eNews Updates
When Obama Voted "No"
Dana Goldstein, RH Reality Check on March 25, 2008 - 9:48am
Published under: Access to Abortion | Women’s Rights | Election 2008 | Barack Obama | anti-choice activists | obama | clinton |
 Gobs of ink have been spilled over Barack Obama's "present" votes on choice issues during his time in the Illinois State Senate. Yes, Obama voted "present" instead of "no" on seven bills that would have limited women's reproductive rights. And yes, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has defended Obama, saying he was acting out a rehearsed strategy for preserving pro-choice seats in the legislature. But while the Democratic campaigns and women's organizations quibbled over which 100 percent pro-choice Senator, Obama or Hillary Clinton, would be the better president for reproductive health, many choice advocates missed what was percolating under the radar: The beginnings of a conservative smear campaign against Obama's very real history of support for reproductive freedom. The anti-choice anti-Obama strategy is based on Obama's clear "no" votes on the "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act," or BAIPA. Leading anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek, who testified in the Illinois state Senate on behalf of the bill, has played a key role in disseminating this anti-Obama argument in the right-wing blogosphere. Taking the bait, former presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, in a fundraising email to supporters of his political action committee last month, excoriated Obama for opposing BAIPA. And in a Feb. 26 editorial, the National Catholic Register fumed, "Obama wouldn't even protect children born alive by mistake during abortion attempts." But BAIPA isn't really about protecting infants; it is anti-abortion rights legislation crafted by the hard right. BAIPA targets the abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction, which anti-choicers have so successfully re-branded as "partial birth abortion." Dilation and extraction accounts for less than one-fifth of one percent of all American abortions, and is used most often to end wanted pregnancies in which expectant parents learn their baby will not be viable outside of the womb. During the operation, the fetus' skull is capsized inside of the woman, after which labor is induced and she delivers the fetus. It is a wrenching process, but one that allows a woman or couple to grieve and bring closure to a pregnancy by holding the intact fetus. It also decreases scarring, bleeding, and pain inside of a woman's uterus and vagina. The antis want to redefine these fetuses as "born alive" and require that doctors provide "resuscitation." As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, "This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after." Of course, the idea that otherwise viable babies are regularly "born alive" during abortions is an invention of the anti-choice movement. Ninety percent of abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy through a procedure called aspiration, in which a surgical vacuum is used to empty out a woman's uterus. The second most common abortion procedure is dilation and evacuation, which takes place in rare cases after 16 weeks of pregnancy, often when a woman's health or life is at risk. Under that procedure, the aspiration process is sometimes preceded by an injection into the abdomen that ensures fetal demise. So the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction. The fact that just a few doctors perform just a handful of these procedures in the United States annually hasn't stopped the anti-choice movement from creating an entire lexicon, imagery, and legislative strategy around the symbol of these aborted fetuses. The vocabulary has trickled up into national politics. On the campaign trail, both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee spoke about aborted fetuses "crying" in pain as doctors cast them aside into a heap. Suffice to say, such scenes are absent from the annals of medical literature. Dilation and extraction is such a rare operation that most hospitals won't perform one in a year, let alone conduct more than one in a day. Such rhetoric is not only divorced from reality, but deeply disrespectful to the many caring medical professionals who perform abortions because they are committed to serving women. It is to Barack Obama's credit that, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against BAIPA twice, and then, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, prevented it from advancing to the floor. It would be naïve to believe that a few "present" votes will make social conservatives forget Obama's pro-choice advocacy on this issue. Indeed, they plan to peel moderate and Republican support away from Obama by painting him as a heartless politician who closed his ears to the cries of "abortion survivors." Let it serve as a reminder that supporters of reproductive rights have bigger fish to fry than one another.
138 comments
I'm glad to have found this article; thus far, all the talking points on this issue, and Sen. Obama's position regarding it, have come from the evangelical right. The idea that Christ Hospital "created a room just for BAI's, because there are so many of them" is the type of illogical, biased and cruel spin Stanek and her ilk would like to see disseminated. The hospital created a room for non-viables - whether they be very early expelled preemies, or full term delivered infants whose parents have opted to "let the child go" without often painful and futile heroic interventions. Perhaps parents/families of stillborns may also find some solace in this room. Personally, I think it is a bit macabre to cuddle a corpse, but if it brings disappointed, greiving parents a sense of closure, all for the best. So, I have to ask: is this woman lying?
