Keep Abortion Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not the Point.
by Aimée Thorne-Thomsen, Pro-Choice Public Education Project
April 26, 2010 - 12:34pm (Print)
A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. It’s supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?
Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.
On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?
What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.
Brilliant. Very well explained. Bravo!
And let your boss read your post, Joan? Bet that was good for a point in favor of an upcoming raise, huh?
I've always felt like the abortion debate tends to divide "good" (rape, incest, health) and "bad" (financial, emotional) abortions. We have a tendency to latch onto cases like the tragic one in Mexico as an example of why safe, legal abortion is necessary. But this leaves out all the other abortions, essentially invalidating the reasoning that might include relationships, education, and financial stability. We need to acknowledge that abortions happen for a variety of reasons, all of which are valid because they are affecting the decision of the woman who is pregnant.
I think you also make a good point that leveling the playing field would result in a paradigm shift. If we increase access to comprehensive sex ed, contraceptives, and abortion, then arguably the number of abortions will actually decrease. If the decrease does not happen when those variables are controlled, however, we still do not have any grounds to judge women who choose abortion. If I have access to affordable contraception and education on how to use it, and if I'm financially stable, I might still become pregnant and choose abortion. And no one would have the right to tell me that I should remain pregnant and give birth.
"...And no one would have the right to tell me I should remain pregnant & give birth."
(The banner of the anti lifers)
Sure, technically that's true. You can "choose" to discount the life of your unborn child, so long as you refuse to call it a human being, before he/she is born. Makes ignoring the truth a lot easier that way, huh?
Abortion: a BAD choice
Actually, it isn't necessary to think of an embryo as "inhuman" or "less human" to have an abortion and be sure of your decision. We often had self-professed pro-lifers who thought abortion was murder come to our clinic for our services. At their two-week check-ups, they might have felt like they will need to face God for their sin, but they were by-and-large still certain that they made the right decision. I always spent extra time with those kinds of patients, because their experiences broke down the assumptions people make about women who have abortions (I also wanted to make sure they weren't being coerced).
And these were not the kind of pro-life patients mentioned in "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion." By and large, these women were very respectful of other patients and the staff... they just happened to be pro-life women who were pregnant and did not want to (or could not for whatever reason) carry to term. Perhaps some of them changed their minds and became pro-choice afterwards. Perhaps some of them regretted their decisions and became one of those protesters you see with the sign that says "I regret my abortion." I have strong doubts about either of those. More likely, the think abortion is painful, wrong, but sometimes needed... like the majority of moderate voters in the country.
Forcing your beliefs into other people's decisions about when and if they have children: a BAD choice.
...and making a new, unborn human being sacrifced at the Altar of Me, My Self, & My Body is the answer for your lifestyle.
Making a baby die for Mom: a BAD choice
...and making a new, unborn human being sacrifced at the Altar of Me, My Self, & My Body is the answer for your lifestyle.
Ah yes, the lifestyle where one intentionally conceives and has an abortion so that they can experience the thrill of human sacrifice.
Are the walls padded, where you're posting from?
Making a baby die for Mom: a BAD choice
It's a good thing that no one is making babies die for their mothers.
PC Ferret! Any way you try to gloss it over, its a decision to kill what's inside the mother's uterus- but oh yeah, Mom has that "right" if the timing is inconvenient or whatever other rationale fits. Keep forgeting the far left's GOT no conscience. Silly me!
Thanks for a good essay. I never say "Safe, legal and rare"; my goal is "Safe, legal and medical standards, not laws". I was on a politics mailing list where an "adoption agreements should be enforced" man was chiding the "abortion on demand" pro-choicers were hypocrits because "people who say 'safe, legal and rare' don't mean it." I was able to say "I never said that" and when he was complaining "You don't want any restrictions!" I was able to reply "I don't know of any 'problem' with late abortion that wouldn't be better handled by medical standards instead of laws." I was able to stop his lecturing because I never granted him the implicit right to interfer with someone else's private decision by using the apologetic word "rare". I find "rare" a dangerous word because it just invites judgemental "you're not being honest", gender-role stereotypes, and "you're immoral" responses.
yes
I hadn't thought carefully about this before, and I am glad that I caught your cross-posting at Daily Kos. Thank you for the work you put into writing this piece.
I am new to this site, so I am not sure how things work here. But I would like to let you know that there were many, comments at dKos. I hope in the future that you, as the author, would perhaps stay with the diary for awhile in order to respond to commenters, answer questions, and defend your points. I know that sometimes there are unpleasant users, but it is easy to ignore them and only respond to those with serious questions and points.
Also, if you stay after cross-posting at dKos, you are more likely to get more "recommends" which then helps your diary to be seen by more users.
I say all of this not to complain or insult you in any way, but because I think you really have important ideas to share, and I would like to see you become more a part of the dKos community. Thanks for considering.
But I would argue that women are more likely to suffer complications from abortion than they are to suffer complications from contraception. So, if more women are using reliable contraception instead of abortion they will face fewer health risks.
Abortions are most definitely complicated. They are expensive and can be painful, physically and emotionally. Any time a pregnancy ends, by birth or spontaneous or induced abortion, the female's body experiences great hormonal changes that can result in depression. Of course, it would be disingenious to claim that this depression is any more reason to avoid abortion than post-partum depression is a reason to avoid giving birth--but the point is that you are right in that abortion should be avoided for the woman's sake by using reliable contraception.
Your ending point, Elyzabeth!
Nobody will debate that not having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place is preferable to having an abortion for the sake of the woman's finances and stress level. Contraception requires less "medical involvement" than inducing an abortion. By that logic and those narrow criteria, contraception is "better" than abortion.
However, if that is the logic you are employing, it would be dishonest to ignore that an induced abortion requires much less "medical involvement" and has a much, much lower risk of complication than giving birth. Abortion > birth?
But duck your head for saying that in this blog, cuz if you don't applaud liberal appreciation for abortion as a respectable & spotlit "choice" that automatically makes you a psychotic right wing lunatic that has no business exposing the seedy, macabre side of the abortion industry! Like most evils of this world, it wants to disguise itself as the disengenuous "benefit" to those who find themselves needing to dispose of a little 'medical waste' without any legal ramifications! Be concerned bout ethics on RH? As if!!
Oh don't worry they've long since labeled me a phychotic right wing lunatic. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line is suspect but they haven't kicked me off yet. I actually think our numbers are growing here. rh reality check meets reality!
So now you people are saying that we have abortions because we aren't using birth control. Quite aside from the fact that this argument is pure unadulterated BS, if you all really believe it, WHY ARE YOU DOING YOUR DAMNDEST TO REDUCE ACCESS TO RELIABLE, SAFE BIRTH CONTROL?????
WHY ARE YOU DOING YOUR DAMNDEST TO REDUCE ACCESS TO RELIABLE, SAFE BIRTH CONTROL?????
Yeah, no kidding. You know how they're always going on and on about these mythical pro-aborts?
If you'd go back & read my & cmarie's comments, we APLAUDE birth control information being available! And may I add, abstainence by all rights, should be one of those options!
It goes all the way back to when Roe V. Wade went into effect that anti-abortionists would condemn women for "not using birth control" while at the same time try to make it harder to obtain and if we _did_ use it we were called "whores."
Don't be disingenuous; it just makes you look worse.
Sounds like a whole lotta "pro life profiling" going on, by what you are saying! Trying to lump me in as somehow like the perceived "everybody" who defends the unborn? I happen to see nothing wrong with Sex Ed., but NOT if its a thinly veiled way to promote abortion services! To be fair, it should advocate abstainence, since there's no more effective way to prevent STD's & unwanted pregnancy! Then there won't be any NEED to advertise Planned Parenthood in High Schools, if kids understand its to their benefit to WAIT til they're ready to be parents! Wow, wutta concept.
Abortion: a BAD choice
we APLAUDE birth control information being available! And may I add, abstainence by all rights, should be one of those options!
Great! So you do support comprehensive sexuality education, which includes the teaching of abstinence as an option! YAAAAAAAAY!!!!
So really, your beef is with the "pro-lifers" who are against contraception (e.g. voting against insurance covering it, against subsidies so that poor women can buy it, and so on). And I'm sure you'll go after them and their diabolical opposition to this means of preventing the need for abortion on Lifesite and elsewhere with the same energy you've shown on this site!
And may I add, abstainence by all rights, should be one of those options!
Absolutely, because some teens who have been living in caves somewhere may not understand that having sex leads to pregnancy, or that in a free country nobody is REQUIRED to have sex.
The first two minutes of all sex education courses could clear that right up by stating "If you don't have sex you won't get pregnant or contract STDs, and you don't want to have sex, you don't have to." Then they can spend the next 10 hours telling the kids something they DON'T know.
You sneer at Abstainence in Sex Ed, crowepps.
"Sex ed classes that focus on abstainence can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported in landmark study that could have major implications for U.S.effort to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies & STD's."
See: Abstainence Only Programs May Work- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dvn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR201002...
I don't sneer at abstinence at all - my sneerer isn't working well today. Instead I laugh at the idea that it takes more than 2 minutes to EXPLAIN abstinence.
I also laugh at the idea that teenagers in our culture don't know what sex is until someone explains it to them, and that once they get that explanation, they run right out and try it.
Considering the dismal retention rate teenagers seem to have for all the OTHER things they learn in school - science, history, literature, etc. - and the dismal effectiveness of programs to discourage bullying, drinking, alcohol use, drug use, etc., perhaps the best way of getting teenagers to abstain would be to have the school ENCOURAGE them to have sex.
Frankly, speaking as a geezer, IMO the reason teenagers are so into sex is that our culture, and our schools, encourage them to look 'sexy', allow them to wander around unsupervised at absurdly young ages, and overlook the fact that they start dating in elementary school.
Back in the dark ages when I was young, if any couple in my junior high had declared them were in an 'exclusive relationship', all the adults would have had a major hissy. Dating was for high school, and for those 16 and older only, and 'exclusive relationships' like 'going steady' were for seniors.
