Thursday, June 30, 2011

Birthing Rights ARE Reproductive Rights

So now that I'm a momma, I'm all into the online birthing communities, too. Birthing rights and all that jazz... which is really just a subset of reproductive rights. My body, my choice: I get to choose how to birth my baby. I have a right to birth in a hospital, or a birthing center, or at home. I have a right to have a midwife, and a doula, if I want them. Makes sense, no?


Women need to be informed about their choices, what options they have when they birth. They need to know the risks of epidurals, episiotomies, and whether or not these are actually necessary (or desirable). They have a right to have an IBCLC available to help with any breastfeeding issues.


As I saw tweeted the other day, "Pro-choice" and "Trust Women" doesn't just apply to abortion -- it damn well applies to birth, too. The problem is that the conversation is so often derailed into "UR A MURDERERRR!!!" by the pro-"life" side so we don't get to talk about any real issues, we just spend our time pointing out their lies and fallacies.


Most women who have had an abortion either already have children or will have them in the future (when they're ready). "Women who have an abortion" and "women who have a baby" are not two separate groups. They're a Venn diagram, with a huge overlap in the middle.


We want the same thing: respect for women when it comes to their bodies. When and how to be pregnant. When and how to birth. When and how to feed their children.


Yesterday I saw the Ronald Reagan quote about how "everyone who is for abortion has already been born." I've seen it before, and ignored it, because it's a stupid quote pretending to be "clever." Unborn entities don't have opinions, so they can't be "for" (or against) anything. Plenty of people who have "already been born" wish they had not. Oftentimes they commit suicide. Or they turn to drugs or alcohol to dull the pain of living.

And plenty more of us would not have cared if we'd been aborted. You know why? BECAUSE FETUSES DON'T HAVE COGNITIVE PROCESSES OR THE ABILITY TO CARE.



The quote was not blog-post-worthy. What was, was where I saw it: I saw this quote on a birthing rights community page.


Those same women who are appalled that a doctor would force a C-section on a woman... are saying it's okay to force an entire pregnancy on her??


Here's my (first) response:


I'm surprised to see an anti-abortion statement posted today, when yesterday there was a question from a mom about doing a D&C for a molar pregnancy. I still don't know what a molar pregnancy is (haven't had time to Google it), but I know what a D&C is. It's one method of terminating a pregnancy (usually done in the second trimester, if I recall correctly). I had one, when I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy, just over a decade ago. 

I have seen other posts (don't think it was on this page, but on another parenting/birthing-rights page) about moms seeking advice about a D&C after a miscarriage or stillbirth (to make sure all the tissue is actually out of the body, to prevent infection and/or other complications).

There are a bazillion different reasons why a woman may need to terminate a pregnancy. Sometimes it's because she's not ready to be a mother. Sometimes it's because she's not capable of being a mother -- financially, or mentally/emotionally, or physically. Sometimes it's because something is wrong with the pregnancy or the fetus -- like an ectopic or molar pregnancy. Sometimes it's because the fetus is already dead, but her body hasn't miscarried properly and removed all the tissue. I'm not and obstetrician, so I can't even begin to list all the medical reasons for an abortion.

Whatever that woman's reason is, SHE knows what's best for her. It's her body. She also knows what is best for that potential child -- deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is the first parenting decision a woman makes. Please respect her choice.

Just like a doctor doesn't have the right to force a woman to have a c-section if she doesn't want one, no one has a right to force a woman to have a pregnancy if she doesn't -- or can't -- want it.

One of the reasons the women who posted here and on other pages asking for advice on whether they should have a D&C for a doomed (or already terminated) pregnancy is because abortion has been so demonized in our society. It's a medical procedure. A necessary one. No woman makes the decision to abort a pregnancy lightly -- and any woman who would, is not apt for or perhaps capable of motherhood. Motherhood begins with pregnancy.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions that happen because of unwanted pregnancies, call your legislators and tell them to fund Planned Parenthood. Tell them to make birth control fully covered by insurance. Tell them to make hospitals stock emergency contraception in the ER for rape victims. Call your school board and your legislators and make comprehensive sex ed mandatory curriculum starting in middle school.

