Comments on The Declassified Adoptee: Get Your Hands off me: why Abortion Access is just...

Hi Anon, Thank you for your kind words and though...

2012-01-31T21:39:12.483-05:00

Hi Anon,

Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful comments.

I think we are nearly in agreement except for some minor philosophical and terminology differences. We agree that the same rights can't always be extended to both at the same time. In order to intervene with a fetus to uphold it's "right" to well being, a woman has to lose the right to autonomy over her body. Vice versa, in order for a woman to always have complete autonomy, the fetus's "right" to life is therefore secondary. However, where I say "this means that only the woman can be a person, so give a woman 100% autonomy and choice" you would say "they're both people, we just can't extend the same rights to both at all times in all situations."

What are some examples of instances where one person, who did nothing criminally wrong to warrant it, loses a basic human right in order for another person's basic human right to be upheld? In Social Work practice, we have a heirarchy of rights that we acknowledge according to the situation. For instance, a client's right to confidentiality in what they share with us becomes secondary should what they share with us reveal they are going to harm themselves or others. In that instance, we must warn the other person as well as report the client. There are instances where rights conflict but these are not basic human rights, rather, professionally extended rights to clients receiving services. I'm trying to think of some other instances.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It's h...

2012-01-29T20:30:45.239-05:00

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It's helpful to understand a perspective that is different from my own. I think in the end, I disagree that they both can't have rights at the same time (I don't quite understand the argument that they both can't have rights as you argue if one of their rights negates the others rights (thus making it impossible to both be "persons"; there are plenty of examples of this b/w adults and then it becomes a moral ethical decision, when someone's rights imposes on someone else's right. It doesn't mean that they are all of a sudden not a person.). I believe in the personhood of the fetus and of the woman and even though believing in that means that I am denying a woman the right to "be free from harassment and be free from protection", I believe denying a woman that right (myself included) is more important than denying the person she is carrying the right to life. I agree that in the extreme there could be a lot of harm done to any of us if we were no longer able to consent to procedures. Anyway, I continue to appreciate our thoughtful posts that present your perspective in a way that doesn't turn away readers with different views.

Oh and before some weirdo comes along and goes, &q...

2012-01-29T18:57:16.012-05:00

Oh and before some weirdo comes along and goes, "When does a fetus take your blood or your kidney?" That's the nature of pregnancy. You do not become pregnant by voluntarily-enacted remote control. It's completely random whether a sperm will fertilize an ovum. It's completely random whether the zygote will last until implantation, and random whether or where it will implant. It's random whether the zygote will develop into a baby. (Sometimes they develop into more than one; sometimes they blight; sometimes they become a tumor or disappear.) NONE of this is under the woman's control. Anyone who's been trying five years and hasn't caught will tell you that wanting a pregnancy has nothing to do with whether one actually occurs. So yes, you could call the fetus an uninvited visitor, and you could certainly say it's "taking" something. When it's at zygote stage it even suppresses your immune system so that you don't reject it. It's fine if this is all wanted by the woman, but it's also quite invasive and has lasting implications for her long-term health.

I feel fine calling a fetus a person, and I'm ...

2012-01-29T18:53:02.718-05:00

I feel fine calling a fetus a person, and I'm totally pro-choice: I am for the unlimited right to a legal abortion up until the time it becomes more dangerous to abort a pregnancy than it is to continue it. (And pregnancy does progress to that point--but it's pretty darned late on.)

But the reason I have no trouble saying a fetus is a person is that born people are not allowed to use other born people's body parts, not even their blood, without express consent and permission. I am a former blood donor (would like to start again sometime soon, but my health's been weird for a decade or better and I never seem to find the time) and every single time I donated, they had me sign a consent form and they also gave me a way to contact them if I wanted to revoke consent. Now ostensibly this was just in case I suddenly remembered some weird disease or risky behavior I might have encountered or done which would render my blood unfit for transfusion. In practice, though, my organs and tissues are my organs and tissues up until they are put into someone else's body.

No one can grab me off the street and take a pint or a kidney from me without breaking the law. No fetus (or more properly, zygote) should be allowed to do that either, IF the anti-abortion people are right and an unborn person is just exactly like a born person. Even if I consent to someone using my body for life support, if they're a born person I can tell them to stop at any time. So we're going to treat the unborn person differently... why?

All these people ranting about the personhood of fetuses giving them trumping power over a woman's autonomy had better all be habitual blood donors and registered organ donors. All I'm saying.

But I get the notion what they're really after is all those donations they get from the adoption industry so that none of them have to get real jobs and they can just spend the rest of their lives bullying women. With the added dubious benefit that the ready supply of (mostly white and perfect) newborn infants for adoption is forever secured.

P.S. Where are we getting the statistics about obstetrical lawsuits getting "out of hand"? From the medical-malpractice insurance companies, mainly, right? And the doctors which have actually been sued? Some pretty horrific things have been done to mothers and babies in the name and process of obstetric "care." The cops aren't interested in arresting these hamhanded fools so what else are we supposed to do? Lawsuits become our only option. Money talks. I sympathize with the "abusive lawsuits" argument pretty much not at all.

The reason I believe they cannot both be people is...

2012-01-29T12:24:28.962-05:00

The reason I believe they cannot both be people is because of what the definition of "personhood" means. "Personhood" means someone is a person. "Person" is defined as an individual human being. All "persons" are considered to have inalienable human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists what these rights are. First, it says that human rights are for people who have been born. It is a human right to be legally protected. You have the right not to be unjustly detained. You have the right to privacy and be free from harassment. You have the right to work. You have the right to food, health care, and housing. You have a right to never have any of these rights taken away from you.

