"Pregnant women get the crazy all up inside them"

One of my good friends pointed out to me the completely ridiculousness of the media coverage surrounding the recent delivery of octuplets. When she first delivered, it was "MIRACLE! BABIES ARE CUTE!" talk, but once the media found out she already has six children, then it became an "ethical dilemma." Apparently women, once pregnant, aren't emotionally stable enough to make rational decisions for themselves.

The title of this post comes from the chat where my friend sent me the link to a CNN article. I think I'll let CNN speak for itself:

Rosenthal, on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.

You know, once the pregnancy gets all up inside someone, everything they do is crazy emotional and irrational. My friend pointed out that these ethicists don't trust the what pregnancy does to women; although if they don't trust women in the first place, it's an easy jump to blaming it on pregnancy hormones. They don't trust the emotional state of pregnancy enough to suggest that it's worth stripping a woman of the right to physical autonomy.

The article states that "when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly." Poorly by what standard? Who decides what is and is not a poor decision? I think what they mean to say is that instead of people deciding poorly, it's women deciding poorly, i.e. not what that particular person thinks. People (men) don't decide poorly - it's those hormone driven women.

This just seems like one more reason given by "the powers that be" to justify denying women bodily rights, regardless of the circumstances. If a situation like this sets the precedent that the state of pregnancy causes hormonal imbalances which lead to irrational decision making and this is worthy of denying rights to women, then we're just steps away from stripping women of the right to choose at all.

Stuff like this doesn't exist in a vacuum - taking away women's rights in one place just makes it easier to take away women's rights in another.

mzbitca wonders if the media coverage would be different if there was a man in the relationship, as opposed to a single mother. She writes, "I just can’t help but wonder, if there was a man smiling in the pictures behind Nadya if any of these accusations would even be around?"

However, I'm going to have to go with Melissa at Shakesville's approach: None of our business. Whatever issues are involved, it's not my decision and not my place to judge.

The only way I can be sure* that my own reproductive decisions won't be judged by others is to not judge others. It's a small step, but it's a start.


*I'm not 100% sure that my own decisions won't be judged, but I'm going to trust others that I won't be judged when the time comes and extend a little bit of the golden rule/Kant's catagorical imperative.