Two things in the news today shocked me. First, Ohio is still a battleground where women's health is concerned. The state may have given its electoral college votes to Obama, but today the health committee of the state's House of Representatives voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood. I thought we had this fight already! I thought Susan G. Komen foundation noticing it's not a good idea, and Texas noticing, if not admitting, they can't really do women's health without PP, this urge to defund one of the most important organizations promoting women's health in this country, would have passed. Apparently, as the Chairman says, it's not about abortions. Fine, so what is it about then? Promoting more unplanned pregnancies due to lack of access to contraception?
In the end, though, my suspicion is that this is about image. Planned Parenthood is promoting values that are unpalatable to those of the most socially conservative inclinations. In some circles it is still a radical idea for a woman to be in control of her reproduction. (I must assume. Or maybe they approve only women over a certain level of affluence that privilege? We must keep the poor poor, don't we?) My favorite tv host, Melissa Harris Perry brought up last week something that, where I was educated was a given, but what you don't hear enough here, and something that must have passed unnoticed by many of the legislators of this nation: Women who are in control of their reproductive health are more highly educated and have higher incomes. The saying goes: Educate a woman, you educate a village. I say, let a woman have control over her own body, you educate a village. The Ohio defunding of PP will next go to the full House of Representatives. PP is of course fighting it, and hopefully will create a movement powerful enough to stop this from passing.
The other news that stopped me dead in my tracks today came from Ireland. Last month, in Ireland, that is, in 21st century Western, developed country, in Europe, a woman died because she was refused appropriate medical care due to having a dying fetus inside her. A tragedy, a woman losing a wanted pregnancy, was turned into something so much worse, by what must not be called "pro-life". Here's a link to an article, but to summarize: A 31-year-old woman, pregnant 17 weeks, was admitted to hospital with a miscarriage in progress. She was told there was no hope for the fetus, but there was still a heartbeat. She developed a serious infection, for which the only appropriate treatment is antibiotics and termination of the pregnancy. However she was told there was nothing the doctors could do while there still was a heartbeat - because "this was Catholic Ireland". Savita was not Irish, nor Catholic, yet she died an unnecessary death because of the so-called "pro-life" protection of the fetus whose demise was inevitable from the start.
I don't know if that's the law there - I doubt it is; but it is little comfort when the end result is a wholly unnecessary death due to either complete ignorance of the doctors who "cared" for her; or completely dangerious attitudes when it comes to pregnant women. (Such as, a woman only has value as a baby-carrying apparatus.)
I hope Joe Walsh has heard about this case, and I hope he feels very, very ashamed. Also, while I aknowledge that most women seeking abortion are not in danger of death, these women are the ones who will most dramatically bear the consequences of an outright ban on abortion, the kind that, incidentally, the Republican party platform is suggesting.
I hope Joe Walsh has heard about this case, and I hope he feels very, very ashamed. Also, while I aknowledge that most women seeking abortion are not in danger of death, these women are the ones who will most dramatically bear the consequences of an outright ban on abortion, the kind that, incidentally, the Republican party platform is suggesting.
Outrageous, on both accounts. That's pretty much all I can say. I would really like to hear a real reason for Ohio's decision. Supposing it really isn't about abortion. It infuriates me to think that the same people who say they value freedom, mean freedom to choose/to make decisions about your health is only for those born with a penis. There, I said it :D
VastaaPoistaYou said it, and you have it right, sister. I'll be keeping an eye on what happens in the Ohio House. As far as I know, all states trying to defund PP have one way or another failed. Courts are blocking it - so there can't be very good justifications behind it.
PoistaSpeaking of contraception, knowing your fondness for the former Governor & former candidate, you'll probably get a kick out of this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/11/15/mitt_romney_calls_contraception_a_gift_the_u_n_calls_it_a_right.html
Actually, it is the law there. In Ireland, an abortion is only possible if it is done due to serious health concerns, but nowhere is it defined how serious these health concerns are. In reality, this means that the decision is left up to the doctor, and the doctors might deny an abortion because they fear they would otherwise be sued for an unneeded abortion. The law has been in the European Court of Human Rights, which has ruled that it must be changed to be more clear, but nothing's been done about it yet.
VastaaPoistaThis is not the only example of fundamentalist Catholicism affecting Irish legislature. Europe as a whole is not as liberal as you'd sometimes wish.
I saw a picture of a sign at a protest in Dublin that said "Just legislate already". This must be what it means. I saw this article yesterday, which gave me a clearer picture of the situation there http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-ireland-abortion-idUSBRE8AD1QD20121115 But you actually seem to know all that already. :)
PoistaI think this woman could have been saved even without clear legislation, if she had had a doctor with a frickin' backbone. So incredibly sad.
You're right, Europe is not just the Nordic countries where most of these issues have been dealt with, say, in the 70s. Reproductive rights are mostly ok in most of the less-Catholic European countries, but other issues hindering gender equality such as maternity leave and child care are still an issue even in the UK from what I've read.