Regular use of certain cosmetics is rising sharply among tween girls, according to a new report from the NPD Group, a consumer research company. From 2007 to 2009, the percentage of girls ages 8 to 12 who regularly use mascara and eyeliner nearly doubled — to 18 percent from 10 percent for mascara, and to 15 percent from 9 percent for eyeliner. The percentage of them using lipstick also rose, to 15 percent from 10 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/fashion/29tween.html?ref=fashion
I laugh at the idea that it takes more than 2 minutes to EXPLAIN abstinence.
I suspect that 'abstinence' has a larger and more complicated meaning meaning in the right wing Christian subculture. Something like: 'we want to be paid absurd amounts of public money to proselytize a fundamentalist Christian perspective to other people's children and pretend that this is sex education. If anyone objects throw a hissy fit and pretend that they want to rape your children.'
As far as I can see from this site:
"Abstain from any activity that sexually arouses you, even at the lightest activity (i.e., light kiss, holding hands, back rubs, etc.).
http://www.premaritalsex.info/
Christian 'abstinence' is the absence of all sexual THOUGHTS and FEELINGS whatsoever, so that all the normal hormonal effects of puberty become 'sins' and the child feels guilty and doomed if they have any sensual feelings whatsoever and a wet dream means you're DOOMED.
I was looking at the site to try to find out how they feel about masturbation. I got as far as the section labeled "UNDEFILED" in bold and caps; you nearly owed me a new laptop, as I had to carefully swallow my diet coke. (To Marry Or To Burn would also be a really great album name.)
(To Marry Or To Burn would also be a really great album name.)
Track 1 The Undefiled
Track 2 Spooning with jesus
Track 3 Got a brand new hymen
*giggles*
Got my new modem *w00t*! I'm back....
Is "Immaculate Conception" too obvious?
Is "Immaculate Conception" too obvious?
*Giggles* Works for me! How about "Like a virgin" Yeah, I know, done already. How about a Madonna cover? Goes to pull out "The Imamaculate Collection" CD. Old Maddona fans never die... I love 80's music *sighs*
That I can't tell if that abstinence website is hilarious or terrifying. My favorite line was one of the main reasons for staying abstinent:
"No comparing or being compared sexually in marriage. It also means "being free to enjoy maximum sex, maximum leisure, maximum satisfaction, and maximum liberty, in the way God intended" that is in the covenant of marriage."
I guess pro-abstinence guys are really just afraid that if girls shop around, they will find something better and not be contented with their sucky technique anymore. It's all just a ploy to stop girls from realizing that bad sex isn't the only kind of sex.
To Marry or To Burn sounds like a Judas Priest album. On topic: if you are constantly feeling bad and obsessing about any little thought or action that could be construed as sexually arousing, dude, you're actually obsessed with sex. There's no getting away from it. The fundamentalist view of sexuality is an unhealthy and damaging one designed to enforce strict gender roles by keeping people exhausted and running around in circles, constantly flagellating themselves for ordinary behavior, so that they don't learn to question the authoritarian structure they live under. As a famous Renaissance politician said, the most effective way to torture a man is to have him build his own rack and turn the screw himself.
maximum sex, maximum leisure, maximum satisfaction, and maximum liberty
Combined with their disapproval of birth control, it's kind of ridiculous that the "maximum sex and maximum leisure" lasts longer than the birth of the first demanding infant (and the next seven or eight infants), or that there will be "maximum satisfaction" achieved by two ignorant virgins who have no clue what they're doing, while in the traditional "Christian marriage" the wife would have to use a telescope to see "maximum liberty".
"Instead I laugh at the idea that it takes more than 2 minutes to EXPLAIN abstinence."
You mean that the "abstinence book" I was assigned to author AND ILLUSTRATE in eighth grade depicting the reasons I would wait to have sex until I was married was a waste of time?
Oh, wait. I already knew that.
Please do us all a favor and don't trot out that study like we haven't all read it ourselves. And by "read it" I mean read the ACTUAL study and not just some journalist's write up about it.
The particular study in question would NOT have been funded under the "abstinence only" guidelines our federal government uses. Even the authors/researchers acknowledge openly that this program is VASTLY different from the typical abstinence only programs taught in schools and should be recognized as such.
On this blog!
"Do we dare admit that increasing the # of abortions might not only be good for women's health, but also moral & just?" Does anyone grasp how diabolical this sounds?
"We would still fight to protect abortion providers from verbal harassment & physical violence."
You mean let those poor pitiful abortionists alone so they can keep practicing their own violent deeds, unchallenged?
"[Access to services/resources] is at the core of reproductive justice- NOT reducing the number of abortions..."
For cryin out loud, keep the abortion blood flowing! Its good for society, is that it? Sick. Really sick. The best way to start is with contraception, education of its proper use, & to make abortion a last resort when all others are exausted. After all, a woman has to live with the memory of her own son or daughter that she allowed to die by her own permission. And just imagine if she has a conscience that haunts her, besides? I can't imagine anything like increasing the # of abortions being good for anyone, except the abortionist's bank account!
To be pro-choice is to be concerned with abortion access, not just legality. If there are more women who want abortion than are able to access one, pro-choicers see a problem.
If a woman wants an abortion and is unable to have one, she must instead carry to term, which is much riskier to her health. Women who carry to term unwillingly are often non-compliant patients, which can make their pregnancies even riskier than those of willing mothers. If these unwilling patients were able to access the abortions they wanted, they would experience fewer complications, and our statistics of pregnancy complications for the population on a whole will go down (assuming the numbers of these unwilling patients are great enough to be statistically relevant, and that's a big assumption... I would prefer more evidence).
Generally, we consider decreasing the rate of pregnancy complications to be a good thing. So, following the train of logic...
1. It is better for all women who want an abortion to be able to access it.
2. If not all women who want abortion can access it, then we need to change that.
3. As a result, the abortion rate would go up, and the pregnancy complication rate would go down.
4. Therefore, more abortions are actually beneficial to the population.
It has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with public health. Would it be best to decrease the number of abortions overall? Yes. But the proper way of doing that is by decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies (not to be confused with unintended, though the two are related), not by decreasing access and forcing women to carry to term when they would rather have an abortion.
There need to be multiple strategies in place. Preventative strategies to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and also strategies to assist women who have already become pregnant. The issue of contraception and sex-ed is moot once you are already pregnant, want an abortion, and can't get one.
you complain about being "percieved" as a "right wing crazy" and then proceed to act like one.
You don't have a rational point to make in this post and run with the emotional ball.
I've known many many women who have had an abortion (far more than yourself I'm sure) and they have kids that they WANT down the road and don't think or mourn or flagellate themselves and put on hairshirts about the clump of cells that they got rid of before their lives could be thrown so far off track that they were unable to provide the standard of living that their present kids enjoy.
Abortionists don't "do it for the money" either but then I don't think that you've known many doctors much less doctors who have ever "done it for the money".
But then that may be your view of doctors. If that's so I'm sorry for you.
Made plenty of 'rational points'to make abortion out as what it really is- a BAD choice! Increasing the likelyhood of contracting breast cancer seems like a rational concern for post abortion women, wouldn't you say?
As far as these people you know being so pleased about their decision to abort their babies, goody for them. It IS all about them, isn't it? Mustnt let their own flesh & blood survive if conditions aren't ideal. In the wild, don't animals eat their young in the same situation? Kinda hard to tell the difference, with the stuff these anti lifers say!
Maybe when you or a daughter of yours finds herself with a life-threatening medical condition in the 3rd trimester, you'll actually get it. Or will you expect her to die along with an unviable fetus?
Do you mean a birth defect in the fetus, Catseye? In many cases, there are treatments available without necessarily HAVING to resort to abortion. If the child is already dead, I have no problem with aborting a dead fetus. The only 'right' answer is a C-section if the preborn child is able to be sustained on life support, thus saving the life of the mother, if that was the situation. So many variables in your imaginary case, but if my daughter were in the predicament you mentioned, I know she would care about her baby as much as she does her own welfare! Abortion would be the LAST option, if nothing else could be done to save the mother's life. This is my opinion, of course- just like you have yours, sweetie!
In many cases, there are treatments available without necessarily HAVING to resort to abortion.
I am not at the present time aware of any treatment that is available in cases where major organ systems of the fetus fail to develop and are missing (anencephaly, Potter's Syndrome, renal agenesis, Tracheal agenesis, pulmonary agenesis).
Certainly you are entitled to make your own decisions about what to do if you are unlucky and your pregnancy is diagnosed with one of these tragic outcomes at the first ultrasound, but considering that most of these congenital diseases result in a fetus which is "incompatible with life" and either stillborn or dead after a few breaths, insisting that OTHER people should go through the biological and emotional strain of an additional 15 to 20 weeks of pregnancy AFTER they find out the bad news seems pretty intrusive to me, as well as lacking in compassion.
For those who are interested, some information is available at this link:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cephalic_disorders/detail_cephalic_di...
I will NOT provide connections to any of the truly gruesome and upsetting photographs readily available on the web because personally I don't think anybody should have those images in their head, but if you insist these fetuses should have been delivered by caesarean and given a 'chance', google congenital fetal agenesis and you will see the hopelessness of the actual reality.
If a fetus has one of the diagnosises you referred to, then by all means, the mother must approve a "mercy killing" of that unborn child, since that would only be "humane" thing to do? There's the rub. Playing God again. That baby may very well die, eventually. But you think its your 'right' to hasten the process? Oh yeah, you gotta figure some people don't belive in God, so they don't have to pay attention to stuff like morality. How's it feel, being your own god?
Abortion: a SICKENING choice
If a fetus has one of the diagnosises you referred to, then by all means, the mother must approve a "mercy killing" of that unborn child, since that would only be "humane" thing to do? There's the rub. Playing God again.
We've been "playing God" since we started using fire. What are you going to argue against next, penicillin?
