complete

How bad is childbirth, then?

just-smith:

skycry:

just-smith:

I see feminists talking about how awful it is all of the time. According to them, it’s one of the most painful things you can go through. That’s why we need abortion. Contrary to what pro-lifers say, abortion is safe and harmless. In fact, abortion does negative harm, because it alleviates the harm of childbirth. It’s more of a cure.

I’ve heard unwanted pregnancies referred to as a sexually transmitted disease, and so maybe the metaphor of a cure is a good one. Abortion is just the safe removal of what could be a harmful condition, and so it’s definitely not something we should be opposing. It’s a medical force for good.

Now, this disease can be fatal. Even if it isn’t, it causes a lot of discomfort over a nine month period, culminating in a large amount of pain. But, of course, this isn’t the end. At this point a new human being is created. If this human being wasn’t wanted, the disease spreads. The original sufferer, the mother, will continue to suffer after being forced into parenthood. The father will also be affected, and will suffer to the same degree from this point. If either parent is seriously unprepared or emotionally or financially unable to bring up the child, their suffering will be a serious problem. If either parent was raped, forcing them into parenthood seems immoral. I could go on. 

As for the child, bringing them into the world is a serious business. If they aren’t wanted, that’s not a good thing to do. If they are themselves ill with a serious condition, that will mean that they’ll live a short life of suffering, then we’re obliged not to force them into such a life. Or rather, the parents are obliged, and as both parents can care equally, both parents are equally obliged to protect their children from harm. To protect their children from catching this disease.

Abortion is, of course, the cure. We’ve shown above that it is a brilliant thing, designed to ease suffering of all three parties, and that it causes negative suffering - even before the suffering of the man and child are taken into account. As it is by far a better option than childbirth in every case except that where both parents have consented to have a healthy child, it should always be the preferred option given any doubt. If - when the doubt is cleared up - the parents do decide that they want a child, they can have one. One-term abortion doesn’t stop that. But if they decide that they didn’t want a child, and they didn’t abort… there is no going back. So abortion is once again undeniably the most sensible and the most painless option for all concerned.

So why, when a woman wants a child, do we hear the same feminists talking about how awful ‘forced abortion’ is? Surely, if the pregnancy is spotted early, this involves little more than taking a pill and having a slightly heavier period. Please explain to me how that is more traumatic than going through pregnancy and childbirth?

Especially seeing as the latter option turns a man’s life upside-down for the worse, forces him into being a father with all of the psychological (you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating), social (‘deadbeat dads’ aren’t exactly loved) and financial (child support isn’t cheap, but it is a legal and a moral obligation) implications that brings. Oh, and we haven’t even explored the possibilities mentioned above. Is abortion still more traumatic if the latter option lets my rapist have my child? Is it still more traumatic if the latter option lets my girlfriend have our child only for it to die a few days later in my arms, screaming in pain, because I wasn’t allowed to spare it from being born? Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?

In the context of all of that, autonomy suddenly seems much less important. Remember: it may be her body now, but it is going to unleash a lot of pain on others in the future, and this can be stopped whilst A) leaving her choices free in the future and B) taking away more of her own pain than it adds. It is a cure. A forced cure is still a moral thing. Remember, this disease is contagious. If I have a contagious disease that will spread to others and harm them, it doesn’t matter if I personally want the disease, or that it is in my body at the moment - those around me have a right to self-defence, and (as it doesn’t harm me) they definitely have a right to cure me. Once they have done so, I am 100% free to go off and catch the disease again, and go live with those who also enjoy it. So no, this doesn’t affect my personal freedom at all, only my freedom to hurt others. An abortion removes the problem, and everybody is happy.

The only way this wouldn’t be the best outcome would be if there was a medical complication, and that the abortion would be more painful than the childbirth would have been. Given the invention of anaesthetics (which I’m guessing are easier to use in abortion than childbirth anyway, because we’ve not worried about brain damage), I find this very unlikely - which is why I’m advocating a pro-choice, pro-abortion stance. Yes, that includes ‘saving people who don’t want to be saved’, particularly if not saving them leads to them hurting others. Even if a suicide bomber wants to kill themselves, we have the right to stop them doing so in a public place. That doesn’t stop them doing it elsewhere later, and so we really aren’t taking away their autonomy or their freedom to do what they like with ‘their body’, only protecting the freedom of the others affected. That’s what being pro-choice is all about. 

