When trying to think of an angle to write for Blog For Choice day, I was lucky enough to get this email from a reader asking me to look over a new attempt by Feminists For Life to recast anti-choice politics as somehow feminist-friendly, by arguing that allowing women to control their own fertility is a human rights violation. Now, I realize that most of us tend to think that “human rights violation” is traditionally about violating someone’s rights—their liberty, their freedom, their autonomy—and thus the argument that taking away women’s rights is saving women’s rights doesn’t quite make sense. But we’re from the old school feminist camp that believed that women are humans, with rights similar to those traditional human rights.
But FFL basically argues that we can’t frame women’s rights as human rights because women don’t have the agency to enjoy freedom.
However, we differ with Amnesty’s call upon all nations to ensure access to abortion for any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, sexual assault, or incest, and would strongly urge you to consider the concerns and perspectives expressed in this and subsequent paragraphs. FFL supports the protection of women from abortion, which is itself a form of violence against women, and for this reason we appreciate Amnesty’s consistent efforts to protect women from coerced abortion. We therefore urge you to reconsider this aspect of your recently adopted policy on abortion, which we believe does not protect the rights of women and children.
We understand that your position is one which advocates access to abortion particularly in countries where rape has been used as a deplorable tool of cultural oppression and where the pregnancy may produce further discrimination and even persecution. This position was captured well in one of your press releases: “…Our policy reflects our obligation of solidarity as a human rights movement with, for example, the rape survivor in Darfur who, because she is left pregnant as a result of the enemy, is further ostracised by her community.1″ However, abortion is not an expression of solidarity with this woman; it will in fact compound her suffering and is an endorsement of her community’s unjust view of her. The rape survivor in Darfur deserves much better than abortion.
Rape is not just traumatic because people are mean to you afterwards, but this letter implies that’s the main issue. Considering that rape is a tool of genocide—the idea being that you’re forcing the hated people to bear the children of their oppressors—I’d suggest that women seeking abortion after a genocidal rape probably have good reasons outside of just “caving into pressure”. But FFL imagines women as single-minded baby-making machines, and any choices we make that go against that must be the result of oppression or force, because a woman can no more choose not to have a baby right now than a bird can choose to quit flying and get around with a teeny-tiny Volkswagen bug.
You can tell that FFL is just a right wing organization pretending to be feminists because their view of feminism correlates not with the way it actually exists in the real world, but with this image that right wingers have created of feminists. You know the argument—the only reason that feminists would seek justice for women is because we believe that women are weak little beings incapable of taking care of ourselves. That if you call the cops after getting beaten or raped, you’re just “playing the victim”, an argument that presupposes your average conservative man would be kind enough not to phone the cops after getting mugged, lest we accuse him of playing the victim and having no agency. Real feminists believe that women do have agency that’s cramped by the patriarchy. (Read Simone de Beauvoir’s classic The Second Sex for a really great overview of this idea.) FFL, however, seems to think that women’s agency is so limited that we can’t even choose not to have children. That it’s literally impossible for a woman to actively seek to control her fertility (because FFL is both anti-abortion rights and deeply unwilling to suggest that contraception might be a good way to prevent abortion).
It’s this belief—that women have no agency and therefore can’t really have rights to use in the traditional sense that we imagine men having rights—that explains how assholes like Issues 4 Life can argue with a straight face that abortion is genocide, that a woman who privately seeks out abortion might as well be, I don’t know, I guess raping herself in Darfur? It doesn’t hold up to much investigation, and as BFP points out, is a fundamental insult to black women who seek abortion (most of the time, as I say in the podcast, with the survival of existing or future children in mind as well as for their own survival), because it’s accusing them of genocide against their own people. How can anyone who claims to care for black people say with a straight face that black women should be prevented from managing their own lives? How can anyone wave the flag of civil rights while arguing that women don’t deserve rights?
See above: We’re dealing with a fundamental disagreement about whether or not women are human. Rights are based on the realization that self-determination is the best path to justice, and most discussions about rights are about what set of them best assists self-determination.* Issues 4 Life isn’t arguing that black women are committing genocide against their own people, because they reject the notion that women have the agency to make the choices, that some agency-possessing man is doing all the thinking there.
There will be a lot of blog posts today about the specifics of why women make the choices they do, be it to abort, use contraception, seek infertility treatments, have a baby, keep a baby, give a baby up for adoption, never have children, or have many. Most will be telling stories as part of the larger effort to argue this fundamental belief, that women are human and have agency and therefore have the same right to self-determination as men.
*Example: The argument over social welfare. I would argue that something like Social Security or universal health care is a right that helps people engage in self-determination, because it helps their economic decisions rise above mere survival. Conservatives would argue that high taxes squelch self-determination. Why they’re wrong is another post, but it’s important to note that everyone is arguing on the same terms at least.
68 Responses to “Blog For Choice Day: Are Women Human?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“Are Women Human?”
Aw, hell no!
Women are Divine.
I heard that FFL has a new was a sister organization called “Gays For The Closet”.
They want to help gay people understand that while having feelings about people of the same gender is wrong, acting on those feelings is even more wrong. The closet is a warm, sheltering place that welcomes and embraces gay people. It’s a safe place for gay people to live, and as long as they don’t actually carry out their perverted activities, they can stay as long as they need (either until they convert to being normal, or until death).
Although GFTC doesn’t actually have any gay members (the organization’s rules prohibit gay people from joining), the organization is filled with caring, understanding, and committed Christian folks who want only the best for our twisted gay friends…
“…FFL has a
new was asister…”Gahhh!
I guess it’s taken me 47-years to get this good at English - given another couple decades or so, just imagine how proficient I could become!…
Like being forced to bear her rapist’s child?It’s an absolute travesty for these people to use “Feminists” in their name.
Next up, U. Thomas of People of Color for Slavery and Genocide will discuss the inherent downside of self-willed existance.
Feminists for Life of America is an MRA group, masquerading as feminists.
FFL supports the protection of women from abortion, which is itself a form of violence against women, and for this reason we appreciate Amnesty’s consistent efforts to protect women from coerced abortion.
These FFL people are fucking freaks. Dangerous freaks.