That baby may very well die, eventually. But you think its your 'right' to hasten the process?
If it's in my body? Then yes. And if you've got a problem with that, you can kiss my fuzzy little tail =^_^=
Oh yeah, you gotta figure some people don't belive in God, so they don't have to pay attention to stuff like morality.
I think it's been well-established by now that believing in God and being flagrantly immoral are not mutually exclusive.
How's it feel, being your own god?
A lot better than it does being completely passive and accepting of whatever happens to you!
Abortion: a SICKENING choice
I think liver is pretty sickening, too, but I don't go around annoying everyone with my opinion on it.
I think it would be beneficial for you to see what people who do not share your particular faith hear when you say things like this. Not everyone values the idea of going back to pre-Fall innocence, you know.
If a fetus has one of the diagnosises you referred to, then by all means, the mother must approve a "mercy killing" of that unborn child, since that would only be "humane" thing to do? There's the rub. Making your own decisions again. That baby may very well die, eventually. But you think its your 'right' to hasten the process? Oh yeah, you gotta figure some people make their decisions based on their own set of ethics or that of a different kind of faith, so they don't have to pay attention to stuff like my version of morality. How's it feel, making your own ethical conclusions?
I'm sure you already know how it feels to make a decision based on what you think is right. You do it all the time. Women who choose abortion are not different from you in that respect, even if you disagree with them.
I've seen the websites created by women who carried a fetus to term that they knew would not live. It is heartwrenching, but no less heartwrenching than the stories I have read about women who abort such pregnancies. Both decisions (and it IS a decision to carry to term) can result in considerable feelings of regret, doubt, guilt, and loss. When families are faced with these horrible situations, they should be given the freedom to cope in whatever way seems best to them. It is simply too complicated for the government to make these decisions for us.
Of course, I've covered the topic of government intervention in such decisions with you several times before. So far, you haven't actually responded to any such posts... in fact, you usually don't respond to my posts. Fancy that.
Its nothing personal, that I don't answer your posts too often. I don't seem to have as much time as you do, to sit & google up endless articles to support your particular slant of philosophy...tho actually I think if I did I could find just as many to support mine. But then I figure, when does it end?
Thanks for caring, tho. *scoff*
The majority of my comments to you do not include articles, so you fail there.
Also, I figured that you would eventually pull the "I don't have as much time as you do" insult. I bet you never thought that there might be a reason for me having so much spare time. I wouldn't be offended if I had spare time just because I was young, living with my parents, a student, etc.
The reality is that after my fiance raped me in January, I finally understood that I had been in an abusive relationship for the last 8 years (arguably longer). After summoning up the courage, I left him, most of my belongings, my chinchillas, my job (though it was a crappy one, because I was not able to handle any more stress on top of what I was dealing with from him), and his kitten (who I am a bit worried about, but I had to make a decision to leave for myself and my cat or stay for his kitten). My parents were fortunate enough to take me into their home until I am able to get back on my feet. It is hard to find work in the SF Bay Area right now, and I have only recently healed emotionally enough to begin looking for serious work.
To pass the many spare hours I now have and am not used to having, I spend a lot of time reading up on issues that are important to me (in between doing chores for my parents or cooking for them, because I am a grateful daughter). I'd take classes at the local community college, but I did not sign up for Spring classes because I was too unstable to achieve academically when I first got back. Forgive me for being much more offended than you intended me to be, but you made an assumption about me and my life without knowing my situation, and I do not appreciate it.
I think you owe me an apology.
I really AM sorry for what you've been thru. However, we've been playing adversarial positions up to this point, so you wouldn't expect me to be to worry if I accidently hurt your feelings. Since I apparently did unintentionally, I do apologize, in light of your explanation. I would say I'll pray for you to find a job & get back a to normal soon- if you'd accept the offer.
Oh yes, I understand you had no way of knowing. However, experience has taught me that most people who have as much spare time as I do (at least on these sorts of websites) have a reason. I remember being on your end once several years ago, and I ended up insulting someone who I did not know was disabled. That's why I now stay away from insulting anything except the actual content of my opponents' posts.
You are free to practice your religion and pray as you wish. It makes no difference to me whether you pray for me or not, though I appreciate the compassionate thought.
You're not the only one with a background as SA victim. I've been there too. Right in my own family! The person was never punished, but I did finally forgive him. We live in a fallen world, so pain & injustice come with the territory. At least I have hope for what awaits me after this life is over. That's why I guess it bothers me when people say they reject God. Its like saying my body & this universe just formed into the incredible designs they did by mere chance & random cohesion. Like arguing that a watch can be designed & work without someone designing it! Anyway, I know we will not agree about the moral points of abortion, but I sense you are an intelligent, sensitive woman & I wish you well, I really do. See you on the battlefields!
-CM
I understand that a universe without God can seem very empty to a lot of people. That's why I do not (much) criticize faith in general. Faith and hope are very similar, and I'm not big on destroying something that helps people cope with the abundance of suffering we all experience.
To me, the idea that I am here only because of the way everything else in the universe has already happened is just... awesome. How extraordinary and unlikely was my birth in a world without apparent design? Of all the sperm and eggs to unite, the ones that made me did. Think of all the things that had to happen in order for that to come about. Without God as a convenient explanation, it actually seems even more miraculous to me.
I completely reject the notion of intelligent design for the same reason I reject faith (for myself). I refuse to invest myself in something that, by its very nature, cannot be proven. I have a scientific mind that rebels against "convenient explanations," and I prefer openly not-knowing to pretending to be certain. That applies to secular and spiritual subjects equally.
Contrary to what many religious people might think of atheists, I do not fear death. I do not fear not-existing anymore, and I don't find it sad or depressing. It makes living seem that much more rich to me, and it inspires me to be the best version of myself that I can be. Without the prospect of immortality (via the everlasting soul), the closest thing I have is to make an impression of some sort on the world that will continue existing even after I am gone. It is up to me to determine whether that influence is positive or negative, and I suppose you could say that is the source of my compulsion to be ethical. I define "ethical" as the action that results in the least amount of suffering or the greatest amount of joy (not to be confused with pleasure).
I am prone to the same shortcomings as anyone else. I have not always been the kindest, best version of myself. It's true that I do things for the pure selfish pleasure I get out of them... sometimes. Who doesn't? It is not because I am faithless, godless, or immoral, but because I am human and imperfect. Perfection is something humans created, but are unable to define concretely or live up to. That's why trying to be perfect is so intensely frustrating, and that is also why it is frustrating when someone comes along seeming to think themselves closer to perfection than we are.
I will definitely attempt to tone down my arrogance in the future, but I'm sure you and I will piss each other off plenty more times. Let's agree to tap-out when it gets personal. Cheers.
we've been playing adversarial positions up to this point, so you wouldn't expect me to be to worry if I accidently hurt your feelings.
This attitude is unacceptable in any Christian. Yes, you ARE supposed to be sorry for hurting people's feelings. In fact, you are supposed to make an effort not to do so in the first place because that is the loving thing to do.
I give you a new commandment: that you should love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too should love one another.
John 13: 34
Crowepps, I'm supposed to let other people insult me all they want and judge me with all the hostility they care to, for fear of hurting their feelings, by chance?? Sorry, I'm not a doormat. I'm gonna say it as I see it- tho you may note I DO NOT resort to profane comments like your friends feel free to do. I respect God enough to never use obscene language. Imagine that?
By the way, the exchange between Mecha & I was settled. Why must you butt in just to throw a judgemental dagger at me? Nothin better to do than that? What a twerp.
Ahhhh....so you are a xtian some of the time. Got it.
Also, this is a public forum...you don't get to whine when your posts elicit responses from participants.
Ahunt, where did you get the idea that all Christians are spoz to be whimps?? Maybe from those softly treading Catholic nuns? Well got news for ya. I'm a PROTESTANT & a Tea Party Libertarian- part of a growing & thriving group all around the U.S.these days! I expect great things from us this fall, when we begin by taking back America. The days are shortening for the liberal extremist agenda- before this country completely succumbs to social scumbags that are running it now.
So yes Ahunt, I DO fight for what I believe in- so don't give me this crap that real Christians don't have any right to defend the Truth as freely as the next guy! Ever hear of "Onward Christian Soldiers? We fight against the forces of Darkness, like the one behind the abortion industry! Sorry if that bothers you.
Oh my...taking back America from socialist scumbags?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/2/862923/-Epic-Tea-Party-FAIL-i...
By doing what? Please be specific.
By doing what? Please be specific.
These are republican women practicing what the GOP and the religious right think of as 'outreach'.
Voting back the balance of power in Congress! Once dems no longer hold the majority, things will REALLY start to "change"! The rest will have to wait til Obama gets kicked out of office- if we even HAVE a country by then! Once the nukes start flying from say No. Korea, Iran or Pakistan, hard to say what will come of the lame duck U.S.A.
Voting back the balance of power in Congress! Once dems no longer hold the majority, things will REALLY start to "change"! The rest will have to wait til Obama gets kicked out of office- if we even HAVE a country by then! Once the nukes start flying from say No. Korea, Iran or Pakistan, hard to say what will come of the lame duck U.S.A.
Yeah, see, this is the kind of shit that really disturbs me. I have often suspected that underneath the bed of a far right anti-choicer must be a fascinating place. You guys must wake in terror over what's under your beds -- not just a red, but a yucky Muslim and a radioactive north korean kid. How do they fit? Is that why you're so scared all the time? I hope you're not a war supporter. Fuetuses get killed in wars. If you support war, then you support the murder of *other* foetuses.
Once the nukes start flying from say No. Korea, Iran or Pakistan, hard to say what will come of the lame duck U.S.A.
Makes finger-circleing-temple-crazy-motion. (X-Files theme starts playing)
Sure, it could happen-- The leaders of these people are nuttier than most ultra-far-righters, not unlike the ones that show up here. But, come on woman, if you are that fearful, you need to be put on tranks. You know what? I REFUSE to live in fear. I've got a life to live. And Obama is our best bet at a decent life. Not frothing tea-party hate and fear mongers.
