The Audacity of Goodness


When abortion provider Renee Chelian created a video called “Every Day, Good Women Choose Abortion” for her Northland Family Planning Clinics, all she was thinking about was what would be good for her patients.

Chelian, a long time member of the Abortion Care Network,  is the Executive Director of three clinics in Detroit. She has spent the last 33 years offering the highest quality medical care, combined with compassionate attention to her patients’ emotional well-being.  On her website a letter to patients includes these words:

The discussion that centers on a woman’s right to an abortion is so much bigger than any debate OR any law. It’s about my heart, a woman’s heart, and both the right and responsibility of bringing a child into the world… women of all ages need to make these decisions with people who care for them, people they trust.

A sign in the clinic reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973,  over 45 million women have had legal abortions in the United States. It is estimated that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime.

And for 36 years the anti-choice forces have waged a well-financed and nearly unopposed war of words to shame and demean women. They don’t even try to hide their hatred and disdain for us. Outside our clinics the ‘sidewalk counselors’  scream "The blood from your crotch will rise up against you, you whores" , “Satan will drink your baby’s blood and you will die”, and "Loose women burn in Hell."

We can see from the shame and silence of 45 million women that the propaganda has been effective.

So, for Chelian, it only made sense to remind women of their own basic goodness. Her video reflects the truth that abortion providers know:

"Every day,  good women choose abortion", and "To have an abortion is a normal experience."

It reminds us that goodness is:

Courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that you believe are good for yourself. Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom. 

If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.

She put the video on her website. But she wanted to reach more women.

When Renee posted the video on Youtube the anti’s went ballistic.
The XM Satellite radio station WILCOW-XM has been playing the recordings over and over and telling their listeners to call and complain, which of course is jamming the clinic’s phone lines.

The antis have bombarded the clinic with vile, unprintable attacks over the phones directed at the staff.  Comments on Youtube included:

“If you are ripped to shreds…just like the unborn children you’ve murdered…it would be just” and “Bottom feeding serial killers of unborn children with no voice to protest their murder!” and  “This is a very shallow attempt at pandering to weak minded people who would rather kill their children when it is inconvenient so the clinic can make more money.”

LifeSite, an anti-abortion on-line newsletter, headed its article “Michigan Abortion Facility Advertizes Abortion as ‘Sacred Work’”. Of course their conclusion was that “The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible.”

The fear-based hatred has been overwhelming.  For now Chelian has taken the video off  YouTube, but the horrible calls continue.  She is seeking help from authorities. The video  is still on her website, and will also be shown to each patient in the clinic.

Abortion providers have known the kind of people who make these calls for years. The rest of the country has just been introduced to them as they stalk health care, vilify and threaten the President, spread their bile and display their hatred. It is very important not to abandon women and the men who care about them to the cruelty of the anti abortion forces.

Their arguments are based on their belief that women are stupid–that we don’t know that abortion is about life and death—and that we do not recognize that it is not just our right, but our responsibility to decide whether and when to bring new life into the world through our bodies. Theirs is a bankrupt movement of moral hypocrisy. They lost even the claim to their own name when they started shooting us.

Whether it is Rene Chelian’s "Goodness" videos, a banner that says, "When You Come Here Bring Only Love", a poster that reads, "We Honor Your Dreams", putting our patients’ words in hearts on the walls, making patient journals available in our waiting rooms, or our willingness to acknowledge that of course abortion is a complex emotional experience, the antis react by attacking us because there is nothing else they can think of.

But America needs to hear from us.  When the experience and voice of independent providers and the women we serve is truly part of the national conversation about abortion we will see a transformation.

In 1964 the poet Muriel Rukeyser wrote “If one woman told the truth about her life, the world would split open.” She may have been over-optimistic about the power of the voice of just one woman.

But how about 45 million?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • jeornom

    From NY Times 12/30/2000:

     

    Renee Chelian was worried about her business. With competitors charging lower prices, she needed something special to draw customers. So she created an almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music.

     

    Ms. Chelian runs three abortion clinics in the Detroit suburbs, where competition is so fierce that each clinic owner is looking for an edge.

     

    She’s looking for an edge to increase her profits. Making desperate women believe their violent act is "sacred" is her new marketing plan. That is indeed audacious.

     

    From Ms Taft:

     

     

    all she was thinking about was what would be good for her patients.

     

    I don’t think that’s all she was thinking about.

     

    "The competition for patients is absolutely ruthless." – Warren Hern

     

  • prochoiceferret

    If you don’t like the free market, then you can move to North Korea. We don’t want your commie-pinko kind here!

  • claire-keyes

    Reading about the horrible, hate-filled comments that the so-called prolife people are putting forth makes one positively ill.  The kinds of comments being posted about women such as "the blood from your crotch will rise up against you, you whores" and "satan will drink your blood" come from  sick minds.  They are frignteningly vicious. This anti-woman rhetoric may couch itself as caring about babies, but these comments make the true intent, of controlling, terrifying, and shaming women obvious.  And boy, do they spew hatred! 

    Women choosing abortion have carefully thought through their decisions, are doing the best they can in difficult situations.  Renee Chelian, in creating these videos, continues her fine, loving work with women facing a difficult choice.  Thank you, Renee, for all you have done for women.  Don’t let these evil folks get you down!

     

     

  • amanda-marcotte

    This story proves very well how much the conservative view of female morality is based strictly around the vagina, and whether or not it’s being used in precisely the manner that conservatives dictate.  Your mind and even the rest of your body are irrelevant.  It’s a reductionist view of women—that we are only our vaginas, and no other parts matter.  An abortion implies that a woman is more than her vagina, and that in fact that a woman controls her vagina and might use it for her own purposes.  This stark evidence that a woman is more than her vagina is incompatible with a woman being "good" in the conservative view.

  • crowepps

    The quote is more correctly

    “Satan will drink your baby’s blood and you will die”

    which is really interesting considering the insistence that the fetus is ‘innocent’.  If it’s ‘innocent’, how does it end up with Satan?

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, how dare a business try to stay open by making its office more patient-friendly and emotionally soothing?! I mean, it’s just plain immoral to recognize that treating patients better will keep your clinic from closing when facing an economic depression. You should just let your business fail, put your home up for foreclosure, and lay-off your staff (it isn’t like they have families to feed, you know)! That’s way better for everyone, esspecially your patients. I mean, what’s the big deal, if the clinic closes? They’ll probably only need to wait another week or two to get an appointment at a different clinic that would then be too busy to see to patients’ emotional needs effectively.

  • grayduck

    "…women…recognize that it is not just our right, but our responsibility to decide whether and when to bring new life into the world through our bodies."

     

    Abortion is not about bringing new life into the world, it is about removing life from the world. Sexual intercourse is about bringing new life into the world.

     

    I liked what Rebecca Kiessling said about the video. "Can you imagine there being centers like this to bring in your toddlers and infants for child sacrifice? Set up as boutiques, they’d have you write love letters to your infants explaining why you are murdering them, and assure you that you are a good person and what you are doing is good and sacred. It’s all so twisted!"

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • grayduck

    Amanda Marcotte on December 8, 2009 – 8:54am: "This story proves very well how much the conservative view of female morality is based strictly around the vagina, and whether or not it’s being used in precisely the manner that conservatives dictate. Your mind and even the rest of your body are irrelevant. It’s a reductionist view of women—that we are only our vaginas, and no other parts matter."

     

    I would say that the story proves how the men who impregnate the women who get abortions have convinced those women that they are nothing more than sex objects. If they treated women as human beings, the women would not have any need for non-therapeutic abortions.

     

    "An abortion implies that a woman is more than her vagina, and that in fact that a woman controls her vagina and might use it for her own purposes."

     

    When a woman controls her vagina, she can limit which men impregnate her and when they can do so. If she refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with men who are unwilling or unable to be good husbands and fathers, she will not have a need for a non-therapeutic abortion.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • phoenix5

    Gray Duck, you should  publish your home address so ladies forced into keeping unwanted pregnancies can deposit their future babies on your doorstep. I’m sure somewhere in your great intellect you have thought of a reasonable solution to the thousands of children who grow up in foster homes or worse, abusive adoptive homes.

    Read the case of Lisa Steinberg in NYC. Just google it. You think life is sacred? So did her birth mother. Her adoptive parents (she was illegally adopted) abused her every day of her short 6 year life. I’m  sure the quality of her life would be have been greatly improved on your front doorstep.

    -Phoenix5

     

     

     

  • catseye71352

    So GrayDuck believes that 100% of elective abortions occur because some man pressured a woman into it? What about women whose partners turn out to be abusive and try to force them to give birth to a child who will trap them with the abuser? Or women who terminate wanted pregnancies due to being unable to afford a child because they’ve lost their jobs? GrayDuck is living in woo-woo feelgood anti-abortion-rights cloud cuckoo fantasyland.

     

    Catseye  ( (|) )

  • prochoiceferret

    I would say that the story proves how the men who impregnate the women who get abortions have convinced those women that they are nothing more than sex objects. If they treated women as human beings, the women would not have any need for non-therapeutic abortions.

    If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, do you think that treating her like a human being is going to make her change your mind? I suppose that if you’re not keen on donating a kidney for a friend of mine, all I have to do is be nice to you, and you’ll no longer have any need to retain a redundant kidney.

    When a woman controls her vagina, she can limit which men impregnate her and when they can do so. If she refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with men who are unwilling or unable to be good husbands and fathers, she will not have a need for a non-therapeutic abortion.

    No, because if she has sex with the intention of not having a child—you know, like most people have at one time or another, because sex is pleasurable and a wonderful experience to share with a partner—she may possibly come to need an abortion. Women do control their own vaginas, and indeed often use them to experience love and pleasure without reproducing.

  • dadumdumdada

    It seems to me that what us pro-choicers need to do is to organize positive protests outside of abortion clinics. If women entering them would see signs reaffirming their personal decision, not just ones damning them to hell, it would make their lives on that crucial day just that much easier. Furthermore, it would show the general public, who only see the horrid posters that anti-choicers wave, that there are people who respect other people’s decisions, and don’t want to impose their belief upon anyone else. We are supposed to be in the majority, aren’t we? If so, then why weren’t we given a chance to post positive messages on the Northland Clinic’s website? This article should have had the e-mail address allowing us to do so. It’s time we followed the path forged by the civil rights era and took to the streets to peacefully, yet forcefully, state our moral case. Elsewise we’re doomed to endure the draconian measures of the vocal minority.

  • kate-ranieri

    GrayDuck wrote "Abortion is not about bringing new life into the world, it is about removing life from the world. Sexual intercourse is about bringing new life into the world." You are wrong about abortion. This life you are referencing is not in the world. You are wrong about sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is a God-given, bodily, pleasurable function.  All the ideas about procreation as the sole raison d’etre for sex are social constructs made up and unchallenged by draconian minions such as yourself.

  • grayduck

     

    "This life you are referencing is not in the world."

    How is a woman’s uterus not "in the world?"

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • prochoiceferret

    How is a woman’s uterus not "in the world?"

    Oh, so you were talking about removing the uterus from the world! Normally, that’s called a hysterectomy.

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceFerret on December 10, 2009 – 10:14pm: "If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, do you think that treating her like a human being is going to make her change your mind?"

     

    It will not make her change her mind; it will keep her from getting pregnant. If a woman does not want to be a mother, the only reason for a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her is because he wants sex for its own sake and is indifferent to the consequences for mother and child. Impregnating a woman without being willing and able to be a good husband and father is not consistent with treating her as a full human being.

     

    "No, because if she has sex with the intention of not having a child—you know, like most people have at one time or another, because sex is pleasurable and a wonderful experience to share with a partner—she may possibly come to need an abortion."

     

    But if her intended partner is a good father or potential father, he will not impregnate a woman who does not want to be pregnant. He will find a woman who wants to be pregnant with his child, marry her, and only then engage in sexual intercourse. Good fathers, or men willing to be good fathers, recognize that they have a right and a responsibility to refuse to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman if engaging in sexual intercourse with that woman may result in an unwanted child.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • prochoiceferret

    It will not make her change her mind; it will keep her from getting pregnant. If a woman does not want to be a mother, the only reason for a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her is because he wants sex for its own sake and is indifferent to the consequences for mother and child.

    Oh. And here I thought that men often had non-reproductive sex with women as part of a mutually loving, caring relationship. And vice-versa. But yeah, if all men are brutish, chauvanistic pigs, then it totally makes sense that women would only get near them if they wanted to have a kid.

    Impregnating a woman without being willing and able to be a good husband and father is not consistent with treating her as a full human being.

    Yes. That’s why most people use contraception when they want sex without kids.

    But if her intended partner is a good father or potential father, he will not impregnate a woman who does not want to be pregnant.

    Seems to me that falls more under the rubric of not being an asshole, or a rapist. But all the same…

    He will find a woman who wants to be pregnant with his child, marry her, and only then engage in sexual intercourse.

    Wow. So premarital sex makes one a bad father. I guess there’s a lot more bad fathers out there than I thought! The ones who respect their wives, are engaged with their kids, and keep up happy families? But also had a few flings back in college? Bad!

    Good fathers, or men willing to be good fathers, recognize that they have a right and a responsibility to refuse to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman if engaging in sexual intercourse with that woman may result in an unwanted child.

    To refuse to engage in sexual intercourse, or use appropriate contraceptive measures. And that also goes for a lot of the men who are not willing to be fathers (good or otherwise).

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceFerret on December 15, 2009 – 12:55am: "But yeah, if all men are brutish, chauvanistic pigs, then it totally makes sense that women would only get near them if they wanted to have a kid."

     

     

    I did not claim that all men are brutish, chauvanistic pigs. You are failing to recognize that men have a right and a responsibility to refrain from irresponsible sexual intercourse. The assumption that men will engage in sexual intercourse with any woman at any time is not valid and asserting that they should do so is counterproductive.

     

    "To refuse to engage in sexual intercourse, or use appropriate contraceptive measures."

     

     

    No form of contraception, other than male abstinence, is one-hundred percent effective. Consequently, there is no way to engage in sexual intercourse with a fertile woman who does not want to be pregnant without risking an unwanted pregnancy.

     

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • ahunt

    Gray Duck…you are one of those individuals that I can detest and respect simultaneously.

     

    While we are on the subject of male responsibility, permit me to note the dancing bears, jesters, jugglers and soothsayers out in the street.

     

    People are gonna have sex outside of the context you deem appropriate. Best to work with what is feasible, and avoid the bizarre.

  • katwa

    Consequently, there is no way to engage in sexual intercourse with a fertile woman who does not want to be pregnant without risking an unwanted pregnancy.

    Sure there is! Anal, oral, fingering, fisting….

  • grayduck

    "While we are on the subject of male responsibility, permit me to note the dancing bears, jesters, jugglers and soothsayers out in the street."

     

    ?

     

    "People are gonna have sex outside of the context you deem appropriate. Best to work with what is feasible, and avoid the bizarre."

     

    Why do you assume that women will not recognize that men can act responsibly? Male responsibility is not universal but it is hardly bizarre or impossible.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • grayduck

     

    KatWA on December 17, 2009 – 6:13pm: "Sure there is! Anal, oral, fingering, fisting…."

     

     

    I was referring to coitus. To the extent that those other behaviors cannot cause pregnancy, they also cannot cause unintended pregnancy and abortion.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • prochoiceferret

    I did not claim that all men are brutish, chauvanistic pigs.

    No, you only claimed that all intercourse performed without the willingness to become parents is irresponsible. Which is just as silly.

    You are failing to recognize that men have a right and a responsibility to refrain from irresponsible sexual intercourse.

    I’m not "failing to recognize" anything. I’m pooh-poohing your notion of what "irresponsible sexual intercourse" is (funny how it seems to align with what the Catholic Church doesn’t like), and otherwise support comprehensive sex ed, so that men (and women) know how to enjoy sex with a lower risk of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy. (Which, incidentally, is what I call responsible sex.)

    No form of contraception, other than male abstinence, is one-hundred percent effective. Consequently, there is no way to engage in sexual intercourse with a fertile woman who does not want to be pregnant without risking an unwanted pregnancy.

    No form of passenger restraint, other than vehicular abstinence, is one-hundred percent effective. Consequently, there is no way to engage in road travel with a passenger who does not want to end up splattered across the pavement without risking a fatal traffic accident.

     

    Funny, I don’t see "not engaging in sex/traffic" as the be-all end-all solution to either problem.

  • crowepps

    Funny, I don’t see "not engaging in sex/traffic" as the be-all end-all solution to either problem.

    Golly, next you’ll say that you’re skeptical about the existence of be-all end-all solutions when everybody knows that no matter how complex the problem there’s got to be an easy solution.

    Unwanted pregnancy – everybody stop having sex 

    Obesity – everybody stop eating

    Drinking – ban alcohol. 

    Drugs – Just Say No.

    War – Give Peace A Chance

    Disease – eat right and think positive

    Of course, none of these solutions actually WORK.

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceFerret on December 18, 2009 – 12:49pm: "…I don’t see "not engaging in sex/traffic" as the be-all end-all solution to either problem."

     

    I did not propose that people not engage in sex. I only asserted that responsible men will not engage in sexual intercourse without giving due consideration to the ramifications for everyone affected. I also believe that responsible people will not engage in driving without doing likewise.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • julie-watkins

    is just another facet of "organ donation isn’t mandated … unless you’re a pregnant woman"

  • prochoiceferret

    I only asserted that responsible men will not engage in sexual intercourse without giving due consideration to the ramifications for everyone affected. I also believe that responsible people will not engage in driving without doing likewise.

    Then in that case, we might actually be on the same page. Comprehensive sex ed produces good intercoursers in the same way defensive-driving courses produce good drivers. And if we can get over the silliness of trying to convince people not to have sex if they do in fact want to do it, and focus on them doing it with respect to their partners’ wishes, a healthy caution to the attendant risks, and the means of actually mitigating those risks, we may just achieve some of those elusive "common-ground" goals yet.

  • crowepps

    I only asserted that responsible men will not engage in sexual intercourse without giving due consideration to the ramifications for everyone affected.

    How is this helpful to any discussion of abortion, since using your definition of ‘responsible men’ they might possibly comprise 10 to 15% of the population?  The driver behind the abortion rate would be the 85 to 90% who by your definition are irresponsible and they aren’t likely to be at this website.  They’re over on YouTube finding nekkid wimmin to ogle.

     

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceFerret on December 19, 2009 – 2:15am: "…if we can get over the silliness of trying to convince people not to have sex if they do in fact want to do it, and focus on them doing it with respect to their partners’ wishes, a healthy caution to the attendant risks, and the means of actually mitigating those risks, we may just achieve some of those elusive ‘common-ground’ goals yet."

     

    But the issue under discussion is whether men should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, not just whether they should try to mitigate them. A man not willing to take responsibility for his actions is not a good "intercourser" or a good potential father and is treating his sexual partner as a mere sex object. If you think expecting men to refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse when they are not willing to accept the consequences is silly, we are not on the same page.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • prochoiceferret

    But the issue under discussion is whether men should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, not just whether they should try to mitigate them. A man not willing to take responsibility for his actions is not a good "intercourser" or a good potential father and is treating his sexual partner as a mere sex object. If you think expecting men to refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse when they are not willing to accept the consequences is silly, we are not on the same page.

    Men and women in good sexual practice will discuss this sort of thing beforehand. If one wants a kid, and the other doesn’t, then that’s a red light. Like, duh.

