My Happy Abortion: One Woman’s Guilt-Free Story


The title of this article was changed at 9:40 am, June 10th, 2011 to reflect the fact that while the author was raised Catholic, she no longer self-identifies as such.

Though I was raised in a Catholic family and apparently encouraged to participate in a “Right to Life” poster contest as a child, I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t pro-choice.  I remember thinking and even saying aloud that I would abort if I got pregnant as a teenager.  Then, as a young twenty-something, I became eager to have children – and I welcomed two very wanted, well-loved babies into the world.  Once things began to deteriorate between their father and I, I knew without a doubt that any future pregnancy we faced would be terminated

In October of last year, I made good on that promise to myself.

In September, I began experiencing pregnancy symptoms.  My period was late.  I was bloated; my small frame has always started to look pregnant within weeks of conceiving, and this time was no different.  Still, all the upheaval in my personal life made me hesitant to confirm the pregnancy.  I put it off until October, when I realized how silly it was to continue being nauseous, tired and fat when I had absolutely no desire to have another child.  Within an hour of testing, I had an appointment at a clinic that had been recommended to me by a friend:  American Women’s Services in Woodbridge, NJ.

I didn’t have any qualms about the ethics of my decision, but I was nervous just the same.  I have anxiety about medical issues, and knowing that they were going to take my blood and examine my body made me fearful.  I was relieved when the blood draw was just a finger prick for typing purposes, and I felt better when the ultrasound was done.  I was confirmed nine weeks and several days pregnant.

Because I had refused anything more than the local anesthetic used to numb the cervix for dilation, it wasn’t long before I was called in for the actual procedure.  The doctor’s assistants were kind and reassuring when I commented that it seemed most of the women there were having “twilight sleep.” I wondered momentarily if I had made a big mistake choosing to be awake and alert.

I hadn’t.  The doctor came in, amiable and obviously adept at his job.  He talked to me as he performed the abortion, letting me know when it might hurt a bit more and when that pain would subside.  The entire thing was incredibly mild – a twinge here, a tug there, a few pokes and some cramping that lasted a couple of minutes.  I was so relieved to be present in the moment, rather than floating in a murky, drug-induced fog.

It couldn’t have been more than five minutes before one of the assistants helped me to sit up so that I could get dressed.  She walked me out into the recovery area, and I unsuccessfully attempted to repress the huge grin that had developed on my face.  I felt euphoric.  I was so relieved to be done with all the medical business, even happier to know that I was no longer pregnant, and pleasantly surprised that I wasn’t feeling any physical pain.

I felt momentarily guilty when one of the other patients in recovery asked me if I ever stopped smiling, but I quickly reminded myself that it was senseless guilt.  After all, smiling is a natural reaction to happiness, and I was happy sitting there.  When they released me to go home fifteen minutes later, I was gladder still.

I know how far out of our society’s collective comfort zone it is to hear a woman say that she feels happy about her abortion, but I do.  My feelings go far beyond the simple relief that many women describe.  I am actually grateful for the experience itself and for the fact that, by sharing my story with others, I can be an ambassador for reproductive freedom.

That’s right, I speak openly about my abortion.  It’s the easiest way to reassure women who are contemplating a termination that the neither the procedure itself nor the emotional aftermath will necessarily be dramatic.  It’s also the easiest way to personalize the need for reproductive rights among friends and family members.  And, perhaps the most important reason to me as a mother, is that being open about my experience with my children will avail them of the knowledge that abortion is not shameful or uncommon. It isn’t something “other” women do.  It is a real, valid choice that women they know and love have made without remorse.

My terminated pregnancy was not a regrettable event requiring any apology from me. The only apology needed must come from those who are working diligently to prevent women like myself from accessing vital services to control their own reproductive destinies.  I regret but one thing:  that by the time my daughter is in the position to need an abortion, factions of fanatical, misogynistic conservatives may have eliminated her right to choose.

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

To schedule an interview with Jessica DelBalzo please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • fas

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • jennifer-starr

    Have you ever thought about spending time with your mother and doing things with her so she doesn’t feel alone, FAS? Might help. Maybe you could even tell her that there’s nothing to feel bad or guilty about. 

    Unless you’re the one piling on the guilt. Which I hope someone would never do to their own mother….

  • arcinoh

    I’m sorry your mother is sad and alone, but just because a woman has an abortion doesn’t guarantee she’ll be sad and alone at 64. Everyone reacts differently to the situation.

    My best friend had an abortion 15 years ago, before she had her 2 existing kids. Now she’s out of the abusive marriage, remarried, and wonderfully happy. If she hadn’t had the abortion 15 years ago, she probably wouldn’t have had the courage to leave her abusive husband. As it is, she was able to leave completely and move on with her life.

     

  • fas

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • jennifer-starr

    You can console her. She’s your mother, not a Shakespearean villainess–there’s no need to be so cold about it. 

  • fas

    Since I’ve never aborted my child (although I advocated for it), how would y’all, who have, recommend I console her?

  • goatini

    because in real life, planes, trains and automobiles, not to mention telephone, USPS, email, and iPhone FaceTime, render “5 states away” into an impossible, archaic, bullshit excuse.

    Also bears mentioning that anyone who would really talk about his own mother that way really, really, really hates women.

    Yeah, female US citizens seeking to protect our human, civil and Constitutional rights from demented mysogynists are going to decide to give up our rights because of the rants of a demented misogynist… NOT.

  • jennifer-starr

    You could try telling her that she does not have blood on her hands (because she doesn’t), and that you love her and you’ll be there for her. Not too hard for you, is it? 

  • fas

    However, what does she do with her guilt? She can’t shake it. Wants to die.

  • ahunt

    I suggest professional, non-guilt tripping counseling.

  • fas

    She’s had 25 years of weekly psychiatry, pills, and more treatment centers than I’d like to count.

    Plus my dear little sister is repeating the same cycle with 2 abortions, psychiatrists, pills and many treatment centers. Also wants to die. Totally uncool.

    All destroying what’s left of our family.

    What else do y’all recommend?

  • ahunt

    Not sure, FAS. There are always outliers, people  who simply cannot be helped, despite the best efforts of loved ones.

     

    However, if you are suggesting that banning abortion for ALL women is the answer to your family’s dysfunction…then I would ask you to get me from A) I believe abortion caused the destruction in MY family…to B) therefore abortion should not be available to anyone.

     

    Walk us through it, and remember….anecdote is not data.

  • joan2

    FAS, it sounds as though your mother and sister are both deeply depressed. Depression tends to run in families and women are more likely to suffer than men for some reason. But there is no reason to attribute their depression solely to abortion. Doctors now think depression is caused by an imbalance of biochemicals in the brain. While there is medication, it doesn’t work for everyone. Just because your mother and sister have both had abortions does not mean that is why they are depressed. Literally millions of women have had abortions at some point in their lives and obviously not all of them are suffering from crippling guilt and depression. Encourage your mother and sister to continue seeing their counselors. Depression is not a death sentence.

  • goatini

    a ghost writer for a sleazy “tell-all” book, with jacket quotes from Gingrich, Stanek and Pavone; a sociopathic PR flack; and living happily ever after raking in the dough from the Domestic Terrorist / Dominionist-Christo-Fascist speaking circuit.

  • jennifer-starr

    I would suggest that abortion is not the reason for your mother or for your sister’s problems. It sounds like your family has a history  of mental illness which is most likely genetic. 

  • jennifer-starr

    You know, I don’t get you. In previous statements you told us she supposedly has ‘blood on her hands’ and made her the moral equivalent of Lady Macbeth. Then in the next breath you say you’ve consoled and love her dearly. Which is it? Have you told her that she did nothing wrong and that she’s not some kind of murderess?  Or have you tried to console her with pious blather such as “Only God can forgive your sin”, etc. 

  • danij

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • prochoiceferret

    This is an absolutely sickening and disturbing story. She smiled and was happy because she just got done paying to have someone murder her own child?

     

    No, she smiled and was happy because

    I was so relieved to be done with all the medical business, even happier to know that I was no longer pregnant, and pleasantly surprised that I wasn’t feeling any physical pain.

    Please pay attention next time, mmmkay?

     

    I wonder if her 2 “happy and wanted” children know that if they had just had the misfortune of being conceived at a different time, they would’ve been ripped limb from limb out of their mothers body while she sat smiling.

     

    Um… do you know how conception works? If “they” had been conceived at a different time, they wouldn’t exist—certainly not in the “unique DNA” sense.

  • jennifer-starr

    However you may feel about her choice, the fact remains that it was her choice to make. No one should ever have to continue a pregnancy against their will.  

  • danij

    I paid attention, mmmmmkay?

     

    I’m quite aware of how conception works. And you’re right, they wouldnt exist, because their mother would have killed them. I dont get the thinking behind ‘it’s not a child in the womb but it magically turns into one when its born’

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    I paid attention, mmmmmkay?

     

    Mmmmmmnope, you clearly didn’t.

     

    I’m quite aware of how conception works. And you’re right, they wouldnt exist, because their mother would have killed them.

     

    No, they wouldn’t exist because some other sperm and (possibly some other) egg would have come together at the moment of conception. And you wouldn’t consider individuals with different DNA to be the same person, would you?

     

    I dont get the thinking behind ‘it’s not a child in the womb but it magically turns into one when its born’

     

    Yeah, I know what you mean! Kind of like… if some guy on the street puts a knife into me, it’s a “stab wound,” but if a doctor does it, it magically becomes an “incision!” Why does it matter who’s holding the knife? No one’s been able to explain that one to me….

  • fas

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

     

  • jennifer-starr

    First thing, abortion is not murder–plain and simple. Your mother (if what you previously said is actually true), has no blood on her hands because she never spilled any. 

    Second–there hasn’t been any increase in clinical depression or mental illness. Our diagnostic tools have improved  and we’ve removed the stigma that used to be associated with these illnesses–people can be treated more easily and no one has to suffer alone in shame and silence. It’s not a life sentence. It can be helped and treated 

    Thirdly, which generation are you from?  The phrase “mentally defective”  hasn’t been used  by psychiatrists as a clinical term for literally decades.

      And sins of the father/generational curses? Pure bunk. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Sociologists can now study two generations of women who’ve killed their children through abortion.

     

    Umm… are you talking about infanticide, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion? Because I can assure you, all of those have been going on for a lot longer than two generations.

     

    Apparently many of these millions of women and girls are being labeled as mentally defective and told that there’s no link between killing their children and their depression and suicidal thoughts.

     

    Patriarchal culture has certainly been telling all women and girls that they are mentally and emotionally unequal to men. As for the very small minority that have committed infanticide, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were in part caused by depression and suicidal thoughts… and if that, in turn, were in part caused by the disempowering patriarchal culture around them.

     

    Where is the hope in this multi-generational cycle of spilling the blood of one’s own child and a mother’s eternal guilt?

     

    Child Protective Services and professional counseling are a good start.

     

    Who offers immense hope in our very sad, very depressed, suicide-inducing culture of death?

     

    Certainly not the GOP or their social-conservative cronies, who seem to be doing everything they can to bring that about.

     

    Historians in the not-too-distant-future may label ours as the most barbaric and depressed generation ever.

     

    The rise of the Tea Party and their rhetoric, along with all of the openly displayed misogyny in the political sphere, would certainly suggest as much.

  • arcinoh

    Sociologists can only study this now because it’s only been in the past 40 years that women have “killed their child through abortion”?

    You realize that abortion has been around a LOT longer than 40 years, right?

  • arcinoh

    Not to mention that I think “killing a child through abortion” is completely untrue and needessly inflammatory rhetoric, of course.

  • arectaris

    I can’t help but feel there is a disconnect between (some) pro-choicers and the general public. I can say with confidence that the above story, if disseminated, will do far more to hurt your cause than to help it.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You are seriously offensive. Abortion is NOT murder.

    Abortion and birth control have existed for thousands of years  (http://www.4000yearsforchoice.com/). This is not a new concept.
    There is no such thing as post-abortive syndrome. It’s a bullshit made-up syndrome created by anti-choices/foreced birthers to guilt and control women. So spare me the guilt trip it ain’t gonna work here.

  • rebellious-grrl

    This story is a hell of a lot more common than you think. Being that more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. So disseminate away.

  • ahunt

    Why? Because a woman is guilt-free regarding her choice to terminate a pregnancy? Details, please.

  • arectaris

    Given the percentage of abortions done for this reason, it’s not really all that common considering. But how common it is doesn’t matter, anyway. A minority of Americans believe abortion should be legal because a woman is having relationship problems. Advertising to the world how you killed your child because you were having relationship problems and were happy about it is a sure fire way to turn people off.

  • prochoiceferret

    Advertising to the world how you killed your child because you were having relationship problems and were happy about it is a sure fire way to turn people off.

     

    Sure, if you distort her story with anti-choice spin, it doesn’t come off so well. Let’s try that a little differently:

     

    Advertising to the world how you chose to have an abortion because you were in an abusive relationship and were happy about [the abortion] is a sure fire way to de-stigmatize abortion.

     

    You see how that works?

  • arectaris

    If pointing out to you how public perception works is an “anti-choice spin”, then you probably are further removed from society than I thought. But yes, I see how it works. You think that trying to dress up my comments will result in a different outcome more favorable to you. It won’t. There is a reason why pro-choicers tend to focus on the stories about women needing an abortion because they were raped or were having complications, rather than focusing on stories about women obtaining an abortion for social and economic reasons. Public opinion is simply not on their side in the latter two situations, and making heros out of women who abort for these women would be met with serious public outcry.

  • prochoicekatie

    When women face an unplanned pregnancy, however untenable the circumstances, I get the feeling that many who would condone her choice to have an abortion would also want her to feel properly shamed for having an unplanned pregnancy. Of course, this is similar to folks who ingest too much cholestorol, and find themselves in need of a quadruple bypass. The premise there being that they are admonished for their poor diet, not for their heart surgery.
    While the majority of Americans agree that abortion should be legal is most instances, there is still a large amount of “slut-shaming” and “women-blaming” when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, regardless of whether they are terminated.
    That said, I agree with Arectaris (sp?) in that some folks will be turned off by this story. However, if more women speak out about being happy with their choice to have an abortion, it may help more women who know they made the right choice brush off the guilt and shame being meted out by others (see FAS above).

  • jennifer-starr

    What is with this obsession that pro-lifers have that women must feel terrible guilt over ending a pregnancy? As if they’ve done something horrible. Let me tell you something–many women don’t feel any guilt because they know that they’ve made the right decision for themselves and for their lives. And as much as pro-lifers want people to wail and beat their chests over it, that’s just not always the case. 

  • prochoiceferret

    If pointing out to you how public perception works is an “anti-choice spin”, then you probably are further removed from society than I thought.

     

    Oh, of course society is misogynistic and would rather see women become good little mothers rather than exercising their own autonomy, and I do disagree with that. You don’t have to remind me.

     

    Public opinion is simply not on their side in the latter two situations, and making heros out of women who abort for these women would be met with serious public outcry.

     

    Yes, just like women working outside the home, and female suffrage, and interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage, and pretty much every other major social change in history. It’ll play out.

  • therealistmom

    And I can guarantee you I would be a 1000 times more depressed if I was forced to bear a child at 15 than I am now. Well- not entirely true. I would have killed myself before giving birth, so I wouldn’t be here to be depressed.

    Do I have Major Depressive Disorder? Yep. Was it caused by “guilt” for “murdering a baby”? Nope. It’s caused by neurochemical imbalances in my brain. I’ve likely had it all my life, which helps explain the poor decision making and neediness I displayed as a teenager in regards to what was a mentally abusive relationship from both sides.

    What DOES contribute to my MDD? Stress, from being a single mom of three, two of whom have special needs (the oldest outgrew the worst of her ADHD, and now is just scattered like mom… SQUIRREL!!). Stress from finances, having lost my job and living off child support and a small amount of SSI for one child. Stress from my oldest getting ready to head off to college in the fall.

    Abortion? Best decision I ever made.

  • prochoicekatie

    I do want to clarify that I know that some women do not have complete access to contraception, do not have an agreeable partner, or use contraception correctly and it fails.
    Similarly again, I’m sure there are folks who lead healthy lifestyles and due to genetics are still at risk for heart disease.

    I also want to clarify that I don’t necessarily agree that all women/men should be admonished for not using contraception consistently/ taking care of their health, but that it is important to talk about contraception with women who face unplanned pregnancies, just as it is important to talk about diet and exercise with men and women with clogged arteries.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ My mother had every right to look at my vile abusive fathers behavior and say I am going to abort this pregnancy. My father was a southern Baptist preacher’s son, my father beat my teenage mother in the face and made it gush blood because I was crying as a sick baby.

    My evil Christian father used me to abuse my mother and keep her subjugated to him, he knew exactly what he was doing and it gave him much pleasure. Just like it gives republican, conservative, Christian, pro-lifers pleasure to keep women and little girls subjugated and pregnant.

    I wish my poor mother had saved her self and me by aborting me. I hate that my mother spent twenty years in physical and emotional hell when she could have aborted me; I never had or would want the right to heap that misery on my helpless, trapped mother.

    But then I do not have the same opinion of women and little girls as pimps and pro-lifers do, that women and little girls are just cunts and their physical, emotional, and future well being is meaningless.

    Their lives, bodies, and vaginas are to be used, abused, and dictated against their will to please other people at the pregnant woman or little girls expense.

    Fetuses and embryos have no physical or emotional feelings but women and little girls do. ~

     

    ~ Quote from the pro-lifers favorite book, the bible.

     

    Hosea 13: 16

    “Samaria shall bear her guilt and become desolate, for she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women shall be ripped up.” ~

  • ahunt

    Public opinion is simply not on their side in the latter two situations, and making heros out of women who abort for these women would be met with serious public outcry.

     

    Uhm…demonizing women who get abortions for personal, social and economic reasons isn’t working out so well, either.

     

     

  • fas

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Reasons for having an abortion(s) can differ greatly, but most abortions are done in the first trimester. Any reason we have for choosing abortion is a good reason. These are our bodies and our lives. No one has the right to force us to have a baby, or to punish us for liking sex. I’ve had two abortions and I have absolutely no regrets.

    Furthermore, a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

  • arectaris

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

     

  • arectaris

    Furthermore, a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

     

    Correction. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in certain instances, which is a farcry from always.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Quit saying you are not bornin1984 and then acting just like the pro-rape abusive creep.

     

    This poster is a MAN.

  • ahunt

    Could you be stupider? Blood guilt?

     

    Tell ya what. Quit telling your Mom and sister they have “blood on their hands.” It might help.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ The majority of Americans do not own my vagina! ~

  • ahunt

    Correction. A majority of Americans do not want Roe V Wade overturned, whatever their feelings about the morality of abortion.

  • arectaris

    Are you trying to pass that off as not wanting to restrict abortion? If so, then I would question your honesty. It’s well-documented that just because Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned doesn’t mean they don’t support specific restrictions on abortion. You’re engaging in nothing more than a common pro-choice tactic.

  • prochoicekatie

    To be blunt, the way you talk about your mother is incredibly troubling. You use inflammatory rhetoric when it simply isn’t needed. Even if you believe that your mother’s psychological issues are because of her decision to have an abortion, you needn’t use comparisons to Macbeth, phrases like blood-guilt, or silly rhetorical questions.

    Also, I think have a more nuanced view of abortion is the opposite of being myopic. There is a whole lot of complexity and gray when it comes to the issue of abortion, which is why the majority of Americans believe it should be legal in all or most circumstances and that it should be available in their community. They agree that they are not best suited to determine what choices women they don’t know, whose circumstances they are not aware of, should make.

    And, you can console her. You can talk to her, you can help her find counseling (that works), and help her find peace with her choice. Many folks have made choices that weren’t right for them in one situation or another, and do not suffer from crippling guilt. Helping your mom find counseling that allows her to move on, and not constantly punish herself is something a loving child might consider. Talking about her on online forums using inflammatory rhetoric, frankly, is not.

  • prochoiceferret

    I will probably regret asking this, but how do you know society is misogynistic? Or is misogyny just the invisible boogeyman?

     

    I know it the same way that I know racism is still a problem in this country. And yes, I’m not surprised that all of this is invisible to you. See “White privilege” and “male privilege.”

     

    No, not like that. Though the fact that you think so does just give further credence to the idea that you’re far removed for society, or any form of reality as far as I can tell.

     

    That’s what they said to advocates in pretty much every other major social movement in history, too!

     

    Society has no become more accepting of abortion for social or economic reasons. In fact, it has become less accepting.

     

    Just like many other social movements in history, which also had their ups and downs. Heck, just ask those working for racial equality!

  • ahunt

    Yah…your problem is that “specific restrictions on abortion” invariably obliges a reversal of Roe…and as impending lawsuits go forward, SCOTUS will either be striking down restrictions or overturning Roe.

  • kj

    Well,maybe you should be happy your mother survived if she had abortions prior to 1973, since the death rate for back alley abortions prior to the Roe decision was sky high? Maybe you should be happy she was free to make her own choices?

    Maybe you should be happy that your mother wasn’t burdened with 6 children she was too depressed to care for? 

     

    I feel sorry for your Mother; her child is a jerk who believes in blood-guilt, judges her harshly and refuses to help her.  She deserves non-judgmental psychiatric care and better children.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “I will probably regret asking this, but how do you know society is misogynistic? Or is misogyny just the invisible boogeyman?”

    A predictable post from a hateful pro-lifer MAN.

     

    Republican christian conservative pro-lifers cut

    “House Republicans, as part of their 2012 budget, have proposed dramatic cuts to food assistance programs, including cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) that would prevent hundreds of thousands of eligible women and their children from accessing the program. Late last month, the House Appropriations Committee approved more than $830 million in cuts to WIC and millions more in cuts to the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/02/234878/gop-nutrition-cuts-one-week/

     

    Kansas Lawmaker Says Women Should Plan Ahead For Rape: ‘I Have A Spare Tire’

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/24/169061/abortion-rape-spare-tire/

     

    Supreme Court Denies Justice To Texas Cheerleader Who Refused To Cheer Her Alleged Rapist

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/06/164194/scotus-texas-cheerleader/

     

    16-Year-Old Girl Who Challenged Bachmann To Debate Receiving Threats Of Violence, Rape

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/20/168322/teenager-bachman-debates-threats/

     

     

    “A 15-year-old rape victim was forced to stand terrified before her entire Baptist congregation in New Hampshire to confess her sin of having become pregnant.

    What Tina Anderson wasn’t allowed to tell the congregation was that she had become pregnant after she was raped by a church deacon, a man twice her age.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/13/966470/-The-Scarlet-Letter-ReturnsFundies-Force-Child-Rape-Victim-to-Confess-Her-Sin

     

    Christian man, most likely pro-lifer letting us know what he and his think of women.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBgulhA1eQ&feature=related

     

  • jennifer-starr

    FAS–do you ever think that you might be contributing to your mother’s and your sister’s depression by trying to lay this misplaced guilt on them?  They are not murderers.  There is no blood on their hands. And they are your family. And as imperfect as they may be, you might want to try reaching out to them rather than standing over them in hateful, self-righteous judgment. 

  • arekushieru

    But, the first reason, could be limited to merely usage of a telephone or automobile.  My mom doesn’t use any of the other things you mentioned, especially now that Canada Post is on strike and, especially since she gets claustrophobic in planes and passenger trains are WAY too expensive, here.  But, she very rarely visits her own mother, who is just one province away, even by automobile.  She is very emotionally close to her mother, but doesn’t talk to her all that often on the telephone.  Her mom, at 85, is just going to join the computer/e-mail crowd. So, those reasons aren’t really all that exceptional….

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Yes!

     

    Wasn’t it la plume that said, “My uterus is not public property!” Whoever said it, it’s true. My vagina, my uterus etc. are mine!

  • arekushieru

    I think you should go back and re-read what she said.  She said a majority of Americans believe *abortion* should be legal.  Whether it’s legal in all or SOME instances is irrelevant.  Abortion is still legal, especially via Roe vs Wade, as Ahunt said….

  • fas

    Instead of just aborting three of our siblings, if mom had aborted all of us as the TheRealistMom recommended as a "best decision," perhaps then she’d be happy. Right?

     

    How can abortive-death be a real family solution?

  • ahunt

    I’m so confused. Are you telling us that that the mental illness in your family is the product of abortion, and everything would be hunky dory if all women were denied legal access to abortion? What…?

  • jennifer-starr

    She might be happier if she had a more  mature and understanding daughter. Instead she’s got you–who falsely labels her as a murderess. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Instead of just aborting three of our siblings, if mom had aborted all of us as the TheRealistMom recommended as a “best decision,” perhaps then she’d be happy. Right?

     

    I can’t say much about your siblings. But considering how you’ve shamed and guilted your mom over the choices she’s made, she would probably be happier today if she had aborted you.

  • sorsha88

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • ahunt

    Here’s a thought: Maybe once things started to deteriorate between you and the father of your children, you could have kept your legs closed. You’re right, America doesn’t own your gaping vagina, you do.

     

    What are you….12?

  • sorsha88

    Double that and add a few years, darling. What is this notion that a woman cannot say no to sex?

  • ahunt

    What kind of woman are you?

     

    Apparently a woman happy to only have two children.

     

    You should be ashamed to propagate such an irresponsible attitude towards abortion. 

     

    So which of her two existing kids should she be ashamed of having?  One? Both?

     

    I was faced with an unplanned pregnancy, and in an even worse situation with the father. I weighed my options, but made the choice that I knew I would never regret on my deathbed.

     

    Well, ain’t yu jus’ the perfect l’il mama!

     

    And my little boy has brought abundant joy to everyone in his life. It’s not easy, but choosing life is never the wrong choice.

     

    Well yeah…it can be the wrong choice.

     

     

    How dare you make light of such an agonizing decision.

     

    Yah…because a rational, well considered choice must be agonizing, or what kind of woman are you? Oh look…full circle.

     

     

    Not only do have your own child’s blood on your hands, but you’ll be partly cupable for any naive girl who reads your blog, believes a lunatic, and makes the biggest mistake of her life. 

     

    Murdering bitch…you are now responsible for the well thought out choices of others. SHAME!

     

    Keep your legs closed, girls, or prepare to WOMAN UP and accept the responsibility of your actions.

     

    Because accepting responsibility for your choice to abort isn’t really accepting responsibility…in SLUTSHAME LAND!


  • jennifer-starr

    You made a choice that you felt was best for you. Likewise, she made a choice that she felt was best for her at the time.  Whether you agree with her or not is immaterial; she is entitled to make that choice. 

  • jennifer-starr

    Duplicate–please delete. 

  • ahunt

    Not familiar with Fundamentalist Xtian Complementarianism and/or the Patriarchy Movement, are you?

     

    Nor even familiar with the standard realities of intimate husband-wife relationships…it seems.

  • sorsha88

    She didn’t say she’s married. If she were done having children, or didn’t want any more of his than she could go get fixed or get an iud.

  • ahunt

    So what?

  • sorsha88

    You can twist my words all you like, however, I did not say that women who choose to abort are wrong or evil or sluts or irresponsible. There are a myriad of factors, unique to each situation. I was in that same position once, and either decision is difficult. I was grateful to have the freedom to choose.  However, I believe it is a woman’s natural instinct to protect and nurture our offspring, so the decision to willfully end a pregnancy is one that goes against our nature and inherently creates inner turmoil. As it should. 
    It is irresponsible of the author to make an abortion seem as joyful as going for a massage. This woman has fanatic ideas away: she isn’t pro-choice enough to consider adoption as a viable option. She sounds blasé about her pre-determined decision to abort since she was a teenager. Was this something on her bucket list? 
    Sex is like drinking – safe and fun when enjoyed responsibly. But to glorify carelessness and then to be nonchalant about a life-altering decision can be misleading to women in an emotionally-charged state to begin with. I guarantee this woman’s experience is NOT the norm, and women should be encouraged to be responsible with their bodies and the gift it is to give birth.

  • ahunt

    I was grateful to have the freedom to choose.

     

    ‘Nuff said.

  • arekushieru

    Not all women have the ability to purchase an IUD and, even if they did, they’re bodies may reject it.  Besides contraceptive sabotage is all too common.  Coerced abortion?  Try coerced pregnancy.  Coerced pregnancy, such as Pro’life’ supports, when they deny women access to free contraceptive services, when they promote abstinence-only sex-ed, which is PROVEN not to reduce teenage/unplanned pregnancies, over comprehensive sex-ed, etc, etc….  Why should a woman be forced to undergo an invasive surgery just so fools can feel more comfortable with their moralizing?  Why should a woman be forced to make a medical decision, just because she is homogametic?  It’s not something she has any control over. Besides, what do you say to women who are under 35 and have no children? Because, I can guarantee you that there is little to no chance that a doctor will perform a tubal ligation on such a woman.  And no contraceptive is 100% effective.  

    WHOOPS…? 

  • colleen

    I was faced with an unplanned pregnancy, and in an even worse situation with the father. I weighed my options, but made the choice that I knew I would never regret on my deathbed.

    I think one reality folks like you refuse to even entertain, much less grapple with is that women who come on a blog and say things like “Maybe once things started to deteriorate between you and the father of your children, you could have kept your legs closed. You’re right, America doesn’t own your gaping vagina, you do.” are instantly disqualifed as examples of anything decent or role models for anything.

     

     

  • crowepps

     However, I believe it is a woman’s natural instinct to protect and nurture our offspring, so the decision to willfully end a pregnancy is one that goes against our nature and inherently creates inner turmoil. As it should. 

    And yet there isn’t any evidence whatsoever that it is either natural or instinctive for women to protect and nuture imperfect or unwanted offspring.  In fact, the evidence tends to go the other way, with it being common in primitive tribes for a woman to abandon or fail to feed an obviously defective infant, it is common in cultures that value males over females for female infants to be abandoned, and if food and water are scarce it is not unusual to abandon a newborn in favor of guaranteeing the survival of earlier born children in whom a considerable investment has already been made.  You might be interested in doing some reading on “maternal investment theory”.

     

    In addition, without a Church to encourage stigma and tell women what they were supposed to be feeling, abortion in Russia and the countries under its control was matter of fact and produced no discernible ‘turmoil’ in those who used it.

     

    It is always difficult to separate instinctive human behavior from lovely sentimental cultural myths, but instinctive human behavior tends to be present in every culture, tends to be taken so for granted that it would never occur to anybody to discuss whether it is ‘right’, and when it is doesn’t tend to be described by emotionally loaded phrases like “the gift it is to give birth”.   Generally speaking, when behaviors that are present in some cultures and not others, which tend to be contentious when discusses, and which have to enforced by a social or moral authority are not ‘natural instinct’ at all but instead socially enforced cultural behaviors useful to the ruling class.

  • arekushieru

    TRM WASn’t recommending that abortion was the best decision for ALL of you, OBviously.  She was suggesting that your mother made the best decision, AT THE TIME, to have an abortion, just as your mother made the best decision, AT THE TIME, to continue her pregnancies that resulted in you and the rest of her ACTUAL children.  Guess what, fetuses aren’t siblings, either.

  • arekushieru

    ‘Totally uncool’??  Well, that’s rather cold-sounding for someone whose sibling is in a traumatic situation.  I think you’re just proving yourself to be a troll, more and more.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You’ve won the “Forced-birther drama award.”

  • mm23

    Mysogynsim has nothing to do with it because it’s not an attack on women at all. It’s a desire to protected helpless unborn children from murder. YOu don’t want it, and a baby in the womb is NO DIFFERENT. It’s still a HUMAN BEING. And the key term in the other remarks is YOUR body. The baby is NOT your body, it is a seperate, living, breathing human being, deserving of its own rights and protections. CHILDREN ARE NOT TRASH. And to be happy about killing a child is psychopathy.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Speaking of lunatic. You fit the definition of lunatic.

  • auntbec

    a living, breathing, separate being until it has actually been born.  That is common biology knowledge.

    On the other hand, it is not about what is growing in a woman’s body that concerns pro-birthers, only that she give birth to it, under any circumstance.

    A comment on the story – I love it!  I don’t know this woman’s life story, but I am so glad she shared this piece of it.

    I work in a clinic, and I am so proud to go to work ever day, regardless of any type of toll it might take on me.  Why?  Because this piece of the story in each of these women’s lives touches me and adds to the fabric and story of my life.  It builds more and more compassion for mothers and their children every single day…not that I didn’t already have it!

    I would be proud to hang this story on our wall, to share with our women, to help them alleviate the stigma they bring with them from all corners of their world.

    Bravo!

  • prochoiceferret

    Mysogynsim has nothing to do with it because it’s not an attack on women at all. It’s a desire to protected helpless unborn children from murder.

     

    Kind of how like racistism had nothing to do with slavery. It was just protection of slaveowner’s property rights! They paid good money for those things, after all.

     

    YOu don’t want it, and a baby in the womb is NO DIFFERENT. It’s still a HUMAN BEING.

     

    And it still doesn’t have the right to free room and board inside a woman’s uterus.

     

    The baby is NOT your body, it is a seperate, living, breathing human being, deserving of its own rights and protections.

     

    None of which include the right to free room and board inside a woman’s uterus.

     

    CHILDREN ARE NOT TRASH.

     

    Tell that to the GOP sometime. The way they’ve been cutting WIC, SCHIP, and other programs that help young children, you wouldn’t know it.

     

    And to be happy about killing a child is psychopathy.

     

    Good thing no one here is talking about infanticide (except you).

  • therealistmom

    I said -MY- abortion was the best decision -I- ever made.

    Your mother made the decision she felt was best for -HER-.

    That’s the entire point. Women need free agency to make their choices. And your mom sure the hell wasn’t obligated to carry three pregnancies that MIGHT have POTENTIALLY been siblings, just because you in your selfishness believe she should have.

    You’ll also note my choice of screen names. I have children. WANTED children. Children I was ready to bear and raise. I don’t presume to know what is best for anyone besides -ME-.

    I’m certainly not a psychiatrist, nor do I know your mother, or do I even know if this is a legitimate story (it’s the internet…). But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that IF this is a true story, your mother’s depression was not caused by the abortions- instead, her depression resulted in the abortions. Three unwanted pregnancies in a time when abortion was not legally accessible sounds like someone who potentially was in abusive relationships or otherwise had difficulty making good decisions in regards to relationships, perhaps self-esteem problems.  Depression can be a root cause of all of those things. It can also make someone see themselves as unable to carry a pregnancy and raise a child. Some depression is a lifetime event. It’s a lot more likely that mental illness came before the abortions, not the other way around.

     

  • arekushieru

    Abortion is not killing, let ALONE murder and doesn’t involve children (unless the pregnant woman isn’t an adult, yet), human beings (other than the woman) or even babies.  

    Fetuses alREADy have all the protection that everyone else does.  Anti-choicers (yes, anti-choicers) desire to protect a fetus above and BEYOND what society demands for everyone else.  

    Misogyny has everything to do with it, FOR THAT REASON.  NO one else is permitted to co-opt another person’s body against that person’s will, not EVen to save their life, regardless of intent or cause, via ONGOING, informed and explicit consent.  

    Whenever I hear anti-choicers use the phrase ‘your body’, I know that somewhere along the line, they failed to grasp a few very simple concepts. That pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body, that pregnancy is a VERY dangerous medical condition, that pregnancy is formed through a parasitic relationship, that DIRECTLY takes its toll on a woman’s body.  That equating consent to sex with consent to pregnancy IS inherent misogyny, based on nothing other than the involuntary placement of the materials that are required for conception, gestation, childbirth and delivery to be completed, as it is, that equating abortion to murder, simply because it requires mutilation of a human body in order to safeguard the rights, medical privacy and health of the host body, while blithely remaining untouched by/unaware of the plight of needy organ recipients (remember, these organ recipients are living, ACTUALLY separate, ACTUALLY breathing, ACTUAL human beings, after all, so why should potential organ donors remain exempt from the ‘it’s not your body’ argument?), who require a sacrifice of lesser proportions than that which all pregnancy places on women, is ALSO misogyny.  

    Yes, we are aware that anti-choicers believe that a fetus is deserving of rights and protections, ABOVE AND BEYOND the rights and protections extended to those born.

    No, children aren’t trash, but anti-choicers couldn’t care less if they’re treated that way.  Some of the more extreme examples of their legacy of indoctrination, stigmatization and shame…?  Andrea Yates and Kristina Effert.  

    To be happy about being able to control one’s body and make a decision to opt-out of organ-sharing, is evidence of a healthy and well-adjusted woman.    

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, here’s a thought: Maybe once things started to deteriorate between you and the mother of your children, you could have kept your legs closed. But wait…, how are you going to know whether that man kept his legs closed or not?  That’s right… you don’t care.  The only reason you care whether women kept their legs closed or not, is because there’s an OBVIOUS connection to sex that can be observed in women.  If that WASn’t all you cared about, then you would be willing to enforce mandatory organ donation in the face of someone losing an existing child that *actually* DOES (as you, yourSELF, admitted) love you.  

    When people make such spurious claims as ‘gaping vagina’, I like to point out the FACT that I am 100% ProChoice, yet I have never had sex, let ALONE been pregnant or had an abortion.  Your ‘gaping vagina’ comment thus refers to ALL women who have had sex at least once, which would inCLUDE ProLife women.  Maybe you might wanna hold back on the slut-shaming comments, next time, if you really wanna hold true to the claim that you aren’t calling women sluts, hmmm…?

    I have a question, how can one be irresponsible if they have never been taught to BE responsible?  Unfortunately, it is ProLifers, themselves, who have made the claim to irresponsibility moot, largely by denying such appropriate education.

    Sure, a being who is resented, unwanted and unloved may love you just as much as the other children you already had, but that being does not love you, NOW.  That being does not deSERVE to be resented, unwanted and unloved.  A woman’s other children do not deSERVE to be deprived of the basic necessities of life.  

    A woman didn’t ask to have all the materials for conception, gestation, labour and delivery to occur, naturally, inside her body.  

    No babies are involved in abortion.

    Many women regret continuing their pregnancies to term, but you don’t hear about them because people like you have stigmatized and shamed them to such a level, that they would never dream of opening their mouths and facing further stigmatization and shame.

    If the agonizing decision has nothing to do with the choice you make, then it stands to reason that the agonizing decision you refer to, is the one created by the untenable position you find yourself in. But, if that’s the case, then how was her decision irresponsible, just because it was different from your own?  That only makes sense if the agonizing decision DOES depend on the choice that was made. So, please clarify.

    It would have been MORE likely that she would have had her exISting children’s blood on her hands if she had decided to continue with the pregnancy.  Any pregnancy puts strain on the health and life of the woman and all other existing family members. An unwanted pregnancy would be even MORE problematic, in that instance.

    Ableist and misogynistic terms, much…?

     

  • crowepps

    Posted this a couple days ago because I was absolutely INCENSED that this couple was being treated just SHAMEFULLY by doctors who didn’t seem to think the deaths of FIVE BABIES in a three year period was anything to get excited about.  Since you obviously won’t agree with their ridiculous ‘wait and see’ attitude, I’m sharing it so you can get your ProLife supporters together and have this outdated and ridiculous rule about ‘no testing until there are three miscarriages in a row’ changed IMMEDIATELY.  This should be a TOTALLY noncontroversial, common ground area we can ALL agree needs to be changed AT ONCE!

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/09/miscarriage.not.fluke.ep/

  • elburto

    The thing is though Jessie, despite this fairly good article, you’re pro-abortion rather than pro-choice, because you believe that women should either carry and keep, or abort, or even kill a neonate if they choose – rather than surrendering the child. I’m absolutely pro-choice, every woman has the right to do what she wants, and I believe abortion and contraception should be free of charge on demand, but you don’t believe that, you’ve even said that if you found out your kids were swapped at birth with someone elses that you’d lose all connection to them immediately and surrender them without a backward glance, because families can only be families where dna is involved.

    I find that repellent. I find it sad that someone who organises protests designed to harass anyone, birth mothers included, involved in adoption, can be invited to write for a pro-CHOICE site.

    Then there’s your stance that baby formula should be prescription only, and that anyone who cannot or doesn’t want to breastfeed “doesn’t deserve to breed”. Classism at it’s finest there, and again not pro choice as you’re making statements about who ‘deserves’ to breed, and what women do with their own bodies.

    I like this story but I loathe your politics.

  • middle

    I am disconcerted by the approach that both this article and this discussion board has taken to identifying the moral and ethical issues related to abortion.There are some fundimental issues that need to be brought up. But I would like to start here.

    1. An emotional reaction either negative or positive has no impact on the moral or ethical value of the act of abortion. It is either okay or not okay to terminate a human being in it’s fetal stage of development. The decision can not even be based on the impact the abortion or birth would have on the woman, fetus or world, as when the decision is made the impact is purely theoretical and is in reality pure potential.

  • jennifer-starr

    The impact on the woman is actually the most important thing, as she is the one who will be most affected either way. That is why the decision belongs to her. 

  • choice-joyce

    I also felt very happy after my abortion, it was a huge weight lifted off my shoulders and felt great to have my life back. This is NOT an uncommon or unusual reaction, I’ve heard other women say that they felt euphoric after their abortions too. I think it’s largely due to the sheer stress of being in an unwanted pregnancy, and in my case at least, the fear and anxiety that I would somehow be prevented from having the abortion.

  • julie-watkins

    I always wonder why a pregnant woman’s actions concerning pregnancy are so much more of a Ethical Question than the high biological burn of reproduction for human females and society’s systemic discrimination angainst women and poor people.

    When a system isn’t fair, why is it unethical to point out the unfairness and want consideration? I don’t see any ethical problem with early abortion. I don’t know of any “problem” with late abortion that wouldn’t be better dealt with by medical standards rather than anti-abrortion laws. That’s the situation in Canada. They don’t have any abortion laws, just medical standards. I don’t know of any Goskell-type scandals that have happened in Canada.

  • arectaris

    Who cares if they feel guilty or not? Feeling guilt has little to do with whether an action is right or wrong. But that doesn’t matter because, as I mentioned nothing about guilt, your comment had nothing to do with mine. Perhaps you would care to address the actual points in my post?

  • arectaris

    I know it the same way that I know racism is still a problem in this country. And yes, I’m not surprised that all of this is invisible to you. See “White privilege” and “male privilege.”

    So you don’t know it?

    That’s what they said to advocates in pretty much every other major social movement in history, too! 

     

    Just like many other social movements in history, which also had their ups and downs. Heck, just ask those working for racial equality!

    As it relates to abortion, you’re leaving out a key difference. Whereas with something like racial equality, younger generations are more accepting of the idea of equality between people of different races, in the case of abortion each subsequent generation is generally less approving of abortion than the last and more willing to make it illegal. I’m not so sure how you classify that as “ups and downs”. A “social movement” which fewer people embrace as the years past isn’t much of a social movement at all. Or not much of a progressive one at least.

  • broodstock

    Antis so eagerly and aggressively latch on to “psychological issues” surrounding abortion yet never once question what that person’s life was like before an abortion – were they previously depressed or suicidal, did they abuse substances prior, were they victims of physical/emotional abuse before?  Investigating these issues though would certainly negate their claims of “post-abortion trauma.”

     

    Blaming abortion is an easy scapegoat.

     

     

  • crowepps

    A “social movement” which fewer people embrace as the years past isn’t much of a social movement at all.

    That’s not the way it works — a higher proportion of children and teens have the opinion that abortion is ‘wrong’, and should be ‘illegal’, when those same persons get into college or become grownups and while the same number may still think abortion is ‘wrong’ they change their opinion about it being ‘illegal’.  Boys and men, who will never get pregnant or personally need abortion, are less tolerant of it.  Women past menopause, who can no longer get pregnant, are less tolerant of it.

     

    And when you ask people about SPECIFIC instances and whether abortion is ‘moral’ and should be legal, it turns out that only 15% of the population is 100% no abortion whatsoever, no exeptions, get pregnant and prepare to die.

     

    Most people understand that while they certainly have a right to make whatever decisions they personally choose and embrace martyrdom if they so desire, they don’t have a right to sentence other people to die for their personal religious principles.

  • quietly

    Arekushieru, not quite sure what that statement could possibly mean. I agree no babies ask to be aborted or participate in or are involved in their own induced abortion. But somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant. Perhaps you mean that the life forms that are removed from the mother/host during an induced abortion are not babies? In Washington state, where I work as a women’s healthcare practitioner, abortion is legal through the ninth month of pregnancy. I think that fetal development in those later months qualifies the life form as a “baby” .

     

  • jennifer-starr

    The ninth month–really? Because according to my sources it’s legal in Washington up to the point of viability, which according to their laws is 23 1/2 weeks.  After that point the Doctor can make the call for an abortion if continuing the pregnancy poses a danger to the life or health of the mother.  If you’re a healthcare professional in Washington State you should know this.  

    http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/what-you-should-know-about-reproductive-freedom-washington-state

  • colleen

    In Washington state, where I work as a women’s healthcare practitioner, abortion is legal through the ninth month of pregnancy.

    A ‘baby’ has developed sufficiently to survive outside the uterus of it’s mother. I’m sure that legitimate “woman’s health practitioners” working anywhere but one of the religious taxpayer funded boondoggles (CPC’s) is aware of this. The otherwise unemployable women ‘working’ in CPC’s can go take a flying leap. What they do has nothing to do with women’s health.

    That said, I am proud to live in a state where raped 10 year old girls and women carrying fetuses with conditions incompatible with life can obtain a late term  abortion. Washington residents are opposed to the notion of theocracy and repulsed by those who would try to force their religious beliefs on all of us and lie constantly and reflexively in order to do so.

  • colleen

    It is either okay or not okay to terminate a human being in it’s fetal stage of development.

    It is OK

     

     

  • crowepps

    You know, we let you guys get away for a long time with their clever relabling of “fanatic screaming ‘don’t kill your baby’ through bullhorn” as “sidewalk counselor”

    In Washington state, where I work as a women’s healthcare practitioner

    You’re not going to get away with labling “judgmental snoop filled with religiosity insisting “want to know what I’ve named your baby?” as “women’s healthcare practitioner”.   Health care workers are bound by HIPAA; unless the services you provide are covered by HIPAA you are on an ego trip claiming education and skills and training that you do NOT have and defrauding the public, an act for which you should be prosecuted and jailed.  The guilt trip and lies typical of the ‘work product’ of the average CPC volunteer don’t have anything to do with helping women, they don’t have anything to do with health, and they surely don’t actually provide any care.

  • therealistmom

    There, I said it. My patience has run out.

    I live in Washington state. My abortion was performed in Washington state.  I volunteer when I can for PP in Washington state.

    You cannot waltz into a clinic (even if there WERE women out there who would do such a thing) and obtain an abortion in this state, or any state, in the 9th month of pregnancy. Fetal viability being the line for elective procedures, the doctors having say on instances for live and health of the mother later in pregnancy.

    I am proud of the liberal laws in regards to women’s health in this state- the right to choose, lack of parental notofication laws, no emotional blackmail scripts or forced watching of ultrasounds. We were, as far as I know, the first state to OK the MAP being given out by pharmacists without a prescription, which was a lifesaver for me when I needed Plan B.

    A “women’s healthcare practitioner” would be able to differentiate between a fetus and an infant, and be aware of the laws in the state she practices in. If you ARE somehow a provider (ie a real one, not a CPC ‘councilor’) and you give out this inaccurate information to patients, your license should be yanked.

  • plume-assassine

    I can say with near certainty that you and your nasty, hateful, self-righteous guilt-tripping are probably the contributing factors to her continuous struggles with guilt. If your story is true, then you are a morally bankrupt individual who enjoys portraying your innocent mother as a murderer (with “blood guilt”) on the internet. What is wrong with you?

     

    Abortion is not the problem. It is always used as a scapegoat for previously-existing psychological disorders, especially when people do not want to admit that they have had a lifelong struggle with a psychological disorder. Nobody wants to admit that they have an inherited disorder or disease. From what it sounds like, if you’re not bullshitting us, is that major depression (or similar disorder) runs in the family, and your sister has it, too. However, we are not psychologists, so you are obviously not looking for “help,” you’re just here to be an asshole.

     

    If you gave a damn about your mother’s suffering, you would help her find counseling, tell her to forgive herself, and quit being a judgmental prick about it on the internet.

  • plume-assassine

    I will probably regret asking this, but how do you know society is misogynistic? Or is misogyny just the invisible boogeyman?

    Misogyny/sexism is invisible to someone who will never see past their own white, male privilege. You have never experienced it and will never know what it’s like.

     

    Consider this: 1 out of 6 women in the United States will be a victim of rape. 1 out of 4 female college students will be victims of rape.

    And aferwards, society finds rape “acceptable” in certain circumstances, depending on how a woman dresses, whether or not she drinks, and whether or not she knew the man previously or dated him. I cannot even leave the house at night, or walk around alone, without fearing street harrassment or even the threat of rape. And then if I AM attacked, I don’t even know if anyone will truly be brought to justice? How fucked up is that?

    Consider that a neighbor is more likely to call the police for animal cruelty or neglect than they are to call the police to report domestic violence. The majority of domestic violence victims are female.

    Consider that – worldwide – over half of the victims of AIDs are women, and that certain male-dominated religious institutions of the US still teach people that “condoms are bad.”

    As for the rate of maternal mortality, consider the fact that the United States ranks as one of the worst among developed nations.

    And consider this: Thankfully, abortion is still legal in this country, but people like YOU, Arectaris, want to make it illegal again, even though you KNOW that a substantial number of women and girls will die as a result. Do you know what kind of sick message that sends to me? And do you know what kind of message it sends to me when you pretend that abortion is comparable to “murder”? In your no-exception/no-abortion vision of America, do you imagine that half the women who have abortions will be in prison for “murder” and the rest dead of septic shock? These are not rhetorical questions. The misogyny of anti-choice philosophy is all too apparent…

    Then, aside from the “life-or-death” statistics, there are the “positions of power” statistics.

    There still has not been a female president of the United States. There are still more men in positions of state power than there are women. There are still more men in positions of academic power than there are women. Women are more likely to be in poverty than men (that is, especially single mothers.) Women still earn LESS than men – we do not receive equal pay for equal work. And the ERA has not been ratified.

    I could go on about personal, anecdotal experiences. But keep the objective facts for now. And don’t give me this bullshit that society isn’t sexist and misogynistic or that it’s just an “invisible boogeyman” because your privileged ass hasn’t lived it.

  • arekushieru

    Wrong.  Abso-fucking-lutely wrong.  Baby is a SLANG term that describes a stage of development outSIDE of the uterus.  Calling a fetus a baby is like calling an adolescent an old fogey.  Kthxbai.

  • arekushieru

    So you don’t know it?

    That’s how she DOES know it.  Derrrr….

    As it relates to abortion, you’re leaving out a key difference. Whereas with something like racial equality, younger generations are more accepting of the idea of equality between people of different races, in the case of abortion each subsequent generation is generally less approving of abortion than the last and more willing to make it illegal. I’m not so sure how you classify that as “ups and downs”. A “social movement” which fewer people embrace as the years past isn’t much of a social movement at all. Or not much of a progressive one at least

    If you’re not talking about how people ‘feel guilty’ after having an abortion, then why are so many of your talking points based on how people ‘feel‘ about everything else?  Hmmm…?  And your US-centric way of thinking, truly does prove just how blind you are to your privilege.  The US is an anomaly in liberal democracies, and, as another poster has already revealed, things were (and would be) DRAStically different when abortion laws were very restrictive.  THERE’S your ups and downs, no?  Whoops.


  • crowepps

    When the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade and abortion was made legal, the suicide rate among women dropped by one-third.  Making abortion illegal again will inevitably boost the suicide rate right back up there.

  • arekushieru

    When a woman is pregnant, the impact isn’t ‘theoretical’, it is very clearly present and happening, NOW.

  • quietly

    I stand by what I said, abortion is legal in Washington at any point in pregnancy. Here are the relevent regulations:

    RCW 9.02.110 Right to have and provide.

    The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health. A physician may terminate and a health care provider may assist a physician in terminating a pregnancy as permitted by this section.

    RCW 9.02.140 State regulation.

    Any regulation promulgated by the state relating to abortion shall be valid only if:

    1.The regulation is medically necessary to protect the life or health of the woman terminating her pregnancy,

    2.The regulation is consistent with established medical practice, and

    3.Of the available alternatives, the regulation imposes the least restrictions on the woman’s right to have an abortion as defined by this act.

    Frankly, I find The RealistMom’s characterization of any woman seeking a late term abortion as “waltzing in to a clinic” demeaning of the women who are faced with contemplating the termination of a pregnancy after the age of viability. 

    In 2009, according to the Wa Dept of Health, 2.3% of the induced abortions in this state were performed after 20 weeks gestation. You may not have been aware of that number since after 24 weeks ( 6 months) abortions in Washington are generally performed in hospitals and your primary experience seems to have been at the clinic level. Please note, there is no restriction on what criteria a physician may use to determine what constitutes protecting a woman’s life or health (including emotional health) or the gestational age at which a pregnancy can be ended. Unlike several other states, the physician is not required to confirm gestational age by ultrasound or even to base it on last menstrual period – the gestational age is simply what the physician declares it to be prior to the procedure. No second opinion is required – at ANY gestational age – as to the probable harm to the woman’s health. Washington state, if you look at the Guttmacher charts, has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country.

    The RealistMom, you can’t have it both ways – you are clearly proud of our state’s liberal record on women’s reproductive rights, why would you try to create an impression in this discussion that we are more restrictive than we really are?

  • quietly

    Went to your rather dated (2001) link and yep, it agrees with what I said. Abortion is legal in Washington state at any point in pregnancy.

    Here is what I did NOT say:

    I did not say there are no laws in WA regulating abortion. There are, and they are very progressive from a women’s reproductive rights stand point.

  • quietly

    Colleen said : “A ‘baby’ has developed sufficiently to survive outside the uterus of it’s mother”

    OK, so that would mean that when women make the difficult decision, with their doctors, to terminate a pregnancy after the fetus is able to survive outside the uterus of the mother, for example at 24 weeks EGA, they are aborting a ‘baby’. In which case you apparently disagree with the comment that babies are not involved in abortions, since it would appear from your own definition of ‘baby’ that sometimes they are.

    The rest of your comment is sort of changing the subject, don’t you think? Are you talking about religious beliefs etc to deflect from talking about abortion and fetal development?

     

  • arectaris

     

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

     

  • quietly

    I was not aware that the job description women’s healthcare practitioner was a euphemism for anything else. I could have said licensed independent provider or advanced registered nurse-practitioner, but since my medical specialty as an NP is women’s health I said women’s healthcare practioner.

    As for CPC volunteers, apparently in your interesting world people whose convictions you disagree with should be mocked. Hmmm.

  • arectaris

    In the interest of accuracy, you’re wrong.

    Fetus

    noun (plural fetuses) an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

    Baby

    noun (plural ba·bies)

    1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

    2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

    3. childish person: somebody regarded as childish or overly dependent told him not to be such a baby

    4. youngest member: the youngest member of a family or group the baby of the team

    5. immature animal: a very young animal

    6. term of endearment: an affectionate term of endearment, especially for a woman ( slang ) ( sometimes considered offensive )

    7. object of affection or pride: the object of somebody’s affection, pride, or admiration ( slang )

  • rubadubadoobag

    While I am pro-choice and agree with current abortion laws in my home country (i.e. freely available unless late term, then with doctor’s consent), I am disturbed by the view that many people are proposing on this thread that (a) a foetus is not ‘human life’ until born or (b) even if it is the mother’s right to freedom over her body will necessarily trump the foetus’s right to life.

     

    Firstly, I agree with current abortion law because it is based on current science – that at three months the foetus has a rudimentary brain, is no bigger than a walnut, cannot feel pain etc. However I do have some qualms about this because science is never settled and so this understanding may be wrong (for example, the well-known ‘goldfish have a three second memory’ theory was only debunked in 2010, by an Adelaide schoolboy of all people). Apart from that there is also the metaphysical or religious realm where no one has any knowledge, so we dont know if aborting a foetus stops the reincarnation process or whatever. Unlikely, I know, and Im not suggesting we base policy on it, but the fact that life and death is still such a mystery would at least prevent me from celebrating an abortion per se. Of course it should be freely available, but I think its a bit callous to celebrate it, not least because it is so avoidable (outside cases of rape etc) in the developed world if both parties organise contraception and the morning-after pill etc.

     

    Secondly, given the mysteries I alluded to earlier, I dont have any idea at what stage people become ‘human’ etc, but I dont think the independent survival argument is very strong. After all, (birthed) babies cannot exactly look after themselves either, and they are ‘parasitic’ in many other senses (e.g. economic) if not the physical one. They dont have much of a personality either, but surely theyre still human? The independent survival argument seems almost to  suggest that a parent could just ‘dispose’ of their newborn babies if they found them inconvenient. Its that sort of mentality that I think led to a spate of (actual) newborn infanticides in France in 2009 (and also Keli Lane in Australia in 2010) – all countries where abortion is and was freely available. Those women simply didnt seem to see any difference between doing it earlier or doing it later. Its sort of an old school mentality – the child is the parent’s, to dispose of as s/he will – that I had hoped we had moved on from.

     

    In any case, in the absence of divine knowledge, what ‘being human’ means (at law) is necessarily going to be a sociological construct composed of various elements – e.g. having a personality, independent existence, having a mind or a recognisably human shape, etc. But for me another very important element is whether or not the foetus is developed enough to feel pain. After all, we have numerous animal protection laws which are essentially based on that. But in any case, I support the current abortion stance where it is freely available before the foetus takes on many elements of what a layman might call ‘being human’, and then restricted to special cases and medical recommendations thereafter. I trust that those elements are based on the best guidance that current science can offer.

     

    However, as I mentioned earlier, many others are advocating for the more extreme position that even if the foetus is ‘human’ (i.e. presumably very late term, can feel pain etc) its life must defer to the right of the mother over her own body – i.e. to be free of this parasitic encumbrance. Im not sure I can support that, outside those special circumstances – such as rape, cultural stigma or mental vulnerability – where carrying the child to term might have a particularly large impact on the mother’s wellbeing. IF (a big if) the foetus is human, then surely the right to life is a very serious one. I dont see how anyone can argue that it is trumped by the hardship of carrying a foetus for another two months or so (whereupon you can hand it over for adoption). Even if you have a cat (even if you acquired one by accident or mishap, such as a friend’s present) you cannot kill it or starve it, even though it is completely dependent on you and will be for years.

     

    ALL of our rights in society are qualified rather than absolute – there is always a weighing of harms and benefits, to society at large as well as individuals. The right to bodily freedom in say Germany, for example, is modified by the anti-Nazi law such that you cannot expect to run around with a swastika tatooed to your forehead. The right to have a Captain Hook-esque blade sticking out of your arm instead of your left hand would no doubt be illegal under anti-knife laws. 

    I think that IF (again the big if) the foetus is human, then the only way one can blithely advocate that it be terminated for the mother’s right to choose can only be rationalised if one values the mother’s quality of life much more than the foetus’ actual life. And since in this example the foetus is seen as human, then this is a species of eugenics, where mothers are more equal than their foetuses.

     

    Now thankfully in most cases the aborted foetus is NOT recognised as being at the human stage yet, which is why I support abortion. But I find the number of people arguing that foetuses should be able to be aborted on demand even where they are be human (presumably very late stage, or just before they are birthed) is disturbing to me and I dont understand the mentality that underlies it.

     

  • quietly

    I completely agree with you – this is absolutely appalling treatment. I run into this attitude all the freaking time about miscarriage. Great resources on some of the less common reasons for recurrent pregnancy loss at the link you shared. The one I see quite frequently in my practice is low progesterone, which is often treatable ,but try finding someone in most communities who will even run the labs if you’ve only had one miscarriage. Infuriating.

  • quietly

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You may have an opinion as to when a fetus becomes a person, but when you take something’s life away you have KILLED it, whether it is a plant, a fetus or a baby seal. Abortion terminates or brings to an end the state of pregnancy. Induced abortion before viability either kills the life form by withdrawing its support systems (mifiprostone) or by removing it from the host before it can survive. After viability the life form is killed first and then removed, or in some cases, killed during the removal process. Human or not, there is absolutely no rationale to insisting that nothing is killed during an abortion. Why is this so hard to grasp?

  • jennifer-starr

    I’m still a mite confused. Wouldn’t a women’s healthcare practioner be aware of the laws in her state regarding abortion?  After all it is an area which deals uniquely with women’s health.  And yet you said up to nine months. I’m no healthcare practioner but it took me all of two minutes to google ‘Abortion Laws in Washington State’ to prove you wrong. Have you been giving your patients incorrect information? 

  • jennifer-starr

    Legal up to the point of viability. After that point a doctor must make the decree that the pregnancy endangers the health or life of the mother.  You made it sound as though a woman could just walk in and obtain one the day before her due date for any reason, which is simply not true. But you are right about the laws in your state being progressive. Hopefully they will remain that way, but with legislators perpetuating this all out assault on women, who knows?   You’re lucky you don’t live in Virginia where our governor is a graduate of Pat Robertson U and supports a ‘personhood’ amendment’.  

  • jennifer-starr

    These people should be mocked, and what passes for  ‘counseling’ in their world is a joke.  For further insight there’s the online diary of one Mary Jost from Rochester Pro-life.  When not wolfing down Wendy’s hamburgers, informing people what she’s ‘named their baby’  and telling men getting condoms that there are no ‘organisms’ in hell ( took me a while to figure out what she meant by that–did I mention she’s only semi-literate?)–her pregnancy center provides baby clothes.  Apparently the number one reason that people end pregnancies in Mary’s world–lack of baby clothes. 

  • skohayes

    established viability at 24 weeks,  after which certain restrictions are in place regarding abortions. In Casey vs Planned Parenthood, it was moved to 22 weeks.

    2.3% of abortions at or after 22 weeks would seem to imply health reasons, or simply the inability to access services until late in the pregnancy. 2.3%  would also seem to indicate that these abortions are exceedingly rare.

    Also, you left this part out of the law you’re quoting:

    The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus

    with viability being defined as:

     “Viability” means the point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

     

  • skohayes

    I registered just so I  could comment on this post. I had an abortion in college, and the overwhelming relief after the procedure was exactly what I felt as well.

    There’s nothing wrong with saying that, except to people who think they should make your health decisions for you.

    This isn’t about saving lives for forced birthers- its about punishing women for having sex (“keep your legs closed!!”) and nothing more. If it were about saving lives, forced birthers would be making sure that poor women and children are protected from hunger and illness and homelessness.

  • wolfhound

    I’m thinking that perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.  Unless you work for one of those CPC’s, in which case you fit right in.  Did I miss where you specified what kind of facility employed you?  It would go a long way to helping us understand where you’re coming from.

  • julie-watkins

    Besides ‘not legal’, it would also be against standard medical practice because at some point late in pregnancy it’s much more dangerous to do an abortion than wait for natural childbirth. There’s been a lot of discussion here on how studies show inducing labor after too short wait after due date has worse outcomes than waiting a reasonable time after due date for biological variation in natural timing. From what I understand, if there’s pre-eclapsia or other crisis it’s safer to induce labor than abortion. The the ‘healthy unborn baby abortion day before due date’ doesn’t happen. If something is happening a few days before due date mother or fetus isn’t ‘healthy’; there’s some sort of very dangerous crisis happening. 

  • fred

    i read your article and have some thoughts based on several of your statements starting below:

    ” I knew without a doubt that any future pregnancy we faced would be terminated”

    If you know that you did not want any more “‘much loved children” why did you not do what is advocated by so many which is to prevent the conception in the first place?

    Also:

    ”open about my experience with my children will avail them of the knowledge that abortion is not shameful or uncommon.’

    How will you explain to your ”much loved children”‘ that is it ok to love some out your offspring more then others?

    i am saking in all seriousness, i would love to hear your answer, apart from your right to choose.

     

  • ahunt

    Just a word of warning, Fred. If you are going to promote the idealogically fantastic woo woo that women “love” their BZEFs from the second women know they are pregnant, I can promise you a very looooong afternoon.

  • jennifer-starr

    If you know that you did not want any more “‘much loved children” why did you not do what is advocated by so many which is to prevent the conception in the first place?”

    Well, Fred, maybe she did use contraception and it failed. Or maybe it was a moment of passion (which exist even in bad relationships) and in the heat of the moment it was forgotten. We don’t know. But we do know that people make mistakes and people don’t always behave logically. This is life. 

    How will you explain to your ”much loved children”‘ that is it ok to love some out your offspring more then others?”

    Quite frankly I don’t see why she should have to explain anything to her children, but if she chooses to that will be her decision to make. Just like it was her decision not to bring another child into what was already an unpleasant situation. Her choice. Not ours. 

  • colleen

    I hope you realize that a man generally does not rape a woman because he hates women, but rather because that’s who he is sexually attracted to. If a man is sexually attracted to another man, then that is who he’ll rape, assuming he was out to rape someone.

    So, men who rape women do so not because they hate and have issues with women but because they are heterosexual?

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Human or not, there is absolutely no rationale to insisting that nothing is killed during an abortion.

     

    Well, of course something is killed during an abortion. Much like how something is killed when you have cancer surgery (the tumor), or when you shoot an intruder in your home, or when you shoot an enemy on the battlefield.

     

    Why is this so hard to grasp?

     

    It isn’t. Why is our grasp of it so hard for you to grasp?

  • jennifer-starr

    There was a case in Chesapeake about a year ago where a young man was raping and beating women in their 70s and 80s.  According to you, he must have been too shy to ask them out on a date–you think? 

     

    Rape is about power and control. Someone rapes somebody to hurt them and cause them pain. Rape hurts physically–often there is bleeding, tearing and bruising. Sometimes the damage is so bad that surgery and stitches are required.  Rape hurts emotionally–it is a terrifying  and traumatic experience.  Tell me, is this how you would treat someone you’re attracted to?  

     

    Next time you want to open your mouth and share your utterly valueless opinion about rape, Arecteris, do us all a favor  and just shut up. 

  • therealistmom

    When I was speaking of “women waltzing into clinics”, I was talking about the straw-women of the anti-choice world who,  in their minds, decide suddenly at 9 months gestation they don’t want to have a baby anymore. I was faced with the potential of a late-term abortion when there was the potential my third child had the fatal genetic disorder Trisomy 18 (Edward’s syndrome). I have a child with Down sydrome. I am intricately and painfully aware of the kinds of decision making processes when it comes to women who have to seek a later-term abortion procedure.

    When someone blithely announces that women can “get an abortion at 9 months”, that seems to indicate they are attemtping to say a woman can have one, for any reason, and that they legitimately believe there are women capricious enough to want a post-viability abortion for the hell of it. That’s not how it works. We don’t need legislation dictating under what circumstances such an abortion is medically indicated becase the doctors and the women know a LOT more about the circumstances than any lawmaker does. We don’t tell a cardiologigist when he is allowed to perform open-heart surgery- because the doctor has the training and the expertise, and we don’t feel the need to shame people who have a coronary bypass.

    So yes, I am proud of the fact that we don’t find it necessary in this state to tie the hands of women and doctors when forced with the difficult situations that lead to the necessity of the rare post-viability abortion. The last thing we need is to let assholes like Doc Hastings have control of our uteruses.

  • prochoiceferret

    Of course it should be freely available, but I think its a bit callous to celebrate it, not least because it is so avoidable (outside cases of rape etc) in the developed world if both parties organise contraception and the morning-after pill etc.

     

    So it seems you have no problem obtaining contraception, and know how to use it correctly. How very fortunate for you!

     

    I dont think the independent survival argument is very strong. After all, (birthed) babies cannot exactly look after themselves either, and they are ‘parasitic’ in many other senses (e.g. economic) if not the physical one.

     

    True, but if the parent doesn’t want to look after them, they can just hand the baby over to foster care. They will still have to pay child support, but that’s just a financial obligation. Pregnancy is a burden that can only be carried by one person (the pregnant woman), and it is a biological burden, directly impacting her health and potentially ruining/ending her life, which is not something that can be obligated because that would violate her right to bodily integrity.

     

    Those women simply didnt seem to see any difference between doing it earlier or doing it later. Its sort of an old school mentality – the child is the parent’s, to dispose of as s/he will – that I had hoped we had moved on from.

     

    Oh, we have. It’s only anti-choicers who make this specious argument who can’t seem to let go of it.

     

    But for me another very important element is whether or not the foetus is developed enough to feel pain.

     

    So you feel that circumcision should be illegal, I take it? What about spanking?

     

    IF (a big if) the foetus is human, then surely the right to life is a very serious one. I dont see how anyone can argue that it is trumped by the hardship of carrying a foetus for another two months or so (whereupon you can hand it over for adoption).

     

    I can see how that would be the case if you’re not the one who has to carry the fetus “for another two months or so.”

     

    Even if you have a cat (even if you acquired one by accident or mishap, such as a friend’s present) you cannot kill it or starve it, even though it is completely dependent on you and will be for years.

     

    No, because you can always give the cat to someone else, or to a shelter. And that’s if it doesn’t go out and catch its own prey, as cats like to do.

     

    ALL of our rights in society are qualified rather than absolute – there is always a weighing of harms and benefits, to society at large as well as individuals.

     

    So when does this magical qualified-weight-scale say that the state can deny a woman control over her own body? Is there a time when it can say that a person should give up a spare kidney to save someone else’s life? Because that would be pretty horrific and dystopian-y.

     

    I think that IF (again the big if) the foetus is human, then the only way one can blithely advocate that it be terminated for the mother’s right to choose can only be rationalised if one values the mother’s quality of life much more than the foetus’ actual life.

     

    Or if one respects the woman’s right to bodily integrity as much as everyone else’s.

     

    And since in this example the foetus is seen as human, then this is a species of eugenics, where mothers are more equal than their foetuses.

     

    Since when does refusing to provide biological life support for someone else make you “more equal?” If I refuse to give you $100 that would save your life, does that make me “more equal?”

     

    Now thankfully in most cases the aborted foetus is NOT recognised as being at the human stage yet, which is why I support abortion. But I find the number of people arguing that foetuses should be able to be aborted on demand even where they are be human (presumably very late stage, or just before they are birthed) is disturbing to me and I dont understand the mentality that underlies it.

     

    Oh, it’s very simple. It means that pregnant women have the right to control their own body, and the hypothetical/actual presence of another person inside her does not change that.

  • colleen

    Frankly, I find The RealistMom’s characterization of any woman seeking a late term abortion as “waltzing in to a clinic” demeaning of the women who are faced with contemplating the termination of a pregnancy after the age of viability.

    This stereotype is straight out of the ‘pro-life’ movement. It’s intended to be demeaning to women because the ‘pro-life’ movement is focused on demeaning women in much the same way you’re here to troll, derail and play nasty little games reminiscent  of a  loon who posts here who calls herself Progo.

    The fact of the matter is that women (and raped children) have late term abortions for good medical reasons. The folks who demean women are those who pretend this isn’t true and that would be the ‘pro-life’ movement. Perhaps you should complain to them.

  • lizdini

    Seriously, it seems like only the troll read this article.  Which seems written to give them fodder against choice.  If I had come across it at a conservative site I would have immediately assumed it was fake and written to show how heartless we are.  I’m glad that the author had access to and was able to make a decision that worked for her.  But I got the impression that she wanted to get pregnant solely to have the experience of an abortion.  She promises herself that she won’t birth another child, but not that she won’t get pregnant, she is euphoric that she had the chance to have an abortion and loves to tell everyone all about it.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is anything shameful in abortion, but I don’t think it should be a goal in life.  I always felt that “safe, legal and rare” was a good motto. (for you trolls “rare” because the woman is responsible enough to use protection, not because of lack of access)

  • jennifer-starr

    Did we read the same article?  I saw nothing that indicated that she got pregnant solely for  the purpose of having an abortion. And the euphoria she felt was probably a combination of relief and knowledge that she had made the best decision for herself and her family.  

    And as for contraception, maybe it failed, or maybe she simply forgot.  Human beings are not perfect. 

  • arectaris

    As seems to be the norm with many folks here, you included, you seem to overly fixate on a portion of what pro-lifers write and then misconstrue it. Aside from you not knowing what the word “generally” means, it should be noted that “rape is about power and control” does not preclude “I hope you realize that a man generally does not rape a woman because he hates women, but rather because that’s who he is sexually attracted to”.

    Tell me, is this how you would treat someone you’re attracted to?

    Are you serious? Being attracted to someone does not preclude treating that person poorly, especially if one is attracted to the other based on physical traits. If you truly believe that being attracted to someone precludes treating that person poorly, then YOU are living in a fantasy world. The world is full of people who treat others they are attracted to in unacceptable manners. The two are not mutually inclusive anymore than is treating someone you find unattractive in a generally acceptable manner. 

    Next time you want to open your mouth and share your utterly valueless opinion about rape, Arecteris, do us all a favor  and just shut up.

    Please take your own advice before going off on some crusade.

  • jennifer-starr

    Since a man generally rapes a woman with a desire to hurt and to frighten her, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that  hatred is probably involved.  So characterizing a rapist as misogynistic isn’t all that amiss. 

  • quietly

    Jennifer, this is not just semantics, the word legal absolutely applies to the process of obtaining an abortion after the age of viability. In WA induced abortion is legal up to the age of viability ( the gestational age of the fetus, by law, is determined SOLEY by the person getting paid to perform the abortion – who has a vested interest and may be altruistic or violently misogynistic, abortionist run the gamut and some very twisted men abuse women on a daily basis in their role as OBS or GYNs – google birth rape). Abortion in WA state is also legal, as in – permitted by statute- at any point in a woman’s pregnancy thereafter if (this is again solely in the opinion of the person getting paid to do the procedure) there is a possibility of a detrimental effect upon her health: physical, emotional or mental.

    All sorts of things I didn’t say or imply are being read into the simple statement I made about the legality of abortion in WA throughout the full nine months of pregnancy. That’s understandable -I am sure many of the accusations being leveled at me are coming from places where women here have been hurt, blamed, suffered loss and are sick of being viewed as callous or uncaring because they, or others they love, lives have been changed in some way by an abortion. My comment was not an indictment of women who have undergone late term abortions. It was a response to the assertion that “no babies are involved in abortion”. In a perfect world yes, that would be the best possible truth – your elective abortion, recurrent miscarriage, adverse fetal diagnosis, selective reduction of multiples – didn’t involve a baby. But, unfortunately, sometimes, it really did. And all the mocking talk of zygotes and blastocysts must be pretty painful for the women here who made the tough decision to abort a viable pregnancy and wish their life, the baby’s health or the circumstances of their pregnancy had been different.

  • quietly

    Go back to my original post – I was simply stating a legal fact about late term abortions. No over the top emotional rhetoric about waltzing in, day before due date or horrible selfish women who wouldn’t just wait another few weeks and have the baby , that is all projection and not in what I actually wrote.

    Of the 600 late term abortions here in 2009 several were delivered by cesarean and a few were induction of labor after saline infusion. At my local hospital the preferred method for coping with a pregnancy with an adverse fetal diagnosis – which is palliative double speak for “differently-abled preborn human” – is therapeutic pre-term induction of labor. Another way to dress up in  medical jargon the tragedy unfolding for a family in which the mom will be induced sometime shortly after receiving a diagnosis of significant birth defects, deliver her baby and be allowed to hold the baby if she wants to, until the baby dies. This is not an abortion per se, because the baby is intentionally delivered alive, usually about 24 to 30 weeks, but the induction is thoughtfully planned to be early enough that without NICU support the baby can be counted on to die without prolonged suffering or expense. This is totally different than induction of labor for interuterine fetal demise , fetal decompensation or maternal indications such as HELLP syndrome. It involves an” abnormal” (read:defective)  but otherwise healthy fetus and a stable mom.

     

  • jennifer-starr

    Would you agree, Quietly, that if someone wants to obtain an abortion afterr 23 1/2 weeks that it is being done because it is actually a serious risk and danger to the life or  health of the mother? A wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong?  That would seem to be pretty much of a given–would you agree?  

  • prochoiceferret

    At my local hospital the preferred method for coping with a pregnancy with an adverse fetal diagnosis – which is palliative double speak for “differently-abled preborn human”

     

    Yes, like a fetus that may be missing some inconsequential part of normal human anatomy, like a brain stem.

     

    the baby can be counted on to die without prolonged suffering or expense.

     

    Sounds like a good way to go if the suffering and/or expense fall on you.

     

    It involves an” abnormal” (read:defective)  but otherwise healthy fetus and a stable mom.

     

    Well, if you’re ever a “stable mom,” and find yourself with an “‘abnormal’ (read: defective)  but otherwise healthy fetus,” at least you’ll have an easy time deciding what to do. I just hope you’ll have enough money to cover the expenses, and plenty of room in that little black heart of yours for suffering.

  • prochoiceferret

    the person getting paid to perform the abortion – who has a vested interest and may be altruistic or violently misogynistic, abortionist run the gamut and some very twisted men abuse women on a daily basis in their role as OBS or GYNs – google birth rape).

     

    Yes, there are a few bad doctors. Just like there are a few bad cops, bad firefighters, bad pharmacists, bad car mechanics, bad airline pilots, bad gigolos, bad chefs, bad poets, and so on. What do you say we let the medical certification boards and/or the legal system take care of the bad apples, and presume that most doctors are going to be upstanding professionals, as most seem to be?

     

    Abortion in WA state is also legal, as in – permitted by statute- at any point in a woman’s pregnancy thereafter if (this is again solely in the opinion of the person getting paid to do the procedure) there is a possibility of a detrimental effect upon her health: physical, emotional or mental.

     

    Apparently, you have a problem with people being paid for their work. You realize Communism doesn’t work, right?

     

    In a perfect world yes, that would be the best possible truth – your elective abortion, recurrent miscarriage, adverse fetal diagnosis, selective reduction of multiples – didn’t involve a baby. But, unfortunately, sometimes, it really did.

     

    If you define a baby to be a fetus, then yes, those involve a baby. But if you define a baby to be a born infant, then no, they do not. When someone says “baby,” I usually think of a born infant. Most people do so as well. If your argument against abortion hinges on stretching the meaning of an imprecise, ambiguous word, you may as well go home now.

  • therealistmom

    Oh, fuck that noise, pardon my French.

    Are we SURE this isn’t Progo?

    OK I’m going to shock our new little troll. I have a beautiful 15 year old girl.

    Yet, had I known her diagnosis, I would not have chosen to continue the pregnancy that resulted in her birth.

    You see, she has Trisomy 21, aka Down syndrome. Even 16 years ago, prenatal diagnosis was a lot more iffy than it is now, and I had no reason to get a triple-screen that resulted in a lot of false positives, being that I was 23 years old and already had one healthy child.

    We found out after her birth. I sensed there was something “wrong” in the delivery room. Everyone went kind of quiet. Then instead of taking me to my hospital room, they placed me in a nearby laboring room and really, really pushed for me to get her to nurse, leaving my then-husband and I alone with her for quite a while. Looking back now, I’m sure they were hoping that I would “bond” before they gave me the dx. She was over 8 lbs, and was doing well, but didn’t want to latch on. Seemed a bit “dozy”. I figured maybe she had a rough bit of it, the actual pushing part of her delivery being a couple of minutes at the most. Later they took her to the nursery and it wasn’t until her father and my mom went to look for her did we know there was anything wrong- she was in the NICU and had already been subject to tests, and a pediatric cardiologist was on the way from the local children’s hospital.

    We’ve been very lucky, she is healthy and happy, needing only a couple of corrective eye surgeries, ear tubes, and a bone marrow biopsy to rule out blood or bone cancers when she went through a bout of neutropenia. She reads at about a second grade level, does double-digit addition and subtraction, and is doing well in life skills classes.

    Yet, there are days when I feel it’s not fair. Not fair to her. Not fair to the family. She will ALWAYS have challenges. She will ALWAYS face potential health problems.

    So yes, as much as I love the young woman that is here now, I would not have chosen to bring a “differently abled” child into the world.

    I loathe the term “differently abled”. No, she is disabled. There are things she will never be able to do. She will never have a family of her own. While I am 100% behind ensuring people with disabilities have the absolute very best in access to as ‘normal’ a life as possible, to educate, to accept… I honestly would NOT be sad if Down syndrome disappeared from the earth.

    Sound heartless? Nope. Realistic. Thus the name.

  • arekushieru

    No, she is not.  The majority of anti-choicers who troll these boards tend to be religious fundamentalists.  Although it may not be apparent, at first, they often use words that eventually trip themselves up.

    If you hadn’t noticed, Colleen also used scare quotes around the word baby, which, y’know, kinda changes the meaning a little bit?  Also, if a fetus HAS developed sufficiently enough to survive outside the uterus, why isn’t it being born, yet?  If you note, she also said mother. One is not a mother until one has taken a baby home from the hospital.  

    Now, what was that about hearing what others say? 

  • arekushieru

    MEDICAL accuracy, that is…. All of which can be found at the following link: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

     

    baby /ba·by/ (ba´beinfant.

    n.

     

     A very young child; an infant.
    1 an infant or young child, especially one who is not yet able to walk or talk.
     2 to treat gently or with special care.
    infant /in·fant/ (in´fint) the human young from the time of birth to one year of age.
    fetus /fe·tus/ (fēt´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.

    1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
    2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

    The term used to describe a developing human infant from approximately the third month of pregnancy until delivery. The term embryo is used prior to the third month.

    child (chld)

    n.

    1. A person who has not yet reached puberty.
    2. A son or daughter; an offspring.
    3. A person not of legal age; a minor.

    1 a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.
    2 an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant.
    3 an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan.
    4 one who is like a child or immature.

    the human young, from infancy to puberty.

    n 1. a person of either gender between the time of birth and adolescence, or puberty. 
    2. in the law of negligence and in laws for the protection of children, a term used as the opposite of 
    adult (generally under the age of puberty) without reference to parentage and distinction of gender.
    off·spring (ôfsprng)

    n.

    1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
    2. A child of particular parentage.

    prog·e·ny (prj-n)

    n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

    1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or descendant.
    2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.

    1 offspring; an individual or organism resulting from a particular mating.
    2 the descendants of a known or common ancestor.

    offspring; descendants.

     

    A LOT of these words can be used interchangeably. But, as you can see, each one has a definition that leaves NO doubt in one’s mind as to whether they are referring to unborn or born, generally the first definition of each set, y’know, the ones that are most COMMONLY used?

    I’m also curious as to why you used Oxford and Encarta first rather than going to the source… such as… a MEDICAL dictionary, one that would likely have the most relevant terms…? 

     

  • catseye71352

    Will either disown you completely or be in prison for life at 30 because you taught him he is justified in committing rape, because “It’s _always_ the woman’s fault.”

  • fred

     

    What does the term mean?

    I was asking the writer to resond, no one else.

    She stated that she wanted to let her children know that abortion was ok for women to choose, I was interested if she had thought about what their questions mght be about the choice when she revealed it to them, if she coce to.

    I also think it is facsinationg that when women want a fetus they fight to keep it and nvest in it enough to sacrifice thier bodies to it for the duration of the pregnancy, but then she can also terminate a fetus’s life if its presence displeases her. The writer’s ‘born’ children will, i think, be thankful for thier birth order in this situation. 

  • fred

     

    What does the term mean?

    I was asking the writer to resond, no one else.

    She stated that she wanted to let her children know that abortion was ok for women to choose, I was interested if she had thought about what their questions mght be about the choice when she revealed it to them, if she coce to.

    I also think it is facsinationg that when women want a fetus they fight to keep it and nvest in it enough to sacrifice thier bodies to it for the duration of the pregnancy, but then she can also terminate a fetus’s life if its presence displeases her. The writer’s ‘born’ children will, i think, be thankful for thier birth order in this situation. 

  • catseye71352

    Will either disown you completely or be in prison for life at 30 because you taught him he is justified in committing rape, because “It’s _always_ the woman’s fault.”

  • arekushieru

    I don’t disagree that a fetus is human life.  So, obviously, that isn’t why I believe abortion isn’t killing….  Although, isn’t it normal to ask people why they say what they do, beFORE accusing them of anything??  But, then again, if you had read any of my previous comments on RHRC you would have understood that that’s not why I said it, so perhaps leaping before you look is your standard operating procedure?  Abortion, itself, is the termination of the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus.  There are methods that facilitate it that do kill the fetus.  But abortion, itself, is merely the removal of biological life support.  For the same reason that removing artificial life support is just that.  Killing is the cause of death.  Medical/legal records do NOT state the removal of the life support as cause of death.  They list lack of brain function as the cause of death.  After all, just like one who is brain-dead, who exists on life-support, becomes incompatible with life upon separation from that life-support, so does a fetus upon separation from the placenta and uterus.  Anything else, demands women be punished for their biology.

    So, now, please do tell me what facts of my own I was stating I was entitled to?  And why, if so, this was so hard for you to grasp?

  • fred

    My thought was why did she not have her reproductive ability permenantly blocked if she knew she did not wnat more children? I get the whole moment of passion/ BC failure issue.

  • quietly

    Jennifer, I would agree that by far the majority of women seeking to terminate a pregnancy where the baby/fetus has matured to the point of viability are finding themselves facing a situation where something has gone terribly wrong ( not always something about the baby or the mom, sometimes about life circumstances). Though I can’t think of any instances where the physical health risks to a mother of continuing a pregnancy already in the 2nd or 3rd trimester are best addressed by abortion, immediate delivery may be medically indicated to save the mother’s life – in HELLP syndrome for example. However early delivery is not synonymous with abortion.

    Abortion of babies with severe birth defects or genetic disorders, many of them incompatable with life, such as anencephaly, Potter’s syndrome (no kidneys) or Tay Sachs, are not for the physical health of the mother, in the sense that her life is not in danger. This is why the language in statutes is kept intentionally vague, because a common approach to compassion wants to leave a door open to end a pregnancy where the outcome seems unbearable, a way of escape from the full weight of such a crushing tragedy.

    When advocating for access to abortion for these families we see ourselves as sparing a child with profound disabilities from being “brought into this world” as RealistMom writes so passionately about her daughter and Down syndrome. And I would imagine this sense of needing to mitigate tragedy is probably the rationale for rape and incest exceptions for people who are otherwise “pro-life”.

  • ahunt

    I think it is fascinating when individuals who will never be called upon to deal with the realities of gestation and childbirth trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy as a matter of “displeasure.

     

    Blastocyst-Zygote-Embryo-Fetus.

  • arekushieru

    IF (a big if) the foetus is human, then surely the right to life is a very serious one. I dont see how anyone can argue that it is trumped by the hardship of carrying a foetus for another two months or so (whereupon you can hand it over for adoption).

    A fetus IS human.  What else can it be?  A table?  The right to life does NOT trump the right to bodily integrity. It never has, well, unless you just happen to be a pregnant woman, then people can arbitrarily decide that fetal life trumps a woman’s right to self-determination.  Except that, antis like to forget one thing, bodily integrity is presupPOSed by life.

    Here, let me put into perspective for you: 

    IF (a big if) a rapist is human, then surely the right to life is a very serious one.  I don’t see how anyone can argue that it is trumped by the hardship of being raped for another few minutes or so(whereupon you can have the rapist disengage).

    There, much better. After all, a rapist is being denied the right to life by the very same logic that a fetus is not granted it.

    can only be rationalised if one values the mother’s quality of life much more than the foetus’ actual life.

    A woman has a quality of and ACTUAL life.  A fetus only has an ACTUAL life, but that actual life in no way compares to a woman’s, that has alREADY taken her through the very messy process of reproduction, her childhood, her adolescence, her adulthood, to become a fully sexual being with all the inherent risks that go along with it .  

  • arekushieru

    No, they will be thankful to know that they were wanted and that their mother had a choice.  Just as I am thankful to know this about MY mother.  

     I also think it is facsinationg that when women want a fetus they fight to keep it and nvest in it enough to sacrifice thier bodies to it for the duration of the pregnancy, but then she can also terminate a fetus’s life if its presence displeases her.

    Kinda like sex, isn’t it?  When a person wants sex they will do almost anything to ensure it happens (in the most pleasurable manner possible) and invest in it enough to sacrifice their time, energy, effort and devotion to it for the duration of the sex, but, then, she can also terminate a rapists life if the sex becomes unwanted (thus, rape).

  • ahunt

    And so?

  • quietly

    You are right that, other than this thread, I have not read other posts of yours on RHRC. Is there a particular discussion thread you could direct me to where you do explain why it is important in the matter of abortion to make the semantic distinction between the purposeful removal of biological life support and medicolegal cause of death? Or would you be willing to explain that here? It’s clearly something you have put  a fair bit of thought into and, who knows, it might actually move the discussion forward.

    Also, because you seem to have things to say that should be heard and understood, and because some folks will discount you if you screw up on the details can I suggest an edit?  You said “Abortion, itself, is the termination of the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus”  I think you may have meant to convey that in some cases the mechanism of abortion is the disruption of the implanted placental portion of the fetus from the uterus. Which is true, except in your sentence you’ve reversed placenta and fetus. There is no part of the placenta that is maternal in origin, it’s all fetal.

  • ahunt

    Uhm…what are the survival rates of “babies” delivered at 24 weeks, absent intensive, “heroic” medical efforts?

  • arekushieru

    It is very difficult to do so, Fred.  You can’t even get your tubes tied unless you are over the age of 35 and/or have three kids, already.  And, still, there is NO contraception that is 100% (effective OR reversible), unless you are talking about going in to have a hysterectomy.  But a hysterectomy is a VERY invasive procedure.  And NO woman should have to forego her right to medical privacy or be forced to receive an injury just because she has a uterus, in order that other people may feel comfortable with her decisions….

  • quietly

    Love it! Awesome comment.

    And your rape analogy is chilling. I will need to think that one over a bit, very powerful imagery.

  • arekushieru

    I’ve already stated why.  I’ve given you two reasons, after all.  Or… did you not read my whole post?

    maternal placenta  the maternally contributed part of the placenta, derived from the decidua basalis. 

    It is several sites that state this.  So, I’m going to guess that you just weren’t aware of this.

  • colleen

    And I would imagine this sense of needing to mitigate tragedy is probably the rationale for rape and incest exceptions for people who are otherwise “pro-life”.

    It’s always possible that some ‘pro-life’ folks have a shred of basic decency left in them and recognise that forcing a 10 year old child or a raped woman to carry a child to term is an act of great cruelty and as far from moral or just as the actions of the rapists and pedophiles who impregnated them.

     

    I’m sure that folks like you and the USCCB will keep working on them untill they’re able to fully enjoy cruelty and power over others. After all, it’s for the babies.

  • ahunt

    Thanks Arekushieru…we all needed this!

  • arekushieru

    Thanks and you’re welcome!  :D

  • ahunt

    As for CPC volunteers, apparently in your interesting world people whose convictions you disagree with should be mocked. Hmmm.

     

    We would be less mocking if CPC volunteers were Nurse Practitioners…but only slightly.

  • plume-assassine

    Oh, if this isn’t all too fucking familiar. I see Arectaris/Andenakker/Panhandler/BornIn1984 is back to rape apologist mansplaining, eh? Look, first of all, maybe you could cut the crap and clarify something for all of us here. Why do you come back after being banned over and over again? Think you’re going to impart some manly wisdom? Think we’re all wrong and your righteousness will put us all in our place? And please don’t embarrass yourself by pretending like you don’t know what I’m talking about, because it does not even take a forensic linguist to see that you have the exact same word choice, writing style, and pet peeves as those old sockpuppets.

    As I’m neither white nor exactly privileged, whatever that means, I will take this comment with a grain of salt.

    So, as a non-white person, you are all too familiar with racism and white privilege. Right? Right. How pissed off would you be if some white person took the objective facts of racism and told you that racism no longer existed, wasn’t real, and was just a “boogeyman”? And that you were just imagining all of that inequality even though you’ve dealt with it on a daily basis and statistical evidence supports your claims. Because that is exactly what you are doing when you try to “explain away” all of the ways in which women face inequality in their lives as a result of sexism and misogyny. And coming from you, a man, this is even more offensive– I love how you just think that you can sit there at your computer screen and tell me that all of the sexism and misogyny in our society is just in my head and that women and men are totally equal, and that I’m just supposed to believe you, because you are a man and you would totally know all about gender inequality.

    And how is this an example of misogyny? I hope you realize that a man generally does not rape a woman because he hates women, but rather because that’s who he is sexually attracted to. If a man is sexually attracted to another man, then that is who he’ll rape, assuming he was out to rape someone.

    Wow, I seriously cannot believe you spew this shit and accept it as truth. You pretend like you sympathize with rape victims, then you turn around and say de-humanizing things like the above. Rape does not have anything to do with sexual attraction. Rape is not a compliment of one’s physical appearance. It has to do with hatred, violence, and power. Men rape women because they hate women. And men do not rape other men because they find them “attractive” – in fact, heterosexual men can rape other men. Men rape because they hate what that person represents and want to control/subjugate them – whether that is femaleness in general, female sexual freedom, male homosexuality (in the case of a male victim), or that person’s race. Since most rape victims are female, it is obvious that rape is an example of misogyny. Especially considering how high the rate is in this country. To argue otherwise is ridiculous rape apologism and insulting to victims.

    Society only find “rape” acceptable in the instance where a chick drinks and willingly has sex with a guy. It’s an absolute sham that a chick can get absolutely plastered drunk, willingly sleep with a guy, claim rape afterwards and have the guy thrown in jail for it.

    I refuse to tolerate any more of this rape apologist garbage. If you continue down this route I will not reply to any more of your comments and will just hit ‘report’. Seriously, what the hell is your problem? Nobody can knowingly consent to sex if they are drunk or otherwise impaired. That goes for both men and women. And “chick”? It’s people like you that are responsible for the continuation of rape culture and make society more dangerous to live in.

    You being paranoid is not an indication of misogyny, but rather you being paranoid.

    It’s not paranoia, it’s fucking reality. YOU don’t know, because YOU’ve never lived it.

    Ever since I was little, I was constantly warned about walking around by myself “in certain areas” at “certain times of the day/night” lest I become a victim of rape. This is how we are raised because this is a real fear.

    You can safely say that most women do not share my fears? Bullshit! Give me the proof. I know so many women who agree with me on this, and so many others who have dealt with threatening street harrassment at night (including myself), that it’s not even funny.

    It’s not fucked up at all. Do you want a system in which the accused have to defend themselves against the accusations of the accuser?

    You KNOW that’s not what my comment was referring to. When I said that I can not be sure if my rapist is brought to justice, then I am saying that it’s likely even with all the necessary DNA and cirumstantial evidence, he will still not be brought to justice. WHY? Because in many cases, the police will refuse to even follow up on your case because they immediately assume women are liars. Or they will never even bother to process a rape kit, because apparently it’s just not important, and the rapist will go free for years. Or even if I do take him to court and he’s sentenced, it’s likely that he will only receive about 11 years on average, but he will only SERVE about 5 years (on average). So then he’s out and about and can continue destroying the lives of more people. Google this stuff, seriously. Jesus christ, You act like you live under a fucking rock.

    Secondly, do you know why the majority of domestic violence victims are female?

    The majority of domestic violence victims are female because women are physically smaller than men and not as strong, and because in most situations, women are more dependent on their male counterpart than the man is on the woman. And men often get away with domestic violence because our society is so misogynistic that it is practically treated as the norm. When there is a domestic dispute between a man and a woman, it’s usually the man who gets carted off to jail even if the woman was the instigator. It’s usually the man who gets carted off to jail because in a domestic violence dispute between two people, HE is most likely to do the most damage. Women are more likely to die as a result of dispute than men and are more likely to sustain injuries. This is statistical fact, and I spoke to a detective who works DV cases and they confirmed that this is why they do this.

    The reason over half of AIDS victims are women is because AIDS is easier to transmit from a man to a woman than it is to transmit from a woman to a man. Are you saying that this is inherently misogynistic? Furthermore, who care if a religion is male dominated?

    You knew damn well that this isn’t what I was saying, yet you choose to play that obtuse card again. Here, let me break it down for you. AIDs is more easily transmitted from man to woman. Therefore, more women will contract AIDs. Male-dominated religions like the Catholic Church are directly undermining efforts to protect people from AIDs, of which most victims are women. That is not a coincidence. They operate under a facade of wanting people to “abstain from sex before marriage,” but it is not their right to directly undermine the efforts to protect people from AIDs based on mythology.

    For example, about a mile or two down the street from where I live, there is this used car lot. In that lot there are a couple of guard dogs. If I were to try to jump the fence and steal a car, I would probably suffer terrible injuries in my attempt on account of being visciously maimed. If I was determied to steal a car even if I were to be injured in the process, would you argue that I should be allowed to do so in order to prevent me from incurring harm? It is the same deal here.

    Funny how you always seem to think that using a crime scenario involving the trespass/property of another person is somehow comparable to a private medical procedure that only involves/effects one person. I know how much you love analogies, but theft (or trespassing) is not morally or logically comparable to the right to decide when/whether you will have children (which may include abortion). Especially since abortion only directly effects the woman having the abortion, unlike someone trespassing on your property and stealing your car. So, let’s get back to the point, shall we? We are talking about a medical procedure concerning bodily autonomy. If you know that a medical procedure is SAFEST when it is legal and regulated, and that otherwise it would result in the deaths of many people, then it makes sense that you would keep the procedure legal and regulated. For instance, let’s say that I hate plastic surgery and botox and disagree with the procedures on moral grounds. However, I also know that it would be wrong for these procedures to be illegal, because people would seek them out anyway, but they would be forced to do so via the unsafe black market, which would result in the deaths of many people. So even though I hypothetically find plastic surgery “immoral,” I find that the needless deaths of indisputable people to be even MORE immoral. You may argue that abortion results in the death of an embryo which you believe to be a “person,” but THAT has always been disputable. What is not disputable is that women are people, and women die where abortion is illegal.

    Finally, I notice that you did not answer my question. In your no-exception/no-abortion vision of America, do you imagine that half the women who have abortions will be in prison for “murder” and the rest dead of septic shock?

    Maybe that was too hard for you. Let me put it in simpler terms.

    Do you believe that women should be imprisoned for having abortions?

    Do you believe that it doesn’t matter if thousands of women die as a result of illegal abortion?

    By the way, you are not pro-life at all if you think deaths from backalley abortions are preferable to legalized abortion. Especially considering the fact that the legality of abortion does not effect the rate or prevalence of abortion, only the safety.

    Who is it apparent to?

    Concerning the misogyny of anti-choice philosophy, it is apparent to me and all of the other regulars on this site. And the writers. Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that we don’t matter to you. We’re invisible to you because we don’t do/say what you want. And let’s not forget that slightly more than half of the American public thinks that abortion should be legal in most (but not all) circumstances, as its legal status remains in most parts of the country.

    There still has not been a female president of the United States. How is this an example of misogyny?

    Because girls/women are conditioned from an early age not to seek out positions of power. And when they do try to obtain positions of power, they face more challenges and more criticism than men. If Palin or Bachmann ran for presidency, they will face the same problems, because they are women. They are not working for women’s rights, though, so not as many men will bristle at their power. People like you, for instance, see them as non-threats, because you know they don’t care about other women or alleviating inequality.

     

    it’s because women are less apt to seek out careers in post-secondary academic settings than their male counterparts. I’m not so sure how you can use women’s personal career choices to be a sign of misogyny.

    And have you ever asked yourself WHY women are less “apt” to seek out careers in higher academia than men? Why are their choices limited to certain careers? It has nothing to do with “biological differences” or “complementarian” BS. It has to do with societal conditioning from childhood, and later, the ways in which society discourages women from obtaining these positions, either overtly or subtly. There is a world of research on this phenomenon and on other positions of power. Maybe you could start reading? Or talking to actual women trying to get jobs in “traditionally male” fields, as I have done. It might shatter your privileged worldview.

     

    Typically, as the line goes, women only earn something like $.77 for every dollar a man makes. But if this was true and companies could get away with hiring women for $.77 versus a dollar for men, wouldn’t companies hire nothing but women and run up huge profits?

     It’s not a “line” or quip as you like to believe. It is a fact. You even linked to one source that verifies this figure, (women earn less than men, especially at the top) and then took one highlighted section from the blog and tried to say it’s “look- it’s not actually true.”

     lmao Indeed, why aren’t companies getting away with hiring only women and paying them less? Because women have babies and have to take time off work– we can’t have that, oh no!! Because there is still the persisting belief that women cannot perform “certain jobs.” And, finally, because it is illegal to hire based on gender.

     

    but damn if your post really didn’t bug me.

     It bothers you because I am a woman, and I speak the truth. Gender inequality is a result of sexism, and misogyny. But most importantly, it bothers you because you feel subconsciously threatened by women questioning your privilege. Sigh. Anyone who is threatened by equality is a sad person indeed.

  • prochoiceferret

    Though I can’t think of any instances where the physical health risks to a mother of continuing a pregnancy already in the 2nd or 3rd trimester are best addressed by abortion,

     

    Don’t worry about it. That’s just a side effect of not being an expert in the field.

  • ahunt

    Snerk. Naughty Ferret…well done.   However….

     

    We should at least acknowledge Quietly is making a coherent effort…and I do.

     

    The gloves haven’t dropped yet.

  • middle

    Of course the pregnancy is happening. But the impact of the pregnancy/abortion/birth has not yet reached fruition. It is assumed. Having been a pregnant and single teen, impregnated by a horrible drug addict 8 years my senior I am intimately familiar with the reality of these situations and decisions. I at them time I was making my decision to abort or not I had only what I thought the future would hold. 12 years later I can tell you that I was very wrong in my assumptions.

    I think my point was mostly missed. I am questioning not the outcome of abortions, but the process through which we evaluate and ascribe the “goodness” or “evilness” of terminating a fetus. If abortion is by nature “right” or “wrong”, then a person’s emotional reaction to abortion can’t nullify it’s inherant value.

  • prochoiceferret

    We should at least acknowledge Quietly is making a coherent effort…and I do.

    The gloves haven’t dropped yet.

     

    Hmph. All right, he can try making his effort…

     

    But the moment he drops those gloves, I’m gonna grab them, and drag them to my hidey-hole beneath the dresser!

  • prochoiceferret

    I at them time I was making my decision to abort or not I had only what I thought the future would hold. 12 years later I can tell you that I was very wrong in my assumptions.

     

    Good for you! Some other women feel that they made the right decision for themselves at the time, and have no regrets.

     

    I am questioning not the outcome of abortions, but the process through which we evaluate and ascribe the “goodness” or “evilness” of terminating a fetus. If abortion is by nature “right” or “wrong”, then a person’s emotional reaction to abortion can’t nullify it’s inherant value.

     

    Sure. And if God is either “real” or “made-up hooey,” then a person’s belief about the existence of God can’t nullify His real-ness. The tricky part is getting a firm answer on the first part of the statement.

  • middle

    Thankfully, I have no regrets. I hear you loud and clear. I struggled with that particular question for years. Fortunately the answers can be found. What science can’t measure, philosophy can address. And there is concrete evidence in both.

    Emotions varying, and outcomes supposed; how do you suggest ascribing values to actions?

  • prochoiceferret

    Emotions varying, and outcomes supposed; how do you suggest ascribing values to actions?

     

    Seeing what leads to healthy, happy women and families in the real world (safe, legal, accessible abortion, as in Norway), versus crushing oppression, subservience and death (complete prohibition, no exception even for rape/incest/health/life, as in Nicaragua), can be instructive.

  • arectaris

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • middle

    I am very appreciative of the obvious effort and personal thought you put into developing and expressing your views on this issue. I have a few comments/questions.
    I don’t think it is and issue of humaness. Science is very clear on at least two points. The process of living absolutely begins at conception (hear me out). Life is defined as” The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by 1. Growth through metabolism (check) 2. Reproduction (check, the fetus will have the ability to reproduce given enough time. I hope that not one will argue that fully developed reproductive organs are required to make one human.) 3. The power of adaptation to environment changes originating internally ( check, again this is not and issue of natural ability, it is and issue of stage of development.) This is not a question of life or humanity, it’s a question of personhood.

    I have to head off to work. Will have to address others later.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thank you la plume assassine! Outstanding brilliant post!

  • arectaris

    As per your own links, a baby is a very young child, and a child can be “an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant”. Your own sources contradict your original claim, which was that baby is a slang term that describes a stage of development outside of the uterus. You don’t get to pick which definition counts and which does not. They all do. You are wrong when you say a fetus isn’t a baby or even a child. Within the English language, fetus, baby and child are often used interchangeably. Is your position so weak that you are relegated to trying to argue that a fetus is not a baby or a child? Is it that important to your argument?

     

    The following two definitions were taken off the website you provided. I added the emphasis.

    child (chld) n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn) 1. a. A person between birth and puberty. b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority. 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. b. An infant; a baby. 3. One who is childish or immature. 4. A son or daughter; an offspring. 5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.

    ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 1. a. A very young child; an infant. b. An unborn child; a fetus. c. The youngest member of a family or group. d. A very young animal. 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way. 3. Slang A girl or young woman. 4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment. 5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

  • middle

    I’m sorry, I am not clear on what evidence you relying on to come to those conclusions?

  • prochoiceferret

    I don’t think it is and issue of humaness. Science is very clear on at least two points. The process of living absolutely begins at conception (hear me out). Life is defined as” The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms

     

    So sperm and egg cells belong in the category of “inorganic objects and dead organisms?”

     

    This is not a question of life or humanity, it’s a question of personhood.

     

    What does personhood have to do with anything? Even if the fetus were 100% equivalent in every way to a grown adult (except for size—ouch), it still wouldn’t have the right to room and board inside the uterus of an unwilling woman.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You’re a misogynistic sexist jerk! I’ve had enough of your bullshit too! Rape is about power and control NOT ABOUT SEX OR SEXUAL ATTRACTION!

    You should education yourself and read this article! Rape is about power, control and anger… not sex

    It is clear that rape is not about sex, sexual arousal, or sexual desire and it is definitely not satisfying any need for sexual frustration. It is a violent hate crime which is motivated by anger, power and control, further more rape is used to express aggression in a sexual manner. Rape is about power, control and anger and sex is the mere weapon used to express it.

    http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-issues-articles/rape-is-about-power-control-and-anger-not-sex-1345819.html

     

    AND THIS ARTICLE,

    Rape Culture 101

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

    Rape culture is encouraging male sexual aggression. Rape culture is regarding violence as sexy and sexuality as violent. Rape culture is treating rape as a compliment, as the unbridled passion stirred in a healthy man by a beautiful woman, making irresistible the urge to rip open her bodice or slam her against a wall, or a wrought-iron fence, or a car hood, or pull her by her hair, or shove her onto a bed, or any one of a million other images of fight-fucking in movies and television shows and on the covers of romance novels that convey violent urges are inextricably linked with (straight) sexuality.

    ……………..

    Rape culture is rape being used as a weapon, a tool of war and genocide and oppression. Rape culture is rape being used as a corrective to “cure” queer women. Rape culture is a militarized culture and “the natural product of all wars, everywhere, at all times, in all forms.” (Bold emphasis mine)

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m sorry, I am not clear on what evidence you relying on to come to those conclusions?

     

    Reading the articles, and doing some research of your own, will help clear that up.

  • jennifer-starr

    Okay, Arectaris, answer me this.  If rapists do not hate women, then why do they rape them?  Rape is not something you do to someone you like–it’s something you do to someone that you want to hurt and frighten.  If you can’t see this as a misogynistic act, then what do you consider to be misogynistic? 

  • sayna

    I like how FAS is so quick to heap guilt and hatred on his mom and sister without ever asking why they had abortions, or why they even got pregnant in the first place. Maybe that would help! If you’re having multiple abortions, something is probably wrong. You either don’t have birth control or have some serious problems in using it. Maybe actually figuring out what happened and why would make it easier to understand. Sadly, though, anti-abortion people don’t really seem to want to understand. It gets in the way of hating people.

  • ahunt

    Oh Shit, PCF, I didn’t mean to be little Mrs Thread Nanny. I’m truly interested in what Quietly has to say…and your wicked wit CAN be intimidating…however grateful I am for it.

     

    You do know how grateful I am for you…right? Everyone here, for that matter.

  • ahunt

    Dearest RM,

     

    I didn’t know whether to post this, because I believe that disability need not be eradicated, but rather, treated properly by the community at large. Not long ago, I attended the funeral of a 43 year old man who lived fairly well with Down Syndrome…the only child of neighbors, and their eulogy blew me away.

     

    Paraphrasing…”Edward” was a true gift, because of the humanity he brought out in his family and others. We are so proud that he was able to experience life to the full extent of his capabilities, but we cannot help but be grateful that he passed before we did, because no one would love him as we do…no one would see to his well being as we could.  Our greatest fear has always been that we would leave him without loving care and support.”

     

    There was much more, of course,

     

    But if you do not mind me asking…is this your fear as well? Please do not be offended. I’m asking, among other reasons, because of my disgust for the woo woo put forth by pro-lifers…

     

    Edward’s parents can go to their own rest…in peace.

  • arekushieru

    OBviously you didn’t read my whole reply, because, if you did, you wouldn’t have WRITTEN this huge waste of space.  I ackNOWledged that these words can be used interCHANGEably, but, AS I SAID, and as YOU, yourSELF, have proven, the most common usage of the term, that being the very FIRST definition of the term and the one we, ourSELVES, are referring to, FOR THAT REASON, completely eLIMinates ANY such interchangeability. Now, are you going to actually read, then respond, or are you going to continue with your (all-too-familiar) knee-jerk reactions, hmmm…?

  • wendy-banks

    You are a hateful disgusting person– But then, 99.9% of the RTL’er hit me that way. 

  • colleen

    The rest of your comment is sort of changing the subject, don’t you think?

     

    No

     

  • arekushieru

    I don’t know about you, but, generally, I like it when people can provide the sources for their links.  It would certainly be helpful in distinguishing what form of life they are referring to.  Simple organic life, biomolecular life, complex life, etc, etc….  Because there is certainly a difference in each stage of life, with the fetus representing one and a woman representing the other, of course.  As a sidenote, by this logic, of course sperm and ova would also be human life.

    And, as PCF said, it’s not a question of personhood.

  • middle

    I have and am. All I can find are biased anecdotes, on both sides of the argument. Could you please point me to that contain conclusive evidence based not on personal feelings and assumptions?

  • middle

    Of course sperms and eggs are living organisms, so are staph and strep. We are both operating under the beliefs that different organisms hold different values. I was addressing not the issue of value, which I believe we are discussing in a different conversation. I was addressing the idea that we don’t know when the human life begins. We do, it is a reproducible scientific fact. So the author of the original statement can be clear on that particular issue.

    Am I clear in understanding that you do not find stage of development an issue? The real issue is level of dependency?

  • middle

    Sperm and ova are life, human cells and neccissary for human procreation, but are not human until joined. I don’t see how stage of life or complexity of development makes a difference in this issue. Definately I can see how it could effect the emotional reaction to terminating the life. But it does not effect the scientifically proven fact that it is life and it is distinctly human.

  • middle

    I agree. Being on the fence on this issue, I am very disappointed in the condescensing and spiteful nature of most of the comments in this thread. I was hoping for more answers and less rhetoric. From my vantage point it looks like the rage on both sides only hurts both the prolife and prochoice persuasion.

  • prochoiceferret

    Sperm and ova are life, human cells and neccissary for human procreation, but are not human until joined.

     

    *blink* *blink*

     

    So what are they before they are joined? Canine? Feline? Table-ine?

     

    But it does not effect the scientifically proven fact that it is life and it is distinctly human.

     

    How exactly does something human come from something not-human?

  • freetobe

    Its getting all teary in here. get the violins and the tissues. Women are killing their children. How dare they when they could just be spitting them out one after the other. Then figuring out how to pay for all of them becuase the wonderful hubby ran off with another woman or the babysitter or a prostitute or a girlfriend or etc etc. I guess their is still that men can do what they want but us women have to bare the wieght of the world with no pay and never ever complain becuase that makes us femininsts, God forbid we have any complaints at all.

    Martrydom here we come like it or not.

  • prochoiceferret

    I have and am. All I can find are biased anecdotes, on both sides of the argument.

     

    You might want to take into account the credibility of the people on each side into account. For example, a member of a religious organization that does not allow women in its power structure would have as much credibility on abortion as Newt Gingrich does on marital relationships.

     

    Could you please point me to that contain conclusive evidence based not on personal feelings and assumptions?

     

    http://www.guttmacher.org/

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m truly interested in what Quietly has to say…and your wicked wit CAN be intimidating…

     

    But.. but… how can this be intimidating??

     

     

    (sorry for the bed-head… er… bed-face)

     

    You do know how grateful I am for you…right? Everyone here, for that matter.

     

    Awww, thanks =^_^=   I do my best to make battling anti-choicers fun!

  • prochoiceferret

    I was addressing the idea that we don’t know when the human life begins. We do, it is a reproducible scientific fact.

     

    If you define “human life” as the union of a sperm and egg cell, then it’s really not that big a deal. Heck, millions of “human lives” are discarded every day on bloody tampons. I’m okay with that. Are you?

     

    Am I clear in understanding that you do not find stage of development an issue? The real issue is level of dependency?

     

    No, the real issue is that the fetus does not have a right to impose the physical/biological that it does on a woman’s body. If she’s on the hook to pay child support (financial dependency) for a born child, that’s fine and dandy. If she is obligated to give her own flesh and blood, however, that is a violation of her bodily integrity, and indeed of one of her most fundamental of human rights.

  • prochoiceferret

    I was hoping for more answers and less rhetoric. From my vantage point it looks like the rage on both sides only hurts both the prolife and prochoice persuasion.

     

    Apparently, your vantage point doesn’t include the many other fine articles on this Web site… or, for that matter, the “pro-life rage” coming from conservative polititians in state and national legislatures, as well as “sidewalk counselors” at protests outside womens’ clinics.

  • arekushieru

    And how would a moderator be able to do that?  Hmmm…?  I am not a computer genius, but even I know that it IS possible to change an IP address, by using a different computer in different locations of your community or use a hostmask to disguise your identity.  Btw, if we can’t make comparisons about you, then you can’t make comparisons about us. That would be ONE way of proving you’re not a hypocritical misogynist.

    You wanted to claim that society is misogynistic. Thus far, you have failed to do so and I doubt you will ever do so because that requires a rather large paintbrush to do and a host of generalizations and assumptions. You might be able to find individual cases of sexism, but to say society as a whole is sexist/misogynistic is dumb. What I find offensive is that you somehow presume to speak for or assume that many or even most women would agree with your (mis)characterizations. I am confident that they would not. And what statistical evidence? Your first post directed towards me contained none, and the post I’m responding to right now contains none.

    Actually, most women would vehemently disagree with YOUR mischaracterizations.  She found a whole host of individual cases of sexism, which REQUIRE a culture that supports them in order to be maintained.  It’s really laughable that you can’t make these kinds of logical distinctions very well.  

    You seem to believe that the first proposition is the simplest answer, though I’m not so sure how. You cannot prove that the majority of rapists hate women. You might believe it to be true, but you can provide no evidence of this. Assuming this as true requires more questions (i.e., why do they hate women?). I can prove, however, that the majority of rapists are sexually attracted to women. It’s therefore reasonable to assume the second proposition to be the correct one, rather than the first, and that if a man rapes a woman it’s generally because that’s who he’s sexually attracted to. If the majority of rapists were sexually attracted to men, I’d be willing to bet that the majority of rape victims would be males.

    How can and do you prove that most rapists are sexually attracted to women…?  By begging the question?  Most rapists are sexually attracted to women, thus why most rape victims are female, thus proving that most rapists are sexually attracted to women?

    I don’t find that people should be able to legally drink, willingly have sex with someone and then claim rape afterwards. It’s a mockery of the system. If that makes me a “rape apologist”, whatever that means, then so be it.

    STILL, missing the point, I see, just like you accuse EVERYONE else of doing.  You canNOT willingly have sex with someone when they are drunk.  It’s that whole issue of consent that you keep missing, which IS the reason why we keep calling you a rape apologist.

    No, I don’t know what your comment is referring to. I can only assume based on what you type out. Be more specific if you have a specific point you want to get across. But yes, if they are there then the kits should be processed. I don’t think any pro-lifer has ever said they shouldn’t be.

    Actually, yeah, they have, NUMEROUS times, as YOU have just done.  And, btw, you really must live under a rock if you don’t know what Google is….

    It took you about 200 or so words to sum up what I said in thirteen; “It’s because in our society women often get the benefit of the doubt.” That is just the way it is, and I’m glad to see you acknowledge this. A woman can be as violent as she wants towards a man (and women do get very violent), but a man is not allowed to react due to the age old belief that women are meek and helpless. If he does react, he’ll get carted off to jail even if he was just defending himself. It’s a rather fucked up situation, but a situation which you seemingly don’t have any problems with.

    That is NOT what she said.  Are you always this dense?  You fight to make abortion illegal, but forget to inform yourself about what other physical differences the mere presence of a uterus, let ALONE pregnancy, may result in…?  Wow….

    I asked you a very specific question, to which I received no answer, so I will ask you it again. Is the Catholic Church asserting that only men should abstain from sex but not women? Both you and I know this isn’t the case. Assuming one abstains from sex, sans a blood transfusion or needle sharing, AIDS will not spread. How does that constitute underminine the efforts to protect people from AIDS? You’re not making any sense. Preaching abstinence and having people refuse to practice abstinence does not constitute undermining the efforts to protect people from AIDS anymore than does preaching condom using and having people refuse to use them constitutes undermining the efforts to protect people from AIDS.

    Actually, yes it does.  Unless you’re advocating that only CERTAIN people have to take responsibility for their lives while others get a free pass (which, sadly, would be unsurprising), the Catholic Church must take responsibility for the fact that it knows that abstinence isn’t working yet they still preach it.

    Huh? What’s so funny about it? I didn’t just make it up. I looked online for a sufficient enough rebuttal, and found this on a pro-choice website.

    Trespass is comparable to the implantation of the fetus.  THAT’s why it’s funny.  The ProChoice website wasn’t making two separate situations analogous, like you were.  Although, they did fail, just as you did.  If the loss of a woman’s life is comparable to the loss of fetal life, then you ARE a misogynist.  Btw, no one ever said that those who are considered Pro-Choice COULDN’T be misogynists. To YOU, the woman doesn’t exist. It’s like the fetus just attached itself to a piece of machinery.  

    I don’t remember the thread I said this in, but you’re missing the crux of the pro-life position. If abortion is wrong, then it should be restricted. The fact that some people will try to engage in that wrong and harm themselves is immaterial to this fact. I go back to my example which you don’t think is relevant. Should something like theft be legalized in order to protect those who thieve from injury or harm? Much the same way you would not argue this, I wouldn’t argue the same in regards to abortion.

    So, the crux of the ProLife position is that fetal life is more valuable than women’s lives?  Gotcha.  We are arguing AGAINST the legalization of theft, you are arguing FOR it.  As I’ve proven.

    I don’t see how you can even say this in good faith. You only need to look at the abortion rate in the U.S. prior to 1973 and after 1973 to see this is untrue.

    Wow, you REALLY don’t know how this works, DO you?  When abortion became legal, reports of abortion went up.  When something is illegal it is MUCH less likely to be reported.  What you REALLY need to look at rates of abortion in countries where it is illegal and where it is legal. Even reports of illegal abortion outnumber reports of legal abortion. You may thank me for your education, now.

    I don’t think you should use the readers of this site as a benchmark for much. I’ve found that, typically, the reads on this site seem to be on the outward fringe of pro-choicers, not to mention it seems as if every pro-.

    Nope, we’re not on the fringe, we’re the mainstream.  But it’s easy to see how a misogynistic anti-choice philosopher who hides under rocks, would miss that.

    And what circumstances are those?

    How is any of that relevant?  Oh, that’s right, it’s not.  Because it doesn’t change the fact that abortion remains LEGAL.

    Women are far more critical of other women than are men. Most of Palin’s and Bachman’s biggest detractors, for example, are women who reside on the political left.

    Because they have been indoctrinated by the patriarchal culture to do so.  So, you have proven NOTHING, once again.

    This seems rather convenient for you. You claim that the fact that no women has been POTUS to be the result of misogyny, but you rationalize away not voting for certain women should they be in a position to be POTUS on the basis of them “not caring about women or alleviating inequality”.

    It’s not rationalizing NOR merely ‘convenient’.  If a woman wants to make abortion illegal, she DOESn’t care about women.  If a woman who takes on that position gets into the office of POTUS, that is enSURing that misogyny continues.  So, her rationale, UNLIKE YOURS, is completely sound.

    Aside from you refusing to acknowledge that women graduate from college than men at a greater percentage and aside from you refusing to acknowledge the fact that women are making up a greater share of entries into job market than men are, gender equality has long since been accepted by society as a whole. Society doesn’t discourage anyone from entering into any field they choose. People are free to choose to enter whatever field they want. However, because you don’t like some people’s personal choice of career, then you assume that it must be because of sexism/misogyny. That’s bullcrap! Generally speaking, women enter fields which aren’t as labor intensive as the fields men enter and require less of a time commitment as women generally tend to plan around raising a family. Women who do not and act like a man in this regard actually tend to perform a tad bit better than their male counterpart. For example, in most cities, a young-childless female will out-earn a young-childless male. I doubt you’ll say anything about that, though.

    The fact that a greater number of women enter job markets proves nothing.  There was a reason why we focussed on disparity in incomes and leadership roles.  There are any NUMBER of reasons that job market entries by women may be greater, without having to attribute it to gender equality, after all. Women may be entering into the job market more frequently due to quotas, but, if not for that, you would see a drastic reduction in the number of women entering the job market compared to their male counterparts.  Or the industries they ARE entering, are jobs that men find ‘beneath’ them for the most part (I’ve explained more of this, below). But, you really ARE living under a rock, aren’t you? Gender equality is something only mens rights activists falsely believe.  Society, as a whole, has NOT accepted this.  People are NOT free to choose whatever career path they want to follow.  SO sorry, but there is no one so blind as one who will not see.  Why do you THINK women generally tend to plan around raising a family?  Because of biology?  If it were biology, then ALL women would want to plan a family (THERE’S Occam’s Razor for ya).  No, it is because of patriarchal culture/misogyny.  The fact that you even stated that women would be acting like men if they chose NOT to plan around having a family, is ALSO misogynistic. So, thank you for proving our point FOR us, but doesn’t it hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot, over and over, again?

    Please try not to pick and choose which data you want to present. Assuming the same field, at $100K women make about 95% of what a man makes. Below that, the disparity shrinks and in some cases flips in the woman’s favor, while it tends to grow above that. This is a far cry from the oft stated $.77 lie.

    And, did you ever stop to wonder what KINDS of positions fall within the lower-income brackets?  Maybe the kinds of positions that are generally considered ‘women’s jobs’ (low-paying/primary care jobs), beCAUSE they are considered too feminine for men to take on.  After all, if you haven’t noticed (which I’m guessing not), there are still far more jobs controlled by men than there are by women, even as the annual intake decreases. There is also NO indication that the leadership gap will consist of positions filled by a majority of women if we do follow the scale down even further.  Since, even when women tended to have groupings with leadership majority, those tended to lead back to the more numerous groupings of men with leadership majority, even further down the scale, without fail.  Sooo…. ‘Please try not to pick and choose which data you want to present’, next time, mmmkay?

     

    I’m finding it rather hard to take you seriously.

    (1) Why would a company not hire a woman for less due to her likelihood of becoming pregnant instead choosing to not hire her at all?

    (2) Do you think companies would let ideology get in the way of profits? I can’t imagine any company that would.

    (3) If wage discrminiation in regards to gender is illegal and companies still do it anyway, according to you, then what makes you think they wouldn’t also discriminate in their hire practices based on gender in order to make bank?

    1) Um, you do realize that pregnant women take time off work, thus leaving them high and dry looking for another employee, right…? Which only loses them more money in the long run…?  Oy….

    2)  Whenever you feel like coming out from under that rock and joining the rest of civilization, feel free to do so.

    3) Repeat of first question. Please re-read first answer.

    No, it bothers me because your post is full of half-truths, a distortion of statistics, faulty accusations of misogyny and outright lies. I don’t expect you to see this, though. I really shouldn’t have responded to that novela, but I did. There are few things which annoy me in life, but this is one of those things.

     So, recap in order.  It bothers you because her post was full of truth, repaired YOUR distortion of statistics, made truthful accusations of misogyny and countered your outright lies.  Gotcha.

  • arekushieru

    Not as distinctly human as the woman is, apparently. So, I guess you need a new standard to measure human life…?

  • crowepps

    Being attracted to someone does not preclude treating that person poorly, especially if one is attracted to the other based on physical traits.

    Being attracted to someone physically and wanting to poke at their body for physical satisfaction doesn’t preclude hating them.  Some men hate women because they consider being physically attracted to someone ‘sinful’.  Other men hate women because they are socially inept and physically unattractive and they know the gorgeous woman they admire would never return the attraction.  And then of course there are the men who haven’t resolved their ‘mommy didn’t love me enough/was mean to me’ issues.

     

    I can guarantee that despite the phony ‘she really wants it’ mythos portrayed in men’s porn, women are not complimented when they are leered at, groped, verbally harassed, assaulted or raped.  Most women find being considered eye candy and entertainment falls on a continuum from annoying through insulting past creepy to terrifying.  Most women would just as soon strangers didn’t find them ‘attractive’ because they would prefer that strangers leave them alone.

  • crowepps

    The stats I’ve seen are that about 20% of men, if absolutely sure they would never get caught, admit that they would rape a woman.  That’s easy to understand, they think they would get more sexual satisfaction by using someone else’s body to masturbate in rather than their hand.

     

    However, since the majority of men are attracted to women, isn’t the more important question why the other 80% would NOT rape a woman even if sure they wouldn’t get caught?  Are they perhaps more mature?  More emphathic?  Do they recognize that merely WANTING to do something isn’t a good reason to hurt another person?

     

    Whether or not men find women ‘attractive’ is totally irrelevant, because rape isn’t about mutual pleasure or SHARING but instead about forcing someone to do something while they are crying and trying to get away and throwing up on you.  There isn’t anything particularly sexy about any of that, although I imagine it gives a large charge to someone who yearns to feel powerful but finds himself overmatched unless he restricts his macho to beating up girls.

  • quietly

    Your correction led to my engaging in an interesting ( at least to me) refresher on placental biology. I am not usually wrong on these sorts of things, but will readily admit that my interest in placentas is more clinical than embryological. However,  I found there was a bit more nuance than I think either of us might have suspected and I was not as wrong as it may have appeared to you at first blush. The placental and chorionic tissues derive from the trophoblast and are extraembryonic, not fetal precisely, but from the same genetic origins as the fetus, ie NOT maternal. However, the decidua basalis is most decidedly maternal in origin and does form part of the mature placenta when viewed as a functioning interface. It forms a capsulating-like lining to the maternal surface of the placenta less than 1mm thick. So even though the genetic material of the primary mass of the placenta is “fetal” you are correct that my correction of you, though meant to be helpful, was, technically, incorrect. I will be looking at that next placenta differently.

  • crowepps

     The decision can not even be based on the impact the abortion or birth would have on the woman, fetus or world, as when the decision is made the impact is purely theoretical and is in reality pure potential.

    But the entire ProLife argument is based on sentimentality and emotionalism –

    It’s an innocent little BABY!

    See the adorable little toesies on the ultrasound!

    How could any mother refuse nutrition to her own child!

    What mother would WANT to live if the cost is her child’s life!

    There’s a little angel up in heaven waiting to be born, but, no, YOU’RE going to send it straight to HELL instead!

     

    If you’re going to rule out emotional reactions the entire social investment in what women do about their pregnancies disappears.  When you look at the biological facts of the matter, society as a whole is far better off if women have their children at the time when the mother’s health during pregnancy is best so that she produces a healthy baby, and when her social and economic circumstances are such that the child has the best possible chance of growing up a functioning, well educated citizen.

     

    Even if you restrict the social measurement to cost, if women can choose to have pregnancies only when they are healthy and stress free, there will be fewer complications so the  medical cost of the pregnancies will be less and the medical cost of post-natal care for the child will also be less because it’s less likely it will be born prematurely or something will be wrong that needs treatment.

     

    The good of all children overall and the good of the women involved and the good for society of needing to contribute less to help are all totally ignored, however, for the dubious pleasure of scolding women for not wanting to complete THIS pregnancy, even when it is clear and obvious the pregnancy is doomed.  Statistically, 15% of the horrible, terrible girls and women who selfishly get abortions would have had miscarriages anyway.

  • quietly

    You are correct that I do not perform abortions, I would guess that is the field of expertise you are alluding to.

     

    But hey, I’m willing to listen. What physical health risks to the mother are you aware of that are BEST addressed by abortion when the fetus is at the age of viability – which was the context of my comment.

  • quietly

    I’m sure that folks like you and the USCCB will keep working on them untill they’re able to fully enjoy cruelty and power over others. After all, it’s for the babies.”

     

    I wouldn’t say you know much about me at all.

  • crowepps

    I think my point was mostly missed. I am questioning not the outcome of abortions, but the process through which we evaluate and ascribe the “goodness” or “evilness” of terminating a fetus. If abortion is by nature “right” or “wrong”, then a person’s emotional reaction to abortion can’t nullify it’s inherant value.

    This is actually the point that underlies the ProChoice position.  There is great disagreement about what the process should be by which we evaluate whether any particular abortion procedure is moral or immoral.  Some people believe that the only moral thing to do is ban every abortion no matter what the reason is for it because it’s better to kill a million women than to lose one “innocent baby”.  Other people believe that most people should abort because on the evidence they’ll turn out to be lousy parents and the world is overcrowded anyway.  Most of us are in the middle, personally approving some reasons for abortion and disapproving of others.

     

    But see, the thing is we don’t have to think up every single circumstance in which an abortion might possibly be considered and arrive at a majority opinion about whether to allow it or not allow it.  Instead, we only have to figure out whether these are decisions that are properly made by a majority.  Can we trust the woman and man and medical personnel involved to make the best possible decision in circumstances where they know all the details and we do not?  The ProChoice position is that those involved will make the best decision.  Do we have the right to thrust ourselves into the middle of their situation and try to make their decisions for them?  The ProChoice position is that we do not.  Do we have the right to impose our particular minority religious beliefs on other people because we personally believe God has ordered them?  In a country with religious freedom we absolutely do not, because religions disagree on these matters, legislating MY religious belief deprives YOU of yours, and vice-versa.

     

    Certainly if the ProLife advocates really, sincerely were concerned about the “innocent unborn” they would be fighting like tigers for full funding of  every benefit which contributes to the “unborn” being as healthy and safe as possible, instead of cutting all those programs because they “encourage promiscuity”.

  • crowepps

    Sperm and ova are life, human cells and neccissary for human procreation, but are not human until joined. I don’t see how stage of life or complexity of development makes a difference in this issue.

    Well, of course sperm and ova are human before they’re joined, just as they are human AFTER they’re joined even when they actually aren’t even capable of developing further.  It is unlikely that any particular sperm and ova join will actually produce a DNA combination that is CAPABLE of becoming a live infant. 

    John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

    Stage of life and complexity of development make a huge difference, because just as a gardener doesn’t get upset about the seeds that never germinate, or the seedlings thinned out and discarded, or keeping only 50 plants and throwing away a dozen that just weren’t robust, but will be  upset by having a mature plant die, there isn’t much point in getting excited about birth control raising the loss rate of blastocysts from 60% to 61%, or early abortion combining with spontaneous abortion to raise the losses from 20% to 30%.  Abortions in the second half of pregnancy are done rarely because of complexity of development, and usually done for serious and compelling reasons.  Certainly it is extremely rare for abortions to be done in the third trimester unless the need is urgent.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Wanted to respond to this post earlier but ran out of time. I have little time to post lately and even less time to tolerate bullshit statements like “Keep your legs closed…” Slut shaming at it’s finest. Who are you to judge? Hmm? Women have sex. Women enjoy sex. Get over it.

  • prochoiceferret

    You are correct that I do not perform abortions, I would guess that is the field of expertise you are alluding to.

     

    I was alluding more to general obstetrics and gynecology, and if not medical expertise in general. Why did you automatically think the relevant expertise is of how to perform one particular surgical procedure?

     

    But hey, I’m willing to listen. What physical health risks to the mother are you aware of that are BEST addressed by abortion when the fetus is at the age of viability – which was the context of my comment.

     

    “I was in advanced kidney failure. My blood pressure was skyrocketing, and it could not be controlled with medications. My liver was beginning to decline…”

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/12/how-a-lateterm-abortion-saved-my-life

  • middle

    Thank you for proving my point.

  • middle

    Thank you for your calm thought out responce, with reasons.

  • prochoiceferret

    Thank you for proving my point.

     

    Which, apparently, is that pointing out your unwillingness to research this complex and nuanced topic on your own (rather than having commenters here spoon-feed you the very basics) despite your professed interest hurts the pro-choice cause just as much as anti-choicers’ treatment of women hurts theirs. I guess all the effort we put into creating articles, podcasts, and other forms of media for mass consumption were a waste.

     

    (Protip: We’ll respond a lot better to you if you leave out silly assertions like “abortion must necessarily/objectively be ‘good’ or ‘bad’”)

  • arekushieru

    So, either you WERE being dishonest earlier when you said were not referring to the emotional reaction or you’re being dishonest, now, when you’re saying that IS what you were referring to…. So, which is it? 

  • middle

    I am going to be working at a crisis pregnancy counciling center very soon. I happens to be in the middle ground on the abortion issue. I believe there are times when abortion is appropriate and neccissary, and times when that freedom is abused. As is the case with everything I am sure. I have been hearing a whole lot from the pro-life side. I came on here to try and get a better understanding of the pro-choice views. Soon that I can better support these women and men who come to me for help, in whatever decision they pursue. I have several questions. I am very detail oriented, and would like to dissect things a bit further. Would it be possible for me to pick your brain in a more private arena? I am having a difficult time sifting through the responses.

  • middle

    I am responding at this point to too many opinions and questions to keep any issues clear. I am here to better understand, not to argue. Unfortunately there are too many people who are so angry/intent on debating that I am being put into a defensive position, wrather than being able to ask questions. I am therefore checking out in hopes I can find help elsewhere. Thank you for your time, and energy.

  • middle

    You have some very reasonable points. I would like to discuss some of them with you, but it. seems this particular venue is too complicated. Can I ask you some more questions privately? At them risk of annoying some, who have read this in one other thread; I am going to be working in a crisis pregnancy counciling center, and would like to explore them pro-choice views (I am not getting very much in that direction from training), and I don’t feel at this point I can adequately support them people that will be coming in. I have found you to be one of two people who I think might help.

  • anna

    I’ve just wanted to say thank you Jessica. I’m sharing this story wherever I can. You made me smile because, although I’ve never needed an abortion myself, that is always how I imagined myself having one in case that was ever needed.

  • crowepps

    Your posts so far seem to demonstrate that you don’t have a realistic grasp of the biology of pregnancy, that you are approaching the issue from the point of view that purportedly ‘objective’ third parties are entitled to decide whether abortions are  ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and then pressure strangers to do what the third parties want, and so far in your posts you’ve never explained which abortions you feel fall into which categories.  It’s a little hard ot have a discussion twith someone who so persistently hides the ball.  At this point, it seems to me like we’re playing the passive agressive game of ‘that doesn’t convince me either’ which is pretty much a waste of time.

     

    I drop in here to post when I take breaks from my job, which happens to be pretty busy this week.  I’d suggest that you save everybody time by going to the source documents yourself.  Instead of asking me about fetal development, go to the link I provided and read “The Good Egg” at Discover for a background on embryonic development.  Then spend a little time researching important terms like “nonviable fetus” and “gross fetal anomalies incompatible with life” and “serious pregnancy complications”.

     

    It might also be helpful to you to do a little reading on the Men’s Rights Movement:

    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/

    And a little reading on American attitudes about sex.  Certainly the comments below this article are a real eye-opener:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2437876/posts

    And a little reading about sexism in general and the weird idea that the only way to be ‘real woman’ is to be a mother and the bizarre fertility worship of the Quiverful movement.

     

    See, the thing is, what you want us to do is give you a short, private course that sums up everything we’ve learned over half a century or more, and actually you’re not going to really LEARN anything unless you are willing to go do the necessary research yourself.  Instead of picking my brain, I’d strongly suggest exercising your own.

  • soul-oriented

    Jessica,

     

    Think about your first-born child. I don’t know all the details, of course, but I’ll guess at a general sequence of events. You had sex at some point. You conceived a child. You found out a few weeks later that you were pregnant. You gave birth to a baby a few months later. You loved that child.

     

    Now think about this child, your fourth (I’m aware you miscarried your third child). You had sex at some point. You conceived a child. You found out a few weeks later you were pregnant. You gave birth to a baby a few months later. Oh wait… no… You had a doctor remove this child from your womb a few weeks later. The child died during the process. You… loved that child? I guess not.

     

    What is the difference between your first conception and your fourth, Jessica? The first one is there with you, running around and bringing you so much joy. The fourth one is dead, in a medical waste bin somewhere.

     

    From one mother to another, I sit here literally dumbfounded that you chose to end the life of your fourth child… you, a mother… who knows that what you had inside of you was a LIFE, a HUMAN BEING, a small person who would grow to run around and bring you joy as your other two children do, a small person who was depending on you to sustain his/her life, and you betrayed him/her in the worst way possible. You, a mother, who has conceived and carried two other children to term and is now raising them… you ended the life of your fourth child. I just don’t get it. I don’t get how you can look at your other kids and not realize that they both started out the same way this fourth child of yours did. As little fetuses, attached to you, growing safely in your womb.

     

    At the very moment of conception, a new, genetically unique, fully human person was created inside of you. That child’s heart began beating 21 days later.

     

    I just wonder why… if your relationship with your significant other was so deteriorated, why you were still having sex with him? Unprotected sex at that. I find that to be unwise.

  • mechashiva

    Exactly what is so wrong about deciding not to reproduce with a guy who treats you like crap? Why should a woman feel obligated to carry a douchebag’s baby to term if she doesn’t want to? And don’t give me the, “But it’s a baby and just by existing at all, you should want it to live,” crap unless you have the urge to breastfeed every squalling infant you walk by in public. What’s the difference between some stranger’s baby and your own?

     

    Hint: It has something to do with love.

     

    Fetuses aren’t people. You can’t interact with them. There is no relationship between you and your fetus any more than there is between you and some other thing your body makes. So, why do people have kids? Either because they just want to have kids at that time or because they feel inspired by the relationship they have with their sex partner. If you don’t have a driving urge to have a kid at that particular time AND your sex partner is not someone you think deserves the right to reproduce with you, then there’s no reason to continue a pregnancy. That’s just martyrdom. You know what we do with martyrs in my religion (or one of them, anyway)? We spit flaming rum in their faces. That shit isn’t necessary, because life is difficult enough as it is without making it worse for yourself through masochistic self-sacrifice that will leave you less able to provide for yourself and the people you actually have relationships with, who depend on you.

  • arekushieru

    Even though you are essentially agreeing with me, and you brought in new information, they STILL gave you a rating of 1???  Grrr….

    To all the douchebags marking comments based on WHO is posting or WHO they are agreeing with, rather than WHAT is being posted, thanks for making me think that my arguments have been strengthened when that obviously isn’t the case.  I”ve asked, rePEATedly, for you to stop.  FOR that reason. Yet, you haven’t.  It’s starting to make me think what’s the point of posting, here.  So, way to go, douchebags.  Please erase the rating you gave for my most recent comment in this thread, too.  Otherwise, I’ll write this place off as a TOTAL loss.

  • arekushieru

    No one is angry.  Perhaps you’re just projecting?  We have answered your questions as clearly as possible.   Perhaps they’re just not the answers you wanted to hear?  We have already told you that the issue has nothing to do with personhood, yet you persist in asking the same question, over and over, changing the goal posts every so often, then attempting to place the responsibility on others.  Now, who ELSE does that sound like? Almost every Pro-’Lifer’ that we’ve ever encountered on here…?  Check.

  • prochoiceferret

    What is the difference between your first conception and your fourth, Jessica?

     

    This is just a wild guess, but… she wanted the first one, and not the fourth?

     

    From one mother to another, I sit here literally dumbfounded that you chose to end the life of your fourth child… you, a mother…

     

    What fourth child? Jessica aborted her fourth pregnancy. Are you accusing her of infanticide?

     

    You, a mother, who has conceived and carried two other children to term and is now raising them… you ended the life of your fourth [pregnancy]. I just don’t get it.

     

    You don’t get that other people might not make the same choices as you? I hope you never open a sandwich shop.

     

     

    I don’t get how you can look at your other kids and not realize that they both started out the same way this fourth [pregnancy] of yours did. As little fetuses, attached to you, growing safely in your womb.

     

     

    But they didn’t start out the same way. They were wanted, whereas the fourth pregnancy was not.

     

    At the very moment of conception, a new, genetically unique, fully human person was created inside of you. That [fetus]‘s heart began beating 21 days later.

     

    Yes, and if she carried it to term, it would be an adorable little baby. We know how pregnancy works. You, however, don’t seem very clear on the notion that not all people want to go through with that.

     

    I just wonder why… if your relationship with your significant other was so deteriorated, why you were still having sex with him? Unprotected sex at that. I find that to be unwise.

     

    Um… how, exactly, do you presume to know that they didn’t use proctective measures?

  • crowepps

    This post is as fine a collection of sentimentalist claptrap and guilt tripping as I’ve ever seen anywhere — but your inability to understand why a woman with an abusive partner would choose to end one pregnancy so she can better protect two already living children isn’t actually an argument.  Instead it is just evidence that you have zero understanding of abuse, no capacity to put yourself in anothers shoes and an enormous store of judgmentalism.

    By the way, when you don’t know all the details, it is unwise to just start guessing.

  • jennifer-starr

    Though we don’t agree, and you seem to be trying to apply black and white standards to a situation where in my opinion there aren’t any, you seem like a fairly reasonable person and you’ve stated that there are cases in which you agree with the right to choose.  Why would you want to work in a place which  for the most part engages in the harassment of women? 

  • ahunt

    Uhm…I’m going to try very hard to be polite here.

     

    It is so much hooey that pregnant women “love” the BZEF from the second the pregnancy is noted. Women are not drones in a hive. They are as different from one another as trees in a forest. Personalities, viewpoints, ideas, aspirations, beliefs, values, circumstances, experiences combine to make INDIVIDUALS of women.

     

    Kindly spare us the nonsenical woo woo of idealized womanhood, and go read Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s “Mother Nature: A history of mothers, infants and Natural Selection.”

  • arekushieru

    There are no children involved in abortion.  Would you say that a pregnant woman who is forced to carry it to term and remain in the abusive relationship because of her pregnancy and the resultant child, loves that child? Because she’s placed it in a very harmful and vulnerable position. What kind of loving mother would do that?  Not very much of one, I would suggest.  

    Now you’re going to say that you can predict the future?  And predict the future, of a stranger, with the LEAST likely outcome, at that?  Wow, Pollyanna.  If it’s been this long since the abortion, I doubt the *fetus* is still in a ‘medical waste bin somewhere’.

    The fetus is NOT a human being NOR a person.  Once again, stop trying to predict the futures of complete and utter strangers.  At any time in this world there are ACTUAL human beings/persons who are depending on life-saving organ donations to sustain their lives.  Yet, somehow, ‘betraying’ them in the same manner, is less egregious than a ‘betrayal’ of one who has not yet developed a relationship with you???  I can get it, because a fetus and a child look NOTHING alike.  If abortion is betrayal, then pregnancy is betrayal.  Essentially, you are admitting that, since, as you say, the attachment of the fetus to the uterine wall is not its ‘choice’, the consequences of having two x-chromosomes are NOT the fault of the woman.  Yet, here you are, assigning blame to the woman and relieving the fetus of all ‘responsibility’.  Anti-choice, thy name IS hypocrisy…?  

    Contraception is a process, from fertilization to implantation.  So, you’re going to have to be more specific.  ‘Genetically unique’?  You mean like sperm and ova are also genetically unique?  ‘Fully human’?  If it were fully human, the fetus wouldn’t need to survive inside a host.  If it were fully human, the fetus would be breathing, regulating its heartbeat, blood, waste, etc… all by itself.  ‘Person’?  If a fetus is a person, so are sperm, ova, cells, tumours, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu and hydatidiform molar pregnancies.  You mean the collection of cells that act as the fetal heart and beat due to the woman’s (NOT a mother, btw) blood being pumped through them? 

    Finally, sex isn’t just for procreation, if it were, women AND men would get pregnant all the time, women AND men would only have sex at their most fertile times and there would be no such thing as clitorises OR erogenous zones in the anus.  What makes you think she WASn’t using protection?  Nowhere did she state that she wasn’t.  After all, Catholics use birth control.  After all, NO contraceptive is 100% effective, even WITH perfect usage.  After all, that perfect usage is mostly eliminated by antis opposition to comprehensive sex-ed.  After all, MOST women who had an abortion were using some form of birth control.  After all, not ALL women have access to birth control, most likely due to increasing measures by antis to make birth control unavailable and unaffordable.  After all, not ALL women are compatible with ALL forms of birth control at ALL times.  

  • arekushieru

    I was going to address that creepy tone, myself, but I posted it before I could add it and you, yourself, had already posted!

    EXcellent analysis, ahunt! 

  • ack

    This isn’t really true. Society only find “rape” acceptable in the instance where a chick drinks and willingly has sex with a guy. It’s an absolute sham that a chick can get absolutely plastered drunk, willingly sleep with a guy, claim rape afterwards and have the guy thrown in jail for it.

    Society says, “Rape is unacceptable.” The problem is, when people hear the word rape, they think of a ruthless predator with a weapon who attacks a woman or a girl he doesn’t know in her home, or grabs her in public and puts her in his creeptastic panel van. The vast majority of victims are raped by someone they know, and a large percentage of those are raped by current or former intimate partners. And then, when victims come forward, the questions about what she was wearing, where she was, how much she drank, has she slept with other guys, etc, etc, all come out. All of those questions diminish the legitimacy of her experience and explain the attack in terms of her behavior rather than his.

     

    To put this in perspective, until 2005, spousal rape was considered a lesser offense than other types of rape in AZ. It was a Class 6 felony, whereas rape in other relationships could be charged as a class 2 (when they’re charged at all). There was a lot of pushback from the legislature when efforts were made to change it.

     

    You being paranoid is not an indication of misogyny, but rather you being paranoid. I can safely say that many, maybe even most, women do not share your fears.

     

    I encourage you to read about women’s reactions to street harassment. It’s a very broad range of behaviors that spreads from leering and whistling to physical touching. I’ve never met a woman or girl who wasn’t at least annoyed by it, if not frightened. Most of us have had experiences where it escalated (like from whistling to making verbal demands if ignored) and the fact of the matter is that you never really know when the escalation will stop. It’s not paranoia. It’s the reality we live in.

     

    We’re TAUGHT to be hypervigilant. Over the last several years, I’ve asked a couple hundred people in various groups questions about steps they take to protect themselves from sexual assault. When I ask men and boys, I get two answers:

    - Nothing.

    - Don’t go to prison.

     

    When I ask women and girls, I get a whole list:

    -Don’t walk alone at night, Don’t walk alone, Don’t drink too much, Watch your drink, If you leave your drink, get a new one, Don’t go home with guys you barely know, Don’t go home with guys, Don’t invite guys over if you don’t know them, Watch your friends, Use the buddy system, Don’t wear ponytails, Don’t wear skirts, Don’t wear overalls, Don’t dress like a slut, Check the backseat of your car, Check under your car, Walk with your keys in your hand, Yell “FIRE” if someone attacks you, Be aware of your surroundings, Walk on lighted streets, Use campus escorts, etc… etc… etc…

     

    That question, across the country, garners similar responses. Every time. And not just in the groups I’ve asked; it’s standard practice in educational groups about sexual assault.

     

    If you google “rape prevention tips,” you’ll generally get a list of behaviors that women and girls should or shouldn’t engage in to decrease their risk of sexual assault. It’s always good to do what you can to keep yourself as safe as possible, but do you see how a whole list of prescriptive behaviors for women and girls ignores the perpetrators? It creates opportunities for victim-blaming, because these “tips” are so widespread that most, if not all, adolescent and adult females have been told them.

     

    And what happens when she doesn’t follow all the rules? You wind up with that horrible gang rape case in Texas where some people were talking about how AN 11 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS DRESSED as some sort of explanation for adult men and teenage boys raping her.

     

    It is not her behavior that’s at issue; it’s the perpetrator’s. We, as a society, haven’t made that distinction yet. That’s rape culture.

     

    Increasingly, prevention programs are focusing on what they’ve termed “well-meaning men.” Programs like Men Can Stop Rape and Mentors in Violence Prevention use positive active bystanders to check their friends’ behavior and prevent sexual assault. This means that men step in and actively tell their friends that going into a bedroom with a drunk woman isn’t a good idea. And that getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her is not only unethical, it’s illegal in a lot of places.

  • crowepps
  • ack

    I will be looking at that next placenta differently.

     

    This made me giggle. :) Not something you see in writing very often, even on the internet.

  • therealistmom

    That IS one of my very greatest fears. It’s a horrible thing to have to contemplate, almost wishing for your child to die before you- what parent ever wants this?- but yes, what happens? My sister is seven years older than I, and I have no other close family. My daughter is beautiful and bright but who would ever know her and love her like me, and her father? I watch my grandfather’s daughter, and their adopted child with DS. They have never let him be independent, and he should be close to 30 by now. She and the father are close to my mother’s age. What is going to happen to this young man if they pass before him? It’s terrifying to consider.

     

    I know my rants probably come off like I wholesale support the elimination of disabilities. I certainly don’t- I wouldn’t be sad if DS disappeared, but I would never push for anyone to decide not to bring a child with trisomy 21 into the world. If they have the heart and desire to take on a child with these challenges, then all the respect in the world to them. There IS so much these children bring into our lives, and more and more society is recognizing the positive influence they have on the people around them, and how they can be productive, happy citizens. I want the world to be accepting and promoting of the welfare of disabled persons, absolutely.

     

    My offense comes with people who try to completely cloud the issue by making it sound as if a disabled state is objectively as ‘good’ (not the right word, I really don’t know how to phrase it) as the ‘normal’ (egads, another wrong word) state. A person who happens to be blind likely would be better off with sight. If we can cure this blindness, we should. Celebrating blindness as simply ‘another difference’ denies the challenges a blind person faces.  Society should be doing everything in our power to ensure the best assimilation into sighted culture as possible, and see the person not the disability. Pretending there isn’t an issue at all though is just… well, frankly silly and demeaning.

  • arekushieru

    Did you mean… brittle levity?  

  • ahunt

    Tears. Will write later.

  • ack

    I knew there was something wrong, I just didn’t know what it was. And I was too lazy to think too hard about it. Also, Brittle Levity is totally the name of my next band. Or the name of my stand up comedy routine. I’ll crack people up!

  • julie-watkins

    Sorry it’s taking me a long time to answer this. Yes I did assume that the 1st two times you mentioned ‘legal’ and ’9th month’ you meant ‘on demand’ not ‘for medical reasons’, and I should not have jumped to conclusions. Especially connected with ‘there are babies in some abortions’. Most of the time that kind of word choice comes with anti-choice lectures that have caused me much anger and weariness.

    OK, if a common method of ‘termination of pregnancy’ late in a pregnancy is ‘pre-viability induced labor’, is that included in the medical definition of ‘abortion’? I don’t know. My mental image of that concept is ‘induced labor’, not ‘abortion’. But, even so, I’m getting a frustrated and angry response to this. Why be so quietly persistant about making this point unless it’s about the moral problem of disposing of a ‘defective’ baby?

    I’m fed up with what biology has done to women. I’m fed up with how society takes advantage, and how opressing women is so central to the perpetual class war. Reproductive biology is messy and things often go wrong — that’s by design. I read somewhere about an evolutionary scientist making the theory that sexual reproduction (as opposed to budding off clones) was an evolutionary defense against parasites. Keep trying different combinations even if most of them fail, that’ll keep ahead of the parasites.

    Anyway, some forces in society have decided to make a big deal about pregnancies, and terminations because of Downs, etc.

    When the Ruling/Ownership classes are in a hudge crisis of capitalism and are pushing the class war relentlessly and attacking any social safety nets because they want all the workers poor and desperate and obedient, it’s hard for me to get upset about a woman deciding her family can’t afford a Downs baby. You’re obviously uncomfortable at babies being discarded who could have lived longer.

    Me, I’m angry at how society takes advantage of nature’s sexism. I’m angry at divide and conquer BS that blames women … and doesn’t shame governments for not helping. I’m angry at how captialism uses up and then discards workers. Mine companies, for instance, who won’t spend money on safety measures and so miners keep dying. Companies that don’t pay a living wage and fire workers when they get sick.

    So, well, I don’t see your point. The system is, at root, unfair. Medical Standards do the best they can, under the circumstances. (There’s TRAP laws many places.) It agrivates me that actions of pregnant women is so often debated, and the systemic sexism & classism gets ignored.

  • ack

    I think this was the whole point of the post. It wasn’t intended to sway people on the fence, or to convince people to become pro-choice, but to legitimize the experiences of other women who felt happy after an abortion. The anti-choice people focus on regret, the pro-choice people focus on relief, and people rarely talk about the women and girls who are happy.

     

    I appreciate you telling your story.

  • quietly

    I can punch a knife into your chest to resolve a life threatening spontaneous pneumothorax (collapsed lung) or knife you in the chest to create a life-threatening punctured lung. I can cut a slit in your throat to perform a life-saving tracheotomy or slit your throat so you will choke and/or bleed to death. Same tools, same anatomy, different intentions, different outcomes.

     

    If you ever have to take a barely viable baby out of my body to save my life I would ask you, if it at all possible, to do so in a manner that gives the baby his/her some shot at survival. The case you linked to was , if she understood the gravity of her condition correctly, an excellent example of “life of the mother”. Since when the mother dies the pre-viable baby also dies, providing medical care that may kill the baby while saving the mother is considered ethical if the direct intention is not to cause the death of the baby, even that is a foreseen consequence. Internal podalic version and extraction is a life saving emergency measure that turns a baby from head down to breech in the uterus and then effects a rapid delivery by grasping its feet and drawing the baby out of the womb.  Intact dilation and extraction is an abortion that turns a baby from head down to breech in the uterus , and then effects a rapid delivery by grasping its feet and drawing the body out of the mother, and decompressing the skull to cause death prior to delivering the head.

    t’s all in the intent.  I maintain that the best answer to what to do when faced with a potentially life threatening situation for mother and baby after 23 weeks is to try to save both.

  • ack

    But it does not effect the scientifically proven fact that it is life and it is distinctly human.

     

    I think a ZBEF is alive, by many biological standards. I think it’s human. I just don’t think that pregnant women and girls should be obligated to donate their own bodies to another human when we don’t require that of anyone else, under any other circumstances. I think that neither the government nor society should be able to tell women and girls that they’re required to undergo nine months of pregnancy, with all its biological changes and potential for disability, as well as childbirth, with all the pain and potential for disability and death.

     

    As a society, we said we don’t condone torture. (Whether policy reflects that is another story.) If the government induced the changes and pain that happen in a normal pregnancy and birth in prisoners, we would be outraged. And that’s just normal, healthy pregnancies.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you ever have to take a barely viable baby out of my body to save my life I would ask you, if it at all possible, to do so in a manner that gives the baby his/her some shot at survival.

     

    What makes you think you would have to ask?

     

    Since when the mother dies the pre-viable baby also dies, providing medical care that may kill the baby while saving the mother is considered ethical if the direct intention is not to cause the death of the baby, even that is a foreseen consequence.

     

    What makes you think that anyone is going to use a life-threatening pregnancy complication as an excuse to kill a (wanted) fetus?

     

    It’s all in the intent.  I maintain that the best answer to what to do when faced with a potentially life threatening situation for mother and baby after 23 weeks is to try to save both.

     

    What makes you think doctors don’t already try to do this if safe for the woman?

  • ack

    My thought was why did she not have her reproductive ability permenantly blocked if she knew she did not wnat more children?

     

    There are a lot of reasons why women don’t get tubal ligations, or long term methods of birth control. Some might think that using other methods is sufficient, but they might fail.  They’re usually quite reliable, but missing a pill or taking it too late, or using anti-biotics while on the pill, or having a condom break, are all still realities.

     

    Long term methods are actually pretty hard to obtain, depending on your insurance and health care provider. For instance, if you’re a woman or girl who hasn’t had children, it will likely be difficult (if not impossible) to find someone who will perform a tubal ligation. Even finding a provider to do an IUD might be hard, depending on your age and whether you’ve had children. Add to that the multitude of medical issues that women can have that make tubal ligation or IUD insertion more complicated, and you realize that no one has a simple option of getting their tubes tied. Add to THAT the insurance issues and you’re asking women to make a choice between preparing for a broken bone and getting an IUD.

     

    Does that make sense? I can find case examples and stats if you want, when I have time.

  • ack

    I strongly encourage you to watch 12th and Delaware before you decide to work for a CPC.

  • plume-assassine

    Again with the accusations. Could a mod please verify for certain individuals that I’m not whoever they think I am?

    Yeah, right. So it’s just a total coincidence that those four or five people are all non-white, 20-something, anti-choice Men’s Rights Actvisits with the exact same word choice, style, and pet peeves as yours? I don’t think so.

    You wanted to claim that society is misogynistic.

    And you want me to believe that I actually live in a fucking gender-equality utopia when I KNOW for certain that I don’t? All of the proof points in the other direction. Because I am a woman and I have lived it. You have not and never will. You have no idea, so you really have no business trying to tell me otherwise.

    What I find offensive is that you somehow presume to speak for or assume that many or even most women would agree with your (mis)characterizations

    And do you realize how offensively stupid you sound, as a man, when you pretend that misogyny doesn’t exist and that most women would disagree with me? Most women do not think that we have achieved gender equality in our society. Most women do NOT feel safe walking around alone at night.

    And what statistical evidence? Your first post directed towards me contained none, and the post I’m responding to right now contains none.

    Evidence: The rates of rape in this country. The wage gap. The number of years a convicted rapist is expected to serve. Google is your friend if you’d like to verify any of it.

     

     Are you familar with Occham’s Razor? Are you familar with Occham’s Razor? It states that given two propositions, the simplest one is probably the correct answer. In this case, we have two propositions:

    (1) The majority of rapists hate women, hence why the majority of rape victims are female.

    (2) The majority of rapists are sexually attracted to women, hence why the majority of rape victims are female.

    Let me clue you in on something. Rape is not an abstract philosophical concept. IT IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE AND CAN BE USED AS A WEAPON OF WAR. People do not committ acts of war/brutal violence because they are “sexually attracted” to someone. People committ acts of violence because they HATE that person or what they represent, and want to assert control over them.

    You don’t seem to understand exactly what misogyny is either. A man can be sexually attracted to women and also be a misogynist. Kind of like yourself. Especially if he thinks that women are only good for one thing: sex (or babies). That is a hatred of women because it is a philosophy that treats women as nothing but objects. Rape is the ultimate objectification of woman taken to its most violent extreme. It is not an expression of sexual attraction, it is an expression of hate.

    You are also ignoring the reality, once again, that heterosexual men can and DO rape other men. The vast majority of men who assault other men are heterosexual, so they are not expressing an attraction to men. Homosexual men are raped slighlty more often than heterosexual men due to anti-gay violence. Homophobia.

    Consider this. Nobody murders a person because they are “attractive” — the root cause is that murderers are sociopaths. And although a murderer will say that he chose the victim because she was sexually attractive or because he felt jealousy, that’s not really why he kills. It is the same thing with rape. Although a rapist will say that he rapes women because he thought she was “hot,” that’s not why he does it. He does it because he is a misogynist and wants to degrade and control women.

    When you claim that rape has to do with sexual attraction, you ARE saying that the rapist was essentially complimenting someone’s physical appearance. That is what I find so disgusting about your claims. Would you tell a rape victim to her face that she was attacked because her aggressor thought she was too sexy? No, he attacked her because he is a violent predator who hates and preys on women. The soldiers who use rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not rape the women and children because they find them sexually attractive. Jesus christ…

    If rape (and rape culture) is not a result of misogyny, then what WOULD you consider misogynistic?

    Pretending that rape has nothing to do with misogyny is like pretending that lynching had nothing to do with racism. Or pretending that the rate of violence against gay people has nothing to do with homophobia.

    I don’t find that people should be able to legally drink, willingly have sex with someone and then claim rape afterwards.

    What the hell, do I need to explain everything to you? If someone is drunk, they are in an impaired psychological state, and therefore they do not have the mental capacity to give consent to any sexual activity. Even if, in their impaired state, they said “yes” or “asked for it.” That “yes” is null and void. I have a friend who went to a party, got drunk, and asked a stranger to have sex with her. He declined because he knew she was drunk and didn’t know what she was really asking. When she sobered up, she didn’t remember ANYTHING at all about asking someone to have sex with her, and this terrified her because it’s not something she would have ever wanted to happen if she was sober. Fortunately, he was not a rapist and did not take advantage of her “asking for sex” in her impaired state.

    It took you about 200 or so words to sum up what I said in thirteen; “It’s because in our society women often get the benefit of the doubt.” 

    Uhhhh no. It does not have to do with the benefit of the doubt. It has to do with the reality of domestic violence. That’s why the numbers look they way they do.

    Who is more likely to be the aggressor? The man. Who is statistically more likely to cause significant injury and kill the other person? The man.

    I am well aware that domestic violence happens to men and happens outside of heterosexual relationships. The police need more education about this so that they are protecting the right person. There is a great organization that I worked with called SAFE (Stop Abuse For Everyone) that does this. But as it stands in our society, women are still more likely to be seriously injured and killed as a result of domestic violence than men, even if the aggression was mutual.

    Assuming one abstains from sex, sans a blood transfusion or needle sharing, AIDS will not spread. How does that constitute underminine the efforts to protect people from AIDS? You’re not making any sense. Preaching abstinence and having people refuse to practice abstinence does not constitute undermining the efforts to protect people from AIDS anymore than does preaching condom using and having people refuse to use them constitutes undermining the efforts to protect people from AIDS.

    You don’t get it — it’s not “preaching abstinence” that undermines efforts to protect people from AIDs. There’s nothing wrong with teaching abstinence, but the Catholic church fails to acknowledge that some people STILL have sex anyway. If people REFUSE to practice abstinence, they should be allowed to use condoms. But the Catholic church does not want them to and so they spread lies about the efficacy of condoms, or worse, missionary groups will directly prevent efforts to supply vulnerable populations with protection. So what they are doing is actually making the spread of AIDs even worse.

    I didn’t just make it up. I looked online for a sufficient enough rebuttal, and found this on a pro-choice website.

    How about you actually respond to what I wrote instead of looking for a rebuttal online and then quoting it again?

    Go back and re-read. Recap. First, a person trespassing on your property/stealing from you is not comparable to a woman having an abortion. There is only one person involved in abortion. (And regardless of what you think of the status of an embryo, it is DISPUTABLE in our society, unlike the indisputable personhood of woman, which is settled.) There is more than one person affected by theft/trespassing. Second, a private medical procedure involving bodily autonomy is not comparable to theft/trespassing, which has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

    Whether or not women will die as a result of illegal abortion IS important, but it is not the only argument in favor or legal abortion. What it does is expose that pro-lifers don’t really care about the absolute right to life unless it exists in the womb, or else they would want to keep abortion legal, in order to prevent needless deaths of indisputable human beings.

    You’re trying to argue that women who have abortions are murderers and deserve to die for the crime they commit, just like a trespasser who deserves to be mangled by guard dogs for trying to steal property. But then you aren’t REALLY arguing that abortion is murder, though, are you? Because you said so yourself that you think only doctors should be imprisoned. But in this country, if someone knowingly seeks out someone to murder their 4-year-old child and they are at the scene of the crime, then they also go to jail because they are a participant in that murder. Yet a woman who takes a pill or has a doctor “murder” her embryo shouldn’t go to jail. Hm. It’s obvious to me that you and other anti-choicers don’t really believe your own BS!

    I just took the logic and applied it to a situation in which I could be directly involved in.

    Are you trying to say that you are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Or that you are an embryo? Because there is no situation in which abortion would ever directly involve your person.

     

    I don’t see how you can even say this in good faith. You only need to look at the abortion rate in the U.S. prior to 1973 and after 1973 to see this is untrue.

    I guess you aren’t aware that it is not entirely possible to document the rate of any illegal activity. The numbers of abortions prior to 1973 appear a lot lower because they were only able to accurately surmise who was having abortions based on women who ended up in the maternal septic ward, and the occasional arrest of doctors who told how many patients they had.

    …an examination of statistical trends reveals that the legal status of abortion in a country is not strongly correlated with the rate at which it occurs. Indeed, in many countries where the procedure is illegal, women obtain abortions at very high rates. Similarly, in some countries where abortion is legal and very widely accessible, abortion rates are low.

    Clearly, factors other than legality are at play here. The primary factor is the rate at which women experience unintended pregnancies. Some women who have an unintended pregnancy will seek an abortion regardless of its legal status—even if they have to jeopardize their lives by undergoing an unsafe, illegal procedure. Thus, while there may be little relationship between abortion legality and abortion incidence, there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

    You claim that the fact that no women has been POTUS to be the result of misogyny, but you rationalize away not voting for certain women should they be in a position to be POTUS on the basis of them “not caring about women or alleviating inequality”.

    Being a woman does not automatically mean you care about the rights of other women. Women can be sexist and misogynistic too, especially when they are trying to gain power – this often happens because they want to appear non-threatening to those who hold that power, the men. Far-right conservatives know that if they give a position of power to Palin, she won’t share that power with anyone else like her. It’s political tokenism at its worst. I would not be surprised to see a lot of women’s rights taken away under her. And I’m not just talking about abortion. What is the point of having a female president who will turn back women’s rights and essentially make it impossible for there to be any more female presidents ever again after her? Similarly, there is no reason for someone to vote for a Black president on the basis of that person’s skin color, especially if that candidate is racist. What is the point of having a non-white president who allows racism to continue unchallenged and essentially makes it impossible for there to be any more non-white presidents ever again after him/her?

    Generally speaking, women enter fields which aren’t as labor intensive as the fields men enter and require less of a time commitment as women generally tend to plan around raising a family. Women who do not and act like a man in this regard actually tend to perform a tad bit better than their male counterpart.

    And still, you’re missing the why. WHY are women not entering more male-dominated fields? Women are not biologically hardwired to plan around raising a family any more so than men. It is our society that TELLS US THIS. That is what “good women” are supposed to do – forego pursuit of a career to get married and have babies. And if you still want to work, well, you’re not a “good mom.”

    There is no such thing as someone “acting like a man.” There are no sets of personality traits or roles that are hardwired into either sex (read Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality by Anne Fausto Sterling.) So, then it must be society that creates and enforces these roles, as you have just revealed without even knowing it by saying women who go against the norm are “acting like men.”

    This is a far cry from the oft stated $.77 lie.

    loooool I guess the US census is just full of liiiies

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html

    http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Bridging-the-Gender-Pay-Gap.aspx

    http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/orchestra.pdf

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf

    http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/statedata/upload/gendergap2009_data.pdf

    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2007/04/working_women_a.html

     

    Why would a company not hire a woman for less due to her likelihood of becoming pregnant instead choosing to not hire her at all?

    Because they assume that they will lose more money in the long-run because she’ll have to take time of work for maternity leave and child care, when they think they can hire a man for more and make more money in the long-run.

    Do you think companies would let ideology get in the way of profits?

    If there is a persistent belief that women can’t perform certain jobs as well as men, then they would see hiring a woman as LOSING profits, not gaining.

    If wage discrminiation in regards to gender is illegal and companies still do it anyway, according to you, then what makes you think they wouldn’t also discriminate in their hire practices based on gender in order to make bank?

    What’s easier for other people to see and report? Wage discrimination or hiring discrimination?

    No, it bothers me because your post is full of half-truths, a distortion of statistics, faulty accusations of misogyny and outright lies. I don’t expect you to see this, though. I really shouldn’t have responded to that novela, but I did. There are few things which annoy me in life, but this is one of those things.

    Yeah, right. Whatever helps you sleep at night. By the way, thanks for confirming to me that anti-choicers are pro-rape misogynists. Some of the shit you said about rape is absolutely disgusting. I showed your comments to four of my guy friends (a couple who don’t even self-identify as feminists) and they found it appalling. Seriously, go back to your circle jerking on the Spearhead or something and stop trying to put wimmenz in their place on a pro-choice web site.

  • arekushieru

    It’s NOT all about intent.  It’s all about manipulation/wielding of a tool.  I can assure you if someone sent a scalpel plunging into my chest, without the proper preparation and only with the intent to heal me, I would STILL die.

    I would ask them NOT to do it, because I wouldn’t want that baby to suffer.

    Who said that the direct intention of abortion was to kill the fetus?

    Btw, if my intent was to simply draw the fetus out of the womb and I accidentally decompressed the head, I would still be killing the fetus. 

  • arekushieru

    I’m fed up with what biology has done to women. I’m fed up with how society takes advantage, and how opressing women is so central to the perpetual class war. Reproductive biology is messy and things often go wrong — that’s by design. I read somewhere about an evolutionary scientist making the theory that sexual reproduction (as opposed to budding off clones) was an evolutionary defense against parasites. Keep trying different combinations even if most of them fail, that’ll keep ahead of the parasites 

    To extend that line of thought even further: What if pregnancy just became a ‘happy circumstance’ as a result of sex?  While evolution kept trying other different combinations that would protect individuals from these selfsame parasites, evolution also found combinations that would ensure the survival of heterogametic species, through special adaptations of sperm, ova and zbefs to the newly hostile environment that was created to specifically protect women from parasites?  Then pregnancy is NOT a ‘natural’ result of sex. 

  • crowepps

     providing medical care that may kill the baby while saving the mother is considered ethical [BY CATHOLICS] if the direct intention is not to cause the death of the baby, even that is a foreseen consequence.

    The rest of us, who are not Catholics, don’t have to do any Jesuitical hairsplitting in order to justify saving a woman’s life.  If the placenta is killing her, we can just yank it on out of there as fast as possible and let the fetus take its chances.  It’s much more efficient in medical situations to not have to dance through a bunch of hypocritical, oopsy, look what happened, nonsense.

    I maintain that the best answer to what to do when faced with a potentially life threatening situation for mother and baby after 23 weeks is to try to save both.

    I’d certainly be interested in any evidence that you have that medical personnel treating women suffering complications are so eager to wantonly slaughter wanted fetus that they fail to do this already.  The fact that it is impossible to always save both arises from the complexity and chanciness of pregnancy, NOT from hostile intent on anyone’s part, and the fact that the fetus is not yet at a stage of development where it can be saved isn’t anybody’s fault.  It sure must be a total bummer for dedicated, hard-working medical personnel to hear the constant litany of lies from ProLife activists that doctors and hospitals are willing to kill babies because they can make a buck doing so, and OB/GYN’s are all abusive and hate women, stereotype, gossip, backstab –

     

    Do you ever think about how how grossly insulting statements like this are to people who have spent many years getting an education so they can provide medical care?  Do you ever consider just how a statement that strongly implies that doctors do NOT try to save both just might be offensive to a doctor who’s already upset that complications caused the patient to miscarry and he was pretty helpless to do anything?  There just isn’t any evidence at all that doctors don’t try to save both — except at Catholic hospitals, where they make extreme attempts to save the fetus no matter how hopeless the chances are and are willing to kill the woman in the process of giving it every chance.

     

    Of course, it’s not like they’re heartless; they feel very very sad afterwards and extend sincere condolences to her widower and motherless children about how God’s Plan required her martyrdom.

  • middle

    I was intending on better understanding my own opinions, I was trying to understand your’s. I’ve been working in Hospitals, Birthing centers and Privately, teaching Nursing and layman classes specifically in the biology and science of conception and pregnancy for six years. I am very well versed and need not help from you there. I have simply chosen to not pursue that part of the discussion. To argue that a sperm or a human kidney for that matter are a human instead of part of a human is silly, and bad science. My questions are not when does life begin etc. That is easily provable. My questions are 1. When do you think a human becomes sentient? 2. Does being a sentient human being have inherant rights? 3. Do the rights of the mother trump everyone elses’? And why to all three. If for any reason you do not wish to express yourself/ be questioned further on your opinions, that’s okay.

  • middle

    Thank you by the way for those links. They were very interesting. I find asking others for resources they find valuable to be very effective in aiding my research.

  • prochoiceferret

    1. When do you think a human becomes sentient? 2. Does being a sentient human being have inherant rights?

     

    Neither of these questions has any relevance to the abortion discussion. We can pretend that a human zygote is every bit as sentient as an adult human being, and that still does not negate a woman’s right to an abortion.

     

    3. Do the rights of the mother trump everyone elses’?

     

    It’s not a matter of “trumping.” It’s that the mother has a right to bodily integrity—in other words, to be the arbiter of what enters, leaves, or takes place inside her body—and that does not change simply because a still-gestating “sentient human being” would die if she does. Her human rights are not conditional on the state of her body, nor on who or what is inside it.

  • middle

    Having worked as a patient advocate for 6 years I have found that the issue is not the stance that centers take on abortion, it’s the personalities involved. And people are harassed on both sides of just about every issue. And the women at this center are not pushy or overbearing. They are simply trying to provide for the needs of other women within the boundaries of their own moral code. And are very upfront with their own beliefs. I don’t think anyone would come in and be taken by surprise that it’s run by prolifers. This is however the only resource in a rural community, so I believe we will get women who need help who are both going to abort, and not. I want to be available to help each woman make highly educated choices, and live without crippling guilt either way. I am comfortable working in an environment where the majority have different views than my own. They are just as respectful of me, as I am of them. The director knows my views, and sees value in having workers who are more concerned with helping the people than pushing an agenda. I am planning on working there primarily because I have a lot of compassion and empathy for women in crisis pregnancies. I have an opportunity to bring in a different vantage point. The opportunity to help train the other women involved. And hopefully unite two opposing view points in a way that can strengthen our abbility to protect women and children, which successful or not I think is at the heart of both sides.

  • middle

    I will, thank you.

  • middle

    I see better where you are coming from. Can I ask for clarification on two points?

  • prochoiceferret

    Can I ask for clarification on two points?

     

    You can certainly ask for clarification, even without asking if you can ask for it. Genuine inquiry is appreciated; rhetorical questions are not.

  • crowepps

    I was intending on better understanding my own opinions, I was trying to understand your’s. 

    My questions are 1. When do you think a human becomes sentient? 2. Does being a sentient human being have inherant rights? 3. Do the rights of the mother trump everyone elses’?

    And yet to this point I don’t think you’ve actually risked putting your opinion out there, have you?  Just a long series of posts inquiring about what everybody else thinks, even though most of us already have multiple posts available in the archives here that outline our histories and opinions.

    This reminds me so much of the games my mom used to play, where she would ask what you thought, and ask what you thought, and question you about all the details of what you thought, and then say, “Well, if that’s what you think, I feel sorry for you!  Only a horrible person would think that!”   Tell you what, I’ll play one round, and then wait until you respond by making your own opinions on these issues clear.

    1. I think a fetus becomes sentient after it survives birth alive and is officially a baby.

    2. I think independent, live human beings have inherent rights even when they are NOT sentient.  We don’t kill coma patients, for instance, or the severely retarded.  At the  point where they are NOT independent, instead being kept alive by machines (or the body of another person), they have far fewer rights, because they are only provisionally alive.  The appearance of being alive may be maintained until the power goes out but that is only a simulacrum of life.  The appearance of being alive because a woman’s body is taking the metabolic load is also provisionally alive.  If removing the fetus from the woman’s body reveals that the fetus was NOT viable because of a lack of lungs, kidneys, brain, heart, etc., the woman’s body was obviously providing a simulacrum of life.  The woman has no obligation to pointlessly grow a nonviable fetus to a size which approximates a full-term baby.  Society has no compelling interest in nonviable fetuses being grown large before they die.

    3. The rights of ALL independent, live human beings trump the rights of anybody else to seize and make use of their bodies when they are unwilling, and people do not lose that right merely because they are female or because they are females who have sex willingly.  Women are not breeding stock.

     

    In addition I’d like to add, if there is ‘soul’ that attaches to the fetus before birth, I believe that fetal death for ANY reason results in that soul ascending directly to heaven, not the reluctant half a loaf granted by Catholics but the actual real deal, because I don’t believe that God would condemn the “innocent unborn” for lack of a priest performing a baptism.  One of the most revolting and damaging assertions of the most extremist ProLife activitists is that abortion damns the souls of the aborted to hell because they haven’t been baptized/been saved.  As a woman who has had two miscarriages, I categorically reject that foul calumny, and denounce the hubris of religious professionals who have so forgotten the humility which is supposed to be part of their role that they act as though without their intervention, God can’t do as He wills.  Baptism is not all about how extra special important the priest thinks he is in supposedly having the power to condemn to hell or grant heaven.  God is not bound by a priest or pastor’s opinions and He certainly doesn’t have to follow their instructions.

     

    Your turn.

  • julie-watkins

    Then human women woud go into ‘heat’ like cats, etc. We don’t.

  • deanna

    This article just goes to show how corrupt and utterly unfeeling our society has become. When a woman can kill her baby (yeah yeah, I know, it’s a fetus, clump of cells, tissue, product of conception, contents of her uterus, pregancy, etc. We aren’t supposed to use the dreaded “B” word because we might mistake it for something that is actually worth a nickle) and then smile and brag about it like it’s Christmas day then we are in the pits of failure as a society. This article should disgust anyone with feelings.

  • quietly

    Brittle Levity. Excellent.

  • ahunt

    Pretending there isn’t an issue at all though is just… well, frankly silly and demeaning.

     

    Indeed. And at the risk of sex stereotyping, I am fairly confident that  handling these “issues ” is disproportionately the responsibility of women.  The failure of the woo woo crowd to acknowledge that their happy talk translates into tremendous burdens on the caregivers is bad enough, but the blithe dismissal of the default…is infuriating!

  • ahunt

    The cute….it buuuuurns. Please tell us this is a personal photo….

  • deanna

    I just love love love how you guys vote into cyber limbo land anyone who disagrees with you. It’s actually amusing! 

  • ahunt

    Snerk. Well, you know us pro-choicers, Deanna. We never pass up the opportunity to do the happy dance when a brave individual steps forward to combat the pro-life “stigma” of abortion.

  • mechashiva

    Good to know you are the sort of person who just laughs when people disagree with them rather than considering why others might have an opposing viewpoint. People don’t have abortions or support legal abortion because they are unfeeling, they do it because their feelings lead them to different conclusions than yours do.

  • arekushieru

    I have never seen a CPC center harassed.  If ProLifers were willing to work with us, that would be great.  But, so often, that’s been shown to NOT be the case.

  • arekushieru

    After all, the line of thought is that we are ‘born into sin’.  We are baptized in order for that sin to be wiped clean.  A fetus, according to Catholic, and ProLife, philosophy is innocent.  What sin can an innocent commit and still BE innocent?  I think that their right hand just doesn’t know what the left is doing….

  • deanna

    I have considered why people have opposing viewpoints. I just think that their reasons for killing babies are not good enough. There are no reasons good enough to justify taking the life of an innocent baby.

  • arekushieru

    I have considered why people have opposing viewpoints.  

    Obviously, you haven’t.  How do I know this?  Several reasons.  You have NO idea what the term ‘killing’ actually means. Look it up.  You have NO idea what the term ‘BABIES’ means. Look that up while you’re at it (hint: giving me a definition that doesn’t come out of a medical dictionary and doesn’t constitute the most common usage, DOESn’t count). *Fetuses* are neither innocent NOR guilty. Changing the definition of guilt so that a fetus CAN fit within its parameters, automatically makes the fetus guilty.  After all, innocence is the default of guilt not the lack of capacity to BE guilty.  If guilt remains based on intention, the fetus can be neither innocent nor guilty.  If guilt is based on action, then the fetus autoMATically becomes guilty.  Which would you prefer, a guilty fetus or a fetus that can be neither?  The latter? What I thought….

    There are no reasons good enough to justify taking the life of an innocent baby.

    Then there are NO reasons good enough to justify you taking the life of an indisPUTable human being by not sharing as MANY of your organs as humanly possible with an organ bank.  But here, I’ll even help you with the definition of killing by mentioning that making abortion about anything MORE than removal from a life-sustaining organ, makes your contempt for women VERY obvious.

  • arekushieru

    Nope, we don’t. That’s a line I often use when talking to antis.  Goes something like this: If sex was really about reproduction, then female and male wouldn’t have erogenous zones, females definitely wouldn’t have clitorises, both male and female would get pregnant, they would only have sex at their fertile times and pregnancy would occur after each sexual encounter. 

     

  • arekushieru

     

    No, the only ones this article should disgust is those who can’t put women’s lives before fetal lives. The only ones this should disgust is those who can’t distinguish a woman from a vessel they believe was created solely for breeding. The only ones this should disgust is those who collaborate with the patriarchy and make of themselves to be vessels solely created for breeding. The ONLY ones this should disgust is those who believe that making a dangerous medical condition mandatory solely because it’s a convenient method to punish these same ‘breeders’ for consenting to sex for purposes other than procreation, is NOT akin to slavery.

    If calling something what it is all of a sudden puts its humanity in question, then you’ve just admitted you’re argument is based on nothing more than rhetoric and emotionalism. Rhetoric and emotionalism used to ENSLAVE women to their own bodies. I think THAT is desPICable AND disGUSting.

     

  • wolfhound

    Here you go, troll.  I’ve done my good deed of the day by bringing a little joy into your life.  No need to thank me; the satisfaction of a job well done is sufficient reward.

  • arekushieru

    ProChoice IS the middle ground.  If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, an abortion is necessary, it’s that simple.  Abortion can’t be abused unless someone is being forced to abort.  Abortion is part of the most fundamental human right.  The right to self-determination.  If abortion is restricted in any manner, a woman does not HAVE that fundamental right, because she is simply being given *permission* to exercise it.  That’s not freedom in ANY sense of the word.

  • quietly

    Here was my position on the matter of elective/induced abortion after viability, which, in most states, for example mine , presupposes that continuing the pregnancy will have a significant deleterious  effect on the mother’s health, perhaps even result in her death.

    I maintain that the best answer to what to do when faced with a potentially life threatening situation for mother and baby after 23 weeks is to try to save both.

     If I recall correctly, what had led to my making that statement was that an earlier comment – that I was not aware of a medical condition present in a pregnancy already at the age of viability that would preclude delivery in favor of abortion – was not exactly well received. Apparently the comment above is not being exactly well received either. Another round of rather nasty hyperbole has been launched in which I am invested with all sorts of interesting, unpleasant opinions that I do not actually hold:

    I’d certainly be interested in any evidence that you have that medical personnel treating women suffering complications are so eager to wantonly slaughter wanted fetus that they fail to do this already.  The fact that it is impossible to always save both arises from the complexity and chanciness of pregnancy, NOT from hostile intent on anyone’s part, and the fact that the fetus is not yet at a stage of development where it can be saved isn’t anybody’s fault.  It sure must be a total bummer for dedicated, hard-working medical personnel to hear the constant litany of lies from ProLife activists that doctors and hospitals are willing to kill babies because they can make a buck doing so, and OB/GYN’s are all abusive and hate women, stereotype, gossip, backstab –

     

     Do you ever think about how how grossly insulting statements like this are to people who have spent many years getting an education so they can provide medical care?  

     Well I certainly am getting a first hand experience of how insulting it can be in comments like these. There seems to be quite a litany going about me, and I’m pretty dedicated and hard working and even spent years getting an education so I could provide medical care…

    There just isn’t any evidence at all that doctors don’t try to save both -

    Yes, actually there is, and I will give you some very solid evidence of that sad truth with the relevent link.

    http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/09itop1.pdf

    In 2009  121  late term abortions at 22 weeks and over were reported to the state of  Kansas. Of these, 66 were performed on fetuses deemed viable and with a reasonable expectation that they would survive outside the womb if delivered. The medical indication for abortion in each case was to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major body function. The women who went to Kansas for these abortions all delivered vaginally after induction of labor. They labored and delivered babies that were already dead, regardless of their presumptive viability, because digoxin was injected into the fetal heart prior to induction.

    In no case did the doctors try to save both. That was not the intent.

     

    Those of you who have terminated planned pregnancies because of distressing adverse genetic diagnoses or severe anomalies, my heart goes out to you, but you are a minority among the thousands of women who abort normal but unintended pregnancies. Women who terminated pregnancies they deeply desired but could not safely carry are an even smaller minority.

     

    I am not saying that any of this is a reason to outlaw abortion.   I AM saying drop all the altruistic posturing and babble and look at what abortion actually IS. Those pregnancies were not terminated after 22 weeks for the life or health of the mother, they were terminated because they were not wanted.  I mean really, folks, and you talk about pro-birthers woo woo fantasies ?

  • quietly

    In the Kansas cases I mentioned all of the viable fetuses at 22 or greater weeks were injected with digoxin prior to induction of labor. If it was not the abortion per se that resulted in their deaths (or killed them), would you agree that they were killed? If the digoxin killed them (and I think you may say it did, by stopping the cardiac muscle), was that not part of the abortion? If they weren’t killed then what the heck are we supposed to say did happen to them?

    And what was the intent?

  • prochoiceferret

    And what was the intent?

     

    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy in the safest manner possible for the woman. If you want to know the specific reason why digoxin is used, ask a medical professional.

     

    Here’s a hint: They don’t use it because they have a thing for killing fetuses.

  • prochoiceferret

    I just think that their reasons for killing babies are not good enough. There are no reasons good enough to justify taking the life of an innocent baby.

     

    Well, sure. But since no one here is talking about infanticide, your comment is more than a little off-topic.

  • prochoiceferret

    I am not saying that any of this is a reason to outlaw abortion.   I AM saying drop all the altruistic posturing and babble and look at what abortion actually IS. Those pregnancies were not terminated after 22 weeks for the life or health of the mother, they were terminated because they were not wanted.

     

    Oh?

     

    In 2009  121  late term abortions at 22 weeks and over were reported to the state of  Kansas. Of these, 66 were performed on fetuses deemed viable and with a reasonable expectation that they would survive outside the womb if delivered. The medical indication for abortion in each case was to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major body function. The women who went to Kansas for these abortions all delivered vaginally after induction of labor. They labored and delivered babies that were already dead, regardless of their presumptive viability, because digoxin was injected into the fetal heart prior to induction.

    In no case did the doctors try to save both. That was not the intent.

     

    Sorry that those women didn’t want to carry to term at the risk of permanently impaired body functions. Isn’t it terrible that fewer and fewer women are willing to martyr themselves and their health for motherhood? Scandalous!

  • quietly

    Dear Ferret,

    In your most recent commincation you inquired:

    If you want to know the specific reason why digoxin is used, ask a medical professional. Here’s a hint: They don’t use it because they have a thing for killing fetuses.

    Ummmm, I checked, like you said, and, yep, seems they do use it to kill fetuses, so they won’t be born alive, cuz that sorta misses the point of getting the abortion. Plus there’s that whole awkward Infant Born Alive thing.

    Sorry, thought I would try on that snarky tone you’ve honed to such perfection, but it just felt too, you know, snarky, what with me actually being a medical professional and all. So here is a link to an excellent online general medical resource

    Some centers also offer either intracardiac, intrathoracic, or an intra-amniotic injection of digoxin (1 mg), which ceases fetal cardiac activity and has very low transplacental medication leakage; therefore, it has been shown to be safe for the mother. Potassium chloride may be used as well, but complication rates have been higher. This ensures fetal death prior to fetal expulsion, regardless of the method of second-trimester abortion chosen.

    http://www.emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-treatment

    Hope this helps.

    All the best,

    Quietly

  • quietly

    Weak. Your response is an intentional misdirect. The question was not did these women have a medical indications for abortion. They did. Nor did they need to carry to term for their babies to survive. It is apparent that the doctors did not try to save both lives. It does not improve the safety to the woman or facilitate the expulsion of the uterine contents to kill the fetus prior to the induction of labor. In fact, it is often clinically more difficult to deliver a fetal demise than a live baby.

  • therealistmom

    … that not all of the procedures involve the induction of labor, which would deliver a live fetus. For many of the women who have major medical issues which force the termination of the pregnancy labor and delivery would be overly strenuous, thus the use of D&E or other surgical methods. The line of ‘viability’ is extremely arbitrary as well- a woman who’s fetus has severe IUGR yet is at “24 weeks” will not be likely to survive, even with heroic methods. Others simply do not believe in the ‘heroic measures’ needed to attempt to save an extremely premature infant are an option, in the same way they would not choose such measures for themselves. A survival rate of less than 10% with the potential of severe handicaps has to be weighed against the women’s well-being and that of their families.

  • julie-watkins

    I believe quietly is referring to these statistics:

    (KS ; Out of State; total)
    15a) Was the fetus viable? Yes 1 66 67
    15b) Reasons for determination of fetus viability
    It is the professional judgement of the attending
    physician that there is a reasonable probability that
    this pregnancy may be viable. 1 65 66
    16a) If 15a was yes, was this abortion necessary to:
    Prevent patient’s death 0 0 0
    Prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a
    major bodily function 1 66 67
    16c) If 15a was yes, basis for determination in 16a:
    Gestational and diagnostic information provided by
    the referring physician and other health care
    professional(s) as well as examination and interview
    of the patient by attending physician. 1 66 67

    First, the 1st statistic is “may be viable”.

    If I’m remembering correctly from past rants at Life Site & Kansas newspaper reports on web, LS & some KS politicians were complaining about Dr. Tiller refusing to “cooperate” with the reporting laws. He had consulted with lawyers and was supplying the minimum amount of information that he was legally obligated to provide. And considering the political climate then and now, I’m not surprised.

  • deanna

    Ok I have a legit question for you guys. Here are some quotes from an article that this author wrote about being anti-adoption.

     

    “They’re born into the world expecting the familiar scent of family and the warm voice that they grew accustomed to in utero, and instead they’re handed over to strangers masquerading as “mommy” and “daddy.” Because this severing of the world’s most natural bond occurs at a time in a child’s life when he is unable to communicate his emotions and experiences, it is a trauma that will stay with him into adulthood.”

    ” Mothers especially have a primal instinct to care for their children and ensure the survival of their family trees. For true families, a baby is not valuable for profit but for the fact that he is living proof of a connection to the past and future. As parents, our instinct is to protect, rather than abuse something so precious and rare.”

    So, she suddenly cares about the “world’s most natural bond” and “trauma” to the child and the “warm voice” that it heard in utero?
    I’m confused! I thought that these non-humans didn’t matter and that they couldn’t feel and had no emotions whatsoever so therefore they couldn’t possibly be traumatized and that the “world’s most natural bond” was something to be dismissed since her body trumps this bond. And wasn’t she just overjoyed that they ripped one of these from her body?

    So,my question is this:  Is it valuable or not? Does the “natural bond” mean anything or not? Does it bond with it’s mother in utero listening to her voice or not? Is it precious and rare or not? What about her instinct to protect rather than abuse this prescious and rare thing? What happened to these instincts when she was having it killed? What happed to the mother’s primal instinct? 

    Here is a link to the whole article if you want to read it:  

    http://www.eclectica.org/v6n3/delbalzo.html

     

    But I seriously don’t understand how this author can have it both ways. One day it’s important and valuable enough to be protected INSTINCTUALLY  and the next she is happy that she killed it! Come on!

  • colleen

     

    Those pregnancies were not terminated after 22 weeks for the life or health of the mother, they were terminated because they were not wanted.

    So it’s your position that  “substantial and irreversable impairment of at least one major bodily function” is magically unrelated to the health of the mother? I imagine that most ‘women’s health practitioners” would strongly disagree.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    I heart PCF! You are so cute and pro-choice.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m confused! I thought that these non-humans didn’t matter and that they couldn’t feel and had no emotions whatsoever so therefore they couldn’t possibly be traumatized and that the “world’s most natural bond” was something to be dismissed since her body trumps this bond. And wasn’t she just overjoyed that they ripped one of these from her body?

     

    You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping the notion that something can be unwanted in one set of circumstances, and wanted in others, even when our own bodies have something to say on the matter.

  • prochoiceferret

    It does not improve the safety to the woman or facilitate the expulsion of the uterine contents to kill the fetus prior to the induction of labor. In fact, it is often clinically more difficult to deliver a fetal demise than a live baby.

     

    Please provide evidence for this assertion. (Or, if you prefer: [citation needed])

  • prochoiceferret

    Ummmm, I checked, like you said, and, yep, seems they do use it to kill fetuses, so they won’t be born alive, cuz that sorta misses the point of getting the abortion. Plus there’s that whole awkward Infant Born Alive thing.

     

    You don’t know a whole lot about abortion, do you?

     

    Sorry, thought I would try on that snarky tone you’ve honed to such perfection, but it just felt too, you know, snarky, what with me actually being a medical professional and all.

     

    Yes, I’m sure you have a very dynamic and goal-oriented career in medical billing and coding. Especially when there’s NO NEEDLES! NO BLOOD! to deal with.

     

    So here is a link to an excellent online general medical resource

     

    Which says nothing about the reason why they want to ensure “fetal death prior to fetal expulsion,” only how they go about doing it. And here I thought medical professionals were good at the whole “finding relevant citations” thing…

  • mechashiva

    I think the smell thing is probably hogwash, because fetuses’ nostrils are plugged. They probably taste the amniotic fluid, but I haven’t read anything about that playing a role in mother-infant bonding. In any case, abortions happen prior to any of this stuff coming into play, when the fetus is utterly passive.

     

    I made mention of this in an earlier comment, but the feelings a woman (or anyone who knows her) has about/for her pregnancy are purely subjective. It is in no way unnatural for a woman to be apathetic or hostile to any particular pregnancy, and this has been going on throughout recorded history (probably longer). I won’t defend the “primal instinct” stuff. I think it’s a load of hooey, no matter what issue you’re addressing.

     

    Some animals can abort their pregnancies at-will. The only difference between us and them is that we have tools and they have physiology. Bearing offspring is an enormous burden on female animals, and females of every species will abandon their young rather than sacrifice their own ability to survive. Choosing to do otherwise is a sign of heartiness and having plenty, not moral superiority.

  • mechashiva

    I actually worked in an abortion clinic as a surgical assistant. We went up to 24 weeks, and we used digoxin for pregnancies of 21+ weeks. Some clinics use it earlier. It’s sort of a matter of physician preference.

     

    Why would you prefer to use digoxin?

