#this is about respecting people's autonomy and not moralizing or forcing 'health' on anyone
Text
Screenshot below:
[Image ID: A tumblr post with the username cut off which reads "i mean this in the gentlest way possible: you need to eat vegetables. you need to become comfortable with doing so. i do not care if you are a picky eater because of autism (hi, i used to be this person!), you need to find at least some vegetables you can eat. find a different way to prepare them. chances are you would like a vegetable you hate if you prepared it in a stew or roasted it with seasoning or included it as an ingredient in a recipe. just. please start eating better. potatoes and corn are not sufficient vegetables for a healthy diet." /end ID]
No. Just no.
You don't HAVE TO do anything. ARFID is called an EATING DISORDER for a reason. What's it going to take to get it through your heads that some people cannot, under ANY circumstances, eat certain foods because of their neuroDISABILITIES. It's almost like disabilities of the brain can still make you NOT ABLE to do things!
You also have no moral obligation to be healthy. Healthism is one of the fundamental pillars of ableism. Health is a personal choice that must be fully, enthusiastically consensual (which does not mean you can mumble-grumble about the steps it takes to get there or have complex feelings that include resentment about the process or what caused the unhealthiness in the first place).
The "hi, I used to be this person!" is, get this, ALSO ABLEISM. Like good job, you had the ability to do something with effort that some people with your same disability can never do! Something that, might I add, you had no obligation to do but chose to because YOU either wanted it or were unfairly pressured to. Plus, the narrative of "you can overcome your disabilities if you try hard enough" is incredibly insidious even in disabled communities (in my experience, especially so in neurodivergent communities, but I'll also add my experiences aren't universal).
Just, everything about this post reeks of ableism. A "hey, if you're wanting to eat more veggies but can't because of sensory issues, these ways of preparing them might make them edible for you!" would have reached MORE people and accomplished more than... all of that.
I'd also like to add: healthism is how you get involuntary psychiatric holds for even people who are self-harming or using substances as a form of harm reduction. Healthism is how you get psychiatric and medical abuse that forces or manipulates you onto meds you do consent to being on (including coerced consent, as that is not consent).
Healthism and ableism both is why insurances and doctors require you to go to physical therapy to "get better" before even considering prescribing a mobility aid because "what if the mobility aid has health consequences when PT could 'fix' you?" Healthism is responsible for "do no harm" stopping at bodily harm and not taking a holistic, whole-person approach to making sure disabled people have a good quality of life.
Healthism is also a primary driver of fatphobia and to a lesser extent, medical intersexism. There is a normative idea of what "health" even is, one that is often incorrect and based in bigotry, that means deviations from that norm get blamed for any symptoms a person expresses while actual causes are ignored. "Corrective" measures are forced are many people who neither want nor need them to be healthy.
Healthism aims to make people more abled (or at least more able to conform to abled standards) without regard for their quality of life, personal wishes, or even consent. It is directly responsible for medical abuse.
It is also responsible for medical neglect, in that if you *can't* pursue a treatment option, doctors will often refuse to explore other treatments. Instead, they assume you're simply lazy and don't want to get better, and are therefore a waste of their time.
("Can't" here includes 'is technically possible but the consequences of doing so make you as sick or sicker/in as much or more pain/as or more disabled than not doing anything at all.)
Often there's another treatment option that would work just fine. Sometimes there's no viable option, and GOOD treatment then becomes exploring how to still live as fulfilling a life as possible with the condition untreated. Sometimes it's only possible to manage a disability that is usually fully possible to send into remission. There's a wide spectrum of experiences here.
But the most important thing is: what do YOU want for your body? Will conforming to standards of "health" help you feel happier and live a more preferable life for you? Will the requirements in the process of becoming "healthy" end up just making you sicker or more disabled in one way or another?
Also, are there access barriers or direct obstacles caused by your disability in the way of seeking the health outcomes you want? Are those outcomes not possible because of your disabilities, and if so, is healthy OR helpful to keep pushing yourself past your limits or trying and failing to do so? Have you made sure this is what YOU want, and not what you feel pressured into doing*?
*(Reminder to BELIEVE PEOPLE if they say it is what they want. We respect autonomy above all here.)
I've talked about this before, but recovery is about what YOU want and are able to do. There are no milestones you have to make or requirements you have to meet. It's okay to be unhealthy. Often, disability means you don't have a choice in the matter, and moralizing health is therefore moralizing disability.
It contributes to the myth that disability and chronic illness especially is a result of "bad choices", and especially the culturally christian idea that it is a "punishment" for "sinful behaviors" and "righteous behaviors" will be rewarded with the person becoming abled again.
As I said above, remember: Autonomy above all. What matters, first, foremost, and forever, is what each disabled individual wants. Helping other disabled people with tools to reach their desired bodily and psychiatric outcomes? Yes!! Do that!!
Disabled people don't owe anyone health, though, and certainly not standards of health that may make us sicker or more disabled than simply not conforming to them.
#ableism#healthism#intersexism#fatphobia#disability#culturally christian#recovery#neurodisability#eating disorder#ARFID#just another reminder that if YOU want to recover and be healthier we FULLY support you#this is about respecting people's autonomy and not moralizing or forcing 'health' on anyone#I also would welcome commentary on how healthism interacts with medical racism as that's not something I have experience with#cw medical abuse#cw psych abuse#cw medical neglect#cw self harm#cw substance use
130 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is a sort of response to a post I've seen floating around, drawing parallels between the chains in Blitz’s trip that bind him to Stolas and the chains that bind Husk, Angel, and Fizz to Alastor, Valentino, and Mammon respectively. I'm not commenting on that post directly bc I avoid Discourse (tm) at all costs for the sake of my health, and I don’t want to get drawn into an unproductive argument that will mess with my anxiety for a week. I'm not trying to start a fight, just get my thoughts out on why I feel that comparison is inaccurate, and hopefully provide some helpful context and nuance.