Oh, and BTW, the tinfoil tri-corner hat looks silly dear. *smerks*
Wow, I had no IDEA!! You'er not only a fundie nut, and a pro-lifer nut, you'er a tea bagger TOO?! BWWAHAHA! Are you a birther nut as well? ROTFLMAF Which one of the misspelled, rasist and just plain stupid signs are YOU holding? And the pro-life thinks WE are the Nazis?
And I bet you watch Faux News too. Hahahaha
Old quote:
When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross.
Teabaggers ARE the forces of darkness. They're _utterly_ incapable of thinking for themselves, which is why they're demanding that the government get out of Medicare and insisting that desperately-needed bank reforms are "bailouts". The banksters and Big Industry, in addition to the deranged and dangerous religious right dance them around like marionettes.
The minuscule shreds of credibility you may have had before you admitted to being a teabagger, you just lost completely.
OMG I really wish people would STOP using the words Tea Party and Libertarian in the same sentence. They ARE NOT the same political ideology and most Libertarians are OFFENDED by these comparisons.
Adding "libertarian" after Tea Party doesn't lend you anymore credence or make you look like less of a tea-bagger... it just shows you don't know the difference between the two.
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
—Matthew 18:21-22
I'm supposed to let other people insult me all they want and judge me with all the hostility they care to, for fear of hurting their feelings, by chance??
Oh, don't go away all mad, just go away. The reason why we mock you is because we(most of us) really don't want you here. You have right-to-lifer sites to go to-- This is a Pro-Choice site. This is our place to learn and educate ourselves. You will not convince anyone here to change our minds-- Esp. if you use outmoded theories, facts and ultra-right clap-trap to try to do it. Basically all you do is annoy, aggravate, and make us want to take pot-shots at your hoaky, ignorant, and trite bull-crap. Seriously, if you don't like being treated like a raving loon-- Don't ACT like one.
If you are going to call people murders and whores and the like, you shouldn't expect a good reception. Do you have a hidden desire to be verbally beat up or something? Like a closet S/M thing? Most of the fundies I've met do-- And I've met alot of them...
It is a free country-- You can beleave what you please-- Just as long as you stop shoveing your beliefs down other peoples throats and do it somewhere else, I'm good with that. If not, you and I will continue to have a problem... (Yeah, yeah, yeah, you'er so much smarter than me, yeah, more moral, ghod it on your side, uh huh, right... Whatever...)
*Gasp* I am so sorry to hear about that... Are you OK, MechaShiva? Abusers are assholes-- No getting around that, been there.
I've found that I have an easier time dealing with my experience than most other people do just hearing me talk about it. I'm still minimizing what was done by saying, "Oh, it wasn't that bad compared to..." But I am working through that. I've been afraid to face some of the more intense emotions I know are inside, but I'm sure they will come out soon. They bubble up from time to time, and it's like opening the lid on a pot of boiling water... it settles for a little while, and then threatens to boil over again shortly after you put the lid back on.
I've gotten sick of talking about what happened, and all that is left is for me to feel. I know I will have to, because the lid can't stay on forever. Now that I am with my family, I'm in a safe enough position to start allowing myself some vulnerability. Unfortunately, that means my emotional responses to most everything have been more intense lately, and it can make confrontation on this site more treacherous to navigate through. It would likely do me good to bow out here for a while and let other people handle the opposition (which is precisely my plan) until I'm a bit more controlled rather than repressed.
Thank you for your compassion.
MechaShiva, slogging through emotional drek is no fun at all, just don't try to clamp the lid down too tight-- Stuffing down all that crap is really bad for mind, body, and soul. But, you will get there-- There is a light at the end of the tunnel. You WILL get better, it may not be this week, but it will happen. If I can heal from DID and PTSD, you can heal too.
My thoughts and well wishes go with you.
I'm sure you've heard this before, but I'm so sorry he felt he had the right to do that. He didn't. He was wrong, and you are not alone.
I wish you all the best in your healing process.
So the mental and physical effects of carrying an 'incompatible with life' baby to term mean nothing? No one is saying she HAS to abort--that's her choice. But if a woman decides that she can't handle continuing the pregnancy, that option should at least be open to her. To do otherwise is just plain cruel.
When parents have a choice between aborting a severely malformed child at the point where it isn't possible for it to be aware of any pain, and waiting until it can indeed suffer greatly while dying, it just boggles my mind that you would insist the morality of your God insists the child must suffer. Why does your God both allow AND require the pain of innocent children? I can't think of anything more sickening.
You are making a decision to take a human life. How do you always know you're 100% correct every possible alternative was covered? There is still no denying you are saying "I know better than God, so my decision trumphs His, with the outcome of my pregnancy? Okay... For your sake, you better be right if there IS a Judgement Day.
Abortion:
Fetal Homicide
And if you carry to term in such a case, you are choosing to let your child die slowly (hopefully not painfully with all the drugs the baby would get, but it isn't always enough, particularly if you want to actually interact with him/her before they die) while you watch. If that's what your God wants from people, it is no wonder they choose differently.
If your God is real, and he really does want people to suffer the way you suggest, then when I die I will march my ass straight to Hell and become a part of the great rebellion. It would be more interesting than just decomposing (which is all I think will happen when I die, if I am able to have a green burial), and I'm not about to go to Heaven and support a ruthless, prideful dictator.
Does anyone grasp how diabolical this sounds?
He's your Devil, I'm sure with all the attention you focus on him, you know more about him than we do.
I can't believe the crap you swallow from your brand of religion CM and cmarie-- Geez, get a life and stop trolling pro-choice sites. Do I troll pro-life sites? As if....*retchs* People that are as millitantly fundamentalist as you guys are what drove me away from christiany. All you do with your hate-filled, lieing and irrational rants are drive people AWAY from pro-life. And basicly prove that most of you are a few cards short of a deck. And ignorate to boot. 'Yeah, yeah, I pray ghod will open your eyes.' Uh, huh, heard it so MANY times. I believe in science and facts, not lies and iron age fables. 'Yeah, yeah, going to hell, whatever.' If I do (I doubt such a place exists except to terrorize people into doing as the church wants.), people like you will likely be on the bus in the in front of me for being hypocrites.
I like people that live their religion without the need to cram if down other peoples throats. Them, I can talk with and like. You, not so much.
You want to talk to me, use REAL science, and REAL facts that are not pulled off a pro-life or ultra-right-wing site. And, for the record, I am not pro-abortion, pro-death, or any jargan you guys use-- I am Pro-Choice, Pro-Woman, and Pro-Equal-Rights. Don't like it? How sad, too bad.
Aren't we, Wendy? I don't believe I made any reference to my religion in my post above- tho YOU certainly assume that I meant to? Don't really need to bring it up, since the procedure of terminating a human life exposes ethical considerations even without bringing God into it. Being as how I support freedom of religion, that encludes none. Its up to each woman to 'choose' if she believes in God or that He will call us to account for the 'choices' we make.
I guess if someone decides to reject God's moral absolutes, anything goes, right? So if I have 'chosen' differently than you, Wendy, why don't you respect ANOTHER choice, besides your own? Hmmm.
Really? CM
Don't really need to bring it up, since the procedure of terminating a human life exposes ethical considerations even without bringing God into it.
Only if people think YOUR way they are ethical? Stay out of other people's lives. The main thing I hate about pro-lifer's is that they INSIST on sticking their nose's in where they have NO business. Take care of YOUR OWN body and let my worry about mine. And frankly, because MOST pro-lifer's are religious-- Oft times fanaticaly so-- It does make it an issue.
ummm... yeah I couldn't have asked for a better example than that. Point out that abortion is riskier for the mother than taking the pill and it means you are a troll (been here for two years- ask anyone). I'm pretty sure I've never met a fundamentalist, let alone a militant one, I don't give a shit what (if anything) drove you from Christianity, I'm not praying for you and unlike you I don't make guesses about who (if anyone) is going to hell. However I have to take my hat off to your witty conclusion "how sad, too bad." My eight year old daugher says this exactly when she becomes tired and frusterated. My nine year old has begun to develop her debating skills a little beyond this particular quip but then she's getting past the Hannah Montana stage.
Taking the pill may be less physically taxing than having an abortion, but having an abortion is WAY less taxing than pregnancy. Way less. And less risky too. Funny you shouldn't mention that.
Comparing the risks of abortion to pregnancy, Sarah. Think there are a few abortion risks that are worth noting:
1) Hemmorage- with a medical abortion, bleeding lasts 13-15 days, or more. Sometimes a second curettage procedure or hysterectomy is needed to stop the bleeding.
2) Infection. The uterus is suseptable to infection after abortion, especially if parts of the fetus or placenta are accidently left inside you. Risk increases if an unknown STD exists.
3) Perforation. Sometimes the tools used in abortion are accidently pushed thru the wall of the uterus during the procedure. If the instrument damages one of your internal organs, it may be necessary to do major surgery to repair- also can cause exensive bleeding.
4) Breast cancer. 27 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Abortion interupts the natural process of breast development, abruptly stopping cell growth, leaving the breasts with extra cells that can become cancerous.
5) Death. Legal abortion is the 5th leading cause of maternal death in the United States, tho in fact its recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.
6) Placenta Previa- Abortion increases the risk of Placenta Previa in later wanted pregnancies (a life threatening condition) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, & excessive bleeding during labor.
First, not all of those are actually risks of abortion. 4, 5, and 6 are all incorrect, and have been proven to be so for the last 30 years at least. If you look on the back of most pro-life pamphlets that list these "complications" you'll find the "research" to be conducted by biased organizations and/or grossly outdated. Sometimes the WHO or CDC is cited, but the research is from the '70s, and if you check their current literature, you'd find that they no longer support these hypotheses about abortion complications.