A lot of people in Darfur deserve better than what they’re getting. What’s her fucking point? God, the faux concern coupled with the complete obliviousness is infuriating. Are Feminists for Life building maternity wards or funding charities or sending food? Then they can STFU. The rape survivor in Darfur has got a lot on her plate and we should not cherry pick which of the terrible experiences she ‘doesn’t deserve.’
FFL supports the protection of women from abortion, which is itself a form of violence against women
Well, of course, nonconsensual abortion is a form of violence against women. Apparently, however, FFL doesn’t believe women are capable of consenting.
These people probably don’t understand the difference between consensual sex and rape, either.
These are people who think that women are not really human until they fulfill their destiny by getting married and becoming mommies. The notion that a woman might not want to be a mother is something they can’t comprehend. That’s why they are not in favor of contraceptive use, either. They don’t care about preventing unwanted pregnancy in the least.
FFL supports the protection of women from abortion, which is itself a form of violence against women, …
Even if that were true (which it demonstrably is not), it would be violence perpetrated against themselves, which is a choice that males are allowed to make. There are no laws against dangerous physical activities (like boxing, jujitsu, karate) that could result in pain and damage to a person even if done correctly. There are no laws against plastic surgery, which many believe to be heavily linked to personal self-image issues. There are no laws against damaging your body by smoking or drinking. To be sucinct, there are no laws that limit, for males and females, almost all forms of self-damage that does not result in immediate death.
Why is this one form of assumed self-damage something to be legislated against when it affects a notably smaller portion of the population than the other activities I listed?
I don’t think that voluntary, considered abortion is damaging to a woman’s mental state. I think that involuntary abortion is very damaging to a woman’s mental state. And I think that these ridiculous persons masquarading as feminists shouldn’t conflate the real issue with a false one.
Would FFL describe it as a lack of agency or as “false consciousness”? I am foggy on where I first learned that construct, but I want to say it was tied in with the McKinnon/Dworkin ant–porn stuff in the ’80s. The idea was that women choosing things like pornography or prostitution weren’t really exercising free agency but were instead constrained by the patriarchy into even seeing these things as viable or attractive options.
When the breast implant wars were going on, I remember the manufacturers saying that those who opposed the products were opposing “choices” for women. I remember thinking that “choice” was a matter of false consciousness.
Anyway, I agree that FFL is totally bullshit, but I think it might be helpful to acknowledge the way that one aspect of feminist thinking serves their argument. What ever happened to false consciousness, anyway?
sophie brown, we’re still fighting about false consciousness, it seems like every couple of months. The feminist blogosphere is probably due for another fight about now.
No one calls it that anymore and I would bet that a lot of people don’t even know there is a word for it. But it’s still a current and ongoing argument, all tied up in whether it’s okay to judge or criticize other women, whether we should be always supportive of whatever a woman chooses to do, or what.
FFL would have to twist the meaning to use it (not that that stops them), and so far I haven’t seen them use it. I think you’re right, and their argument is a dark mirror-world use of false consciousness — the idea that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she must necessarily have been coerced.
The rape survivor deserves death in childbirth and a high chance that her child will die before his/her fifth birthday?
Sure. Right.
Thanks Caroline,
FWIW, I think my rather uninformed thinking on the issue has evolved. From where I sit now, it seems to me that, if societal forces cause woment to make bad choices, you attack the societal forces, not the chooser.
Well done! Thank you for that post.
incidentally, don’t you love how the President of Concerned Women for America is a man?
I have nothing in particular to add to the conversation, but I want to thank Amanda for this post. This line of argument is very illuminating.
The rape survivor deserves death in childbirth and a high chance that her child will die before his/her fifth birthday?
Well, women can be such temptresses, you know…
These people probably don’t understand the difference between consensual sex and rape, either.
I think they do, but when it comes to the babeez they just don’t give a shit. No matter how that clump of cells got there it’s there goddamn it and it’s your “duty” as a woman to see it through and give up your life for it because… well, I’m not sure but it might be in the Bible somewhere and if no they’ll make it up.
It’s interesting to hear these women speak from such a place a privilege. I hate to play this card but I highly doubt any of these upper middle class white women would carry their rapist baby to term, ESPECIALLY if their rapists were non-white and/or non-Christian. It would become one of those, “my abortion is the only moral abortion” cases. Then again, there is the “do as I say, and not as I do” aspect to all of this.
Okay, in the interests of full disclosure, I’m a man and have no business commenting on this. However, I’m also a hard core deconstructionist and as much as I look at this issue from both sides, and as much as I acknowledge its complexities and nuances, I can’t help but always arriving at the fact that the impassable aporia (contradiction) seems to be on the side of the pro-choice movement. To begin, choice itself is a red herring until we first have a good faith debate on whether or not a foetus is, indeed, a human life; in society and law all of our choices become restricted when someone else’s life comes into question (i.e. It is my right to own a car; it is my right to drive a car; but if someone happens to be standing in front of my car, it is not my right to drive over them). Please note, I am not arguing that a foetus is human… I’m just saying that this is the real debate. Until this fundamental issue is resolved, choice is not a factor. On top of this, though, is the far more tangible (and little discussed) paradox of the abortion survivor (these people are out there). If a person was maimed by an attempted abortion, how do you then turn around and tell that person that it was your right to maim them because they simply were not a person at the time? More puzzling is the question of how you extend empathy to this person. Do you back away from choice and say “I regret that this was done to you; it was wrong to attempt to have you aborted as a foetus” or do you say “I regret that the abortion was botched; if it had been done properly you would not exist to feel this pain.” The only other alternative I see to these responses is to say, rather, “I do not regret your situation; as a survivor of abortion you are unworthy of my empathy.” I’m a full blown liberal on all other issues (gay rights and marriage, gender equality [rooting for Hillary all the way], anti-death penalty, pro-environmental protection, pro-animal rights, racial equality [big Obama fan as well]; I even support the legalization of marijuana, which I’ve never personally used); so I am sincerely asking for someone to please set me straight on this. Don’t yell at me; just convince me… I honestly want to be on your side.
“These people probably don’t understand the difference between consensual sex and rape, either.”
Or they think that if the woman would just CONSENT already, like a woman SHOULD, then there would be no more rapes! Problem solved.
