I suppose that many of my upcoming posts will touch, in one way or another, on the experience of becoming a father. My daughter is one week old today, and she and my wife are resting comfortably at home. Our little girl — whose name will be given soon — is perfect and lovely and captivating, and my wife has never been more beautiful and amazing in my eyes. It’s a happy time, albeit a sleep-deprived one.
It would be odd if going through this pregnancy with my wife and watching my daughter be born didn’t have a profound impact on how I see the world. The whole experience shaped, and is continuing to shape, many aspects of my thinking. I have no doubt at all that parenthood will continue to transform me, though that is hardly my child’s primary purpose in the world. My job is to love her, hers is to be loved unconditionally, and whatever insights come along the way are a bonus. And one way in which this journey has impacted me very profoundly is in my views on feminism.
Years ago, Susan Bordo wrote a wonderful essay: Are Mothers Persons? Reproductive Rights and Subject-ivity, which appeared in her Unbearable Weight. Bordo makes the point that our American legal system has an historic concern for the autonomy of the individual, but that a pregnant woman’s right to bodily integrity is uniquely subject to challenge:
The essence of the pregnant woman, by contrast, is her biological, purely mechanical role in preserving the life of another. In her case, this is the given value, against which her claims to subjectivity must be rigorously evaluated, and they will usually be found wanting insofar as they conflict with her life-support function. In the face of such a conflict, her valuations, choices, consciousness are expendable.
In other words, my wife’s status as an independent person collapsed, in the eyes of the world, the moment folks started to realize she was pregnant. And while I’d been quite prepared to discuss reproductive rights theory with colleagues and students, nothing has shaped my gut feelings about the issue of women’s subjectivity like witnessing my wife’s pregnancy and the birth of this daughter. And believe me, nothing has made me more committed to feminist principles than this experience!
It is much commented upon, but no less remarkable for its frequency: an amazing number of people seem to believe that they have the right to touch a pregnant woman’s belly. My wife, who has a keen sense of body integrity, did not like to have her stomach touched by anyone other than me and her various professional caregivers. But for the last four months of her pregnancy, as her belly began to swell, family and friends and even strangers made all sorts of attempts to get their hands on her tummy. My wife got very good at fending people off politely, and I did my best to remain cool while helping (particularly with my family) to keep prying hands at bay.
I remember one relative saying as she honed in for the stomach about six weeks ago, “I want to touch the baby.” My wife demurred gracefully, but I remember thinking something along the lines of “Damn it, the baby is in my wife’s uterus. You cannot possibly ‘touch the baby’; all you will be touching is my wife — can’t you see that she’s still a person too? When the baby is out of my wife, separate from her flesh, you’ll be able to hold her. But for now, this life to come is concealed inside of another person whose body is no less autonomous in pregnancy than before or after.” I said this in gentler terms, but am afraid that I came across as puritanically concerned with protecting my wife’s modesty rather than as an advocate for her rights.
If my wife had had breast implants (which she most certainly hasn’t), I can’t imagine anyone walking up to her and asking to feel them, much less putting their paws unbidden on her boobs. Of course, gels and silicones are not potential lives in the way a fetus is. But the principle of bodily autonomy is still the same. It is reasonable to be excited about a baby before it is born; it is reasonable to marvel at the process by which humans grow from zygote to autonomous personhood. It is reasonable and right to want to draw near to a pregnant woman who carries this potential life inside of her, particularly when that potential life is a longed-for grandchild or niece or cousin. But the desire to hold a precious baby doesn’t trump a pregnant woman’s “subject-hood”; even as the baby gradually becomes (in both body and soul) a separate being, until birth that separate being is entirely concealed within and dependent upon a person whose autonomy is just as great as it is when the child-to-be is not present. Watching my wife’s pregnancy drove that home for me as nothing else ever has.
The fact that a baby comes out of a woman’s body is wondrous indeed. I knew that in the abstract, I know that much more viscerally now. To see my daughter born was one of the great experiences of my life. But I never lost sight of the reality that my wife was more than a vessel to carry this new and splendid creature. My wife’s rights didn’t diminish with conception and with each passing week of gestation. I knew a longed-for and desperately wanted new life grew inside of her, but the emphasis was always as much on “inside of her” as on the “new life.” And I assure you that my wonder at the miracle of life is matched, and even surpassed, by the wonder at what a woman’s body can do if that woman chooses to make it happen.
