AboutDeborah Expertise I can answer almost any question regarding abortion, such as health aspects, emotional
aspects, and especially answering debate questions.
Experience I have written almost 10,000 posts over the last few years on this topic. I have a forum as well as a blog which also discuss abortion.
forum
http://alldrama.bigforumpro.com/index.htm
blog
http://wingnutwatch.typepad.com/wingnutwatch/
Publications futureshock3 over 6000 posts
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/search.php?search_author=futureshock3
alldrama
http://alldrama.bigforumpro.com/index.htm
blog
http://wingnutwatch.typepad.com/wingnutwatch/
Education/Credentials I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biology, and am halfway through a Master's Degree, also in Biology. I have access to and read many of the top medical journals, from which I also get the best, most thorough and accurate to answers to pressing medical and health related questions. This equips me with factual, biological information to dispel many myths related to abortion.
Past/Present Clients futureshock3 over 6000 posts
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/search.php?search_author=futureshock3
Question QUESTION: Hi. My question is do you ever get stumped when debating the abortion issue? Please allow me to tell you about this frustrating and upsetting experience I had just this evening.
I was talking to a woman I believed was also a feminist and pro-choice(she has stated in the past that she does support a woman's right to choose) and we got onto the subject of whether a woman should require her male partners conscent/approval to obtain an abortion. I of course said no, and was shocked when she said that she believed the man should have a say in the matter.
She said that if the man wanted the baby and the woman didn't, he should be able to get a court injunction against her barring her from having an abortion, so long as he promises to absolve her of all parental responsibilities including financial obligations. And if HE is the one who wants her to have an abortion and she refuses, he should NOT be held responsible for helping to support that child.
The reason I got so damn frustrated was because even though I am one hundred percent pro-choice AND a hardcore feminist, I DO sympathize with men in that predicament. I have a close male friend whose ex girlfriend tricked him into being a father. He made it very clear that he did not want to have a child, and she swore up and down she was on the Pill. This was not a one night stand. They had been together for some time, and he trusted her. Turns out she was deliberately trying to get pregnant.
It DOES seem unfair that men have no say in it, since it does take two to make a baby. Sigh. But the fact is that the fetus is growing inside of her, and she is the one who is most affected by the pregnancy. There are certain risks that go along with pregnancy/childbirth, not to talk about how painful or traumatic it would be to be pregnant against your will.
But she argued nine months is just a short time compared to a lifetime, and that few women(she said less than one percent) in developed countries like the US actually die or suffer serious complication from pregnancy. I just got totally stumped. I felt strongly on a gut level that it would be wrong to force that woman to give birth against her will, but couldn't argue it you know? And now I feel like a total idiot!
I did make the argument that the government can not compel a person to donate blood or an organ(not even to their own living child!) nor can they compel a citizen to risk his/her own life to rescue someone else. For example, if you came across someone was drowning. And her response was that that is different, because pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex, and the woman knew that prior to having sex.
I feel women should be entitled to a satisfying sex life outside of marriage and procreation, but I certainly cant argue biology. Whether it's unfair or not, it IS a consequence of sex. And it IS women who get pregnant.
I ended up telling her this story about when I volunteered with a local pro-choice organization that operated an information/referral service for women seeking information about abortion, referrals etc. I got a call from a single mom who was about four or five months along, when she was told that she would have to be put on bed rest for the remainder of her pregnancy. Every time she would stand up she would start to hemmorahge! She had a child to care for, and she was the sole supporter of that child. Her response was that organizations such as "Right To Life" and other community agencies could have helped her.
That is probably true as well, and all I could say was "maybe she just didn't want to do it". I mean perhaps I am selfish, but I wouldn't want to spend four months confined to a bed, and I wouldn't trust anyone else(unless it were a close friend or family member) to watch over my child. And what about her job? Who would pay the rent and the bills in the mean time? I just got really flustered. I guess I am not the greatest debater(shrug). How would you have responsed?
Angie
ANSWER: Dear Angie,
I, too, become flustered, especially when debating women who obviously hate their own gender. You would have to hate yourself and all other women to think it's ok to legally force them into slavery and bondage for almost 10 months, culminating in the most agonizing pain and suffering most humans will ever experience.
I am going to refer you to two articles in my blog which address some of the questions you have raised. If, after reading these things, you have more questions, please write back.