It’s true that in terms of the abortion issue, women are not defined as human. If they were defined as human beings, and abortion was defined as anti-choice people do, anti-choice people would have NO choice other than to call for any woman who gets an abortion to be charged with first-degree murder. But they’ll do anything, anything at ALL to avoid that (because they know that nobody else will ever go for it). But that does leave them stuck in the position of either having to support that (a) fetuses are people or (b) women are people. Because their position does not allow for both to be people. And of course if they gave up (a), they’d have no position at all. It’s very interesting to watch people argue themselves into a flat-out impossible situation and STILL be unable to let it go.
Do you censor posts, Amanda? I just sent one in and it didn’t show up. I admit I didn’t agree with you, but I was respectful and was honestly attempting to discuss the topic in good faith. If you would rather not put my post up on your site, could you maybe respond to the questions I raised via email? I want to get a handle on this issue, but it seems I’m shut out any time I try to discuss its intricacies.
Your paranoia is duly noted, but no, moderation is not “censorship”. -Your friendly mod
The argument that abortion is “violence against women” is usually based on the fact that (statistically speaking) half of the aborted embryos are female. So if you abort a pregnancy, and the embryo was female, you’ve just committed violence against women!
No, seriously. That’s the thinking.
So if you abort a pregnancy, and the embryo was female, you’ve just committed violence against women!
Yep, I’ve gotten accused of it on my blog because I supported the right to abortion, and anti-choice morons claim to be women’s saviors and “totally not misogynists, dude!11!!”, because they want to save the girl fetuses too.
*headdesk*
The rape survivor in Darfur deserves much better than abortion.
Gross. It’s like those evil people who say “Why compound a crime with another crime? Hasn’t she suffered enough?” Vile people.
See above: We’re dealing with a fundamental disagreement about whether or not women are human. Rights are based on the realization that self-determination is the best path to justice, and most discussions about rights are about what set of them best assists self-determination
Mmm? Surely self-determination (autonomy) is the primary good, and justice an instrumental good in pursuit of that?
#12: …ant–porn stuff in the ’80s.
You mean this?
http://www2.biologie.uni-halle.de/zool/mol_ecol/ArmyAnts/Eciton%20Copula-Kronauer.JPG
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself…
No way, PiatoR, it’s pretty white baybeez that are the primary good! Otherwise, privileged feminists for life will have to adopt second-rate brown kids
Awww… come on. I’m not being paranoid and I’m not trying to pick a fight. I apologize for my unfortunate use of the term “censorship.” I fully understand that a moderator has to make judgement calls and I realize there are some hateful people out there that really should not be given a forum. On the other hand, I’m not certain that good moderation involves posting only comments that agree with a single perspective and filtering out anyone who raises a contrary point (your submit button does read “Blaspheme!” after all). I raise my questions in good faith in an effort to get good faith responses. I figured this was the place to do it, as the posters here seem to believe passionately in their pro-choice stances. I don’t want to discuss my thoughts with pro-lifers so I can be cheered on and patted on the back… besides the fact that I don’t like most of those people, I really don’t need the ego boost. I’d be very grateful if you could put my original post up, even if it was just long enough to get a couple of responses to enlighten me on the other side of the issues I raised. If you like, you could even offer me some suggestions on where or how I could tone down my original comments and I could repost, so as not to offend your sensibilities or standards while still being permitted to raise my points. I have no intention to villanize anyone; I’m just trying to reach out. Please don’t villanize me.
jeremyemilio:
Actually, the debate is not whether a fetus is a human, but whether a fetus is a person. Being human requires human DNA. All feti have human DNA, and are, therefore, human (not some other species). Personhood requires being born. According to the law, a fetus becomes a person when it’s born, so we’ve already got the answer to that question.
Secondly, not even born persons have the right to use another person’s body for life support without their consent. So, there’s the answers to all of your questions in one neat little package.
Brilliant in its simplicity, when you think about it.
As to your question about botched abortions, I’d be really interested in statistics on how many D&C abortions result in a full-term fetus being delivered and capable of surviving outside the womb. Drop in again when you have a cite for that and let’s kick the ball around some more.
Thank you… sorry about those last two posts. I didn’t realize my original made it up. I feel dumb now (maybe you’re paranoia comment wasn’t so far off the mark after all). Bad start.
jeremyemilio said:
To begin, choice itself is a red herring until we first have a good faith debate on whether or not a foetus is, indeed, a human life; in society and law all of our choices become restricted when someone else’s life comes into question (i.e. It is my right to own a car; it is my right to drive a car; but if someone happens to be standing in front of my car, it is not my right to drive over them).
This is not so clear cut as you present it here. There are many cases, under the law, where the killing of another human being is allowable. Self-defense comes to mind immediately; police action, in defense of themselves or citizens; war with its “collateral damage”; capital punishment. So you can’t base your argument on the idea that any “choices” that result in human death are axiomatically murder, or even immoral.
(BTW, it may be your “right” to own a car, but it is *not* a right to *drive* a car. As any driver’s ed teacher will tell you, “driving is a privilege, not a right.” You might want to pick a better analogy.)
Please note, I am not arguing that a foetus is human… I’m just saying that this is the real debate. Until this fundamental issue is resolved, choice is not a factor.
But it will never be resolved to the level of satisfaction that you seem to demand. Almost all anti-choice opinions are made on the basis of either a) religious belief, or b) absolutism. There’s even the occasional atheist anti-choice advocate, but they always argue on the basis of absolutism: since we can’t make an infallible determination as to “where life begins”, we shouldn’t even try, and assume that anything from the moment of the first combination of DNA in a zygote constitutes “human life”.
It can be argued in logically and in good faith that the determination should rather be the formation of the neural cortex, or the onset of independent movement, or viability, or the moment the infant emerges from the womb. Read the SCOTUS rulings on Roe v. Wade, because all of this was argued at length from all sides. We know what the outcome of their deliberations yielded.
On top of this, though, is the far more tangible (and little discussed) paradox of the abortion survivor (these people are out there). If a person was maimed by an attempted abortion, how do you then turn around and tell that person that it was your right to maim them because they simply were not a person at the time? More puzzling is the question of how you extend empathy to this person. Do you back away from choice and say “I regret that this was done to you; it was wrong to attempt to have you aborted as a foetus” or do you say “I regret that the abortion was botched; if it had been done properly you would not exist to feel this pain.” The only other alternative I see to these responses is to say, rather, “I do not regret your situation; as a survivor of abortion you are unworthy of my empathy.”
