Jill of Feministe unearths an absolutely fabulous reason why the a pro-choice position is better than the nominal “pro-life” position: human beings shouldn’t play God.
The gentleman she quotes proposes playing God, declaring that women rather than their infants should die during catastrophic labor and delivery.
I am strongly pro-life (of the baby). I would always choose the life of my child over my own life or anyone else’s life, including my wife. Harsh? Think about it. What’s more precious, an innocent life of a child who has their entire life ahead of them or a grown adult who has had a fair opportunity to live their life and have whatever experiences they have been blessed to have?
In your case there was no way to save the baby, they tried, they did everything they could but because of the dilation it was an inevitable loss and I’m terribly sorry for that. But I congratulate you on your efforts to do everything within your power to at least try to save your baby, even to the point of losing your wife. And I applaud you for hesitating as to whether or not to abort.
I am not against aborting if there is no possible alternative to saving the mother.. but if the child can be saved at the loss of the mother then I would choose the child. There is no logic to losing both, but it’s a risk worth taking, to take it as far as you took it should happen in every case, in my opinion.
My concern in response has nothing to do with a man with neither concern, consideration, nor love for his wife. Nor even an arrogant assumption that his preferences would trump hers nor anyone else’s. My concern instead is that if I were allowed to play God I’d go the other way. For equally arbitrary but no less morally well-founded grounds that it’s better to save someone you’re related to by bonds, trust, friendship, love, and partnership than someone you haven’t met.
The monsterous arrogance of either his opinion or mine not withstanding, the problem is that there’s no right answer. No right answer for the Supreme Court. No right answer for clergy. No right answer for doctors, nurses, or midwives. No right answer for the father or family. There’s not even a right answer for the mother herself!
And since there’s no right answer, in fact because there’s no right answer, there’s only one person with the right to make the decision when a decision must be made.
It’s not for the father or family to decide. It’s not for doctors, nurses, or midwives to decide. It’s not for clergy to decide. It’s not for the Supreme Court to decide. It’s for the woman who’s life is on the line to decide. And it’s for everyone else up and down the line to support and defend her decision, and to defend or celebrate it as their various and sundry personal opinion allows.
A couple of points, though:
- It’s peculiar that in one breath the gentleman Jill quotes could chipperly reassure his correspondent that he and his wife can always have another child after their encounter with stillbirth and then proceed to advocate trying to kill her next time if necessary in the next.
- I wonder if the gentleman can be so sanguine about living without a friend, a companion, and a loving partner because with an attitude because he already lives his life that way. I would find it a terribly lonely, empty, bitter, and meaningless life having nothing but a wife out there in the barn along side my “house, nor cattle, nor manservant, nor maidservant, nor anthing else” that was mine.
- I prefer the word “partner” for the person I married to the word “wife” not least because one can not own a partner. Nor can one morally or ethically make a decision on behalf of a partner without prior consultation and consent. One ought not do such things to a wife either, but evidently this is not a universally held position.
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 01:38.
I am curious why this one is never discussed as I see the abortion thing as a violation of the separation of church and state.
Gillette,
That is the basis for my objection to the anti-abortion stance of the Christian Right. I do not know why it is not used to invalidate laws such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban on the grounds that such laws are inconstitutional. (Probably a question I should pose to Ann Bartow of the Feminist Law Professors). Regardless of our individual spiritual beliefs, maintaining a democratic republic requires that we consider ourselves atheists when it comes to matters of public law and individual rights.
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 02:08.
So the Oresteia continues.
For such a man, this is what I wish: I want the Furies to follow the scent of his wife's blood and torment this man, who considers himself so moral in readily sacrificing what is not his -- a woman's life. I hope the Furies will attend him when he tries to find child care for his daughter, making him realize he has created a void in his daughter's life that he will be unable to fill. I hope the Furies hiss in the ear of any woman he attempts to snare as second wife, warning her that if he sacrificed one he will not hesitate to sacrifice another. Perhaps the cycle will be complete when his daughter, with a steely resolve she learned from him, places her aging father in a nursing home, to be attended by those who ignore him and care not what he feels.
