A culture that has a strict no-exceptions-allowed ban on abortion that is simultaneously permissive about contraception and honest about public sexual education is a politically inconsistent fantasy.
It's perfectly politically consistent. It's a culture that is actually "pro-life". It is a culture that both thinks that a foetus is a human life, and values it accordingly, and one that thinks that women are actually people, and is pro-life, including when those lives are the lives of poor women who enjoy sex.
I also agree with you that there aren't very many people who ascribe to this set of views, but I think it's a perfectly consistent position to hold - it's just one that differs markedly from the virginity-cult patriarchal bullshit that imbues most actual anti-abortion politics.
I guess it shows that life isn't perfect in the sense that unwanted pregnancy happens, but not any more than someone getting cataracts does when they can be easily fixed by simple routine surgery. I don't think many people would think of cataract surgery as a sad concession. Abortion doesn't even have to involve any surgery.
No, but nobody thinks of cataracts as people, or as potential people, either. You are, of course, free to view a foetus as of no more importance than a cataract, but I think you'd have to accept that your view is not universally held even among people who support at-will abortion.
It's not about a defined sense of importance regarding the foetus - obviously each pregnant person will feel differently. The comparison to cataracts is due to the relevent complexity and severity of the removal procedure, and also its lifesaving qualities. Even if someone feels completely heartbroken at say, getting an abortion due to an incomplete miscarriage, the existence of abortion being able to save their life without undue physical pain or distress is a positive medical development. The existence of safe and easy abortion is of huge medical benefit and due to the God-given medical gifts of those providing it, even if the person having one has different and more complex feelings.
It wasn't so long ago that life beginning at conception was seen as a specifically RC viewpoint, and Protestants overwhelmingly were not anti-choice as a voting bloc - and RCs were far more likely to be solidly Democrat (or Republican before they switched allegiances).
That human life begins at conception(*) seems to me not a religious viewpoint but a secular fact. (As orfeo notes, it is not the Biblical position.)
That human life begins to have moral importance at conception(*) is usually a conservative religious position. (Again, not the Biblical position - I don't think there is a single Biblical position but in so far as there is I don't think it's that.) However, I'm not aware of any good secular argument for saying that it begins to have moral importance at any other point.
(As you note, when I say conservative religious opinion here what I really mean is religious opinion associated with people who have negative views on women's rights. It's not an opinion one would find in the impeccably RC Aquinas.)
That human life begins to have sufficient moral importance at conception as to make abortion always the wrong moral choice, let alone to justify the law in overriding the right of parents to decide for themselves what is best for their families, is I think almost universally a conservative religious opinion.
(*) This is slightly complicated by the possibility of identical twins.
@Pomona when I saw your comment likening abortion to having a cataract done, I was going to respond, but @Marvin the Martian and @Leorning Cniht have already done so. It does though strike me that there are aspects of your position that are as dogmatic in one direction as that classically taken by the Roman Catholic Church has been in the other.
Stating that people who can get pregnant shouldn't be forced to get birth and shouldn't be forced to have particular feelings about their safe and uneventful and wanted abortion, especially when the people advocating for said feelings are cis men (as per fucking usual), is a matter of medical and bodily autonomy. Catholic doctrine on the subject is primarily concerned with preventing individuals from having those things, women in particular - although everybody of every gender is harmed by doctrine which effectively removes someone's ability to consent to how they experience sexual pleasure and even marriage.
@Pomona when I saw your comment likening abortion to having a cataract done, I was going to respond, but @Marvin the Martian and @Leorning Cniht have already done so. It does though strike me that there are aspects of your position that are as dogmatic in one direction as that classically taken by the Roman Catholic Church has been in the other.
Must be one of those irregular verbs:
I have principles.
You have positions.
She has dogma.
My pronouns are he/him, but yes it is noted that those outraged by the concept of comparing an abortion to a cataract removal cannot actually get pregnant themselves! I was under the impression that lived experience and being personally affected by something was prioritised in Epiphanies. Apparently not.
Well, @Pomona I for one appreciate your sharing your experiences as a childfree person and one with a uterus.
While everyone is busy discussing the importance of the embryo, let's remember also to discuss the importance of it's parent's time and effort. For instance, if a woman who works in most food places in the U.S. wants to have a child, she won't get any paid time off. And even if she does, she gets very little. She will have to work most of the pregnancy on her feet* without any support medical or timewise, keeping up with the rest of her coworkers who are have it physically easier. Even if she has absolutely no complications in her pregnancy, it's bloody exhausting. When anyone tells me that they are a caring person and about the 15 cells someone is carrying but doesn't care about the carrier, I am sceptical.
As someone who has been pregnant, it's much more uncomfortable being on your feet all the time while pregnant.
That human life begins at conception seems to me not a religious viewpoint but a secular fact.
Is it? A single-celled fertilized egg is a human being? I think it's just as arguable from a secular, scientific point of view that humans grow gradually over time due to a tremendous amount of metabolic resources and effort by the person carrying the pregnancy without one clear defining moment where a sharp line can be drawn. Or maybe a series of sharp lines exist and picking any particular one is arbitrary. (The traditional Biblical standard was "quickening", where the fœtus can be felt to move.) One of the big bonuses of the "life begins at conception" position (from a patriarchal point of view) is that it more or less erases all the effort expended by women required to create a human being as being irrelevant and ascribes primary importance to a single moment that's more under male control than any other in process of creating a new human. It's hard to believe this is entirely coincidental.
Perhaps "outraged" is too strong, but until going through the menopause five years ago I fell into the category of "being able to get pregnant." I am uncomfortable with the comparison of abortion and cataract removal.
I believe abortion should be available "as early as possible, as late as necessary."
My experience of a "late period" miscarriage at just seven weeks was that I lost a lot of blood, was in bed for a couple of days, and not fully recovered for a further ten days or so. Assuming that an early medical abortion would have been similar I don't recognise the description A medical abortion (as opposed to surgical) just means taking abortifacient medication, often at home, and having what is basically a heavy period. Why should such a simple and harmless medical procedure need to be rare?
But perhaps my experience of a loss at 7 weeks is atypical; a miscarriage at 12 weeks nearly killed me, so my experience might be an outlier.
It's not about a defined sense of importance regarding the foetus - obviously each pregnant person will feel differently. The comparison to cataracts is due to the relevent complexity and severity of the removal procedure, and also its lifesaving qualities.
When you said that you didn't think anyone though of cataract removal as a "sad concession", that obviously wasn't a statement about the complexity of the medical procedure.
People who think of abortion as a "sad concession" aren't passing comment on the level of medical challenge involved - they are precisely passing comment on the importance of the foetus. Nobody thinks of cataract surgery as a "sad concession" because they don't have those feelings about cataracts.
As it happens, "sad concession" rather encapsulates my own personal feelings about abortion. I can't think of abortion as merely excising some unwanted tissue, on a par with a cataract or skin tag removal. I also can't think of forcing someone who doesn't want a baby to carry a pregnancy to term as being in the slightest bit reasonable. So the only position I can hold is that of course someone who is pregnant should be able to choose to abort their pregnancy, but that I can regret the necessity. And of course it follows that I should support easy access to contraception to reduce the number of people that have to face such a choice. (Yes, and sex education, but the reasons to support sex and relationship education are rather wider than pregnancy, and I'd support it even in some techno-future where everyone had 100% effective contraception turned on by default.)
