Category Archives: Abortion

The Theological Anthropology of the Preborn, Ctd.

Posted on by Yuki
Reply

The federal budget debates that brought attention to federal funding for Planned Parenthood brought the question of the theological anthropology of the preborn back to my mind. Planned Parenthood, as everyone knows except people who are vehemently anti-abortion rights and people who are trying to make a partisan politics point, does more than provide abortions. It also provides birth control counseling and prescriptions, often at reduced costs, health screenings and checkups, and counseling services for gynecological health and wellness. And the pragmatist in me says, “Well who wouldn’t be all for bringing down the number of abortions by making sure that all pregnancies are planned and wanted? Who wouldn’t want to make sure as many of those pregnancies are healthy by providing prenatal health screenings? Or that all women are healthy throughout their sexual lives by making sure they have access to that type of health care, which are expensive and not always fully covered by insurance plans? Continue reading →

Blog Against Disablism Day (was… er, ah… yesterday)

Posted on by Sarah
9

Disability is one area where I suspect I don’t know enough yet to really justify adding my voice regularly to the conversation. (Hope that’s not a cop-out; I just don’t think every conversation about every -ism needs my input, particularly when I see that any input I’d offer would not be all that well-informed yet.) Part of what led me to this suspicion, is lately reading the excellent FWD: Feminists With Disabilities and having my assumptions regularly shattered about what constitutes ableist language, what disability means, and how accessible the dominant culture really is. [Brief explanation of "ableist" vs. "disablist" here at Feministe.]

Yesterday was Blog Against Disablism Day, hosted here at Diary of a Goldfish. I’m making my way through the entries there, and so far this one and this one have set off Las-Vegas-magnitude numbers of lightbulbs going off in my head. Here, though, I’m going to focus on the post from Embracing Chaos, a blog which I’d not discovered before this year’s B.A.D.D.:

[W]e are all impaired when it comes to talking over long distances—so we use telephones, cell phones, Web cams, chat rooms, and e-mail to communicate over these distances. People who do not have these communication technologies are accommodated through public phones and library computers. We are all impaired when it comes to traveling over a long distance in a timely manner—so we use cars, trucks, and bicycles to span these distances….

Thus, the pervasive American paradigm is based on the “we all” standard. If “we all” need something, then it is normal and “we all” obtain access to the technologies and accommodations we need; even if it means burying our country under a huge burden of debt. If “some” need something to help them do what most do “naturally,” then those who with special needs are impaired or disabled and satisfying their needs is a burden “we all” won’t accept or tolerate.

It’s time to shift our paradigm (paradigm shift: the internalization of a new belief, teaching or experience that dramatically changes the worldview of an individual). The individual is not impaired because of their physical, mental or psychological difference; the individual is impaired because he or she lacks the accommodations or technologies that would enable him or her to participate effectively. A lack we the people created out of our own ignorance and small-mindedness.

Brava. Stephanie’s point about the construction of “lack” — and the locating it in the individual as an “impairment” which distinguishes hir from “we all” — is so, so fruitful and insightful. As is the call for a paradigm shift. Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to a conversation I had yesterday. I spent a big part of Blog Against Disablism Day not blogging against disablism, but rather, engaged in a debate over Facebook with a pro-life acquaintance who took issue with some things I’d said about the new Oklahoma abortion laws. He raised, among other points, the fact that a staggeringly high percentage of fetuses with trisomy 21 [edited/corrected throughout - see comments] (Down syndrome) are aborted.

(He also mentioned the high rates of abortion of female fetuses in some cultures, to which I basically said “Well, I think that’s awful. I also think there’s probably a lot about it I don’t understand. At the end of the day, though, I can’t believe that the way to make sure daughters are valued as highly as sons, is to deny women equal protection under the law.)

But re: his point about trisomy 21: Honestly? That is an issue I’ve really not thought hard about at all. I didn’t think about it back I was vehemently against any sort of taking of human life whatsoever. I didn’t have to, and my “consistent” (which I now see as unnuanced) position didn’t require it.

But also, I haven’t thought about it lately, as I’ve been more regularly rankled by the patently misogynist streak in a lot of falsely so-called “pro-life” tomfoolery. And when I say “I haven’t thought about it,” let me be clear what I mean. What I mean is that my gut-level response (which I’ve heretofore left unarticulated, to others and myself) was little more than, “Well, but I wouldn’t abort a fetus with Down Syndrome. I’m a Nice White Lady! We Help The Less Fortunate (TM)! So stop fussin’ at me.”

As if, y’know, I have any idea what it would be like to find myself pregnant with a baby with Down Syndrome. As if I know how caring for a child with Down Syndrome would affect our day-to-day life. As if I know what it would be like to have this disability, and know that abortion made there be fewer people with my disability… and, concomitantly, fewer research dollars, harder-to-find care, and decreased accessibility.

As if the really burning issue is me and my personal integrity in the first place.

No, clearly, the call for a paradigm shift is correct, and my gut level reaction is appalling. But I need to be careful about how I parse this… because I know pro-life people (like my Facebook interlocutor) who also call for a paradigm shift.

The people I have in mind are not the hateful, spittle-spraying, slut-shaming misogynists who say things like “If she didn’t want to get pregnant she shouldn’t have had sex,” and who block and begrudge all forms of public assistance for families. These are people, rather, who do things to care for those on the margins. They are, in my experience, frequently Christians, often pacifists, and generally not fundamentalists. They think abortion is bad and they feel it’s important to their ethic to make a point of saying so. But they also think the guilt for abortion falls collectively on a society that where the most powerful don’t exercise much care for marginal life. And they, too, would say that we need a paradigm shift.