Also, the last time I checked, abortion was the most common outpatient surgery performed in America. It also has the lowest rate of complications of any outpatient surgery. Do you happen to have the rates of any of those complications? Because I do, but I find it interesting that you never post them. Perhaps you'd like women to think that these things happen all the time.
I find it about as ridiculous as posting a giant list of possible pregnancy complications (which occur at a much greater rate than abortion complications). What might happen as a result of giving birth or having an abortion generally is not the patient's primary influence in decision-making on either side.
You aughta read, Mecha S. Its about the truth of breast cancer & abortion:
Researcher finally admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk, Jan. 2010.- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175394.php
I'm sure you caught the fact that they were talking about a rare subtype of breast cancer called "triple negative" which is only 10 to 15% of all breast cancers overall?
Yeah, yeah, I read all about that when the story first broke. The problem is that the study doesn't actually say what all the science writers think it does. It's a common problem with science journalism, which is why I always make a point of reading the actual study if I can, but abstracts are easier to find and give a better summary than journalists typically do.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.abstract
Never trust a reporter to do a scientist's job. The abstract itself doesn't say anything about abortion. According to the article you posted, the researchers noticed a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, but that is not the same thing as proving causation. Because their study was actually about something else, they did not delve into it deeper to find if there was a causal relationship. Until that research is done, I wouldn't draw conclusions. Oh wait, it has been done... by the very same researchers back in 1996.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/144/4/373
Shock, they didn't find a significant relationship between abortion and breast cancer. The only women who seemed to show an increased risk were the nulliparous (never had a baby) women who also happened to have had abortions. Women who had abortions and children did not have an increased risk.
Any news source that titles a piece like "Researcher finally admits ________" is obviously biased. I would also like to point out that the main conclusion of the study was that oral contraceptives are linked to an increase in breast cancer, but I don't see anyone using that as an excuse to pull OCs off the shelf. Only when it is abortion do people "care" about this kind of thing.
I actually looked at the summary from the ACI report mentioned in the article. Did you?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere-workshop-report
In the very first section, under Epidemiological Findings, you'll see that they conclude there is no causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer. I would argue that a larger organization that looked at multiple studies when coming to their conclusions about breast cancer would be a better place to find accurate information than an obviously biased scince journalism article. Certainly, it would be better to look at research that has actually been done on the subject, rather than putting all your faith in something that was an accidental observation in one study. I will also echo crowepps above... this research only looked at one kind of cancer, and so the results cannot be extrapolated to all types of breast cancer (as anti-abortion activists want to do). You should have learned by now, CM, that you will require better analytical skills if you are going to tangle with me.
There's an excellent analysis of ALL the research on this issue here, together with a really good explanation of how to understand the research:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2749
To quote the conclusion:
Given the preponderance of evidence, although it is still possible that there may be a link between abortion and breast cancer, it is unlikely that there is, and, if there is, it’s likely to be very, very small, given that numerous epidemiological studies have failed to uncover it. In this, the evidence for the ABC link is not unlike the state of evidence regarding vaccines and autism. Early studies, not as large, well-designed, or rigorous, suggested that there might be an association, but the larger and better-designed the study, the smaller the OR became until it converged on 1.0. Current evidence does not support the ABC link, and there are enough studies to allow us to conclude either that there probably is none or that it’s very small. That’s as good as it gets in epidemiological studies, which, unfortunately, can never entirely eliminate the possibility of a correlation. They can only conclude that the chance of a significant correlation is very, very low. Moreover, contrary to the inflated claims of some activists, even Joel Brind’s own infamous meta-analysis from 2003 does not show a 30% risk of breast cancer if a young woman has an abortion before the age of 18, much less a virtual certainty that she’ll develop breast cancer if she has a strong family history as well. In fact, Brind’s own work, which is held up as “proof” of an ABC link, only suggests at the most an OR = 1.3 to 1.5, which is nowhere near high enough to produce the 30% lifetime risk of breast cancers claimed by overwrought activists like Dr. Lanfranchi.
I would note that the research shows that very early pregnancy has a PROTECTIVE effect in lowering breast cancer risk, and that young girls who have abortions lose that protective effect and go back to having exactly the same breast cancer risk as someone of the same age who never got pregnant at all, but I really don't think we want to encourage 16-year olds to go ahead and get pregnant as a prophylactic against possible breast cancer years later.
I am SO bookmarking this, crowepps. Thanks for sharing! I have to say, I really love your commentary on this site. You have an abundance of experience to draw on, and you also have a dedication to quality in your writing and research. It's very refreshing, and quite helpful. I've learned a lot from you and people like you.
I should tone down the snark in my posts, honestly. As far as I am concerned, you deserve the crown for Queen of Pwnage.
I highly recommend scienceblogs, I am an omnivorous reader, and I just LOVE Google!!
In attempting to avoid the ideological 'your side stinks' positions (you don't care about fetuses/women), and stay grounded in reality, it is really, really helpful to look at the new scientific knowledge about reproductive issues. I think my views have been more informed by what has been learned through infertility research than any other source.
I don't mind the snark - in fact sometimes you and Princess Rot make me just fall out of my chair laughing - but while mocking the ignorant succeeds in making them get huffy and go home, it does not educate them, and that's hopefully what happens here on the better days.
I agree that reproductive and developmental physiology research is the best place to get your knowledge. Back when I was in college, I found a fabulous study about fetal consciousness and nociception (pain perception) that was done to determine if separate anesthesia was required for the fetus during in-utero surgeries for correcting fetal abnormalities. I shared it with all my professors (I was a neurobiology student, so they were all interested).
Here you go, from one science-lover to another:
For those who are thinking "New Zealand sheep fetus research?!" keep in mind that sheep are often used in reproductive research when it would be unethical to do the study on humans. Sheep gestation is basically identical to ours, with the same kind of placenta and a similar gestation period.
I'm glad that I did my own research back then, because now that "fetal pain" has become the new pro-life fad, I am already prepared to argue against their purely speculative, ideologically-based positions. Lately, I've been doing a lot of writing about abortion that doesn't explicitly state my position, instead focusing on the facts of abortion-related issues. I ended up losing a pro-life friend over it, because she was more offended by the facts than she was by my ideological position (which she knew from previous experience). I found that rather sad, in more ways than one.
Honestly, I don't mind people being pro-life. I understand why people get upset about abortion. It's all the misinformation and insistence on not making your own decisions because it is an affront to God (and that extends to multiple subjects) that I can't stand. Unfortunately, not all the education in the world breaks through that mindset.
I too have a real problem with the "I hate you for insisting on talking about reality" people who assert the REAL question should be -- religious / ethical / philosophical / human rights / etc.
It's like the theory is far more important than what will happen to the actual people to whom the theory is applied. I certainly find that to be true with ectopic pregnancy which has resulted in live birth maybe one in a billion times, but which without abortion results in the deaths of 50% of the women who are diagnosed (the other 50% spontaneously aborting).
Allowing millions of women to die in hopes of another one in a billion miracle sure seems stupid to me, as does the ethical argument that it's 'immoral' to use RU-486 even in this instance because 'it's always wrong' to 'actively' end a pregnancy but that it's okay to remove the TUBE in which that embryo is contained because that means you're only 'accidentally' killing.
I mean, total logic fail, abysmal historical recall and massive failure to take responsibility! That was PRECISELY the argument by which people justified abandonment of newborns to foundling homes and shipping them off to a wetnurse. It's 'immoral' to kill a child but it's okay to walk away knowing there's a 75 to 95% mortality rate because you're not 'actively' killing them and their death isn't your 'plan' because your rosy hope was they would be in the 5% of survivors so nobody did anything immoral and you're off the hook. Phfew!
Removing an embryo from its blood supply (it's food source, oxygen source, waste removal system, and everything else it needs to live) by cutting out that section of the uteran tube is hardly "inactive" killing. It's about as inactive as administering a substance to block the progesterone receptors, which only eliminates ONE of the various things the embryo needs to live rather than ALL of them.
The problem is that pro-lifers think that the "point" of using RU-486 is to kill the embryo, while the "point" of removing the tube is saving the woman. Ridiculous. The point of using the medication is preserving the woman's fertility afterward and exposing her to fewer risks. Surgery is more dangerous than using RU-486, but the antis don't want anyone thinking of that (they certainly don't want anyone to think it is safe to use).
You are spot on about the lack of responsibility, and it is one of the things that bothers me the most. I'm sure CM would find that amusing, as she likely thinks of abortion as irresponsible, but I'm serious. The idea that it is against God to direct the course of your life through conscious decision-making is not only irresponsible, it isn't even Biblical. Unfortunately, where I grew up (Alabama) the idea of placing all responsibility for everything with God was the core of most Christians' faith. It was all about trying to attain a state similar to Adam and Eve before the Fall. Pure innocence. Pure trust in God. Pure acceptance of His will. I call it pure doormat status or pure lack of accountability.
Here in California, I've met a very different brand of Christian, whose faith is based on a feeling of responsibility and progressive ideals. Meeting these people has really toned down the anti-religion sentiment I fostered for so long, even if I am still an atheist. Religion inspires people in many ways... I just wish it didn't inspire so many people into passivity with regard to their own lives and judgement when it comes to others'.
The problem is that pro-lifers think that the "point" of using RU-486 is to kill the embryo, while the "point" of removing the tube is saving the woman.
Since the embryo must be removed either way, I think their Jesuitical double talk is a bunch of nonsense. The "point" of the whole thing is to avoid taking responsibility, and to prevent the WOMAN making a decision.
Don't know if you saw this in the news:
A New York hospital has admitted it was wrong when it disciplined eight nurses for refusing to participate in an abortion.
Nassau University Medical Center on Long Island apologized to the nurses and said they did nothing wrong.
The nurses cited moral reasons for not taking part in the procedure involving a patient whose water broke prematurely on March 31. The doctor told her she possibly faced a life-threatening infection if her pregnancy wasn't terminated.