Wait, is this serious? This can’t be a serious post. No way can this be serious. Gotta be a troll, right?

Wow. Misogyny much? I am disgusted by what I just read. Is this serious? If this is not a serious post then sorry.

“So why, when a woman wants a child, do we hear the same feminists talking about how awful ‘forced abortion’ is? Surely, if the pregnancy is spotted early, this involves little more than taking a pill and having a slightly heavier period. Please explain to me how that is more traumatic than going through pregnancy and childbirth?”

I’m actually speechless.

Please tell me you’re not seriously asking this question. Are you kidding…you’re not kidding, are you?

Let me explain why it’s bad: Because. The. Pregnant. Person. Wants. The. Child.

It is not always about physically pain. It’s more traumatic because they are being forced to do something they don’t want. They want that pregnancy. They want that baby. To have something you want forcibly taken away from you?

 ”Is abortion still more traumatic if the latter option lets my rapist have my child? Is it still more traumatic if the latter option lets my girlfriend have our child only for it to die a few days later in my arms, screaming in pain, because I wasn’t allowed to spare it from being born? Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?”

Well yes, it is more traumatic if the pregnant person wants the child. Well, that’s your girlfriend’s choice, not yours. She has her own mind and her own opinions, and her own choices. You’re not ‘allowed’ to do anything that takes away her rights. She’s the one carrying the baby. Not you. She’s the one who gets to choose if she has an abortion or not. Hey, if you got pregnant, it would be your choice and nobody else’s.

“Is this really not worth me being able to ‘force’ her to take a pill? To be ‘forced’ into being spared from suffering?”

You claim to be pro choice? You’re not pro choice if you think forcing someone to have an abortion is okay. Pro choice is about the pregnant person’s choice - THEY get to decide if they are pregnant or not. 

I don’t know why you’ve put ‘force’ like that. Forcing her to take a pill? Do you realise how disgusting you sound? Oh gosh, you’re such a nice, kind person to want to spare her from suffering by FORCING her to do something she doesn’t want. You don’t get to decide what ‘suffering’ is. It’s her choice whether she ‘suffers’ or not.

“Especially seeing as the latter option turns a man’s life upside-down for the worse, forces him into being a father with all of the psychological (you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating),”

Omg because it’s all about the menz. Poor menz. I mean, because what they want makes it okay to abuse women’s rights, doesn’t it? Or maybe I should specify ‘you’, because not all men are such jerks.

“you can imagine how being forced into supporting a child you aren’t ready for, or walking away from your own son or daughter, must be devastating”

You can imagine how being forced into an abortion you didn’t want because the poor menz don’t want you to have it must feel, right? That’s devastating. You may have already though of a name for your baby, got yourself excited.

“In the context of all of that, autonomy suddenly seems much less important.”

No. No it does not.

I can’t deal with any more. You’re either a really, really good troll, or you’re serious. Either way, I just can’t deal with this disgusting spew of misogyny. You are not pro choice.

There is so much wrong in this post.

I just can’t

I’m going to have a bath.

Well, that’s not what I was expecting. I know all of the decent anti-male-choice arguments, and I know how to deal with them. This isn’t one of them. This argument skips through all of the regular logic, and completely undermines the pro-choice position in doing so. It clearly reveals itself as not being pro-choice or pro-abortion at all, and merely pro-women. 

Even crossing out the parts where you were being directly obnoxious to me personally, rather than actually reply with argument, this is a shambles. The system of ethics you propose goes something like this:

Women should always get what they want, regardless of how that causes suffering to other people, because otherwise it’s traumatic.

To quote you: seriously? 

The moment you said that it’s not about the physical pain, you lose the trump card of any argument that would have defended your position. Instead you decide that the ‘trauma’ we are discussing is in ‘making someone do something they don’t want’. 

You say that the biggest cause of suffering here is not letting a woman have a child against a man’s consent, because she ‘may have already thought out a name’. That is your central argument. Forgetting that my proposal clearly allows the woman to have that child when she is with a man who consents, therefore not restricting her at all, you decide that the trauma of her having to delay the birth of her child for nine months is equal to the lifetime of effects brought by being forced into parenthood with a child you don’t want. You just bluntly said that it is more traumatic for one individual to not be allowed to force another individual into being a parent with her, than for a rapist to have your first child against your will. You said, with a straight face, that one women not getting her way on a temporary basis was more traumatic than watching your disfigured newborn suffer and die. Have you never met a human being? Do you have no grasp of how people can be damaged psychologically in much worse ways than the ‘trauma’ of not being given complete power over other people’s lives? Making this purely psychological was a very bad move.

