Living past abortion

CNN: Italy investigates report baby lived through abortion

This is a seriously troubling article in so many ways.  A baby (there's really no other way to phrase that) who was aborted at 22 weeks in Italy apparently lived through the procedure for "a whole day" after.  The article states that hospital staff left the baby to die after the procedure, implying that they knew the baby was still alive after the abortion.

This is going to raise some serious questions worldwide in the abortion debate.  I think the most concerning issue here is that the fetus was clearly viable outside the mother's body, as the baby lived for nearly a day afterwards [1].  The Wikipedia article on feticide (the killing of a fetus) has an interesting quote on feticide during abortions, especially the use of drugs injected into a fetal heart in order to kill it.

When used before labor induction, feticide prevents the possible complication of live birth. [Emphasis added]

I find it very disturbing that live birth is considered a 'complication', seeing as how this is generally how pregnancies are supposed to end, although, this does appear to be a 'complication' in the Italian case.  The real complication, though, is why they left the baby to die when they should have been able to tell (and therefore most likely did tell) that the abortion resulted in a live birth.

This whole situation will most likely promote another debate over when life starts.  Some say at conception, some say when the fetus is viable outside the mother's body, others say when the baby is actually born.  This 'complicaton' of having a baby survive after an abortion procedure is certainly going to throw a wrench into this whole debate.  No matter what, things are only going to get messier from here.

On a different note, in the course of writing this post I came across this story, which was a very moving tale about what the author called aborting a "wanted pregnancy".  To me, it seems as though this is one thing that is missing in the abortion debate (although this pretty much falls under the classification of 'if the health of the mother is in danger', I feel this should be separate).  So much is discussed about unwanted pregnancies, but nobody talks about wanted pregnancies, at least in specifics.  It would be interesting to see which category the Italian woman's pregnancy fell under.  Although the article cites Italian law as allowing abortions past 20 weeks if the fetus shows defects or if the mother's physical or mental health requires it, as the procedure was so messed up it would be interesting to see the actual circumstances of this particular procedure.

__________________________________
[1] I will be using the terms 'fetus' and 'baby', but they are not interchangeable in these circumstances.  Here, 'fetus' refers to while it is still inside the mother's body, and 'baby' refers to it after it is removed from the mother's body.

Overbearing parents

CNN: Moms quit jobs for their child's college dreams

This article talks about the apparently growing trend of successful career moms quitting their jobs so they can help their children get into the top colleges.  According to the reporter, it seems that a lot of these moms who have turned from their jobs to focusing on their child's college applications are women who have worked hard to get their own postgraduate degrees.

To me, this just seems to be one step further in this ridiculous helicopter parenting trend.  I can understand women quitting their jobs to raise a newborn baby until the child is old enough to go to school.  However, I cannot understand women quitting their jobs and focusing excessively on their children at a time when their children should be learning to become more independent.

Luckily for me, I missed out on helicopter parenting for the most part.  However, I did have my parents place excessive amounts of pressure on me to do well academically so that I could get into a decent college, especially since neither of my brothers expressed interest in going.  As the youngest, I became the sort of 'last chance' of having a college-educated child, and they would be damned if they didn't have a single child go.  So, everything fell to me as the youngest and highest-achieving child to succeed to the maximum.  Of course, as anyone who has too much pressure placed upon them can tell you, I cracked.  I rebelled.  I started doing bad in school, not because I couldn't handle the work, but because I didn't want to anymore.  I thought high school was stupid, and screw everybody and their expectations.

Due to my experiences, I can see nothing but bad come out of this.  Even if a child does respond to their parent's pressuring positively by exceding academic expectations, they may grow to resent you.  In my case, once I had signaled to my parents in high school that I was going to do what I thought was best for me, they relaxed a lot more when it came to changing career paths in college.  They're still a little uneasy at times, but at least now they understand that doing what makes me happy is better than having ridiculous expectations and forcing me to do something that I don't want to do.