So! Let's start with a few disclaimers! First of all, I'm not going to debate the moral purity of any of these characters. I just don't think it's an interesting or valuable critique. On a related note, I am not trying to excuse any of their behavior. I'm happy to admit that my favorite characters in this show have hurt people and are sometimes total assholes. Stolas treated Blitz very poorly at the beginning of their relationship, frequently pushed or even ignored boundaries, and was just kind of a dick about things. My objection to a direct comparison between Stolas and the other characters mentioned above isn't because I think Stolas hasn't done anything wrong; I just think that saying they're similar without further clarification or commentary ignores the nuance of the situation.
Read on below the cut, it's gonna be another long one folks!
Let's start by examining the "agreements" forged by Val, Mammon, and Alastor. I think it's important to note that, in their cases, the person they got to sign their contract could have been anyone. Husk and Angel could have been any sinners, Fizz could have been any imp. They aren't interested in them as people; they were only using them to gain more power for themselves. The only thing that matters to them is, "What can you do for me?" Angel and Fizz quite clearly become cogs in the machine of Val and Mammon's businesses, and Alastor only thinks of Husk as a tool to be leveraged in specific situations to further his own mysterious goals. Each of them has demonstrated to their subjugates that they own them, body and soul. They have signed legally and spiritually binding contracts that essentially surrender their autonomy to a more powerful demon.
Stolas and Blitz’s agreement is... not that. In the most literal sense, they don’t appear to have made any sort of binding deal. They just made a verbal agreement, which I sincerely doubt has anywhere near the force of a signed soul contract. Additionally, Stolas did not ask for and does not seem to want that sort of total control over Blitz. He very clearly does not view this as any sort of power exchange (which may actually be part of the issue, since it leaves him blind to Blitz’s discomfort with their class difference), he sees it as "favors for favors." While this agreement is inherently unbalanced due to Stolas's status, it's worth noting that they’re both putting something on the line here. The other three risk practically nothing (if the person bound to them fails they can always get a new one), but Stolas IS taking on a real risk by letting Blitz access the living world illegally using his book. Again, that doesn't make his actions right, and probably helped him to justify them, but it does set their relationship apart from the others.
In my opinion, some of Stolas's greatest flaws are his thoughtlessness and his ability to justify his own actions to himself. This manifests in the fact that he clearly doesn't see the ways in which their relationship is hurting Blitz. He convinced himself that this was just an equal exchange, and a continuation of the dynamic Blitz established in their first encounter as adults: "I fuck you, and you give me the book". As he becomes more aware of his feelings for Blitz, though (stay tuned for a deeper analysis of this progression later), he also begins to realize that Blitz isn't happy with this relationship. And this, as @masonshmason pointed out, is the central fact that separates Stolas and Blitz from the other relationships. Stolas did not realize- or chose to ignore- how he was hurting Blitz. Once he came to terms with it, though, he understood that he had to make things right. He specifically says this in "Just Look My Way"; "I will try to make amends/ For making you means to an end". None of the others could say this, because in their case, that was the POINT. Angel, Fizz, and Husk were ALWAYS a means to an end, intentionally trapped for that purpose.
We also need to talk about the CONTEXT of the scenes in which the chain imagery appears. For both Angel and Husk, the chain is at least semi-literal, a physical (and perhaps supernatural) manifestation of the way their souls are bound to an overlord. In "Two Minutes Notice," Fizz purposely CHOOSES to represent his relationship to Mammon as chains around his wrists. However, Blitz's scene is part of a drug trip after being forcibly dosed with hallucinogens. It does not exist in any literal sense, nor is it a representation of Blitz’s conscious, literal thoughts. What it DOES do is showcase Blitz’s deepest fears and his greatest flaws through symbolism and metaphor. Blitz is not literally afraid of being forced to wear a clown costume; he is afraid he'll never escape his past traumas or Fizz's shadow. THIS is the context in which Blitz sees himself being chained by Stolas: a bad trip all about his fear of intimacy and vulnerability.
Stolas appears in this trip as someone elevated high above him, something he's climbing towards, reaching for, even though it means being chained to him. It's directly preceded by his ex girlfriend and his former best friend berating him for how he pushes people away even though he hates being alone. Then Stolas directly asks him, "Are you afraid to love people, Blitzy?" Furthermore, the WAY in which he is framed is alluring, slightly hazy, golden and tempting. It couldn’t be further from the ugly, slime-covered past he's fleeing. It's a new start, a chance for something better that seems too good to be true. This trip is all about Blitz’s inability to be vulnerable with another person. The chain around his neck is a representation of the fact that, by getting closer to Stolas, he's giving Stolas the power to hurt him emotionally.
And man, there's a part of him that wants to give Stolas that power. At this critical moment, he's not baring his teeth in defiance or anger. He's blushing, just slightly, and he looks... nervous. Blitz's instinct, when things get too real, is to cut and run. Hurt them before they can hurt you. Abandon them before they have the chance to leave you. It’s how he tanked his relationship with Verosika. This is a manifestation of what might happen if he stays. This is the sort of trouble he can't fight his way out of.
