The discussion on "potential" continues at Bread n Roses, in response to this blogpost. They're still not acknowledging my blogpost (they don't want to send any traffic my way or give me any publicity).
Sleeping Sun writes:
Another thing I don't get is the panties in a knot arguments about semantics, about how my referring to the fetus I'm carrying as my 'child' or 'baby' somehow makes me either a hypocrite or evil incarnate.
Language reveals intentions. If before the "persons" case, women were called "people" (the non-legalese word for "persons"), doesn't that say what people thought of women?
Or if White Supremacists called Black men "men", doesn't that say what they considered them to be, even if only an inferior version of a man?
When you have progeny, which is what a fetus is, and you call yourself a "parent", you're not talking about "potential" progeny. If I talk about a child that I intend to create, I don't call myself a parent. If I consider myself to have a child, then I call myself a parent. Without progeny, there is no parenthood.
Another indication of what people believe is their actions. Besides calling the unborn baby and child by those monikers, pro-choicers call treat them like babies-- like members of their own family. When you read to a fetus or make the fetus listen to music, as some people are wont to do during pregnancy, you are not treating that fetus like a potential anything. That fetus is believed to have ability. Non-human, non-living things do not have ability. Fetuses are believe to be able to learn through hearing as early as 16 weeks.
I mean, we've been referring to our 'child' ever since we decided we were ready to start trying, at which point I was still on the pill. There was no physical child then. I think it was a way for us to get used to the idea and familiar and comfortable with the idea of being parents.
That would fly if the pregnant woman did not act like a parent to her progeny, and did not speak like a parent about her progeny. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. When you have progeny, and you name that progeny--as you would a child--and you speak to that progeny-- as you would a child-- and you behave for the best interest of that progeny--as you would a child-- and you teach and interat with that progency --as you would a child--, then I suggest the parenthood, in practice thinks of the progeny as a child. ONLY when the abortion debate comes up does the word "potential" come up.
And even now, as suzette said, there is a long way to go and anything can happen. Until birth, when I can see and feel and nurse and hold my child, it will still remain a potential child.
Well how about the week before birth? Assuming the pregnancy goes to full-term, approximately 38 weeks after conception-- does the progeny in question have the same characteristics a week before birth as a week after?
The answer is yes. The mother's exposure to the child does not change what he is or who he is. He is the same child inside as outside the womb. Removal from the womb only changes his environment, his food source, his elimination of waste and the manner he intakes oxygen. But with adult humans, changing environment, food source, the method of eliminating waste and the manner of intaking oxygen does not change his status.
So if the mother's reactions to the child does not change who he is, and the newborn is considered an equal outside the womb with a right to security of the person, then he should be considered an equal inside the womb. Just because his mother may be inconvenienced does not take away his right to security of the person, either. The only time society justifies the taking of life is in the case of an aggression causing serious harm, where no other means of stopping the aggressor is feasible.
A pregnancy is not an aggression. A pregnacy is a sign of health. A healthy woman who has sexual intercourse and gets pregnant is showing that her reproductive system is functional.
That is not an aggression.
I can anticipate that people will say an eight-week fetus is significantly different than a 37-week fetus. Their abilities are different, but I am not trying to argue the humanity of the eight-week fetus in that segment. What I am trying to say is that the fact that a woman carries the fetus does not change WHAT the fetus is. It may change a lot of facts like the convenience of the pregnancy, and how it affects the woman, but it does not change WHAT the fetus is. I am arguing that a fetus of the same class as born people-- we're all the same, intrinsically.
And this is the crux of the issue. In the Western Tradition, equality is based on the intrinsic worth of the human being and human life (which should be synonymous, but in our culture of death, it's not).The reaction of the woman, her social situation, her feelings, her health, her future, anything and everything about her and her life does not change what the fetus is.
So arguments like "well, if the fetus isn't aborted, the woman will not get an education and she'll be poor" do not address the issue of the equality of the fetus. Or "if the fetus isn't aborted, the woman might have more severe blood pressure".
Because if it were a matter of a newborn child, the question of her killing the newborn wouldn't even come up.
If a woman realized after having a baby that she couldn't go to college for the next five years, no one would dream of telling her "just kill the baby".
The feminists retort: but the baby is inside the mother.
And I will repeat: the fact the baby is inside the mother does not take away from the fact that he is a member of the human family. And that human life is intrinsically valuable and worthy, and we don't take innocent human life no matter how inconvenient that principle may be to some.
I know the gut reaction: it's not fair! Why should women be burdened with carrying the child?