I usually hate to accuse people of lying, but Jill Stanek has a very poor relationship with the truth. And I have to admit, you are very concern trollish, so I'm unconvinced you're as pro-choice as you say you are.
Stanek has promoted, in my dealings with her, lies about how pro-choicers are trying to wipe out black people, lies about how birth control causes abortion, and has opposed the HPV vaccine, which would save many thousands of lives, even though she claims to be "pro-life", which appears to be another lie. One of her favorite tactics is to put up pictures of women she considers slutty, and then when she's called on it, she lies. When I called her out on some nonsense or another, she put up a picture of me wearing a red sweater, with insinuations about my willingness to wear red. When we made fun of her for actually going the red=harlot route, she pretended that it had something to do with the color of blood, which makes no sense at all. She regularly puts up pictures of women going into George Tiller's clinic to titillate her readers---these women are all getting abortions for medically necessary reasons. When called on it, her supporters claimed that Tiller performs "convenience" late term abortions, but that's also a lie. If he ever colored outside the lines once, the hyper-conservative Kansas government would have him in jail already. She is posting pictures of women who are in desperate circumstances, many women who are suffering the loss of wanted pregnancies, and using deceit to cover her ass.
She claims that abortion doctors eat fetuses.
If you're putting your trust in her, I don't trust that you're a pro-choicer on any level at all. Is someone who pretends to be on your side but isn't, and shows up in comments at a blog pretending to be "concerned" about your tactics. Say, if I wanted to concern troll someone, I'd go to Jill Stanek's blog and pretend to be an anti-choicer, but say things like, "I'm concerned that our vile hatred for women is something of a problem for us." I appreciate your insight into Ms. Stanek from your personal experience. As I stated, I have a basic distrust in the methods and reasoning capacity of the evangelical right, so I wanted to get some input from what I consider more objective sources on the case she makes. I certainly wasn't going to start a thread questioning her veracity on a right-wing blog, since they were holding her out as the basis of revealing the issue and, thus, their opinions on her credibility weren't in doubt. It's amazing that Goldstein could write this post without apparently ever reading Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Middle school children do more research on papers than Goldstein did here. It's almost doubly amazing that Amanda Marcotte could believe that every one of Tiller's late-term abortion patients are there for medically necessary reasons without a hint of evidence besides her lame reasoning that the hyper-conservatives in Kansas (you know with their Democratic governor and Democratic attorney general) would throw him in jail. She also apparently doesn't even know what a lie is. Just for clarification, a lie isn't something someone says which isn't true. A lie is something someone says which they know isn't true. If a lie is something someone says which isn't true then Goldstein's column would be an obvious lie since it is quite obvious that Illinois' BAIPA had nothing to do with partial-birth abortion. Every time I read something Marcotte writes, I'm taken aback by how stupid John Edwards and his staff must have been to hire her. Thanks to people like you who "believe" that life begins after birth, abortion will continue to be alive and well. Before you go online typing and farting off your views, or should I say opinions-which everyone is entitled to.....get the facts. First and foremost, SHAME ON YOU for calling Jill Stanek a liar. There are TONS of horrible, ILLEGAL things that go on behind closed doors @ abortion clinics-and she just happens to be one of those individuals that's brave enough to blow the whistle on these clinics. At 25 days old, the BABY has a heartbeat. Do you want to argue a scientific fact now? Knock yourself out. LIFE BEGINS @ CONCEPTION. It's such a shame that all of you Non-Christians go around preaching how it's okay to kill unborn babies and that it's the "woman's right". God says that that's a sin. By the way-aren't you glad that you're mother didn't choose to abort you?.......YAY PRO-LIFE. (Just something for you to ponder). then are women who get abortions murderers? If so,how should the law punish them for this murder? Also, an egg often gets fertilized but washes out in a woman's period. Some figures posit this happens 50 percent of the time. Could it be 30%? We can pretend for argument's sake. With fertilized eggs - or human babies as you call them - washing out so much, is it not a moral imperative to examine every woman's tampon under a microscope to see if the substance was a fertilized egg. Perhaps something can be done ot revive it, implant it in another uterus, or save it for another mother? If its dead, do we owe the substance-on-tampon a funeral worthy of a child who died? We do give funerals for babies that die of natural causes like SIDS. Why not for a menstruation? --- Another possibility: is it possible you don't think the embryo is a really a baby at conception? Maybe you really believe its a baby some time afterwards. If so when? Where is the dividing line? How would you mark it in an objectively measurable, and recordable way?