But my personal feelings aren't very relevant. For what little it's worth, I also know women who hold a full spectrum of feelings about the foetus - everywhere from religious conservatives who equate abortion to murder, through various variants of the "sad concession", "legal but rare" opinion, to several who share your "just a bunch of cells" opinion.
(I also agree with you about vasectomies and tubal ligations for people who know they don't want children. There's nothing magic about two kids that makes it reasonable for society and/or the medical establishment to assume that when people say "I've had two kids, I'm done" then they really mean it, but when they say "I don't want to have any kids", they must be mistaken. If you're an adult, you get to make permanent life-altering choices. This should include "I want my tubes tied and I understand that it might not be possible to reverse this in the future".)
@Pomona's post does contain an assumption that is worth bringing to the foreground. He writes about the importance of the foetus:
obviously each pregnant person will feel differently.
Obviously this is true. For some people, a foetus is a much loved and wanted child from the moment they are aware that it exists. For others, it's an unwanted clump of cells. And there's a spectrum of opinions in between, where you can find more people. The assumption is that "the importance of a foetus" is dependent on the feelings of the person in whose body it resides. And I don't think that's true.
It might be effectively true in practice (if you support, as I do, the right of a pregnant person to choose a termination, then perhaps there's little practical difference between thinking "the pregnant parent thinks it's just a worthless clump of cells, so that's what it is" and thinking "the foetus has value, but the pregnant parent takes precedence"), but this isn't the approach we usually take. We do not, as a society, consider (at least, not officially) that the importance of a small child depends on how their parents feel about them. So why does the importance of a foetus depend on its parents' feelings?
It is not necessary to hold the opinion that the importance of a foetus depends on its parent to hold a pro-choice position.
The fact that something is made lawful does not suddenly make what was wicked, right. The fact that it's possible to make money out of something does not oblige anyone to do so. This is a dirty way to make money. The money a person makes that way is dirty money. Doubtless those that do pursue these claims would doubtless maintain that they are doing good, but claiming something is virtuous doesn't make it so if it isn't.
Though I suppose that if the evidence is that a significant number of people don't share the same intuitions you have on what constitutes decency, then your view of what makes acceptable legislation may also need adjusting.
As someone who has regularly assisted as a nurse in operating theatres for both termination of pregnancies (including on two school friends) and cataract surgery, and who is pro-choice, I am also uncomfortable with the comparison. An abortion is not like cataract surgery, the examples have little in common, either in complexity, demographics, emotional response or social context. Someone who has an abortion will have an individual response according to their personal circumstances and beliefs, but their feelings are experienced in a social context of stigma and often shame and many experience hidden grief for many years that cannot be publicly expressed.
Actually, @Heavenlyannie. the research doesn't show that many women experience hidden grief for many years after an abortion, it's a trope put out by anti-abortion organisations. The Turnaway Study from the USA, as described in this article from January 2020 from UCSF (link) found the overwhelming majority of women are certain that abortion was the right decision five years later, however difficult they found the original decision or expected stigmatising.
It is something I've read in other research finding similar things before, one of the previous times that abortion came up in discussion, in earlier papers.
That article discusses positive and negative emotions but I don’t see any mention of grief, though I might have missed it. Just because they think it was the right decision doesn’t mean they don’t experience grief. Grief is natural when experiencing loss, even when the loss is a welcome relief.
I can’t remember if my death and dying course has any research on termination and hidden grief but I’ll have a look.
It wasn't so long ago that life beginning at conception was seen as a specifically RC viewpoint, and Protestants overwhelmingly were not anti-choice as a voting bloc - and RCs were far more likely to be solidly Democrat (or Republican before they switched allegiances).
That human life begins at conception(*) seems to me not a religious viewpoint but a secular fact. (As orfeo notes, it is not the Biblical position.)
That human life begins to have moral importance at conception(*) is usually a conservative religious position. (Again, not the Biblical position - I don't think there is a single Biblical position but in so far as there is I don't think it's that.) However, I'm not aware of any good secular argument for saying that it begins to have moral importance at any other point.
(As you note, when I say conservative religious opinion here what I really mean is religious opinion associated with people who have negative views on women's rights. It's not an opinion one would find in the impeccably RC Aquinas.)
That human life begins to have sufficient moral importance at conception as to make abortion always the wrong moral choice, let alone to justify the law in overriding the right of parents to decide for themselves what is best for their families, is I think almost universally a conservative religious opinion.
(*) This is slightly complicated by the possibility of identical twins.
It's not just complicated by the possibility of identical twins. It's complicated by actually taking into account what else has to happen between conception and... I was going to say birth, but really just taking into account what has to happen before you get to the point where anyone knows conception has happened.
If we think that a single cell is a human life, then we have to face the evidence that perhaps a majority of "human lives" end without any other human knowing about it. The fertilised egg doesn't implant in the womb. Or something else goes wrong within that first short period of time. The menstrual cycle goes on and no-one is any the wiser.
This is one of the things that religiously motivated anti-abortionists don't face, that according to the premise that it's a human life from conception, then God (or just nature) is killing off far more humans than women ever do.
Which is not to say that the only other response is to simply open the floodgates. But it's important to point out that the whole "it's all about conception" line of thinking is woefully simplistic and involves taking one tiny piece of knowledge about biology and ignoring everything else about biology.
A six day old zygote (the fertilised cell is a zygote for the first two weeks, by which time the cluster of cells becomes an embryo) is potential life at that stage, assuming that implantation followed by successful in utero gestation occurs. No fertilised cell is independently viable.
Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, about 10% to 25% will have a miscarriage. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heartbeat is detected.
This suggests nature / God / however you want to describe this, is all good with a significant proportion of fertilised cells not becoming fully human foetuses.
That human life begins at conception seems to me not a religious viewpoint but a secular fact.
A single-celled fertilized egg is a human being? I think it's just as arguable from a secular, scientific point of view that humans grow gradually over time due to a tremendous amount of metabolic resources and effort by the person carrying the pregnancy without one clear defining moment where a sharp line can be drawn.
So humans grow gradually but the being that is growing isn't a human being? That seems logically inconsistent.
Presumably what you're saying is that the foetus slowly becomes human? Human is something we develop into, with the fully human terminus being an adult able-bodied financially independent male, and those that don't quite meet that ideal are to that extent not fully human? (Come now: it's not as if you've never proffered a tendentious summary of someone else's views.
I assume you don't dispute that the point of view that one is fully human as one approaches the ideal of the able-bodied adult financially independent male exists in our society? And that it influences political discourse even by those who reject it when they're explicitly conscious of it?)
In other organisms the idea that non-adult stages are just as much part of the life cycle as the adult is uncontroversial. It looks controversial when we come to humans because we want to start making value judgements about it.
In other organisms the idea that non-adult stages are just as much part of the life cycle as the adult is uncontroversial.
Ahem. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that people think about a puppy or a lamb exactly the same way they think about a cluster of cells inside a dog or a sheep.
"Non-adult" is a hopelessly inadequate description for what we are talking about here.
In other organisms the idea that non-adult stages are just as much part of the life cycle as the adult is uncontroversial.