If you honestly think that not being able to have the child you have picked out names for is the worst thing that can happen to a person, you are no more than a pro-lifer. The ‘trauma’ of your fictional woman is not greater than the ‘trauma’ of a man whose partner has had an abortion, because both have had their dreams of parenthood equally crushed. You already took the physical out of this, after I cornered you on that, so don’t go crawling back. Purely discussing the psychological implications of not being allowed to have a child for the time being, you would be forced into saying that men would suffer from the disappointment just as much as women, and therefore prohibit all abortions where both partners don’t agree. That’s as good as the typical anti-abortion stance, and as such it’s a lot more contrary to mainstream feminism as my own, pro-choice suggestion. 

Your misandry is also offensive, acting as if a great deal of suffering is irrelevant if it happens to ‘menz’, whilst treating a woman’s comparative slight discomfort (again, not being able to have a non-consenting man’s child is hardly ‘trauma’) as if it is the worst crime in the world. Your priorities are messed up, and they are badly sexist as a result. 

I can respect many arguments against this position, arguments which have some logic behind them, but not this one. This one is ridiculous, and seeks to weaken the position of all pro-choice movements, paving the way for a pro-life solution. Enjoy your bath. I hope you give your brain a good scrub.

 I just wrote a long post and lost it urgh internet.

Okay, can we avoid being so ciscentric here? Not all men have a penis, not all women have a uterus :)

“It clearly reveals itself as not being pro-choice or pro-abortion at all, and merely pro-women.”

Well yes it is pro women because I am for women’s rights to their body and since abortion is an issue which affects people with uteruses, then a lot of women are involved. Being pro women does not mean I am anti men. I believe in equality.

“Even crossing out the parts where you were being directly obnoxious to me personally,”

Yes, I apologise for that. I have a horrible temper, and combine that with a shitty day…yeah. I do my best to control it but it’s hard. I am sorry. I tend to do it without realising when I’m mad, so in future just ignore it.

“The moment you said that it’s not about the physical pain, you lose the trump card of any argument that would have defended your position. Instead you decide that the ‘trauma’ we are discussing is in ‘making someone do something they don’t want’.”

I think there’s been some miscommunication here. I said it’s not always about the physical pain, and I was referring to forced abortions - because there is no physical pain involved there, but it’s still traumatic, yes? Obviously the physical pain and suffering of pregnancy can be tremendous - whether the pregnancy is wanted or not, but if it is wanted, the physical pain may be easier to bear because there is probably less mental/emotional pain involved. But physical pain coupled with mental pain? Twice as difficult.

“You say that the biggest cause of suffering here is not letting a woman have a child against a man’s consent, because she ‘may have already thought out a name’”

Woah, woah, not quite what I meant aha! I was trying to illustrate the fact that the uterus bearer may have already formed a bond with the foetus and accepted it as part of her body. You may say that the bepenised person may have too, but unfortunately for him, it’s not his body so he can’t decide what to do with it. Urgh I am so bad at explaining myself.

“Forgetting that my proposal clearly allows the woman to have that child when she is with a man who consents,”

But it’s not the same child, and you’re still forcing the pregnant person to undergo an operation. How about, (ciscentricism coming up) the man can only be allowed to want the woman to have an abortion when he is with a woman who consents to it?

“you decide that the trauma of her having to delay the birth of her child for nine months is equal to the lifetime of effects brought by being forced into parenthood with a child you don’t want.”

The fact that the uterus bearer may give birth does not necessarily mean that parenthood is forced upon the person with the penis, or indeed, on the uterus bearer. They may choose to give the child up for adoption, or it may be agreed that the person with a penis does not have to be part of the child’s life. I am against forced parenthood as much as you are, trust me! The fact that the child was made from the bepenised person’s sperm does not mean he has to be a dad - sperm donors probably don’t consider themselves dads to all of the children that are born from their sperm. I don’t believe anyone, man, woman or other should be forced into parenthood. I think if the uterus bearer is with someone who doesn’t want to be a parent, if they chose to have the baby, they should have sole responsibility for it and should not expect the other person to have any parental responsibilities. I don’t think men are actually forced to be parents. I’m sure I read something on it.

