My resident trolls, along with many other abortion advocates, say that abortion is just because the fetus is an uninvited trespasser, that although the woman knows that her sexual activity can cause pregnancy, she didn't *intend* pregnancy. Therefore implantation equals trespass, and trespassers will be -- well, not shot, but certainly done away with.
But what of women who very deliberately put the fetus there -- who went to all the trouble of IVF to create the embryos and fetuses that they are then aborting?
Added to the scandal is the case that these abortions are classified as driven by “social” reasons. In other words, there is no medical issue at stake here. These are successful and healthy pregnancies that were sought by these women, even to the extent of seeking IVF treatments. Women who had sought such abortions after IVF told The Times that they decided after becoming pregnant that they just did not want to have the baby after all, that they terminated the relationship with their partner, or that the realization of impending motherhood was just too much.
Much of the outrage, the author notes, is purely financial: "We paid for your IFV because you wanted this baby, and now we're paying to trash it! Quit double dipping!"
And sometimes there's no outrage:
Some observers responded to the report with no outrage at all. Ann Furedi, a prominent defender of abortion rights, told The Times, “Sometimes, it is only when women get pregnant that they can allow themselves to ask the question about whether it is really what they want.”
Yup. It's perfectly hunky dory to deliberately create human beings, have them implanted, let them gestate for a while, as you make up your mind if you want them or not. Call it "test driving the fetus". Sort of the way our society encourages premarital sex as a sort of test-drive, except that instead of passing the baby along to somebody else who wants it, you destroy it.
29 comments:
Yes, and just like the common sense approach to ensuring sexual compatibility before entering a long term relationship; it's preferable to make sure things are going to succeed rather than cause a whole lot of grief, heartache, costs and trouble later.
See, now you're getting it!
Your definition of "common sense" is "treat people like consumer goods".
No, thanks. I have no place in my life for a man who thinks of me the same way he thinks about his car or a pair of shoes.
What's really depressing is that people like you, who see other people merely as products to use, are PROUD of yourselves, as if being self-absorbed and callous is some sort of accomplishment.
No actually, it's your forcing women to be unwilling incubators through denial of knowledge, contraception and abortions which amounts to 'treat people like consumer goods'.
My comments were related to both parties in a relationship, on an equal footing. Maybe your 'women as possessions' mindset led you to believe I was taking a patriarchal approach.
If anyone believes people are 'products to use' it's you, with your demonstrated lack of consideration for other peoples' feelings, choices and opinions.
Yeah, it's entirely possible for both people to treat each other like consumer goods. Just as these women are treating their babies like consumer goods.
Why should the person who wants to dehumanize and kill be the one you side with?
Your trolls are getting boring, Christina. Can't they come up with something new?
Well we have starter marriages, now we have starter fetuses? Nice :/
Okay, different troll here.
Oddly enough, we, too, had a "starter embryo" early in our marriage. My husband desperately wanted kids and I did not, and when a foolish unprotected encounter led to a pregnancy, well....it was sort of a "test drive," to see how we really felt about it. So I understand how people can have conflicting feelings about what they want, or think they want.
But I admit I don't understand why anyone would shell out the big bucks for IVF -- rarely covered by insurance -- and then change their mind.
L. said "...foolish unprotected encounter..." -- without accountability I might add.
Ugh, disgusting. I want a baby soooo bad.... oh, wait, we broke up, so I'm going to kill the kid so I don't have to deal with my ex.
Classy.
(Yes, that was an actual reason given by one of the women involved... see Jill Stanek's blog for a mention of that)
I see adults as intelligent, self-aware beings with choices and options.
You obviously see them as consumer goods, singular in task with no allowable diversion from their 'ordained' intent.
'Breed, woman, breed, there is no other value you can offer society!' - seems to be your mantra.
Dehumanize and kill are your terms and your opinion - I see intelligent, considered decisions.
Katie, what's boring is people who wish to live in the 16th century - men own women, women have no choices, sex is for breeding etc. etc. same old etc.
Our world and everything in it has advanced significantly, try to keep up.
I see adults as intelligent, self-aware beings with choices and options.