[Wow, Kochanie. I'd almost forgotten the story about the Furies. They hounded those guilty of wrongful death, didn't they? Good call. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 00:50.
That has to be one of the most chilling comments I have ever read. If you go back through the links to the original post it is incredibly moving, and then to get this response, it's unbelievable. Mind you that commenter doesn't sound the most balanced individual when you read the whole of it.
Many years ago I can remember a friend of my parents going through this very thing. He and his wife knew she shouldn't have another baby, but they believed in neither birth control nor abortion, and she died while they tried to save the baby. It was the first time I became aware of my parents' views on these issues, in particular where religion became involved. I can so clearly remember the horror of it.
[Yup. The original story's harrowing because then you really *do* have to make a decision. The birth of our first child was very long and pretty severe and I remember wondering what I'd do if the situation came up. One of my big objections about the man Jill quoted is that all the guessing and hoping and ideology and certainty in the world about "what you'd do" can fall away when you find yourself *there.* Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-04-28 19:56.
Very profound. Remarkable in every sense although you probably see it as nothing more than logical. And loving. And the right thing.
[Thank you so much, Red! --fl]
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-04-28 18:00.
One of my perspectives on abortion isn't that it it's just a right to choose over one's body or whatever. It's also a very clear (to me anyway) right to choose our spiritual beliefs.
The Christian Right demands that everyone see spirituality and relationship with God as they do. They push for laws and legal definitions because their "faith" sees these issues that way. It's not necessarily what other traditions teach or require of their members.
I am curious why this one is never discussed as I see the abortion thing as a violation of the separation of church and state.
[Even most religious people would probably be uncomfortable if the Supreme Court simply started citing the Bible as if it was case law. Consequently despite the clear religious rhetoric and motivations, the cases are always brought on other grounds -- interstate commerce, health and safety, scientific rather than spiritual definitions of the beginning of "life." I continue to believe, by the way, that the whole "life" approach is a proxy for controlling men's access to women's bodies. I think that approach also forces 'wingers into uncomfortable territory -- for instance if the courts ever did grant their wish for a "life begins at birth" ruling then environmentalists could almost instantly shut down a number of industries that produce products and/or effluent that raises the incidence of miscarriage. Another reason I think miscarriage is a great push-back tool. Thanks, Gillette. --fl]
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 18:17.
I can so clearly remember the horror of it...[My mother] says he knew exactly what he was doing.
I used to meet with a group of people who enjoyed writing and reading fiction. The one thing that we agreed upon was that often we would became stuck when writing a story because we thought that a character committing a particular act was too shocking to be believable. But one member of the group said we were wrong, because it is real life that is so often unbelievable, not our fictional worlds.
Unfortunately, that friend of your parents is not a character in a novel, nor is he one of a kind. He probably was considered a pillar of society.
Thank you, A, for your comment which I will remember for a long, long time.
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 13:55.
Figgie, have I told you lately how much I think you're just the bees knees?
A wonderful post and the fact that you prefer the title of partner over the 'other' title just puts it over the top!
Thank you for always giving me something to ponder upon!
[Thank you, Madame. You're the peaches and cream on my cornflakes too. :-) --fl]
Submitted by 1334 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-29 11:58.
I'm with Kochanie on this.
I was with my mother this afternoon, so asked her about the couple I mentioned earlier. I even remember his name and I can have been no more than 8 years old at the time. She says he knew exactly what he was doing. (I had hoped he was "simply" following his faith). And, wait for it, when he found himself left with three small children and the new-born baby to look after in the middle of Africa, he got his wife's sister to come and live with him to carry out the duties.
Yes Kochanie, I'm with you.
[Yeeikes, A. Doesn't say much about "life partnership" ideal of conservative marriage does it if you can just bring in a replacement after you've broken the old one. %$@$!~$#. Thanks. --fl]