“You just bluntly said that it is more traumatic for one individual to not be allowed to force another individual into being a parent with her, than [TW RAPE] for a rapist to have your first child against your will. [/TW] You said, with a straight face, that one women not getting her way on a temporary basis was more traumatic than watching your disfigured newborn suffer and die.”

Wait, what? That’s not what I said at all. I was on about forced abortions, which should not have anything to do with parenthood. I think what I said came across wrong, because I do not mean that. Obviously, forcing someone into an abortion and [TW RAPE] being raped are both traumatic, and I cannot say if one is more traumatic than the other because I have neither been raped - (although I have been sexually abused by someone I trusted, and although it wasn’t even serious, it was bad enough so I can imagine) - or been forced into an abortion. But some people see abortion as murder, and would rather have their rapists child than do what they see as killing a baby. [/TW] They may believe themselves to be murderers if they had an abortion.

That is a different situation entirely. The likelihood of someone not having an abortion if their deformed baby would die within minutes is unlikely. I think the majority of people would choose abortion in that case. Even if they didn’t, then yes, perhaps they personally might find it less traumatic because they believe abortion is wrong and they put their trust in God (I personally do not believe in God but the point still stands). I find it difficult to believe that most people would choose to give birth to a deformed baby who would die within minutes though. But that’s different and quite rare.

“Have you never met a human being? Do you have no grasp of how people can be damaged psychologically in much worse ways than the ‘trauma’ of not being given complete power over other people’s lives? Making this purely psychological was a very bad move.”

No I live under the sea ;) Nah but really, I did not mean to make this purely psychological - I only meant that in reference to forced abortions and the impact of those. I did not mean to exclude physical pain, and I am sure I did not do so.

Yes I do, and I’m slightly confused because what you’re saying is about having power over the pregnant person’s body. Urgh it’s 20 past one it is way too late for this!

“If you honestly think that not being able to have the child you have picked out names for is the worst thing that can happen to a person, you are no more than a pro-lifer”

Don’t twist what I say please. I am fairly new to this sort of stuff, and I have yet to find out how to say my points exactly. I did not mean that at all. I’m assuming you mean anti-choice, and I have no idea how I could be that when a significant amount of my blog focuses on why abortion is not wrong, and against anti choice arguments.

“The ‘trauma’ of your fictional woman is not greater than the ‘trauma’ of a man whose partner has had an abortion, because both have had their dreams of parenthood equally crushed. You already took the physical out of this, after I cornered you on that, so don’t go crawling back.”

At what point did I say let’s ignore the physical? I’ve already said you misunderstood me. That part of my post was about forced abortions only, not pregnancy. Physical pain is not really relevant there because there’s probably no physical pain, or not much. My exact words were; “It is not always about physically pain.” And I meant physical lol oops.

You’re forgetting about bodily autonomy though, and the uterus bearer’s right to their body. It’s their body, and so they should be the one who should make the choice about what happens to it. Nobody else.

“Purely discussing the psychological implications of not being allowed to have a child for the time being, you would be forced into saying that men would suffer from the disappointment just as much as women, and therefore prohibit all abortions where both partners don’t agree.”

I find it hard to believe that it would be more traumatic for men to not have that child at that certain time than for a woman to have control over her body taken away from her. Wait that doesn’t make sense hang on…Urgh okay, I’m struggling to explain what I mean, but it centres about people’s right’s to their own bodies. If it were men who got pregnant, I would say that only they’d get the choice. Because it affects the uterus bearer’s body as well as her mind, whereas it affects only the other person’s mind. Forcing someone to be pregnant is wrong. Forcing someone to have an abortion is wrong. Forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to do is wrong. And, I agree with you here - forcing parenthood on someone is wrong.

I think though, that the father can choose to leave and have no part in his child’s life if he does not want. He doesn’t have to be a dad. I mean, I know some people have to pay towards upkeep but I’m guessing that’s because they chose to be a dad and chose to have a part of their life. If that makes sense. It probably doesn’t. It’s half one and I keep not sleeping well.