This just strikes me as concern trolling. A survivor of any botched medical procedure has the same legal remedies regardless of the kind of procedure. If a fetus remains viable and is born alive after an abortion procedure then that procedure was, by sheer definition, botched. If the “survivors” are physically or mentally handicapped as a direct result, they (and/or their caretakers) are eligible for malpractice compensation. Empathy doesn’t enter into it. Are you arguing the law or morality here? You seem to be confusing the two, or I’m confused as to what you’re getting at.
I’m a full blown liberal on all other issues (gay rights and marriage, gender equality [rooting for Hillary all the way], anti-death penalty, pro-environmental protection, pro-animal rights, racial equality [big Obama fan as well]; I even support the legalization of marijuana, which I’ve never personally used); so I am sincerely asking for someone to please set me straight on this. Don’t yell at me; just convince me… I honestly want to be on your side.
If what you require is an iron-clad argument that “life” begins sometime *after* conception, thereby allowing abortion as an option without it being defined as murder, then you will never have it. These are metaphysical questions which only yield more questions. But the law is not about morality, as any lawyer will tell you. The law is not about justice. The law is not about protecting the innocent. The law is about resolution. The situation regarding abortion in the USA before 1973 was untenable, and it required resolution. The SCOTUS resolved it, so far as the law of the land is concerned. Now it is up to the pregnant woman herself to resolve the issue *for* herself, within certain restrictions of law.
They call this “free agency.”
jeremyemilio,
You wrote,
“To begin, choice itself is a red herring until we first have a good faith debate on whether or not a foetus is, indeed, a human life; in society and law all of our choices become restricted when someone else’s life comes into question (i.e. It is my right to own a car; it is my right to drive a car; but if someone happens to be standing in front of my car, it is not my right to drive over them).”
Your analogy fails. Control over one’s body is a right of a different order from driving a car (which, incidentally, I was taught is a privilege, not a right, when I got my license). It is either absolutely or very nearly the most fundamental right conceivable. One’s body is always there. You can’t leave it behind and go for a stroll without it. Self-determination without control over one’s body is not merely a fiction but an absurdity, and without this core self-determination one is a slave to the state and living under tyranny.
Here come the concern trolls.
a good faith debate on whether or not a foetus is, indeed, a human life
No one ever thought a fetus was a “person,” entitled to the same rights under law as a born “person,” until the antichoice types decided they needed to come up with a superficially respectable-sounding argument against Roe, for the bamboozlement of the masses.
Ask yourself how old you are, and you’ll see what I mean.
By “no one,” I mean not one person in the recorded history of humankind–not one.
Thank you so much for your response, mezosub. The personhood argument is certainly a strong legal point. I do worry that the legal definition for “person” has not always had the best track record, though (this is especially relevant in relationship to the feminist cause).
More convincing, I think, is your second point concerning the rights of one individual to live off of the other. I could argue, perhaps, that maybe a dependent infant is in a similarly vulnerable situation. To elaborate, if the mother (or father) of a newborn leaves an infant to die in her/his crib of dehydration we would call it gross negligence, if not homicide, despite the fact that the parent did nothing active to kill the child. This is a bit of a stretch, I admit, because the caretaker of a born dependent has the option to hand the child off to another caretaker, while a pregnant woman is left without that option (which is where choice does enter in a legitimate sense). On the other hand, I might argue that the analogy works, on some level, when related to a late or full term child that is viable outside of the womb (i.e. induced labour and adoption vs. abortion). However, I also understand that the many circumstances and potential complications surrounding child-labour make this a bit of a dicey argument (of course, with regard to a partial birth abortion wherein there are no complications I think the argument holds up quite well).
In all, you’ve succeeded in moving me on this a bit intellectually. Ethically and empathetically, though, I’m still right where I was. In general, I subscribe to the empathy based “Ethics of Care” developed by feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan. As such, I just can’t wrap my head (or heart) around the idea that a child born prematurely is an object of empathy and deserving of care while an equally (or further) developed child in the womb is not. Definitions of personhood and issues of dependence do not answer this concern very effectively.
As for statistics related to abortion survivors, they’re difficult to track down (and I would suggest that there is too much propagandizing on both sides to have any confidence in the statistics that can be tracked down). However, as this is an ethical and philosophical debate, I’m not sure the exact numbers are that important (in the same way that statistics on the execution of the wrongly convicted are so relevant to the death penalty debate as would be some specific, well documented examples of cases in which it did, in fact, happen). I have come across a site of interest in this regard. Be warned it does have some religious overtones (which is admittedly not helpful) but overall I think it’s a useful start:
http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
jeremy emelio,
I don’t think the question of whether a fetus is human, or even a person, can ever be answered in a meaningful way, or even that it is a question with meaning. It is not a question that possesses any meaning outside of the abortion debate. What you are really asking is: is there some characteristic possessed by a fetus (in general or at a certain point in its development) that would cause society to be justified in deciding that it must be carried to term by a woman who does not want to do so? There is certainly no answer that all will agree upon. Some religions have answers that make sense to their followers, but that certainly isn’t a basis for making laws. Some individuals have their own answers — I know I have feelings and emotions about developing life. But there is no right answer to your question, and that is why the question is left to the real person with the greatest stake in the outcome.
“On the other hand, I might argue that the analogy works, on some level, when related to a late or full term child that is viable outside of the womb (i.e. induced labour and adoption vs. abortion). However, I also understand that the many circumstances and potential complications surrounding child-labour make this a bit of a dicey argument (of course, with regard to a partial birth abortion wherein there are no complications I think the argument holds up quite well).”
It is a moot point in regards to “partial birth abortion”; and could we please use the actual medical terms when referring to such?
In the US (and everywhere else, I’d imagine), third trimester abortions are extremely rare. Something like 1% of abortions performed. You can look up that stats on the CDC website if you like. Really, really, abortions that are performed late in pregnancy are NOT performed on viable fetuses. For that, you may read the Roe v. Wade decision, and later restrictions; it’s not legal to terminate a viable third trimester fetus. “Partial birth abortions” and other later term procedures are only done when the fetus is not viable or already dead.
The ban on “partial birth abortions” does not prevent abortions from happening. It merely takes away an option on how to perform an abortion, often the safest one for the woman.
