty of women do have go from doctor to doctor to find one who will be willing to sterilize them. Again, this is a matter of privilege. The frycook at McDonald's doesn't have the luxury of going to 16 gynecologists in the hopes of finding one that will perform the procedure.

    Milena: You are citing polylogism as an excuse for bad decision-making. Poor people don’t get a different set of rules.

    Uh, no, of course they don't - they get fewer privileges. Like the number/quality of doctors they can access. Which is what this thread was about. The thread that you lost. The thread that you lost while simultaneously giving someone a dressing-down for not being logical.

    Milena, I don't like your politics but I usually like your attitude. In this instance, your attitude sucked. I stay out of a lot of debates (and nearly stayed out of this one) because I'm worried about appearing inarticulate - hell, I might be doing that right now. But I have to stick up for anyone else who's willing to get in there and have a go at expressing their views. Zak wrote in a respectful way - you didn't.

    Meanwhile - and frankly this interests me far more than the usual ho-hum right vs left abortion-is-wrong-no-it's-not debate - where on earth do Americans learn the phrase 'sticky wicket'? Do you even know what sport it comes from or what it means? I'm intrigued. Do you know 'stick it up your jumper' as well?
    ReplyDelete
  21. @Chloe –

    Thanks for finally writing! But it's too bad that I had to get you riled up to do it!

    I’m surprised and sorry you are disappointed in my treatment of Zak. For a bit of back-story – she is a great activist, writer, and quite vocal on BrazenCareerist, where we often spar on such topics. It gets heated, and I don’t think either one of us takes these things personally – at least I don’t, I can’t speak for her. I don’t mean offense, but to get a good dialogue going.

    Also, she wrote a pretty lengthy rebuttal on her own site, which was quite pointed and obviously personal, so I think it was appropriate for me to respond in-kind. I’m not sure if you saw her post, http://zakstar.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/part-1-of-a-rebuttal-to-thomas/

    If you are pro-choice, you might enjoy it.

    If my tone was combative, it is because I believe in individual rights passionately. I understand your frustration with me as my position is unpopular. If you want to argue the notion of the “individual” we’d have to start discussing basic philosophical ideas and we could, in fact, argue away the very notion of our existence using logic! There has to be some basis for morality, and I was citing things like murder, rape, and slavery as reference points, which certainly are based on my own moral code, you are right, but also apply to rights of every human being on earth.

    You say I ignored what Zak said, but I didn’t. Also, I wasn’t doing victory dances behind the scenes, I was trying to thoughtfully engage in a discussion. If my only goal is to put people down, I won't get anywhere, so thanks for pointing out I'm being unsuccessful in my delivery.

    I was actually trying to be very careful to respond to all of her points, because I hate it when people ignore mine. I thought my responses were sort of long and drawn-out because of that. However, if you fault me for not agreeing with her, I don’t know what to do about that. When Zak said, “It's actually pretty difficult to find a doctor to ok a tubal ligation if you're a young woman of child bearing age without kids.” And I responded that it is difficult, but possible, I was acknowledging what she said, but disagreeing. Additionally, the woman in my post was not poor. I didn’t think she tried hard enough. As for poor women who get pregnant, my main point was that it was easily avoidable.

    You also say in reference to my faulting Zak for polylogism and that the poor don’t get a different set of rules, “Uh, no, of course they don't - they get fewer privileges. Like the number/quality of doctors they can access. Which is what this thread was about. The thread that you lost. The thread that you lost while simultaneously giving someone a dressing-down for not being logical.” I understand your frustration with me that I lost that thread, to clarify, I responded directly to that statement on Zak’s post, by citing populations that do not have medical care and still having children, of which there are many. I know this might have been confusing to have multiple locations where the discussion took place. I should have provided those links.

    I’m not sure what “sticky wicket” or “stick it up your jumper” means actually! I’m guessing it’s not very nice.

    Anyways, I’m sorry I offended you.
    ReplyDelete
  22. Testudo LiberalisAug 13, 2008 01:27 PM
    Chloe,

    Apparently the dirtiest trick in the book is expending a generous amount of time engaging nonsequitors and red herrings. The issues of privilege and accessibility are inconsequential to the moral arguments addressed in the original post.

    Furthermore, the following doesn't make any sense:

    "So I don't agree that your argument is based on 'logic and reason'. It's based on your own moral code - which is also not a moot point."

    You are setting up a false dichotomy. While your particular moral code may be antithetical to logic and reason, it is not necessarily the case that all are. One's moral code may very well be a product of logic and reason.

    Now, the issue of when an individual attains rights is indeed a philosophical question. Milena clearly believes that an individual is established at conception, Peter Singer believes a person must have rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness and is comfortable with the fact that this excludes infants, some elderly, and the mentally ill. I suppose most people fall between those bookends. Considering all variants, I believe the length of Milena's bow to be quite short.

    Finally, lady, before you pronounce your 'disappointment' in Milena's manners, you may want to edit out phrases like "Which is what this thread was about. The thread that you lost." as this sort of schoolyard-bully instigation is a bit at odds with the pompous and disappointed scold persona you've so masterly crafted.

    PS. For the record, I find the 'Milena, I don't like your politics but I usually like your attitude.' bit to be disingenuous pablum given your poorly disguised self-righteousness.

    Stick it up your jumper indeed.
    ReplyDelete
  23. This exchange makes more sense with the back story. Thanks, Milena. From where I was standing it looked as if you were bringing in fairly unrelated tangents apropos of nothing, and that really didn't seem like a logical method of argument especially from someone repeating a mantra of 'Logic and reason! Logic and reason!' Now that I know the conversation is shooting back and forth across a few different locations I see that the argument adds up. So I apologise for dragging you over the coals, and promise to say something nice next time :)
    ReplyDelete
  24. @Testudo Liberalis - wow, have you got a way with words. That's all I can say!

    @Chloe - it's cool. I'm resilient. Thanks for reading and keep writing!
    ReplyDelete

I'm curious to see what you are thinking...

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)