Unborn Victims of Violence

[queerbychoice]

Dear U.S. Government,

I hear you're concerned about "Unborn Victims of Violence." Well, so am I! I'm concerned about how after all the currently gestating Unborn Clumps of Fetal Cells who have not yet developed even enough of a brain to compete with a goldfish actually get born and, a year or so later, actually start catching up with the intelligence levels of the cats and dogs whose deaths in animal shelters are certainly never prosecuted as "murders" and, another decade or so after that, reach puberty and get raped or just have sex while massively uneducated about birth control options, the law you passed today will do violence to them. Because the females among those by-then-long-since-born people who, by that point in their development, will have completely fully functional nervous systems to feel pain and brains to feel fear and horror and degradation, will be forcibly strapped onto operating tables and their bodies surgically cut open without their consent by the same prosecutors who are already charging Melissa Ann Rowland with "murder" simply for having dared to refuse doctors their supposed "right" to cut her open. And you designed this law you passed today specifically to help doctors forcibly cut open women like her without their consent, which means you designed this law specifically to do violence to the same future females who you then have the audacity to be claiming to "protect" from violence.

Furthermore, I would like to hear your answers to the questions wiredferret insightfully asks:

If you are certain that life begins at fertilization, what do you have to tell me about my early-term miscarriages?
There is no comforting reflection about non-viability, then, is there?
Every child washed out of a womb before birth is a death, isn't it?
Does God really kill a third of us before we even open our eyes in the womb? Does that work for you?

There are disturbing implications, then.

Does my low progesterone level mean that I should stop trying to conceive, because God means my children to die?
Can I be prosecuted for inadvertently doing something harmful, before I even know I'm pregnant?
What about not seeking medical treatment to correct my miscarriage problems, is that manslaughter?
Are you going to go after polluters that increase the rate of spontaneous abortion with the same ferocity?
What if it turns out that a husband and wife will always produce flawed embryos, because of their genetics -- are they guilty of attempted murder every time they try to have sex?

I would especially like to know the answer to that question about polluters, because it might result in a large number of the mostly male people who pass laws like this being convicted of mass murder. Please reply ASAP, preferably from prison. Not that you shouldn't still go to prison anyway for injuring people's reproductive organs without their consent, but now your having increased the severity of your own crime from injury against the people you've rendered involuntarily sterile to committing actual murder against the entire maxmum number of babies those people were capable of producing should get you an even longer jail term.

Disgust,
Gayle


And while waiting for a reply to that (ha, right!), I'm going to suggest that more people, especially Americans, sign a bunch of petitions. It takes less time than voting, and probably has slightly more chance of having some effect than voting, plus it helps relieve some of the emotional frustration of being helpless. Which, judging by the journal entries I'm reading this evening, is something that quite a few of you could really use right now.

The Freedom of Choice Act Petition
Stop President Bush from Declaring Fetuses as People
Tell the Court: Late Term Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional
Against Abortion Parental Consent Laws and "Teen Endangerment Act"
It's the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade - Will It Be the Last?
Tell Ashcroft to keep women's medical records private!
The Bush Administration Threatens Access to Emergency Contraception
Tell Congress: We Want Insurance Coverage for Birth Control
Protect Freedom of Choice
March for Women's Lives in 2004!

Comments

Re: Right on.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I found it rather bizarre that she was afraid of the c-section. I'm a c-section baby too, and my mother does have a scar, but it's horizontal and beneath her belly button, I believe.

As for women who use drugs during pregnancy... it's complicated, because many women are addicted, and at the same time are discouraged from seeking abortions because "that's murder". I still haven't sorted out my feelings on that, since I still feel grossed out by the idea of the government telling me what to do with my body, pregnancy or not, but on the other hand, I have known kids who were really messed up because their mothers did meth while pregnant, and I do consider it a horrible thing to do to a developing child.

Re: Right on.

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

My younger brother is a C-section baby, and my mother has a vertical scar beneath her belly button - but she said that as recently as one year ago (which would be 22 years after she had the C-section), when she was climbing a steep embankment in her backyard, the scar split partway open and bled, and as a result of it being prone to such things, she's afraid to exert herself in physical activity much anymore for fear of splitting all the way open.

This makes me think that her scar healed more weakly than most probably do, but it does point out the fact that scar tissue in general is not just as good as never having been cut open in the first place - there can be a number of complications, from infections to scar splitting to out of control keloid growth to death from anaesthetic. Granted, most mothers who care about their babies' welfare and are rational enough to be able to comprehend the safety risk levels involved here would consider it a worthwhile small risk of complications for the sake of saving their babies, but still I wouldn't say it's "bizarre" to be afraid of C-sections.

Re: Right on.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

It's not just a matter of the baby's well being- women who need a c-section often are risk other complications that might endanger their own lives, if they don't get the c-section. I'm pretty sure that for the most part, when doctors are saying that they're necessary, the c-sections are safer for the mothers than not having a c-section.

Though I'll admit I never imagined that c-section scars could split that easily so long after the operation. If it's true that this woman had had c-sections before, it's certainly possible that she experienced those kinds of complications and was scared of having another one for fear that the complications could get even worse.