This is the emotional climax of the scene. There are so many ways they could have gone with this if they wanted to represent Blitz being chained and trapped by his agreement with Stolas. If that was the fear--if that was the POINT--they could have had the chains wrap around him until he couldn't move, or glow white hot and burn into his skin, or a million other more direct metaphors. But the chains aren't the thing that hurts him. It's the feathers: the thing that's left behind after Stolas abandons him, sing-songing "you're going to die alone" right alongside two other people who he loved and who now want nothing to do with him.
Finally, let's look at Blitz’s reaction to this scene. It's a moment of revelation for him, in which he realizes he's pushing everyone away and starts to make an effort to change. It's why he's a bit more open with Moxxie in the next scene. The trip sequence ALSO inspires him to get closer to Stolas, indicating that the trip didn’t make him realize "I'm trapped and I need to get out of this" in the same way Fizz did. Rather, he realizes that he doesn't want Stolas to leave him like everyone else, and he wants to start feeling out what it would be like to deepen the connection between them. As I've mentioned in other posts, their kiss at the end of "truth seekers" represents a level of intimacy that we haven't seen before; it's teasing, affectionate, shows Blitz’s interest in making Stolas happy, and takes place in front of M&M, who have repeatedly teased him about their relationship before.
In summary, while the image of chains may have been invoked in all four of these relationships, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing across the board. Blitz and Stolas's relationship differs substantially from the others in its dynamic, and the context of their scene also sets it apart. It's important to look into the details and the nuance of their relationship to interpret what's going on under layers of trauma and unreliable narration.
206 notes
·
View notes
Text
okay not to be a complex individual on main but I hatehatehatehatehate that anti-choicers call themselves "prolife"
You're not prolife. forced-birth is the antithesis to promotion of life. I would call myself "pro-life" if the fucks hadn't gotten to it first.
I am pro-UBI.
I am pro-free universal healthcare--that's child health care, mental healthcare, senior health care, family healthcare. All healthcare.
I am pro-education and intellectualism--pro-free education, pro-comprehensive sexuality education from pre-k to 12th grade, pro-critical race theory and critical reading theory and everyday useful information like how to do your taxes, write a resume, etc.
I am pro-family--pro-children being treated like human beings with complex inner worlds and not tiny Mini Mes and free household labor and Drama Queens Without Thoughts. I am pro-family planning resources and contraceptives and sterilization and abortion and free daycare and pto and paid parental leave and taking teenagers seriously when they make a distinction about themselves.
I am pro-bodily autonomy--pro-corpses being respected regardless of potential use, pro-people being buried or disposed of in any way they like (that does not necessarily harm other, living people), pro-sterilization and abortion for any reason, pro-OTC birth control, pro-listening to disabled people, pro-listening to children, pro-communication, pro-casual body modification and pro-self expression.
I am pro-plants and pro-animals and pro-fungi. I am an environmentalist and a consumer of meat and a lover of leather--I am a lover of biodegradable plastics and non-toxic man-made materials, and a lover of home-grown vegetables and wild-picked berries. I am an advocate for people being financially free to choose veganism and vegetarianism and stand up for people like me who simply cannot afford to. I am anti-declawing of cats, and of docking tails and ears, and pro-shearing sheep and milking livestock. I am anti-factory farming and pro-backyard homesteading, and pro-plant anarchism.
I don't typically find jokes poking at people's deaths funny--I don't think damning people to painful death is humane or fair or moral, regardless of the reasoning--I don't think anyone deserves to die regardless of any moral failing or bankruptcy--I don't think any one life is more valuable or "useful" than another--I don't think a person's value is based on usefulness or morality--I think everyone is worth the same, intangible amount as any other person's. Because we're all human, and we're all human lives.
I am pro-adoption and pro-foster, and pro-social safety nets and anti-capitalist. I am pro-small businesses with punk aesthetics that support their communities, and anti-corporations pandering to my values in an attempt to bank on my biases.
I think these are the things that deserve to be called "pro-life"
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
A fetus is a human life but it’s not a human being, we don’t grant personhood simply for being alive so that’s highly debatable. Whether or not a fetus is deserving of moral consideration is irrelevant because that’s a personal view, the main point is outlawing abortion goes against bodily autonomy laws that we have upheld in the western world for decades upon decades. A 8-10 week old fetus ( which is when majority of abortions happen ) is not viable. If a fetus is not viable and has to directly survive off the mother, she still has her bodily autonomy rights. A fetus is not granted those bodily autonomy rights because the fetus is the one infringing on the mother’s bodily autonomy & it can only be granted those rights once it’s viable. By outlawing abortion, you’re giving this non-viable fetus more rights than a woman. You’re granting a non-viable fetus more rights than a literal dead person ( we have bodily autonomy rights that protect dead people from the government infringing on it & donating organs to those in need, even though they are already dead . We still have to respect their bodily autonomy.) Bodily autonomy laws protect citizens from having to use their own body to sustain the life of another, regardless of if that other life dies or not.
That aside, we already had laws preventing abortions after a certain time period ( about 24 weeks ) and only made exceptions for health reasons.
Also I don’t understand why anyone would be for completely outlawing abortions knowing the state of our current foster care system being overflowed and abusive , our lack of affordable healthcare and how these laws will impact the poor. Forcing women to give birth will not fix anything and “pro lifers” rarely advocate for actual changes in these systems and instead stand outside abortion clinics harassing women all day. It’s pathetic and shows that what y’all really want is to feel a sense of moral superiority & control instead of fixing the actual issues at hand and helping women & children.
Thanks for explaining what you believe and not being rude about. I really appreciate it!
I have a problem with your position from the very first sentence, however. You really need to define your terms because if something is a "human life" by all definitions I have seen anywhere, whether it be law or science, then it's a human being. If you are going to assert that there is a difference between human life and a human being then you need to clearly define what the difference is. A human being, from a biological viewpoint, is a human organism. That's what classifies us all as human beings. And, from a biological standpoint, the unborn are human organisms from the moment of conception. And if being a human organism is what determines whether we are human lives, and thus, human beings, why doesn't that apply to the unborn? If an organism is human and alive then it's a human being. There are not human lives that aren't also human beings.
The next problem with what you're saying is also right at the beginning.
"We don’t grant personhood simply for being alive so that’s highly debatable."
Who, exactly, is "we"? Personhood is not something we grant to others. If it's something to be granted then it's something we can take away and maybe that's the problem here. If you and other pro-choicers think personhood is something we grant and not something that is a truth then we just have a fundamental disagreement. The concept of "granting" personhood never leaves anywhere good. People who believed personhood could be granted would not grant personhood to slaves or Jews and that leads to great evil. Now we are not "granting" it to the unborn. The problem here is you do not acknowledge that they are persons just because they exist as a human being. They don't need to wait for personhood to be granted. Personhood is not a philosophical concept. The definition of person is a human. And if you acknowledge the reality that a human life is a human being and human beings are people it's not debatable at all. So, once again, if you are going to assert that being a human being is not the same as having personhood then you need to clearly define the difference.
This got really long so I'm going to hide the rest of it so people don't have to scroll past a long post.
"the main point is outlawing abortion goes against bodily autonomy laws that we have upheld in the western world for decades upon decades."
Laws being in place is not an argument for whether something should be tolerated. Bad laws that should not exist have existed. Slavery was legal and allowed human beings to be treated as property. Is this something that should not have changed since it was a law upheld for decades? Was the Dred Scott decision something that should have been left in place? If a law is bad and violates a human right then that law should be fought against regardless of how long it has been in place.
Bodily autonomy is not license to kill. If exercising your rights demands you intentionally end the life of an innocent person then you cannot exercise that right. Your rights end where another person's begin. Bodily autonomy is not a right without limits. Seat belt laws violate bodily autonomy, drug laws, laws against drunk driving, mask and vaccine mandates, etc. In fact, every law violates bodily autonomy in some way or another. So to simply argue that outlawing abortion goes against bodily autonomy when every law goes against bodily autonomy isn't a compelling argument. We generally restrict bodily autonomy when exercising it would cause serious harm or danger to another human life. So when that is the justification for restricting bodily autonomy and abortion directly kills an innocent person, then you are going to have to explain why in this case the life of the innocent person doesn't matter and, why, in this case, bodily autonomy trumps the life and health of a person who would continue to live without your interference, when it normally does not.
"If a fetus is not viable and has to directly survive off the mother, she still has her bodily autonomy rights. A fetus is not granted those bodily autonomy rights because the fetus is the one infringing on the mother’s bodily autonomy & it can only be granted those rights once it’s viable."
I have a real problem with the language you use about human rights. Once again, you are using the term "granted." Human rights are not something that are granted to people. They are called human rights because you have them by the very nature of being human. If you exist as a human, regardless of how old you are, how developed you are, or where you are located, you have human rights. The only qualification needed to have human rights is that you exist. So if bodily autonomy is a human right then the fetus has that right because it's a human being. A fetus also has the right to life. These rights are in place at the moment you exist, not the moment you're born.
When you justify violating the rights of the fetus because they aren't viable, are you claiming that viability is when a person has rights and is no longer ok to kill? Some babies are born very early, like before 24 weeks, which is when a fetus is considered viable. If a baby is born at 20-22 weeks they are not considered viable. Is it acceptable to let them die or intentionally kill them?
Also, it's very important to know that the fetus is not infringing on the mother merely by existing. It's existing exactly as it's supposed to. The mother's personal desires about whether or not she wants it doesn't determine whether there is an infringement. You talk like the baby just climbed into the uterus of its own accord or there was an embryo floating around looking for a uterus to invade and pregnancy happens randomly to completely unsuspecting women. But that's not the case. If a woman is pregnant, it's because she chose to engage in an act where the sole purpose (biologically speaking) is reproduction. She chose to take the risk of creating a baby. She made the baby. She put it there. It's not an uninvited guest. The process of reproduction is a natural biological function. It's part of life. It's not an infringement. If you invite people into your house, they aren't infringing on you by accepting the invitation. And once there, if you decide you don't want them there anymore, you can't expel them from your property by killing them.
"By outlawing abortion, you’re giving this non-viable fetus more rights than a woman."
The non-viable fetus is a human being just like the mother. And I'm not giving them more rights. I'm acknowledging they have the same rights. You are the one ignoring rights. You can't use your own rights to kill innocent people. Give me a time, other than abortion, where it's ok to kill an innocent person in order to exercise your rights.
"You’re granting a non-viable fetus more rights than a literal dead person ( we have bodily autonomy rights that protect dead people from the government infringing on it & donating organs to those in need, even though they are already dead . We still have to respect their bodily autonomy.)"
I know pro-choicers like to use the analogy of donating organs to explain why you'll think abortion is ok, but it's not a good comparison. You're comparing two completely different situations and acting like they are the same and since one is ok so is the other. But the situations aren't the same. One situation requires you to kill a person. The other does not. And that is a huge difference. You are not killing a person by not donating an organ. You are killing a person by performing an abortion. Can you stab the person who needs the organ? Can you take your organ back after you donate it and the person is using it? You are ignoring the fundamental difference between these situations. The act of killing is the core issue here. When is killing ok in any of the scenarios you brought up?
