Dear SCOTUS: If you haven't had one, then you need to STFU.

Three things to make note of before we start wading into this blog entry together, folks...

First,this is the Salon story that triggered this blog entry: http://tinyurl.com/24shpw

Second, this blog entry was originally intended to be an 8-paragraph comment to a diary on dKos dealing with the above story. My plan was to use paragraph 7 to summarize what turned out to be the rest of this blog entry as efficiently as I had the ones above it, then wrap it up succinctly & pithily in paragraph 8.

Third, apparently the material in this blog entry was something that I needed to write for a long time and finally found a voice for. So much for keeping it to 8 paragraphs on dKos. You get the whole thing here instead.

But you know what? For those in the audience who've been wondering WTF a guy like me is doing posting to feminist blogs, this is a significant chunk of the backstory for that. So make of it what you will.

--------------

One of the things that really, really chaps my ass is what a small percentage of the people bloviating away about abortions, on both the right and the left sides of the fence, actually have any first-hand experience with them.

I'm sorry, SCOTUS. And I'm sorry, Fux News Channel. But... if you ain't been there done that, then you can't know. You just can't fucking know.

Being one of those non-uterine persons with a damaged Y instead of a fully-formed X for a second chromosome, I have not had and never will have an abortion procedure performed on my own body.

But the principle that abortions for those who would have them needs to be safe, rare, AND legal has never been a purely theoretical question for me -- not in either direction.

My first serious long-term lover was only alive and walking the planet because her mother got cold feet and changed her mind while sitting in the clinic's waiting room. My best friend in college made the same impossibly difficult decision, only she didn't get cold feet.

Ten years later I was one of the volunteers helping to shield harassed women running the gauntlet of neo-fascist rabble rouser Terry Randall's so-called Operation Rescue so-called 'pro-life' protesters in Atlanta when they finally crossed the line and started bombing the clinics there.

Near the end of the last millennium the abortion issue went from being no longer theoretical to no longer hypothetical to me. I was a deeply-involved participant in, though of course not the ultimate decision maker in, that same impossibly difficult, lose-lose, no-possible-good-can-come-from-this decision involving what would have been the only child that I'm ever likely to produce.

We sat up many a long and lonely/angry/anguished night over that dilemma, she and I. Sure, there would have been some logistical problems -- we weren't married, and she was already raising a son from her previous marriage -- but so what? Those can be daunting issues to deal with, but they're situational rather than moral ones, and we hashed out several different ways in which they could be dealt with successfully.

But there were medical concerns as well, and that's a lot more significant kettle of fish than whether the house is big enough for a third bedroom or not. She had a genetically-linked condition that required daily medication to keep under control, and one of the medications was clearly linked to birth defects and developmental disorders if a woman got pregnant while taking them.

Which, of course, she had. And before you go off on a canard side topic here -- yes, we were using the most reliable form of contraception available. Neither of us are idiots, not were we careless at the time. But even if something is 99.5% reliable, there's still that last remaining 0.5%. So were were the 1-in-200 part of the statistical curve -- which, again, is also linked to birth defects and developmental disorders.

That's what ultimately tipped the scales for her, and by extension for both of us. We both felt that deciding to abort our child for logistical reasons would be morally, ethically, and psychologically wrong. Bear in mind, though, that we both had jobs, she owned a house, our lives were relatively stable. Others in worse straits than we were might not be able to see ways to juggle the extra responsibilities with any chance of success. So I'm certainly not passing judgment on anyone else's decisions in that regard, only ours.

However, in our case there were also multiple factors producing significantly higher odds that our child would likely have been born with medical problems. We talked long and hard about all those issues -- what's realistic to us, what's fair to the child, what's the available scenarios with the world around the child, etc. And then she made the final choice for all three of us. It was always hers to make, and I willingly supported her decision no matter what it might turn out to be; but in the end, she was the only one who could say the final yea or nay.

So one day in April of that year I drove her to an unmarked medical office in a nondescript location off the beaten path where we lived at the time. We went inside, we met with the clinic's head nurse to make sure we both throughly understood what was about to take place and what we could expect in its aftermath. She signed a bunch of forms, I signed a few of them myself, and then the nurse ushered her inside past the reception desk window and I sat down to wait.

It wasn't that long a wait in real-world terms, I suppose. These things are fairly routine operations when they're performed safely and legally, so I'm thinking we were there maybe 90 minutes, certainly no more than 2 hours. But it seemed like a lifetime to me. And, in ways that I can never deny and never forget, it was exactly that.

The nurse helped her her back out to the waiting room, I helped her into the car and drove her home, and then I tended to her physical needs for the next day or so while she recovered from the operation. I tended to her emotional and spiritual needs for longer than that, of course. Or at least I tried to; there's no way now to be sure whether or how much I was effective at that part. She tried to do the same for me as well.

But there's only so many words that can be said, so many things that can be thought, so many tears that can be shed for so long. Ultimately, the only healing that can ever take place has to happen deep inside each one of us -- where we are, despite any mutual best intentions, ultimately alone in the dark with ourselves. And, as with so many other couples, our relationship ultimately did not survive the strain of this shared burden. (Although in all fairness to both of us, as with so many other couples there of course were other fissures in that particular firmament as well.)

I know, given the realities of the medical issues, that it was the correct decision for us to make. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that; it helps that she told me afterwards that she had seen the ultrasound image during the preparation stage, and it showed that things were not quite as they should have been for the nascent being that was inside of her.

I take her at her word about that extra bit of information that serves to reinforce our having made the correct decision. I have to, because I wasn't there. Hell, I don't just have to... I need to.

Because it's April again now. The weather's warming, and the birds are starting to chirp, and it's finally outdoor weather after a long cold winter. And the son I'll never have would be old enough by now to play catch in the backyard with, old enough to take to the beach and teach how to swim, old enough to fly kites in the park with... well, you parents out there know the drill. And so do those of us who've never been parents, because we were all 8 years old once too.

You know, I've never written this story down anywhere before, much less posted it in a public venue like Culture Kitchen. I've only told it in person a few times over the years. For some odd reason it's not something I'm eager to think about, much less discuss with others.

But then I hear some blowhard pontificating yet again about what abortion is and what it isn't, and what it means and what it doesn't mean, and how it's a coward's choice, an easy-way-out kind of decision that should be outlawed because the only people who choose it are merely selfish self-indulgent sinners against God and man, et cetera and so forth ad nauseum.

You don't need me to describe my emotional reactions to that kind of bullshit. You can already pretty much tell what my intellectual reactions to it are.

Let's just say that anybody -- be they judge or preacher or pundit or politician -- who hasn't been on that operating table, hasn't been in that waiting room watching the minutes tick away like hours, hasn't been lying there in the dark at night trying with all their heart not to think about what might have been -- anybody who's never had to make that impossible decision themselves, anybody who's never been there done that in their own lives, well...

They (you, us, them, whatever) really, really need to just Shut The Fuck Up already.

Because if you ain't been there done that, you can't know. You just can't fucking know.


M. Loutre's picture

| | | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mrme's picture

please

You are not the arbiter of who's allowed to comment on something who should shut up. Free and open debate does not require one to have gone through an experience in order to comment on it. That's basic. Be less Narcissistic and more reasonable.


M. Loutre's picture

mrme: boy howdy, are you ever clueless.

The STFU connection in this post wasn't free and open debate, it was un-Constitutional and closed judicial court rulings.

You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate for me to say to SCOTUS -- especially since you very clearly missed the point of the post, not to mention completely trivialized the actual content of the post, with your amazingly callow, shallow, and completely irrelevant response here.

Be less Vapid and more intelligent, mrme.


Margaret Bassett's picture

Your story is the one I've always wanted to read

Thank you for writing it. There is that ultimate argument of "What about the father?" When I hear it, I think of "The Godfather" where there is a line about who has the right to children. And that could meander off into how many wives a rich person can have in order to produce a dynasty, etc.
But we in the USA are dedicated to monogamy, at least to serial monogamy. It is for certain that when two parents are faced with the prospect of a child, they are both heavily involved.
The rapacious actions of the radical right on the issue of abortion are not condoned by many. However, they couch the subject which makes refuting them seem immoral. The moral in this matter, to me, is whether a person has a right to make personal decisions in a personal way. Since I was born when the Comstock law prevailed, I've seen the changes through the decades and realize more than ever that the first question deals with the rights of those who give out information on planned parenthood. Margaret Sanger would turn over in her grave to see how we have tools now, but don't always use them wisely. On the other hand, didn't I read that her son is still writing on the subject?


mrme's picture

I'm pro-choice

But partial-birth abortion is a revolting decadent travesty cloaked in moral seriousness and feminism, and I'm glad to see it go.


NanceConfer's picture

Right

Because with that choice gone, now abortions and all other gynecological procedures will just be pretty as a picture!

Nance


JJ Ross's picture

Personally

I find all human body stuff revolting to imagine, and when it's taken out of context and magnified into shocking visuals as political warfare, I can't think of anything I wouldn't vote to ban even if it killed ME. I am a gourmet and gourmand (just love food!) but let's face it, human digestion is graphic and disgusting, stomach churning!

If restaurants were required to show films of it before allowing patrons to order a meal, I predict we could solve our decadent obesity crisis. Anybody wanna sign my new petition?


NanceConfer's picture

No thanks. :)

I'm one of those people who thinks certain commercials shouldn't be allowed on TV while I'm eating. Smiling

Nance


JJ Ross's picture

The "Disgust" Factor in Politics

All kidding aside, the political power of story in human "disgust factors" is incontrovertible science and worth some progressive thought. Certainly the reactionaries are using it in THEIR weapons development program!

Mole and I touched on this point last fall in comments here but only in passing. How about we get something going to take it more seriously now?


Margaret Bassett's picture

SCOTUS needs other issues than abortion

Today I read this article, first part of which I show below, and I thought of this post. We all are besieged with DoThis DoThat, from contradictory sources often. It's enough to make a person rebellious. Where it is written that government, advertising, and popular media have a right to tell you/me how to live and think? When newspapers started to write command sentences and refer to "you" I realized this was more than a cozy form of communication. It was recognition of groupthink.

AlterNet
The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have
By Daniel A. Farber, Basic Books
Posted on April 23, 2007, Printed on April 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/50404/

The following is an excerpt from Daniel A. Farber's forthcoming "Retained by the People: The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have" (Perseus Books, 2007), available April 30.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment


JJ Ross's picture

Would Margaret

and/or Otter be willing to make this into a separate blogpost so we can discuss all its aspects? I woke up this morning to NPR reporting that SCOTUS will decide the "free speech" of issue ads i.e. anti-abortion care, which seems right on point to me!

From the CNN story:

The issue ads are widely used to promote particular causes such as environmental protection or tax reform, and they specifically cannot endorse or even mention any particular candidate or political party.

An anti-abortion group, Wisconsin Right to Life, had filed a lawsuit in 2004, demanding the right to air ads that urged viewers to contact their Democratic U.S. senators. . .


Margaret Bassett's picture

How free is speech when it costs so much?

Be it CNN or other media outlets, no one puts more money in the bank than do the recipients of advertising dollars, whether the product sold is widgets or political opinion. Without advertising, the media would have to have subscriptions and that would cost the consumer. So the consumer gets what he pays for--nothing.
The system is here to stay. What will change is customers' attitude toward it. And that goes for political advertising, be it proclaimed as such or the type in a sub rosa category. Where are the schools on teaching how monied elements carry a bias? As P T Barnum is quoted: A sucker is born every minute and there are two to take him.


NanceConfer's picture

I don't know

where the schools are on any of this but I am a bit encouraged by "young people." Smiling

Our DS just recently changed us over to the free operating system called Ubuntu. I am very happy with the "good geekiness" of it all. Geeks who can do all this stuff that I never could but seem to have morals that guide them to make a living but then stop piling stuff up and give to others.

That's pretty cool, imo. And hopeful.

Nance


Margaret Bassett's picture

Back to the same old question

In society, what is a good balance between cooperation and competition?
Speaking of computer software, it's hard not to speak about Microsoft. My reading of the early Windows history suggests that a lot of it came from IBM's earlier operating system. It morphed into a bloated collection of interacting programs which made it hard to use others' coding. The browser standoff with the government was formidable and inconclusive. The US settled but the EU has to remind Microsoft of the court decision. Meanwhile, back here in the States, that same browser, aka Internet Explorer, has let users down so much that almost half of them have opted for Firefox with Java, all of which is free. And this very week the business news touts Microsoft for its robust sales figures based on a new Windows. Yet many of us wouldn't fall for Vista at this point. Like its predecessors, it has serious flaws to fix. I guess the power of advertising (and "sucker" psychology) prevails.
Thanks for telling about Ubuntu. Word of mouth is a reliable form of advertising.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Poll

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1358 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

"He was hiding who he really was ... He was waiting for an opportunity."


— Vic Gold, former friend of Dick & Lynne Cheney
Rightist Indignation - washingtonpost.com:


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify