“I was lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: the enemy is not human. “ And you, in this article, have done the same toward women. You show absolutely no respect for the acts of gestating a fetus and giving birth - giving new life to a human, something that only women can do. Since this is something that only women can do, the misogynist institution of Catholicism and other repressive religions IGNORE these acts - thereby completely erasing the role of the woman in the birth process. In their view, once a woman conceives, her role - and her ability to make decisions regarding it - ends. She becomes a subhuman non-entity, a mere Petri dish. Most likely, this attitude compensates for the fact that the man has no role in the process after he donates the sperm. It is totally out of his hands (unless of course, he murders the pregnant woman, as happens all too often). I’m sure this has frustrated and enraged men for thousands of years. Until anti-abortion advocates like yourself come to terms with the reality of biology, that is, that a fertilized ovum is not a human being in any sense of the phrase - and until you can figure out some way to gestate a fetus to term without the willing participation of a woman and her womb - you are merely living in a dream world, parroting senseless propaganda. “As I researched issues like partial-birth abortion, I frequently became stunned to the point of feeling physically ill upon witnessing the level of evil that normal people can support.” Late-term abortion is almost always used in tragic cases of fetal abnormality or danger to the woman’s life. Would you like to explain why you think that medical professionals are “evil” for helping in these cases? Are you really ready to say that the life of a fetus trumps the life of a grown woman? It’s easy to say such things when you make the woman invisible and rob her of her humanity and her authority over her own body.
Heather-Rose Ryan
Intervale, NH
Heather-Rose: of all the comments I received, I was most looking forward to responding to this one, because I really understand where you’re coming from. There’s a lot of ground to cover here, so let’s start with this:
LATE-TERM ABORTIONS FOR HEALTH REASONS
You said: "Late-term abortion is almost always used in tragic cases of fetal abnormality or danger to the woman’s life. Would you like to explain why you think that medical professionals are ’evil’ for helping in these cases? Are you really ready to say that the life of a fetus trumps the life of a grown woman? It’s easy to say such things when you make the woman invisible and rob her of her humanity and her authority over her own body."
Well, late-term abortions are the killing of babies who are at or near the same age as the premature infants in hospitals’ infant intensive care units. Clearly, this is infanticide. "Late-term abortion" for "fetal abnormality" is the killing of disabled infants, and, yes, I am opposed to that. I think that disabled babies should have the same rights as able-bodied babies.
As for the question of the health of the mother, it is undoubtedly an agonizing situation. Believe me, the entire concept of a woman having to make the choice between her own life and her child’s life is deeply distressing. I’ve put no small amount of thought into this, especially since I have a blood disorder that is complicated by pregnancy and has the potential to cause life-threatening problems. A couple things to consider:
1. There are countless cases of women being told that they will die if they don’t terminate their pregnancies, but when they put their feet down and demand that doctors work with them to find alternative solutions, they are able to find a way to save both people’s lives. The wonder of modern technology allows for a lot of creativity these days, but unfortunately the medical establishment is far too quick to err on the side of abortion rather than go into more complicated alternatives.
2. Again, because this is such a distressing issue, I can understand wanting to have a dialogue about it. However, I think it is important to clarify the terms: when we are talking about terminating pregnancies at 20+ weeks, where the child is old enough to have a chance of surviving outside of the womb, there is no question that we are talking about infanticide. I think it confuses the question and gives one side of the debate an unfair advantage to mislabel the situation as a woman "aborting" her "fetus" to save her life. If we debate the issue of a woman "killing" her "infant" to save her life, we are at least bringing the situation out into the light and having a discussion about what’s really going on.
As for the doctors who perform these procedures, I do not think that they’re evil. I think that they’re good, normal people who have fallen into doing something gravely wrong by telling themselves a story. For example, when Dr. Leroy Carhart testified before the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart to describe what he does at his job, he said, "[W]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus...the fetus [is] alive." He went on to say that he’s observed babies’ heartbeats via ultrasound with "extensive parts of the fetus removed." In both statements he was talking about children who are at or near the same age as the infants with cute little booties on in hospitals’ infant intensive care units. But, in his mind, he’s not dismembering babies. He’s "aborting" "fetuses."
Almost nobody ever says, "I’m going to do something evil today, and I’m OK with that." The way any of us ever do anything that’s evil is by telling ourselves that what we’re doing is not evil at all. Evil always works through lies.
WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
You said: "Until anti-abortion advocates like yourself come to terms with the reality of biology, that is, that a fertilized ovum is not a human being in any sense of the phrase - and until you can figure out some way to gestate a fetus to term without the willing participation of a woman and her womb - you are merely living in a dream world, parroting senseless propaganda."
I’m not sure what the process of gestation has to do with the question of when life begins but, to that question: technically, "life" does begin at conception. A fertilized cell is certainly alive -- non-life cannot create life. Given that it has all the genetic material of a human being, what else would it be other than human? The benchmark for deciding when human life begins is a critical one since it marks the line between people and things, between meaningless medical procedures and the taking of human lives. Given the lack of any better benchmark for determining when human life begins, and since even people who think it begins later cannot know for sure, it seems like the most prudent course would be to assume that it begins at conception.
UNFAIRNESS TO WOMEN
Here is where I feel like I really know where you’re coming from: "[Y]ou, in this article, have [dehumanized] women. You show absolutely no respect for the acts of gestating a fetus and giving birth - giving new life to a human, something that only women can do. Since this is something that only women can do, the misogynist institution of Catholicism and other repressive religions IGNORE these acts...Most likely, this attitude compensates for the fact that the man has no role in the process after he donates the sperm. It is totally out of his hands (unless of course, he murders the pregnant woman, as happens all too often)"
Heather-Rose, I think that you and I share a sense of outrage about what is going on in the world today regarding women’s sexuality, we only differ on what we believe the source of it to be.
The fact is, women can get pregnant and men cannot. I used to hate that idea. If I could have waved a magic wand and somehow made both men and women have to share equally in the gestation of a baby, I would have. It seemed so cosmically unfair that women had to deal with this huge burden that men didn’t even have to think twice about if they didn’t want to.
With this point of view of seeing pregnancy and babies as bad things, it is tempting to see abortion as a solution that makes the "problem" of pregnancy go away. But the thing is, it’s not really a solution. It doesn’t resolve the "unfairness." Even if you don’t think it’s the taking of a human life, it’s still an invasive, violating procedure that men will never have to deal with.
I think that the great unfairness we both sense is ultimately rooted in the lie of consequence-free sex. Our culture tells young women that such a thing as "protected" sex, i.e. sex without life-altering consequences, is not only possible but the default. Women then end up in agonizing situations when it doesn’t work out as promised, as happens all too often. When we try to make the pro-contraception worldview work in real life, we end up at war: at war with men, with our children, and especially with our own bodies.
I think that the path to peace on this issue does not lie in abortion. I think that it lies in embracing our roles as the bearers of the next generation, understanding just how empowering it is that the human race will only survive with our cooperation. And I think that a fundamental component of finding peace as women is to boldly, unapologetically reject the lie of consequence-free sex.
Jennifer Fulwiler