My journey on the subject of abortion rights has been a long one. Until my early thirties, I was reflexively pro-choice. I grew up with a mother who was a Planned Parenthood volunteer, and in a family that had given to that worthy organization since the time of Margaret Sanger. When I got my high school girlfriend pregnant, she and I were both deeply grateful to have access to a safe and inexpensive abortion. But when I hit my early thirties and was “born again” as a Christian, I went through a brief but intense period (from, say, about 2000-2004) where I became what I called “prayerfully pro-life.” I was never in favor of banning abortion outright, but moved to the point where I saw it as a moral horror which ought to be discouraged by every possible alternative. It fit in well with the Anabaptist pacifist views I held during those years; I was a good “consistent-lifer”, opposed to capital punishment, war, abortion, and meat-eating. It was very satisfying to imagine myself so consistent.
But in the middle of this decade, as my blog posts from 04-05 will show, I began to return to the pro-choice position, albeit with a more solemn appreciation for the immense complexities involved in the tension between the right of a child to be born and the right of a woman to be sovereign over her own flesh. But my goodness, going through this pregnancy with my wife, as closely as any man can, has reinforced my pro-choice position like nothing else!
Yes, I saw my future daughter on the ultrasound, starting at about eleven weeks. It was a delight to see this little thing bouncing around. That it was real and animate was undeniable — but that it was inside of my wife and absolutely inextricably linked to her body was equally undeniable. It was “our baby” in one sense, but at this point it was far more hers than mine. Not because fathers matter less than mothers, but because this potential person could and would exist no matter what I did, but had no life at all without my wife.
Of course, I was filled with immense gratitude towards my life partner for her willingness to do what I could not do, which was carry our child for nine months. But my wife deserved more than gratitude: she deserved, I understood, recognition that she had a unique legal and moral standing in relationship to the growing life inside of her. She was a mother-to-be, yes, and in some sense at 12 weeks gestation already a mom. But she was still an autonomous person, and her autonomy was sufficiently overarching that it (in this case, only theoretically) trumped any competing claim that either I (or our future child herself) could make.
Giving birth — whether by ceserean section or vaginally — hurts. The recovery hurts. That point is being driven home to me daily as I watch my wife recover. She considers the pain well worth it, well worth it because this baby was longed for and wanted. But we both shudder, more than ever now, at the thought of compelling a woman to go through this process against her will.
Of course, once our daughter was born, my wife lost that kind of radical sovereignty over our baby, for the simple and obvious reason that a new subject had come into the world. Our daughter is still dependent, and because she is being breast-fed, she is more dependent upon my wife than upon me. But there are no doubts about her separate personhood now, and though she is small and vulnerable, she is sentient and aware and able to live outside of my wife’s body. If necessary, God forbid, she could live without her mother altogether. Infanticide is an unspeakable horror to me as never before; I would do anything today to protect every precious hair on my child’s perfect little body. But abortion, I understand better than ever now, is not infanticide.
Becoming a father is, on a daily basis, making me a different and (one hopes) a better, kinder, more thoughtful man. I cannot begin to explain how much I love this little girl, and how I loved her from the moment I saw her. And of course, I loved her before she emerged from the womb. Was there a person there before she was born? Surely. Was there a soul there? My faith tells me yes, there was. But that person was inextricably linked to and dependent upon another person, a sovereign woman, one whose body bore the entire brunt of pregnancy and all its attendant burdens and joys. I am so glad my wife and I have had this child; I rejoice in the choice we made together. But my reverence for the principle of feminist autonomy has never been stronger than it is now, as a consequence of witnessing so closely this journey my wife and baby were on together for the better part of a year.
More thoughts to come.
A hearty mazal tov to you and your wife, Hugo! What glorious news. May you both be enriched and expanded by your experiences of parenthood, and may your daughter know every blessing.
I look forward to your continued musing on parenthood in time.
“I cannot begin to explain how much I love this little girl, and how I loved her from the moment I saw her.”
No need to explain - I think I know the feeling :)
Congratulations to you and your wife, and may God bless and protect your new child.
Hugo,
again, congratulations, and all the best to you, your wife, and your daughter! I am personally effectively “pro-choice”, for a number of reasons most of which have to do with “women’s health” but certainly not because of the argument you outline above - bodily integrity.
“The essence of the pregnant woman, by contrast, is her biological, purely mechanical role in preserving the life of another. In her case, this is the given value, against which her claims to subjectivity must be rigorously evaluated, and they will usually be found wanting insofar as they conflict with her life-support function. In the face of such a conflict, her valuations, choices, consciousness are expendable.”
I don’t agree with the last sentence - but it remains absolutely logically clear that the unborn child has rights. Just as a child that is born has a right to be taken care of by his or her parents, a right that clearly has effects on the bodily autonomy of said parents, even if only measurable in sleep-deprivation, the unborn child has the same moral right to be taken care of. This right has to be weighed against the mother’s right to bodily integrity - in a morally and biologically complex and interdependent situation like a pregnancy, there are no simple truths. Again, as much as I support a technical “pro-choice” position politically, I am well aware of the logically weakest point of the standard argument for that position: absolute bodily integrity.
I love this post. And I agree 100% with everything you’ve written here.
I’m not a religious person at all–increasingly I keep moving more and more toward atheism, but I was raised Catholic. And even as a very religious teenager, I always had problems with the pro-life position, for exactly the reasons you’ve said (and better than I could have). In fact, that’s one of the main reasons I’ve left the church. And becoming pregnant and having children (by choice and on purpose–neither of my kids were ‘accidents’) has done more to push me toward being militantly pro-choice than anything else in my life has done. I actually made an entirely new person inside my body and I did it twice. And much as I love and wanted my children, being pregnant was not a pleasant experience for me, and giving birth was the most painful thing I’ve ever experienced. It would be nothing short of torture to force someone to go through that against her will.
Also, I agree with your wife on the belly touching. I don’t like to be touched by anyone other than my husband or kids in general, and when pregnant it seems like the stomach becomes public property (I’m a substitute teacher and teenagers seem to have less sense of the appropriate here, so I was constantly fending off unwanted touches). It’s completely infuriating. Just because I’m growing a new person doesn’t mean that my body ceases to be mine.
Congratulations! And I hope you get some sleep. :-)
It was when I became pregnant with my first son that I switched from “pro-life” to “pro-choice”. I made a choice to have my child, but I could never force another woman to do the same. Being pregnant very much opened my eyes to that.
I was fortunate, though, in that I come from a very non-touchy-feely German family. No one would’ve ever thought about touching my belly, and it’s probably a good thing. :-)
I never wanted kids. I was already clear on that, had been from VERY young (like, five or six). But when I read Bordo in a women’s studies class in college, and a classmate spoke up to corroborate Bordo with her own story of being a teenage mother, another set of reasons got added to the already-very-long list of “reasons Adrienne is not getting pregnant, EVAR”.
See, i am a pacifist, and a pretty vehement one. But the first time some random stranger (of any gender!) came up and tried to manhandle me because of a pregnancy, I’m pretty sure I’d end up on trial for assault. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR, and people do not get to act like they have minority share over MY goddamn body.
“. . . her autonomy was sufficiently overarching that it (in this case, only theoretically) trumped any competing claim that either I (or our future child herself) could make.” Your future child, by herself, could not make any competing claim — that would have been a physical impossibility. She was totally dependent on your wife’s sovereign body who chose to bring her into the world.
One must appreciate your struggle with the entire abortion question since it is the single most divisive issue in American public discourse. At what point do you think someone should assert a competing claim on behalf of a newborn?
Why do people have the urge to feel a pregnant woman’s tummy? In the culture I live in, it is freely tolerated, in fact with pride by the mother, at least when close friends and relatives are doing the touching.
I think it has to do with wonderment, happiness.
Maybe it has to do with:
“Your children are not your children. . .
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.”
At what point do you think someone should assert a competing claim on behalf of a newborn?
When it’s born and out.
KS, well said.
Captcrisis, I’m a great believer that a child does not belong to its parents. (I’ll post more about this later.) But the tummy belongs to a woman regardless of its contents, and the fact that something someday will come out of this woman that is separate from her in no way entitles others to see her body as communal property. It takes a village to raise a child, indeed, but that village needs to keep its collective hands to itself until that child is out and about.
KS:
Are you saying that abortion on demand is O.K., say, one hour before labor starts? Or one minute before delivery? I just want to be clear here.
Nice stawman you got there.
That situation never, ever happens in real life. Ever. It is a complete fantasy made up by anti-choice and anti-woman nuts who are against the complete bodily autonomy of women. No woman would carry a fetus to that point just to abort at the last second. None. The only time that situation would be applicable would be a medical emergency that could/would result in the death of the mother or baby if it wasn’t gotten out immediately. And even then, most doctors would opt for the emergency c-section unless there was a damn good reason not to. And in such a situation, I have no problem with it at all.
captcrisis,
The whole point is that it’s not, at the timeframe we’re discussing, a CHILD that people are touching. It’s a pregnant WOMAN, who still has feelings of HER OWN, and who hasn’t lost any rights by virtue of incubating a fetus.
Women don’t necessarily LIKE being grabbed at and groped and poked by people without having been asked for permission first. Especially not strangers, but often not even friends and family members.
And how do you know, if you’re not the woman in question, that she feels “pride”? She may, in fact, be very aware of a cultural expectation to ACTING proud, but actually feel inclined to smack the shit out of all these people grabbing her. Acting cheerful may have a lot more to do with having to face social opprobrium and possible worse repercussions from family and husband than it does with any actual internal *consent*.
Your automatic cultural assumption of that “pride” is PART OF what deprives women of their autonomy.
Argh, Monday sentence structure fail!
Second sentence in second paragraph SHOULD start: “She may, in fact, be very aware of a cultural expectation to ACT proud…”
KS, woemn certainly do attempt to kill their child on the dividing line between independent personhood, and there are “born alive” abortion survivors who are very happy to tell you about it. If one believes that there is a dividing line and that it is meaningful, continued debate and refinement of that line is the key point to the boundary on the moral theory of acceptable abortion vs. unacceptable infanticide. Rather than a straw man, it is the essential focus of that moral theory. The only moral theory that is able to escape that focus is the one that rejects the meaningfulness of the line.
Like ks and Cherish, nothing made me more pro-choice than becoming a mother.
captcrisis, when you become pregnant, you are free to make your body public property and available to anyone with a pair of hands. In the meantime, it’s despicable of you to tell pregnant women how they ’should’ feel about being groped. Particularly since in Western culture, even non-pregnant women have altogether too much experience with others thinking ‘my desire to touch you is paramount’.
Mythago, ks, Adrienne Travis:
There is no need to be so hostile.
I wasn’t telling women how they “should” feel. Nor was I saying that women were public property. I was just saying what I have observed.
A little civility, please.
mythago, ks, cherish,
I think it is very much possible to say that abortion should be legal, safe and available while at the same time accepting that the woman’s bodily integrity isn’t the only right at stake in a pregnancy. It’s easy to see why - no woman I know has ever NOT been affected by an abortion. I don’t think more than a handful of the probably tens of thousands of women who are choosing to abort a pregnancy on any given day on this planet have made that decision without considerable moral consideration. That’s because they KNOW that an abortion is based on weighing their rights against the rights of their unborn child. Simple. I think it is particularly important for those who are pro-choice, and again, that includes me, to be aware that this choice has a moral price, too. I would liek to hear that more often from those arguing for a woman’s right to choose.
I’m pro-choice, but it is worth noting that I think KS is overstating the case in saying that the hypothetical is a strawman. There is a circumstance that, while quite rare, seems to have cropped up a number of times that is closely parallel: when doctors insist that an emergency C-section is the only way to save a child; and when the pregnant woman, nevertheless, refuses one. (I learned of one such in my birth class, and then learned of others.) Each case has a quite different outcome: the woman refuses, and the baby dies; the woman refuses, and the baby is born healthy; the doctors go to court and get a court order for a C-section against the woman’s will. (Even these end differently: in one case I read about, by the time the court order got back to the hospital, the woman had fled — and later delivered safely, vaginally. In another, both woman and baby died in the course of the unwanted c-section.)
