Note to O'Reilly: Women Deserve Protections -- Not Fetuses

It's been difficult to watch fetal rights trump women's rights in the abortion debate. Back in the day, there were chants of "my body, my choice." Now, we argue at which month the fetus has the right to destroy a woman's health, sanity, family, and even her life, thereby accepting the right-wing frame that the fetus is an entity somehow divorced from and equal to the woman who carries it.

Bill O'Reilly preened when asking Joan Walsh if late term fetuses deserve any form of legal protection. He preened because he dared her to provide the rational answer in this age of faux sentiment and thoughtless self-righteousness -- be they of the Oprah or O'Reilly schools.

It's time to call the bluff and take back this debate. The answer is a resounding "NO."

Women deserve legal protection, and as long as a fetus is part of a woman's body, it has protections through her. No outside person has the right to harm the fetus any more than he/she has the right to harm the woman. No entity has the right to deny her the fruits of what's inside her body any more than they have the right to deny her the use of her liver. What O'Reilly and his ilk want is to protect the fetus from the woman who carries it, when in fact, the woman is the only qualified arbiter of what is best for her and her body in the context of life and loved ones in which they exist.

I utterly reject the argument that fetus' are special because they will be born and thus transform into infants. I will not argue about a fetus' future state. Its current nature as a fetus means that it lives inside the body of an existing human being. That independent living being's needs and trump those of what lives inside its body and the disposition of what lives inside its body is in that being's sole discretion. Period.

The argument that fetuses may live to become infants and therefore deserve protection is also ad absurdum. A cell can be cloned and can grow into an infant. Should the pulling out of hair be outlawed? As science matures, artificial means of keeping cells and cell groups alive will doubtless evolve. What amount to petri dish blobs will be "viable" outside the womb -- with enough help. This is the ultimate argument of anti-abortion crusaders. They desperately want to outlaw abortion and even contraception. To to them, a la Monty Python, "every sperm is sacred." A woman is simply the subservient, relatively insignificant vessel for something more valuable than she -- a fetus. It's rights trump hers.

Barack Obama said that he rejected the pro-choice argument that there was no societal moral question involved in abortion. He was right on the substance; he was wrong on the particulars. It is grossly immoral for a society to so devalue a segment of its population that it reserves the right to force them under law to use their own bodies in ways that are harmful to themselves.

The abortion debate needs to be brought home to the rights of women -- not the rights of fetuses. Let's face it: To the anti-abortion crowd, it has been all along. They have simply couched it in the cuddly swaddling clothes of romantic infancy to win the point: "Who do you want to protect," they ask? "This sweet, cooing child, or this selfish bitch who refuses to do what my God says is her biological duty?"

As long as a fetus remains a fetus, it gains the same rights and protections as the woman who carries it. The fate of what exists inside a woman's body... that is hers alone to decide. You may think abortion is wrong. I think it's wrong to raise your child as a Nazi. What harm can a woman who has an abortion do you? At best it harms your delicate sensibilities in the abstract. A child raised as a neo-Nazi will grow up with the will and perhaps the means to do a great many people a lot of physical and emotional harm. If I don't have the right to stop people from raising their children as they see fit -- regardless of the potentially negative impact on my life and well being -- you don't have the right to stop a woman from doing what she thinks best for her life and loved ones, especially since the only possible damage is to your delicate sensibilities. We're both offended. On both counts: Tough shit. Man up. It's none of your fucking business.

The woman's rights/pro-choice crowd needs to stop accepting the right-wing frame for this debate. When asked if fetuses deserve rights, the answer is: Women deserve rights -- including protection from people who would force them to use their bodies in ways they know to be harmful to their well being, their loved ones, and their lives.

 

 

Comments

[thatenglishteacher]

There is no room in logic for the human fetus to be anything other than a human. It all hinges on dependency. As I tell my classes (Yes, in public school we do teach logic...) it doesn't matter if the child is within the body dependent on care or outside the body dependent on care. This point is violated most obviously in late term abortions, but it still holds true in the first and second trimesters. Extend the pro-choice argument and we can justify abortive actions through age 9 or 10 when a child can survive without support.

On the other hand, when both humans have the right to life, the debate is already concluded in our society. If two human's lives are endangered by circumstances (pinned in a burning car or shot at Pearl Harbor), both equally viable, and only one can survive given the emergency, a choice is made. No reason, just difficult. If one has more chance to survive we have triage protocols. No right or wrong, just fate (or providence). But if both can survive we value both equally.

Statistics for life-threatening pregnancies is so minute that the question is far more simple than we make it out to be.

[RAF3]

Our focus should not be on bringing every single potential life to fruition (we are running out of planets anyway), it needs to be on giving every child with a consciousness to proceess thoughts and emotions hope for the future and hope for happiness. Help the ones who actually understand who they are and what they are suffering. If you don't know, you don't know -- and if you do, you do.

[RAF3]

Exactly correct. Just as no one should have the right to force the destruction of a woman's fetus against a woman's wishes, nor should they have the right to force her to keep her fetus any longer than she wishes. It is not a living human being with a consciousness at any point until at least after birth (possibly not until several months later judging by the quality of the brainwaves, etc.). To end its development is not murder. To proceed further or end it at any point is/should be completely up to the woman who is in the process of growing this potential life within her womb.

Of course a fetus is alive to its mother and father and those vested in its upcoming life and future -- but that is only in their minds, not in reality. If the hope and anticipation for the development of the fetus is lost because of circumstances in the woman's life or discoveries concerning the qualities of the developing fetus, then the woman should have the absolute right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.

Everyone else needs to mind their own business in this regard and worry about 'already born' chlidren being abused and neglected all over this country and the rest of the world. They have a consciousness -- they are the ones who are suffering -- they are the ones losing hope -- they are the one's in need of your attention and help.

[dcdude1]

So then, by your logic, a mother can kill her infant even after (months after) it is born??! Wow. Thanks for clarifying that for us, champ.

[dcdude1]

"No entity has the right to deny her the fruits of what's inside her body any more than they have the right to deny her the use of her liver."

But the liver isn't a sentient being that has a liver, heart, and brain of its own. You're telling me that that being has absolutely no rights of its own until the cord is cut? I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that answer. At some point, that "appendage" inside her becomes more than a liver. This is obvious. What is not obvious is when. I agree that it is not at conception, but I cannot accept that it doesn't happen until the cord is cut. The latter is just as illogical as the former.

[WStadtlander]

The argument is that the debate cannot be framed in terms of the rights of an unborn fetus, but must be framed solely in terms of women's rights. The author does not mean to equate the rights of the fetus with the rights of a liver; the point is a living person has a right to their own well-being REGARDLESS OF SEX or whether or not they are gestating.

[dcdude1]

But is at some point that gestating fetus becomes a living sentient being capable of thought and perception. Does that not give it SOME moral worth independent of the mother? Let's be clear. I'm not arguing about a stopping the development of a potential future human being. I'm talking about a human being who happens to get its nourishment through an umbilical cord instead of from her mother's breast. I don't know when it becomes a sentient human being, but surely we can all agree that it occurs sometime BEFORE it is lying on the delivery room table.

[RAF3]

virtually every single cell in your body has a nucleus that can be placed inside of the ovum/egg of a woman and grown into a complete human being (a clone) -- although we have not mastered this process with humans due to obvious ethical problems, we certainly can do it already with many species including mammals like us

as long as that piece of potential human is a part of you or me or anyone else, it should be no one's right but your own to either save or destroy that piece of you -- until you can attribute, definitively, a conscious awareness of self to that piece of human flesh, it is yours to do with what you like

you should be free to donate blood, ovulate and menstrate, give a kidney for transplantation, cut off your ear if you are really artistic, etc. etc. etc. -- and yes, that means that abortion should be OK too -- cells you grow are cells you control until they obtain an independent conscioiusness

no one wants to see more abortions -- it is emotionally distressing to anyone with the slightest degree of empathy (so possibly no Supreme Court Judges), but that is our reality, not the reality of the fetus -- we need to avoid projecting our own awareness of independent life and our feelings on something which has none of that themselves

[dcdude1]

So again, by your logic, a mother can kill her infant even after it is born? If self-awareness is the key, then it doesn't matter whether the baby is born or not. It is not aware, so it is not "human." Do I have that right?

[dcdude1]

Moreover, If you truly believe what you are saying, then why should abortion be emotionally distressing? After all, we're not killing humans, we're only disposing of excess cells. Man, no wonder this debate never gets anywhere.

[amaboss52]

Excellent article. Very well said.

[torque dwf]

Right FFin ON! Put so well, thanks for this!

[alwqb]

O'Reilly thinks as a man he can tell a woman what she can and can't do according to him. Billo, you can't tell me what I can and can't do to my body, even though you think you can have the last word. You can't and you don't.

[TuoulumneFlower]

Thank you for putting it so plainly. At its core, this a spiritual matter between a woman and her conception of God. Taking the choice away from her is denying her spiritual freedom, along with every other kind of freedom. No one - not men, not politicians, not police, not even other women - has the right to do that.

You are right, the answer to the question "do fetuses have rights" is no, they do not. The reason is, their mothers do. Just to ask the question is nothing more than a way of saying women are not human beings.

"They will believe a fetus is a person before they will believe a woman is..."

[thatenglishteacher]

Both are human with the right to life.

[cmp1966]

This is one of the most well written pieces I have ever read. It is well thought out, cohesive, and eloquent. It's brilliant.

As a woman, I would like to add that no woman has an abortion easily. It's a tough, heart-breaking decision. I don't believe that it is always a sin, although I'll concede that it probably is sometimes - but if it is, it's between the woman and God alone. The day when a woman has to get someone's permission to make a medical decision, or can not get an abortion at all - she is no longer a free woman.

[thatenglishteacher]

Between the woman, God, the child, and the father.

[Levittown]

Women fought for the right to vote. They are still fighting to break through the glass ceiling. They are not second class citizens and men do not have the right to subject them to their whims or passions. Pro choice is exactly what it says. Choice. The same as what you do when you go into that booth and draw the curtain. When are women going to put their foot down and demand that men stay out of their minds and bodies unless they are welcomed in. The Salem Witch trials are still with us. Like Leonce says,. If they grow up to be Nazis or serial killers is that what God wanted. Does anyone think God cares more about a birth then he does about the millions dying every year in Africa or Asia from the lack of food, water and medical aid.

[zizyphus]

Beautifully stated. I wish everyone exhibited the common sense of Leonce Gaiter.