Oh, Jezebel - warning, abortion-related rant

[dangermousie]

Good God!

There is an article on Jezebel purporting to debate whether abortions should be legal after fetal viability date (i.e. is it OK to abort where, if there was a birth, the resulting baby would be able to live, either by himself or with help of machines).

WHAT THE HELL?!?!

While I have complicated feelings on abortion, I do believe that some abortions should be legal - if you know the fetus is non-viable, for example, it seems insane to force a woman to go through full gestation and birth only to deliver a corpse or someone who'd survive for 15 minutes outside the womb. I think those should be OK at any time. I think abortions for pregnancies which are result of rape or incest, or pose a severe health risk to the mother, are also OK. And, unlike pro-lifers, I don't happen to believe life begins at conception, so much as I find them personally morally repugnant absent criteria above, I believe first-trimester abortions should be legal across the board.

BUT. You know what all of the above have in common? NONE OF THEM ARE PERFORMED WHEN THE FETUS IS VIABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB! Either the fetus in question is inviable period (due to severe defects) or they are performed before the fetus is viable.

If you perform an abortion on a viable-outside-the-womb fetus, you know what that is? That's right, murder. Now, sometimes murder is excusable (in the aforementioned 'you can only save the mother or the child, pick' scenario), but that is not what Jezebel is talking about. The article was arguing 'shouldn't women have choice all the way? Shouldn't they have more time to decide? Why do they have to carry it for an additional month when they want it out now etc etc." BARF. When a fetus is independently viable, it's a person and you don't get to kill a person merely because it's convenient. I am a libertarian, I am all for personal freedoms, but only when they don't impinge on freedoms of others, in this case the freaking live infant. Once that fetus becomes a person, it has rights, a right of not being murdered being one of them. I mean, I like to sleep in every morning but that doesn't mean I can go off and strangle my infant because I have to get up at 7am every day due to her and this is inconvenient! I can't throw her under a bus because taking care of a child is stressful and I hate it (for the record, I don't but this is a hypothetical) or it may cost me a career opportunity or lower my standard of living. You can't just get rid of a person to better yourself.

Seriously, Jezebel. WTF.

Comments

[ancarett]

I avoid Jezebel because it usually sets off my alarm bells in other ways. They seem to be more about controversy for controversy's sake, in other words.

I wonder if the debate they're raising isn't as much because lawmakers in many places are pushing back the claim point of fetal viability. (I've heard some people say 20 weeks which makes me think o_O because any wildly premature babies I've known have had horrific health issues and they weren't anywhere near that early.)

I've also only known two women who've had late term abortions and both were because of fetal inviability. And they were really hard to arrange (many Canadian women go down to the states because there aren't a large number of experienced practitioners here in Canada, to begin with, seeing as we don't have as many Canadians as they have people in California.) So it's hardly like there's a stampede or would be one for late term abortions. The problem is getting women healthcare options so they can avoid pregnancy if they want or have a safe, early abortion when they need it, I figure.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

The article they are talking about is talking about 29+weeks which is certainly viable. (20 weeks? I suppose there is a small chance to have a viable, if severely handicapped physically and mentally infant, but it's pretty small - I remember researching stuff when pregnant and the odds are not good.

I grew up in the USSR where abortion was often used as back-up contraception (as well for other reasons, of course) - a lot of people I know had them and nobody made a big deal about it (one relative had six). I never realized this could even be a contested issue until I moved to the US. But even there, nobody would do one on a viable fetus.

[darkeyedwolf.livejournal.com]

When a fetus is independently viable, it's a person and you don't get to kill a person merely because it's convenient.

No. If it's part of my body, I have the right to do whatever the hell I want with it -- at any time, for any reason.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

You are kidding, right? Would you be OK with aborting it the day before due date? It's fully a human being by that point! I had my daughter 3 weeks early and she was completely fine and didn't need even any machines. Just because it's inside you doesn't mean it's not a person when it could be independently alive the second it was taken out - that way you may want to induce early delivery to not carry it to term but if instead of that you abort it, sorry, that's murder.

