Comments on: HCR, the Stupak amendment, and the complex reality of abortion

By: Saturday Round-up: Crybaby Ranch edition : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:55:40 +0000

[...] neither. Well, boo-friggin’-hoo, Congressman: you got zero credit from the crazzies for all the precious little baby fetuses you pretented to care about. And in spite of your bad hair and your Polish name, you apparently know nothing about [...]

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:08:52 +0000

Or the 14th Amendment’s clear statement of equality.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:55:57 +0000

How can crude laws serve people’s most intimate medical needs well, unless they affirm each woman’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy and bodily sovereignty?

It is an unfortunate historical fact about our constitutional jurisprudence that these rights have been weakly grounded in a shitty “penumbral” theory instead of strongly in the Ninth Amendment’s clear embrace of the inviolability of unenumerated natural law rights. I have posted about this in the past at my place:

http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/repost-constitutional-originalism-natural-law-and-the-ninth-amendment/

By: thefrogprincess

thefrogprincess — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:03:49 +0000

Oh and a quick note to what Rosa said about ectopic pregnancies. My mother was extremely socially conservative and pro-life. I don’t think she considered abortion okay under any circumstance. At some point growing up, I learned about ectopic pregnancies, which terrified me b/c I thought ending one was an abortion, which was morally wrong and unacceptable. Even my archconservative mother quickly assured me that dealing with ectopic pregnancies weren’t abortions. She’s one of my gauges of conservatism and if this legislation is possibly going further than even she would, that’s saying something.

By: thefrogprincess

thefrogprincess — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:59:10 +0000

Bavardess says:
No one considers how the parents or society will support that child financially/practically and emotionally after birth, or what sort of life a child might experience when they are unwanted.

Absolutely. Sometimes I feel as though social conservatives treat the world as they would like it to be, rather than as it is. It might be fantastic if women who had babies they didn’t want had all the financial, familial, and practical support in the world and bonded with their babies magically after birth, but the world does not work like that. I’m not completely personally comfortable with abortion b/c I grew up in a socially conservative world but I’m even less comfortable with forcing women to have babies they don’t want. I think there’s a reason they don’t want them and that has to be honored. Those who are concerned with life need to be concerned with the quality of life these children will experience. That quality will not be good if the parents shouldn’t be parents or don’t want to be.

By: Kathleen Lowrey

Kathleen Lowrey — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:39:59 +0000

Historiann, I’m an “absolutist” in the same way (it’s up to the pregnant woman), and it’s 100% true (as Bavardess points out) that anti-choicers who claim to be horrified by selective abortion don’t lift a finger to advocate for disability-friendly policies; I suspect many parents would choose differently if they weren’t afraid for the future of a child with any kind of challenge in our sink-or-swim society! But pro-life advocates are not about expanding possibilities, only shrinking them.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:39:47 +0000

I just wanted to add to the hyperemesis story – I was treated for an ectopic pregnancy a few years ago, and learned recently that the treatment was considered to be an abortion, under the medical useage you referred to.

Now, I’m not sure how many women would choose nontreatment over debt, since ectopic pregnancy can kill you (though maybe once you start hemorrhaging, that’s covered?) and, if untreated, will definitely affect your fertility. But it’s a sobering thought.

By: Bavardess

Bavardess — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:03:29 +0000

Kathleen, as it was me who brought up the issue of disability, I thought I should clarify my point. First, I absolutely agree with you that any stance claiming abortion is ‘ok’ in certain circumstances but not in others is untenable. Personally, I support no-questions-asked abortion-on-demand. The reason I brought up the disability issue is it is because it is something I have personal experience of (through friends), but this argument of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term applies in any circumstances, regardless of the relative health of the fetus. Part of the point I was trying to make (although perhaps badly) is that pro-life advocates’ concern for the unborn child usually stops at the moment of birth. No one considers how the parents or society will support that child financially/practically and emotionally after birth, or what sort of life a child might experience when they are unwanted.

By: Emma

Emma — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:18:17 +0000

I thought that Democrats realized that their party is female-majority, and that a majority of those women are pro-choice, and that if women don’t show up to vote on election day that they’re SOL.

I doubt very much that women will abandon the Democratic Party in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

But I will be donating to Joe Lieberman to encourage him to filibuster this health care reform. Who cares if his reasons for wanting to wreck it are different than mine? If he has the ability to torpedo it, I’m on board.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:59:42 +0000

Kathleen, I understand, and I mostly agree. I don’t think I or Bavardess were making the birth of a disabled child the bottom line for abortion rights. The important thing is who is making decisions on abortion, not their reasons. I’m an absolutist in that regard.

We can talk about the many reasonable concerns raised by forced pregnancy without “giving all the important ground away.”