Anyway, the cases with a court order are, mutatis mutandis, basically the hypothetical Captcrisis was offering, except with a refused c-section taking the role of a desired abortion.
(But then, they say hard cases make bad law, so you could certainly dispute the *relevance* of these cases, given that they are, in fact, rather rare…)
captcrisis: trying to shut down disagreement by pretending to be the victim is a very tired and transparent debate tactic. Nobody called you names, personally insulted you or swore at you. What “incivility” did you perceive, other than disagreement with your implication that women who don’t thrive on belly-grabbing are joyless and selfish?
That’s pretty much what Roe v. Wade said, as I’m sure you know. And while abortion is certainly not on the order of “should I get a manicure today?” on the decision scale, I think it’s pandering and a mistake to assure doubters that, really, every woman who has an abortion is very, very sorry and takes your concerns for her moral well-being serious. Some women are devastated by abortion; some are sad about it; some don’t think much about it at all. It’s highly personal and, short of making sure nobody is forced or coerced into abortion, I’m not really sure what it is you wish you heard more.
Mythago,
I’d like to hear more often that those in favour of a right to choose don’t think it’s ok when this happens - “some don’t think much about it at all.” I want to hear that being pro choice may be right, certainly better than forcing women to carry a child they don’t want, but that it doesn’t solve the moral problems surrounding abortion. I’d like to hear more concern for the moral issues involved in a pregnancy from those who are pro choice. I want see “right to choose” as a conclusion, not as a starting point of the discussion. That’s often how it appears to me.
Lovely, thoughtful post Hugo and more articulate than I could be with a newborn in hand.
I had some interesting experiences while pregnant and soon after. Not only do some people lay claim to touch or say anything to you while you’re pregnant– strangers asking about gender, offering opinions about circumcision and sex… one woman said to me, “What are you having?” and when I responded, she said, “Ugh, I would NEVER want a GIRL!”… There was also another side to being pregnant and later holding an infant, I was invisible to a certain kind of man, middle aged, well-dressed professional, usually white… and they would cut in line in front of me, as though I wasn’t there, drop doors on me–while I was fumbling with the car seat, or my sleeping infant, or bump into me as though they couldn’t see me at all. It was amazing to me, since I had a new feeling of taking up more space than ever before. It didn’t make me angry, just interested in the dynamic. I suspect that pregnant and with baby, I was no longer sexual to them and so I was no longer visible, almost literally.
Sam, what you’d like is for everyone to reframe the discussion in terms and with starting premises that agree with the pro-life movement? Surely you can see why that’s a little one-sided.
Cynthia, I actually kind of like that invisibility. They don’t expect it when you push back, and it sure beats getting hit on. On the other hand, I really didn’t appreciate the entire planet thinking that if I had a baby, I must not know what to do with the poor thing, and therefore was in need of random advice from strangers…
In most societies pregnancy and babies are still an affirmation of life and source of joy, and people express those feelings spontaneously. I confess to being one of those who talks to pregnant women and mothers with babies and would love to touch (but never without permission).I never thought that it was such a taboo but rather felt that having had four children myself and breastfed them all, that I could share the feelings of joy and wonder I experienced.
How sad that in some societies such gestures are equated with invasion of bodily space and offensive behavior. To the teacher who objected to her students curiosity - what missed educational opportunities to show those kids the reality of pregnancy and parenthood.
franc, how exactly is laying a hand on a mother’s stomach an educational opportunity? Yes, there’s a baby in there, you can tell just by looking, you don’t have to feel it to understand the reality of that! And what in the world is touching a preganant woman’s belly going to teach some kid about parenthood? Pregnant women don’t become obligatory role models and teachers to everyone who crosses their path simply by being pregnant. You’re seeing pregnant women as A) someone to teach people about pregnancy, B) avenues for you to express and share joy, but not C) women. Which is Hugo’s point.
Stephen Frug, I’m not sure how the tension between a mother’s decision to stick to her birth plan and a doctor’s insistence that they must deviate from it in order to save the baby’s life relates to the abortion strawman KS objected to.
We’re back to the “What’s the matter, baby, you uptight or something?” method of getting women to shut up and comply with other people’s demands on their body, are we? If you don’t like strangers grabbing and feeling you, you’re a bad person for denying them the pleasure of affirming life!
franc, it’s also very telling that you put “permission” in parenthesis, as if there’s absolutely no difference between asking, politely, to touch vs. grabbing or acting entitled and offended. If you actually read Hugo’s post, he was talking about the latter, not the former.
mythago,
“Sam, what you’d like is for everyone to reframe the discussion in terms and with starting premises that agree with the pro-life movement? Surely you can see why that’s a little one-sided.”
No. I’d like this not for everyone. I’d like this for people who are pro-choice. I’d like pro-life people to do the opposite.
Ouch,mythago and B, there’s a lot of anger out there! I was expressing my opinion (as valid as yours)(these are brackets by the way). I feel the point that is being missed is perhaps a cultural one? If touching is understood as an aggressive act (as you seem to think it is) then I can understand the discomfort, but if one sees it as humans relating to each other on a non-verbal level, then is it not different? Perhaps I just don’t get it but where I live we hug strangers.
And I was expressing my opinion, as valid as yours.
You didn’t frame your post as one simply noting cultural differences - “where I live, this is considered normal and pregnant women appear to welcome it,” say - you tut-tutted about how sad and inhuman it is that any pregnant woman might not happily submit to being grabbed by strangers. Imagine if a stranger to your culture said “How sad it is that your culture promotes grabbing unwilling strangers by hugging them!”
This is not a straw man, folks.
The most ardent prochoice people suddenly turn skittish when very late term abortions are brought up.
Some time ago, Jen Roth (or some other pro-life feminist) went on to Pandagon and asked everyone if there were *any* restrictions they would place on abortion. She got an uproar. And hardly any honest responses. The general mood was: “Don’t answer! It’s a trap!”
Why not answer? Because they didn’t want to think about it. The pat position taken by Hugo (”until it pops out!”) might get a round of applause but it’s not well thought out.
As to my question, i.e., “Would you support a womna’s right to have an abortion just before labor? One minute before birth?” Admittedly these are extreme situations but if one really believes the “Until it pops out” position, one should not hesitate to say, “Yes”.
So why don’t avowedly pro-choice people just say “Yes”?
Someone who says “yes” to that scenario would have my grudging respect, because at least he/she is being consistent. It would make me as nauseous as a first-trimester mom at 7 a.m., but I could respect that viewpoint.
okay, captcrisis. You’re a concern troll and you’re derailing the thread, but just to make you happy, i’ll bite: yes, in the completely ridiculous hypothetical situation that never happens where a woman wants to abort a healthy 8-month-and-30-day-and-23-hour-along fetus instead of delivering by emergency cesarean, I completely and wholeheartedly support her right to do so.
To the teacher who objected to her students curiosity - what missed educational opportunities to show those kids the reality of pregnancy and parenthood.
I’m the teacher who objected. And I stick to my objections. I can barely stand to be touched (unannounced and surprised) by people I love–my husband and my own kids. I certainly will object to random touches from perfect strangers who don’t know me from Adam except for the fact that I had a big fat pregnant belly. If I wanted to educate my kids (referring to my students here) on pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood, I could certainly do so and still have everyone acknowledge and stay within proper social boundaries. Not that it would be terribly appropriate for me to teach those things in a physics or math class (my subjects), but still.
And captcrisis, I still say strawman. However, as you seem to really, really want an answer, here’s mine: Yes. I have absolutely no objections to a woman choosing to abort 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, or even 1 minute before birth. So long as it resides in her body, she gets final say on when, and how, it comes out. I don’t believe that it ever happens (and even if a woman wanted to do so, good luck finding a doctor who would do the D&X or D&E procedure that late in pregnancy), but I don’t have any particular moral or ethical issues with a woman deciding that she wanted to and then having it done.
Because it IS a trap. That is, it’s not a question asked in good faith, because it’s something that never occurs outside of the hypothetical. If the answer is “no, she shouldn’t,” then aha, not really pro-choice at all and it’s a baby. If the answer is “it’s her right to do so,” then aha, you’re an infant-murdering sumbitch.