Since when in the name of "fairness" do we kill our equals?
Whether it's fair or not, it's not worth the death of the child.
We don't do that to other equals.
The result of a death of a human being is worse than all the deprivation a woman may face because THAT'S HOW VALUABLE HUMAN LIFE IS. We don't just kill someone to get a spot in a university. That would be wrong. We don't kill someone to get a job. That would be wrong, too. In the same way, shouldn't kill an unborn.
The ONLY justification for abortion that feminists offer is that it's happening inside a WOMAN.
Not good enough. That's not a reason to inflict death on a fellow human being. That a woman suffers because of pregnancy is unfortunate, and certainly every effort should be made to help, but it is not a reason to inflict death.
I think unconsciously, people know that. When we inflict death, it has to be on someone who is going to kill or seriously harm someone.
Not on a little baby.
I believe this is why the feminist movement developped a system of language to de-humanize the unborn child. In everyday language, we act and speak as if the unborn child is a real baby, a member of our family, a live being, and so on.
ONLY when the abortion issue comes up does the language of "potential child", "products of conception", "fetus" (which I hope can be reclaimed) and so forth comes up.
People don't look at their ultrasounds and say "Oh look! My potential child! Oh look, my potential child is sucking his thumb! Oh look he's opening his eyes (which you can see on a 4D ultrasound)." That shows, that in theory, they may believe the notion of "potential child", but in practice, that's not how they act.What I find noteworthy about this discussion is that feminists are willing to say what a fetus ISN'T. But not what a fetus IS.
For instance, I accept that an acorn is a potential oak. It's not a lifeform, it's a seed, and given the correct conditions, it will produce life and become an oak.
If we were arguing over acorns, the feminists would be saying "the acorn is a potential oak", but not what an acorn is (which is a seed).
Some people say a fetus is a tissue. That's biologically incorrect, because tissues are made up of one kind of cells, whereas a fetus has many kinds, and possess all the biological systems that adults do. Some people say it's not alive. That's incorrect because we know that a fetus fulfills the definition of an organism.
So just what is a fetus to feminists?
Sleeping Sun said:
I know it must just boggle the tiny mind of some anti-choicers, but one can be pro-choice and still be a parent.
For the record, I never said that pro-choicers can't be parents. In fact, one of my many arguments is that they love their own unborn kids, consider them members of their family, and treat them like members of the family.
I know. My mother let it slip when I was a young teen that I was an Accident. A Mistake. A missed pill. The effects to my self-esteem and self-worth were immediate and near deadly, and it almost permanently destroyed the relationship between myself and my parents.
And this is why every child SHOULD be a wanted child. We should have a culture where every single human being, born or unborn, should not be a "mistake". Whether the intention was to conceive a child or not. No human being is a mistake. That is why people should FEEL morally obliged to want a child.
How can people "not want" a child? That's cruel. However cruel that is, though, killing that unborn child is even crueller.
The vast majority of people of people would never dream of having an abortion at 37 weeks, nor would most abortionists do it. But this is what feminists defend: that the unborn child be inferior right up until birth.Now suppose a woman concluded she should abort her child at 37 weeks because she sensed she did not want the child, and she found a doctor willing to commit the operation.
How is it better for a woman to have that child's skull crushed a week before birth, than for her to kill the baby herself the week after birth?
But this is what feminists defend. That would be A-OK, because even though the unborn baby would hurt as much as a the newborn, the premise is ONLY THE WOMAN'S LIFE MATTERS.
This is why I call it feminist supremacy.
To the women out there who have had abortions because they have Chosen to not be parents, my heart and eternal gratitude are yours for the suffering you have prevented.
What about the suffering that was inflicted? What about the deaths that were caused?
skdadl writes:
It's also true that many "wanted" children run into trouble as well, for all kinds of reasons, I suppose, but often because of why and how their parents "wanted" them -- as the next necessary consumer acquisition, more or less. That is perhaps most obvious as a motive among privileged people -- every man in possession of a fortune must be in want not only of a wife but of an heir and a spare, at least. People like that don't have marriages -- more like the wife is hired as breed-stock. Very sad.
Indeed. And when the kid has Downs Syndrome or some other anomaly, you can be certain they are the ones most likely to rush to the abortionist, because their kid "isn't perfect".
This is what the culture of death has wrought.
You know, I must be saying something worthy of their attention, if they spend enough time reading and answering some of the points I'm making. I hope you, the reader, are somehow benefitting. But even not, it's my blog :D