If you "believe" personhood of embryos (non-viable and unwanted) is more important or valuable than personhood of girls (frequently raped or incested by the charming male members of their families as in the court case of the 13 year-old! who was incested by her father) or women ( who then have less value in this sick society than a bloody lump of tissue that may or may not even come to term naturally) who may not be able to afford to raise a resultant child, or who were raped, or who actually think they have a right to their own bodies...... then you are a poor example of a so-called "Christian" . The argument has gone on for a very long time: Where does life begin? As the title suggests, I'm very much against abortion. However, this reply is not meant to continue on that debate. Politically speaking, most Republicans pander to pro-lifers much like Democrats pander to minorities. I look at it like this. It's been how many years since Roe v. Wade? And how many Republican presidents have done to overturn that decision? Exactly. Now I believe there to be absolutely no legal founding in Roe vs. Wade. And the premise of the case is lost amongst people of today (the fact that she falsified that she was raped, etc). Or the fact that Jane Roe is now, in fact, pro-life. But I digress. As for Ron Paul, however, you neglect that he is a certified OB/GYN and delivered thousands of babies. He is against it moralistically and scientifically. But even through all of that bias, he has remain steadfast in his ideals, that abortion is a matter of states, not the federal government and certainly not the supreme court. I am asking my ob/gyn friend as to the verity of Ms. Stanek's testimony. She may be conveniently omitting some details in her testimony. I am pretty sure that the head is crushed, and thus you canNOT resuscitate this. As stated above, these procedures are NOT done unless the life/health of the mother is in danger or the fetus would not be viable such as cri du chat syndrome, etc. With these syndromes most fetuses would not be viable that is they would die within 3-7 days of birth. So, whether something dies after an abortion or after birth+7 days, it doesn't make much difference to the thing that dies. What matters is the life/health of the woman, who often has other children or plans to have other children after and the abnormal pregnancy could risk her future fertility. A good book to read is "Protect and Defend" it goes through a case of late term abortion and parental notification. It's fiction but well-researched. Also, very interesting that the 2 posters above are men. and the anti-abortion person above is a male who won't reveal his name. Abortion should be a personal decision by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her religious leader and family as she sees fit. Replying to "Dr. Sophia" ... you said, "I am pretty sure that the head is crushed, and thus you canNOT resuscitate this." The infants who were aborted alive in Christ Hospital where Jill Staneck worked were not "crushed" in a D&E abortion procedure. These were labor-induction abortions, meaning the women are given drugs to induce labor at a point in the pregnancy when the baby is unlikly to live without medical intervention, around 20-26weeks or so. Then medical intervention is withheld in order for the baby to die, which completes the "abortion". In some cases the babies will die during the labor/delivery process and will therefore be stillborn. You also said: "As stated above, these procedures are NOT done unless the life/health of the mother is in danger or the fetus would not be viable such as cri du chat syndrome, etc. With these syndromes most fetuses would not be viable that is they would die within 3-7 days of birth." AGAIN... not true. These procedures are commonly done for babies diagnosed as possibly having Down's Sydrome, which we all know is not a fatal condition. In fact, the infant which Mrs. Staneck held for 45minutes until he died was aborted for Down's. You really ought to read Jill Staneck's full story before you assume any further. This is a transcript of her Congressional testimony which explain how these procedures are done, etc: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm (Heh. Looks like Stanek's people are here to back her up.) you said, "Have you got a less biased source for this information? I've found that "right to life" sites are generally very medically-inaccurate" Apparently you did not READ the link I posted. It does not contain any "medical information" at all..... it is simply a TRANSCRIPT (word for word copy) of the TESTIMONY of Nurse Stanek from the US Congressional Hearings on the Born-Alive-Infant Protection Act (remember .... that was the subject of this entire piece written by Dana Goldstein). I was linking you to the congressional testimony to show that the posters here like Dana and "Dr. Sophia" are wrong when they claim that BAIPA was targeting D&X procedures, that heads are crushed and can not be resuscitated, and that these abortions are performed only for the life/health of the mother or for fetal anomolies incompatable with life. All of those assertions are flat WRONG. Again, I will say slowly so that you guys can get it this time: INFANTS ARE BEING BORN ALIVE IN A PROCEDURE CALLED INDUCED-LABOR ABORTION. Not D&X / "Partial Birth" aborion. Labor is induced and the babies are born vaginally, just like a "normal" birth, except the babies are too young to survive without medical intervention. Some die during delivery and are therefore stillborn; others survive delivery and are therefore born alive. These procedures are not just done for fatal conditions, they are commonly done for Down's Syndrome, which is not fatal. I invite you to get your head out of the sand and READ the transcript from the Congressional testimony that I linked to you .... you would see that I am right about this and you would understand this issue more fully. Yes, I realize that the website who published the transcript is a right-to-life organization and therefore a pro-life source, that is because my quick google search revealed that the only sites publishing the congressional transcript are pro-life sources. Why do you suppose the pro-choice websites refuse to publish Nurse Stanek's congressional testimony???? I'm sure you could look it up somewhere else if you know where to go (I don't), but it is a matter of public record so the exact copy of the transcript should be in other places as well.
