Blogging for Choice

[catsittingstill]

I saw somewhere that today is supposed to be Blogging for Choice Day. I thought "I'm going to get in on that." I've got a lot to do today, so I better make this brief.

I'm pro-choice because I believe that women are human, that we have the same human rights as anyone else, and that the most basic human right is the right not to be enslaved (you know, forced to labor for the good of another without recompense?). Specifically this includes the right not to have your very flesh coopted and used for the benefit of another organism without your specific, ongoing consent.

A fetus is, biologically speaking, a parasite--an organism that lives within another organism, drawing its nutrients from, and depositing its wastes into, its host's tissues. It is, furthermore, an obligate parasite, which in biology talk means it can't be removed from its host without killing it. (This might be considered to be the source of the moral problem some people have with abortion, but I don't think it is, for reasons I will go into later.) I'm pro-choice because I don't think a living breathing woman who can look you in the eye and beg you not to enslave her should be enslaved for the good of a parasite.

Various groups draw various lines at which a fetus becomes human. For the Christian Church it used to be fourty days after conception (for a male fetus; for a female fetus it was eighty days. Why there would be a difference, and how anybody was supposed to be able to tell which sex the fetus was at that stage of development, is left as an exercise for the reader.) Nowadays the "pro-life" crowd likes to draw that line at conception, when the fertilized egg is still a single cell.

I too see a moral turning point at which a fetus becomes human. Mine is just biological--it is the point at which the fetus ceases to be an obligate parasite on its host, and becomes a free-living organism. At that point (leaving aside for a moment the biochemical Charm Person spell a baby casts on its mother) it is no longer necessary to enslave someone to support zir life.

Furthermore, I believe that some portion (it's my impression this portion is pretty large, actually) of the "pro-life" crowd is actually composed of the "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children" crowd--the people who believe that unwanted babies are God's Just Punishment on those despicable people who commit the sin of having-sex-while-female. If one has the opportunity to read the kinds of e-mails they send to women who are trying to get Plan B in time to do some good, or trying to get an abortion because none of the emergency rooms in the area would give emergency contraception to a woman who couldn't prove rape, you can see the attitude clearly. "You should have thought of that before you opened your legs, you (deleted)." These people want to control women's sexual behavior. That's why they hate abortion; that's why they despise birth control (I know this seems crazy. Just trust me. I've seen the e-mails. They really do despise birth control. They say it contributes to a "Culture of death." No, really; quit sniggering.). I gather they want to return to a fondly imagined "Golden Age" when a woman was just never alone with a man unless she was related to him. And I think that the fact that this would mean that women couldn't get a decent education or a well paying high status job is not a regrettable but necessary side effect of preserving women's purity, but actually the whole point of the exercise as far as they are concerned. I'm pro-choice because I believe women are the equals of men and deserve to be treated that way.

I can't help but notice that every Christmas, and every Easter, the Humane Society reminds us that getting a puppy or a kitten or a bunny for a family that isn't able and eager to care for it is irresponsible. That puppy/kitten/bunny might be abused or neglected if it's forced on someone who doesn't want it, or on someone who isn't able to care for it. Well, how much more irresponsible is it to give someone a *baby* they aren't able and eager to care for? And how much more irresponsible than that is it to give 1.6 million people 1.6 million babies they aren't able and eager to care for? I'm pro-choice because I don't want babies to be neglected or abused.

I am pro-choice because there are six billion people in an ecosphere groaning under our weight and I think that means you should only have kids if you really *really* want them. I am pro-choice because all women deserve to have the educational and economic opportunities that come with being able to plan your family. And last, but certainly not least, I am pro-choice because every child deserves to be a wanted child, born in joy.

Comments

[mdlbear]

Loud applause!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Thanks.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put. I couldn't agree more.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Your dividing line, of course, leads to the fascinating question of what to do with the time between when the fetus stops being an obligate parasite and when it stops being a parasite altogether. I am inclined to think that in that period, one is morally free to remove it but not to kill it unnecessarily in the process. I hope that eventually we will get good enough at both the mechanics of non-uterine incubation and the resource management necessary to have the entire question go away; at that point, if you want it removed it gets removed and grown elsewhere, and presumably everyone's content except the folks whose real agenda has to do with controlling women.

Meantime, I'm busy making arrangements to loan out my uterus for the use of some other couple's fetus... something most of the pro-lifers also find shocking, because I'm doing it deliberately and voluntarily.

[thymidinekinase.livejournal.com]

Interesting question, and one I'd have posed myself if I'd thought of it. Thanks.

As for "not a parasite at all" ... well, we're none of us autotrophs.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but there's a difference between a prototroph (creature that survives by eating other biological material) and a parasite. A baby does not deposit its waste directly into the tissues of another organism, and a baby can be fed by any organism that happens to have appropriate food.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

What do we do with it once it's removed and born (or whatever equivalent word applies)? We don't seem able to deal with foster children very well now as it is, so I'm a bit loathe to add yet more people into the mix.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious as to how we deal with the mechanics of it after they pop out of the machines...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, for starters, it would be necessary to reduce unwanted conceptions. Getting beyond the "just don't have sex, okay?" approach of present sex ed would be a start. Making sure that money and social pressures aren't a barrier to getting birth control would also be a good move.