Also, when it comes to sanctity of the body and control over it, read this interesting lawsuit. A man was dying and needed an organ donation. He tried to legally compel his relative, who was the only compatible donor, to save his life. The court ruled against him.
Here is a rare case where a person asked a court to force another person to donate body parts in a situation of medical necessity.
McFall v. Shimp
No. 78-177711 (July 26, 1978)
10th Pennsylvania District, Allegheny County
Flaherty, [Judge].
The Plaintiff, Robert McFall, suffers from a rare bone marrow disease [aplastic anemia, a disease where the patient’s bone marrow fails to manufacture certain necessary blood components.] and the prognosis for his survival is very dim, unless he receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible donor. Finding a compatible donor is a very difficult task, and limited to a selection among close relatives. After a search and certain tests, it has been determined that only the Defendant [David Shimp, a first cousin to 39-year-old McFall] is suitable as a donor. The Defendant refuses to submit to the necessary transplant, and the before the Court is a request for a preliminary injunction which seeks to compel the defendant to submit to further tests, and, eventually, the bone marrow transplant.
Although a diligent search has produced no authority, the Plaintiff cites the ancient statute of King Edward I, St. Westminster 2, 13 Ed., I, c 24, point out, as is the case, that this Court is a successor to the English courts of Chancery and derives power from this statute, almost 700 years old. The question posed by the Plaintiff is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one’s absolute right to his "bodily security"?
The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue. A great deal has been written regarding this rule which, on the surface, appears to be revolting in a moral sense. Introspection, however, will demonstrate that the rule if founded upon the very essence of our free society. It is noteworthy that counsel for the Plaintiff has cited authority which has developed in other societies in support of the Plaintiff’s request in this instance. Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. Many societies adopt a contrary view which has the individual existing to serve the society as a whole. In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual’s body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. This request is not to be compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would require the submission to the medical procedure. For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.
The court makes no comment on the law regarding the Plaintiff’s right in an action at law for damages, but has no alternative but to deny the requested equitable relief. An Order will be entered denying the request for a preliminary injunction.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Hi Deborah. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly. I really appreciate it. That is an interesting case that you shared with me. Ironically I cited a similar case during the course of this very heated discussion about a gentleman from England who was in desperate need of a kidney transplant, and his sister was the only suitable match. Despite the fact that it was clear that this man would die within a relatively short period of time(and suffer excruciating pain) the courts could NOT force his sister to donate her organ. Surely a born human being, who has a sense of awareness and the ability to feel pain and fear has more rights than an embroyo/fetus.
The response to this argument was that this was different, because in the case of the pregnant woman she chose to have sex, knowing full well that pregnancy was a possibility. And if she really didn't wish to get pregnant, she should have had a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy to prevent it.
Basically, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex, because it is intrinsic to our biology to get pregnant upon having intercourse. That does seem unfair to me, but I can't argue with biology. So how would you address that particular argument? Thanks.
Angie
Answer Dear Angie,
You wrote:
"The response to this argument was that this was different, because in the case of the pregnant woman she chose to have sex, knowing full well that pregnancy was a possibility."
I would say, "You may wish it were different, but legally it is not. The fact remains that each person has complete bodily autonomy, integrity, and self-ownership, whether you like it or not. It is one of the most important founding principles of our society.
From the article quoted in the first response above:
"Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another."
If someone's view is that an embryo or fetus is a person, then that fetus would fall under the category of "another", meaning even a fetus cannot invade another person against that person's will.
Also from the article:
"Many societies adopt a contrary view which has the individual existing to serve the society as a whole. In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance.""
In other words, if a person wants to abolish abortion rights, then they have to dismantle our very society.
You wrote:
"And if she really didn't wish to get pregnant, she should have had a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy to prevent it.
Basically, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex, because it is intrinsic to our biology to get pregnant upon having intercourse. That does seem unfair to me, but I can't argue with biology. So how would you address that particular argument?" Thanks."
My answer is that none of that matters, because of the facts outlined above. There is no place in the Constitution that says women must forfeit their human rights as a consequence of having sex.
It doesn't matter if sex sometimes leads to pregnancy. So what? If it does, and that particular woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can abort the pregnancy.
I hope this helps. Even in your first question to me, when you outlined your own responses, I thought you did an excellent job refuting the insulting claims of your opponent.
