Futurism logo

No one can judge a woman who decides to have an abortion

by twddn 2 months ago in humanity
Report Story

A verdict that should not have happened

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States, leaving abortion legislation entirely in the hands of the states, meaning that a woman's right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution and that more than half of U.S. states will restrict or ban abortion rights. In addition to the hidden political stance and religious belief in this game, women's reproductive rights will be partially deprived, has become a foregone conclusion. Today is a reread of farage's "Trial" chapter in letters to an Unborn Child. After the accident lost her fetus, unmarried mother in a field trial in fantasy, "court", the judge (a male doctor), agents (a female doctor), the father of the child, the unmarried mother's boss, unmarried mother's parents speak in turn, standing on the position of the respective published on her guilt or innocence. At the end of the trial, my mother said, "We have no right to judge, and neither do you. You have no right to accuse her or defend her..." And in the real world we live in, a verdict has been made that should not have happened.

Maybe I'm dreaming, maybe I'm just delirious... Anyway, it happened. I remember it. It was a spotless white room with seven benches and a cage. I was in a cage, they were sitting on a bench, out of reach. On the centre bench sat the man who had attended to me before my journey. On his left and right were my boss and a female doctor. Next to my boss is my friend and then your father. On the side of the female doctor sat my parents. There's no one else. The room was empty. There was nothing on the walls or on the floor.

I knew at once that there was going to be a trial, and the defendant was me, and they were the jury. I don't feel panicked, I don't feel depressed. I looked at them one by one with resignation. Your father was sobbing quietly and covering his face with his hands, just as he had done the day he came to see me. My parents hung their heads, as if weighed down by exhaustion or grief. My friend looked very sad, but the other three had unreadable expressions. The man stood up and began to read from a piece of paper. 'The defendant has appeared in court. The jury will try her for the premeditated murder of the child which resulted in his death. This crime is due to her indifference, selfishness and lack of basic respect for her child's right to life." Then he laid down the paper and announced the proceedings of the trial. Each person speaks as a witness and juror, and then declares his or her vote: guilty or not guilty. The verdict will be by majority vote, and if found guilty, the sentence will be set. And now the trial begins. He spoke first. His words came like a cold wind:

"A child, not a bad tooth. You can't just pull it out and throw it in the trash with the dirty cotton yarn. A child is a person, and a person's life is a continuum from the moment of conception to the moment of death. Some of you may take issue with the idea of a continuum. You might say, at conception, you are not a man. There was just a proliferating cell, it didn't represent life. Or that it represents no more than a tree that cuts innocently, or a worm that crusps innocently. As a scientist, I'm quick to point out that trees don't become people, and neither do bugs. All the elements of a man, from his body to his personality, all the elements of a man, from his blood to his mind, are gathered in this cell. They represent much more than a plan or a promise. If we looked at them with a microscope so fine that we would kneel and believe in God. So, perhaps absurdly, I think the word 'murder' is justified. I would add that if humanity depended on size, and murder on number, we should conclude that the murder of a man who weighs two hundred pounds is more serious than the murder of a man who weighs a hundred. I begged my colleague, who sat on my right, not to look at me as if he were amused. I have my reservations about her views; But I cannot but comment on the manner in which she was administered: there ought to be two women in that cage."

He stared at the woman doctor with contempt and severity. She was smoking, calmly meeting his eyes, which comforted me and gave me a little warmth. But then the cold voice came again:

"But we are not here to judge the death of a cell. We're trying the death of a fetus that's been alive for at least three months. Who and what caused its demise? Is it the unknown nature? Someone who got away with murder? Or the woman in the cage? I suspected from the beginning that she was not without reason. I'm very experienced at identifying infanticide offenders, even if she puts on a mask and says she wants the baby. She deceived first herself with the lie, and then others. I have a deep impression of her, such as her heart of stone. When I congratulated her on her positive test that day, she said coldly that she had known. And when I asked her to stay in bed after she developed abdominal pain caused by contractions, I'll never forget her hostile reaction! She replied that she could not afford such a luxury and that she could not rest more than two weeks. I must insist on my demand, even angry, I begged her to take my advice. This led me to believe that she had no intention of fulfilling her responsibilities as a mother, that she was not a responsible mother at all. Also, she kept calling, saying she was fine, there was no reason to tie her to the bed, she had a job and had to get up and go to work. The next morning I saw her, she looked unhappy. During that day's examination, my suspicions grew; I discovered that this woman was planning a crime. There was no anatomical or physiological explanation for her painful pregnancy. This kind of abdominal pain can only be psychological, that is, intentional. I questioned her. She admitted bluntly that she had a lot of anxiety. She also hinted at some sadness, which I didn't have to take the trouble to reveal, because her sadness was clearly rooted in pregnancy. Finally, I asked her if she really wanted the baby, and I told her that sometimes thoughts alone can kill, and that she had better turn her anxiety into peace. She flew into a rage and said it was no more possible to change the color of your eyes than it was to do so. She came back a few days later. She went back to her normal life, and it got worse. I admitted her to the hospital for a week of quiet, medicated mental control." "Now, ladies and gentlemen, we come to the question of crime. But before I do, let me say this: Suppose one of you is seriously ill and in need of a special medicine, and it is at your fingertips. Just lift a finger, someone will hand it to you, and you will be saved. What would you think of the man who, instead of giving you the medicine, poured it out and replaced it with a bottle of poison? Deranged? Malevolent? Left to die? Oh no, that's too mild. Me, I call it a murderer! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no doubt that the boy is ill, and the medicine at his disposal is rest. Not only did the woman refuse to use it, but she gave herself the poison of a long journey that even a perfectly healthy pregnancy would have been unable to withstand. Flying, driving, bumping up and down rough roads, and just think, she was all alone. I begged her. I explained that her baby was no longer just a cell proliferator, but a living fetus. I warned her it would kill her. She coldly refused to accept my advice. She signed that she would accept all responsibility. She was gone. She killed it. Of course, if we were in a written law court, I probably wouldn't find her guilty. She had no probes, no drugs, no surgery. According to the letter of the law, the woman will be immune from prosecution because no such crime has been committed. But we are a jury of life, ladies and gentlemen, and I tell you in the name of life that her actions were far worse than probes, drugs, or abortions. Because she is hypocritical, cowardly, and takes no legal risks."

"I would be happy to find extenuating circumstances and pardon her appropriately. But I have found no extenuating circumstances, and I know of no means of absolution. Was she too poor to raise a child? Not at all. She admitted it herself. Is it possible, then, that by bearing an illegitimate child, society would persecute her and she would have to defend her reputation? Also is not. Instead of being ostracized, she was treated as a heroine by a cultural group to which she belonged; Besides, in any case, she had never been bound by social norms. She had abandoned God, her country, her family, her marriage, and all the principles by which human beings live together in society. Her crime cannot be forgiven, for it was committed in the name of a certain freedom: a personal, selfish freedom with no regard for others and their rights. I used the word 'rights'. I use it to prevent euthanasia arguments from being raised, and to block your objections, as if by letting the child die she was exercising her right: to relieve society of the burden of supporting a sick, defective person. We cannot take for granted who is defective and who is not. Homer was blind, Leopardi a hunchback. If the Spartans had thrown them off the rocks, if their mothers had knocked them off, the human race would be more miserable today. I refuse to subscribe to the theory that an Olympic champion is worth more than a lame poet. As for the sacrifices made to protect the embryo of an Olympic champion or a crippled poet, let me remind you that, whether we like it or not, the human race has thrived on such sacrifices. My verdict is guilty!"

His last roar nearly knocked me out. I closed my eyes, so I didn't see the woman doctor get up to speak. When I looked up, she was already speaking:

"My colleague forgets to add that for every Homer born, there is also a Hitler, that every conception is a possible challenge of excellence and vice. I didn't know whether the child would be a Joan of Arc or Hitler: when it died, it was still an unknown possibility. Yet I do know that this woman is a real human being who should never be destroyed. Given a choice between unknown possibility and actual existence, I choose the latter. My colleague seems to have an obsession with life. But his cult was for the unborn. He did not dedicate it to anyone who was already alive. The cult of life is, in fact, a rhetorical polemic. Even his assertion that a child is not a rotten tooth was but a fine line. I'm sure my colleagues have fought, shot, killed. But then he forgot that a man of twenty is neither a child nor a rotten tooth. I don't know of a worse form of infanticide than war. War is mass infanticide postponed for 20 years. He accepted it in the name of so many fanaticisms, but never applied his theory of a continuum to it. Even as a scientist, I'm not impressed by his idea of a continuum. Otherwise, I will mourn every time an egg dies unfertilized, every time 200 million sperm fail to reach and Pierce its membrane. To make matters worse, even if the egg fertilization, considering that there is only one sperm pierced serosa and let one hundred and ninety-nine million nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine sperm defeat and death, I also get a moment of silence to mourn: they are also the creation of god, they are living, and contains will constitute a person all the elements. Have my colleagues never looked at them under a microscope? Had he never seen them wagging their tails and swimming about like tadpoles? Had he never seen them rush and fight doggedly towards the transparent ring, banging their heads against each other, knowing that failure would mean death? What a terrible sight it was! My colleague turned a blind eye to this, it seems to their own same-sex quite unkind. I don't mean to go on with this simple sarcasm, but if he values life so much, how could he stand by and watch billions upon billions of sperm die? Is this a crime or a crime? Obviously, it's a crime. He should have stood in that cage, too. If he does not step forward at once, he will show that he has lied to us all, and that his pious views have been destroyed, for he argues that the point is not to let more people be born, but to minimize the misery of those who already exist."

