![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livSo a brave and much-admired gynaecologist was murdered in America, and lots of people are upset and frightened by this attack. May Dr Tiller rest in peace, and may all of you who are grieving or in shock find the best comfort you can.
The internet being what it is, several people are responding to Dr Tiller's death by rehashing the abortion debate. Some of it is the absolute usual stuff, with people parotting the same old talking points from the two camps (though the "pro-life" side are perhaps slightly more embarrassed and subdued than usual after the atrocity perpetrated in their name). And feminists getting into long, passionate arguments with people basically on their side about whether any desire to reduce unwanted pregnancy is an attack on women's autonomy and right to choose.
But because the late Dr Tiller specialized in "late-term" abortions, the pro-choice voices are focusing more than usual on the reasons why abortions of fully developed foetuses are sometimes necessary. There's a desire to put a human face on the debate by retelling stories of women who had to have late-term abortions. And, well, these stories follow a certain format or even style, which is not surprising due to the way that the internet magnifies and reflects things back. The model is that we have a couple who are joyfully waiting for the birth of a beloved and wanted child, and go for a scan at the six month point and suddenly find out that something has gone horribly wrong, so the only possible option is to have an abortion, and everybody is devastated, but deeply grateful for the existence of doctors like Tiller for averting an even greater tragedy.
I can see that the point is to present cases where the mother who chooses abortion is as sympathetic as she could possibly be, and counteract the pro-life propaganda against selfish, promiscuous, careless women who kill their babies on a whim. Fair enough as a rhetorical tactic, but I'm a little worried about what traits are needed to make a woman sympathetic. She has to be married, she has to be a potentially ideal mother, and it helps a lot if she's middle class and respectable. I'd like to hear some stories about women who are in unconventional relationships or none, or who have perhaps at some stage expressed the slightest possible doubt about whether they really truly want a baby, or who maybe do have some worries about whether they can afford to raise a child. After all, if the point of the rhetoric is that these late term abortions are necessary to save women's lives, then surely it shouldn't matter how saintly the women in question are. Medical necessity is necessity, emergency treatment in a life-threatening situation shouldn't be a reward for living up to the romanticized ideal of Motherhood.
The other thing that's really, really bugging me is the "something has gone horribly wrong" part of this style of story. The much loved and wanted baby turns out to have a congenital defect, so all of a sudden it's no longer a loved and wanted baby, it's a terrible tragedy. The only possibly humane thing to do is to kill it as quickly as possible so that it doesn't have to suffer. In some of the stories, the baby is already dead or obviously non-viable. In others, the baby has spina bifida or a hole in the heart or bone problems or an unspecified "genetic condition". There are heart-string tugging descriptions of how the baby if brought to term would need massive surgery, or be in terrible pain, or be born with cancer, or have a learning disability, or would never learn to walk, or would be... (and this is an actual example from one of the "my heartbreaking late term abortion" stories I've read) incontinent. And all these things are considered to be equivalent to the baby developing without lungs or a brain.
The thing is, there are people I love who are in a lot of pain, or needed significant surgery at some point in their life, or have cancer, or need expensive medical treatment or long-term care. And I'm basically too upset to even talk about how a baby which is predicted to be unable to walk or toilet herself absolutely must be killed right now, otherwise the parents and doctors are evil cruel monsters for bringing such a tragedy into the world. And yes, I understand that the pro-choice movement puts a lot of weight on arguing that a foetus is not a person. But this kind of rhetoric about the kind of babies that absolutely must be aborted no matter what hurts real people who are currently alive.
Note I'm not proposing that anyone should be forced to carry to term a baby she doesn't want. Please don't accuse me of taking that position! I'm saying that the people who are arguing so passionately in favour of abortion rights should select their arguments with care. Sometimes the pro-life side are accused of only caring about the life of pure innocent little unborn babies, but not actual living humans (and that accusation is certainly true in the case of the evil man who murdered Dr Tiller, and those extremists who encouraged him and are celebrating his action.) But at this stage in the debate, it's coming across as if some of the pro-choice side only care about the rights and autonomy of women who are young and healthy and able-bodied and neurotypical and preferably pretty and socially valued (and I have this sinking feeling that pretty is really a figleaf for "white, middle-class and sexually conservative").
Pretty much the only people I've seen addressing this issue are the wonderful Kay Olson and Wheelchair dancer. And that only in comments buried deep in a blog discussion. I want to add my voice to theirs, with a top level post, not that I have all that much traffic or prominence.
PS: I'm going to be pretty harsh about deleting comments that don't acknowledge people with disabilities as people. If you can't talk about people, not "tragedies" or "burdens" or "medical costs", please don't talk to me about this topic at all. And I don't particularly want to hear your personal views on the abortion debate in general either, because that's strongly missing the point of what I'm trying to say.
