What it Means When Feminists Ward off Critiques of the Duggar Family Based on the Concept of "Choice"

You may have seen the stories flying around the web about the Duggar family and Michelle Duggar's recent miscarriage.  The uproar grew louder when one of the Duggar cousins allegedly leaked private family images that were taken of the miscarried baby on a social networking website.  Some people vehemently defended the Duggars, hailing Ms. Duggar as an ultimate mother figure.  Many people critiqued her decision to keep having children, 19 so far to be exact.

The criticisms of Ms. Duggar's continued pregnancies initially grew after the birth of her 19th child from the previous pregnancy, a daughter, who was delivered prematurely weighing just six ounces over one pound, via emergency C-section.  Being born at 25 weeks (many doctors mark 24 weeks as the "age of viability") puts babies at risk of severe complications and survival rates vary by professional opinion (50%-80%).  One feminist blogger whose link was posted on Facebook (I'd link to it if I could remember the URL) criticized the criticisms stating that feminists do not appreciate it when people condemn abortion or a woman's right to choose it so we should not criticize a woman's choice to become pregnant and birth children either.  The words of the author of that post have been rattling around in my head for a few weeks now and I have to say, I am not quite sure I agree.

Of course, I am the first one to say "mind your own business" when it comes to women, pregnancy, and health care.  I do not think that marital status or class, for example, have anything to do with someone's worthiness or capability of being a good parent.  I understand that a lot about what makes pregnancy and child-rearing hard for a lot of people are not problems within the individuals themselves but rather their reactions to (or the reactions they get from, rather) a classist, sexist, and largely child intolerant society.  As for a woman's right to have her own life, health, and body in her own hands to make her own informed medical conditions?  Yes, absolutely; I am right on board.  Of course there are exceptions to this but generally most people who were upset about Mr. and Ms. Duggar continuing to have more children were not touting some lifetime usage limit that should be placed on a woman's uterus.  Rather, the concern expressed was based more on the worry that pregnancy was putting Ms. Duggar and the child potentially born of that pregnancy at risk as well as concern over the stress that more children would have on the children already in the family.  Many people who watch the family's popular television show (I do not watch it) have commented that it appears the older children are doing a great deal of rearing of the younger ones themselves.

Does our respect for choice really translate into disallowing ourselves to pass on wisdom to other women (not saying all critiques of the Duggars are actual wisdom) by saying something like: "that's probably not a good idea" when it comes to pregnancy and child rearing?  As I see it, this is where both [some] feminists and [some] pro-life advocates alike get it completely wrong.  You might be shocked to learn that [some] feminists and pro-life advocates would agree on something but it is true: the discussion of already born, living, breathing, autonomous human beings as not independent individuals who are thusly entitled to human rights on that principle as though they are not people but property or the mere "products of choice."  You've read me write this a thousand times and it will come a thousand times over: we see a perfect example of this in how adoptees are treated in our society.

The pro-life person in this instance views the adoptee, not as a full person on their own, but a product of a woman's choice which translates into essentially being her property.  They say adoptees cannot know their full identities or heritage and crusade against our Adoptee Rights campaigns in several states because it interferes with anti-choice "counselors" being able to offer the right incentive to a pregnant women to "choose life" instead of abortion.  Of course this view blankets women as being rendered completely ignorant and incompetent by either their gender or pregnancy so much so that she can, or needs to be, persuaded to make the "right choice" by holding a juicy enough carrot at the end of the stick to entice her toward the right path.  No amount of research has convinced these individuals and groups that anonymity in adoption is not something surrendering mothers generally want because the narrow-minded stereotypes of "birth mothers" hiding in shame from their "illicit" child bearing are just too darn attractive--but I digress.

I won't let the feminist off the hook either.  For likewise, there are feminists who stand in the way of Adoptee Rights also claiming that an original mother's decision to sever ties with the adoptee (they assume that every surrendering mother is fully informed what adoption legally means and does at the time of surrender) means she has chosen to relinquish her motherhood to the adoptee and therefore relinquished any entitlement the adoptee may have of knowing their connection to her.  This choice, per the feminists of this viewpoint, trumps all else.  To them, the adoptee is not an autonomous individual in this regard but rather a mere product of her choice, a choice (an alleged one at that) that they see as trumping any full equality the adoptee feels they should have under the law.  For we female adoptees, this means our sister feminists would too relegate us to less-than-human and to the level of property, the product, the "result of a choice" of someone else.  What a shame.

The mistake I wish people would take care not to make: stop confusing private health care decisions while pregnant (choice) with the rights of the born individual.  Stop using the right to make private health care decisions to turn our brains off and keep from saying "hey, this really isn't a good idea" when it needs to be said, when it comes to the rights and welfare of individuals who were born because of whatever decisions their mothers did or did not make.  Continuing pregnancy is a choice.  Giving birth is a choice.  The son or daughter born because of those choices?  They are people, not choices, and discussing what is in their best interest is not "anti-choice."  Feminists condeming the critiques of Ms. Duggar's decision to add more children to her family have done so in a way that essentially says that we cannot talk about the welfare such a decision has on that child or the other children involved because those children are her "choices," the "products" of her reproductive choice, rather.  As I've explained, I cringe because in the minds of others, being adopted makes me someone's "choice" too.

I have a friend with a rare medical condition which poses severe complications should she get pregnant.  Pregnancy would put her at risk for not only severe complications but risk her life.  She would have to experience invasive medical procedures to sustain the pregnancy and the life of the fetus, have a high likelihood of miscarriage and pre-mature birth, and face other possible complications.  Can I stick my head in the sand and say "I'm not allowed to be concerned, I have to pretend that this doesn't exist because I believe in choice?"  Does Ms. Duggar's right to continue to be pregnant and give birth mean that no one who knows her could say to her "maybe more births or more children aren't good for you or your family right now?" (I'll refrain from extending my own personal opinion on the Duggar's exponentially growing family).  If a friend is putting herself, her body, or the potentially resulting child at risk, I will be a friend and let her know I am concerned.  I am not talking about legislating women's autonomy away or telling another woman what she can and cannot do.  But I will be a friend to the women I know and I will be honest.  Our respect for another woman's choice should not cause us to see her children as choices rather than as human beings.  Respect for choice should not translate into us throwing each other's wisdom out the window.

Photo credit: duron123