Ahem. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that people think about a puppy or a lamb exactly the same way they think about a cluster of cells inside a dog or a sheep.
"Non-adult" is a hopelessly inadequate description for what we are talking about here.
Thinking about the lamb in a different way as one thinks about the sheep is compatible with thinking that the sheep is the lamb grown up.
The cluster of cells is more difficult. AIUI we don't actually know at what point the cluster can no longer divide into two twins. If it is genuinely just a cluster and not a single entity, it can't be the same entity as the later entity. Fair enough.
The egg, caterpillar, pupa, and butterfly are all stages in the lifecycle of the same organism. There are much clearer dividing lines there than in mammalian gestation.
In Canadian law, one becomes a person with one's first breath outside the womb.
I'm not arguing that a human being is necessarily a person. That something is a human being and not a gorilla is a matter of biological fact. Personhood here is not that kind of fact.
According to Wikipedia on twins (link) the division of one fertilised cell into identical monozygotic twins occurs before 14 days after formation of the zygote. If the division starts after 12 days conjoined twins result.
However in as many as 1 in 8 cases the early existence of in utero multiples results in a single birth, something called vanishing twin syndrome. Also rarely chimeric individuals occur from two fertilised zygotes fusing.
I'm not sure relying on twin studies to define personhood is that helpful.
In Canadian law, one becomes a person with one's first breath outside the womb.
I'm not arguing that a human being is necessarily a person. That something is a human being and not a gorilla is a matter of biological fact. Personhood here is not that kind of fact.
Is there a distinction to be made between human cells, or even human life, and a human being?
The problem of defining a life happens at both ends, in the US I don’t think all states accept brain death is a thing either: and you can’t necessarily take a corpse off life support if they were pregnant when they died.
if a woman who works in most food places in the U.S. wants to have a child, she won't get any paid time off. And even if she does, she gets very little. She will have to work most of the pregnancy on her feet* without any support medical or timewise, keeping up with the rest of her coworkers who are have it physically easier. Even if she has absolutely no complications in her pregnancy, it's bloody exhausting.
@GarethMoon I can't speak for Gwai but I read her example as referring to Assigned Female At Birth people specifically as US women who would be underpaid and exploited on grounds of gender. It's important to pay attention to nuance when talking intersectional oppressions.
Well, @Pomona I for one appreciate your sharing your experiences as a childfree person and one with a uterus.
While everyone is busy discussing the importance of the embryo, let's remember also to discuss the importance of it's parent's time and effort. For instance, if a woman who works in most food places in the U.S. wants to have a child, she won't get any paid time off. And even if she does, she gets very little. She will have to work most of the pregnancy on her feet* without any support medical or timewise, keeping up with the rest of her coworkers who are have it physically easier. Even if she has absolutely no complications in her pregnancy, it's bloody exhausting. When anyone tells me that they are a caring person and about the 15 cells someone is carrying but doesn't care about the carrier, I am sceptical.
As someone who has been pregnant, it's much more uncomfortable being on your feet all the time while pregnant.
As an aside, I'm not actually childfree - I would like children but have no desire at all to be the one carrying them (and trans men who are happy to be pregnant in order to have kids are more common than others might think). That situation is not often catered for in these kinds of discussions - I want kids, I just never want to be pregnant ever. I know cis women who feel the same way, it's not even just a trans thing although I'm sure the dysphoria aspect is part of it.
I would take all precautions necessary to avoid getting pregnant and for me personally it would also be unlikely, but one thing I think cis men often fail to understand is that as long as rape exists pregnancy is never 100% avoidable* and that's always at the back of your mind.
*for those with a uterus who haven't been able to access tubal ligation or a hysterectomy - abstinence doesn't always work, but as far as I'm aware a total oophro-salpingo-hysterectomy** always does.
**removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the uterus - these are not automatically removed during a hysterectomy in order to prevent premature menopause.
Hosting
I note the words 'for instance' were cut off that quote, Gareth Moon which alters the context. I can't see host tags on Gwai's post so will give you the benefit of the doubt this time for arguing with a host in the thread instead of taking it to the Styx. If you have genuine concerns about terminology it's possible to ask about that without seeming to be playing 'gotcha!' games which are inappropriate on this board. I can't see anything wrong with saying 'for instance a woman' or 'for instance a man' or 'for instance a non-binary person...' etc. and writing from that viewpoint - what matters is to remember when writing in general that not only women are affected but trans men and non binary people also and anyone who can get pregnant.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
especially when the people advocating for said feelings are cis men (as per fucking usual)
It's true that I never have, nor ever will be pregnant. But I have been a zygote, an embryo and a fetus. Does that give me the right to comment on issues that affect zygotes, embryos and fetuses?
I would take all precautions necessary to avoid getting pregnant and for me personally it would also be unlikely, but one thing I think cis men often fail to understand is that as long as rape exists pregnancy is never 100% avoidable* and that's always at the back of your mind.
And I think we can both agree that no one with a uterus should have to get a complete hysterectomy of that kind just to know they will absolutely never want to have kids.
Hearing (seeing) your words about never wanting to be pregnant, I am reminded of a woman I know who might have wanted to be a mother though she won't be at this point. But her very skin crawls at the idea of being pregnant. And I think that's something that is missed from this conversation when people say that pregnancy is avoidable. If Joe, a theoretical cis man, imagines truly being pregnant and having to push someone out of his body, he might feel that they were an alien-like invader. But if he wants to be a father, he may well take it for granted that his wife will do these things.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
For what it's worth, I respect that. And even if it isn't going to change my POV, I'm always very aware of the way that everyone has a story, and in most cases people's convictions are, very logically, derived from their emotional vulnerabilities. That's real and I won't mock it.
I have found that abortion, again, for eminently sensible reasons, hits on a lot of people's buttons.
I suppose the following partial triptych might be a parable of sorts, though the third section is a blank page. Read if you feel up for it, it's a button-pusher.
I don't have a lot of personal connections, myself. But I was having a conversation years ago with a high school friend, and the "rape exception" comes up. She says, as far as I can tell honestly, that her mother was raped. I was a little blindsided by this tack, wasn't aware, and I think I said something like "well, I'm glad your mom made that choice." I'll elide the question of whether her mom's delivery was voluntary, because that's a kind of trauma I wouldn't get into without professional training. It's heavy.
I related that story to another friend, more recently, and this told me another story. Their mother had been in an abusive relationship with a jerk boyfriend, and she got pregnant. Mother went and got an abortion and eventually got out of the relationship with the jerk boyfriend. Later on in life, mom met a better guy, got pregnant again, and so my friend was born. And my friend will say very straightforwardly "if my mother hadn't had that abortion, I would not exist, and she would've been trapped in an abusive relationship.
My one reflection on these stories is that life can be scarily capricious. If these are acts of God, God is strange and mysterious. And I will not step between someone else and God.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
Is that worth "intrinsic"? I'd say it's more ascribed (assigned from outside by you and your partner) than intrinsic (inherent regardless outside opinion).
Hosting
Just a gentle reminder to all folk to bear in mind that these are really painful real life issues with multiple points of view and not to get too far into the philosophical weeds without thinking about how this isn't an abstract discussion for many, if not most, folk posting here.
Cheers
L
Epiphanies Host Hosting off
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
I'm so sorry for your loss.