The internet being what it is, several people are responding to Dr Tiller's death by rehashing the abortion debate. Some of it is the absolute usual stuff, with people parotting the same old talking points from the two camps (though the "pro-life" side are perhaps slightly more embarrassed and subdued than usual after the atrocity perpetrated in their name). And feminists getting into long, passionate arguments with people basically on their side about whether any desire to reduce unwanted pregnancy is an attack on women's autonomy and right to choose.
But because the late Dr Tiller specialized in "late-term" abortions, the pro-choice voices are focusing more than usual on the reasons why abortions of fully developed foetuses are sometimes necessary. There's a desire to put a human face on the debate by retelling stories of women who had to have late-term abortions. And, well, these stories follow a certain format or even style, which is not surprising due to the way that the internet magnifies and reflects things back. The model is that we have a couple who are joyfully waiting for the birth of a beloved and wanted child, and go for a scan at the six month point and suddenly find out that something has gone horribly wrong, so the only possible option is to have an abortion, and everybody is devastated, but deeply grateful for the existence of doctors like Tiller for averting an even greater tragedy.
I can see that the point is to present cases where the mother who chooses abortion is as sympathetic as she could possibly be, and counteract the pro-life propaganda against selfish, promiscuous, careless women who kill their babies on a whim. Fair enough as a rhetorical tactic, but I'm a little worried about what traits are needed to make a woman sympathetic. She has to be married, she has to be a potentially ideal mother, and it helps a lot if she's middle class and respectable. I'd like to hear some stories about women who are in unconventional relationships or none, or who have perhaps at some stage expressed the slightest possible doubt about whether they really truly want a baby, or who maybe do have some worries about whether they can afford to raise a child. After all, if the point of the rhetoric is that these late term abortions are necessary to save women's lives, then surely it shouldn't matter how saintly the women in question are. Medical necessity is necessity, emergency treatment in a life-threatening situation shouldn't be a reward for living up to the romanticized ideal of Motherhood.
The other thing that's really, really bugging me is the "something has gone horribly wrong" part of this style of story. The much loved and wanted baby turns out to have a congenital defect, so all of a sudden it's no longer a loved and wanted baby, it's a terrible tragedy. The only possibly humane thing to do is to kill it as quickly as possible so that it doesn't have to suffer. In some of the stories, the baby is already dead or obviously non-viable. In others, the baby has spina bifida or a hole in the heart or bone problems or an unspecified "genetic condition". There are heart-string tugging descriptions of how the baby if brought to term would need massive surgery, or be in terrible pain, or be born with cancer, or have a learning disability, or would never learn to walk, or would be... (and this is an actual example from one of the "my heartbreaking late term abortion" stories I've read) incontinent. And all these things are considered to be equivalent to the baby developing without lungs or a brain.
The thing is, there are people I love who are in a lot of pain, or needed significant surgery at some point in their life, or have cancer, or need expensive medical treatment or long-term care. And I'm basically too upset to even talk about how a baby which is predicted to be unable to walk or toilet herself absolutely must be killed right now, otherwise the parents and doctors are evil cruel monsters for bringing such a tragedy into the world. And yes, I understand that the pro-choice movement puts a lot of weight on arguing that a foetus is not a person. But this kind of rhetoric about the kind of babies that absolutely must be aborted no matter what hurts real people who are currently alive.
Note I'm not proposing that anyone should be forced to carry to term a baby she doesn't want. Please don't accuse me of taking that position! I'm saying that the people who are arguing so passionately in favour of abortion rights should select their arguments with care. Sometimes the pro-life side are accused of only caring about the life of pure innocent little unborn babies, but not actual living humans (and that accusation is certainly true in the case of the evil man who murdered Dr Tiller, and those extremists who encouraged him and are celebrating his action.) But at this stage in the debate, it's coming across as if some of the pro-choice side only care about the rights and autonomy of women who are young and healthy and able-bodied and neurotypical and preferably pretty and socially valued (and I have this sinking feeling that pretty is really a figleaf for "white, middle-class and sexually conservative").
Pretty much the only people I've seen addressing this issue are the wonderful Kay Olson and Wheelchair dancer. And that only in comments buried deep in a blog discussion. I want to add my voice to theirs, with a top level post, not that I have all that much traffic or prominence.