     

    In any event, I’d rather not be on your page, and be on that of someone who actually knows what s/he’s talking about, like Heather Corinna. It’s pretty clear that whatever experience you’re going on, it’s nowhere near as extensive and relevant as hers.

  • crowepps

    But the issue under discussion is whether men should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions

    If you want to discuss how to change the character of men into something new, perhaps you could explain just HOW you are going to effect this fundamental character change in the male population?  Religion and social disapproval haven’t had much positive effect on male unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions in the past.  And I’m not just talking about sex and unwanted pregnancy but also a pervasive unwillingness to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their own educational, career, economic and social decisions.

  • prochoicegoth

    You seem to think women who abort only do so because their partners tell them to. Not the case whatsoever. If a woman is aborting, she is doing it because SHE wants the abortion. They have counselors at clinics to make sure it’s ONLY her choice and that she is not being forced or coerced. 

     

    Consent to sex IS NOT consent to motherhood. You are aware that sex has MANY OTHER functions than "baby-making", correct? 


    It’s pro-choice or
    NO choice.

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceGoth on January 1, 2010 – 8:21pm: "You seem to think women who abort only do so because their partners tell them to."

     

    In many cases, women obtain abortions for exactly that reason. A study by the Guttmacher Institute indicated that fourteen percent of women who abort cite pressure from a husband or partner as a reason for her abortion and six percent report pressure from parents as a reason for the abortion.

     

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

     

    The study also found that the fathers of aborted children are often failing to fulfill their duty to provide the resources and assistance needed by the mother to properly raise a child. The researchers wrote that "more than half of the women in the qualitative sample cited concerns about their relationship or single motherhood as a reason to end the pregnancy. Relationship problems included the partner’s drinking, physical abuse, unfaithfulness, unreliability, immaturity and absence (often due to incarceration or responsibilities to his other children). Many of these women were disappointed because their partner had reacted to the pregnancy by denying paternity, breaking off communication with them or saying that they did not want a child." The report concluded by saying "the themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study."

     

    If paternal negligence has no impact on whether a woman aborts, why are unmarried women about six times as likely to abort any particular pregnancy as are married women? ("The abortion ratio for unmarried women (485 per 1,000 live births) was 8.4 times that for married women (58 per 1,000).")

     

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm?s_cid=ss5713a1_e

     

    If the women targeted by the campaign are truly "having a hard time feeling good about" themselves, it seems reasonable to suspect many of them are among the women who are coerced into obtaining an abortion or failed to obtain the kind of assistance for childbearing that a father is obliged to provide.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • julie-watkins

    GrayDuck originally wrote on December 8, 2009 – 8:59pm.

    I would say that the story proves how the men who impregnate the women who get abortions have convinced those women that they are nothing more than sex objects. …

    When a woman controls her vagina, she can limit which men impregnate her and when they can do so. If she refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with men who are unwilling or unable to be good husbands and fathers, she will not have a need for a non-therapeutic abortion.

    what ProChoiceGoth on January 1 (near the top of the thread, but you’re answering with a new comment) was

    "You seem to think women who abort only do so because their partners tell them to." [emphasis added]

    Your statistics above don’t answer ProChoiceGoth’s "only". A significant fraction of abortions happen due to outside pressure, and another fraction outside pressure is probably an influence … but that isn’t even the majority of abortion decisions. I had an abortion after my birth control failed; I was already married. We had decided no children then (became never), but we still wanted to have PIV sex. Therefore, in contradiction to your above statment, I did "have a need for a non-therapeutic abortion". My motivations for my decision to have sex and be married didn’t include "be a good father", because I wasn’t thinking about motherhood.

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceGoth on January 1, 2010 – 8:21pm: "Consent to sex IS NOT consent to motherhood. You are aware that sex has MANY OTHER functions than "baby-making", correct?"

     

    Consent to sexual intercourse by a man is consent to financially and logistically supporting a baby and his or her mother until the child becomes an adult. If a woman aborts because a man threatens to withhold that support, she is being coerced into aborting. The study that I just mentioned, along with other data on why women abort, show that most women do not abort because they like abortions or because they do not want children, but rather because they lack the financial and logistical support from the father that mothers need.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • grayduck

    Julie Watkins on January 3, 2010 – 12:55pm: "Your statistics above don’t answer ProChoiceGoth’s ‘only’. A significant fraction of abortions happen due to outside pressure, and [in] another fraction outside pressure is probably an influence … but that isn’t even the majority of abortion decisions."

     

    Her comment can be interpreted two ways. I was responding to the following interpretation. "You seem to think some women who abort only do so because their partners tell them to." I thought my answer made clear- through use of the phrase "in many cases-" that I was assuming that interpretation.

     

    Your interpretation is the following. "You seem to think all women who abort only do so because their partners tell them to." If that is her intended meaning, then my answer is that her speculation is incorrect. I do not believe that all women abort only because they are given a direct order to do so by the father of the child.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com

  • prochoicegoth

    There isn’t a child until a live birth has occurs. Financial reasons are just as valid as any other. I highly doubt that a woman ONLY aborts because the sperm donor won’t pay up. There’s probably more to it than that and you’re misinterpretting the statistics and the research, like most pro-lifers seem to do. A woman can raise a child without the father, but if a woman doesn’t want to bring a child into the world without a father, why should she be forced to? 


    It’s pro-choice or
    NO choice.

  • julie-watkins

    You wrote 2:55 pm:

    I do not believe that all women abort only because they are given a direct order to do so by the father of the child.

    But you wrote on Dec 8th:

    When a woman controls her vagina, she can limit which men impregnate her and when they can do so. If she refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with men who are unwilling or unable to be good husbands and fathers, she will not have a need for a non-therapeutic abortion.

    That was the comment ProChoiceGoth was replying to. Since you were making a statement about all women I thought she was making a statement about what you thought about all women. If you do not believe all women only abort because their partner gives then a direct order, they why did you say earlier a woman will not have a need for non-therapeutic abortion if she only has sexual intercourse with men who are good husbands? I have a good husband (still). 28 years ago he was a good husband, when I got pregnant because my birth control failed. He was a good husband when I married him 33 years ago. Because my birth control failed I had need of a non-therapeutic abortion. I don’t think your opening statement on this article was right — I wrote that in my earlier reply — you didn’t comment on that. Since I had need of a non-therapeutic abortion, do you think I procured the abortion because I had a bad husband? That’s what you seem to be saying.

  • crowepps

    Consent to sexual intercourse by a man is consent to financially and logistically supporting a baby and his or her mother until the child becomes an adult.

    This has never been true, is not true now, and will probably never be true in the future.  The motivation of men for having sex has very, very little to do with babies. 

    If a woman aborts because a man threatens to withhold that support, she is being coerced into aborting.

    That may be true, or it may be that the cold light to reality has dawned and she has realized that being in the position of havng a man who would do that as co-parent would be impossible.

    The study that I just mentioned, along with other data on why women abort, show that most women do not abort because they like abortions or because they do not want children, but rather because they lack the financial and logistical support from the father that mothers need.

    But the study and data does not show that MOST women abort because of financial and logistical support.  Instead it shows that SOME women give that reason.  I don’t think any women get abortions because they ‘like’ them, and there is a huge difference between ‘do not want children’ and ‘do not want to have those children right now’.

  • grayduck

    ProChoiceGoth on January 3, 2010 – 5:05pm: "There isn’t a child until a live birth has occurs."

     

    Even if you believe that life begins at birth, my point is still valid. A mother- and a mother-to-be- has need for, and a right to receive, assistance from the father during the pregnancy and while the born child is a minor.

     

    "Financial reasons are just as valid as any other."

     

    I disagree. Health problems can sometimes be unforeseeable, but the financial problems that lead to most abortions are foreseeable and preventable by the father of the child. They are abandoning their children and mother of their children simply because they are irresponsible.

     

    "A woman can raise a child without the father, but if a woman doesn’t want to bring a child into the world without a father, why should she be forced to?"

     

    You are changing the subject.

     

    http://www.abortiondiscussion.com