"Bodily autonomy laws protect citizens from having to use their own body to sustain the life of another, regardless of if that other life dies or not."
Regardless of if the life dies or not, independent of your own choices, that's true. But not regardless of whether or not you are making the choice to intentionally kill that other life, which is the key point here you keep glossing over. In any other situation, even in an organ donation one, we would call that murder.
"That aside, we already had laws preventing abortions after a certain time period ( about 24 weeks ) and only made exceptions for health reasons."
Yes but that's not everywhere and it's not good enough because abortion should be prevented from the moment of conception. And there is no health issue that is treated by abortion.
"Also I don’t understand why anyone would be for completely outlawing abortions knowing the state of our current foster care system being overflowed and abusive , our lack of affordable healthcare and how these laws will impact the poor."
Because I don't think killing children is the solution to these problems. Killing existing people to save them from poverty or the foster system is not the winning argument you think it is. The foster care system, not being able to afford healthcare, etc. is not worse than death and I'm really curious as to why you think killing the children is a better option than fixing the system and helping the kids currently in it. You're not making any of the situations better by killing people before they're born.
"Forcing women to give birth will not fix anything and “pro lifers” rarely advocate for actual changes in these systems and instead stand outside abortion clinics harassing women all day. It’s pathetic and shows that what y’all really want is to feel a sense of moral superiority & control instead of fixing the actual issues at hand and helping women & children."
This is how I know you know nothing about pro-lifers. You bitch at us for "rarely advocating actual changes in these systems" when that couldn't be further from the truth. Like yes, our main focus is ending abortion because it's a literal genocide of the unborn and that is the most important thing to stop. But pro-lifers are also more likely to foster and adopt than pro-choicers are. We provide resources for struggling mothers with healthcare, childcare, their living situation, etc. We help them choose life and we help them after they choose it. But you pro-choicers don't see it. You just assume we don't do that because you're not out there doing it. You think until pro-lifers fix all the problems out there ourselves the only solution is killing babies and it's the only one you advocate for. You bitch at us to fix all the systems you use as justification for killing people but don't do anything to fix them yourselves.
And yeah, the pro-life movement does a lot for women outside of the abortion issue but if someone is pro-life and their sole focus is to stop abortion that's perfectly valid. There's nothing wrong with focusing all your activism on ending the killing of babies.
Maybe instead of getting mad at pro-lifers because you chose to be ignorant about all the things we do to help women and children, you should get mad at pro-choicers who just say there are too many problems and we can't fix them so just kill the children.
Pro-lifers do not force women to give birth. Reproduction is a natural biological process. We don't force it anymore than we force digestion. Pro-choicers are the ones forcing birth. You're advocating to force the baby to be birthed much earlier than it is supposed to be. Once a woman is pregnant, she is going to have to birth that baby one way or another. The difference here is you advocate for killing a baby so that it's delivered dead, and we're advocating for the delivery of a living one.
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
I’d like to think that anyone who knows me knows that I am 100% pro-choice, but in case it needs to be said: I am unapologetically, completely, irrevocably pro-choice.
There are two main reasons for this, the first being that I have known from a very early age that I never wanted to be pregnant or give birth. The idea is beyond horrifying to me. The second is much less personal. I have never encountered an anti-choice argument that wasn’t laughably easy to dismantle. I’ve been vocally pro-choice for roughly 30 years now (thanks, Mom) and in that time one thing has become painfully evident: anti-choicers have nothing but tenuous, easily debunked “arguments” that are based solely on emotional manipulation, anecdotes, and pseudo-science. They’re also dreadfully unoriginal and repetitive. It gets dull, let me tell you.
But what the hell, just for fun let’s go through some of them here:
“Abortion is MURDER!”
Nope. Murder is a legal term with a clear, concise definition. Abortion does not meet the criteria. Go ahead and look that up, it’s pretty easy to find.
“Abortion KILLS BABIES!”
It’s funny how those who claim to be on the side of science (which is ridiculous on its own) resort to unscientific terms when their goal is to evoke a purely emotional response, isn’t it? “Killing babies” packs more of a manipulative punch than “a medical procedure involving the removal of fetal tissue.” Believe it or not, I sympathize if the termination of a fetus squicks you. I get it. Being that I’m pro-choice, I will always defend your right not to ever undergo the procedure with the same fervour I employ when defending the choice to obtain an abortion. That’s what it means to be pro-choice.
“The fetus is innocent and has a right to life!”
By definition, the fetus can’t be innocent or guilty, it is purely neutral. The “right to life” does not grant anyone the right to use any part of another person’s body for their survival, no matter how “innocent” that person may be. The person carrying the fetus also has the right to life and bodily autonomy, and having sex/being pregnant isn’t something one can be “guilty” of, as neither is a crime. If we want to talk about innocence, let’s start there.
“What about the rights/autonomy of the fetus?”
For starters, the fetus has no autonomy. Its survival is completely dependent on the person whose body it’s inhabiting. That person is fully autonomous and must consent to their body being used and occupied by the fetus.
I know this is repetitive, but it seems to need repeating: There is no human right granted to anyone to use any part of another human’s body, living or dead, for their survival. If you’re in need of an organ transplant, and someone has just died with the organ you need, that doesn’t grant you the right to take what you need from them unless they consented to it before their death. You don’t have the right to take their completely viable organs that they are no longer using if that person did not sign up to be a donor, and it doesn’t matter if you will die as a result. If I’ve been stabbed and am bleeding out, and will die unless given a blood transfusion, no one can be legally compelled to give me their blood to save my life. Not even my own mother. Not even if she was the one who stabbed me in the first place.
If no one has the right to a dead person’s organs or their mother’s blood, what right does a fetus have to another person’s entire body?
“You shouldn’t get to kill a baby just because you’re too lazy to use contraception!”
Please, tell me which form of contraception is 100% effective 100% of the time. Even a minuscule failure rate (based on perfect use) means that unintended conception will occur. I have personally met several people who conceived/were conceived themselves despite multiple forms of contraception being used. It happens. If someone uses two or three methods in tandem, I think they’re making it pretty clear that they do NOT wish to conceive, don’t you? And sure, some do decide to continue with the pregnancy (I think the best reaction I ever heard along these lines was “I need to meet the person who could get past all that!). Again, that’s their choice.
Yes, some people conceive because they neglected to use contraception, for whatever reason. Those reasons are no one’s business but their own. Having unsafe sex is not a crime and isn’t something people need to be punished for. More on that coming up in the next point.
“Abstinence is 100% effective! You made the choice to have sex, deal with the consequences!”
Electing to have an abortion is one way to deal with the consequences. It’s just one that some find immoral, or icky, or selfish. Thankfully, morals are subjective, and it isn’t a crime to be selfish or icky. Even if it were, using forced pregnancy (which the UN defines as a form of torture) as a punishment is unconscionable and inhumane.
Also, what do you suggest for childfree couples? Believe it or not, there are people in long-term, committed, loving, healthy relationships who don’t wish to have children. Should they be condemned to lifelong abstinence because there’s a chance they might conceive? Have fun trying to sell that one.
Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Now, imagine that it wasn’t consensual to begin with. (This is where they like to bring up the statistic of abortions as a result of rape, because they live in a world where every instance of sexual assault is reported, and every victim discloses how they came to be pregnant.)
We don’t deny medical care to those who develop lung cancer due to their 20-year pack-a-day habit, or those who drink themselves into liver failure. If a drunk driver causes a collision, we don’t stand by and let them die from their injuries, even if the collision caused the death of others. But somehow, there are those who think a person with a uterus should literally be tortured and have their human rights revoked if a fetus is inhabiting that uterus. That is terrifying.
“What about the father? The fetus is 50% his so he should have a say!”
It may be 50% his genetic material, but it is 100% inhabiting another person’s body, which is why that person gets to make the final call.
Let’s break down what’s being implied here: If a couple conceives and the pregnant person wants to abort, they should obtain permission from their partner in order to do so. If he disagrees, they should respect that and carry the pregnancy to term. That doesn’t seem very 50-50 anymore, does it? I think it’s funny that this argument only seems to work under the assumption that the father would want to continue with the pregnancy. If he felt it would be best to terminate and his partner disagreed, would they still argue that his vote somehow carries more weight? I doubt it.
“You shouldn’t have an abortion just because pregnancy is inconvenient!”
“Inconvenient?!” Dude. A hangnail is inconvenient. Missing a parcel delivery and having to go to the post office is inconvenient. Your cat’s preference for hacking up hairballs on your clean laundry instead of the tile floor is inconvenient. To call pregnancy “inconvenient” is absurd in the extreme. Pregnancy, even under the best conditions, permanently alters a person’s body. I dare you to tell someone who has been through pregnancy and labour that it was merely “inconvenient.” Seriously, look up third-and-fourth degree tears, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, abdominal separation, etc. just for starters, and then tell me it’s just inconvenient.
“Post-abortive women suffer from depression and mental illness!”
Find me an unbiased source to back that up, please. It simply isn’t true, the majority of people who have undergone an abortion report feeling relieved. Also, what kind of an effect do you imagine forcing an unwanted pregnancy and birth on an unwilling person has on their mental health? Hell, wanted pregnancies can take a huge toll on a person’s mental health, but I don’t see anyone using postpartum depression to argue against pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood.
“Doctors don’t know everything! I knew someone whose doctor said their pregnancy was unviable and they should terminate, but they didn’t and now they have a beautiful, perfect child!”
Cool story. I’m glad this person was able to make that choice for themselves and that things turned out okay. I’m still gonna trust the advice of someone who invested their time and money into getting a medical degree over the anecdote of an internet stranger, but that’s me.
“Infertile couples would be so happy to have your baby! Just give it up for adoption!”
I don’t know if you’re aware, but there is no shortage of children in need of families. There is, however, a shortage of people willing to adopt older children, or non-white babies/children, children and babies who are born addicted, HIV+, severely disabled/medically fragile... I could go on.
Getting back to the “Doctors don’t know everything!” point, it may be worth noting that I used to work in a foster home with severely disabled children. It was by far the hardest, most heartbreaking and exhausting job I’ve ever had. I have seen firsthand what these kids go through, how much around-the-clock care they require, how forgotten some of them are by their families, and how they are considered “undesirable” as far as adoption goes. I have seen how they suffer. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it would have been better for any of them if they hadn’t been born, but I fully understand if someone is simply not up to the task of devoting their life to caring for a child who will be completely dependent on them for everything for however long they live, which sadly isn’t long for many of them. I’m glad I did it, but not everyone can, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that.
All of that aside, adoption is only an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy. No one owes you the use of their uterus to house a fetus you want just because you’re unable to make your own.
