Bodily Autonomy

Abortion.

It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.

I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.


Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.

First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.

But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.


1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.

What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?

A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.

And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.

2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?

3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.

4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.

5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”

But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”

I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.

6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.

7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.

8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.

For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.

9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.

10. See point number 8.


The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.

It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue. 

There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.

But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.

What's Wrong With Women Working?

When I was at the county fair a couple of weeks ago, I picked up some "literature" at a booth that's been a fixture at the fair for as long as I can remember.  It has about 50 or so small pamphlets on various Christian topics.

The pamphlet, entitled "What's Wrong With Women Working?" has provided several minutes worth of entertainment for me and my family.  It's an overview of the biblical teachings on women working outside of the home, and it is just precious.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes:

"The woman is to look to her husband for her food.  The husband is to go out and make the living.  Now we have a generation of weasels that are eating out of a woman's pocketbook."

"It is an abomination for 'Christian' colleges to offer career courses for women.  A young lady can learn all she needs to know about homemaking at home."

"Vital areas of the home such as cooking, canning, freezing, washing, ironing, cleaning, shopping, nursing the sick, training the children, helping their husband, etc., etc., are not passingly mastered.  They require full time."

Under the heading, "A Few Excuses for Violating the Scriptures," excuse number two is "My husband doesn't earn enough money."  The response to this excuse reads as follows:

"Maybe you're just trying to live outside his means.  Maybe you're living up more than he earns.  The answer to that problem is not to abandon God's instructions for the wife and launch out on a path of your own choosing.  You need to cut down on your high tone living.  The problem may not be that he doesn't earn enough.  It may be you are just spending it faster than he can bring it home.  Living above your means."

The last section of the pamphlet is entitled, "Dangers of Violating the Scriptures," and the "dangers" are simply priceless:

"1. Juvenile delinquency and dope heads.
2. Self sufficient women bringing home their own check.
3. The wife sees some 'sharp cookie' some 'Fancy Dan' over there on the job.  She begins to compare him with her own husband.  She has her own check.  Soon she doesn't need her husband any longer."

The "Conclusion" of the pamphlet is very succinct:

I have just told you a few things about what's wrong with women working.  There are many, many other things wrong with it."

It amazes me that many Christians today will laugh at that antiquated view of women in the workplace, and yet still cling so strongly to the "biblical teachings" on other issues such as gay marriage and abortion.  It's a typical example of conservatives and liberals alike picking and choosing scripture to support their already established points of view. 

Just one more reason I'm an Atheist.

Love Crimes of Kabul

The other night my husband and I watched a movie called "Love Crimes of Kabul."

No, it's not what you're thinking.

It was a documentary about people (mostly women) who are sitting in prison in Afghanistan because of some sort of "crime" involving adultery.

One young woman was there because she had been found at her kitchen table eating macaroni and cheese with her boyfriend. She was charged with intent to engage in sexual acts or something of that sort.

Another woman was arrested for not returning home from work on time. She had missed her curfew and was afraid to go home because, as she said, "my family talks with knives." She was 24-years-old.

It really made me think 2 different things.

One: How do we think that we're going to bring any kind of democracy to a country that treats its women like children?

Two: In a perfect Evangelical Christian society wouldn't it be exactly the same?

What Planned Parenthood REALLY does.

With all the current controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, my head has been spinning with the sheer volume of misleading and simply untrue things being said about the organization.  I used to work at Planned Parenthood, so I figure I'm in a position to put at least some of these untruths to rest.

I worked in one of PPH's many small town family planning clinics.  We did not do abortions at our clinic, as most PPH's don't.  Only one PPH clinic in Minnesota actually performs abortions.  The other 23 do pretty much the same thing as my clinic did. We provided birth control to people.  As well as pap smears, breast exams, STD tests and treatment, and pregnancy tests.

I think much of the controversy surrounds what takes place after those pregnancy tests, so I'll tell you exactly how we handled them.  First of all, we did the test, which took five minutes to run.  Unlike the crisis pregnancy centers, we didn't tell the woman the test would take half an hour and then force her to sit in a room looking at images of fetuses.

When I was trained in to deliver pregnancy test results, here's what I was told to do: 

If the test was negative, I was to encourage the woman to come back to get birth control (which usually involved getting a pap smear, which is why they would have to come back). 

If it was positive, the first step was to ask them if they were surprised by the result and if they had thought at all about what they would do if the test was positive.  Most of them had, since they were already there for the test. 

If they said, "I want to keep the baby" then we handed them a pregnancy resources guide which had the names of maternal help organizations, along with an application for Medicaid if they weren't insured. 

If they said. "I've been thinking about adoption," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the names of several adoption agencies in it.

If they said, "I'm thinking about getting an abortion," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the phone number for the Planned Parenthood clinic which did abortions.  If they asked for more information on abortion, we were not allowed to give it to them.  We simply pointed again to the phone number and told them to direct all their questions to the people at that phone number.

