Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life

I usually try to avoid this topic. Everyone has a strongly-held opinion which is extremely unlikely to change. Bringing it up will only spur arguments and strain friendships.

And then there's Kermit Gosnell. If you haven't heard about this, well, I'm afraid I can't fill you in. His actions are abhorrent and make my stomach turn. Here is a link for background.

Many people will use this to argue that abortion is unsafe. Many will use this to argue that abortion shouldn't even be legal. The first step in this process is the soon-to-be-voted-upon HR 3 , or the Smith Insurance Ban. But before we go down that road, two arguments:

First, just because one person is willing and able to perform such atrocities does not mean that all providers are dangerous, ill-trained, or unconscionable. Imagine a dentist who has had a little education in another field, say obstetrics or some type of surgery. The dentist never completes the training, yet operates outside established legal parameters and performs these services on the cheap. Would the result of these actions be to call for a moratorium on this other field? Of course not. We'd all realize that one person's actions could not render an entire field of medicine dangerous. In fact, in nearly any other situation, the discussion of safety and legality wouldn't be broached.

But most importantly, this case highlights the need for safe, affordable abortion services for women. No matter what your stance on this debate, you surely would agree that keeping women alive and well is extremely important. Hmmm. Or maybe you don't. Well then, I would argue that, if abortion becomes illegal or inaccessible, cases like these will only increase. If women are going to search out abortion services no matter what the regulations are (and history tells us that they will), I believe that having a healthy woman is more important than creating a serious risk to her well-being or even her life.

The moral of the story: this case only highlights the need for legitimate abortion providers. Let's keep that in mind and not use this as an excuse to cut services. Let's not create an environment conducive to producing the next Kermit Gosnell.

Hey Facebook

This picture is OK with Facebook. So are advertisements with topless models.

(So is joining a group denying that millions of people died in the holocaust, or one that allows hate speech against overweight folks.)

Want to post a picture of a woman nursing her child? No way, says Facebook. A warning will be sent. Pictures will be deleted. Accounts have been suspended. “Exposed breast” violates Facebook's terms of use. But looking at the above photo, I have to ask “What constitutes an exposed breast?”

So people can't post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Who cares? When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so terrible. There are larger issues behind this small one, though, and that makes it a big deal.

First of all, it seems to be OK to post a topless photo (with no nipple) as long as it is for profit or explicitly sexual (or oftentimes, both). Somehow, nursing a child is disgusting but turning people on is not. This seems to be true in a larger context, as well. Hooters is fine, but feeding your child in a restaurant isn't. (Does this mean one can nurse freely at Hooters?)

Second, this reflects attitudes all over the real world. If this is a punishable offense on a private Facebook page or a breastfeeding group page, what does that mean for mothers in real life? Women are shamed for feeding their infants in public. Contrary to popular belief, mothers can't necessarily “plan ahead” (thank you, Bill Maher) because babies aren't yet capable of advance planning (“I should eat now because mom wants to go out and I might offend someone if I need to eat”). Perhaps folks can cover up, but who wants to eat under a sheet? (Maybe the adults who choose not to avert their eyes when offended could use a blanket as a cover up.) When using a sheet, the chances of having a peacefully nursing baby decline and having a fussy, noisy baby becomes an ever-likelier scenario. Obviously, averting your eyes is easier than plugging you ears while trying to eat. Is it because women are so sexualized that people seem to be unable to tear themselves away from something they claim to find repellent?

Being a mom means giving up a lot. It's hard to do anything- even grocery shopping or running errands- with a small child in tow. It seems nearly impossible to leave the house and not eventually have to feed your child in public. I suppose that could be avoided if you chose to feed from formula, but the benefits of breastfeeding to both mother and baby have been well-documented, and formula can be cost-prohibitive. You could pump ahead of time (if possible) or leave your child with a babysitter or with a partner every time you wanted to go out in public. But how many times per week do people need to leave the house? That seems like a fairly unrealistic plan for most regular people. Most importantly, women should not be forced to stay at home because someone else finds the act of feeding a child obscene. Mothers shouldn't be isolated. They, too, need to be social, go to restaurants, take their older children to play in parks and learn in the world outside the home. Anyone who believes that mothers and their children should be cloistered away because “that's what you get for having a child” needs to rethink things. Their mothers surely made immeasurable sacrifices so they can espouse their anti-family attitudes, which I find completely repulsive and simplistic.

In summary: Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! If people don't like it, they can look away.