Why I can't be a Feminist/Lesbian part 1

[isaacsapphire]

I’ve been having some difficulties defining myself. I’m kinda sexually attracted to girls, but if I am a lesbian, then I am a Feminist, because lesbian is a subset of Feminist. One of the key elements of Feminism is “a woman’s right to choose (to have an abortion)”.

I was going to keep my big mouth shut on this, but it's too late for that now.

There are a million good arguments why women should be permitted abortions; it’s her body, pregnancy is uncomfortable, inconvenient, dangerous. Children are economically annoying and pregnancy can be socially or professionally disastrous. Surely only a monster would insist that a woman carry the child or rape or incest to term. And of course no one wants an infant with Downs Syndrome or some other birth defect or an IQ of 80 or a high probability thereof or a girl when they really wanted a boy. All good, convincing arguments. I know there are even more.

But...

When does life begin? When does a human being become human? Does a little trip down a vagina make someone human? The original Hippocratic Oath involved the doctor swearing not to assist someone in suicide, take advantage of his position to seduce anyone, female or male (hehe). The physician also swore not to perform or council an abortion. Of course, this is all woefully outdated and patriarchal, I know.

There are multiple cases in current day, both legal and social, where a fetus is considered a person. For example, the murderer of a pregnant woman is judged to have ended two lives.

I did have an argument about how adoption is a nice alternative, but I’ve been told that girls rarely actually go through with it (which does match my own observations) and that it is a “quixotic” solution. So don’t mind this. I’ll just point out that the US adoption system is FUBAR and that we end up importing children by the thousands for adoption, so it’s not like there’s a lack of good homes for the babies if they were put up for adoption.

This entire issue is so filled with rabid idiots on both sides that I imagine a reasonable person would be embarrassed (at minimum) by their compatriots on multiple occasions, whichever side they took. Many pro-abortion folks are so crazy in love with abortion they ignore everything else, including statutory rape, incest, and less invasive methods of birth control in favor of it and act as if abortion is the only issue facing women, ignoring rape and sexual harassment. On the other hand we have pro-lifers who kill abortionists and blow up clinics (which is ultimately harmful to their own cause), or just those who offer no support of any kind to the women they insist should keep their babies, instead ironically socially censuring those who do.

My point is that an unborn person is a human being and should be given the legal and social respect and protection of any human being. On the other hand, if it’s ok to kill people for the crimes of their parents, being socially or economically inconvenient, the wrong sex, handicapped, stupid, or just annoying I know a lot of people who need killing. I’ll probably need a gun for that, but that’s a whole ‘nother rant.

I rushed a little on posting this, so it’s quite possible that there are still some kinks in it and it doesn’t really work as an essay. Call it a statement of personal belief, written too fast. I’m putting this up here in hopes that it will spur some discussion and that perhaps someone will point out some major flaw in my thinking. I have a very small list of beliefs that I’m probably not going to flex on and the humanity of fetuses is one of those. However, feel free to produce evidence to the contrary if you think you have a good case.

Please note: I’m a jerk. I’m a bitch. I’m a hard-hearted bastard. I’m a shame on my race, my species, and my sex. There, it’s been said already. Say something different. I expect to be flamed and treated like an idiot child. Surprise me.

Comments

[ninasis.livejournal.com]

My point is that an unborn person is a human being and should be given the legal and social respect and protection of any human being.

This argument proposes that an embryo comprised of a clump of cells should be given equal rights as the woman carrying those cells. (And keep in mind that I am currently carrying a clump of cells, so I have a bit of a leg to stand on here.)

This argument leaves it up to a legislature to determine when that "unborn person" is considered a human being - and for every person asked this question they will have a different response. Who gets to determine that a fetus of 10/12/14/X# of weeks should have the same rights as I do? Why do they have the right to make that determination?

Yes, abortion is something that people feel strongly about, and everyone has their own opinion about it. Here's the thing - nobody can force you to have an abortion. So why should somebody tell me that I must carry a pregnancy to term unless I meet this specific list of conditions in order to terminate? Why are my rights as a human being suddenly worth less than those of the "unborn person"?

This is the real breaking point FOR ME in the abortion debate. I will support your right to choose for yourself how you wish to exercise your reproductive rights. I ask the same respect. Nobody should have any say over what happens to my body besides myself and my doctor.

[isaacsapphire.livejournal.com]

1)The legislature already does determine when a "person" is considered a human being and when they are not.

For that matter, how come the government gets to determine anything at all? That's going to head down a long and winding pathway about theories of government and social contract and stuff like that. Very complicated and I'll admit I know precisely enough to know that I don't know anything. It's an entire discussion in itself. For this discussion, suffice it to say that governments do have or at least take the right to decide.

2)It's completely untrue that a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion.

Thousands of women have been physically and legally forced to have abortions, many in other countries, such as China (as part of the one child policy), but also minors in America. Any country where a woman does not have the right to refuse a man sex, she has no choice of her own one way or the other about receiving an abortion. If her husband or some other man in authority over her wants her to get an abortion, her own opinion is meaningless, just the same as if she wanted an abortion and the men didn't. Lack of reproductive rights means the lack of the right to NOT have an abortion as much as it means the lack of a right TO have an abortion.

In more free countries, it's quite common to hear of men who said they'd leave (taking their economic support and physical protection with them) if the woman did not get an abortion. Imitate family members (often female family members) can be equally socially and financially intimidating, as can even the government in the form of social services. I know two families (who had large numbers of children and were blue collar, but were not abusing the children and were providing more than adequate physical care) that all their children would be taken away from them if they had any more, hence forcing the woman to get an abortion if she became pregnant again if she did not want to loose all her children.

3)It does make sense that people get so worked up about it; the one side thinks it's about people's rights to their own bodies, the other thinks it's about killing people, both very major issues. Of course people are going to get worked up.

4)I know there's a logical fallacy about saying that just because you can't say exactly when a pile of hay is big enough to constitute a haystack doesn't mean there's no such thing as a haystack. For legal purposes though, there does need to be a point selected, perhaps arbitrarily, when a person becomes a person (and when they cease to be). Of course, we already arbitrarily decree people citizens at age eighteen and able to drink at twenty-one and so on, so there's precedent for arbitrarily selecting ages for receiving particular rights and there's plenty of precedent for not declaring people people until several days after birth.

5)The demands placed on women if they are required to attempt to carry all fetuses to term are enormous and definitely infringe on their bodily rights (which I don't recollect being mentioned in the constitution). On the other hand, being alive is a pretty major right (you know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").

6)I'm pretty sure this is wading into murky waters, but I'll take a guess that my right to avoid a year of absolute physical and mental misery, coupled with the opportunity cost thereof does not take precedent over someone else's right to be alive at all. (assuming that person is, in fact, a person).

7)I'm not sure what exactly defines personhood, either for you personally or for society in general, but as best as I can figure, by the time a woman misses her period (which seems to be when she'd figure out she was pregnant, unless she was trying to get pregnant and testing constantly, in which case she's probably just happy and not considering abortion anyway) the fetus is looking rather more like a human and less like frogs' eggs.

8)I was going to say something about whether fathers had *any* rights (beside the "right" to pay child support), but it seems like men are always the bad guys in this issue, so bringing up a point based on sympathy for them is probably foolishness.

[avon-09.livejournal.com]

I've had an uneasy truce with abortion since my sister was given the option of dying trying to bring a baby to term (thereby rendering her two kids motherless) or having an abortion. Suddenly many of the arguments became a little futile.

[isaacsapphire.livejournal.com]

I think that abortion ends up being a really big game of situational ethics for people, but it's a huge and complex issue. People try to make just a few rules to account for a huge number of possible factors. Economics, biology, and medical technology are all factors, along with social acceptance for the potential mother to *be* a mother, just off the top of my head. And of course there's always the issue of male behavior, both as cause of pregnancy, and support or lack thereof after it has been caused.

We can play games of ethics and talk about probabilities and trading lives for lives, but I think abortion is the (only?) point where these theories become real for most people.

For most people there's a personal story that feeds into how they feel on this issue. I'm no different.

The pregnancy that produced me was originally thought to be an ectopic pregnancy. These are always fatal to the mother with absolutely no hope of the child surviving (ok, there have been literally a handful of cases worldwide where an ectopic pregnancy was undetected and managed to go to term, but those are all rightfully described as medical miracles). Even the Catholic church is cool with abortion in this case.

When there are cojoined twins and they will die unless separated, but there are only enough organs for one baby, we separate them (so letting one die) and call the doctor who does it a hero.

Similarly, if there is a high likelihood (no, I don't know what percentage would count for that) that continuing a pregnancy will kill a mother (I'm using mother partly because I don't feel quite right using "woman" when part of what we're talking about is ten year olds who are pregnant), so killing the fetus/baby/whatever along with the mother, well, it's just stupid to say she should continue the pregnancy, although if she's getting close to the point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb (whatever counts for either of those numbers) she might reasonably decide to risk her life in hopes of being able to preserve both of theirs. However, I question whether the law has any business *forcing* someone to risk her life.

Feel free to keep poking this issue with me; I'll try to be non-confrontational.

[avon-09.livejournal.com]

I am middle-aged. Over the years I've felt that legislation is produced as a knee jerk reaction to an event that happens. The gun laws in the UK are a case in point. In the UK we also have a high degree of teenage pregnancy but our abortion laws are more relaxed I think than in the US.

Most of my belief system comes from being part of a large family to which quite a lot has happened, from early parental death/child death, to illness and for me personally, jumping ship sexually a while back.

This babbling is basically to say that I'm fairly relaxed about most things. I try to see all sides. The only thing where I cannot and will not budge is paedophilia and child abuse/neglect. That is mainly from trying to stop a young friend from committing suicide on a daily basis a while back.

I shall stop wittering now and follow your arguments with interest.

[isaacsapphire.livejournal.com]

Ah, I'm in the US. I'll agree that there's a lot of rather random knee-jerk legislation. A few years ago, someone held up a liquor store on a Sunday in my state and people got killed and stuff. The law passed in response? You now aren't allowed to sell liquor on Sundays. It would be hilarious if it weren't real.

I don't know if it's as intense in other countries, but in the US there's a pretty clear struggle between liberal and conservative groups over who's running the culture that often ends up being fought in the legislature. The tug-of-war is enough to give everyone whiplash and leads to a lot of internally contradictory policies (like don't ask, don't tell in the military but equal opportunity employment and partner benefits being required for homosexuals in government contractors). Sexual mores, gendered behavior, and hence abortion are key points in the fight.

Thank you for being willing to talk on the subject in a relaxed manner.

[avon-09.livejournal.com]

Ah well for a later discussion, I'd like to know why my lovely friend who is transgender cannot appear as the gender of their choosing as they work in the US military and is having to leave a job they are good at to pursue medical/surgical options.

Okay, I'll pipe down now.

[isaacsapphire.livejournal.com]

There *could* be a legitimate reason for that; I'm under the impression that post-op transgendered people have to be on hormones the rest of their lives and that there may be other medical complications. The military has pretty stringent requirements for the physical condition of its soldiers and it might not be possible for a post-op transgendered person to meet them.

[avon-09.livejournal.com]

It's a coherent argument although in this case I don't think it would be applicable as I think he deals with jet engines at the base.

However your point is valid.