I am all for contraception (remember laughing at my pencils in Altoona Area High School back in the 90s on which it stood: "ABSTINENCE - CHOOSE IT" - and at the same time there was a kindergarten for the students' kids in the school building...). But what comes to abortion, I boldly say I am against it - except in situations where the mother's life is at risk - as the one reported in Ireland. I always wonder why no one speaks about the unborn children's rights - well, I guess because they aren't seen as children and that is the point that makes all the difference in argumentations. The saddest stories are the ones that have been in the news in Finland lately.
VastaaPoistaI'll have to find out about the stories from Finland - I've become too oblivious to back home news. I appreciate your comment! I feel like the abortion discussion is almost like two different animals in Finland and in the US. This is going to be a lenghty response so bear with me. :)
PoistaIn Finland I was much closer to the anti-choice end of spectrum than here, because of the differences in attitudes and legislation, and even though I wouldn't decline seeing patients seeking abortion at work, I only started calling myself "pro-choice" once I saw more of the discussion here.
To begin with, I can not imagine myself ever wanting a termination. If there was a grave AND certain prenatal diagnosis, it would be a tough choice but a decision to be made at the time. As awful as it is to even think about becoming pregnant from being raped, I think I would even then choose to carry the pregnancy. Yet it gives me comfort that it would be my choice, not forced on me.
Therein lies my fundamental problem with anti-choice. I don't think I, or anyone else (least of all old, white men of privilege) should make that choice for a woman. I have both religious and moral reasons to not consider abortion an option for myself, but I also believe that I shouldn't force my beliefs on others.
You raise the question of the rights of the unborn. It is, in my view, all the more relevant if we're talking about late terminations, especially if the fetus would have a chance to survive outside the mother's womb. I think Finnish law is pretty good here: Terminations only in the first 12 weeks - though I know it won't be very hard to get an exception for weeks 12-20 for any reason, social included.
So coming back to the usual scenario, of an unintended pregnancy somewhere between six to ten weeks: Can the rights of an embryo override the rights of a woman to self-determination and physical autonomy? I join those who don't see an embryo as a child, but as a potential child. Not a person, just the beginnings what can become a person. An abortion should be the very last option, but as such should be available, not only because a woman has the right to physical autonomy but also because we know that whether safe and legal abortions are available or not, women will have abortions - illegal, unsafe abortions.
I do not take a pro-choice view lightly, and it's not hard for me to appreciate the views of pro-contraception anti-abortion thinkers like you. It's the anti-contraception/anti-sex ed people, the kind that seem to have taken over the GOP for instance, with whom I have problems.
Thank you so much for your response, I appreciate it too!
VastaaPoistaWhen do you think an embryo becomes a child then? (Not a provocative question, just interested in your opinion :) I believe it wasn't too long ago some philosophers / scholars suggested newborns weren't real humans either because they really cannot think etc. (cannot remember all the fancy arguments). Thus, it would be ethically right to eliminate mature newborns too... Very provocative, but I think this shows how tricky it is to decide who (or what) is human.
Good question. Like you say, it's tricky. Basically I think we don't know, and will probably never _know_, but we can use science to guide us in making definitions. Still there's a grey area. To begin with, there's a fertilized egg. (GOP wants that to be defined as a person. Basically that means that any woman who is having sex - even with protection, because that's never 100.0% effective - should be considered to be pregnant, carrying a person, from ovulation +1 day to menstruation.)
PoistaThe fertilized egg has the potential to become an embryo, when on day 7 it implants to the uterine wall. It's a clump of cells at this point, and I don't think it's a person. Also, up to 35 % of embryos that make it this far, are not viable and don't develop.
Around week 6 we can detect a heartbeat. But I don't believe a person can be defined by having a heartbeat. By week 12 the beginnings for all the organs are there, and the embryo is called fetus now. From then on the organs develop further and grow, and we know a fetus has a sleep pattern in the womb, can hear noises from outside, and all kinds of human things.
After week 24, and definitely by week 28-30, a healthy fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb. Until it's been born, it's still called fetus - scientifically, though obviously I don't object to parents and doctors calling it a baby even then. Ultimately my thinking comes to this: A fetus can not be a person until it has a chance of surviving outside the womb, 24 weeks minimum. However, it's not a bad idea to be more conservative: In Finland the line is drawn at 22 weeks - after which fetal death is not miscarriage but a still birth. In the US the line is drawn even earlier, at 20 weeks. This of course says nothing per se of personhood.
BUT, once the beginnings of all organs are there, at 12 weeks, a fetus is so close to being a person, that it should be afforded special consideration and protection.
I have also heard the suggestion that newborns aren't humans and could be eliminated, which is truly abominable - and part of why I want to think a fetus is a person once it's viable outside the womb, as opposed to once it is born. To move the line far enough back from birth.
I'm not a very hard core pro-choicer though, when it makes me sad just to write about abortion.
Thank you again.
Poista