This is already longer than I originally intended, but I think I’ve covered the most commonly recycled arguments. The rest mainly boil down to “Abortion goes against my personal theological/philosophical beliefs or moral code!” and all I can say in response to that is that I’m so glad I don’t have to live by anyone’s concept of morality and am allowed my own. It’s pretty great.
I won’t be complacent, however. I have never been more terrified in my life as a uterus-bearing person as I am right now, and I know I’m not alone in that. We cannot allow our rights to be revoked. We cannot afford to lose the ground those before us fought so hard to gain. I will do all I can to keep that from happening.
If the right to our bodies isn’t worth fighting for, I don’t know what is.
51 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Ethic of Being Essence Before Technology
We continue to watch a cosmic struggle playing out in real time across the globe today. The sides have (falsely) been divided into pro-vax and anti-vax. That is anyone that opposes the compelled vaccination of the populace against the COVID-19 virus is anti-vax, anti-science and anti-humanity. Despite the protestations of those that oppose the mandates that they are not anti-vaccine just anti-mandate, the push to marginalize and isolate their viewpoint is ever present.
The issue at hand, way down in the depths, is an ethical one. When a present and sensational fear is being preached it is difficult to stop and analyze what is going on. Without this deeper understanding of the real ethic underneath it all, all conversations about the “issue” are rife with false sequiturs, straw man arguments and just hyperbole. The real issue is a question of being. That is, what does it mean to be human.
The age of reason which gave rise to our current societies (which have been more prosperous than any in history) enshrined the rights of the individual in various codes and documents. This was done because the writers of these codes saw the tendency of power structures and the populace to quickly act on whims. Whether that be a particular observation, or belief, or fear. Individual autonomy was held as the primary good of all. Society is not able to function correctly unless the individual has their right of autonomy respected. It is foundational. And it has been relatively well protected for some time. Certainly not perfectly, but we would all agree that no one may force another to do something. At least we used to think that.
The opposite side of the coin, so it seems, is the instance that some violations of individual liberty must be afforded for “the greater good.” And we are willing to have boundaries on what individuals can and cannot do to protect the community as a whole. This is not the polar opposite of individual autonomy but when executed correctly it is the continuation of the ethic of individual autonomy.
We have laws in place to limit some choices to protect others. The idea that your rights end where mine begin is generally true. Of course, this phrase can be taken to the point of absurdity where the only solution is to live in a vacuum. But there is an important societal concept at play here. That we must occupy the same planet and interact in a manner that allows maximum liberty for all. Therefore, we have laws.
So what then of a danger that we believe we can control? Are we then able to force people to do things they don’t want to do to stop an existential threat? Can we force people to be vaccinated?
We must return to the question of what it means to be human. Or more specifically, can you be human without specific modifications to your being.
The thinkers of the enlightenment and the inference of religious texts communicate clearly that we are all human the way that we are. That is, there is nothing external that must be done or added to our being for us to be considered human. Our humanness, and therefore individual autonomy, is not subject to any alteration.
And now finally to my point.
The real ethical question at hand is a question of technological enhancement of the human being. That to be considered human you must undergo a specific technological modification. It has been hidden within a “greater good” argument for public health, but the point remains. There are many on this earth suggesting that to be considered human you must allow yourself to be vaccinated. Period. To not allow this is to be left in the primordial pool as a lesser being.
This is morally, ethically, and spiritually wrong.
We must assert again that no technological alteration is necessary to be considered fully human. We are human by the nature of our birth. We need not allow any external action to be considered so.
Allow me to state again that human beings require zero technological enhancement to be considered human.
This plays itself out differently in the human experience in the following ways.
1) Temporary and Contextual Technologies – There is an argument made often that certain technologies have been deemed necessary by society for participation in particular activities. While I would contend that most of these instances are societal over-reach, let us explore the deeper ethic of these instances.
Helmets are required in many jurisdictions for riding an open cab vehicle. (It is ironic that it is for individual protection, but I digress). In order for this rule or law to be justified it is limited to a context. That being, operating your motorcycle. If they began to insist on utilizing this technology all the time (i.e. not just when operating your motorcycle). we would rightly question their instruction. We would demand studies on efficacy and weigh the cost of this practice. This seems laughable to us now, but we have not had this diligence when it comes to the technology of the face mask.
The debate of context and efficacy set aside, this technological interference has one other important trait. That is, it is temporary. The technology can be used in the context but does not permanently alter the human being. If they insisted that all human beings install a cranial exoskeleton to operate vehicles, there would be a greater violation. That the use of a technology is temporary gives some discretion to society to govern some technological interference.
Even still, rigorous questioning needs to be ever present when something is required for participation in the human experience.
2) Permanent Technological Augmentation – At no time is permanent change to an individual justified for participation in society. You do not require a chip to see better to be considered human, you do not require an additional limb, you do not require an onboard computer, and you do not require a vaccine.
Vaccines are a technology. They absolutely cause changes within the human being and employing that technology must be at the discretion of the individual itself. To suggest that someone must be vaccinated to participate in society is to suggest that you are not human unless you allow this permanent technology to alter you. You must be augmented. You must become, in essence, a cyborg.
Proponents of forced vaccination will read this and think me naive. That the human race is in eminent danger and being forced is the only way to save us. I would suggest that it is better to have our existence wiped from the planet than to deny what it means to be human. Forcing permanent technological alteration will damage the human spirit in such a profound manner that I do not think we will ever recover. We will become shriveled husks of our former selves. Wraiths and Gollums, no longer human.