These parents seriously trouble me.  They're not allowing their children to do anything for themselves, which is going to be seriously detrimental to them in the long run.  I had a professor in college comment on how she had a student's parent call because the student got a bad grade in her class.  The lesson of that story, she said, was that we have to be responsible for our own achievements.  No more relying on mommy and daddy to help us out when things go wrong.  Unfortunately, when parents get this overly involved in their children's lives, it doesn't help the children learn how to help themselves out.  Instead of creative thinking and finding solutions to problems (like my brothers and I were raised for the most part), incoming college students will do the only thing they know how to- cry to mom and dad.

Yes, I was never an all-star student grade-wise (although my high test grades always shocked teachers that were used to me pulling 70's and 80's in their classes).  Yes, I never applied to all the fancy Harvards and Yales.  However, I did get into every college that I did apply to, and what's more, I did it on my own.  I've had friends go to larger, more well-known schools, and a lot of them were miserable.  Name branding isn't everything, and it shouldn't be in education as well.  Parents need to let go of these ridiculously high expectations and let their children flourish on their own.  They never know- their child may just surprise them.

More good news for rights

MSNBC: China may ease one-child rule

China's long-standing one-child per family rule may be coming to an end.  The rule, meant to curb China's ever-growing population, has led to sterilization, forced abortions, and infanticide.  However, officials have noted that the policy may actually create a people shortage in the future, particularly noting a shortage of women.  While nothing has been made official, there are discussions to 'refine' the policy without fully disbanding it.

The policy, particularly in rural areas, has not been strictly followed, with many rural families having two (occasionally more) children.  Also, in areas where the one-child policy is strictly followed, it comes to the detriment to females.  The Chinese culture greatly favors males over females, and therefore sons over daughters.  In previous eras, this meant wide infanticide of newborn girls.  Now, with more advanced technology that can determine the sex of a fetus before birth, this means aborting female fetuses.

Ignoring all of the ethical issues that comes with aborting females or committing infanticide, this targeting of girls means that there will be a much smaller female population than the male population.  From a purely logistical standpoint, having a massively huge gap between the female and male populations means that there will be less women for men to marry, thereby reducing future populations (less women=less babies).  According to the article, the Chinese government has also realized this by reconsidering their policy.

This potential reversing of the one-child policy will be a great victory for women's rights and reproductive rights.  Too often do other people insert themselves into the very private issue of women and reproduction, particularly when it comes to government policies.  Although there will still be the need to overcome spousal interference, eliminating a cap on children (and therefore on a woman's reproductive system) will hopefully lead to increased women's liberation in other areas of life as well.

Score one for [rights]

MSNBC: Saudi girl, 12, divorces 80-year-old husband

A 12-year-old Saudi girl successfully obtained a divorce after being forced to marry her father's 80-year-old cousin.  The girl, with the help of the Human Rights Commission, was able to take the case to court, eventually settling out of court between the families.

I can not accurately express how amazing this case is.  It is a victory for children's rights, women's rights, and human rights in the Middle East in general.  The interpretation of Islam that Saudi Arabia follows, Wahhabism, is so restrictive towards women that they are not even allowed to drive (among the many other things that women are prevented from doing).  According to their interpretation of the Qur'an, Hadith, etc., since one of Muhammad's wives was nine when they married, child brides are therefore acceptable under Islam. [1]  In so many parts of the world, child brides are very common.  Therefore, this is a big deal.  Most child brides are unable to get out of their marriages and are forced into early pregnancy, which leads to severe health complications (e.g. fistulas) or death.  In cases of severe health complications such as fistulas, these young girls can be abandoned by their husbands, leaving them alone with a child and no resources at the age of eleven.

One great thing that came out of the case, as the article mentions, is this new consideration of creating a minimum age for marriage (sixteen) in Saudi Arabia.  Marriage many times in these situations leads to sex soon after the marriage; at the ages that these young girls are being married, their bodies are not developed enough to be physically capable of such a thing, let alone becoming pregnant.

Also, the question of marriage and divorce is raised in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in Article 16.  The text of Article 16 is long in itself (but well-worth the read), but I will cite some of the important points.  Section 1 states that equality is encouraged in regards to entering into marriage and freely choosing one's spouse.  Section 2 states:

The betrothal and marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory.

As the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) clearly sets the age of child at 18, these child brides quite easily fall under this category.  This is a contentious international legal issue, as Saudi Arabia's reservation to CEDAW states that anything contrary to Islamic law will not be followed.  However, as the government is now consulting with legal scholars along with human rights advocates and health care professionals (see the news article), hopefully this clause will no longer be contrary to Islamic law and will start to be followed.

All in all, this is such an excellent development, particularly in terms of young girls' rights.  My greatest hope is that many more young women across the globe will follow this girl's brave example and start challenging the laws and conventional practices in their countries for their own benefit.  Particularly after last week's news about the Yemeni child bride who died as a result of intercourse with her significantly older husband soon after their wedding. [2]  Hopefully soon we will reach the day where these stories are gone from the international stage and are simply a reminder of our terrible past.

__________________________________________
[1] This is an extremely simplified explanation; if you want something more in-depth, I suggest you read a book on the subject.
[2] Great CNN article on this

Michele Bachmann is an idiot

Gawker: Michele Bachmann Convinced Bill Clinton Wants Her Dead

In completely idiotic news, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) believes that Bill Clinton wants to "take her out" because he politely defended the government as elected officials, not the gangsters that Bachmann says they are.  City Pages links to a video of Bachmann in which she states, "Because I'm using a statement like 'gangster,' I'm responsible for creating the climate of hate that could lead to another Timothy McVeigh and another Oklahoma City bombing."

Honestly, Bachmann, with all the crap you and your buddy Sarah Palin come out with, I think your out-of-context statement has a good point.  You are creating a climate of hate, and it has certainly already caused violence.  Just ask Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello, whose brother had gas lines cut at his house.  Or how about numerous other representatives who have received threatening phone calls or had offices vandalized.  According to Fox News, Tea Party activists had posted the address of Perriello's brother, thinking it was Perriello's house, asking people to drop by his house to say 'thanks' for his vote on the health care bill.

Bachmann states that she is surprised that she's 'that important to take out' as a second-term congresswoman.  Well, anyone responsible for inciting hatred and violence is important enough to 'take out'- that's just common sense.  I can understand the Tea Party movement from one aspect- they disagree with what the government is doing and they want to change it.  However, the methodology they use to achieve their ends is nothing but criminal at some points.  They use faulty rhetoric (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc.), scare tactics (carrying guns at rallies), and downright violence to gain followers and 'achieve' their aims.  And that's what makes me scared.  Blind followers and violence.

Women and the mafia

CNN: Ex-cop: Child prostitution marks new low for mafia

...Which of course just seems so ironic, as organized crime is pretty low to begin with. According to this article, the infamous Gambino crime family has now segued into child prostitution. Apparently, the mafia was running an underaged sex trafficking ring, along with its various other exploits (drugs, murder, etc.). The biggest shocker, though, was the identity of one of the accused- a woman, Suzanne Porcelli. The article makes note of what a big deal this is- the mafia is one of the last remaining 'boys only' institutions. The fact that a woman was high enough up in the ranks to be charged with running a prostitution ring seemed to be the second most important thing in the article. Despite the atrocious nature of her supposed crimes (after all, innocent until proven guilty), one thought kept coming up in my mind: Hooray for feminism?

In all rational thinking, this would not appear to be the logical thought. However, look at it this way: a woman has finally broken into the ranks of one of society's oldest and most gendered institutions (despite the fact that this organization is responsible for murders, drug trafficking, prostitution, and then some).  One particular part I found interesting was this quote from a former NYPD officer:

"...never has there been any case where a female becomes an influential person in mob operations, because it's seen as men's work, something that women and children should be protected from and kept out of."

Through twisting words and implications (and believe me, I'll be doing a lot of that in this post), Suzanne Porcelli's role can be seen as a woman breaking into the man's world, proving that a woman can do "men's work" just as well as a man can.  I suppose this can actually be backed up by the fact that she was running a sex trafficking ring (something that usually only men are heard to do) and got arrested with the rest of the crime family and associates.  You go girl, succeeding in a man's world! [1]

The downside to this, of course, is her prominently anti-female action of engaging in child prostitution and sex trafficking.  As a woman, she should understand how wrong that is.  If a woman wants to engage in prostitution of her own accord, I say go for it.  I have my own views on prostitution, the women that enter into the trade, and the emotional/psychological impact of it, but they are grown women and can make decisions on their own (even if they may be wrong).  However, a child is not mentally, emotionally, or psychologically capable of making those decisions.  Also, forcing someone into prostitution regardless of age is just wrong.  It's an assertion of control over something that doesn't belong to you- decisions regarding sex should only be made by the persons actually engaging in the activity, not by some external third party.

I guess it's good that the mafia does (or at least did, before this all broke) have some standards.  Honor among thieves and whatnot.  So can they go back to leaving the women and children out of this?  Especially the children who are female.  Thanks.

__________________________
[1] This sentence should of course be taken in a partly sarcastic light, as I certainly cannot condone any actions of anyone associated with organized crime, or really crime in general.

When does free speech become unprotected speech?

CNN: Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing

This is a pretty important topic that I feel has come up a lot in many of my classes this semester.  One of the most important mainstays in human rights dialogue (and just about the only type of human right that the US acknowledges) is that of free speech.  In the US, free speech is protected under the First Amendment (a refresher for those of you whose last American history class was too long ago):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, now that we're all caught up, what does this mean for those Tea Partiers?  It means there's a division between total freedom of speech and dangerous speech, inciting violence.  The most popular anecdote of this comes from Schenck v. United States (1919), from which we get the phrase about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.1  This was the landmark Supreme Court case that delineated limitations to freedom of speech.  My reading of this (which seems to be the consensus) is that free speech is protected only as long as it does not cause or incite to cause physical harm to another person, or as long as it does not infringe upon another person's rights, whether it is free speech or some other right (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term 'clear and present danger', which I feel my definition fits.  Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio, clarifies that speech must be directed to incite/likely to incite "imminent lawless action").2

Now, Back to the Tea Party.  When your free speech involves sending death threats to Senators/Representatives, it is no longer free speech.  It is dangerous speech, and don't whine that you have a constitutional right to it- according to the Supreme Court, you don't.  Also, for all their dissing of liberal protesters during the last administration, there wasn't nearly as much violence (read: I don't remember any) as what these Tea Partiers are bringing.  Tea Party, if you didn't have your heads shoved so far up your asses, you could learn something that is seen throughout history: protesters and those trying to reform/revolt are usually much more successful when they don't use violence.  If you stopped vandalizing offices and waving guns around (and also get a more legitimate party goddess than Sarah Palin), people might actually take you seriously.  Granted, they'll probably still think you're dead wrong, but at least you might get some respect.  And isn't that what we all want?

P.S. Oh boy, I think this is my favorite quote out of the whole article: "Those committing violent acts against congressmen no more represent the Tea Party than suicide bombers represent Islam, she said."  Carol Swain, the professor this is attributed to, also said that it was an attempt to "draw spurious links between the Tea Party and radical elements of the right."  Can someone say 'irony'?  Those idiots are always the ones who believe that Islam is all suicide bombers and radical jihad.  Once again, spurious links! 

_______________________________________
1 Source.  Yeah, I'm citing Wikipedia.  Sue me.
2 Wikipedia again.  Sorry.  Although I must comment that I am glad this case overturned Schenck v. United States, as I always thought that it was a bullshit ruling, prosecuting someone for war protesting.  But that's a rant for another time.

Nudity, sex, and art

"Where are we heading, in this no-holds-barred fight for ratings?  All possible forms of sexual activity have already been shown, in every possible exotic or cosmopolitan scenario.  Now all we are lacking is the grand climax: a love scene between animals of the same sex but different species: steamy lesbianism between a female crocodile and a painted lynx..."1Augusto Boal, Legislative Theatre, Routledge: New York, 1998, 

  

This is a section from Boal's Legislative Theatre, which I think should be a prerequisite reading for every single Peace and Global Studies/Theatre Arts major (what, just me?).  Even though Boal is talking about Brazil, I think he hit the nail right on the head with this one.  Earlier in the section, he talks about this form of the artist selling out- everything for ratings.  First a naked woman, then a naked woman with a naked man, then sex between those two naked people, then God knows what else.  I think he makes a really good point- how low have we sunk?  How much lower can we possibly sink?

By traditional definitions, I am not a prude.  I am standard, normal, following normal behavior.  By today's standards, I am Ms. Prudy McPrudenstein, queen of the prudes.  I'm seen as conservative- I don't have sex, don't believe in casual sex (seriously ladies, you're only hurting yourself there) and still believe in saving yourself, if not for marriage then at least for someone that you are deeply committed to (this means dating for longer than 2 months, to all those silly young teens that think they're "in love").  When did these beliefs become abnormal?  Why is it that when people hear the dreaded 'v' word (virgin), they automatically say, "We have got to get you laid!"  Well thanks, but I'm perfectly capable of getting laid on my own- I just don't want to.  Geez.

It does make me laugh to think of this facebook group, "When I was your age I lost a tooth, not my virginity."  I remember being in eighth grade on the bus, listening to a sixth grader talking about how she lost her virginity the previous year (a.k.a. fifth grade- elementary school) to an 18 year old.  Apart from the statutory rape there, why on earth does a fifth grader need to have sex?!?  I don't think I knew anybody that even hit puberty at that age.  Although, to the girl's (dis)credit, she was a trashy girl from a trashy part of town that dropped the 'f' bomb just about every other word.  Clearly something's wrong with the parenting here.  Either that, or they just needed to get the hell out of Warners.2

But seriously, back to art/television/selling yourself out.  There is so much sex on HBO that I'm just waiting for the day that it turns into an all-out porn channel.  There's nothing wrong with nudity in itself, or even sex for that matter.  The problem is when it turns exploitative, using sex to make a quick buck.  I'm not trying to make an analogy to prostitution (although it feels like I'm leading it there), I'm trying to talk more about exploitation.  It's almost amusing whenever an actress makes some comment whether she is or is not willing to do a nude scene in a movie.  Either way, the reaction is the same- those that aren't are villified for being prudish.  'Come on, nudity's the standard!  Get with the program!'  If she decides to do nude scenes, the reaction is automatically 'Wow, way to sell your body.'  I'm not saying there's no positive reaction to either: both do have a background of support.  But the strong reactions are just so crazy.

To me, it's personal preference, and I don't judge any actress for her decisions regarding it.  In all honesty, I blame the writers/directors, for insisting upon nudity in the script, the producers, for using nudity to sell their product (you know, as opposed to selling it based on its actual merits), and the consumers, for falling for this crap.  Why do we need to see sex everywhere?  Honestly, if it's central to the story or actually makes sense within the story's context, that's great.  Go ahead, use sex/nudity.  However, most times it just seems so superfluous and forced.  We don't need that.

So, I guess in conclusion, I'll say the following thing: people, keep your damn pants on.  On-screen, off-screen, out in public (especially).  Unless it contributes logically and positively to what you're doing, no one wants to see your goodies displayed gratuitously.  If they do, they can watch porn.

_________________________
1 Augusto Boal, Legislative Theatre Routledge: New York (1998) 185.
2 Town on the outskirts of Camillus, NY.  Generally viewed (apart from the housing developments that have recently sprung up) as the part of town where all the trashy/dirty kids from school lived.

New!

So, the premise of this is pretty simple. I read the news (usually my favorite standby, CNN). And then I write about it (or rant, or complain, whatever I feel about it). Simple? Cool.