[cranberrysheep.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I think it's a slippery slope to start legislating what a woman can and can not do with her body.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a case of "cut off my nose to spite my face" ;) Of course one can argue that you have the right to cut off one's nose, but it's still pretty pointless (and kinda hard to relate to).

[jamieguo48.livejournal.com]

But a fetus that is able to live outside your body isn't really part of it anymore, is it? Because if that's the case, we're all screwed since we were all part of someone else at one point.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

It seems like such an idiotic and pointless discussion. I don't get what the point would be. If the fetus is viable just have it and give it up for adoption. If you agree to have an operation anyway (for the abortion) why not have a ceasarian instead?

It just smacks of arguing for arguing's sake on Jezebel's part when everybody knows that in a situation like that having the baby and giving it up for adoption is the human decency choice. Why would anybody act differently? To say "Neener, neener, I don't want it, so nobody can have it either"? "I'll kill it just for the heck of it and because I can"?

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly, it's idiotic.

[katranna.livejournal.com]

Um, there are reasons not to want to give up a baby for adoption. Adoption is not a clear-all choice.

[ficchica.livejournal.com]

Which jezebel article is this?

The problem you have is that with modern technology a foetus can be viable
at a much earlier stage (and the weeks will continue to decrease as technology improves). There have been a number of babies born around the cut off point for late term abortions a while back over here, so that reignited the whole debate. Nothing changed though.

When a fetus is independently viable, it's a person and you don't get to kill a person merely because it's convenient.
Actually you do if it's legal. I doubt most women having abortions at that late stage are doing it on a whim, if it is as you say a form of back up contraception the abortion would have been carried out at a much earlier stage. The women must have serious reasons for doing that which can't just be dismissed as convenience.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

http://jezebel.com/5741796/abortion-doctors-arrest-shouldnt-mean-more-restrictions-for-women

But if it's viable, why don't they just take it out, stick it into incubator and put it in the foster system?

Late-term abortions usually done for life/health of mother or major defects in fetus - so it doesn't really buck against viability because either fetus is inviable or it's a 'pick one, mom or kid' situation in which a woman is entitled to save herself.

[ladysaotome.livejournal.com]

Have you seen in the news about that Philadephia clinic? Makes me absolutely sick to even think about.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I was just about to mention that.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I know - it was so horrifying I have no words.

[littledelusion.livejournal.com]

God, that makes me feel so sick inside.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes - I keep raging.

[jamieguo48.livejournal.com]

"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent . . ." (John Donne)

The whole argument of woman's rights seem to entirely ignore the rights of other living things. I'm sorry, but as a woman, I have rights, but so do men, so do all other living creatures, even plants, hehe.

I have rights as a woman, but, I also have responsibilities as well if I want to be a decent human being towards other human beings and even to the world in general. That means that I should try to do no harm to me or others and to do as much good as possible.

Obviously, if I made bad decisions that landed me pregnant, (obviously rape's not included), I can do whatever I want with my body, including abortion. But that doesn't stop me from having responsibility for my actions and my bad choices/decisions. And if I am striving to be a good human being, I need to understand that there are consequences for my actions.

As women, we should understand we have responsibilities as well as rights to other people and to ourselves.

[bluviolet.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say that I really like your comment in general, abortion issue or not.

I have rights as a woman, but, I also have responsibilities as well if I want to be a decent human being towards other human beings and even to the world in general

Such a good line to live by, no matter where one's opinion lies on this issue. Just good advice all around :)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

That is just an amazing post and I agree with it so much, for every aspect of my life, not just the reproductive one.

[orangebreeze.livejournal.com]

Apart from the debate about whether it is moral or not I'm wondering how that would practically work. I mean, if the child can live on its own, it would be already quite big, wouldn't it? So it wouldn't just die because you're getting it out of the womb, would it? I'm imagining some really cruel scenarios here.