As such, I just can’t wrap my head (or heart) around the idea that a child born prematurely is an object of empathy and deserving of care while an equally (or further) developed child in the womb is not.
Which is a completely disingenuous argument, as rowmyboat points out. If this is true, why not earlier fetuses or even embryos? Why do you draw the line at viability, given your attempt to make it empathetic argument that only recognizes the humanity and personhood of the fetus, and not the personhood of the woman? And trust me, as you will never be pregnant, that whole wrapping your head around it matters not a wit. Perhaps you can try wrapping your head around this.
Ok, here’ I’ll do the research for you.
See in particular table 6, which showed that in 2004 only 1.3% of abortions were performed at or after the 21st week of pregnancy, and that the vast majority (more than 85%) were performed in the 1st trimester.
It also points out that states with more rigid laws regarding abortion have a lower percentage of early abortions; I would suppose that this is a direct result of the difficulty of obtaining one. I would also suppose that the strange high rate of late abortion in New York City is due to the fact that NY has liberal abortion laws and states around them don’t, and that NYC being a big place with lots of people, there are, ya know, actually doctors there capable and willing to perform them.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm?s_cid=ss5609a1_e
And here’s the actual damn text of the Roe v. Wade decision.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113
Thanks, Joe Max, et al. This is great. This is my last post for the night, but I’ll check in to see how things develop over the next few days as this is by far the most productive discussion I have ever had on the issue.
A couple of you raised the point that driving a car is not a right, so I’ll back away from that a bit and revert to the simple right of freedom of movement. Rather than the car, let’s just use the old Simpsons illustration:
Lisa: Get out, get out!
Bart: All right, Lisa. But as I’m leaving, I’m going to be doing this…
[windmills his arms]
Bart: -and if you get hit, it’s your own fault.
Lisa: Fine. Then I’m going to start kicking air, like this…
[kicks up her foot]
Lisa: And if a part of you should fill that air, it’s your own fault.
Car or no car, it’s a faulty premise.
As for Joe Max’s idea that I’m confusing empathy with law… guilty. In fact, I’m a strong believer that empathy should be confused with law, and I’m quite certain that many pro-choice supporters believe the same. Unlike many pro-lifers (or anti-choicers in your parlance), I have no illusions that people who believe in choice are cold, heartless beings. I realize that a large motivator in this stance is in response to empathetic reflection on women who do not desire, or are not equipped, to have a child as well as the prospects of the unwanted children themselves (this, in essence, is the perspective offered in amanda’s original blog entry). I would suggest that if your argument goes no deeper than legal precedence, the only consistent stance for you to take is that in nations where abortion is illegal, law also trumps empathy for the woman involved.
I’ll leave Joe’s religious argument out of it because I agree with him on that one, and unlike many of the religious anti-choicers (and I think the term works in this instance) I’m entirely on the side of full and unrestrained reproductive rights for women in all cases except those in which there seems, to me, to be a conflict of rights between the pregnant woman and the unborn foetus.
I would, though like to engage with the point raised on absolutism. It seems to me that, as Joe so effectively points out, when defining human life/rights there is large grey area between conception and birth. However, it’s been my experience that pro-choice supporters, in their uncompromising fight for the right to an abortion up to the very last moment before birth, are often as absolutist as are pro-life supporters. Personally, I’d be more than willing to compromise. Although I believe that technically and biologically human life begins at conception, empathetically and ethically I am not so married to the idea. Nevertheless, I find it very difficult to understand how one can look affectionately at an ultrasound of one late term foetus or feel its kick when it becomes restless on the one hand, and become empathetically detached enough to abort another at the same level of development.
In response to this charge of absolutism, I suggest that all sides need to back down a bit if we are ever to have a constructive exploration of this issue. Is there anyone out there willing to throw absolutism out the window altogether, leaving trimesters one and three off the table (i.e. abortion on demand in trimester one, abortion only when the mother’s health is in real danger in trimester three)?
abortion on demand in trimester one
Your slip is showing. I can get the surgery I need if I have cancer. A woman can get the abortion she needs if she’s pregnant and does not want to carry to term. Abortion is a surgery, and she has to schedule an appointment to have it, just like I would if I had a benign tumor.
“Abortion on demand” is a meaningless phrase that dipshits like yourself see as a dog whistle (ZOMG, ZYGOTES ARE DYING!!!!!) You might as well say “surgery on demand”.
I’m guessing you are also clamoring for the adoption of frozen embryos, right? ALL frozen embryos, mind, you know, that vast majority of fertilized eggs that never get implanted or adopted.
“All sides need to back down a bit,” eh, Jeremyemilio? Okay, I’ll bite. Which stance on abortion rights do you commend to us pupils? It must be neither that of the pro- nor anti-side (if the view is already held, someone is failing to “back down”) and there must be a reasonable hope that the anti- people will go along with it (if not, the compromise is pointless). Bear in mind that “no abortions in the third trimester unless the fetus is very, very sick or the pregnancy is jeopardizing the woman’s health” is considered a pro-choice view these days. Now have at it.
Okay, I do have to respond to JackGoff real quickly because:
1. It’s not really viability I’m concerned with so much as the ability to feel. The entire concept of empathy suggests one’s ability to identity with and feel with another sentient being (this is the philosophy behind the eating habits of many vegetarians and vegans).
2. While I realize there is a lot going on in this article, I think the editorial note concerning Carmen Climaco offers something to consider. Why does the balance of empathy (and justice) tip in favour of the mother when we believe the child was aborted and then back in favour of the child when it is learned that the child was born?
To expand a bit, I might point you to the following story about the college athlete accused of killing her newborn last summer:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/20/ng.01.html
(and yes, I hate Nancy Grace as well, but if you can get past all the rhetoric, this is the most complete account of the story out there).
Personally, my empathy goes both ways here. There is no question that this young woman was in distress and even as it stands, I’d argue that a homicide charge with a long prison sentence isn’t a very good answer. However, I can’t help but note that the young woman looked up “how to kill a foetus” on the net before the incident and then brought scissors into the bathroom with her when she went into labour. It’s speculation, granted, but I do wonder if, perhaps, had this child not been a breech birth, it may well have been killed before it was technically born. In this case the entire incident would certainly take on an entirely different legal texture. Still, though, the question remains: How do we as individuals (and societies) manage to turn our sense of empathy on and off based on such arbitrary circumstances?