"Nevertheless, I was prepared to ignore the insinuations of my colleagues that I was an accomplice. At best he could accuse me of error of judgment; But even a jury of life could not hold me guilty of poor judgment. Besides, that's a whole other matter. It was just a judgment call, and I don't regret it at all. Pregnancy is not nature's punishment for a moment of lust. It is a miracle, just as green trees and fish are a gift of nature. If it comes unnaturally, a woman cannot be asked to lie flat on her back in bed, paralyzed, for months. In other words, she could not be asked to give up her vitality, individuality and freedom. Have you ever asked for that from men who enjoy that kind of excitement more? Clearly, my colleagues do not believe that women, like men, have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. He clearly believes that men are bees flinging from flower to flower, and women are mere reproductive tools for procreation. Many in our profession take the view that gynecologists love fat, docile mares who have no idea what freedom is. But we're not here to judge doctors. We're talking about a woman who's been accused of premeditated murder, and she did it with an idea, not an instrument. I have concrete evidence to reject the charge. The day I told her the results were normal, I saw her breathe a sigh of relief. And when the fetus was found dead, I saw her devastated. I'm talking about fetuses, not children: science requires me to distinguish between the two. We know that a fetus can only be called a child if it survives its separation from the mother, and that moment doesn't occur until the ninth month. Even in special cases, in the seventh month. Even if we admit it's no longer a fetus, it's a child, the charges still don't stand. It was not the death of her child that this woman longed for, my dear fellow, but her own life. Unfortunately, there are circumstances in which our life is the death of another, and his life is our death. We shoot back at those who shoot at us, and the law calls that self-defense. If the woman had unconsciously wished her child to die, she would have acted in self-defense. Therefore, she is not guilty."

Then your father stood up, and he wasn't crying anymore. But as he opened his mouth to speak, his jaw trembled and tears gushed again. So he put his face in his hands again and sank down on the seat. "Will you not speak?" "The male doctor asked petulantly. Your father shook his head slightly as if to silence himself. "But you can't abstain from voting! The male doctor insisted. Your father cried harder than ever. 'Judge, please! Your father blew his nose and said nothing. "Guilty or not guilty? Your father sighed and muttered, "Guilty."

Then a terrible thing happened: my friend turned and spat in his face. "Coward!" she cried, as he sat pale and wiping his face. Hypocritical coward! Didn't you just call her to get rid of it? You've been hiding like a deserter for two months! Only if I beg you will you go and see her. That's what you do, isn't it? You were afraid and left us; And when you come back, you'll only be a father. You have done nothing but this titular father! Have you survived that ridiculous paunch? Did you go through the pain of childbirth, the torture of parenting? Fatherhood is like a well-cooked bowl of soup for you on the table, like a pressed shirt for your bed. When you are married, you can do nothing but give your child a surname; If you manage to get away with it, you can skip even that. Women take all the responsibility, all the pain, all the indignities. If she ever slept with you, you call her a bitch. There is no male equivalent in the dictionary, and inventing a new one would be considered a misnomer. For thousands of years, you have imposed your words, your commandments, your oppression on us. For thousands of years, you have played with our bodies and given us nothing. For thousands of years, you have forced us to remain silent, and you have imposed upon us the drudgery of our mothers. You want every woman to be a mother. You demand that every woman treat you like a mother, even if she is your daughter. You say we don't have your muscles, yet you squeeze our labor and even make us shine your shoes. You say we don't have your brains, yet you exploit our brains and even make us manage the salaries you take home. You are children who will never grow up. Even in old age, you will still be children. Your fragile, lazy nature teaches you to always need to be fed, washed, waited on, reminded, comforted and protected. I despise you. And I despise myself for not leaving you, for not calling out to you more often: We are tired of being your mothers! We are tired of the word mother! You are only serving your interests and selfishness by sanctifying the name."