And yes, I understand that there are various reasons for getting an abortion. It always is a tough decision. I don't think I'm in any position to judge others about this, and making laws concerning this matter must be really hard. But I also think that getting rid of a fetus that could live on its own would turn the doctors into murderers.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Exactly - if you take it out and it's alive, just put it in the system, why off it, it's bizarre.

[(Anonymous)]

I have complicated feelings about abortion (and I think it's the way everybody should think about it --it's not a balck or what subject, IMO).

Anyway... about this Jezebel article: why not avocate for the right of drowning the baby at birth, then? Because if you didn't made your mind 1 day before birth why not 1 day after it? What would be the difference then?

I think some people just loooove to churn the mud....

Emma

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

My views became a lot more nuanced when I went through pregnancy myself - I think people who paint it black and white are misguided.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

You're a brave person for even bringing that up here ;).

I take the err on the side of life perspective, but part of the reason why I do is that if you dehumanize the developing person at X stage to make its death morally and legally acceptable, then why not at stage Y or Z? There are people out there who think that even newborn babies are "fair game," as long as 40 days after birth! I got to see and hold my niece for the first time when she was just 7 days old. It's chilling.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know it's not the most popular opinion :)

40 days? Are you kidding?

[bluviolet.livejournal.com]

My general stance is that I am against abortion, although I would not go so far as to ban it outright. My logic is simple and it goes like this: Without life, I'd have no liberty. I wouldn't be around to have choices. That obviously raises the question, when does life begin? I do not know the answer to this. There are tons of viable "starting points" for life. Therefore, I'd rather err on the side of caution and and say it begins earlier rather than late. Does that mean conception is the answer? I don't know, but if a fetus is viable outside of the womb, it is most certainly alive. I will never say anything against abortion in health-of-the-mother situations and whatnot, but if you ask me if a fetus is alive when it is viable outside of the womb -- then yes, it is. So, Jezebel--wtf?

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Yes - I don't even see how 'if it's viable outside it's a person' position is debatable. If it can be alive once removed, then just remove it and stick it in the foster system or whatever. Or what, you are going to take it out and crush its skull?

[stillingfleet.livejournal.com]

I'm in the camp that believes that life begins with conception (and I acknowledge that I believe in this for religious reasons - which aren't, I should point out in response to another poster here who seems to be quite against the idea of 'moral' reasons, necessarily any less responsible or invalid compared to a so-called 'rational', 'scientific' or 'personal' decision which is also based on, to some extent at least, a faith in what the particular person believes is rational or scientific), but I agree that where the fetus is non-viable, and especially given circumstances such as rape and incest, that it should be up to individual choice. In which case I'm equally affronted that abortion for viable babies should be even made a topic of debate.

I guess I just wanted to say that I'm glad you brought this up and are so adamant in your views. Also, some of the responses here are quite shocking to me even in terms of tone (not less content - I might be being bitchy here but I don't think some realise how un-liberal and politically (even if I cannot judge and say outrightly, morally) misinformed they sound) and I think you kept the situation pretty controlled nevertheless.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I wanted to say I agree with this post.

I am not pro-life, as that term is currently defined, but I think what pro-choice people fail to realize, is that most pro-lifers aren't that way because they don't want women to have choices but because they believe that a fetus is a human being and thus getting rid of it is murder. People not having choice about committing murder is not a controversial position - defining when one becomes a person is, but the thing is, you can't just say "hey, we have a disagreement on when that heppens so you let me do my thing" - because if you believe that it is a person (even if the other person doesn't) than it's not as if you can go "well yes, I think it's a person but since you disagree you can murder him". If you believe it's a person, you can't sanction that definition for yourself only.

The way to convince pro-life people to back off is to try to change their definition of when a person starts (which varies between religions, science, morals etc). Can it be done? Maybe, maybe not. Civilized discourse is always better than demonizing and shouting on both sides. But claiming fetuses viable outside the womb should be subject to abortion is only going to conform pro-lifers prejudices and views. I mean, I am pro-choice and I am disgusted.