However, I can’t help but note that the young woman looked up “how to kill a foetus” on the net before the incident and then brought scissors into the bathroom with her when she went into labour.
Welcome to America after the Anti-Choice crowd gets their way. And it will be a lot worse. The ludicrous thing is that NUMEROUS studies show that women with access to legal abortion have fewer abortions. Did you read the article about El Salvador I linked to? Making abortion illegal there mattered not a wit, and there are many women in jail for getting dangerous back alley abortions.
Also, what would you say to a woman who had been raped? Is that also not a precious human being? Why the distinction? On what do you base the distinction? I point you to this post by me.
I base the distinction between born persons and fetuses. It’s a simple line, and in the cases that you are wringing your hands over, they only constitute a rare subset of an already extremely rare number of abortions.
Also, what would you say to a woman who had been raped?
Should say “Also, what would you say to a pregnant woman who had been raped?”
We as individuals (and societies) need to trust that individual women know what is good for them and their families and they don’t need their reproductive options limited by the federal, state or local government.
jeremyemilio, here’s a somewhat closer parallel case (leaving out the question of personhood, which is a different issue). Let’s say you get a phone call one day telling you that you have a long-lost sibling whose one kidney is giving out. They need a transplant, and it’s been determined that you are their only living relative and thus only person in the world physically able to donate a kidney to them due to compatibility issues. Is it just, then, for you to be compelled by law to donate your kidney to keep them alive?
(Clinical stuff may be incorrect here. I’m not entirely up on transplant medicine.)
And to answer your question, jer: There’s no secular argument that a fetus without a functioning brain should have rights that trump the woman that it has a parasitic relationship with. There are religious arguments, but in a free society, religious belief is a private matter.
Also, you’ve got it backwards on what is a red herring. The fetal personhood argument is the red herring. Anti-choicers are motivated by a fear of sexuality and women’s liberation—if that wasn’t true, then why are they so thoroughly dedicated to battling gay marriage, sending women back to the home, and battling birth control? They slap the fetal personhood crap on there to smuggle in an anti-woman agenda. It’s literally the classic red herring.
Self-identified deconstructionists sure make good hijackers. When antichoice concern trolls spend all their spare time lobbying for increased prenatal care and an Iraq-level budget for support of micropreemies, I might list to their claptrap about late-stage pregnancy termination. (Of course, as the parent of a kid who was deliberately exposed to serious risk of death because leaving him in the womb for even a few more hours might have killed his mother, I do have an ax to grind here.)
There probably is something to the argument that abortion practiced for sex-selection (reportedly not uncommon in some cultures) is a symptom of violence against women. But since those same reports also mention female infanticide and terrible abuse of “excess” girls and women, focusing on the possible suffering of the XX embryos or fetuses seems tendentious at best.
What Amanda said about fetal personhood. I just responded to it because it’s the ploy that jeremyemilio was using to lure us into a discussion at the time.
Since rowmyboat, Joe Max, JackGoff and I all answered his question about fetal personhood, he’s moved on to “empathy” and the ability of a being to feel. If we’re to judge according to the ability to feel, that’d be the development of the neural cortex, at 24 weeks of development.
This whole treatise about “empathy” is another matter, however. By writing about a distinction between ooohing and aaahing over a 24 week fetal ultrasound photo and having an abortion at the same stage of development, presumably without the proper amount of emotional anguish that anti-choicers believe should be reserved for such feti, jeremyemilio claims there is a disconnect in the compassion that should be shown to any fetus at such a stage of development.
Allow me to retort: There’s a concept in jurisprudence that’s called “without passion or prejudice.” It’s not appropriate to make a law that affects all pregnant women based on the emotions of a subset of pregnant women toward their pregnancies. That means that the individual woman gets to choose, because the whole point of a legal system is to provide society with a loose framework of ideas to allow each person full exercise of their individual liberties, including the exercise of bodily sovereignty. That’s what pro-choicers mean when they tell anti-choicers to keep their religions off our bodies.
Really? How precious. I love when I hear those who WILL NEVER GET PREGNANT (cough…men) proclaim that they would be willing to compromise on abortion rights.
I, for one, am not willing to compromise my right to determine if and when I will carry a pregnancy to term. It does not matter if a fetus is human life. It does not matter if a fetus can feel pain. If a fetus depends on my body to sustain its life, than MY rights trump its rights (which, as legal non-person it does not have, so moot point really). And the “abortion on demand until the moment of birth” crap is another red herring. At the point at which a pregnant woman would determine to end a VIABLE pregnancy, in almost all cases a c-section/vaginal birth would be the safest option for preserving her life and future reproductive ability.
Troll said:
history_mom said:
Here’s my suggestion for a reasonable compromise all the fetus-lovers should campaign for as a show of good faith, to show that banning abortions isn’t really about punishing women for being, well, icky girls:
1. abortions for any reason other than saving the life of the pregnant woman are banned AND
2. every fertile adult male is entered into an organ-donor registry that requires compulsory donation of kidneys, marrow, etc. whenever required to save the life of some precious person (with fingers! and feelings!) And no excuses (like career plans, or dependents, or existing health problems) to avoid it allowed.
I would be willing to consider this compromise to my bodily autonomy.
Well, we could spend the rest of our lives arguing about whether and at exactly what point a foetus counts as human - but it’s completely missing the point that there should be absolutely no room for debate about whether women are human.
Hmmm, should I support the speculative rights of an entity which may or may not be “human”, or the right to bodily autonomy of an actual person? Such a tricky question…
We already have a compromise: it’s called Roe v. Wade.
I love how the “fake feminists” try to intimidate pro-choice advocates by trying to equate abortion with racially-based genocide. Unfortunately, there are elements in the civil rights movement—-and I have met them—-who have bought into this sorry line of thinking. As though the burden falls upon women of color not to abort because if they do they are fulfilling the dreams of genocidal racists. Ugh!
jeremyemilio, I’m going to assume you’re not a troll and actually engage in a conversation with you.