You obviously see them as consumer goods, singular in task with no allowable diversion from their 'ordained' intent.
You don't speak for me or any pro-lifer or post-abortion woman. I've been a peer counselor for women making pregnancy decisions for 10 years. I've seen the reality of unplanned pregnancy and abortion, beyond rhetoric. I've encounter some women who have had an abortion for socio-economic reasons and was ok with the decision, but I've also meet women who had the abortion due to socio-economic situation and a lack of support system and deeply regret the decision, and everything imbetween. The voices of women tell us it's hardly the empowering, independently, freely-made decision you and other abortion right activists try to protray it. It is a serious, major, and difficult life decision and a diffult and often painful medical procedure. Women don't walk into abortion clinics because they're calm and logical or seeking to "become empowered". Women walk into abortion clinics because they're scared, panicked and rushed into a decision based on time restraints. And to further add to the issue, many post-abortion women have spoken out that they weren't well counseled before hand about the risks and their alternatives by the abortion providers, an ethical responsibility every other field of surgical medicine follows. Pro-lifers advocate for the woman's right to make a fully informed decision, wherein pro-choicers have a history of opposing women being able to receive any factual medical information other than that which favors abortion and suppressing attempts to give women all information, positive and negative. Also, all too often women choose abortion because they feel they have no other choice, presented with a lack of resources and pressured into having an abortion(s) by socio-economic circumstances and a lack of support from her partner/family, hardly the empowering experience feminists try to make it.
Furthermore, your tone is misogynic, implying and degrading women who carry to term in less than ideal circumstances are "unwilling incubators". It is the pro-choice movement who has coined the degrading terms and definitions "broodmare" and "unwilling incubators", not pro-lifers. Furthermore, many women have gone on to have children in less than ideal circumstances and become sucessful. Furthermore, the chances of her becoming sucessful increase when she is empowered with community support and resources for continuing her education, safe and decent housing, equal rights in employment, daycare, etc. All which the majority of pro-life individuals advocate for.
Clearly you have some more learning and listening to do.
Furthermore, an abortion does not "undo" a pregnancy, so to speak. A woman's body expriences metabolic and chemical changes and pregnancy leaves an emotional foot print, having an abortion does not change this. Even the medical community recognizes this when recording or reviewing a woman's medical history. Medically, a woman who has never been pregnant is referred to as a "nulligravida" (or zero pregnancies), a woman who has been only pregnant for the first time as a "primigravida" (first pregnancy), and a woman in subsequent pregnancies as a multigravida or "multiparous". the term "parity" (abbreviated as "para") is used for the number of previous successful live births. Women who have never carried a pregnancy achieving more than 20 weeks of gestation age are referred to as "nulliparous", meaning they have been pregnant, but have had no live births.
"L. said "...foolish unprotected encounter..." -- without accountability I might add."
Um, huh?
My husband and I were both damn fools. And I was even more of a fool, since I was the one who didn't want babies. Did I need to say that explicitly? Sorry, I thought it was implied!
There is obviously something psychologically going wrong with a woman who has ivf and then an abortion. We don't know wether the error is in having the ivf in the first place or the abortion afterwards.
Either way children deserve to have two psychologically healthy parents - not only deserve but need to have them for reaching productive adulthood.
No Rachael, if anything it is you who perpetrates mysogonistic traits. I said nothing to denigrate women who carry to term in less than ideal circumstances. I applaud them for their bravey and perseverence. All I have said is that there are a range of protections available and also options if those protections fail. These are the options and choices which intelligent, non-anachronistic people avail themselves of. You seem to want to deny people access to these things. Now that's mysogonistic, patriarchal and outdated.
Of course pro-lifers didn't create terms like broodmare or unwilling incubator. They are negative aspects of your campaigns so to have done so would be somewhat less than valuable. Doesn't mean the terms aren't accurate though.
Maybe you should spend a little more time assisting '...community support and resources for continuing her education, safe and decent housing, equal rights in employment, daycare, etc.' rather than hanging around outside abortion clinics. I doubt your concerns would demonstrate full equity in these matters anyway, there has been a quite clear display of certain attitudes towards people who dispay behaviors which don't concur with your moralistic, bible-based thinking.