I fail to see how Stanek's testimony will prove any of that. Her testimony is not the entire case, nor is it the text of the law. In fact, it's not even credible as Stanek has frequently said many unscrupulous things, made unsupported claims and even flat-out lied to her readers in the past. I've got no reason to beleive her.
Gee, I dunno, could it be because A: We're interested in the law itself and not what Stanek had to say about it or B: She's already revealed herself to be an unreliable source of information? Or, consider option C: Stanek has already proudly distanced herself away from even the thought of having an intelligent, calm, rational discussion with the pro-choice side. I cite her own words as proof:
Source: Why should we listen to someone who has made it so abundantly clear that she will [i]never[/i] listen to us? She wouldn't even use neutral, respectful language. Instead, she opted to name-call! Why should we even try to have a conversation seeking middle ground with a person who has already stated that there is no middle ground and that she doesn't want a conversation with us? Until Stanek becomes a rational, cool-headed, honest, accurate person, I won't consider her a vaild authority on anything. Except, perhaps, spewing out spiteful right-wing propaganda. Here's the relevant part of the text of the bill:
Your assertion that ... the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction is incorrect. There are some who survived saline abortions, and some who survived chemical abortions. One of the former is Gianna Jessen, now a 28-year-old woman. One of the latter is now a two years old boy in England. According to the Daily Mail in the UK alone, 50 babies are born alive each year after abortion. I guess it's okay with Senator Obama for these babies born alive to be shoved struggling into a biohazard bag full of bleach, like the little girl born in the Miramar clinic in Hialeah. They are about the only ones which would have been affected by the law. That abortion "survivors" are largely from when abortion was criminal, don't you think? The techniques you describe are not the ones used by legal medical professionals. Many pro-life sites use unbiased-sounding and professional-sounding names to make themselves look like unbiased, professional sites and then fill them with inaccurate information. Pro-choicers on the web already know about these sites, and we know that abortion"facts".com is one of them. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#But%20isn’t%20abortion%20safer%20than%20childbirth?
Same page:
"Post-Abortion Syndrome" is not recognized mental illness. They also try to make it seem like these symptoms are common, when in fact few women report such symptoms. Sayna, thanks for the reply! It would have helped had abortionfacts.com been much clearer about the effects of abortion on future pregnancies, for example. What specifio studies have shown these findings, which it numbers, as though one might easily find the references at the page bottom. Wrong! This really is frustrating and insulting! As for Post-Abortion Syndrome, does it matter that the APA doesn't classify it as a mental disorder or illness in the DSM-IV? What matters is that some women do in fact experience the symptoms as detailed, and they do indeed relate them to their abortion experiences. It troubles me that more women DON'T report such symptoms. This suggests that a certain hardness and/or indifference to life has become the norm, owing in no small measure to the virtually unlimited abortion license that the Burger Court imposed on the country, its declaration that unwanted unborn human life is, as a matter of constitutional law, living garbage, fit for disposal by any and all means. I agree that Planned Parenthood isn't all about abortion. It is mostly about abortion and ridding the world of "human weeds," to quote Margaret Sanger, PP's foundress and eugenicist who inspired the Nazis. Is there a website that you would recommend that would give the best presentation of the pro-life position? Some pro lifers still get a lot of traction out of attacking her, to judge by the falsehoods still being spouted about the now VERY dead woman. Or the claim PP is MOSTLY about abortion. What an odd thing to say as only a fraction of all the PPs in America perform abortions. I checked the websites of a few of the PP offices and they mostly provide birth control,family planning(The PP of Golden Gate has an info sheet on NFP even), primary care (such as routine physical exams,or immunizations),gynecological exams,screenings for breast & cervical cancer,STD testing and treatment,counseling and testing for HIV/AIDS,pregnancy testing and counseling,UTI (urinary tract infections) testing,adoption referrals, prenatal care,emergency contraception,colposcopy or cryotherapy,midlife services,men's health services,et al. Depending on which clinic you check, it may or may not provide abortion services. Read Maggie Sanger and the Human Weeds Regarding Planned Parenthood, from: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07060811.html, "During the year of 2005-06, besides reporting that 264,943 children were killed by medical and surgical abortions performed by its clinics, it also reported a record income, including a record amount of taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood’s total income for the year was $902.8 million, with a $55.8 million profit." That is, PP is mostly about abortion, and raking in taxpayer subsidies. “As I write this, Planned Parenthood in California is fighting for increased Medi-Cal reimbursement rates so it can get more taxpayer money for every customer it sees. Never mind that its nine affiliates in California have received over $270 million in taxpayer money since 1998 and have total profits of over $83 million during that time.” ~ John Jalsevac It's great that PP made that much money. As a non-profit-organization, I'm sure that they put it to good use paying for much-needed supplies and labor. After all, over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is focused toward preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Not to mention the fact that they also help to provide low-cost prenatal care, which would be a really odd thing for an "abortion mill" to do.