    First and foremost, it is a matter of making the surgery faster and safer. If digoxin is injected the day before the extraction, then the fetus is dead inside the woman’s uterus for a full day. Meaning, it’s tissues begin breaking down. The bones are softer, the joints come apart more easily, etc. This means that the fetus can be removed more quickly and with decreased risk of uteran perforation. Additionally, the woman’s body will generally begin preparing itself for miscarriage. She’ll have laminaria dilating her cervix anyway, but digoxin can cause her cervix to soften more easily and result in wider dilation… also making surgery faster and safer.

     

    Why would you prefer not to use digoxin?

    Increased risk of miscarrying prior to surgery. Increased risk of infection. Slight risks, but important ones to consider. So, docs weigh the risks of digoxin against various factors and come to different conclusions about when to use it.

  • deanna

    ” In any case, abortions happen prior to any of this stuff coming into play, when the fetus is utterly passive.” 

    Not true: There are scientific studies that prove otherwise. From the Mayo clinic : http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fetal-development/PR00113

    Week 18: Baby begins to hear

    Eighteen weeks into your pregnancy, or 16 weeks after conception, your baby’s ears begin to stand out on the sides of his or her head. As the nerve endings from your baby’s brain “hook up” to the ears, your baby may hear your heart beating, your stomach rumbling or blood moving through the umbilical cord. He or she may even be startled by loud noises.

    Week 19: Baby’s uterus forms

    Nineteen weeks into your pregnancy, or 17 weeks after conception, your baby’s hearing continues to improve. He or she may pick up your voice in conversations — although it’s probably hard to hear clearly through the amniotic fluid and protective paste covering your baby’s ears.

    According to the Guttmacher Institute there are roughly 45,000 of these per year.

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    I actually worked in an abortion clinic as a surgical assistant. We went up to 24 weeks, and we used digoxin for pregnancies of 21+ weeks. Some clinics use it earlier. It’s sort of a matter of physician preference.

     

    You mean, digoxin is used (or not) for entirely professional, non-ideological reasons that have nothing to do with a fetus-killing fetish, and everything to do with the health, safety, and comfort of the woman? Whoa!! *mind blown*

     

    (Thank you, MS, for the generously-sized dollup of ignorance repellant. As you can see, we have a pretty bad infestation around here…)

  • prochoiceferret

    ” In any case, abortions happen prior to any of this stuff coming into play, when the fetus is utterly passive.” 

    Not true: There are scientific studies that prove otherwise.

     

    Most abortions happen well before any of this stuff comes into play.

     

    According to the Guttmacher Institute there are roughly 45,000 of these per year.

     

    Yes, late-term abortions are a lot rarer, and are largely due to fetal deformities or pregnancy complications. The fetus being able to hear some of what’s going on is kind of besides the point in those circumstances.

  • deanna

    Here’s the thing that I don’t get. It basically, after all is said and done and all of the arguments are made, boils down to just what Ferret said, “You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping the notion that something can be unwanted in one set of circumstances, and wanted in others, even when our own bodies have something to say on the matter.”

    That if a life is wanted then it is valuable and the instincts and the bonding kicks in BUT if it is unwanted then it isn’t valuable and the instincts don’t kick in (which I really don’t believe. I think instincts are instincts. I just think they are denied) and bonding doesn’t take place. I think that is an accurate assesment of the issue. So,how is it possible or appropriate that a human life’s value is based on “want” by another? How is that moral? It makes no sense to me.

  • mechashiva

    Alright, I should have said “most abortions.” Got a response to the main point of my comment, which is that the instinctual bond thing is a load of crap either way?

  • prochoiceferret

    That if a life is wanted then it is valuable and the instincts and the bonding kicks in BUT if it is unwanted then it isn’t valuable and the instincts don’t kick in (which I really don’t believe. I think instincts are instincts. I just think they are denied) and bonding doesn’t take place.

     

    Surprise! Human beings are not slaves to their instincts. The next time you run into someone with an instinctual reaction to pull your head off, you’ll be glad for this.

     

    So,how is it possible or appropriate that a human life’s value is based on “want” by another? How is that moral? It makes no sense to me.

     

    It makes no sense to me either. But then, it also doesn’t make any sense to me why you think “a human life’s value” has anything to do with abortion. A fetus could be the most valuable human life that ever existed, and it still would not have the right to free room and board inside a woman’s uterus.

  • mechashiva

    Humans don’t have instincts, aside from suckling. Everything we do is learned behavior, and emotional bonds form between people primarily due to coincidence and personal preference (which is largely arbitrary and has little-to-nothing to do with morality). Have you ever seen “I <3 Huckabees?” I recomend it.

  • squirrely-girl

    I think you’re still assuming that abortion means the pregnancy was unwanted – this just isn’t always true. I have a cousin who found out she was carrying a severely anencephalic fetus in the second trimester. Keep in mind she already had two daughters under the age of 5 and this was a VERY “wanted” pregnancy. She and her husband, in consultation with her doctors (as well as her clergy) decided on a 2nd trimester abortion. That pregnancy had no less “value” and she mourned this loss. She did go on to carry another pregnancy to term and is the proud mother of 3 amazing girls! I’ve also known more than a handful of women who chose to abort an otherwise “healthy” pregancy during the first trimester because they felt they couldn’t provide an actual life for that “child” once they were born. I would suggest these women DO value “life.” They just value it in a different way than you. They value the “whole picture” not just the bringing of the child into the world. IMHO bringing a child into the world that will suffer is morally indefensible. When the overwhelming majority of abortions are occuring in the first trimester, I don’t believe it’s anybody’s business but the individual woman and whomever she chooses to include in that decision making process. After that, Roe v. Wade has articulated the closest we’ll likely ever come to a “compromise” on this issue. 

     

    By the way, most modern psychological research would disagree with your notion of “insticts” with regard to parenting. There are “insticts” with regard to childbirth (mostly related to relieving pain) and basic physiological reflexes based on developmental milestones… but behavioral insticts are largely debunked outside of lower-order species. 

  • therealistmom

    You know, the ‘magic fetus’ that knows it’s being aborted, as posited by all those horrible glurgy first-person accounts “written” by an “innocent baby”, “Mommy don’t kill me!”. I mean, if it can hear, despite having no conscious awareness, any brain link-ups that would allow cognition, the ability to sense pain, and absolutely no clue what any sounds could possibly MEAN (hell, even after birth infants don’t grasp much of what they get in sensory input, thus having only one response to anything uncomfortable, crying until it gets fixed), the fetus obviously KNOWS that it’s going to be killed horribly! It can hear the clanking of instruments and mommy saying she wants it slaughtered! What, the fetus has no sentience, concept of self, or danger avoidance sense beyond reflexive limb motion? Silly me then…

  • arekushieru

    There is abortion and methods that facilitate abortion.  Of the methods that facilitate abortion, there are methods that ensure the safety of the actual procedure and are the actual procedure, itself.  But the intent in the latter isn’t malicious.

  • deanna

    Do you have any idea how absurd that last statement is?

  • crowepps

    So, how is it possible or appropriate that a human life’s value is based on “want” by another? How is that moral? It makes no sense to me.

    Well, obviously it’s POSSIBLE.  In fact it’s really, really common.  Isn’t that what ‘celebrity’ is all about? Bristol Palin is paid $262500 for abstinence campaign  What justifies a quarter million bucks to an unwed mother for saying ‘don’t act like me or you too might have to tolerate being rich and famous and have to be on Dancing with the Stars’?  There are lots and lots of other unwed mothers equally regretful about their ‘mistake’ who aren’t even considered worth a free pack of diapers.

     

    The “value” of everything else in the world depends on how much is it “wanted”, on the demand for it.  In fact, some of the argumentation over abortion is about how while the pregnant girl has little value and ought to be scorned for her promiscuity, IF the pregnancy is completed that are many people who “want” the baby that would result and are willing to pay huge sums in ‘placement fees’ to obtain him/her.  So long as nothing is wrong with it.  There are lots and lots of children still in foster homes available for adoption that could fill those empty arms except they are considered too “low value” because they are older, brown, disabled or have emotional problems.  The “value” of live children depends on whether they are “wanted”, why would it be any different for a fetus?

     

    In fact, there are a long, LONG list of live, walking around people considered of “low value” because they are not “wanted”, people who are the wrong color, national origin, health status, asset or ability levels or whose “moral character” is suspect.  All of whom are marginalized by society, shoved off where people don’t have to be distressed by seeing them, and given the absolute minimum that society/people can get away and still live with itself.  One traditional way to assuage the guilt that arises from doing the minimum to so is to say they don’t DESERVE to be helped because its their own POOR CHOICES that got them into the situation and so now they have to EARN THE RIGHT to have value again by repenting, changing their behavior, finding Jesus, being of service to others.

     

    If you think EVERYBODY’S  life should be considered equally valuable and want to fix that, I’d suggest you stop pushing pregnant women to be more noble than anyone else is willing to be.  Get society/people to respect the “value” of those who are brown, immigrant, ill, poor, disabled, troubled, or unwed mothers and to recognize that all of THEM are worthy of life and dignity.

  • prochoiceferret

    Do you have any idea how absurd that last statement is?

     

    People who don’t respect the human rights of women tend to see it that way.

  • deanna

    It was the author of this article that pushed the “instinct’ idea pushing the idea that adoption is a crime. She must be really confused. One day she has “primal instincts” (her words) that cause her to protect the “precious and rare fetus”(her words)  and she bonds with the fetus as it listens to her heartbeat and it’s a “crime”(her words) to then severe the “world’s most natural bond” (her words). Then later she walks giddily into an abortion clinic and has this most precious and rare thing that has been listening to her heartbeat, bonding with her, ripped from her womb and she laughs and smiles about it not only because she is free from the free loader who has demanded free room and board in her womb but she laughs and smiles about the actual procedure. And you guys think this is logical thinking? It’s called delusion!

  • arekushieru

    Fetuses ARE human.  Value has nothing to do with rights.  Precious and rare are not the only qualities that make something/someone valuable. Enough and protection are unrelated, as well. And you don’t have to use emotionally-loaded terms to make your point.  Humans don’t have instincts nor is abortion abuse.  See, this is why it’s obvious you don’t comprehend our viewpoint.  

    But, I agree, that the author does have a hypocritical viewpoint.  You’ll see that Elburto, on the first page, agrees with you.

  • arekushieru

    Because there is no ‘inherent’ value.  If there is such a thing as human instinct to protect a fetus, there must also be a human instinct to destroy it. We evolved from more ‘primitive animals’.  And, as others mentioned some of these animals can self-abort.  Female humans also have miscarriages. So, some people have an instinct to abort and just deny it, too, then….

  • mechashiva

    She had her abortion at 9.5 weeks. None of the supposed bonding mechanisms mentioned in the adoption article had even begun yet.

     

    Logical is as logical does. If she had her abortion in the late second trimester, then you’d have a point. But she didn’t, so you don’t. I don’t agree with her two-choice stance, and I think her notions about instincts and bonding are beyond flawed. However, I wouldn’t call her actions hypocritical.

  • arekushieru

    More emotionalism….  Laughing and smiling at the procedure because it was a lot easier than she expected is VERY understandable.

  • beenthere72

    Beautifully put, Crowepps. 

  • deanna

    “In fact, there are a long, LONG list of live, walking around people considered of “low value” because they are not “wanted”, people who are the wrong color, national origin, health status, asset or ability levels or whose “moral character” is suspect.  All of whom are marginalized by society, shoved off where people don’t have to be distressed by seeing them, and given the absolute minimum that society/people can get away and still live with itself.” 

    Yes, you are correct. Sadly there are many people like that. But the difference between them and the foster children that you spoke of is that they aren’t killed at anothers whim deemed worthless in order for another person to be able to take their life. On the contrary, instead of these you spoke of being killed we as a society set up social service programs, foster programs, homeless shelters, etc. to try and care for them. There is a huge difference between that and dismembering them.

  • arekushieru

    And that’s why it’s WORSE.  Value and worth… AREn’t inherent in life OR death.  You still lack reading and empathetic comprehension, I see. Yes, ProChoice sets up these programs just so anti-choicers can knock them down.  See WIC, if you don’t believe me. And you still have no idea what is involved in abortion, either….

  • deanna

    I know that abortion kills a human. What else is there to know?

  • arekushieru

    Abortion doesn’t kill or, at least in the majority of cases, dismember anything.  It removes life support from a fetus. A fetus dies due to its incompatibility with life upon separation from the uterus.  Of course, you could say that I’m blaming the fetus for it’s own physiology.  Kinda like how you blame the woman for her own physiology. But, then, again, I’m not the one (nor are any other prochoicers the ones) who is ascribing blame to anything.  Fetuses are not a human/human beings/persons   

  • jennifer-starr

    Humans don’t actually possess instincts, at least not in the same way that  other animals do. We have urges and drives but we are not slaves to them–they can be overriden.  

  • crowepps

    All humans die.  Every single one of them.  Some of them die earlier than they would have otherwise.  The fact that “abortion kills a human” is no more relevant to what women “owe” to fetuses than the fact that “pregnancy kills a human” sometimes is to whether women should be “allowed” to get pregnant.

     

    People who have neurotic anxieties about death get all freaked out by reminders of mortality like abortion, but even if abortion were banned tomorrow, everybody in the whole world would STILL die.  They would die of different things, like lack of prenatal care, lack of food, lack of shelter, lack of medical care, lack of education or as suicides, victims in wars over scarce resources or from being executed for the crimes of stealing food, shelter and medical care.

     

    Just as adorable little kittens become annoying cats, sentimentalized “innocent unborn” turn into actual live children who have actual real world needs that everyone keeps protesting shouldn’t need taxpayer support.  Whining about how the MOTHER shouldn’t have had sex, and if she did have sex shouldn’t have become pregnant, and how her POOR CHOICES are the reason her child is starving in the gutter may allow lots of smug, self-righteous judgmentalism, but it doesn’t provide the child with an actual LIFE.  Do we really WANT children sleeping on grates again?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riischildren.jpg

  • prochoiceferret

    I know that abortion kills a human. What else is there to know?

     

    That war, capital punishment, and some instances of self-defense also kill a human. Are you going to try to have those banned, too?

  • jennifer-starr

    Things are not always that simple–it’s not that black and white.  For instance, pro-lifers are always fond of calling abortion ‘murder’, but for the most part would not want to treat it as other murder cases would be treated.  If you really thought  of it as murder, you’d demand an inquest into every miscarriage to make sure no foul play was involed. But you don’t. And why is that?  Because it isn’t actually murder. 

  • crowepps

    “Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”

    George Bernard Shaw

    If there are any human ‘instinctive behaviors’ they would be universal.  Abortion, abandonment and infanticide are all universal in human societies.  A case could be made that all of those are instinctive.  There isn’t any evidence that I know of that humans uniquely have to be DRIVEN into fulfilling instinctive drives.  If people have to be FORCED to do something, it’s not an instinct at all but instead oppression.

  • crowepps

    On the contrary, instead of these you spoke of being killed we as a society set up social service programs, foster programs, homeless shelters, etc. to try and care for them.

    Haven’t you been reading the news?  The Republicans are in control of the Congress and they plan to abolish all of those programs, along with those for the “low value” elderly.  WIC, Women’s and Infants Care, cut.  Emergency Food and Shelter Program, slashed to 60% of its prior level.  Support for the disabled, cut.  At home care for the elderly, slashed.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/food-aid-republicans_n_878374.html

    Are people dying because of this?  Sure they are.  Does anybody care?  Nope, not really.  The people dying are “low value”.

  • ahunt

    Whining about how the MOTHER shouldn’t have had sex, and if she did have sex shouldn’t have become pregnant, and how her POOR CHOICES…

     

    Ya know, Crowepps, I’m going to bring this up yet again…because the silence whenever I do…is deafening.

     

    By pro-life standards…if a woman is not prepared to be pregnant…a woman should not have sex. Therefore, any woman, and specifically married women, are under no “obligation” to have sex with their husbands unless they are also willing to be pregnant.

     

    Everytime I bring this up…pro-lifers have nothing to say. Gee.  Why is that?

     

     

     

     

  • tenayapyweack

    As important as I consider the topics covered by RH’s emails to be, I always cringe at the sight of their appearance in my mailbox in anticipation of becoming very angry and hurt by the inauspicious news they usually report.  So I wanted to thank you for this uplifting and positive tale of self respect, acceptance, and preservation.  I am not by any stretch an ethical egoist, but I have always been extremely upset by the deficient consideration to whether a woman or girl is a person with rights and feelings in the debate of whether a fetus or embryo is a person. 

    A few weeks ago, I attended my first protest in support of Planned Parenthood on ‘Good Friday’, while my Catholic-raised mother—who had insisted on driving me, apparently so that I could listen to her claim she was pro-choice while defending the anti-abortion position the entire way there and back—hid, cried, and threw up in the car.  All because I eventually told her that I would absolutely have an abortion as quickly as possible if I became pregnant as a result of being raped—and I would feel the same way about it that you did about your abortion.  From the bottom of my heart, thank you for generously sharing this very personal experience with the world in the name of solidarity.  It has already helped me feel better.  Be well.

  • ack

    Please stop talking about “killing babies” until you spend a significant amount of time researching child abuse. You can read about it quite easily by setting up a google alert. It is completely demeaning to the thousands of infants and toddlers who are murdered by abusive people every year. You may think the outcome is the same; by ignoring the process you are insulting the memory of those kids.

     

    I am tired of people conflating aborting a 9 week old fetus with beating a toddler to death.

     

     

  • wolfhound

    I’m afraid that a person like you really is unworthy of a more nuanced response so I’ll just use relatively small words.  It’s a very simple concept, “deanna”:  If you are against abortion, don’t have one.  See how easy that is?  Nobody will ever force you to terminate a pregnancy against your will so you have nothing to fret about.  Unfortunately, people like you are not content to merely have your own bodily autonomy and won’t extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population.  Oh, no, you seek to compel others to adhere to your doctrine.  So, while nobody will force you to have an abortion, you would dearly love to force everybody who becomes pregnant to give birth.

    My choosing to terminate my pregnancy affects you how?  Right.  It doesn’t.  So piss right off then, there’s a good girl, mmm’kay?

  • rebellious-grrl

    I am tired of people conflating aborting a 9 week old fetus with beating a toddler to death.

    Me too! Thank you ack!

  • rebellious-grrl

    I am tired of people conflating aborting a 9 week old fetus with beating a toddler to death.

    Me too! Thank you ack!

  • jmp290

    I am also an ex Catholic. Obviously you are not against life.

    It seems you care about the children you have.

    I can see a woman who is pro choice not being as happy after an abortion

    for several reasons.

     

    The ony problem I have with this naration is why do you dignify

    the RIGHT WING NUTS who crusade against reproductive rights

    by calling them “conservatives”? I have two nephews who are conservative and I can have

    intelligent conversations with them.

    Jerry Pendergast

  • atlienmarie

    I read the article and am proud that you had the courage to tell the world what you decided was best for you.  12 years ago when I was 18 I made the same decision.  Since then I have normal and healthly thoughts, and not depressed or suicidal.  I am tired of the propoganda coming out of the pro-life camp that women who have abortions later regret the decision, become depressed, etc.  I know a couple other women who have also had an abortion and not suffered from this decision, so to all the anti-choicers trolling this website, yes women have abortions for individual reasons, and no we do not regret it later, in fact to this day I know it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

  • ahunt

    Well, I certainly know how to clear a room with pro-lifers in it!

     

    Tee Hee.

  • crowepps

    Funny, isn’t it, that the ProLifers insist ‘if women don’t want to get pregnant, women shouldn’t have sex’ and ‘women who don’t want to get pregnant should just KEEP THEIR KNEES TOGETHER.’

     

    Then when you point out that means MEN aren’t going to get any sex either, ever, they realize THAT will never go over.  The ProLife movement wants all men to give up having sex, even if they’re married, unless they want 12 children.  There’s isn’t any advertising firm good enough to sell THAT message.

     

    I had my youngest child when I was 32 and the doctor discouraged more.  My husband wouldn’t have been near as easy to get along with during the next 20 years if I had told him we couldn’t ‘morally’ have sex anymore.  Of course, that may explain why devout Catholic men are so cranky!

  • ack

    This is a valid question. For me, it’s not about assigning value to any particular pregnancy or fetus. It’s about acknowledging the value in pregnant women and girls. Neither the government nor society should be able to force women and girls to continue a pregnancy, with all its biological changes and risk. And neither the government nor society should be able to force women and girls to go through childbirth. It’s a risky, incredibly painful process. I just don’t think we get to sit pregnant women and girls down and say, “We know better than you.” It’s patronizing, and the pain and trauma associated with a forced birth would legally be considered torture under any other circumstances.

     

    Furthermore, when we start talking about legality, the question isn’t really whether abortions will occur. Regardless of legality, women and girls will find ways to terminate pregnancies. Those ways are usually dangerous when abortion is illegal. So we either have legal and safe abortion, or we have illegal and unsafe abortion. There isn’t a “no abortions” option. The legal question isn’t one about the ethics of abortion. It’s a question of the ethics of knowingly putting pregnant women and girls at risk of injury and death.

  • ack

    If Steven Hawking asked to be biologically connected to me in order to prolong his life, I could say no. Even if I was the only person in the whole wide world, or the even the multiverse, that could possibly do so. Hell, if Jesus came back and demanded the use of my body, for whatever reason, I would legally have a right to say, “Hey, I like your message of love and stuff, but I’m really not willing to do that.” And then, if he still went ahead with his master plan, I could contact law enforcement and have him prosecuted. I could sue him.

     

    We generally agree that born humans have value, and we still don’t give them the right to use anyone else’s bodily resources against that person’s will.

  • ack

    Just as adorable little kittens become annoying cats,

     

    Hey! Tubby is only annoying from 4 am – 6 am, when she meows either for food or for me to watch her eat.

  • ack

    Our actions and refusals to act kill humans every day. Yet the anti-choicers who are actually in a position to save born humans repeatedly take measures to make that less likely. The social service programs you mentioned are supported by DEMOCRATS, not by Republicans. I watched the legislature in AZ gleefully cut programs serving the most underprivileged. And I do mean gleefully. They high-fived when the budget was passed, gutting programs to help the poor. One senator (Jack Harper-R) wrote a letter to the editor that literally told poor people to move out of state.

     

    No. Anti-choice people who support anti-choice politicians have no right to say that they’re saving lives.

  • leftcoaster

    My experience was EXACTLY like this. A relief. No drugs. Not a lot of pain. I bled for an unusually long number of days afterward, which was annoying. But I am SO thankful that I had access to safe and legal abortion at the hands of a caring professional (whose other field of practice is INFERTILITY, so take that, you anti-choice dipsticks).

  • leftcoaster

    I’ve had three – in 35 years of sexual activity. That is a lower rate of unplanned pregnancy than most married women have.

  • catseye71352

    It would sure explain HIM and his issues.

  • machka91

    The biggest problem is when women are coerced to either have an abortion, have the child or give it up for adoption. We need to help our women really really follow what is truly in their heart and what they TRULY want. If women are coerced into anything, the psychological scars run very deep.

     

    I was viciously cooerced into having an abortion. It was an pregnancy where my abusive exboyfriend raped me in my sleep wihout protection. I woke up to him being on me and I was so scared that all I can do was lay their frozen with tears rolling out of my eyes.

     

    He held a knife to my throat and told me that if I did not have an abortion, then he will kill me. He will always find a way to find me and he will kill me. He also said that if I had the child and left him, he will find us and kill us both.

     

    I was so afraid to leave him because he’d threaten my friends and my family.

     

    So I had the abortion so that I wouldn’t be killed. The local police here don’t give a shit about domestic violence and will just shrug it off. So I was afraid to go to them. I was afraid if he’d find out then he would kill me.

    Eventually I faked having schizoprhenia so he’d think I was a freak and break up with me. It is what I had to do in order to get out alive. He went back to his piece of shit Middle Eastern country and I was able to break free.

    But I do always have that fear of running into him if he ever come back here. I will always live in fear.

  • jennifer-starr

    So sorry to hear about that happening to you–how horrible.  The choice should have been yours and yours alone–no one should ever have the right to coerce anyone into anything.  Have you ever thought of any sort of counseling to help with the trauma?  Living in fear like that and having to be hypervigilant can take its toll–believe me I know.  

  • crowepps

    Okay, so we have an abusive, violent, armed rapist boyfriend, who threatens to kill.  A young woman who is terrified by threats against herself and against her family, and who feels no confidence the police will protect her.  A young woman so desperate that she feigns mental illness in order to escape, and who is STILL terrified to this day.  I am not surprised at all that an experience like that would be traumatic, because it’s hard to imagine a more horrendous situation.  But then the “biggest problem” was whether there was a free choice to bear her rapist’s child and establish a motive for him to stick around forever?  Really?

     

    Gosh, coming from a legal/social service background, I would have addressed the terror, the abuse, the threats to kill her, the threats against her family, the misogynist cops ignoring domestic violence and not doing their job, and possibly this man’s immigration status first, and then at the very, VERY end I might have said something about abortion coercion.  Because, you know, keeping her ALIVE seems like the higher priority to me.  I’m afraid I wouldn’t be giving a lot of priority to helping her “really really follow what is truly in her heart” because for that she needs a priest or a psychiatrist, not a gynecologist.

     

    I also don’t see why when everybody ELSE, whose job it actually is to deal with criminal behavior and sociopaths, is failing to intervene, it somehow becomes the role of a specialty medical provider to PRY this information out of the patient even though her fear is causing her to actively HIDE the truth from friends, family, cops and social service organizations.  It seems like kind of a stretch to make the abortion provider bring in psychics to read her mind and discover she’s being coerced.  Because abortion providers are supposed to actually be doing a medical procedure, and not fixing the patient’s ENTIRE LIFE so that the patient doesn’t feel pressured by things like, you know, ACTUAL REALITY while making their ‘choice’.

  • jennifer-starr

    My cousin had two children, a boy and a girl, with her abusive husband, whom she has left now, hopefully for good. And while she loves her children dearly, they are a forever-tie to this man and believe me, he doesn’t let her forget it. The last two times he got her back by playing on her guilt about children ‘raised in single-parent homes’ (don’t let this happen to our beautiful babies, blah blah blah ).  And until he’s actually charged with something he still gets visitation, albeit of a supervised nature.  So maybe not having kids with this man was a good thing. It’s like my mother always said–”If you get in a bad relationship, for God’s sake don’t make it worse by bringing a child into it.” 

  • jennifer-starr

    Please Delete

  • denpdxdc

    @ProChoiceFerret

    “Advertising to the world how you chose to have an abortion because you were in an abusive relationship and were happy about [the abortion] is a sure fire way to de-stigmatize abortion.”

    Umm, for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, the author said “things began to deteriorate between their father and I”– where do you get “abusive relationship” from that?

    @Freetobe, talking about women paying for their countless children b/c “the wonderful hubby ran off with another woman or the babysitter or a prostitute or a girlfriend or etc etc.”

    For the record, lots of women who have happy marriages, loving & supportive husbands/boyfriends, healthy bank accounts, and crisis-free lives get abortions because they simply don’t want a(nother) kid.  Period.  Automatically assuming a marriage-turned-sour is really an abusive nightmare makes it seem like all women who get abortions are victims of circumstance, trapped in the shackles of patriarchy (poverty! rape! abuse! abandonment!).  This does a disservice to the healthy happy women who are exercising a choice of their own free will* (yes, in as “free” as women’s wills are in the context of a patriarchal society that DOES disproportionately burden them in the context of child-rearing).  Abuse, rape, and poverty are realities for millions of women.  But they are not the realities for millions of others.  And they are not prerequisites women should have to check-off so that their abortion is “justified”.  The above arguments make it seem like abortion is really the “fault” of abusive-cheating-asshole men who leave women with no other choice, when it isn’t even something we should be looking to *blame* anyone for– isn’t the whole point of this article that it’s not a blameworthy action?

  • Pingback: carmen bigs