Monday, January 22, 2007

Why I am pro-choice

Blog for Choice Day - January 22, 2007

Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and as part of the celebration -- and it should be a celebration -- bloggers are posting about why they are pro-choice. My reasons are simple: decisions should be made by whomever is affected by them in direct proportion to the amount they are so affected. The decision of whether or not to gestate a fetus for nine months affects a pregnant woman far more than anybody else involved, including the source of the sperm, and certainly including the state. Therefore, there is no person with such an overwhelming interest in the outcome of that decision that their opinion should have any influence on the ability and right of the woman herself to make it.

The question is not, to me, why women should have the right to do with their bodies as they please, but why shouldn't they? What argument can forced-pregnancy advocates provide that justifies stripping a person of such a right? They all amount to enacting undue control over women's private lives, with the sole exception of the argument that a fetus has rights. If a fetus has a right to life, then obviously this would conflict with a woman's right to control her body, and there would be room for a healthy debate on the matter.

There is no such room.

Rights are the tools we use as societies to protect the interests of individuals. The key word in that sentence is interests. Something must have interests before it can have them protected by a right. The minimum necessary for something to have interests is the ability to feel pain, the ability to suffer. If a being cannot suffer it cannot be harmed, as harm is the infliction of suffering. Therefore all things with the ability to suffer have an interest in not suffering. How this relates to fetuses is not a question that must be left to speculation; there is ample scientific research into the matter. Pain receptors in fetuses are not connected to the brain until roughly 30 weeks, a time frame supported by electroencephalography. More than 99% of all abortions are performed before the fetus has the ability to feel pain, making such arguments entirely moot. Even after the 30th week, the evidence suggests that fetuses are not conscious. Almost every abortion performed at this point, and they are rare, is done for medical rather than personal reasons. How many women would carry a fetus for eight months if they didn't have to? Even in the event that fetuses could suffer from these abortions, their interest must be weighed against that of the woman -- and a conscious adult with dreams and desires has far more interests to be frustrated than a fetus.

I am pro-choice because only pregnant women have a compelling claim on making choices that affect themselves more than any other person. I am pro-choice because abortion is good for a woman who wants one, and I want good for women.

11 comments:

  1. I am pro-choice because abortion is good for a woman who wants one, and I want good for women.

    Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. -Alice Paul

    Good is providing options that both mother and child can live with, rather than options that leave her abandoned and bleeding. Abortion is never good for women, physically, emotionally, or spiritually. Certain men like to think so to facilitate their own exploitation of women. Instead of looking at women as inflatable dolls for physical gratification only, I see women as *gasp* human beings. Women have the capacity to create life and aren't simply inanimate receptacles for sperm that can be pried open and scraped out when this reality hits home in the form of two blue lines on a pregnancy test.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good is providing options that both mother and child...

    There is no child involved in an abortion. It is impossible for abortion to harm children.

    ...can live with, rather than options that leave her abandoned and bleeding.

    Which is what happens when abortion is illegal, and therefore women who seek them must get them done in less than ideal circumstances.

    Abortion is never good for women, physically, emotionally, or spiritually.

    http://www.imnotsorry.net

    Physically speaking, fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients require hospitalization for complications. Repeated psychological studies have found that abortion poses very little long-term risk of mental health problems. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association found that limiting women's access to abortions caused more harm than abortions themselves did.

    P.S. Women can't be harmed spiritually, because spirituality is bullshit.

    Certain men like to think so to facilitate their own exploitation of women. Instead of looking at women as inflatable dolls for physical gratification only, I see women as *gasp* human beings.

    Human beings who you want to force into gestating fetuses. Forcing people to do things with their bodies is called slavery, you know. Stripping women of their capacity to chose whether or not to let something grow inside them reduces them to gestation machines for nine months.

    Women have the capacity to create life and aren't simply inanimate receptacles for sperm that can be pried open and scraped out when this reality hits home in the form of two blue lines on a pregnancy test.