I am unfamiliar with the case you are talking about, but abortion advocates do not believe it is okay to kill a fetus which would be viable, within a month or so of its birth, unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. Late-term abortions are performed for only two reasons: 1. the mother will die or could die or could suffer permanent and severe damage such as blindness, and the health complication will be caused or exacerbated by a c-section or labor 2. the child is not viable and will die before birth or shortly after it. Those are the only reasons. If there are health complications that won’t kill you, they do things like put you in the hospital for two weeks until they can safely induce you, or they give you an emergency c-section. Only if the act of giving birth could kill or severely harm the mother, or the child is effectively dead, does *anyone* advocate late-term abortion.
So the woman who took scissors to her baby was wrong whether the infant was in the birth canal or out of her body. The reason is simple. The justification for abortion is that you have control over your own body and its health. If the fetus can be removed from your body and to do so will not kill it, your justification for killing it goes away. You are justified in killing something in order to get it out of your body as long as the only way to get it out of your body is to kill it, but the point to abortion isn’t the killing, it’s the getting it out of your body. By the time of the third trimester, it will be nearly as much effort to give birth to a dead fetus as a live baby, so you gain nothing. If we had Star Trek transporters and free artificial wombs we could gestate unwanted babies in, the logic of abortion might look very different, but for now, for most of a pregnancy, the only way to keep a fetus from living inside you is to kill it. Once the fetus is advanced enough that that’s not true, you lose the right to kill it unless your life or lack of disability are at stake.
This is also why it is wrong to kill your infant. Your infant may be dependent on you, but you can dump your infant at a fire station, give it up for adoption, hire babysitters, or do any number of things to free yourself from that burden without killing the baby. The *only* way to free yourself from the burden of a first or second trimester pregnancy is to kill it. (Also, we frown on compelling people to do things with their bodies; you can’t legally compel a person to have sex, take birth control, consume medication, or give up a kidney. You *can*, however, compel them to perform services, do work, or give money.)
Finally, while I understand empathy for non-viable unborn — I cried when I miscarried at 13 weeks — what we are mourning is not a thing with a mind that can feel pain, but a potential that will never be realized. Non-viable fetuses do not feel pain or fear; the brain wiring doesn’t exist yet. My “baby” that died wasn’t a baby; it was alive, but it wasn’t as sophisticated yet as a lizard. It was a potential baby, and I cried for the loss of that potential, for the baby that would never exist. We cannot allow sorrow for a potential that is unrealized to outweigh the sorrow for a real living person who can feel pain. If a woman cannot bear a child right now, she will actually suffer if forced to. Pregnancy is painful, dangerous, and has a profound impact on your life, and forcing it on a person causes real suffering. The death of a potential baby, as sad as it may make us, cannot compare to the suffering of a realized human being. So the empathy equation must balance on the side of the person who can feel pain, not the being the size and intelligence of a jumbo shrimp.
It’s looking more and more like (especially) pregnant women aren’t considered *really* human in our culture, at least not in the same sense that *real people* are human. Afterall, we don’t even harvest organs from cadavers without consent to put into service in the interest of the right to life, do we? However, it appears the bodies and body parts of living women are up for deliberation and negotiation. This may apply to all women. Necrophilia garners more horror and outcry than rape. So, are we human? Would we have more rights if we were dead?
Jeremyemilio I think you illustrate something very important. And that is just how damn complicated this whole issue gets , so complicated in fact that a meaningful decision that will make everyone happy is impossible to come up with. It’ll never happen, that’s why in the end individuals need to make their own choices, some women will decide that the fetus needs to be kept alive some won’t. Both those choices are valid. I think the very fact it’s so complicated means we need by default to leave the choice up to the individual there are no one size fits all solutions here. And to me that means that choice is the only acceptable solution.
DeadMan
Don’t we already have the best compromise possible? Namely, nobody is forced to have an abortion and nobody is forced to have a baby.
Hey folks. Overall this has been a positive exchange, but I feel that it’s on the brink of going nuclear, so I’m going to get out now. Just a few comments before I go.
To begin, the whole “concern troll” thing is a bit disappointing (and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific topic at hand). I remember a time, not so long ago, when it was almost exclusively the right that used these types of tactics to stifle conversation in favour of a monologic ideal. On the left we always leaned more toward a Bakhtinian dialogic. It’s becoming more and more apparent, though, that some of us have lost our spirit of the carnivalesque, and it’s sad (not to mention eerily reminiscent of a group of fundamentalists bursting into derisive laughter when their pastors glibly proclaims “My uncle wasn’t no monkey!”) Of course, I’m probably wasting space here as some folks seem intent on their certainty that I am just a poser attempting to infiltrate their sacred space (were I one to use similar tactics I might suggest that there may be more purity trolls in here than concern trolls).
Now to make nice:
JackGoff: I went to your blog. You have some good stuff here. Especially revealing was your emphasis on empathy as a moral touchstone. So long as we agree on this, we can always find common ground. I was also very intrigued by your discussion of abortion in terms of the mother/slut binary. This does give me something to chew on. Incidentally, Susan Gilbert and Sandra Gubar have a fantastic book entitled *Madwoman in the Attic* that offers an exhaustive exploration of this topic in the context to the 19th century novel. If you’ve not read it, you might really find it interesting. Also, Mary Wollstonecraft’s *Vindication of the Rights of Women* and William Godwin’s essay “Of Co-operation, Co-habitation, and Marriage” are must reads for anyone interested in female personhood (just reread them recently in preparation for my upcoming PhD comps in Romantic Lit.). Personally, though, I prefer the feminist ideals of theorists like Helen Cixous in that they open a space for female abundance or ‘juissance’ in a way that North American feminism sometimes falls short.
Paul: I really do consider myself a deconstructionist (well, more of an all around poststructuralist, to be honest), and not in a ‘deconstruction is hip’ sort of way. I have been researching Derrida, Foucault, and Bakhtin since long before they were fads. Also, you might be interested to know that the high school I attended as a teen, and at which I taught for several years (don’t worry, no abortion discussions in my class) before returning to student life, participates in an annual fundraiser that raises thousands of dollars each year for the local neonatal unit. I have always been proud to be a part of this. Here’s a link (scroll down to “Mon Oct 15, 2007: 25th Annual Trojan Trek”):
http://www.district2.nbed.nb.ca/news_0708.asp
Anyway, I am sorry to hear of your difficult experience. I hope your child and his mother are now doing well.
murcielago: Your analogy helps flesh things out. It covers most of the bases quite nicely, from physical autonomy to empathy. The only disconnect, I guess, would be in the distinction between passively allowing someone to die and active participation in ending a life, but again this does nothing to discredit your astute answer to my empathy concern.