Under federal law, health care workers can opt out of a procedure for moral reasons, except in a life-threatening situation.
The doctor did not feel the patient was in immediate danger. The procedure was performed a few days later.
Personally I have a real problem with a nurse who insists that she won't provide treatment because the patient isn't yet at death's door even though that is the inevitable result of her condition and insists on waiting until AFTER sepsis has developed because her tender conscience requires the mortuary to be on call before she'll do her job.
My mother was in exactly this same hopeless medical situation after a bad fall back in the early 60's, and the local Catholic hospital allowed her doctor to remove the fetus immediately with no controversy whatsoever. No wonder women are turning to giving birth at home.
Yeah, double-talk like that is what lead St Augustine to study philosophy instead of rhetoric. Getting down to the business of serious thought rather than serious talking is a far more noble ambition.
Personally, I think that anti-abortion nurses have no place working in obstetrics, because the chances of them running into exactly this kind of situation is too high to rely on them for pregnancy care. Unfortunately, there's no ethical way to prevent them from working in these areas, and the patients are the ones who suffer when things go badly.
Interesting that your grandmother obtained an abortion from a Catholic hospital. I was told my grandmother refused to give birth at any Catholic hospital because of their policy of saving the baby rather than the mother if something went wrong (this was in the 1948). I wonder if she was mistaken, or if the policies changed between the time my grandma and yours were having kids.
*ETA* Brain fart, of course if your grandma was second trimester (or even early third), then I could see there being no controversy. Since it happened so long ago, there probably wasn't the option of even trying to save the fetus. Sometimes, medical advancements (and legal red tape that seems more common now) make these issues trickier.
Oh, yeah, she was pretty big, but her due date was weeks away and it was before there was any hope at all. I remember that when Jacqueline Kennedy's went into premature labor in 1963 and delivered her Patrick at 34 weeks, they couldn't save him either because at that time there was no treatment for immature lungs. Now delivery at 34 weeks would impart pretty good odds of survival.
Thankfully the hospital, which at that time was focused on providing medical care rather than second guessing people's morals, understood that with no amniotic fluid, the fetus had to be delivered through induction to prevent infection because there was no hope. Mom knew as soon as she fell and her water broke, Dad knew as soon as he got home to take her to the hospital, even we kids knew as we mopped the floor and waited at home.
I've got to say in defense of Catholic hospitals that if the lay hospital staff had gotten all sniffy and 'it's not my job' about whether it was MORAL to treat the patient who COULD survive by preventing infection from setting in, the Sisters I knew there would have fired the self-centered, 'it's all about ME' drama queens. The Sisters were very PRACTICAL about pregnancy disasters then because over the years they'd seen a great many of them. The bishops, on the other hand, have NO CLUE.
I too remember the 'don't go to a Catholic hospital if you want to survive labor' but that was at a point where there was some chance of survival for the child. To me it's absolutely idiotic to get all 'I think abortion is immoral' when there is NO chance that the child can possibly survive (as in ectopic pregnancy) or to wait until infection has set in and the woman's live is in danger before intervening. Medical staff who don't want to provide medical care as needed to 'bad people' should find an area of the profession where they'll never be asked to deal with them.
I've been thinking a lot about Catholicism and other types of Christianity a lot lately. I think the religion would have turned out much differently if Jesus had appeared during a time (or at a place) in which women were not considered property. Though his words, from what I can tell, do not support the notion, ancient Isrealite culture and customs mentioned in the Bible have been used to promote the belief that you can (and should) own another person. This applies to the issue of slavery just as much as it does to sexism.
I'm heartened by the progressive Christians I have met who do not include such notions in their faith. And as my mom is always quick to tell me, nuns have historically supported female empowerment (though in different ways from modern and/or secular feminists). It really is a shame that the heirarchy was constructed based on an outdated culture of male superiority. I think that nuns are the only ones capable of saving the Catholic Church at this point, but they can only do it if they demand and aquire more authority.
You might think that the supposedly just and gentle Jesus would have condemned slavery, but you would be mistaken. Here are New Testament passages that support slavery:
Ephesians 6:5
5"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
I Timothy 6:1-2
1"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered." 2"Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them."
Luke 12:47-48
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows." 48"But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Jesus also stated in Luke 16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law"
And in James 2:10
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
The verses which specifically use the word slave were not Christ's words but instead those of Paul and written to the gentiles, probably specifically included to prevent any fear by Rome that Christianity was advocating a slave revolt. The revolt led by Spartacus a hundred years before was still fresh in everyone's memory at the time.
"Master" and "servant" do not necessarily refer to slaves although the Jews only had one word for both at the time. For that matter, to the Jews themselves 'slave' doesn't necessarily refer to what we think of slavery but rather to persons captured during a war (the alternative being killing them) or to a person selling THEMSELVES or their children into 7 years of servitude to pay a debt.
Does Halacha Permit Jews to Own Slaves?
First, note that "Slavery" in the Torah generally refers to temporary indentured servitude to one's creditor. Such slavery was permitted under Jewish law. ... In Judaism, the slave was protected. Exodus 21:2-11 defines the rights of the servant. ... In Hebrew law, the slave was not a thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who had unlimited power over him. In the Hebrew language, there is only one word for slave and servant. Brutal treatment of any slave, whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty. Jewish law required that a slave could go free in the seventh year of service (Exodus 21:2), although his family would not be freed; although if he came into servitude with a wife, that wife would also be freed. The slave could, however, indicate that they perferred bondage to freedom. Every fiftieth year (the "Jubilee"), the slaves with their families would be emancipated, and property (except house property in a walled city) would revert to its original owner. (Lev XXV:8-55).
In Judaism, there is also the concept of an "Eved Canani", a non-Jewish slave, who is the property of a Jew, as is discussed in Vayikrah 25:46. This concept of slavery is nothing like slavery that occurred in America to the Negroes. The slaves were not kidnapped, but rather were purchased from themselves; i.e., they were offered a sum of money, or guaranteed shelter and food, in exchange for becoming slaves. The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish slave, as does the obligation to make sure they have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own comfort (e.g., if there are not enough pillows for all, the master must provide his slaves with pillows before himself). Slavery is clearly discussed in the Torah, especially in reference to Canaan, who was cursed by his grandfather Noah to be destined to be the slaves to the rest of mankind, as stated and repeated a number of times in Beraishis 9:25-27. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/05-Worship/section-55.html
Paul, of course, as a Roman and writing in Greek, was referring to just exactly what the rest of us think of when we say 'slave'.
This concept of slavery is nothing like slavery that occurred in America to the Negroes. The slaves were not kidnapped, but rather were purchased from themselves; i.e., they were offered a sum of money, or guaranteed shelter and food, in exchange for becoming slaves. The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish slave, as does the obligation to make sure they have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own comfort (e.g., if there are not enough pillows for all, the master must provide his slaves with pillows before himself).
Granted, I haven't read the Torah, but it's difficult to reconcile this with the clear discrimination between treatment of, in order of priority, Hebrew male, Hebrew female, then Gentile slaves as outlined in the scriptures I quoted. Hebrew males are indentured servants for only 6 years, while Hebrew females may only be released under certain, narrowly defined circumstances. It appears that Gentile slaves are to be owned for life, with no rules to define how they may attain their freedom.
This was just one of the many, many injustices and atrocities committed/ordered/condoned by Yahweh that caused me to reject Christianity after reading The Holy Bible for myself. I realized that I would not want Yahweh anywhere near me or anyone I cared about, so why would I worship Him? Jesus was an improvement over Yahweh in comparison, of course. If such a thing existed, the Old Testament is akin to The Memoirs of Mengele, so the New Testament seems like Little House on the Prairie in comparison, but really isn't worthy of aggrandizement, in my opinion.
*edited for html fail
Eh, I would argue that the first few quotes were by people other than Jesus. It's pretty accepted that his followers did not neccessarily grasp his message. Consider the enormous controversy around Paul. These passages would be examples of ancient Hebrew (or in Paul's case, Roman) culture making its way into the Bible, as I mentioned earlier.
The Law that Jesus is talking about is God's Law, which should not be confused with what other people in the Bible have to say or what the law of the land might have been at the time. Also, do not confuse it with the Laws presented in the Old Testament, which Jesus discarded. It really is a shame that we don't have more direct words from Jesus than from his apostles, who greatly shaped the religion in the years after Jesus died. When the guy only preached for a few years (I think it was something like only 3 years), it is easy to see how his message could have been distorted by his followers, even in the span of a few decades.
My idea-that-I-like (because I don't have beliefs about this kind of thing) is that Jesus was able to come up with progressive ideas because he traveled with traders to India and was exposed to different cultures. Of course, that's because our family was Catholic in public and Americanized Hindu at home (my mom was into the whole "Jesus went to India" thing). I'm not sure if his followers were as widely traveled, and so they may have been unable to let go of their cultural biases (pure speculation).
I would like to think that Jesus's primary message was "be a humanitarian and don't be an asshole." After all, the Sermon on the Mount was positively revolutionary at the time. I think that if you want to know where Jesus stood, ideologically, that sermon is the best place to look.
Considering that the New Testament chronicles the events through the eyes of some of the disciples and then Paul (who was not one of the original disciples at all) some 70 years after the events supposedly happened, it's hard to take any of it seriously. But, IIRC, there were multiple instances where Jesus was emphatic that the Old Testament laws still stood and that he wasn't there to change them, but to enforce and clarify them. Honestly there are so many inconsistencies, weirdnesses, and outright evil in the bible, especially in regard to its treatment of women. I would prefer a world where people recognized it as the quaint fable that it is and moved on to adhere to evidenced-based, compassionate worldviews.
The impressive story, to me, is the one where he goes apeshit on the vendors selling wares from the temple. In so many places throughout the New Testament, Jesus castigates the greedy and the divorced. Not once does he say a word about gays or abortion, but one would never know that by listening to the Xtian sheeple, aka modern-day Pharisees.