What’s the difference? I am still thinking about this, but it seems to me that the latter still sets one group up as the authority. “Abortion is Bad (but there there, we who decide such things don’t necessarily think you personally are at fault.)” “Society needs to Be Hospitable* To The Following Groups Of People I’ve Graciously Deemed Worthy of Hospitality.” Or “I’m Pretty Sure I Wouldn’t Abort A Down Syndrome Baby So That’s All There Is To Say About That!”

As opposed to saying: Gosh, you know, “we all” are probably the least qualified ones to go around enforcing what we think is best for everyone. And in fact, if we’re to get any paradigm shift worthy of the name, that kind ofposturing, no matter where it occurs, has to stop, and “we all” who indulge in it will have to find our experiences de-centered.

*-Sometime remind me to tell you why most theologies of “hospitality,” especially God’s hospitality, make me turn a little green and squirm uncomfortably in my chair.

Deeply-Held Moral Principles + Hella Privilege

Posted on by Sarah
2

Fascinating. (H/T RH Reality Check.)

The new Oklahoma abortion laws — one of which makes doctors immune to lawsuits if their Deeply-Held Moral Principles compel them to lie to pregnant women; and the other of which mandates that a woman see an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus within one hour of getting an abortion — have struck even many pro-lifers as wrong, offensive, repugnant, transparently misogynist, unethical, and unconstitutional.

In fact, every single member of the Dallas Morning View editorial board, including some staunchly opposed to abortion was critical of one or both of these laws. Except one: Rodger Jones, who says he is “pro-life, against abortion and the death penalty.” He goes on:

The more information the better for women trying to decide whether to have an abortion. Many know their own mind and won’t be swayed. Others are in a delicate place and may be grasping for help in making the most profound decision they have ever made. I think the law will save lives, and I’m for it.

Oh Rodger Jones. You’ve never been a teacher, have you? I can tell. I think you need to get some time at the front of a classroom, so you can have the experience of watching someone bluster their way through a comment because they haven’t done the reading. (Pssst… [stage whisper] IT NEVER WORKS. WE NOD POLITELY AND SAY ‘MMM, UH-HUH’ BUT THAT’S BECAUSE IT’S NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE OF MAKING IT A THING.[/stage whisper])

Because you really couldn’t have read it, could you? If you’d read it, you’d never think that this was about “more information.” In fact, this law allows doctors not to provide accurate information to pregnant women. Trivial information like, “I’m so sorry to have to say this, but your baby has a genetic disorder that is incompatible with life / means your baby will have a disability that will require you to learn additional caregiving skills and save some money for medical expenses / makes this pregnancy high-risk / etc.”

Oh, but you must mean the OTHER law, mustn’t you? The ultrasound law: the law that says “We can’t trust pregnant women to say when they’re done making a decision and do not care to consider more factors. We have to force them to consider the data the Oklahoma legislature especially likes.”

Even though (just to keep the score card accurate) the Oklahoma legislature, and you, Rodger Jones, have manifestly not considered that data point that pretty much any woman who’s ever been pregnant could have told you was super important, i.e.: “Hey, we all need to be able to trust that our doctors are telling us the truth when s/he says ‘Everything looks good with the baby.’ What in blazes is WRONG with you?!”

Let’s recap: what I hear you saying is that it’s too much to reasonably expect YOU, Rodger Jones, to take five seconds and do the one google search necessary to learn that “OMG my doctor might be lying to me! How could I know?” is THE issue with the tort law. You can’t be bothered to contend with that information, even when you’ve been asked to comment on the law for the Dallas Morning News.

Likewise, it’s too much to require doctors to provide pregnant patients with truthful information about their own health and the health of the fetus. That’s not information which women need to have access to.

It IS, however, vitally important that a woman – doesn’t matter if she’s survived rape or incest, doesn’t matter if the fetus has an anomaly incompatible with life, doesn’t frankly matter what her actual circumstances are since all pregnant women are essentially the same – get an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus within an hour of getting an abortion. Because “more information is always a good thing,” according to you. Oh, except when the information in question doesn’t stand to manipulate women into doing what you’d personally like them to do, based on the apparent nanoseconds of thought you’ve given to considering what it’s like to actually be pregnant… in which case, meh. Skip it.

And that’s the thing about having Deeply-Held Moral Principles while also enjoying hella privilege. Oh believe me, I used to do this too. I was a so-called “seamless garment” Christian. Consistent! Against the Death Penalty! AND war! AND Abortion! A third way! How countercultural!

Hey, but know what might have been even more countercultural? Not acting like my desire for ethical consistency meant that the world had to present me with simple truths (“Killing Humans Is Bad!”). Not pretending that anything which complicated my Deeply-Held Moral Principles — like, say, ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS and their ACTUAL LIVES — was some sort of distraction or imposition. But then what kind of Serious Principled Person would I be? How would I know the right way for everybody else to live?

Explain yourself!

Posted on by Sarah
Reply

Let’s review the people who now have to explain themselves, even when they’re not doing anything illegal.

1. Any woman in Oklahoma who wishes to have an abortion. Does she, mayhap, NOT actually want to look at an ultrasound of the fetus before having a legal medical procedure? Tough. Now a doctor has to look inside her reproductive parts without her consent and for reasons unrelated to her health. (What was that some health care opponents were whinging about a few months ago… the government getting in between a patient and a doctor? Something? Like that?)

Several states have passed laws in recent years requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, and at least three — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require doctors to offer the woman a chance to see the image. But Oklahoma’s new law says that the monitor must be placed where the woman can see it and that she must listen to a detailed description of the fetus.

2. People who may not be doing anything illegal, but for whatever reason cause an Arizona police officer to think they might possibly look like someone who might be maybe sort-kinda-maybe an undocumented person.

Among others. But people who don’t have to explain themselves? Well.