You may wish to undertake a little more learning and listening to the stories of women, men and children whose lives have been ruined through lack of sexual education, availability of contraception and prevention of abortion. Your experiences seem to be focussed on one facet only.
No Rachael, if anything it is you who perpetrates mysogonistic traits. I said nothing to denigrate women who carry to term in less than ideal circumstances. I applaud them for their bravey and perseverence. All I have said is that there are a range of protections available and also options if those protections fail. These are the options and choices which intelligent, non-anachronistic people avail themselves of. You seem to want to deny people access to these things. Now that's mysogonistic, patriarchal and outdated.
Really? Where have I said that I want to outlaw abortion or even oppose availablity of contraception. Oh wait, that's right, I haven't, you're assuming and stereotpying. In fact, I don't seek to outlaw abortion or contraception and this is made pretty clear on both my blog and in my discussions here and at Jill Stanek's blog. However what I do oppose is women being pressured and coerced into abortions they don't want and the unregulation of so-called "safe and legal" abortions. I still stand by what I said earlier about women's experiences with unplanned pregnancy and abortion, based on the voices of women who've been there and done that, not politicians in Washington or political activists hiding behind rhetoric or a computer screen.
Of course pro-lifers didn't create terms like broodmare or unwilling incubator. They are negative aspects of your campaigns so to have done so would be somewhat less than valuable. Doesn't mean the terms aren't accurate though.
Oh of course, so you'll just start a smear campaign instead of trying to make your argument or defend your beliefs with facts and scientific data, oh so convincing.
Maybe you should spend a little more time assisting '...community support and resources for continuing her education, safe and decent housing, equal rights in employment, daycare, etc.' rather than hanging around outside abortion clinics. I doubt your concerns would demonstrate full equity in these matters anyway, there has been a quite clear display of certain attitudes towards people who dispay behaviors which don't concur with your moralistic, bible-based thinking.
Ah, there you go stereotyping again. First of all, I don't stand and protest or sidewalk counsel in front of clinics. Second, I advocate for all those things you listed and in fact have been providing social and emotional support for a single mother for the last 6 years. Also, I'm very much involved community betterment activities including working with individuals with developmental disabilities (my paid job), volunteering at a local soup kitchen, food and clothing charity, and with the local animal humane society. Second of all, I consider myself agnostic and there are other non-traditional pro-life individuals besides myself such as members in the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, PLAGAL (Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), and Libertarians for Life, thank-you-very-much. Nor are our beliefs based solely on religion or a need to control, as you fantasize, but rather based on sound scientific data and ethics.
You may wish to undertake a little more learning and listening to the stories of women, men and children whose lives have been ruined through lack of sexual education, availability of contraception and prevention of abortion. Your experiences seem to be focussed on one facet only.
Oh I am very much open to hearing different voices of experience, if you wish to provide a source for these claims...
However despite your claims, stereotypes, and falsifications, my work, volunteership, and interactions with the developmentally disabled and economically disadvantaged (poor), and with women facing unplanned pregnancies with various outcomes have provided me with a rich assortment of experiences and learning opportunities.
Either way children deserve to have two psychologically healthy parents - not only deserve but need to have them for reaching productive adulthood.
I am wondering Lilliput if you are reffering to this specific situation or if this is a comment pertaining to anyone "psychologically unhealthy" or with a developmental disability or mental illness? Please provide clearification.
*Second of all, I'm a socially-moderate agnostic and there are other non-traditional pro-life individuals besides myself such as members in the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), Democrats for Life, and Libertarians for Life, thank-you-very-much.
Rachael, responded to you here earlier today and either I failed to post it correctly or it disappeared for some reason or other. Interesting given that I was defending your accusations of misogyny, lack of knowledge regarding post-abortion women and more.
Anyway, I'm glad it's not here now as I have looked further into your comments on a few articles on this site, plus your own blog. Your arguments against my points and my stances don't quite gel with your statements in regard to other positions espoused on this blog.
I appears to me that you are not quite sure where you stand on a number of issues and the strength of your feelings in regard to them on a sliding scale from fervent disapproval to acceptance.