I don't think it's ever the faith in and of itself. I think all religious faiths can be manipulated to justify authoritarian heirarches OR form the basis of a community of individuals who have similiar faith-based goals.
Certainly the average person's understanding of, for instance, Buddhism, is that it's teaching could form only an individualistic structure, and yet there are Buddhist terrorists out there, trying to set up an authoritarian structure.
Some minority of people NEED an authoritarian structure, are most comfortable in an authoritarian structure, try to pressure everyone to JOIN them in the authoritarian structure so they can feel safe. Trying to keep your faith AND reject their pressure can be difficult, but it is possible!
It's known that a Board of Directors is able to function no higher than the capabilities of the most dysfunctional member. Churches tend to be like that too, because dysfunctional individuals try to seize positions of power. Having the Church body devolve into disaster can be prevented if the healthier members are ALERT to the need to prevent a dysfunctional member from attempting to control everyone else.
that condone/outline rules for slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." 45 "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." 46 "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Exodus 21:2-11
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." 3 "If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." 4 "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'" 6 "then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."
I esepcially love the rules outlining selling one's daughter as a sex slave:
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." 8 "If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her." 9 "If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter." >10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." 11 "If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."
And this one is equally charming:
Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 "but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
The problem with 'Biblical inerrancy' is that people are supposed to SWALLOW all this nonsense as divinely inspired and 'believe it is good'.
Thank goodness we've made ethical advances since then.
The problem with 'Biblical inerrancy' is that people are supposed to SWALLOW all this nonsense as divinely inspired and 'believe it is good'.
Thank goodness we've made ethical advances since then.
I shudder to think what a living hell life would be for a majority of the population and all the females if we based our society on biblical law. I am profoundly aware of and grateful for the privilege of being born in an increasingly secular society.
Is it just me, or is the support of shaping laws around religious doctrine pretty much absent in the Jewish community? After all, these are their old laws, so shouldn't people look to them when deciding if these things are still valid? If the Jews have moved on from these sorts of oppressive laws, why haven't Christians?
As an aside, I remember wondering in Mass why we were Catholics if the Jews were the chosen people of God. And if the Jews are the chosen people, did God mean the ethnic Jews or did God include converts to the religion?
These days, I am generally of the opinion that if God were really that great, one of the 10 Commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not rape." I'm cool with Jesus, but I'm not too fond of his Dad or the majority of his fan club.
Medical staff who don't want to provide medical care as needed to 'bad people' should find an area of the profession where they'll never be asked to deal with them.
Agree 100%!
When I read this I immedately thought of Bender the robot's quote "Bite my shiny metal ass". Are you a Futurama fan? *chuckles* Funny, funny show.
Hey Mecha--I couldn't get the link to the article about fetal consciousness and nociception to work.
Oddly, I'm glad you did have trouble. The link above goes to sciencedirect, which you have to have a membership with in order to read the whole article (otherwise, you can only read the abstract). Fortunately, I found a pdf, which makes me very happy.
Enjoy the light reading, science nerds!
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/bin/g/y/paper79.pdf
*EDIT 1* Grr, while it is commentary on Mellor's research (he and his collegues have done quite a bit of fetal nociception research), this is not the study I linked above. It's been a few years since I read the initial paper, and I didn't realize at first that this wasn't it. Hard to tell when it is the same topic with the same author and the same page layout. I'll keep looking around, and I'll post another update to this comment if I find a pdf of Mellor's 2005 study. He's done more recent work as well, apparently, which would be worth looking into. The nice the about the above link is that he mentions a number of different research projects that all deal with the same issue and gives a great summary (as well as plenty of food for thought about the ethical issues in such research on animals).
*EDIT 2* I did all my looking with Google (web and scholar), and wasn't able to find the article anywhere but on ScienceDirect and PubMed, both of which require university affiliation or a membership to read the full article (argh). I found lots of research on the subject, but rather than post a whole bunch of articles, I'll let y'all read the same stuff our legislators do.
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=9033
This review was presented to the Constitutional Subcommittee of the House of Representatives and specifically addresses human fetal nociception. I like that it touches on some of the ambiguity of nociception research, and the problems associated with using any one particular criterion to "prove" or "disprove" fetal pain. However, the purpose of this review was to discount the conclusions of a different review of fetal pain research (the Lee article they mention).
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947)
Here's that Lee review, for the sake of presenting both sides. To be honest, I don't know if people who aren't nociception specialists could say which one of these is more accurate, and they both have significant biases.
Personally, I am inclined to think that fetuses in the late second trimester or early third trimester probably do experience pain (perhaps differently than a conscious human) in response to noxious stimuli, but I have no way of knowing for sure. What I do know is that fetuses being aborted at that point are injected with digoxin a day or two before surgery, and so are already dead, rendering the question of whether they could feel pain completely pointless. Additionally, the woman is under general anesthesia during a late second trimester or third trimester abortion, and so her fetus would be as well... making fetal nociception an irrelevant issue. That is why I do not think that fetal pain should be included in the abortion debate. It is simply a non-issue.
However, it is valueable research for other reasons (such as determining what analgesics, if any, should be used during fetal surgery). It is important to remember that information about fetuses should not be used to fuel a political agenda, as biased research can end up having negative impacts on women who are carrying to term. The most important thing is to be accurate, not to disprove fetal pain.
I ended up losing a pro-life friend over it, because she was more offended by the facts than she was by my ideological position (which she knew from previous experience). I found that rather sad, in more ways than one.
Reminds me of the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts--I've made up my mind!" Thanks, Mecha Shiva
I comment on a lot of sites in a short space of time, so generally I adhere to the drive-by school of blog commenting, which is to speed past very fast in a cloud of tire smoke while shouting.
So now suddenly this is about pregnancy? Yesterday it was about why abortions need to be rare. Is it also a logic fail that I didn't mention the importance of safe transport and sterile procedure at the hospital because you know the author didn't mention that either. My comment? "The rarer they are (when prevented by contraception) the fewer health risks to the mother." I don't see anyone arguing that abortion is better/safer than the pill or condoms for instance. If you think the author should have included some mention of maternal mortality in pregnancy you should contact her.
You do realize there are more abortion-related issues than just prevention, right? Not every article has to address everything. This is an article about access, and criticism of a particularly common campaign slogan.
I really don't see why you and CM are all up in arms about this. It is pretty well-known that pro-choicers have traditionally been the strongest supporters of contraception. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, do not have such a good record. If you want to get more people more interested in prevention-first strategies, I suggest you take your message to anti-abortion forums where it might not be as widely accepted as it is here. If more pro-lifers favored contraception, that would be great, but they won't listen to people from the opposite side of the abortion debate.
So now suddenly this is about pregnancy?
Some less modular thinkers see a connection.
Yesterday it was about why abortions need to be rare.
Yesterday it was about why abortions don't need to be rare.
I'm waiting for the inevitable links to Klanned Parenthood and the lectures about the evils and repressed guilt of the contraceptive lifestyle.
colleen www.klannedparenthood.com probably wouldn't be a factor here because this story isn't about a particular race being targeted. (Though who knows tomorrow someone may decide its really about baseball and hurricanes.) This story is about why public people who identify as pro choice still believe abortion should be "rare". I'm sorry if your use of contraception has caused you to feel evil or guilty. That is not something I understand but I'm sure someone here will be happy to provide you with the resources to work through those feelings.
Aimee, I love this piece so much. Thank you for writing it. We all need to hear this again and again. Funny thing is I was just making a similar argument in a presentation at NAF this past weekend - unless we know how many women need abortions, we don't know if the current numbers are too many or not enough. The numbers reflect what is available and accessible, not necessarily what is needed.
We need to refocus our attention on the goal of providing women with information, support and access to the services and resources they need to make their own reproductive decisions. I don't want to measure success by the number of women who choose abortion or adoption or parenting - I measure success by the number of women who are able to make their own decisions and find the social and economic support needed to live out that choice - whatever it may be - with dignity.
I find it interesting that you did such a good job enunciating the abortion divide, but your logic appears to me to fall short. For example you imply that there are people that do not have the financial means; do not have the option and as long as the woman says she wants an abortion, she should have that right. First of all, you are merely guessing with no specific facts to support your conclusions. Secondly, the Guttmacher did poll women, and the conclusion was that the majority of abortions were because of inconvenience and financial considerations. And the issue of rape and incest was so low as to not even be consequential. And as far as your premise that a woman that for any reasons wants an abortion should have one does not make sense either. For one thing, it does not work that way in any society of laws. The nature of law requires not only rules, but issues of evidence and justification. Furthermore, you imply there should be no criticism of the desire for abortions. Let's be honest. If you are seeking an abortion, something somewhere went wrong. You made a mistake. Maybe it was not your fault, but it is your responsibilty. I could not disagree more with your value system. I cannot imagine a doctor just laughing an abortion off like it was some kind of cold that one just happens to get willy nilly. Nor would I like to see the day that society finds it politically correct to obtain an abortion like we perceive of having breast augmentation--and this is precisely what you are inferring. That will never happen. As a matter of fact, all indicators are that in the future it will become ever more difficult for women to obtain abortions. And that is a good thing. I'm reminded some years ago when in the State of Wisconsin, we tried to pass a child seat law. It turns out that soccer Moms just let the kids ride shotgun without seat belts. After 5-10 kids went sailing through the passenger windows with their brains bashed in, the State of WI finally had enough and passed a law holding Moms guilty of manslaughter if this happened to their child. One would think that a Mother would try to protect her tot from such an ugly death, but that was not to be. We had to pass a law preventing Moms from doing so. And as far as your concepts of doing everything possible to facilitate Moms in bearing and rearing children, the USA consensus seems to be that we want less government intrusion not more. Within the next few years, there will be a national referendum on this very subject, but something tells me that advocates for cradle-to-grave/nanny state intervention will be the losers. Fundamentally Americans are interested in having more freedoms than the Europeans. The next few years will be some very interesting political times.
"The nature of law requires not only rules, but issues of evidence and justification."
Is there another situation in which the legal system asks for justification for humans to prohibit other humans from inhabiting their bodies against their will? Or using the person's bodily resources against his or her will for nine months?
Fundamentally Americans are interested in having more freedoms than the Europeans.
Ok, I'll bite, and I'd really appreciate a response for once, faultroy. To which Europeans are you referring? Europe's a big continent containing many different countries, all of which have different governments.
Secondly, in what practical ways are Americans more* free than 'the Europeans'? Other than the freedom to own a private mini-arsenal and die prematurely from treatable illness, that is.
Thirdly, how do you reconcile the belief in 'small government' with the belief that women's reproduction should be subject to more governance?
*Edited.
I like how you think! Wish I had more time to waste doing Google research with some of the "Children of the Corn" that haunt this blog...we need more of your kind posting here! Hope to see more of you! :)
We certainly wish you'd "waste" more time educating yourself as well.
A story comes to mind in the Bible called David & Golliath. You remind me a lot of that same kind of arrogant swagger to you're posts...well, I guess you know how God handled the ending to THAT story. I think I'll trust HIS wisdom over yours, hun.
I'd rather have an arrogance formed by intellectual endeavor than a holier-than-thou attitude based on my ability to do what other people tell me to.
Mecha S. I'm not holy, but the GOD I SERVE sure is. I happen to believe He is my true Father, & I believe the Truth that He is the One true Creator. I am as guilty as anyone else of sin, except that I was forgiven by the blood of the Lamb. Mock all you want. I'm sure Satan couldn't be more pleased. I guess we will all find out when we depart this life, who was serving the "Right" Master. So if you don't serve God, who is left? Hmm. I truly pray your heart will soften one day, & you will open your eyes to the redeeming love offered by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. That is, if you could stop hating God, one day?
I'm not holy, but the GOD I SERVE sure is. I happen to believe He is my true Father, & I believe the Truth that He is the One true Creator.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your God is just a fairy tale concocted by pedophiles. The REAL God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I will pray for you to be touched by His Noodly Appendage so that you may accept Him into your heart... er, stomach.
Your Pastaliciousness, please enlighten this concerned mom and lead her out of her semolina-deprived darkness. Ramen.
Your Pastaliciousness, please enlighten this concerned mom and lead her out of her semolina-deprived darkness. Ramen.
*Lol* No, No, it's the invisible pink unicorn! *giggles* Good thing I aready finished my drink, or would have to clean my monitor screen off!
"if you could stop hating God, one day?"
I just had to see this again.
Just out of curiosity, CM...do you communicate directly with this God, or are you under the spiritual authority of one who claims to speak with and for God? Neither? Both?
I do not hate any deities. That would require me to believe they exist. Seriously, I hate your god about as much as I hate Zeus. All the stories I have read about both describe a rather douchebag-ly character.
I don't mock your faith, I mock your attitude of certainty when faith is something that people have while acknowledging that they do not know for sure if they are right. That is the "mystery of faith" in any religion. I'm sure you know this, and that is why I don't think you are actually as sure of your rightness (and your type of Christianity's rightness) as you say you are. If I am wrong, then I would say that you are, well, rather thoughtless when it comes to your faith.
If I do not serve God, who is left? Humanity. My community. My loved ones. I do not "serve" as in, "I do what they tell me to," but I "serve" as in, "I try to make their lives better in whatever way I can."
I get that meme about hating god from Xtians all the time. Hating god would be like hating the Trix rabbit or Freddy Krueger (a character far more akin to god in his malevolence). It's the arrogance, bigotry, violence and authoritarianism of far too many in his fan club that I despise. I do admit to having felt quite bitter for a long time that I was ever duped into being a Christian once I read the bible and discovered for myself the vicious, homophobic, misogynistic, bloodthirsty psychopath that I had been led to believe was infinitely loving and just.
And if the Christian fantasy turns out to be true, I still wouldn't worship Yahweh. So I would gladly and proudly walk into the Hell this supposedly loving and just deity has in store for those of his creations that he dislikes.
I generally don't respond to faultroy's comments, but I will just this once.
I think more targeted research would need to be done in order to determine if the abortion "supply" (access) meets the demand. However, the author's point was not that there is definitively a surplus of demand, but that fewer abortions are not indicative of decreasing need for abortion access. Like I told CM earlier, this is an article breaking down a campaign slogan because, like all campaign slogans, it is gross oversimplification of the issue.
The author does not imply that it is good for women to have abortions thoughtlessly. No one who is pro-choice thinks that way because thought is rather important to the process of decision-making. So, your suggestion that we want abortion to be like breast implants rings hollow (in part because women do not "thoughtlessly" get breast implants either). It is patently ridiculous.
Obviously, we disagree that limiting access is a good thing. Fewer abortions due to decreased demand would be a good thing. Fewer abortions because more women are forced to carry to term against their will... that's a bad thing, for the reasons I gave CM in an earlier comment. It is detrimental to the population's maternal health. All of our efforts in regulating any aspect of medicine should be based on increasing public health.
Additionally, if abortion is legal, then it should be accessible to all who want it. Otherwise, you run into the problem of classism (as those with reduced access are generally in poor, rural areas). With government micromanagement of medical practice, like forcing docs to give canned scripts (which is not required for any other controversial aspect of medicine), legislators imply that they know how to be a doctor better than a doctor does. In my opinion, it oversteps the authority of physicians and sets a dangerous precedent for the government to micromanage other types of medical intervention. In fact... you could already draw analogs between this kind of abortion legislation and that concerning VBACs.
For someone against "cradle-to-grave/nanny state intervention," you seem awfully fond of the government sticking its fingers into some of the most complex, personal decisions that women and families ever make. That, combined with your obvious lack of respect for mothers and women in general, is why I generally don't respond to your comments on this site. I doubt that anything I say will sink in with you, but perhaps someone else reading this will appreciate it.
Within the next few years, there will be a national referendum on this very subject, but something tells me that advocates for cradle-to-grave/nanny state intervention will be the losers.
And yet you're all for a conception-to-birth nanny state?
Also, just out of curiosity, after the national referendum dismantles the nanny state, how are you going to manage to get along without your socialist disability checks?
"Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?"
So what would you do to the women who refuse to obtain the abortions that you deem obligatory? Do you propose to imprison them? What should be the length of their sentences?
Also, why does your article seem to assume that we have no research on why women obtain abortions?
So what would you do to the women who refuse to obtain the abortions that you deem obligatory?
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
"Please provide evidence for this assertion.
I have already provided evidence for the assertion. In the article the author says that she may favor "increasing the number of abortions." In that case, the government would need to force women to obtain abortions who would otherwise choose not to abort. If deterrence is not used, then how else would that coercion be accomplished- by kidnapping the women and physically forcing them into abortion mills where they are strapped down and have abortions done against their wills?
Grayduck, remind me to nominate you for Dunce of the Year. You are a champion of missing the point. The author said nothing about FORCING women to have abortions. What she said was that if there are women who WANT abortions and aren't able to have them, then enough aren't being performed. Supply isn't meeting the demand. When Nintendo was trying to build more Wiis, it wasn't because they wanted to force people to buy them--it was because there were people who wanted to buy them who couldn't obtain one. It's the same principle.
No one here supports forced abortions, just better access for the women who want them.
In the article the author says that she may favor "increasing the number of abortions." In that case, the government would need to force women to obtain abortions who would otherwise choose not to abort.
Ah, yes, much as how some European governments which want to increase the birth rate force women to become impregnated who would otherwise choose to remain childless.
You mean the pro-choice movement isn't concerned with reducing the number of abortions? Well, gee! If only that news wasn't so mid-1990's, I might have been shocked. But I'm not, especially seeing as how it's been known how a sizeable portion of the U.S. population doesn't think reducing the abortion rate would be a good thing and a good portion of the pro-choice community fights their hardest against measures which would reduce the abortion rate.
...And it still strikes me as odd how abortion continues to be labeled as a matter of "women's health" when the majority of abortions are done for a reason totally unrelated to the woman's health. It's highly disingenuous, is what it is.
"totally unrelated to the woman's health"
OMG! Pregnancy is good for womens' health!
ONE MORE TIME:
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
- exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
- altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
- nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
- heartburn and indigestion
- constipation
- weight gain
- dizziness and light-headedness
- bloating, swelling, fluid retention
- hemmorhoids
- abdominal cramps
- yeast infections
- congested, bloody nose
- acne and mild skin disorders
- skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
- mild to severe backache and strain
- increased headaches
- difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
- increased urination and incontinence
- bleeding gums
- pica
- breast pain and discharge
- swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
- difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
- inability to take regular medications
- shortness of breath
- higher blood pressure
- hair loss
- tendency to anemia
- curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
- infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) - extreme pain on delivery
- hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
- continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
- stretch marks (worse in younger women)
- loose skin
- permanent weight gain or redistribution
- abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
- pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
- changes to breasts
- varicose veins
- scarring from episiotomy or c-section
- other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
- increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
- loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
- spousal/partner abuse
- hyperemesis gravidarum
- temporary and permanent injury to back
- severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
- dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
- pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
- eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
- gestational diabetes
- placenta previa
- anemia (which can be life-threatening)
- thrombocytopenic purpura
- severe cramping
- embolism (blood clots)
- medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
- diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
- mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
- serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
- hormonal imbalance
- ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
- broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
- hemorrhage and
- numerous other complications of delivery
- refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
- aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
- severe post-partum depression and psychosis
- research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
- research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
- research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
- peripartum cardiomyopathy
- cardiopulmonary arrest
- magnesium toxicity
- severe hypoxemia/acidosis
- massive embolism
- increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
- molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
- malignant arrhythmia
- circulatory collapse
- placental abruption
- obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
- future infertility
- permanent disability
- death.
Get back to us, Bei1052