But don't criminalize or demonize abortion. You don't know that woman's story. You can't imagine what SHE is going through, because you are not her and you have not lived her life or survived the trauma that may be leading her to make that decision -- even for a very wanted pregnancy.


--


I went back and wrote some more comments (in response to one particularly rabid anti-choicer), which I may post here as their own mini-blogs, or I may dump in the comments here. Haven't decided yet.

But right now, my baby's calling me.



16 comments:

  1. I appreciate the honesty and compassion here. I totally support, with you, the suggestions - real, effective, and compassionate - for decreasing the number of abortions that happen due to unwanted pregnancies.

    It grieves me deeply to realize people can be so blindly adamant about sparing imagined or assumed fetal suffering, that they ignore the real suffering righ in front of them. Neglected, underloved and abused children, and pregnant women whose lives are torn apart by the realization they do not have the emotional/physical/financial resources to sustain a pregnancy, and those who have been raped. Not to mention the unbearable pain of miscarriage or stillbirth blatantly exploited and defiled by accusations of wrongdoing or murder. Can we slow our judgments, be more mindful and aware of each complex human life and all suffering. May we recognize that ethical dilemmas exist -- with no easy, universal answers. They demand openness to the suffering/needs/rights of both sides and humility regarding "not having THE answer".

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love, love, love Mom's comment above. I may have to save that for future reference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agreed. I was going to copy it into its own post. It demands more visibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for this post - well said.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one criss. A two year old does not have the thought process to care if his/her mother kills him/her. They don't have any concept of dead or alive, or normal life span. Since you are asserting that women know how to best decide for their children, and since your assertion relies heavily on quality of life, you certainly can't have any problem with a mother who has fallen into desperate financial straits, or who has decided she is not a good mother, or not ready to be a mother, deciding to kill her two year old (or hire someone to do it for her).

    You have also failed to realize, that regardless of where it is housed at any particular time, a fetus/baby is a separate and distinct individual, relying on it's mother for care. A woman may decide it's best for her not to be pregnant, or be a mother at any given time - but it's certainly not a good decision for the baby, regardless of whether or not it is capable of subjective thought (which doesn't magically happen at birth). Dead is dead, whether you're conscious of that fact or not.

    But keep talking, abortion defense just gets more outlandish - and women know it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Laurie says, "pregnant women whose lives are torn apart by the realization they do not have the emotional/physical/financial resources to sustain a pregnancy"

    Would you and other friends and relatives not have been able to help your daughter emotionally, physically and financially raise the grandchild she aborted?

    Ethical dilemma? I guess supporting your daughter in killing one grandchild over another is an ethical dilemma to some.

    Women absolutely do know how outlandish the abortion defenses are getting. Your excuses and defense of wrong-doing is deplorable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @JustUs: Thanks for proving Laurie's point: "It grieves me deeply to realize people can be so blindly adamant about sparing imagined or assumed fetal suffering, that they ignore the real suffering righ in front of them."

    YOU, JustUs, do not know what life is like for another woman. You don't know what pregnancy is like for her. You are also making a WHOLE WHOMPING LOT of privileged assumptions about resources (emotional and financial) in your questions.

    @Anonymous: Your first paragraph is an attempt at "turning the tables," but sadly fails miserably because IT MAKES NO SENSE. Two-year-olds have more sense than you, and YES, they do know they are alive.

    "You have also failed to realize, that regardless of where it is housed at any particular time, a fetus/baby is a separate and distinct individual, relying on it's mother for care."

    The fetus can ONLY rely on the biological mother for care. It is NOT a "separate and distinct individual" BECAUSE IT IS NOT SEPARATE. It is INSIDE the woman, attached, connected. It cannot be taken out and placed inside another person.