< br/> Sayna, have YOU ever had an abortion? Did YOU feel just great about it? Do you suppose that I don't feel the anguish of my SISTERS who have had abortions, who told me how bitterly they regretted being forced into making a "choice" that was nowhere close to being free? Who the hell are you, anyway, to tell me what I think, and that I hate women? Has anyone ever called you a sexist sow? Well, allow me to do just that. I checked out your wretched webpage. Try again. ...is that force goes both ways. And it's not right in either direction. without intending it, you make my point. I am well aware that women do in fact freely choose to have abortions, sometimes repeatedly, and may feel nothing but relief about their choices to terminate their pregnancies, no matter how advanced they may be. THIS is what troubles me, that the self-directed lethal violence that abortion IS does not lead to more negative outcomes than are reported as such. I expect that many women self medicate or develop other coping strategies which may or may not be successful. This is not to say that I think women are incapable of making thoughtful, even prayerful decisions to terminate pregancies that they cannot continue for whatever reason, but that the question remains for all who would abort: what inherent value does the unborn life possess? Why is its life always expendable, even if it is possible to save both mother and child? This is only slightly off topic, but Geert Wilders short anti-Islam movie Fitna begins with a jet flying into the WTC. Does the brutality of it still shock the senses? Haven't we all been somewhat desensitized to the violence that saturates this culture, in ALL of its forms? The real question is why so many willing to protect life over a persons body only when it’s a fetus and only when it’s a woman’s body that is used… an innocent existing child should not be less protected or more expendable when its right to life is at stake and conflicts with a parents right to their own body. "The real question is why so many willing to protect life over a persons body only when it’s a fetus" Janine, in the cases at issue in Dana's article, it's not about the fetus vs. the mother's body, since there is already complete separation between the two. So your reply misses the point. "Janine, in the cases at issue in Dana's article, it's not about the fetus vs. the mother's body, since there is already complete separation between the two. So your reply misses the point."
My reply is under Bufords response to Sayna - which does reference the instance of abortion/termination of pregnancy itself specifically and multiple times. I didn't reply to Dana's article directly with this comment - if I had, it wouldn't be embedded under Buford/Sayna's ongoing discussion as it correctly appears - as you can see. "My reply is under Bufords response to Sayna - which does reference the instance of abortion/termination of pregnancy itself specifically and multiple times. I didn't reply to Dana's article directly with this comment - if I had, it wouldn't be embedded under Buford/Sayna's ongoing discussion as it correctly appears - as you can see." Janine, the fact that you are defending Sayna in this comment section under Dana's article evidences that you would defend Obama's vote concerning the type of procedure at issue in the article, in which delivery has already occurred. If I am incorrect about your position on that, please correct me. Otherwise, my previous reply stands. If you actually take the time to read this commenting thread - the majority of it that starts with "Answer" talks about abortion, how women feel about abortion - back and forth, etc. Since when can someone not comment about a comment?...for your information - that's what the reply function IS for on comments - the one that you are using that embeds subsequent replies.
