![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deborahjrossSo Stupak gets up and gives this speech about how important "the sanctity of life" is. As a writer, a woman, a feminist, and a person with a background in biology, I point out some i/d/i/o/c/i/e/s flaws in this statement.
1. If all life were sacred, he wouldn't be eating anything. Aren't plants alive? Especially, he wouldn't be eating mammals, who experience pain and fear.
2. Granted, he means "human life." An excised appendix is human and the cells are alive. It's no less capable of independence than a fetus. Should it not be removed if medically indicated? Exactly what "rights" does a malignant tumor have?
3. So he means "the product of conception." Actually, that's plural -- the fertilized ovum and all the associated structures that enable its growth. A placenta is human, its cells are alive, it is the result of conception, and it is dependent on the mother's body. Does it have "a right to life"?
4. So what he really means is "the embryo or fetus." The problem here is that we are assuming not only its existence but its viability. Does that collection of cells that experiences a disruption of normal differentiation, such that it cannot develop normally but may be retained in the mother's body for a time, have the same "rights" as an independently-living human being? If it were to spontaneously abort (miscarry), should the woman and her doctor be charged with a crime in those areas where abortion is illegal?
5. So what he really means is "the normal, healthy embryo or fetus." What about an ectopic pregnancy, whose continuation poses a direct threat to the mother's life? What about an anencephalic baby? Given the risk to the mother's life (in 2006, maternal mortality in the US was over 13 deaths per 100,000), should a pregnant woman not have a choice whether to endanger her own life or terminate a pregnancy that cannot survive?
The problem is that once you start pontificating about "the sanctity of life," you end up in a sargasso sea of "what do you mean" complications. If you think the voluntary termination of a healthy pregnancy is wrong, just say so. Then we can move on to a discussion of how to make every pregnancy an occasion of joy. But don't pelt the rest of us with medical nonsense and moral hyperbole.
1. If all life were sacred, he wouldn't be eating anything. Aren't plants alive? Especially, he wouldn't be eating mammals, who experience pain and fear.
2. Granted, he means "human life." An excised appendix is human and the cells are alive. It's no less capable of independence than a fetus. Should it not be removed if medically indicated? Exactly what "rights" does a malignant tumor have?
3. So he means "the product of conception." Actually, that's plural -- the fertilized ovum and all the associated structures that enable its growth. A placenta is human, its cells are alive, it is the result of conception, and it is dependent on the mother's body. Does it have "a right to life"?
4. So what he really means is "the embryo or fetus." The problem here is that we are assuming not only its existence but its viability. Does that collection of cells that experiences a disruption of normal differentiation, such that it cannot develop normally but may be retained in the mother's body for a time, have the same "rights" as an independently-living human being? If it were to spontaneously abort (miscarry), should the woman and her doctor be charged with a crime in those areas where abortion is illegal?
5. So what he really means is "the normal, healthy embryo or fetus." What about an ectopic pregnancy, whose continuation poses a direct threat to the mother's life? What about an anencephalic baby? Given the risk to the mother's life (in 2006, maternal mortality in the US was over 13 deaths per 100,000), should a pregnant woman not have a choice whether to endanger her own life or terminate a pregnancy that cannot survive?
The problem is that once you start pontificating about "the sanctity of life," you end up in a sargasso sea of "what do you mean" complications. If you think the voluntary termination of a healthy pregnancy is wrong, just say so. Then we can move on to a discussion of how to make every pregnancy an occasion of joy. But don't pelt the rest of us with medical nonsense and moral hyperbole.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 11:08 am (UTC)We have our share of these types in the UK, too. They're still allowed to interfere with women's bodies in some ways, particularly in Northern Ireland. It's wrong.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 05:13 pm (UTC)However, there are some who are consistent in their beliefs, and feel deeply about the subject. I have to be careful not to automatically assume that everyone who is troubled by abortion is a nutcase. If I am willing to listen "behind" the initial rhetoric, then sometimes we can have a meaningful and respectful dialog.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-25 05:01 pm (UTC)