Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 29, 2004
Whither fetus?

Not that we don’t have more important topics these days, but I see that right wing blogs are all excited about the recent (gruesome) story of a pregnant woman who was killed, whose abdomen was cut off and the 8-months foetus extracted by a deranged woman, but the baby miraculously survived. The argument is, of course, “if it survived, it must have been alive”!

For some background, see this CNN story and this NY Post story about it. The WSJ’s Opinion Journal makes a lot of hay of the fact that the baby is alternatively called a “foetus” or a “girl”, thus supposedly underlying the moral shallowness of the SCLM (or supporting the fact that they are the same thing).

Am I crazy to think that (i) it was a foetus while in its mother’s womb, (ii) it became a baby girl because it survived (and not the other way round) and (iii) the poor father and his baby have lost a wife/mother and this story is tragic and should not be politicised?

Why is the debate on abortion so sterile in the US? Why can’t a law be voted on the topic like in most other “civilised” countries, to make it “safe, legal, and rare”?

Comments

The usual Kos mirror diary for your consideration and support.

Posted by: Jérôme | Dec 29 2004 23:34 utc | 1

i have never heard of a doctor performing an abortion on an 8 month old fetus. i am certain the woman was targeted at eight months because the child would survive at that late date. everyone knows most abortions are performed early on w/ exception for the mothers health, this is a no brainer. they are just beating the drum.

Posted by: annie | Dec 29 2004 23:38 utc | 2

Just to give an example of existing laws here is Germany as far as I know them.
General abortion is allowed until the end of the third month provided:
– a consultation has be given on “alternatives” (adoption) and
– there is a “reason”. The reason can be medical or “social” i.e. lack of partner, lack of money, in middle of schooling, too young, too old etc.
There are many organisation who will give a legal stamp on paper that says consultation was given and there is a reason.
Any doctor can do an abortion, though one would usually choose a specialist.
Mandatory health insurance does not have to, but will usually pay, but they may retest the reasons through a short interview. (They try to prevent serial abortions through this, i.e. they tell the women to use some contraception method.)
After three month abortion is only allowed for “medical” reasons. Essentially the reason depends on the doctors opinion.
If an illegal abortion occurs (I haven´t read or heard about one in years) the penalties are supposed to be very small.
In all – it took some years and a lot of fighting in the 1970s to get to this state, but now it is no longer a political issue. I think it is reasonable and agreeable for about everybody.

Posted by: b | Dec 30 2004 0:02 utc | 3

Abortions are only legal in America until the fetus is viable outside the womb ~end of 2nd trimester. After that only to safeguard the life of the Woman – ie, if something went horribly wrong w/the pregnancy.
The reason it’s so insane in America is cuz there is NO debate at all. It’s the opening salvo in a War Against Women being conducted by virulent woman hating males – pedophiles, closeted homosexuals, etc. backed by the institutional power & money of the patriarchal churches. Abortion is so accepted by most people & virtually all women, that 12% of the abortions in America every year are by women who are anti-abortion. Tragically, they’re so male-dominated that they don’t understand the issue til they get pregnant when it would be disastrous for them to have a child. Then they do what every other sane woman does at a time like that.
The happy news is that the Premier Anti-woman fascist rabble rouser in America, none other than Rushbo himself, is being outed….. Hating women that much & 4 marriages…..obviously he was gay….it was just a question of time…..Found link to this on the Democrats.com blog. Please circulate as widely as possible so we can get rid of the vile pig.
ST. LOUIS MAN CLAIMS RUSH LIMBAUGH AFFAIR
A 46 year old music store owner from the St. Louis area, Elliot Sanders, is claiming that while a college student at Southeast Missouri University in 1971, he had an affair with Rush Limbaugh. Sanders claims that he and Limbaugh, the well known talk radio star, had an affair that went on for about 3 months in the fall of 1971…
Sanders stated that he met Limbaugh in a class he was taking, but it was only after meeting his sister, who was openly gay at that time, that he found out Rush himself was gay. “Rush was a charming man privately,” says Sanders, “I met him in a class I was taking, and got on a first name basis with him. I didn’t realize he was gay until his sister came to visit him. She was gay, and like, we hit it off, and she seemed shocked that I didn’t know Rush was gay as well. When I found out I was like … wow!”
Sanders says that privately, Limbaugh was very sensitive and caring man, but that he was furiously angry that KFBK, the top 40 radio station he worked while still in high school would not offer him a full time job.
“He was furious about that,” said Sanders, “And he often told me that he was really going to show them.” According to Sanders, Rush’s politics at the time were somewhat middle of the road. “Rush said that he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it.”
When asked when he thought Limbaugh “went straight,” Sanders replied, “What are you talking about? I mean, he’s been married four times now, do people really not get why he doesn’t stay married? I guarantee none of those marriages was ever consummated.”
Sanders would not divulge any further details, but when asked if he feared retaliation from Limbaugh for his revelations, he stated, “No, Rush wouldn’t do that, he’s really a sweetie at heart, but some of the people who listen to him might. I think most of them are psychotic. I don’t think these people realize he’s just pandering to them for ratings, but if they find out, I wouldn’t want to be there.”
Link to Above Art.
Link to Dem. blog
As we used to say @Whiskey Bar, Champagne for all on the House tonight!!
(Maybe it’s bullshit, but that’s a reputable blog, so here’s hoping!! Though I do wish he’s called the supposed lover up personally to confirm. Either the guy doesn’t exist at all, he’s literally psychotic, or I figure it’s true as I can’t imagine anybody crazy or rich enough, to make it up!!)

Posted by: jj | Dec 30 2004 7:43 utc | 4

A feotus is a feotus of course, of course
and a feotus can not be a girl of course
that is of course unless the feotus is alive, and her mother famous and dead.

Posted by: stoy | Dec 30 2004 8:39 utc | 5

More seriously, its all comes down to potential. I don’t know that I agree with Jérôme about a baby (for lack of a better term) being defined as a fetus until it exits the mother at which point it becomes a “child”. A baby that is still born at 39 weeks is a dead child. I don’t know, maybe Jérôme is right. I will have to ask my (mid)wife about technical definitions, but I think she would agree that the point of viability is not static. For cripes sake, I just read of a baby that is still alive after leaving its mother’s womb weighing less than a can of soda. What seems to be the real issue in the U.S. is the idea of viablity in the concept of “fate”. What fate is devine intention and which is not? How many fucking angles fit on the head of a pin? How many Christian soldiers are needed to put Humpty-Diety’s plan back together again?

Posted by: stoy | Dec 30 2004 8:52 utc | 6

We can’t have a reasonable discussion about this because our society is fucking insane.
We’ve elevated the cult of mommy-hood to insane levels, and abortion interferes with that. What they really want to do is turn women back into baby machines.
Making abortion “safe and rare” would entail having a reasonable discussion about birth control as well. They don’t want to have that discussion either. Because these radicals don’t support birth control. They’ve consistently opposed extended family planning services to the communities of women who need them the most.
And don’t get me started on the issue of teaching children abstinance and not about reasonable birth control.
The whole thing is insane. But it’s clear to me that the intent is to shove women back to the nineteenth century. For your original question, to me it seems logical that a baby becomes a baby when it’s born. Or maybe when the mother decides to carry it to term. I don’t know. But isn’t that crazy woman just a victim of the mommy-cult gone nuts? She had to have a baby so badly that she was willing to kill in the most grisly fashion possible to get one. Horrible.

Posted by: fourlegsgood | Dec 30 2004 19:43 utc | 7

fourlegsgood
well said.
as Brecht noted in Mother Courage, when the state controls the Mother, it controls the reproduction of humans.

Posted by: slothrop | Dec 30 2004 22:53 utc | 8

My wife told me that, as Jérôme said, a fetus by definition has to be inside the mother. Before it is a fetus it is an embryo. Once it is outside, its is no longer a fetus. Not that this info gets us anywhere.
As said above, the issue is about control over others.

Posted by: stoy | Dec 30 2004 23:07 utc | 9

fourlegsgood- you nailed it. To wield power you must practice control. Religion, sex, nationality, creed, color. If they can use it, they will use it against you. Same as it ever was.
We can’t have a reasonable discussion about this because our society is fucking insane.

Posted by: Forrest | Jan 1 2005 7:21 utc | 10

Thank-you for posting a women’s issue, Jerome.
Motherhood equals economic dependence in a patriarchal society where only economic independence is rewarded. Economic dependence equates to lack of political power. Half the population is already oppressed, but nobody, not even the women, notices it. Thus, merely defending reproductive rights is insufficient. The so-called opposition party is now abandoning even that issue. American Women have no voice in government.
I recommend reading Riane Eisler’s book, The Chalice and The Blade. And then the Economic treatise, Taxing Women by Edward J McCaffery to see how dismally American women are faring even prior to the religious rights’ theocratic designs. Interestingly, both authors point out the disadvantages for men [and for the whole nation] which result from misogynistic American public policies.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jan 2 2005 2:02 utc | 11

gylangirl, you are so right. And the onus of being among the “economic dependent” is so ingrained in the collective psyche. I have finally vanquished the voice in my head that keeps telling me that I should to be bringing in money even though I am the full time care taker of my two daughters (and have a boarderline physical disability.) Raising the kids is work and it should becounted as employment — as it is in Canada. Just because something doesn’t directly bring in an income doesn’t mean it doesn’t contribute to economic output. People who raise kids often allow their partner to hold a full time, well paying job. Aren’t kids supposed to the be the fucking future? Our society doesn’t value people. Thats the truth of the matter.
Preachin’ to the choir, I know.

Posted by: stoy | Jan 2 2005 6:03 utc | 12

American abortion debate, or lack thereof, is definitely all about control, and not about sanctity of life. Otherwise, why would so many so-called pro-lifers support the death penalty and war? Women know it’s better to control population at the front end of life, rather than raising cannon fodder for the power-mongers.
“pity this busy monster, manunkind,
not.”
-e.e. cummings

Posted by: catlady | Jan 2 2005 6:04 utc | 13

stoy,
Agreed. They can start by counting our unpaid caregiving labor in the GDP! We are made to be SO invisible!!!
We are subsidizing the workaholic 24-7 US economy, raising the future labor force, and getting paid lip service. If we do enter the paid workforce as secondary earners, we are taxed at the highest marginal rates in the nation. Yet no tax reform is proposed to correct this injustice. American married women are literally taxed out of their jobs by IRS policy, thus intentionally forced out of the paid workforce, then blamed, even by the Dems and Fems, for making the “choice” to be at-home mothers.
Social security formulas discriminate against us, valuing us at half the worth of a paid worker. We will have no income to place in OUR “private SS savings accounts”. The divorce rate is 50%. Divorce legal proceedings favor the parent with the most income, unlikely to be the mother. No wonder elderly women and mothers with children comprise the majority of the poor.
But neither party cares that poverty is so gender-based and so public policy-designed. The Dems are too male-centric to notice how they could wipe out the GOP with reforms from the mothers rights agenda. The GOP religious right praises patriarchy and opposes women’s liberation. They’d lose in a landslide if the Dems would just pick up the toolkit. But no. Dems don’t want the votes of over HALF the population. American women are sooo invisible to them.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jan 3 2005 3:16 utc | 14