Newt In A Tea Cup











{January 22, 2007}   Blog for Choice Day

I know I should really be doing coursework for now but today is Blog For Choice Day so here I am.

Let me start by saying that I don’t like abortion. Good – that’s cleared up. But then how many women getting abortions like it? Contrary to stereotypes women don’t skip into the clinics with sunshine and flowers and rainbows lighting their mental path.

Abortion is not a choice that is made lightly and there are real reasons behind it.

I believe that Abortion is a symptom, not a cause of social ills. Until poverty, discrimination, lack of education, rape, the wage gap, childcare and many more fundamental issues are dealt with abortion will keep coming up – and for good reasons.

Abortion has been around since the beginning of time in the form of herbs and violence against oneself. Desperate women are nothing new. It isn’t going away and whilst the debate for when life starts (which I refuse to go into because I can’t pretend to know despite my GCSE Child Development Certificate) life is ending for many women in countries where abortions are illegal.

I would rather those women had an abortion and lived to take care of their families – don’t you?

The point is that this comes down to an issue of autonomy. If you trust women to be fully intelligent and capable human beings then you should trust them when it comes to what happens to their bodies. Bringing a life into the world is so monumental that we need to leave that to the individual doing it and certainly not force it on them.

Being pro-choice does not mean loving abortion. It means recognising that some women are in very real situations where they have a real need for help and abortion provides that.

If you believe abortion is bad, fine. So do something about the root causes of it – help teenage mothers, financially and emotionally, help disenfranchised areas, support sex education, support research into mental and physical illnesses, don’t discriminate against working mothers and protest a culture that provides women’s self-validation only as sex-objects.

If we do all that then I think abortion will go down, and not just in the way that means women travel to another country, or secretly risk death with a coat-hanger out of desperation.

Until then- get the bloody hell out of my uterus.

There is a statistic going around that around 70% of Anti-Choice leaders are men. It is obscene and sickening that men feel the imperative to legislate women’s bodies. Because that is what it is – ussually rich white men sitting around a table deciding the fate of women they have never met and never cared about.

What happens to women’s bodies is women’s business, and until these men find themselves pregnant they have no say whatsoever in my eyes. It is absolutely none of their business.

If a woman decides not to tell her partner about a pregnancy and abortion – she’s probably got a good reason. Most of these types of decisions are made in the partnership after much deliberation. And even if they aren’t – the final choice should always, always be the woman’s because it is her fundamental right to human autonomy that is being dealt with.

It is her body. To legislate a person’s body is nothing short of oppression.

Advertisements


ausblog says:

QUESTION –

What does the law say in relation to a man that assults his partner by repetedly punching her in the abdomen,causing a miscariage because she wouldn’t have an abortion?

Surely more than just a common assult on the said partner.



tcupnewt says:

I believe the law classifies that as Grievous Bodily Harm. I know it seems (and is) more severe but I can’t quite see what else to classify it as – unless a new category is invented?

“Common” seems to be the wrong word- though it is typical, as the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder by their (ex) partner.



ausblog says:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.
This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.



ausblog says:

Both my comments were in relation to your words,

If a woman decides not to tell her partner about a pregnancy and abortion – she’s probably got a good reason. Most of these types of decisions are made in the partnership after much deliberation. And even if they aren’t – the final choice should always, always be the woman’s because it is her fundamental right to human autonomy that is being dealt with.

Do you see what I’m getting at ?



tcupnewt says:

Keep in mind I’m writing from the UK where we don’t have that law. Even if we did have it, I’d disagree with it. Yeah, all violence against persons is despicable but the foetus is not the same category as an adult woman. Her autonomy and well-being trumps the other’s no matter. To be honest I’m not sure what your point is (but then it’s early, early morning here 🙂 )



stormy says:

Give it up ausblog… no uterus, no right to an opinion.



ausblog says:

The “born alive” rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is “born alive”. Recent advances in the state of medical science have led to court decisions that have overturned this rule, and in several jurisdictions statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include unborn children.

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

As of 2002, 23 states in the United States still employed the rule, to lesser or greater extent.[2]

The abolition of the rule has proceeded piecemeal, from case to case and from statute to statute, rather than wholesale. One such landmark case with respect to the rule was Commonwealth vs. Cass, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the court held that the stillbirth of an eight-month-old foetus, whose mother had been injured by a motorist, constituted vehicular homicide. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the foetus constituted a “person” for the purposes of the Massachusetts statute relating to vehicular homicide. In the opinion of the justices, “We think that the better rule is that infliction of perinatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable foetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then the unborn should have equil consideration in relation to abortion..

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT (in arm) THAT IS
SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?

Implanon is new to the US but has been widely used in Aus for about five years.The only bad report iv’e heard is if your a smoker you can’t use them due to increased risk of cardiovascular conditions.
Good incentive to give the cigs a miss…………
any way my daughter has one, and no problems and no pills to remember.



tcupnewt says:

I’m sorry, are you saying that the foetus (or more often embryo) is the same as an independent man or woman?

If you can take someone to court over murder when it comes to the unborn (which brings up loads of twisted things with women who miscarry) then surely we should be able to reciprocate and bring the foetus to court when women die in childbirth or pregnancy to accuse it of murder.

It would be absolutely preposterous to do that, wouldn’t it? Why? Of course I believe the foetus is alive – cells, and bacteria and germs are alive! That, to me, has never been the question.

The difference is self-awareness and levels of consciousness.

We don’t know how self aware a foetus is, but a person out the womb will always be more self-aware than one in it. Your concern seems to be about the viability and “aliveness” of the unborn. That’s fair enough, and I confess to similar concerns. However I am one hundred percent convinced of the mother’s human right to autonomy- something the unborn does not have to the same degree through the very virtue of the placenta and umbilical cord.

To me it’s a simple case of human right to body autonomy outweighs rights of the potential, not-yet conscious human.

Laws do not make or create morality. Hopefully it is the opposite.

And yes, I do know about the implants. Like I said, I learnt all about contraception in my Child Development course. And we also learnt, and had people share experiences, where contraception such as that specific implant you mentioned did not suit the person, or reacted with side-effects not worth the pain. Nothing is 100% for 100% of women, though it may work for most.

Secondly, I have no sexual partners and yet if I were raped I would be damn pissed if I didn’t have the option to abort available. I am also not going on expensive, medically invasive procedures under the threat of “if I get raped”. It is not a universal option.

The right to abortion does not mean forcing women to abort it means treating them like people and giving them a choice. Like I said there are loads of ways to reduce abortion by making the causes unnecessary that don’t involve putting peers in harmful situations.



ausblog says:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison (or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so)

then shouldn’t the unborn have equil consideration in relation to abortion..?

Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence…?

Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same…?

I think it’s not ethical to protect one without the other…..

they’re one and the same……..



Oh Noes Ausblog—–grow a uterus and I may listen to ya!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

et cetera
%d bloggers like this: