B&!*hes Be Crazy

A few months ago I came across the podcast based bloggers "Godless Bitches" who are a group of females who discuss various issues and events from a secularist (if that's the right term) standpoint. The three main speakers are Beth, Jen and Tracie. I think all of these girls feature occasionally on the show "The Atheist Experience" - IMO, Matt Dillahunty, one of the main hosts of this show, is an amazing personality and I have never seen him fail at making an argument. He is a well read, very knowledgeable and an incredibly wise person and if anybody is interested in pro-secular morality then do visit one of their episodes on YouTube.

Getting back to my story, when I was on the ladies' blog a few months ago I was surprised by one of their segments on pro-choice for women seeking abortion. I am definitely pro-choice, but it saddened me to see these girls strip away all emotion when discussing the concept of having an unplanned baby. Really girls, are babies THAT bad?

The bulk of the discussion was centered around the logic that:

• A woman should have all the right to decide what she does with her body
• Nobody has the right to use her body and the nourishment it provides without her consent 

I think their choice of words seemed frigid and mechanical. Topics like these are delicate, and although I'm all for rational and logical discourse, the way abortion was talked about was a bit strange. 

Firstly, referring to a fetus as some kind of squatter or parasitic organism that occupies a woman’s body without “consent” is an absurd and irrelevant comparison to make, specially considering that a fetus is in no position to seek “consent” in the first place. You cannot say the fetus is not a person until born, and then accuse it of being inside you without consent as though it is a fully functioning person separate from the mother. That is contradictory to the pro-choice argument.

If we are talking about consent, the two people answerable to this question are the parents - by engaging in intercourse knowing very well the probability of falling pregnant (which will vary according to what contraceptive method you’re using) is a form of indirect consent. There’s no paper signing here, it's all about reading the fine-print and being aware of the possibilities of your actions before taking them. I say scrap this confusing "the fetus is like a parasite" line of debate and instead focus on why we need abortion in the first place so that we can defend the rights of those who really need it.

I am pro-choice simply because I understand that there are women who have been raped or sexually used and abused, are too young/poor to mother a child, or are under a health risk due to the pregnancy. All of these situations and others can be helped by abortion. If having a child is detrimental to the mother's health/well being, then of course the sole decider is the mother. But for self-sufficient, educated and Godless women, who have no fear of being judged by religion/society for having illegitimate children - the decision should be made by both parents and rests on their individual and emotional discretions. 

We often forget the role of the father in this issue. Why is the decision to abort or not abort only given to the woman, when the father has just as much right to WANT the child? Men don’t have the option of carrying a child, and this is reality. If you can’t handle the responsibility, but the father can and is willing, then why not let him? I'm always reminded of the situation between Christina and Owen in Grey's Anatomy. I think it was unfair of Christina to crush Owen's dream of becoming a father simply because of her career, even though he agreed to take full responsibility for taking care of the baby.

Beth and Tracie also discussed whether the same logic would still stand if we extended it to a new born baby. She suggested a situation where a mother and her new born is stranded on a deserted island where food is scarce, and hence breastfeeding the baby would be energy-draining for the mother. Would it then be logical for the mother to deny the baby its right to breast milk  in order to keep herself alive, as it is her body and she can choose what to do with it.

I thought it was useless trying to compare a fully functioning newborn to a fetus. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure such a case would most likely be related to man-slaughter! So I will leave out my verdict on the case.

You can’t judge every situation with a legal definition of “freedom of choice, or freedom to use my body as I please” - our humanity is our litmus test. Laws change from country to country, but any decent human being should know when it is right to keep a child. I think the law should trust that base instinct, and allow people, both men and women if the father is available, to make that choice through a negotiation process.

Full episode: http://godlessbitches.podbean.com/2012/06/24/episode-215/