And under no circumstances, ever, were we instructed or permitted to try to influence the woman in any way as to what she wanted to do about the pregnancy.  That was her decision to make, not ours.  We simply provided her with the resources she asked for and let her take it from there, using her own judgement and support system.

When I hear PPH being so demonized by Michele Bachmann and her ilk, it really makes me angry.  Not only because of how wrong they are in their assumptions, but also because they are defaming the many wonderful, caring people I worked with over the years.  I never once met a co-worker who was there to benefit from the windfalls of "big abortion."  My co-workers were genuinely warm and giving people who were there to help women (and men).  They were there because they deeply believed that all people should be able to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy.  We tried our very best to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and when that failed, we allowed women to  decide their own futures with whatever help they needed from us.

Women's Expo Wrap Up

For all of you followers on the edge of your seats; yes, I did make it out of the hospital in time to staff our pro-choice booth at the local women's expo last Saturday.  And what an exciting day it was. . . .

One of my favorite booth visitors was a kind old gentleman who shuffled up to our booth with his wife (I'm assuming - she never said anything).  He took a look at the sign we have hanging under our banner that reads "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice," and exclaimed, "Oh, good for you! This is great - what a great booth!  Are you a local organization then?"  I responded that yes, our group is local and fairly small as he looked over the materials on our table.  He looked at the sign again and suddenly looked at me and said, "Wait a minute - that says 'pro-choice.'  Do you advocate abortion?!"  I replied with "No, I don't, but I think that everyone should be able to make up their own mind on the issue," and before I could even get the whole sentence out he raised his cane up, waved it at me and shouted "Oh for crying out loud!!"  He backed away from the booth still waving his cane at me and shouted something about parenthood, but by then I couldn't really hear him anymore.  I was thinking too hard about the powerful and thoughtful argument he had presented me with and starting to change my mind on the issue.

Another man came up to the table (he was a vendor from another booth) and also looked at our sign with approval, then bought one of our buttons that read "pro-family, pro-choice."  He signed up on our email list, then told us that he had gotten into a heated argument with someone the other day over "this issue."  He said that his friend was talking to him about the Planned Parenthood funding hoopla.  As he was telling us this, he spit out the words "Planned Parenthood" as if he had vomited them into his mouth.  He asked his friend why, if they were in favor of funding PPH, they weren't in favor of giving just as much money to Birthright?  The two of us at the booth just stood there puzzled as he nodded at us and quietly walked away telling us "thank you" for the button.

Is it really that foreign to people that you can be pro-child, pro-family AND pro-choice?  I think people thought that we were doing some sort of false advertising, but we really feel that the pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice thing properly describes our group.  A large percentage of the people in our group are mothers, and isn't everybody "pro-family?"

Of course, what we got the most of during the day was a constant stream of young women taking a condom out of our basket, pondering it for a minute, then saying something like "it's too late for me."  We heard stories all day of young mothers who had no knowledge of (or access to) birth control.  One girl told me that she had worn a purity ring and then proceeded to get pregnant her first time (she had always heard that you couldn't get pregnant the first time).  When I told her that there have been studies done which have proven that purity rings serve no purpose at all in delaying sex, she seemed genuinely shocked.  I think that all this time she's been carrying around some kind of guilt, feeling like she's the ONLY one who ever broke the purity ring promise.  I felt bad for her.

We also had a mom who was outraged that her 15-year-old daughter had been able to get birth control pills at a PPH clinic.  She told us that she had "control" over whether or not her daughter got pregnant now.  I asked her how she had control over that and she said her daughter was grounded.

We did however get a few cool moms who picked up some condoms to put in their teenagers' Easter baskets.  One said that although she knew her precious babies wouldn't need them, maybe they had a friend they could give them to, then they all laughed.  It was a refreshing bit of realism in a day filled with people wearing blinders.

The F-Word

I was watching a show the other day and they had a clip from Phyllis Schlafly plugging her new book "The Flipside of Feminism."  She basically said tht feminism is totally unnecessary, and that it has made women less happy over the last 30 or 40 years.  She further said that since she was able to get a college degree in 1940, then "what's the problem?"

Apparently she never studied the suffragette movement when she was in college, because if it hadn't been for the brave women who fought for the right to vote, she wouldn't be able to.  I'm always amazed that we have such short memories in this country when it comes to womens' rights.  It's as if society just kind of let women do all the things they wanted to do, and no one had to fight to get us those rights. 

What I find the most appalling is when women such as Schlafly, or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin, enjoy their public lives and go out on their public speaking engagements and advance their public careers, all the while shitting on the very women who earned them the right to do those things.  They can make fun of feminism all they want, but if it weren't for feminism, they wouldn't have had access to the choices they've been able to make.