I had a miscarriage of a badly-wanted pregnancy at 13 weeks. I mourned the life that would not be, the parent that I would not become. I saw the chunk of tissue when I miscarried in my bathroom. I never thought of it as a person. It just wasn't one yet. Maybe Texas wouldn't think so either because they never found a heartbeat?
When I gave birth a few years later, it wasn't until I held the baby in my arms that I felt like I had a person. Even though I felt like I had been a mother that whole time. So everyone's experience is different.
Doing the math, doctors count pregnancy from the last period. One generally gets knocked up halfway through a period, when they ovulate about 2 weeks later. And discovers one is pregnant after a missed period, 4-5 weeks later. A 6-week abortion ban is beyond ridiculous.
So what happens to the person who miscarries? Do they get punished for not being the ideal host? Do they go to jail or have to prove they didn't do it on purpose? Do they have to fish a chunk of tissue out of the toilet so someone can test it?
I would take all precautions necessary to avoid getting pregnant and for me personally it would also be unlikely, but one thing I think cis men often fail to understand is that as long as rape exists pregnancy is never 100% avoidable and that's always at the back of your mind.
Reporter: Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term?
Abbott: It doesn't require that at all, because obviously it provides at least 6 weeks [ ed: at most six weeks ] for a person to be able to get an abortion. So for one it doesn't provide that. That said, however, let's make something very clear: rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.
A couple problems here. First and most obviously, prosecuting rapists post facto is not going to prevent any pregnancies. Second, a lot of rapes (and incest, which Abbott avoids talking about) happen in homes, not "the streets of Texas" and framing it in this way leads me to doubt whether Abbott actually understands this.
You can see the video f Abbott tap-dancing around a question he really doesn't want to answer here, if you're so inclined.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
I'm so sorry for your loss.
Thank you.
I had a miscarriage of a badly-wanted pregnancy at 13 weeks. I mourned the life that would not be, the parent that I would not become. I saw the chunk of tissue when I miscarried in my bathroom. I never thought of it as a person. It just wasn't one yet. Maybe Texas wouldn't think so either because they never found a heartbeat?
When I gave birth a few years later, it wasn't until I held the baby in my arms that I felt like I had a person. Even though I felt like I had been a mother that whole time. So everyone's experience is different.
We've had two children since - one though a second round of IVF, the second through what I can only describe as a miracle. But that first one is still in our hearts. We have its* picture (from the post-IVF scan) on our wall.
*= this word choice indicates nothing more nor less than the fact that it died well before any gender identification was possible.
So what happens to the person who miscarries? Do they get punished for not being the ideal host? Do they go to jail or have to prove they didn't do it on purpose? Do they have to fish a chunk of tissue out of the toilet so someone can test it?
I think this is a bit of a strawman. Not because I think a miscarriage isn't a death, but because I think it's a natural death. Nobody is to blame, nobody should be punished.
So what happens to the person who miscarries? Do they get punished for not being the ideal host? Do they go to jail or have to prove they didn't do it on purpose? Do they have to fish a chunk of tissue out of the toilet so someone can test it?
I think this is a bit of a strawman. Not because I think a miscarriage isn't a death, but because I think it's a natural death. Nobody is to blame, nobody should be punished.
Is it, though? It seems very possible to pass off a mifepristone-induced miscarriage (a.k.a. a medical abortion) as a naturally occurring miscarriage. The Texas law immunizes the woman herself from any penalty but any third party could sue her boyfriend, doctor, parents, pharmacist, etc. and require them to prove a negative; that they didn't provide any mifepristone (or the means to get it) to the woman who had a miscarriage.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
First of all, I'm the only one who has used the cataract comparison. I used it because if I had to get an abortion, that's the kind of equivalent surgery/procedure I would see it as - maybe not pleasant as such, but medically not complicated and with minimal side-effects. I've also said that every pregnant person feels differently. That I would feel that way about my own (so far, fortunately hypothetical*) abortion doesn't mean I would see your experience of miscarriage in the same way, not least because I would have eagerly consented to my abortion and you and your partner did not consent to the miscarriage. Cataracts don't just fall off, and nobody would rather keep them - it was like all analogies, limited to that one specific scenario. I guess the equivalent would maybe be something like cochlear implants and their controversy within the Deaf community? But I am not Deaf so I don't feel equipped to make that comparison. I don't know if there is a more appropriate analogy, sorry.
[hosting - while I appreciate this comes from a heartfelt place and your own experiences of bullying I don't think it's OK to question too much how someone talks about a painful bereavement. I think that is getting too personal - Louise Epiphanies Host]
It is interesting that I find your use of 'it' to denote a lack of known gender more distasteful than you do - why not use 'they'? To me calling your child 'it' is extremely dehumanising towards them, and like many people abused in childhood calling me 'it' was a common way for my parents to bully me - not related to gender at all, just as a way of removing humanity. So I struggle to understand being upset about comparing an abortion to a cataract removal, but also willing to call your child 'it'.
I think for me the issue - as someone who does want children, as I have said - is that worth not being intrinsic doesn't mean the worth you give something is less real. I definitely believe that your miscarried child was really your child, and also that my aborted foetus really would NOT be a child. But also, if me and a future partner experienced a miscarriage, that would be our child. I suppose it's not hugely dissimilar to many Eucharistic theologies, akin to Spiritual Union maybe? It doesn't make it not real.
I appreciate that everyone was a foetus at one stage, but you're not a foetus anymore. Whereas people who can get pregnant experience it as an ongoing risk. Similarly, in discussions of sex work for example, former sex workers' experiences are not given the same weight as current sex workers. Because their experiences aren't equivalent. It's not like people even remember things from before they were born. It's a really specious argument and demeans those who actually experience pregnancy, and erases the fact that anti-choice legislation is overwhelmingly decided by those who will never have to have an abortion.
*I am thankful to not have experienced the distress of an unwanted pregnancy even if I would not see the removal of said pregnancy as anything but a relief
So what happens to the person who miscarries? Do they get punished for not being the ideal host? Do they go to jail or have to prove they didn't do it on purpose? Do they have to fish a chunk of tissue out of the toilet so someone can test it?
I think this is a bit of a strawman. Not because I think a miscarriage isn't a death, but because I think it's a natural death. Nobody is to blame, nobody should be punished.
Is it, though? It seems very possible to pass off a mifepristone-induced miscarriage (a.k.a. a medical abortion) as a naturally occurring miscarriage. The Texas law immunizes the woman herself from any penalty but any third party could sue her boyfriend, doctor, parents, pharmacist, etc. and require them to prove a negative; that they didn't provide any mifepristone (or the means to get it) to the woman who had a miscarriage.
And women have been imprisoned for their 'suspicious' miscarriages. Criminalising miscarriage is an extremely common part of many anti-choice laws. It's reality, not a straw man.
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
Would it seem odd for me to say, that I totally understand this, it makes complete sense to consider this "little bundle of cells" as a person and to understand the loss? While also understanding that for someone in a different situation that they don't experience the bundle of cells as a person. And that I get that too? Both seem valid to me, and I realize that my response is inconsistent, but the inconsistency seems necessary and okay.