    The majority of abortions are provided for women who already have children. It is abundantly clear to themselves and everyone else that they have the capacity to create life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abortion is murder. when you have an abortion what becomes of that life within? he/she dies. So why does that give the woman the right to choose? When you talk about "choices" then let yourself be aware that abortion is not a form of choice. It's control over that individual. In this case a unborn child. A unborn child is a human making them a person. If not show me the proof they are not. Because my proof is Biology and on-line websites that has proven them to be a living human-being. If we can say abortion should remain legal and allowed to be made by the choices of women then what next? It will oneday be legal to kill a newborn, infant, toddler and the elderly since they too will become seen as a "parasite"(a word choicer's like to use on a fetus) since they still depend on someone even if not the biological parent for their survival.

    If these unborn children were not alive, not a human person then how is it by the 3rd month they resemble the human features? Better yet, how its it the moment of conception change is taking place within that fertilized egg, giving this life its own set of D.N.A, that always has their height, eye color, hair, weight and what they will look like? Sure they have the potential of becoming a baby with time, just like a newborn has the potential of becoming a infant. And as we have the potentail to become the elerly. You can ignore the facts but as Aldous Huxley said,"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

    Abortion IS Murder because you are allowing their life to be taken at your own will. it's not a choice. its a child.

    Christina Gallardo
    icyfyeress@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Selfish (Adj.)

    1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits,
    devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

    2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

    (American Heritage Dictionary)

    Hmmm ...

    Now it's simply a matter of proving the fetus is alive. This blogger is already selfish -- no question about that. But if we can prove the fetus is a living being, we can prove the blogger is an advocate of selective murder.

    --Andy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So ... if I cannot feel pain, does that mean I have no "interest" and thereby would not suffer; therefore murdering me is OK?

    To Andy's comment: The Mayo Clinic Web site has this to offer about the fourth week (after which most abortions occur):

    "The fourth week marks the beginning of the embryonic period, when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. Your baby is now 1/25 of an inch long.

    "The embryo is now made of three layers. The top layer — the ectoderm — will give rise to a groove along the midline of your baby's body. This will become the neural tube, where your baby's brain, spinal cord, spinal nerves and backbone will develop.

    "Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby's bones, muscles, kidneys and much of the reproductive system."

    Yeah.

    -Luke McKibben, Denton, Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The majority of abortions are provided for women who already have children. It is abundantly clear to themselves and everyone else that they have the capacity to create life.

    Then shouldn't they know better? You don't know the audacity and shock of women when they realize that they are pregnant as if they had nothing to do with it- as if an alien has implanted itself if their helpless uterus.

    P.S. Women can't be harmed spiritually, because spirituality is bullshit.

    Wow, seeings how a majority of the world's women ascribe to some brand of spirituality, I think dismissing it as "bullshit" does not a compelling argument make, especially since 90% of women regret their abortions. Since you found the one website with a count of what, 500 deluded, unrepentant women who don't regret their abortions, I don't see any real evidence that abortion isn't harmful. Whereas I can show you skyrocketed suicide rates of aborted women (9 times more likely, they are), drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and a host of other negative consequences. If abortion is good for women, why isn't there any fruit to that aspect?

    Human beings who you want to force into gestating fetuses. Forcing people to do things with their bodies is called slavery, you know. Stripping women of their capacity to chose whether or not to let something grow inside them reduces them to gestation machines for nine months.

    I've never been "forced" to gestate anything. I make choices and recognize that my choices have consequences. One such consequence is a separate and unique human life that would not exist without my consent to sex. Crash course in responsibility: accepting natural consequences is not forcing anything. Prying open a cervix and vaccuuming out a human being is not a natural consequence, it's a selfish cop-out at the expense of another human life. To equate taking responsibility for a human being you created with slavery is downright vulgar.

    Which is what happens when abortion is illegal, and therefore women who seek them must get them done in less than ideal circumstances.

    Any abortion is a sign that a woman has been abandoned and oppressed. I quote early feminist Mattie Brinkerhoff:

    "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
    The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869

    Thus, there is no ideal circumstance. Abortions are a sign of desperation or selfishness, either one, often both. You think the human woman can not handle that which is normal to the common housecat? Pregnancy is not a disease that requires a remedy.

    There is no child involved in an abortion. It is impossible for abortion to harm children.

    Of course you've deluded yourself into thinking such. It would make it quite difficult to support fetal dismemberment otherwise. Just so you know- if this actually were true, there'd be no argument between us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I realise that this post was months ago but I thought I'd comment.