The presumed goal would be to reduce unwanted conceptions per year below the number of families looking to adopt per year.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

This is true. And what exactly would be the dividing line might vary with technology. If artificial wombs were available (at no cost to the mother) and the transfer surgery were less dangerous than a normal pregnancy, I could see restricting the options to transfer to an artificial womb with some happy couple to adopt the child. Of course, that requires that unwanted conception be rare enough that the resulting supply of adoptable babies does not exceed the number of families wanting to adopt...

Meantime, I'm busy making arrangements to loan out my uterus for the use of some other couple's fetus... something most of the pro-lifers also find shocking, because I'm doing it deliberately and voluntarily.

You're the first surrogate mother I've known. I think what you're doing is wonderful and I wish you the best of luck with it.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'm still struggling to find the right match, partly because the antidepressant medicine scares off a lot of people, but there are enough really nice families that don't seem to mind it that I am hopeful.

As for unwanted conception being rare enough that the resulting supply of adoptable babies doesn't exceed the number of families wanting to adopt, yeah, that's the ideal from my perspective and why I REALLY don't have any sympathy for people who disapprove of both abortion and birth control. There do exist people whose disapproval of abortion leads them to champion freely available contraception and the education to use it; I disagree with them about the former but I have a lot more respect for them than I do the other variety.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, me too.

[thymidinekinase.livejournal.com]

That was very articulate and I essentially agree with everything you said. I agree with your biochemical turning point for this moral decision, but it made me muse upon philosophy and reproductive technology, and I will now inflict my musings upon you.
If we use the age at which a preemie could survive ... in the modern US, it is ~25 weeks gestational age. In our past, it was later. In Sri Lanka today, it is about two weeks later than in the US. In the future, I hope uterine replicators will push it even further. I'm comfortable enough (if not thrilled with) making moral choices on the basis of ambient tech level, but I'm (such a nerd) not happy defining "human" the same way.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I didn't originally mean "the age at which a preemie might survive with the full resources of a modern hospital," though I'm willing to consider falling back to that position. I originally meant "it becomes a human when it's born." I.e. when it's actually no longer a parasite, a time that would vary slightly from fetus to fetus, but an obvious dividing line that would not change with changing technology. But I see that isn't exactly what I said.

But taking the "survivable preemie" idea-- I do think we might want to restrict it to "when we can be reasonably confident that the preemie can survive without permanent damage." I guess the prospect of having thousands more crippled children kind of bothers me.

But I'm digressing. I do believe that moral issues change as a result of changing technology, because changing technology changes the options available to choose from. And since my major consideration is to avoid enslaving the host, the time at which the parasite can be removed (safely for both host and parasite) is naturally going to vary with technology. I don't see any way around that if we go for the "survivable preemie" option.

[bardling.livejournal.com]

Excellently said, I couldn't agree more.
Albeit some of the commentary addendums raise the valid & thoughtful point about technology/removal... which I have no argument with.
I'm entirely with you on this, and applaud your eloquence & clarity!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

Well-written. I thoroughly agree.

I too muse on your turning point - I see that others are thinking on it in terms of at what point a premie can survive, or the possibility of future replicator technology. For me, it's a bit later than that - because after birth, somebody still has to support zir's life - that baby still desperately needs its mother (or reasonable substitute) for survival. That "fourth trimester" that our secondarily altricial species requires. But then, this is much on my mind right now, as my "fourth trimester" should be starting in June.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I see your point about a newborn baby being helpless and needing a caregiver. My thought is that once the baby is born the care does not *have* to come from one particular person who can be given no choice in the matter.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I wrote my own entry about why I am pro-choice. I agree with your reasons, but mine are slightly different.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks, and thanks for including this link to your post!

[telynor.livejournal.com]

This is beautiful, Cat. Thank you. May I link to it in my journal?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you like it, and I'd be honored. Tigertoy also blogged for choice--you might have a look at his entry too. I can't remember off the top of my head how to link to it, but it's a couple of comments above your comment on this post.

"It's Nice to be wanted"... How about Necessary?

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

When I was a child, and convinced that my father only went along with having me so he could start racking up more kids than _his_ dad, I clung desperately to the meme that my mother actually _wanted_ me. It buttressed my besieged sense of self-worth immensely.

How do those children who have NOBODY who wants them survive (let alone the handful that thrive and succeed)? I will never comprehend.

Re: "It's Nice to be wanted"... How about Necessary?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Me neither. But children born in slavery grew up and survived--I guess you can survive anything. That doesn't mean its good.

Knowing that my parents wanted me means a lot to me too.

And it's perfectly possible to get pregnant by accident and then realize you want a child--it happened to a friend of mine. Actually, a few of my friends, now that I think about it.

Interesting & worth saying

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I've seen a fair number of these now. It is worth repeating the arguments, as many times as can--the cumulative impact is very powerful, and the overall media climate is quite negative.

Another one I like is here.

Re: Interesting & worth saying

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks. And thanks for the link, too!

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

That second to last paragraph is the really telling one. I'm going to remember it. Thanks.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) I'm glad you liked it. I appreciated your post on the subject too.