But what of smallpox, or polio or chicken pox? Encouraging people to participate in a technological alteration is understandable but cannot ever be forced. These previous interventions were not forced (except for some egregious exceptions) on the populous. They were a choice. Permanent changes to an individual are not necessary for full participation in society.
The inevitable argument, then will be that sick people will get other people sick, and that is not just. This statement has merit. Indeed, if an individual is ill with a contagious disease temporary separation from culture is warranted. The key word here is ill. That is, does the person have symptoms of an ailment. Testing people for a potential illness, when they have not indication of that illness, is akin to saying someone is guilty until proven innocent. It is wrong in the legal system, and it is wrong in concert with our bodily autonomy. I don’t even need to go into the proofs on how asymptomatic illness is not to be concerned about because the ethical argument supersedes it. That is, we require nothing added to our being to be considered fully human.
The last argument that I will ever so briefly touch is the ridiculous suggestion that we limit individuals from participating in parts of society all the time because of what they are doing. For example, we no longer allow smokers to light up in restaurants. This is true. But you must look at the argument in terms of technology. It is right and understandable to limit a particular technology from use for participation in parts of society. No use of cigarettes (technology) in public, no driving motorcycles (technology) on sidewalks, or nobody with a pacemaker (technology) allowed on this ride. We may say that a particular technology may be limited in its use in a portion of society, but those technologies have altered (temporary or permanent) what it means to be human. This becomes a nuanced conversation when considering persons that have had a technology employed on their being for their betterment. For example, if someone has an artificial limb we would not want to limit their participation. So, limiting individuals with a technological change must be done with great care.
We are on the precipice of a cliff. Ahead is a drop into the abyss. It will result in the loss of what it means to be human. There is no coming back from this if we fall over. Insisting that human beings alter themselves in order to be considered human will be the end of our species. We may exist for some time but we will not live.
This piece is both meant to expose the deeper ethic, (that we are born human and require no enhancement to be considered such), and as a warning.
Stop now.
0 notes
Text
To elaborate on my last post, I’ve realized that their entitlement to others’ autonomy is one of the main reasons why I don’t trust and don’t want to be close to my family. I come from a Sicilian/Irish family, with many members who suffer/suffered from various mental health issues and show/showed abusive and toxic behaviors. There were no boundaries because there was no understanding of or respect for autonomy. It was understood that if you were family, you would just do whatever was asked of you regardless of whether or not it was fair or healthy. If someone wanted or needed something from you, your feelings about it were of no importance. They were family so you had to do it. There was an overwhelming sense of entitlement to others just because you shared a blood relation. That goes double if they had ever done anything to help you, regardless of whether you asked for that help or not. You may as well have signed a contract with them saying you owed your life to them just because they helped you fix pipe in your house or payed for you dinner. The worst thing you could be called was ungrateful. It was the easiest to get the whole family to turn against someone and see them as morally corrupt.
Obviously, it is good to help family and if you say you love someone, you should want to be there for them. But loving someone should never require forfeiting your autonomy. Just because you SHOULD say yes to a specific request doesn’t mean that others can just act like you’ve already said yes without even asking. Love isn’t supposed to be transactional like that. Just because you did X for someone, doesn’t mean they HAVE to do Y unless they agreed to that stipulation BEFORE you did X or if Y is an unforeseen but direct outcome of doing X (and even if it falls into the second category, Y still needs to be a reasonable request). If you feel like a relationship is one sided, you can talk to that person and express how you’re feeling and then you can choose what YOU will do about it and how much YOU want to give. You’re allowed to be hurt if things feel one-sided and you’re allowed to determine how much you want to give from now on and whether or not you feel comfortable still being close to that person if you feel like it’s not reciprocal. HOWEVER you don’t get to guilt, make demands, or weaponize your feelings to force people to do what they don’t want to do. That is NOT how healthy relationships work. And I don’t think my family realizes that.
This is why I just keep my distance from everyone. I spent my entire childhood and adolescence having everything that anyone ever did for me held over my head (even the things that I never asked for or things that I couldn’t have done for myself or couldn’t go without because I was a CHILD) in order to control everything I did and force me to become caretaker for two family members even though it wasn’t developmentally or ethically appropriate. They pulled the same shit on each other right in front of me all the time too. They never saw an issue with it and they perceive this as a normal-enough family relationship. Now I don’t trust anyone in my family because if that’s how they want family relationships to be, then I don’t want any family.
I was deprived of my autonomy for YEARS and most of my family (specifically my mother) still doesn’t really recognize that that’s what was happening and they see family relationships as something you’re always entitled to, regardless of whether or not someone wants to be close to you. The fact that they think any relationship with anyone is a given is just unacceptable. I will never forfeit my autonomy for anyone and I will never be able to give my mother the relationship she wants without doing just that.
Now that I’ve walked away from a religious community that celebrated and encouraged sacrificing autonomy and made me feel like I needed to still “honor my family”, I finally feel free to say “too bad, so sad, deal with the life you made for yourself. I’m creating one I’ll actually be happy with”. I no longer feel guilty for doing what is genuinely best for me. I don’t want to cause pain, but I also refuse to allow needless pain to be inflicted upon me. If the only way I can avoid causing you pain is to allow you to hurt me, then you’re going to get exactly what you deserve and that is NOT my fault and I WON’T feel bad about it.
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
clearfishtreeeclipse
İsimsiz
no-rhyme-no-reason-stuff
No Rhyme No Reason Just Stuff I Like
myidlethinkings
everyday little thoughts
7lesliesins
Sunkissed Thighs