Your arguments and aspersions carry little weight.
L,
I use the word accountability synonymously with responsibility. I use this word to most closely resemble the following definition: "able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior." Indeed, having sex naturally tends to result in pregnancy, sometimes even when using contraception. Thus, it is paramount to take responsibility for your actions in a moral fashion rather than by murdering your "starter embryo."
Rupert,
I see that you visited my blog and read what I've written and I do appreciate that and I would be glad to into a nitty gritty discussion on my views and beliefs, but let's refocus here back to the issue at hand. This isn't about me, it's about abortion and whether abortion adaquitely addresses women's needs and it's positive/negative impact on women's health, both physical and mental.
The problem is Rachael, this issue isn't being dealt with objectively by most contributors here. For the majority, their views are colored by their faith. That precludes a completely rational approach for a start.
Apart from that, the fact is the data is anecdotal and does not contain all elements required for an accurate analysis.
There are many 'tales of woe' of women who have had abortions and struggle with it, regret it, feel guilty about it or have negative consequences over time.
Maybe these outcomes wouldn't be so bad for some if they hadn't had to 'run the gauntlet' to enter clinics where there are security measures in place and a dour atmosphere because of the threats they operate under. And perhaps the clinics could operate in a more relaxed manner with greater efficacy if this wasn't the case.
What we don't get to see are the stories of women who believe it is the best thing they could have done. Or those who didn't abort, for whatever reason, and suffer major and ongoing negative outcomes for extended periods, maybe a lifetime. These people tend to disappear from view and their circumstances aren't represented.
The fact is, abortion has always taken place and always will. It's just a matter of whether we as a society are mature enough to make it safe and legal or whether we lock people up for it. We don't have to like it.
The problem is Rachael, this issue isn't being dealt with objectively by most contributors here. For the majority, their views are colored by their faith. That precludes a completely rational approach for a start.
Apart from that, the fact is the data is anecdotal and does not contain all elements required for an accurate analysis.
Really, because most of Christina's cited deaths, both legal and illegal, are sourced as coming from health departments other medical sources, newspapers, and government health bureus. You're still committing the ad hominem fallacy by dismissing this blog and it's users disucssions because Christina and some of the users here are Christian, not based on the merits of the argument itself or the sources.
There are many 'tales of woe' of women who have had abortions and struggle with it, regret it, feel guilty about it or have negative consequences over time.
Tales? Tales!? You belittle the very real emotional pain, grief, and loss that women experience with pregnancy loss, whether through abortion or miscarriage. These women deserve to have a voice too. Listen to these women share their experiences first hand:
After Abortion Support Site: Message Boards
This is a neutral, non-political, non-judgmental peer support site for women who have had an abortion and their support persons.
The Voices of Men and Women Who've Experienced Abortion(s)
There's a growing group of blogs where women and men write about their personal experience with abortion. The following is a listing of online journals and blogs, written by individuals, often from the day they found out about the pregnancy to recovery after the abortion.
Abortion Changes You: Explore Stories
Women and men write about their personal experiences with abortion.
Project Voice
A place where women can safely share their abortion story anonymously read a range of other women's stories.
Abortion Decisions: Many Voices. Many Choices
Telling our stories helps us to understand each other.
Maybe these outcomes wouldn't be so bad for some if they hadn't had to 'run the gauntlet' to enter clinics where there are security measures in place and a dour atmosphere because of the threats they operate under. And perhaps the clinics could operate in a more relaxed manner with greater efficacy if this wasn't the case.
Maybe you shouldn't presume to minimize these women's very real experiences and feelings with politically rhetoric or presume to know their situations or how to fix them.
What we don't get to see are the stories of women who believe it is the best thing they could have done. Or those who didn't abort, for whatever reason, and suffer major and ongoing negative outcomes for extended periods, maybe a lifetime. These people tend to disappear from view and their circumstances aren't represented.