Alara: I really cannot express my appreciation for your thoughtful and fair response. It is so encouraging to see that common ground is possible on this issue. As I suggested in an earlier post, I fully agree that empathy requires that the object of one’s empathy can feel, so I am quite willing to reject absolutism and accept your analysis of early term abortions. On the other end, I am in full agreement with your suggestion that it is not “okay to kill a fetus which would be viable, within a month or so of its birth, unless the health or life of the mother is at stake.” It has not been my experience, though, that all pro-choice advocates are as willing as you to back away from the absolutist thesis that an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus, and might be aborted regardless of questions of the woman’s health, or viability or an ability to experience emotion or pain on the part of the foetus. At any rate, it helps to know there are people on both sides of this issue who are not so irrevocably divided.
Amanda: Thank you for allowing me to participate. I really do wish that there was some way to convince you that not one part of your assessment applies to me. Specifically: “Anti-choicers are motivated by a fear of sexuality and women’s liberation—if that wasn’t true, then why are they so thoroughly dedicated to battling gay marriage, sending women back to the home, and battling birth control?” I don’t battle gay marriage or birth control and have no illusions that women belong in the home. I can only suggest you consider the frustration you might feel at having the same blanket accusations levelled at you in response to a single disagreement on a specific point with an otherwise likeminded person. No grudges; it’s just a crappy feeling.
To everyone else: Thank you for letting me in and for sharing your knowledge and opinions. I realize it’s unlikely I moved anyone of you a single inch on this issue, but that’s fine because, hard as it may be to believe, I have no proselytizing motives. I simply wanted to get some feedback and read some counterpoints to help me flesh out my own views on this complex issue. Hence, this was a success.
Sorry for being so long winded. Last post, an all. Love, peace, and juissance.
Jeremy
On the other end, I am in full agreement with your suggestion that it is not “okay to kill a fetus which would be viable, within a month or so of its birth, unless the health or life of the mother is at stake.” It has not been my experience, though, that all pro-choice advocates are as willing as you to back away from the absolutist thesis that an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus is an unborn foetus, and might be aborted regardless of questions of the woman’s health, or viability or an ability to experience emotion or pain on the part of the foetus.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a pro-choice advocate who was absolutely in favour of abortion on demand in the third trimester.
Anybody?
Yeah, I don’t really think that abortion on demand happens in the third trimester unless something goes seriously wrong with the pregnancy.
In some ways, I wish the only people who could debate this issue are the people who actually have to deal with unplanned pregnancy.
I really feel that being a pro-life man must be the easiest and most risk-free stance ever.
Off the top of my head I can’t think of one either, Dunc. I am in favor of keeping abortion legal throughout the entire pregnancy, because I cannot foresee all the situations that might necessitate abortion, and law is clumsy. But I know it’s downright impossible to find a doctor who will abort two days before delivery because a woman just doesn’t feel like it anymore. Doctors are stringent about when they will perform the procedures.
It would be quite a stretch to pretend that this means I am in favor of late abortions for fun and profit. I simply expect that doctors and pregnant women can discuss options and make the best decision from among a handful of undesirable options, and law is more likely to be a hindrance than a help in these situations.
Jeremy keeps repeating this “pro-choicers are absolutists” stuff, pretending that this is the dominant viewpoint among pro-choice people, even while multiple people here are contradicting him, because it allows him to believe that most of us are cold, rigid and lacking empathy. He can therefore be separate and superior, because he has empathy and is human.
There’s something he doesn’t like about the pro-choice crowd, so he needs to feel separate. How do I know? It was pointed out to him that “‘no abortions in the third trimester unless the fetus is very, very sick or the pregnancy is jeopardizing the woman’s health’ is considered a pro-choice view”, thus Jeremy is pro-choice. But he won’t identify as such. Instead of just acknowledging that there are plenty of differences among pro-choice people, and that his desire for fewer abortions would best be served by supporting safe access to abortion and access to contraception, he wants to imagine that his differences are so great that he does not belong inside the tent. Why?
Because, if he acknowledged these shared goals and shared values, then he might feel obligated to get up off his ass and do something to help, like volunteer at Planned Parenthood. It’s much less work to sit at his computer and type “convince me, convince me” than to make a commitment, even though he’s ostensibly already on our side; and as a bonus it makes him feel important to be an uncommitted “swing voter” who can be courted with attention from both sides. Am I wrong, Jeremy? You can tell it to, or you can go forth and prove it to yourself.
correction:
You can tell it to me, or …
Amanda, I realize I said I was finished posting but I did some reflecting on how I ended up on this site in the first place and after doing some backtracking and some more careful reading there’s something that I thought needed to be brought to your attention. It seems someone out there is misrepresenting him/her self as you.
Anyway, here goes:
I looking through a discussion thread for a Ron Paul article at
http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html
entitled “‘Jane Roe’ Endorses Ron Paul” (just because I find Ron Paul’s deconstruction of the Republican platform intriguing) and I came across the following comment from “Amanda”:
“The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.
Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at birth.
Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman has, without it all other rights are meaningless.”
This is followed by a few inflammatory responses from misogynistic morons and then another post from “Amanda” with the link to this very article, also written by Amanda.
Then more idiots, including one post declaring:
“I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone.”
Followed by this response from “Amanda”:
“Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn.”
Anyway, I had never heard of you and knew nothing about you and so I thought I’d respond to what I felt to be fairly absolutist language. Unfortunately, I never considered the possibility raised later by another poster:
“Oh god - a troll pretending to be Amanda Marcotte. What kind of double hell is that?”
And then, further down than I had the patience to read at the time someone says:
“And AmandaM is a troll. Probably a pro-life troll, at that.”
To which “Amanda” responds:
“Yes.”
Soooooooo…. it seems I suck. I’m very sorry. I am still happy to have had this discussion, but this revelation gives it a whole new texture. Here I am trying to get all of you to converge with me at or near a point where you are already standing.
Cheers
P.S. touché, Grammar RWA, touché
Relevant to your interests.