I seem have a similar response of inconsistent ideas to a lot of other things too. I find myself agreeing with the perspective as right for the person in the situation. Perhaps this is rather shallow and too sensitive to feelings or something. Do others find themselves inconsistent like this too?
What I've also been, and I hesitate to share this out of fear that it will be derided as unimportant, is one half of a couple who tried for years to conceive, eventually needing IVF in order to have any chance. And it worked, and we had a little bundle of cells that we loved more than I can say. And then, between the first and second scans, the miscarriage happened. And we grieved. So much. So when you tell me that that little bundle of cells - our child - that we loved, cherished, and mourned - had no more intrinsic worth or importance than a removed cataract then I'm going to react badly.
Would it seem odd for me to say, that I totally understand this, it makes complete sense to consider this "little bundle of cells" as a person and to understand the loss? While also understanding that for someone in a different situation that they don't experience the bundle of cells as a person. And that I get that too? Both seem valid to me, and I realize that my response is inconsistent, but the inconsistency seems necessary and okay.
The use of the term "intrinsic worth" would seem to deny this interpretation. If the worth is truly "intrinsic" then there is only one right and proper way to regard this "little bundle of cells". Different people having different perspectives depending on their circumstances implies that worth is subjective rather than intrinsic.
This is one of the things that religiously motivated anti-abortionists don't face, that according to the premise that it's a human life from conception, then God (or just nature) is killing off far more humans than women ever do.
Sure, but that's not actually an argument. Before we had things like modern medicine and sanitation, then deaths in infancy were commonplace. Having a couple of siblings who died in childhood was the norm, not the exception. That didn't make it somehow acceptable to kill children. So I don't think you can reason anything about the morality of abortion based on the fact that a large number of zygotes never become pregnancies.
If Joe, a theoretical cis man, imagines truly being pregnant and having to push someone out of his body, he might feel that they were an alien-like invader. But if he wants to be a father, he may well take it for granted that his wife will do these things.
If Joe has a wife, and he and his wife have not already discussed and agreed their feelings about children, they've screwed up. His wife might want to have children, but not be pregnant - equally, she might not want to have children at all. Or she might want a dozen, but Joe only wants one or two, or doesn't want any. Well before they got married would have been a good time to have that conversation.
We are, ultimately, constrained by biology. The only way we have of getting more people is if they grow inside a person with a uterus. That's how our species works. So if you're a person with a uterus, and you want kids that are biologically yours, your choices are either to carry them yourself, or to employ a surrogate to do so for you. It is clear that, just from the numbers, the latter option can only be available to a small number of people. (It's probably at least theoretically possible that if you are a person with a uterus who wants to have a baby with another person with a uterus, that some genetic engineering could splice some of your genetic material into the other person's egg, and they carry the resultant baby. This isn't really a different case, though: it just casts "you" in the role of Joe in Gwai's example.)
(@Pomona: I am one of the people that used "it" to refer to a foetus. I was already using "they" to refer to the parent with the uterus, so using a different pronoun made the grammar clearer. Several years ago, I would have automatically used "she" to refer to the mother, and "they" to the foetus.)
Abbott: It doesn't require that at all, because obviously it provides at least 6 weeks [ ed: at most six weeks ] for a person to be able to get an abortion. So for one it doesn't provide that. That said, however, let's make something very clear: rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.
The first thing that leaped to my mind when I encountered this particular stupid quote was that, once again, we have an idiot getting the science wrong, because he comes from the school of "just make up shit you don't know about". Gestational age (which is what that 6 weeks refers to) is measured from the start of the parent's last menstrual period. The parent in question doesn't even ovulate until probably day 14 of the child's gestational age, and is most fertile for a few days around ovulation.
So in all probability, a person who is raped, and becomes pregnant as a consequence of that rape, probably has 4 weeks or less after their rape in which this law permits them to get an abortion - and this assumes that the first thing a rape victim does is rush out for "Plan B" just in case.
As @amybo pointed out upthread, many (most?) people don't even think about being pregnant until they miss their period, which means that a fairly typical woman is going to discover that she's pregnant approximately ten days before the Texas deadline. Menstrual cycles vary, so for some, the "ten days" will be even smaller. That's what this really means - not "six weeks", but "you've got about a week or so, during which you also have to work, care for any children you have, and so on. Poor people, as a rule, don't just get to drop their other responsibilities just because a problem has come up.
(I think the "intrinsic worth" discussion is interesting, and worth pursuing, but I wonder if we should do it in a separate thread.)
I think what you describe as inconsistency, I'd characterise as understanding. Cases are different.
Yes, I was thinking much the same thing. Cases are different, and people are different. Not attempting to force all situations into one mold is understanding and respecting those differences.
hosting
Croesos, this isn't Dead Horses, you've made your philosophic and linguistic point but you're doing so without showing any evidence of compassion for people sharing deeply painful experiences here and then querying people who do respond compassionately in order for you to make linguistic points. This isn't great and doesn't encourage people to share their (often raw and painful) lived experience as they might rightly think it's going to be insensitively nit-picked to death.
@Leorning Cniht 'wanting children' doesn't equal 'wanting biological children'. My future children won't be my biological children*, which is not important to me at all. It's not that I would actively prefer non-biological children (sounds like describing laundry detergent), I just really don't care whether me and my children share genes or not. Using iui (ie, using donor sperm) wouldn't make them less mine, so honestly it did not occur to me to consider that to most people 'having children' specifically means 'having biological children'. My future partner may or may not have a uterus but that wouldn't impact my feelings towards our children, however we were able to have children.
*many trans people opt to have their gametes frozen, but this is both expensive (it is not usually covered by the NHS even if someone's gender clinician advises them to do this) and also ovum are more complicated and less fun to extract than sperm, and require stopping testosterone and taking estrogen. So personally speaking, this is not a choice I wish to make.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. I had an earlier version of the post that included adoption, but it got too confusing, so I simplified it to "children who share your genetics" which does seem important to a number of people, but the issues look pretty much the same to those you have if you use donor gametes. If you're talking about a future partner of yours carrying a child conceived with donor sperm, the issues are not at all different from if you were a cis man and supplied the sperm yourself.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. I had an earlier version of the post that included adoption, but it got too confusing, so I simplified it to "children who share your genetics" which does seem important to a number of people, but the issues look pretty much the same to those you have if you use donor gametes. If you're talking about a future partner of yours carrying a child conceived with donor sperm, the issues are not at all different from if you were a cis man and supplied the sperm yourself.
I'm referring, clumsily to this:
So if you're a person with a uterus, and you want kids that are biologically yours, your choices are either to carry them yourself, or to employ a surrogate to do so for you.
This isn't true - for couples where both have a uterus and at least one has functional ovaries, the fertilised egg from one can be implanted into the other. This isn't surrogacy as if the couple are married or living together as married at the time of conception, they are both automatically the legal parents (as in the case where the pregnant partner uses their own egg).
Comments
It's not about a defined sense of importance regarding the foetus - obviously each pregnant person will feel differently. The comparison to cataracts is due to the relevent complexity and severity of the removal procedure, and also its lifesaving qualities. Even if someone feels completely heartbroken at say, getting an abortion due to an incomplete miscarriage, the existence of abortion being able to save their life without undue physical pain or distress is a positive medical development. The existence of safe and easy abortion is of huge medical benefit and due to the God-given medical gifts of those providing it, even if the person having one has different and more complex feelings.