PS: I'm going to be pretty harsh about deleting comments that don't acknowledge people with disabilities as people. If you can't talk about people, not "tragedies" or "burdens" or "medical costs", please don't talk to me about this topic at all. And I don't particularly want to hear your personal views on the abortion debate in general either, because that's strongly missing the point of what I'm trying to say.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-04 06:31 pm (UTC)What struck me most in the accounts I read was the way that many of the women who offered stories emphasised how much they had wanted the babies they were carrying, and how agonising it was to have to make the decision over whether to abort or carry them to term knowing that they'd have short and/or difficult, painful lives. Momentarily leaving aside the issue you've discussed about the way in which having a disabled baby is presented as an insurmountable catastrophe, the point which got through to me is that none of these women had really _chosen_ to have an abortion. Of course, no-one actually sets out to have an abortion, but women who have them usually choose freely to do so and when that's not the case it is cause for serious concern (I'm referring to being coerced into doing so by family/partner). When you chiefly focus on women who had to come to Dr Tiller as a last resort but otherwise really, really wanted to be mothers, that seems to fit the 'saintly white/middle-class/het/partnered lady' description. They wouldn't have chosen an abortion, it was forced on them by the Terrible Tragedy of having an inviable (by whatever definition) fetus.
I see this linking in to your comment above that "abortion has to be legal, because otherwise admirable and saintly women are going to die grisly deaths". And that really strongly implies that it doesn't matter if less saintly women die horribly, which is a major rhetorical problem, no matter whom you're trying to convince because it sets up having an abortion as one of those things that admirable and saintly women don't willingly do unless the circumstances are really very dire. It sets up a worst-case scenario, consciously or not, which counteracts anti-abortion arguments against late terminations by presenting the decision as absolutely agonising - which I'm sure it is, in many cases. But it does seem to distract attention from the majority of terminations, which are freely decided on, and carried out early, on non-saintly, non-admirable women, who aren't necessarily deeply traumatised by them.
Aside from all nit-picking, it is very saddening. I mean, shot in a house of worship, for goodness' sake. It's also scary for maternal health that there are so few specialists left in that area.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-06 01:47 pm (UTC)Unless you are Aliza Schvarts - although of course, that was "a hoax".
(FWIW, I was entirely fine with the concept of that project as well.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-06 09:16 pm (UTC)I guess the point is that some pro-life people might be just about ok with early abortions when it's really hard to buy into the idea that you're killing an actual person, but are really truly horrified by late term abortions when the unborn child is developed enough to be "cute". And people are arguing that it should be the other way round, even if you're against abortion you should make an exception for the rare and tragic medical emergencies which lead to late-term abortions being needed. Perhaps it would be better to take the strong position and say, it's not ok to be mostly against abortion with some exceptions, all women have the right to abortions for all reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-08 04:24 am (UTC)I dislike all killing of anything alive regardless of species. But I think some killing is absolutely necessary. And I think that killing is sometimes the best choice of sad options. I honestly wish we didn't need to eat to live, but we do, and I'm not going to stop eating. I think abortion is important because I think the well being of the woman and her choice whether or not to have a child is more important than the life of the thing developing. I don't give it a lot of moral weight until it is much further developed. But I still think killing it is unfortunate. But if you have to kill something, I'd rather it be as undeveloped as possible. (This is part of why I wish people wouldn't eat pigs or octopus. Eating something more intelligent than a dog or a cat bothers me. While I won't eat animals, I admit that chickens are ~stupid~. Cows are pretty stupid too. But pigs aren't. I would never dream of eating our pet cat, even though admittedly she's pretty dumb. Yet people can eat a pig that is far, far more aware of the world and itself than she probably is.)
So, late term is more unfortunate. I think it should be avoided to the extent that is reasonable. This is part of why I think it's important to make abortion very easy to obtain. The easier it is to obtain, the earlier in the pregnancy it can be done. This is also why I strongly support birth control and folic acid for that matter, since avoiding the need for an abortion whenever possible is best, of course, but we'll never fully avoid the need for some abortions.
I just think that the abortion is the right thing when the woman wants it. But I think it's the right thing in an unfortunate situation that I wish didn't exist. Whereas with earlier term abortions, the earlier it is into things, the less I really care. I mean, I wash my hands more than once per day and kill countless cells. If you can catch a pregnancy in the few cell stage it's nearly equivalent. I rip out weeds more often than I'd like to (tedious, awful task) which is pretty similar to me ethically. I don't like doing it, but I do it. I've killed countless fleas and flies and only really felt bad about a small number of particular insects I accidentally killed in very nasty ways. That's probably covering something equivalent to a non late-term abortion to me. A late-term abortion is likely to be something more aware than a flea. So, a fairly regrettable thing to do. But I'd kill a bird before I'd let a woman come to serious harm or psychological pain. So, I'm not against it. But it does bother me more.