"I should spit in your face, doctor! You only see a uterus and two ovaries in a woman, you never see her brain. You see a pregnant woman and think, 'She had a good time and then she came to me. Have you never had a good time, doctor Have you never forgotten the cult of life? You have defended it so brilliantly at the cellular level that one might infer that you are jealous of what your peers call the miracle of motherhood. But no, I doubt it. That miracle would be a sacrifice for you. As a man, you can't face it. We're not here to put one woman on trial, doctor, we're here to put all women on trial, so I have the right to fight back. I want you to remember this, Doctor: motherhood is not a moral obligation, it's not even a biological fact, it's a conscious choice. This woman made a conscious choice. She did not intend to kill anyone. It was you who tried to kill her, by denying her access to her own intelligence, doctor. So, it should be you standing in a cage, not for refusing to save hundreds of millions of unconscious sperm, but for conspiring to kill women. All in all, the conclusion is clear that the accused is innocent."

Then my boss stood up with a look of fake embarrassment. 2: He didn't know what to say because he felt like an outsider on this jury. All the others had a professional or emotional connection to the defendant because of the child, but he was only her employer. So he can only be relieved that the facts have come to light. In spite of all his efforts to be magnanimous, he still regarded pregnancy as some kind of hindrance. Perhaps worse, it cost him a fortune. It was a catastrophe. Think of the sum paid to her, which, by a most absurd and unpopular law, was to be paid even during the months when she was unable to work. That kid's smart. Smarter than this mom. What's more, its death vindicated the company's reputation. What would the public think if they saw an unmarried employee holding a child? Without shame, he admitted that if the woman accepted, he would fund her abortion of the unsuitable fetus. But he was not only a businessman, but also a man. And the first two jurors, by which he meant, of course, the men, gave him a new thought. The logic and morality of the doctor and the grief of the father moved him. In spite of himself he sided with the reason of the former and the grief of the latter. A child should belong equally to his mother and father: when a crime is committed, it is a double crime, for in addition to taking the life of a child, it destroys the life of a grown man. Of course, it is necessary to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. But is there any doubt about that? With the doctor's testimony, what more important evidence is needed? The doctor puts too much emphasis on the general selfishness. He, the woman's employer, was able to reveal the motives and reasons for which there was good evidence: the accused was afraid that the good appointment might be given to a rival colleague, so she jumped out of bed and set out, without any regard for her life in her bosom, and alone. Let her partner come and spit, let her come and insult him. He found the accused guilty.

My eyes found my parents. I silently begged them, they were my last hope of rescue. They replied with despondent expressions, looking exhausted and much older than when the trial began. They hung their heads, as if their necks could no longer support their weight. Their bodies shivered as if the cold were piercing their bones. Their whole body radiates with sorrow, separated from others, united in the same despair. They held each other's hands and supported each other. They held hands and demanded to be allowed to sit and speak. After the request was granted, I saw them discussing something. I guess we're talking about who goes first. Finally, my father spoke first. "I suffered a double grief," he said. First from the knowledge of the child, then from the knowledge that it no longer exists. I hope there won't be a third grief: seeing my daughter convicted. I don't know how any of this happened. None of you can know, for no one can enter another's mind. But this is my daughter, and to a father his child is innocent, forever! ' Then my mother spoke. "She's my little girl and always will be my little girl," she said. My little girl wouldn't do anything wrong. When she wrote to me saying she wanted to have a baby, I wrote back and said, 'If you've decided, that means you're right. 'If she had written to say she didnt want children, I would have answered her in the same way. We have no right to judge, and neither do you. You have no right to accuse her or defend her, for none of you has ever entered her head or heart. All of your testimony makes no sense. There's only one witness here who can explain what happened. This witness, the boy, but he could not..."


About the author


Reader insights

Nice work

Very well written. Keep up the good work!

Top insights

  1. Compelling and original writing

    Creative use of language & vocab

  2. Excellent storytelling

    Original narrative & well developed characters

  3. Eye opening

    Niche topic & fresh perspectives

  1. Heartfelt and relatable

    The story invoked strong personal emotions

  2. On-point and relevant

    Writing reflected the title & theme

Add your insights

Comments (1)

Sign in to comment
  • Emily Dickerson2 months ago

    This is wildly complex. A very interesting piece! The arguments of the first man who spoke were so clear and reasonable. The vitriol spewing from the friend's mouth was so realistic and common. A fascinating read. Good job!

Find us on social media

Miscellaneous links

  • Explore
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Support

© 2022 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.