That human life begins to have moral importance at conception(*) is usually a conservative religious position. (Again, not the Biblical position - I don't think there is a single Biblical position but in so far as there is I don't think it's that.) However, I'm not aware of any good secular argument for saying that it begins to have moral importance at any other point.
(As you note, when I say conservative religious opinion here what I really mean is religious opinion associated with people who have negative views on women's rights. It's not an opinion one would find in the impeccably RC Aquinas.)
That human life begins to have sufficient moral importance at conception as to make abortion always the wrong moral choice, let alone to justify the law in overriding the right of parents to decide for themselves what is best for their families, is I think almost universally a conservative religious opinion.
(*) This is slightly complicated by the possibility of identical twins.
Stating that people who can get pregnant shouldn't be forced to get birth and shouldn't be forced to have particular feelings about their safe and uneventful and wanted abortion, especially when the people advocating for said feelings are cis men (as per fucking usual), is a matter of medical and bodily autonomy. Catholic doctrine on the subject is primarily concerned with preventing individuals from having those things, women in particular - although everybody of every gender is harmed by doctrine which effectively removes someone's ability to consent to how they experience sexual pleasure and even marriage.
My pronouns are he/him, but yes it is noted that those outraged by the concept of comparing an abortion to a cataract removal cannot actually get pregnant themselves! I was under the impression that lived experience and being personally affected by something was prioritised in Epiphanies. Apparently not.
Everyone has dogmas. Some folks are just more transparent about it than others.
While everyone is busy discussing the importance of the embryo, let's remember also to discuss the importance of it's parent's time and effort. For instance, if a woman who works in most food places in the U.S. wants to have a child, she won't get any paid time off. And even if she does, she gets very little. She will have to work most of the pregnancy on her feet* without any support medical or timewise, keeping up with the rest of her coworkers who are have it physically easier. Even if she has absolutely no complications in her pregnancy, it's bloody exhausting. When anyone tells me that they are a caring person and about the 15 cells someone is carrying but doesn't care about the carrier, I am sceptical.
As someone who has been pregnant, it's much more uncomfortable being on your feet all the time while pregnant.
Is it? A single-celled fertilized egg is a human being? I think it's just as arguable from a secular, scientific point of view that humans grow gradually over time due to a tremendous amount of metabolic resources and effort by the person carrying the pregnancy without one clear defining moment where a sharp line can be drawn. Or maybe a series of sharp lines exist and picking any particular one is arbitrary. (The traditional Biblical standard was "quickening", where the fœtus can be felt to move.) One of the big bonuses of the "life begins at conception" position (from a patriarchal point of view) is that it more or less erases all the effort expended by women required to create a human being as being irrelevant and ascribes primary importance to a single moment that's more under male control than any other in process of creating a new human. It's hard to believe this is entirely coincidental.
I believe abortion should be available "as early as possible, as late as necessary."
My experience of a "late period" miscarriage at just seven weeks was that I lost a lot of blood, was in bed for a couple of days, and not fully recovered for a further ten days or so. Assuming that an early medical abortion would have been similar I don't recognise the description A medical abortion (as opposed to surgical) just means taking abortifacient medication, often at home, and having what is basically a heavy period. Why should such a simple and harmless medical procedure need to be rare?
But perhaps my experience of a loss at 7 weeks is atypical; a miscarriage at 12 weeks nearly killed me, so my experience might be an outlier.
When you said that you didn't think anyone though of cataract removal as a "sad concession", that obviously wasn't a statement about the complexity of the medical procedure.
People who think of abortion as a "sad concession" aren't passing comment on the level of medical challenge involved - they are precisely passing comment on the importance of the foetus. Nobody thinks of cataract surgery as a "sad concession" because they don't have those feelings about cataracts.
As it happens, "sad concession" rather encapsulates my own personal feelings about abortion. I can't think of abortion as merely excising some unwanted tissue, on a par with a cataract or skin tag removal. I also can't think of forcing someone who doesn't want a baby to carry a pregnancy to term as being in the slightest bit reasonable. So the only position I can hold is that of course someone who is pregnant should be able to choose to abort their pregnancy, but that I can regret the necessity. And of course it follows that I should support easy access to contraception to reduce the number of people that have to face such a choice. (Yes, and sex education, but the reasons to support sex and relationship education are rather wider than pregnancy, and I'd support it even in some techno-future where everyone had 100% effective contraception turned on by default.)
But my personal feelings aren't very relevant. For what little it's worth, I also know women who hold a full spectrum of feelings about the foetus - everywhere from religious conservatives who equate abortion to murder, through various variants of the "sad concession", "legal but rare" opinion, to several who share your "just a bunch of cells" opinion.
(I also agree with you about vasectomies and tubal ligations for people who know they don't want children. There's nothing magic about two kids that makes it reasonable for society and/or the medical establishment to assume that when people say "I've had two kids, I'm done" then they really mean it, but when they say "I don't want to have any kids", they must be mistaken. If you're an adult, you get to make permanent life-altering choices. This should include "I want my tubes tied and I understand that it might not be possible to reverse this in the future".)
@Pomona's post does contain an assumption that is worth bringing to the foreground. He writes about the importance of the foetus:
Obviously this is true. For some people, a foetus is a much loved and wanted child from the moment they are aware that it exists. For others, it's an unwanted clump of cells. And there's a spectrum of opinions in between, where you can find more people. The assumption is that "the importance of a foetus" is dependent on the feelings of the person in whose body it resides. And I don't think that's true.
It might be effectively true in practice (if you support, as I do, the right of a pregnant person to choose a termination, then perhaps there's little practical difference between thinking "the pregnant parent thinks it's just a worthless clump of cells, so that's what it is" and thinking "the foetus has value, but the pregnant parent takes precedence"), but this isn't the approach we usually take. We do not, as a society, consider (at least, not officially) that the importance of a small child depends on how their parents feel about them. So why does the importance of a foetus depend on its parents' feelings?
It is not necessary to hold the opinion that the importance of a foetus depends on its parent to hold a pro-choice position.
Though I suppose that if the evidence is that a significant number of people don't share the same intuitions you have on what constitutes decency, then your view of what makes acceptable legislation may also need adjusting.
It is something I've read in other research finding similar things before, one of the previous times that abortion came up in discussion, in earlier papers.
I can’t remember if my death and dying course has any research on termination and hidden grief but I’ll have a look.
It's not just complicated by the possibility of identical twins. It's complicated by actually taking into account what else has to happen between conception and... I was going to say birth, but really just taking into account what has to happen before you get to the point where anyone knows conception has happened.
If we think that a single cell is a human life, then we have to face the evidence that perhaps a majority of "human lives" end without any other human knowing about it. The fertilised egg doesn't implant in the womb. Or something else goes wrong within that first short period of time. The menstrual cycle goes on and no-one is any the wiser.
This is one of the things that religiously motivated anti-abortionists don't face, that according to the premise that it's a human life from conception, then God (or just nature) is killing off far more humans than women ever do.
Which is not to say that the only other response is to simply open the floodgates. But it's important to point out that the whole "it's all about conception" line of thinking is woefully simplistic and involves taking one tiny piece of knowledge about biology and ignoring everything else about biology.
Presumably what you're saying is that the foetus slowly becomes human? Human is something we develop into, with the fully human terminus being an adult able-bodied financially independent male, and those that don't quite meet that ideal are to that extent not fully human? (Come now: it's not as if you've never proffered a tendentious summary of someone else's views.
I assume you don't dispute that the point of view that one is fully human as one approaches the ideal of the able-bodied adult financially independent male exists in our society? And that it influences political discourse even by those who reject it when they're explicitly conscious of it?)
In other organisms the idea that non-adult stages are just as much part of the life cycle as the adult is uncontroversial. It looks controversial when we come to humans because we want to start making value judgements about it.
Ahem. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that people think about a puppy or a lamb exactly the same way they think about a cluster of cells inside a dog or a sheep.
"Non-adult" is a hopelessly inadequate description for what we are talking about here.
The cluster of cells is more difficult. AIUI we don't actually know at what point the cluster can no longer divide into two twins. If it is genuinely just a cluster and not a single entity, it can't be the same entity as the later entity. Fair enough.
The egg, caterpillar, pupa, and butterfly are all stages in the lifecycle of the same organism. There are much clearer dividing lines there than in mammalian gestation.
However in as many as 1 in 8 cases the early existence of in utero multiples results in a single birth, something called vanishing twin syndrome. Also rarely chimeric individuals occur from two fertilised zygotes fusing.
I'm not sure relying on twin studies to define personhood is that helpful.
Is there a distinction to be made between human cells, or even human life, and a human being?
And yet your very next post?
As an aside, I'm not actually childfree - I would like children but have no desire at all to be the one carrying them (and trans men who are happy to be pregnant in order to have kids are more common than others might think). That situation is not often catered for in these kinds of discussions - I want kids, I just never want to be pregnant ever. I know cis women who feel the same way, it's not even just a trans thing although I'm sure the dysphoria aspect is part of it.
I would take all precautions necessary to avoid getting pregnant and for me personally it would also be unlikely, but one thing I think cis men often fail to understand is that as long as rape exists pregnancy is never 100% avoidable* and that's always at the back of your mind.
*for those with a uterus who haven't been able to access tubal ligation or a hysterectomy - abstinence doesn't always work, but as far as I'm aware a total oophro-salpingo-hysterectomy** always does.
**removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the uterus - these are not automatically removed during a hysterectomy in order to prevent premature menopause.
I note the words 'for instance' were cut off that quote, Gareth Moon which alters the context. I can't see host tags on Gwai's post so will give you the benefit of the doubt this time for arguing with a host in the thread instead of taking it to the Styx. If you have genuine concerns about terminology it's possible to ask about that without seeming to be playing 'gotcha!' games which are inappropriate on this board. I can't see anything wrong with saying 'for instance a woman' or 'for instance a man' or 'for instance a non-binary person...' etc. and writing from that viewpoint - what matters is to remember when writing in general that not only women are affected but trans men and non binary people also and anyone who can get pregnant.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
It's true that I never have, nor ever will be pregnant. But I have been a zygote, an embryo and a fetus. Does that give me the right to comment on issues that affect zygotes, embryos and fetuses?
Hearing (seeing) your words about never wanting to be pregnant, I am reminded of a woman I know who might have wanted to be a mother though she won't be at this point. But her very skin crawls at the idea of being pregnant. And I think that's something that is missed from this conversation when people say that pregnancy is avoidable. If Joe, a theoretical cis man, imagines truly being pregnant and having to push someone out of his body, he might feel that they were an alien-like invader. But if he wants to be a father, he may well take it for granted that his wife will do these things.
(And thanks for the correction.)
For what it's worth, I respect that. And even if it isn't going to change my POV, I'm always very aware of the way that everyone has a story, and in most cases people's convictions are, very logically, derived from their emotional vulnerabilities. That's real and I won't mock it.
I have found that abortion, again, for eminently sensible reasons, hits on a lot of people's buttons.
I suppose the following partial triptych might be a parable of sorts, though the third section is a blank page. Read if you feel up for it, it's a button-pusher.
I don't have a lot of personal connections, myself. But I was having a conversation years ago with a high school friend, and the "rape exception" comes up. She says, as far as I can tell honestly, that her mother was raped. I was a little blindsided by this tack, wasn't aware, and I think I said something like "well, I'm glad your mom made that choice." I'll elide the question of whether her mom's delivery was voluntary, because that's a kind of trauma I wouldn't get into without professional training. It's heavy.
I related that story to another friend, more recently, and this told me another story. Their mother had been in an abusive relationship with a jerk boyfriend, and she got pregnant. Mother went and got an abortion and eventually got out of the relationship with the jerk boyfriend. Later on in life, mom met a better guy, got pregnant again, and so my friend was born. And my friend will say very straightforwardly "if my mother hadn't had that abortion, I would not exist, and she would've been trapped in an abusive relationship.
My one reflection on these stories is that life can be scarily capricious. If these are acts of God, God is strange and mysterious. And I will not step between someone else and God.
I do not wish to erase anyone's pain.
Is that worth "intrinsic"? I'd say it's more ascribed (assigned from outside by you and your partner) than intrinsic (inherent regardless outside opinion).
Just a gentle reminder to all folk to bear in mind that these are really painful real life issues with multiple points of view and not to get too far into the philosophical weeds without thinking about how this isn't an abstract discussion for many, if not most, folk posting here.
Cheers
L
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
I'm so sorry for your loss.
I had a miscarriage of a badly-wanted pregnancy at 13 weeks. I mourned the life that would not be, the parent that I would not become. I saw the chunk of tissue when I miscarried in my bathroom. I never thought of it as a person. It just wasn't one yet. Maybe Texas wouldn't think so either because they never found a heartbeat?
When I gave birth a few years later, it wasn't until I held the baby in my arms that I felt like I had a person. Even though I felt like I had been a mother that whole time. So everyone's experience is different.
Doing the math, doctors count pregnancy from the last period. One generally gets knocked up halfway through a period, when they ovulate about 2 weeks later. And discovers one is pregnant after a missed period, 4-5 weeks later. A 6-week abortion ban is beyond ridiculous.
So what happens to the person who miscarries? Do they get punished for not being the ideal host? Do they go to jail or have to prove they didn't do it on purpose? Do they have to fish a chunk of tissue out of the toilet so someone can test it?
Good news on that front, then. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has promised to completely eliminate rape in Texas.
A couple problems here. First and most obviously, prosecuting rapists post facto is not going to prevent any pregnancies. Second, a lot of rapes (and incest, which Abbott avoids talking about) happen in homes, not "the streets of Texas" and framing it in this way leads me to doubt whether Abbott actually understands this.
You can see the video f Abbott tap-dancing around a question he really doesn't want to answer here, if you're so inclined.
Thank you.
We've had two children since - one though a second round of IVF, the second through what I can only describe as a miracle. But that first one is still in our hearts. We have its* picture (from the post-IVF scan) on our wall.
*= this word choice indicates nothing more nor less than the fact that it died well before any gender identification was possible.
I think this is a bit of a strawman. Not because I think a miscarriage isn't a death, but because I think it's a natural death. Nobody is to blame, nobody should be punished.