    A "born" baby can be cared for by any number of people. If a mother does not feel she can take care of her child, there are others who can care for the child for her -- many times friends and family can help out, or take over temporarily (if need be), or if a more long-term or permanent solution is needed, then the state can get involved. If your state doesn't have a baby Moses law, maybe you should spend your time and energy getting a program like that started, instead of making ridiculous attempts at arguments on people's blogs. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  8. your mother is making the claim that some women abort because they don't have the "emotional/physical/financial resources to sustain a pregnancy"

    I dispute her claim. Most women, including yourself, abort because it doesn't work for them. Regardless of what you were going through at the time you were pregnant with your first child in relationship to your mental, emotional, physical or financial health, your family and friends had all of the resources to help you until you were able to parent. Do you claim that your family and friends don't have these resources to help the people they love?

    You obviously think you are capable of parenting at this point, so your family just had to help out until you realized that you could do it yourself. The point is, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO let your child continue his/her life for selfish reasons, not because you couldn't or that your family was destitute.

    I'm pointing out that your mother enables your mindset and that she is wrong. You could have allowed your first child to live as you did your second child. The sky would not have fallen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Two-year-olds have more sense than you, and YES, they do know they are alive."

    Then why do two-year-olds need people to keep them from running into traffic, jumping into pools, sticking things into outlets and playing with lighters? Leave them home alone to fend for themselves.

    Concerned caregivers don't leave two-year-olds alone because we realize that they don't yet have the concept that they are alive and may hurt themselves or die.

    Crazier and crazier.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, Criss, ask a two year old to explain death to you. Ask a two year old to explain to you why, even though they know it might kill them, they are determined to stick their finger into the electrical outlet. Ask a two year old to explain
    what impact his/her death will have on the world, or how it may curtail their hopes and dreams for the future. Yeah, they know when something is "owie". They know when something hurts, or when they are uncomfortable, but so does a 26 week fetus. They can form attachments, and smile and interact, but so does a one month old.

    Inconsistent. And to quote someone who really understands, "crazier and crazier".

    Keep up the good work. I'm going on a campaign for government defunding of feminism. You guys are nuts, and are starting to sound desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @JustUs: "I dispute her claim."

    Really? Do you have any evidence to back that up?

    Laurie is a licensed therapist. She's talking about her clients. She's talking about her colleague's clients. Who are you talking about? What credentials do you have to make any sort of claims on this subject?

    "Regardless of what you were going through at the time you were pregnant with your first child in relationship to your mental, emotional, physical or financial health, your family and friends had all of the resources to help you until you were able to parent."

    Here you show you clearly do not understand what you're talking about.

    Yes, my family could have helped me out financially. But how were they going to help me mentally? Was my mom supposed to lend me a cup of sanity while I went through the pregnancy?

    "The sky would not have fallen."

    No, the sky would not have fallen. I would have married an abuser, addicted to drugs, with no job. The chances of my committing suicide during the pregnancy would have been very high, and when a pregnant woman commits suicide (I don't know if you're aware of this, since logic seems to be a tricky concept for you), the fetus inside her dies, too. So things would have ended up the same for that potential child, anyway.

    The sad part, of course, is that then this blog would not have been started (because I would be dead). And who would you have to bully then?

    "Then why do two-year-olds need people to keep them from running into traffic, jumping into pools, sticking things into outlets and playing with lighters? Leave them home alone to fend for themselves."

    Is this really your argument??

    Two-year-olds know they are alive. That in no way means they understand how cars work, or that pools are deep and that they cannot breathe underwater, or that those little holes in the wall carry electrical currents that can seriously mess up their body, or that lighters make fire which can burn them.

    Really?? I have to address this??

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous: "Ok, Criss, ask a two year old to explain death to you."

