Leonce Gaiter

Leonce Gaiter
Location
California, USA
Birthday
March 24
Bio
Leonce Gaiter’s work on social and cultural issues has appeared in numerous publications, from the Los Angeles Times to the New York Times magazine. His historical novel, "I Dreamt I Was in Heaven - The Rampage of the Rufus Buck Gang" [buckrampage.com] has an official publication date of September 1, 2011. His noir thriller "Bourbon Street" was published by Carroll & Graf. Additional fiction and non-fiction writings are available on his site: www.leoncegaiter.com.

JUNE 18, 2009 2:10PM

On Joan and Bill: Women Deserve Protection—Fetuses Don't

Rate: 8 Flag

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 deserved 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 fetuses are especial 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 just screams for the ad absurdum treatment.  A cell can be cloned and can grow into an infant.  Should the pulling of hair be outlawed?   As science matures, artificial means of keeping cells and cell groups alive will doubtless evolve.  What amount to petrie 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 wellbeing—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 occurs to your delicate sensibilities.  We’re both offended.  On both counts: Tough shit.  Man up.  It’s none of our 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 wellbeing, their loved ones, and their lives.  

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
“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 wellbeing, their loved ones, and their lives.”

Thank you, once again, Leonce, for bringing a scintillating clarity to the debate, and for calling attention to the artificial framing imposed by the RR.

Rated for amens.

—Melissa
One of the most sensible essays I've ever read on this subject! Great post - rated.
All sounds good to me.
Excellent post. A well thought out and present perspective. Thank you.
"presented perspective"
Women deserve rights—including protection from people who would force them to use their bodies in ways they know to be harmful to their wellbeing, their loved ones, and their lives.

Can we get this on a billboard?
awesome!! this was the gist of the video i made, and i'm so glad to see others articulating this huge legal problem. how the hell do you protect someone who lives inside someone else??

anyway, i hope you check out my most recent post and give me your feedback. i want to construct something that gets this point across, and one of my comments demonstrates that i'm not there yet.
One thing that really, really bothers me- as a woman- is when the pro abortioners get all angry and hot-under-the-collar about "women's rights" to her "own" body. It's like you all think if you get angry enough and parrot the usual rhetoric of "her body-her choice" that it will take the focus away from what you are really saying... which is that a woman should be able to kill her baby while it resides in her uterus! While it resides in her arms and at her breast it is illegal to kill him or her (although it is still completely dependent upon her- just doesn't share the nutrients of the umbilical cord anymore).
Fetus means developing human being... which we are all developing humans for the rest of our lives... fetus is just the stage in human develpment before infant- beginning at 8 weeks and ending at birth, whether he or she is born at 23 weeks or 38 weeks, as soon as a fetus is born it turns from a worthless fetus into a precious baby.... amazing how that happens, isn't it?
Fetuses/developing humans in utero are the only group of humans in America that you can kill for any reason. Get as hot and bothered about "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" as much as you want. The TRUTH is that ALL children, born and unborn, complicate life in one way or another. But our society doesn't condone killing them while they are outside mom's tummy... Pregnancy isn't the only stressor and situation in which a child may be "unwanted"... Babies who were "planned" and wanted may end up to be a stressor to their parents (disablity, parents divorce, etc.) but do we condone killing them after they are born? Heaven no!
Also, be careful, because you are advocating what the proaborts want- which is complete focus AWAY from fetal development. Ever look at the popular pro choice book, "Our Bodies, Our Selves"? Not one word about fetal development in the whole book, even when describing abortions and even in the entire chapter on pregnancy... THIS IS SCARY... they are saying the developing human doesn't count and doesn't even really exist until he or she is born! That is crazy! They even show a suction abortion with the uterus sized to an 11 week fetus and show the abortion taking place but just sucking up amniotic fluid- they completely left the fetus out of the picture! This is a LIE!!!
Therefore, what I am saying is get as hot and bothered about "women's rights" as much as you want... it can't and won't take the focus away from what you are really saying- which is that a woman should be able to kill her developing human boy or girl while he or she resides in her uterus. BTW- do you pro aborts know ANYTHING about fetal development??? That by 8 weeks the developing human fetus is has all of his organs and body systems formed and completely looks human- and for the remainder of the pregnancy he or she basically grows in size and gets bigger- but doesn't develop anymore of the major body organs because he she HAS THEM ALL BY AROUND 8 WEEKS???