    First, I am also vegan and genuinely curious abut the issue and how it fits with veganism. I am probably pro-choice in that I believe it is the woman's choice and only hers - I will not impose my opinions & beliefs (or lack thereof) upon another.

    I agree with a lot of the compelling statements you have made within your blog and these comments but I am still uncertain about the "potential for human life" issue. Indeed, a comparison can be made between ordinary cells of the body and that of the embryo/fetus but none of those cells have the potential to become anything more than a component of an already existing human life. Note that I am agnostic and thus consider the religious aspects irrelevant. But, the potential - founded in religion or rationality - is still there.

    I have listened to/read some of the opinions of Gary Francione about it but I am still unsure.

    Like I said I am just curious as to how this connects with veganism; if I said something ignorant or simply wrong, correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for your comment.

    Yes, a fetus is a potential person. The question is: so what? It isn't a person now, so it can't be harmed now. One day, you will be dead. You are, in effect, a potential corpse. Does that mean that we should treat you as a corpse? Of course not -- you're alive, autonomous, conscious, and you have a desire to live. The same applies to a fetus in reverse. That it could one day have all of these things doesn't mean it has them now, and you can't harm something that doesn't yet exist.

    As to veganism, I think Gary Francione is right on the money with the issue. Sentient beings should have rights; women are sentient, fetuses are not (certainly not when the vast majority of abortions are performed).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice post ryan. I see that you still have quite the way to argue your point.

    Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fetuses are human life, but not human persons.
    They are unable to make decisions, think for themselves, and are unable to feel pain...so....how does killing them cause harm?
    How can you harm something that doesnt even have the ability to know or care that it is alive?

    Women, on the other hand, if they are forced to give birth -- thats a life-changing, difficult thing there. Making abortion illegal will do nothing more than drive women to get illegal abortions, which are unsafe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Science On Our Side About Abortion


    This was written by a biology student, explaining how to identify if something is alive...



    Living things are made up of cells. Yep, and the fetus is no execption.

    Living things reproduce. From an early point in the pregnancy the fetus is forming as either male or female. Once born and sexually mature, the same fetus will be able to reproduce.

    Living things are based on a universal genetic code.Yes, the fetus has DNA. (Which might I add, is different than that of the mother. There goes the "It's a woman's body" debate.)

    Living things grow and develop. A fetus grows and develops, at a much faster rate than an adult or even a baby.

    Living things obtain and use materials and energy. Fetuses do this, too- the only difference is that tey obtain what they need via the mother. Some pro-aborts might argue that they are dependent on their mothers for food and are thus not alive. Ridiculous. Even infants that are already born are dependent on adults for food- how many babies do you know that are able find food and feed themselves without any assistance by their parents?

    Living things respond to their environment. At just six weeks, a fetus will respond to it's cheek being stroked, and by nine, a fetus responds to loud noises. And they can recognise their mother's voice, too- studies suggest that a fetuses heart rate slows down when the mother is speaking, which suggests that this calms the fetus. At around 17 weeks, unborn babies can feel and respond to temperature changes, pain, and pressure. If they are pricked with a needle, they will draw back, just as you or I would, and their heart rates increase.

    Living things maintain a stable internal environment. from the earliest stages of pregnancy, a fetus has been developing all of the organs it needs to maintain a core body temp., get rid of wastes, take in certian nutrients, protect the body from invading viruses or bacteria etc, etc. In addition all the cells that make up the fetus maintain homeostasis. Granted, if a baby is very premature it might not be able to survive, but in the fetuse's environment, the womb, it is perfectly suited to maintain homeostasis.

    Taken as a group, living things evolve over time. Fetuses are human beings. Even if someone still in doubt that they are alive, there is no way to dispute their humanity- they don't just magically change into humans the day they are born. Over time, living organisms change or adapt to their environment- and so do humans. So although an individual human being does not genetically adapt to fit the needs of his/her environment, he/she is still human because the entire population of humans does evolve.


    Note by me about last comment, for those of you who know me might say about this last point "Michael you can't use that you don't believe in evolution." My explanation is that I don't believe in Macroevolution(as this has never been proven and is essential for the Evolutionary Theory to be true). But all this is an example of microevolution(which is scientific fact, and by the way the only one of six types of evolution to be proven. All six are needed for the theory of evolution to work).

    ReplyDelete