    You haven't met a two-year-old who's lost someone, have you?

    Two-year-olds aren't stupid, they're young. They are still learning language, and therefore lack the vocabulary to explain many abstract concepts.

    They are "determined" to stick their fingers in the light socket because they are curious. They don't know what electricity is (they know what light is, but can't explain electric currents to you), and they may have been told, "Don't stick your finger in there because that will kill you," but they don't understand how that works, or why, and they test everything out. It's what they do. They also have very short attention spans, so by the time they got to this point in the conversation, they completely forgot what you said about sticking your fingers in the light socket. They forgot what a light socket is. They're too busy looking at those little holes in the wall... and wondering what's in there.

    "Ask a two year old to explain
    what impact his/her death will have on the world, or how it may curtail their hopes and dreams for the future."

    I dare you to ask most sixteen-year-olds this. See what kind of answers you get. (Again, because I understand I have to spell things out, two-year-olds have limited language development.)

    "They can form attachments, and smile and interact, but so does a one month old."

    Actually, no, one-month-olds can't smile (on purpose) or form attachments or "interact." That starts to happen closer to three or four months.

    "I'm going on a campaign for government defunding of feminism."

    And you two are calling ME "crazier and crazier"??

    I think we're done here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you became suicidal now, I sure hope your family and friends would help you. If they are not capable, there are places that will.

    Your mom is a licensed therapist but she could not help you mentally when you were pregnant? Does she make her living doing this? The only options were suicide or aborting your child?

    Disagreeing with someone is not bullying them. If you truly feel bullied by me, be proactive and take steps to prevent it. Any licensed therapist should be able to tell you this. Block me. Close the blog to outsiders. Call the police. Do what ever you have to do to prevent being bullied. Or maybe you could talk to a counselor about why you seem to choose to remain a perpetual victim and blamer.

    Very few two year olds immediately understand death when they lose someone to it. It takes time for them to understand. They are smart enough to recognize unborn humans as babies though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The research varies on the age of smiling, the earliest claiming four weeks of age, but if it makes you feel better, I'll say six weeks, which is the median. So substitute six weeks into my comment,and carry on. Yes, babies do form attachments based on sound and scent and facial recognition. A baby can distinguish it's mother's voice from others, even in utero. At four weeks of age it knows her voice, and recognizes her scent, and her face.

    If it's up to mothers to make the best decision for their child, including killing it in utero, then who are YOU to say they can't kill them after they are delivered, since infants are still incapable of making decisions? If a woman wants to keep her baby now, but kill it later, who are YOU to infringe upon her decision (based upon the infant's inability to make one)?

    Decision making ability of the fetus is a poor defense of elective abortion. Just own it.

    PS - defunding feminism - not as crazy as you think. My idea isn't original. Billions of wasted government dollars go to Women's study programs and programs pushing femnist agendas. Good thing is voters and taxpayers are starting to get fed up with the waste.

    http://objectifygirls.blogspot.com/2011/06/defund-feminism-defundfeminism.html

    http://www.majorityleader.gov/YouCut/

    ReplyDelete
  15. "If it's up to mothers to make the best decision for their child, including killing it in utero, then who are YOU to say they can't kill them after they are delivered, since infants are still incapable of making decisions?"

    That, Anonymous! It's a parenting decision and we know what's best for our children.

    Crazier and crazier.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "No, the sky would not have fallen. I would have married an abuser, addicted to drugs, with no job. The chances of my committing suicide during the pregnancy would have been very high, and when a pregnant woman commits suicide (I don't know if you're aware of this, since logic seems to be a tricky concept for you)"

    You CHOSE to have sex with an unemployed, abusive, drug-addict and became pregnant. You then CHOSE to abort your child to prevent yourself for HAVING NO CHOICE BUT to marry this unemployed, abusive, drug-addict. But logic is lost on me. Got it.

    Crazier and crazier.

    ReplyDelete