And thank you, ks. “We respect other people’s personal space” is an important lesson for kids to learn, as is “don’t grab things without permission”. Learning that other people’s bodies belong to them, and learning to think before you act, is not promoted by treating teacher’s pregnant belly like a Hands-On Science Museum exhibit.
I’m not sure how the tension between a mother’s decision to stick to her birth plan and a doctor’s insistence that they must deviate from it in order to save the baby’s life relates to the abortion strawman KS objected to.
Because like the strawman, it involves the question of whether the state can violate a woman’s bodily integrity against her will to protect the life of a yet-unborn child. Remember, in several of those situations the doctors sought a *court order* to force the woman to have a C-Section against her will; in some cases they were granted one, and in some they managed to put it into effect. Just as starkly as the late-abortion question, it raises the question of whether the woman’s rights to bodily integrity and autonomy are absolute, or can be abrogated on behalf of a (soon-to-be-a-) person inside her.
Actually, arguably this situation is even more drastic, since it is *requiring* an unwanted procedure rather than forbidding a wanted one. But since the later results in a forced labor/birth, I think they’re more or less equal violations of a woman’s autonomy, sought for (what is claimed to be) the same reasons.
Adrienne, mythago:
O.K., thanks for finally answering the question. Again, I respect the consistency of your viewpoint — though if this is the pro-choice position, then only a tiny minority of people are pro-choice. The great majority, to some extent or another, are pro-life.
Thank you for illustrating precisely why this is a dishonest question. It’s not really trying to do anything but set up a political stance; namely, constructing ‘pro-life’ in such a way as to suggest that the majority of people are pro-life, when in fact the vast majority of people are in favor of legal abortions with different degrees of restriction.
It is very revealing that most of the people disagreeing with Hugo’s comments keep phrasing their discussion in terms that have almost nothing to do with the woman; they’re about her status as a vessel, and about what other people get out of touching her. Even franc doesn’t actually say that she was happy for strangers to run up and touch her - merely that she enjoys touching pregnant bellies. The pregnant woman’s feelings are presumed to be in line with the feelings of other people, and if they differ, why, she’s a stick-in-the-mud and probably wouldn’t be sorry at all if she had an abortion!
No.
It’s not a dishonest question — no more than asking pro-life people what sanction they would impose on a woman if abortion becomes illegal. It bears on how people see the developing fetus — isn’t the late term fetus the same as a baby? Should the woman have the absolute right to have it aborted? If this is a “political stance”, then most people hold it.
You and Hugo might have come to an “absolutist” pro-choice position but I’m trying to illustrate that upon examination it leads to an absurd result. Abortion is an issue to be carefully thought about, folks. You are refusing to.
And one more thing.
Most of the people who agree with me are women. And most of the people who agree with you and Hugo are men.
captcrisis, NONE of which bears on the fact that you are *derailing the thread*.
I guess once he figured out the mothers in the thread weren’t going to put up with the “shame on you for not being public property” crap, he felt he had to switch to more comfortable ground?
Ah, first an accusation that no one’s “thinking” if they’re not reaching the same conclusion captcrisis did (rather akin to assuming a woman isn’t thinking an abortion through if you don’t legislate in a waiting period) and then an unprovable assertion that X agrees with him while Y doesn’t.
That ain’t even clever or unique.
I’m not derailing the thread. Hugo was talking about his feelings about abortion, making the point very strenuously that he believes it is absolutely up to the mother up to the moment of birth. (Unless you think anything disagreeing with the post is “derailing”.)
I also have not imputed bad motives to mythalgo, Adrienne, etc. By contrast, I’ve been accused of being dishonest, setting up a strawman, treating women as public property, shouting down disagreement. There are good, thoughtful people on both sides of this question!
As for “unprovable assertions”, all you have to do is look things up. In the U.S., by a slight (though consistent) margin, men tend to be more pro-choice than women. In other countries, the margin tends to be larger. Why this is so is a question for another day, and another thread.
do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff
I know one thing - If you are pregnant then cut down on Caffeine. Research shows that too much caffeine can reduce your ability to absorb iron and increase your risk for stillbirth. Avoid coffee, tea, and colas or switch to decaf to increase your chances of getting pregnant.