Say we say a fetus is a person, therefore, a fetus has ALL of these basic human rights. In order to apply rights to the fetus you must take away the rights of the woman to do so. For example, in order for the fetus to have the right of receiving no harm (e.g. an abortion) we have to take away the basic human right of the woman (which is a rights violation against in itself) to be free from harassment and be free from protection. When applying basic human rights to one, you have to succeed that the rights of the other are secondary. And you can't change the definition of personhood per the situation. Either someone is a person or they aren't. Since the woman is born and it is HER body that the fetus needs to survive, she is the person. We cannot violate her basic human rights by giving the fetus basic human rights too, because they conflict. Either a woman has a right to be free OR a fetus has a right not to be harmed therefore a woman cannot be free to make sure the fetus' rights are upheld. It can't go both ways.

Yes, there are cases where the decisions a woman makes while pregnant will harm a future person during their life. However, I disagree with intervening during her pregnancy because where would it end? What if a doctor doesn't like a medication I take or wants to control my diet while pregnant, for the sake of the fetus, how will that be carried out? Force feedings? Forcing pills down my throat? Injecting me with something? Imprisoning me during my pregnancy so that I cannot feed myself or act autonomously in case I might hurt the fetus in a way that will impact them after they are born? See how many human rights this violates?

Again, to do that, we must violate the basic human rights of the woman. We must say she is not a person and therefore can be imprisoned, harassed, and controlled. While it is an absolute shame that some women make really bad choices that negatively impact children after they are born, it's not a reason to condemn women as a whole, take away their personhood, or legislate action upon their bodies because of it.

http://www.declassifiedadoptee.com/2011/09/should-pre-natal-exposure-to-drugs-be.html

Thank you :-)

2012-01-29T12:03:57.405-05:00

Thank you :-)

2012-01-29T12:02:57.494-05:00

Thank you :-)

Thanks, Kris :-) Hi Kris, I see your point and a...

2012-01-29T12:02:40.344-05:00

Thanks, Kris :-)

Hi Kris,

I see your point and agree that the lawsuits have gotten out of hand and even gone as far as threatened the availability of obstetrical services completely. However, with my friend and many other women there was no medical reason to turn them down. What happened was, she moved to a new location inbetween pregnancies. She was trying to find a new doctor and was attempting to set up appointments on the phone with a new OB when she got pregnant. Without so much as being seen, she was told by the medical staff "oh, the doctor doesn't do VBACs." They did not even look at her medical records or so much as give her a chance. I know doctors do not want to be sued. But I think being forced to choose between having no doctor and birthing at your house unassisted because no doctor will take you and you don't want to be cut open just to have a doctor OR being cut open when you don't want to be, all because of a 2% chance there might be a problem, is pretty sad.

This is a great post. A lot to think about. I wou...

2012-01-29T11:05:37.778-05:00

This is a great post. A lot to think about. I would like to comment on the VBAC example. While I agree that a woman has a right to choose this option for delivery, I disagree that doctors are (necessarilty) not respecting her wishes if they refuse to do it. Doctors take an oath to do no harm. They have a right to not perform a procedure they feel will cause harm. They also have their license to consider. OBs have very high rates of malpractice suits filed against them and pay exhorbitant insurance rates. I don't blame them for not risking their license and therefore their livelihood to do a VBAC on a woman on whom it is questionable. If a woman has been turned down 12 times for this procedure there is probably a medical reason for it. At what point does the woman stop thinking about what SHE wants and think about what is best for her baby? Just a thought...

Having said that, I remember a truly horrible experience in nursing school where I was observing a C-section on a very obese woman (who also happened to be of color and very young). The doctor called in a whole bunch of medical students, residents, etc to observe "how to do a C-section on an extremely fat woman." Yes, he said that right in front of her. Then proceded to point out how he was pulling back all the fat with some instrument. There was a lot of commenting and questions about the fat with her awake and lying right there. It WAS a teaching hospital but the lack of respect shown to this woman was eye-opening.

Absolutely!

2012-01-29T01:48:34.924-05:00

Absolutely!

Awesome post! Truly!

2012-01-28T21:26:53.241-05:00

Awesome post! Truly!

Thanks for explaining this so much further; it rea...

2012-01-28T20:13:58.586-05:00

Thanks for explaining this so much further; it really helped me understand your perspective. (I had commented on the other post too). I was wondering if you could briefly elaborate on the comment that a woman and a fetus both cannot be persons, only one can. Why? Also, I was a nurse once and I took care of a baby that was brain dead b/c at the home birth the labor took a very wrong turn and the mother refused to go to the hospital for a c/s. The baby then was deprived of oxygen for quite some time during the birth and was then brain dead. If I understand your post, it was her decision, it was her body to decide. And once the baby was born, he was a person and then had rights. But I am confused because her decision as a person affected his future life as a person (since you are arguing he doesn't have rights until he is born) and his ability even to make a rational decision of his own in the future. So, I think though I understand the theory, I feel like not every person (woman or man) always make rational wise decisions, and sometimes it is better to intervene against someone's wishes for the sake of the child. (This is an extreme example of course, and I totally am in agreement with you about how much intervention is needlessly done during pregnancy...I refused it all during labor and had to sign all the AMA forms, and don't regret it at all. And I had also researched it a ton and knew what things were unneeded). Thanks again.