Yes, your missing my point - I commented in reply to an abortion comment. If you have a problem with my post being about abortion and not specifically addressing Dana's arguments, why do you only start with a middle comment and choose to miss the point with other comments in the same thread that discuss abortion - and also don't mention Obama's vote about where "delivery has already occurred"? Very selective reading, Anonymous. "If you have a problem with my post being about abortion and not specifically addressing Dana's arguments, why do you only start with a middle comment and choose to miss the point with other comments in the same thread that discuss abortion - and also don't mention Obama's vote about where "delivery has already occurred"?" That overall context of this article far overshadows the partiular thread you were pursuing. I didn't miss 'the point' - you simply have a different one - you only have a problem when pro-choicers discuss abortion but not pro-lifers. Your assumptions about how I feel about anything else that I did not comment or why I didn't are just that - simply your assumptions. Assume away, it doesn't mean anything. "I didn't miss 'the point' - you simply have a different one - you only have a problem when pro-choicers discuss abortion but not pro-lifers." I stand by "my" points as made in my comments and threads. Thats your decision to not comment at all in the type of an article in your example...that doesn't mean this criteria applies one way or another to all others. Have fun heaping these assumptions on top of the other assumptions you've already made. I believe were on the 4th or 5th time you've missed my points. "Thats your decision to not comment at all in the type of an article in your example...that doesn't mean this criteria applies one way or another to all others. Have fun heaping these assumptions on top of the other assumptions you've already made." In your mind it might be "hardly sufficient" - but believe me - I won't loose any sleep over your opinion. Gotta love it, '...intellectual deficiency' - resorting to insulting remarks reflects more on the person making them. "In your mind it might be "hardly sufficient" - but believe me - I won't loose any sleep over your opinion. Gotta love it, '...intellectual deficiency' - resorting to insulting remarks reflects more on the person making them." That's all I meant. Your opinion is not factual observation....and yet underhandedly try the same again in the below statement. "Wouldn't you agree that it would be deficient for a pro-lifer to post in the comments section of an article defending an abortion clinic bomber, and not expect that to reflect on them? I myself would consider any pro-lifer who didn't realize that to be deficient intellectually." ---- I've already commented this opinion of yours in a prior post - re-read if you've forgotten.
Where's your reference to Obama's vote here!??! You've violated your own rules! Didn't you know you should only be commenting on Dana's original post and not solely in response to other comments in the thread? Regarding the intellectual deficiency of a pro-lifer who posted a simple defense of the pro-life position in the comments section of an article defending an abortion clinic bomber, you wrote: Where's your reference to Obama's vote here!??! You've violated your own rules! Didn't you know you should only be commenting on Dana's original post and not solely in response to other comments in the thread?
I must first state that what you "expect" that many women do after an abortion is not relevant. Actual studies have been done and have consistantly proven that if a woman suffers from depression prior to becoming pregnant chances are she will suffer from depression afterward regardless of whether she terminates or gestates her pregnancy. These same studies have consistantly proven that there is no link between feelings that follow an abortion and a psychological condition in need of medical care. The fact that women are relieved after they've ended their pregnancies troubles you? I find that statement really odd. Perhaps it bothers you that these women do not put the same value on their embryo/fetus as you do. Why on earth should a woman have any interest in what a third party (with no stake in the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy) thinks or feels about her embryo/fetus?
The value of a zygote/embryo/fetus is whatever the woman in who's uterus it resides gives to it.
Okay... first I'll state (for the record) that there is no "child" (there is a zygote/embryo/fetus depending on the length of pregnancy) and, unless the pregnant woman has previously given birth, there is no "mother" (I was an "expectant mother" prior to the birth of my first child). I only state those facts because it appears as if you're using emotional words in an attempt to make your point. Also... how is it possible to "save" the z/e/f once it is outside of the womans uterus? I mean, if a woman doesn't wish to remain pregnant because she doesn't want to gestate and give birth to a child your question would be irrelevant. |
1From Inside Prisons, Mothers Long for Their ChildrenBy Christy Hall on May 9, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments  The Politics of Motherhood, the Capacity for ChoiceBy Carolina Austria on May 9, 2008 - 8:35am | 1 comment  2New Moms in Africa Fight Postpartum DepressionBy Masimba Biriwasha on May 9, 2008 - 8:20am | 0 comments  Nicaragua: Working for Safety Despite Abortion BanBy Karim Velasco on May 8, 2008 - 8:20am | 0 comments  3The Motherhood Melee: An Interview with Amy RichardsBy Laura Barcella on May 7, 2008 - 8:30am | 2 comments  4When India's Resources Mobilize to Save a Girl ChildBy Deepali Gaur Singh on May 7, 2008 - 8:40am | 0 comments  5Sex Work, Trafficking: Understanding the DifferenceBy Melissa Ditmore on May 6, 2008 - 6:35am | 13 comments  Today
Discussions
All Time
RH Reality Check Blogroll |