Is it, though? It seems very possible to pass off a mifepristone-induced miscarriage (a.k.a. a medical abortion) as a naturally occurring miscarriage. The Texas law immunizes the woman herself from any penalty but any third party could sue her boyfriend, doctor, parents, pharmacist, etc. and require them to prove a negative; that they didn't provide any mifepristone (or the means to get it) to the woman who had a miscarriage.
First of all, I'm the only one who has used the cataract comparison. I used it because if I had to get an abortion, that's the kind of equivalent surgery/procedure I would see it as - maybe not pleasant as such, but medically not complicated and with minimal side-effects. I've also said that every pregnant person feels differently. That I would feel that way about my own (so far, fortunately hypothetical*) abortion doesn't mean I would see your experience of miscarriage in the same way, not least because I would have eagerly consented to my abortion and you and your partner did not consent to the miscarriage. Cataracts don't just fall off, and nobody would rather keep them - it was like all analogies, limited to that one specific scenario. I guess the equivalent would maybe be something like cochlear implants and their controversy within the Deaf community? But I am not Deaf so I don't feel equipped to make that comparison. I don't know if there is a more appropriate analogy, sorry.
[hosting - while I appreciate this comes from a heartfelt place and your own experiences of bullying I don't think it's OK to question too much how someone talks about a painful bereavement. I think that is getting too personal - Louise Epiphanies Host]
I think for me the issue - as someone who does want children, as I have said - is that worth not being intrinsic doesn't mean the worth you give something is less real. I definitely believe that your miscarried child was really your child, and also that my aborted foetus really would NOT be a child. But also, if me and a future partner experienced a miscarriage, that would be our child. I suppose it's not hugely dissimilar to many Eucharistic theologies, akin to Spiritual Union maybe? It doesn't make it not real.
I appreciate that everyone was a foetus at one stage, but you're not a foetus anymore. Whereas people who can get pregnant experience it as an ongoing risk. Similarly, in discussions of sex work for example, former sex workers' experiences are not given the same weight as current sex workers. Because their experiences aren't equivalent. It's not like people even remember things from before they were born. It's a really specious argument and demeans those who actually experience pregnancy, and erases the fact that anti-choice legislation is overwhelmingly decided by those who will never have to have an abortion.
*I am thankful to not have experienced the distress of an unwanted pregnancy even if I would not see the removal of said pregnancy as anything but a relief
And women have been imprisoned for their 'suspicious' miscarriages. Criminalising miscarriage is an extremely common part of many anti-choice laws. It's reality, not a straw man.
Would it seem odd for me to say, that I totally understand this, it makes complete sense to consider this "little bundle of cells" as a person and to understand the loss? While also understanding that for someone in a different situation that they don't experience the bundle of cells as a person. And that I get that too? Both seem valid to me, and I realize that my response is inconsistent, but the inconsistency seems necessary and okay.
I seem have a similar response of inconsistent ideas to a lot of other things too. I find myself agreeing with the perspective as right for the person in the situation. Perhaps this is rather shallow and too sensitive to feelings or something. Do others find themselves inconsistent like this too?
The use of the term "intrinsic worth" would seem to deny this interpretation. If the worth is truly "intrinsic" then there is only one right and proper way to regard this "little bundle of cells". Different people having different perspectives depending on their circumstances implies that worth is subjective rather than intrinsic.
Sure, but that's not actually an argument. Before we had things like modern medicine and sanitation, then deaths in infancy were commonplace. Having a couple of siblings who died in childhood was the norm, not the exception. That didn't make it somehow acceptable to kill children. So I don't think you can reason anything about the morality of abortion based on the fact that a large number of zygotes never become pregnancies.
If Joe has a wife, and he and his wife have not already discussed and agreed their feelings about children, they've screwed up. His wife might want to have children, but not be pregnant - equally, she might not want to have children at all. Or she might want a dozen, but Joe only wants one or two, or doesn't want any. Well before they got married would have been a good time to have that conversation.
We are, ultimately, constrained by biology. The only way we have of getting more people is if they grow inside a person with a uterus. That's how our species works. So if you're a person with a uterus, and you want kids that are biologically yours, your choices are either to carry them yourself, or to employ a surrogate to do so for you. It is clear that, just from the numbers, the latter option can only be available to a small number of people. (It's probably at least theoretically possible that if you are a person with a uterus who wants to have a baby with another person with a uterus, that some genetic engineering could splice some of your genetic material into the other person's egg, and they carry the resultant baby. This isn't really a different case, though: it just casts "you" in the role of Joe in Gwai's example.)
(@Pomona: I am one of the people that used "it" to refer to a foetus. I was already using "they" to refer to the parent with the uterus, so using a different pronoun made the grammar clearer. Several years ago, I would have automatically used "she" to refer to the mother, and "they" to the foetus.)
The first thing that leaped to my mind when I encountered this particular stupid quote was that, once again, we have an idiot getting the science wrong, because he comes from the school of "just make up shit you don't know about". Gestational age (which is what that 6 weeks refers to) is measured from the start of the parent's last menstrual period. The parent in question doesn't even ovulate until probably day 14 of the child's gestational age, and is most fertile for a few days around ovulation.
So in all probability, a person who is raped, and becomes pregnant as a consequence of that rape, probably has 4 weeks or less after their rape in which this law permits them to get an abortion - and this assumes that the first thing a rape victim does is rush out for "Plan B" just in case.
As @amybo pointed out upthread, many (most?) people don't even think about being pregnant until they miss their period, which means that a fairly typical woman is going to discover that she's pregnant approximately ten days before the Texas deadline. Menstrual cycles vary, so for some, the "ten days" will be even smaller. That's what this really means - not "six weeks", but "you've got about a week or so, during which you also have to work, care for any children you have, and so on. Poor people, as a rule, don't just get to drop their other responsibilities just because a problem has come up.
(I think the "intrinsic worth" discussion is interesting, and worth pursuing, but I wonder if we should do it in a separate thread.)
Which is why laws are at best a blunt instrument and really really bad laws like this one agents of active destruction.
Croesos, this isn't Dead Horses, you've made your philosophic and linguistic point but you're doing so without showing any evidence of compassion for people sharing deeply painful experiences here and then querying people who do respond compassionately in order for you to make linguistic points. This isn't great and doesn't encourage people to share their (often raw and painful) lived experience as they might rightly think it's going to be insensitively nit-picked to death.
So please back off with this.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
hosting off
*many trans people opt to have their gametes frozen, but this is both expensive (it is not usually covered by the NHS even if someone's gender clinician advises them to do this) and also ovum are more complicated and less fun to extract than sperm, and require stopping testosterone and taking estrogen. So personally speaking, this is not a choice I wish to make.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. I had an earlier version of the post that included adoption, but it got too confusing, so I simplified it to "children who share your genetics" which does seem important to a number of people, but the issues look pretty much the same to those you have if you use donor gametes. If you're talking about a future partner of yours carrying a child conceived with donor sperm, the issues are not at all different from if you were a cis man and supplied the sperm yourself.
I'm referring, clumsily to this:
This isn't true - for couples where both have a uterus and at least one has functional ovaries, the fertilised egg from one can be implanted into the other. This isn't surrogacy as if the couple are married or living together as married at the time of conception, they are both automatically the legal parents (as in the case where the pregnant partner uses their own egg).