There are in fact pro-choice websites out there, represented by women with "no regrets" after their abortions. However, the dominating theme of those websites is not to represent a broad range of women's feelings and experiences, only those with a positive abortion experience or who's feelings and experience supports pro-choice views, and they go so far as to even try to silence those who feel differently than they or who've had a different experience. A couple good examples of this is the I'm Not Sorry and 45 Million Voices websites. It is often presumed that women who refuse an abortion for whatever reason or are unable to obtains an abortion and carry to term have their lives ruined by the pregnancy and raising a child, but there seems to be very little interest in actually obtaining evidence of this or listening to these women in the pro-choice movement as much as using them for political gain or rhetorically against their opponents.
The fact is, abortion has always taken place and always will. It's just a matter of whether we as a society are mature enough to make it safe and legal or whether we lock people up for it. We don't have to like it.
Just because abortion is legal, doesn't make it right. There have been many times in the past where our government has legalized behaviors and substances, only to realize the negative effects later and that they were wrong, putting restrictions in place and even prohibiting the behavior. Two good examples of this are segregation and the widespread availability and use of cocaine in both over-th-counter medicines and soft drinks. More hearts and minds are changing every day and more men and women are recognizing the negative impact abortion has on individuals and us as a society.
This is demonstrating both in Gallup polls and in the following books:
Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence
By Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy, Ian Gentles
The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion
By Erika Bachiochi
Experiencing Abortion: A Weaving of Women's Words
By Eve Kushner
For the majority, their views are colored by their faith.
And your views are colored by your faith. We all have biases; it's just that some of us admit to them, and others pretend not to have them.
Apart from that, the fact is the data is anecdotal and does not contain all elements required for an accurate analysis.
The topic has been studied -- in this paper for instance, which could hardly be called anecdotal. [This link is to the abstract; but you could find the full article for free with a little digging; it's been a couple of months since I came across it, so can't remember where I got the full study.]
The fact is, abortion has always taken place and always will. It's just a matter of whether we as a society are mature enough to make it safe and legal or whether we lock people up for it. We don't have to like it.
Murder has always taken place and always will. Child abuse has always taken place and always will. Rape has always taken place and always will. Whether something is going to happen despite laws against it is hardly a good reason to make it safe (for the perpetrator, not the victim) and legal.
'...most of Christina's cited deaths, both legal and illegal, are sourced as coming from health departments other medical sources, newspapers, and government health bureus' - this is exactly what I was saying Rachael, we only have certain elements of the whole scenario. So the argument can't be based on all the evidence.
I assure you I had no intention of belittling the very real suffering of some people. Poor choice of term, sorry, it was just meant to be all encompassing.
The harassment of people entering clinics and the need for security is not political rhetoric. Maybe you shouldn't presume how to fix their situations when you don't know of the positive outcomes for those women who have found abortion to be the best choice.
And 'the dominating theme' of this website is? I reiterate, abortion always has, and always will, take place. Do you want them carried out safely or not?
I am not a person of faith Kathy, that's why I can think independently, clearly, logically and rationally. I do have biases though, and these include seeing people of faith as lacking something either intellectually or psychologically which causes them to feel the need to live their lives under the created scenario of an invisible friend in the sky.
As I said to Rachael above, not all factors, outcomes and data regarding abortions/no-abortions is collected, collated, examined and published.
And there you go, comparing apples with oranges again. Irrelevant.
Rachael, I refer to this situation and I'm also not so supportive of mentally ill people or people with special needs having children they can parent well enough to produce psychologically healthy individuals. For them to have babies that are then taken into care or given away as presents also doesn't thrill me.
I also want to say that obtaining evidence on women who have regretted not having an abortion ie having children has negatively impacted their life is very difficult. Its the ultimate taboo - a mother telling her child or more importantly other adults that she wishes her child had never been born.
It passes through unconsciously though and is evident by the thousands of children in care feeling unwanted and wishing they had never been born.
Segamon, I didn't "murder my 'starter embryo.''
We lost our baby.
And don't be sorry -- I wasn't.
Rachael, I refer to this situation and I'm also not so supportive of mentally ill people or people with special needs having children they can parent well enough to produce psychologically healthy individuals. For them to have babies that are then taken into care or given away as presents also doesn't thrill me.
For further clearification, when you think of mental illness or developmental disabilities, what conditions and level on fuctionality come to mind?
*level of
Post a Comment