Abortion

I did mean the gay marriage thread xD oops.

I really don't know if I'm for it or against it. On the one hand I don't want my choice being stripped away from me. On the other hand, I don't want to kill a life, if it is a life that we're dealing with.

I want to talk about this issue rationally but I'm afraid I get so scared of being judged....

Tyferia:

On the other hand, I don't want to kill a life, if it is a life that we're dealing with.

The thing is, sperm and eggs are lives, and it's not really an issue when they get killed (by means of ejaculation and menstruation, respectively).

Quote

I want to talk about this issue rationally but I'm afraid I get so scared of being judged....

You won't (shouldn't) be judged here. It is a discussion forum, so everyone's views and opinions are up for debate, and so people may pick you up on things, but it's only for the sake of discussion; not a personal thing.

Alex; periphery.:

You won't (shouldn't) be judged here. It is a discussion forum, so everyone's views and opinions are up for debate, and so people may pick you up on things, but it's only for the sake of discussion; not a personal thing.

Exactamundo. I mean, I may have very different ideas from my friends on this and I may say something wrong or misinterpret it or whatever but I never take their criticism as criticism of me... The more variety a debate has and more people, the better, no?

Tyferia:

I really don't know if I'm for it or against it. On the one hand I don't want my choice being stripped away from me. On the other hand, I don't want to kill a life, if it is a life that we're dealing with.

Fortunately, having laws which permit abortion as a choice do not force you to get an abortion

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion, and having the laws there will just mean that the people who are desperate to abort will not be dying whilst trying to get one, without a doctor or hospital/clinic. (There are a reported 400,000 deaths per year from 'backyard' abortions, in areas where either abortion is illegal or carries such a stigma that a woman could not be seen going to a clinic - and that is only the reported figure. It may be double that.) So if you, personally, aren't sure whether it's morally wrong or amoral, you (in my opinion) should definitely support laws which permit others to wrangle with the question themselves. It's one thing to try and remove others' rights based on beliefs you have, it's another to take away others' rights when you aren't even certain yourself about it.

In conclusion, rights, rights, rights for all.
Let's not make motherhood a punishment.

^
Where did you get the 400,000 deaths figure? Are those deaths in countries with good health care systems where abortion is restricted (e.g. Ireland or Poland) or deaths in countries with really terrible health care systems where maternal and infant mortality is already very high (e.g. Uganda where 1 in 35 pregnant women die from complications / health problems related to their pregnancy).

But since we're on this topic, we can talk about the way pro-life movements / organizations are tied up in all kinds of neoimperialistic meddlings. Until 2009, the US refused to give funding to NGOs in developing countries which provided women with information about abortion (information! not abortion services, just telling women that there are places where they can get safe abortions). But, more significantly, several pro-life American organizations are very active abroad and many Evangelical and (to a slightly lesser extent) Catholic churches / organizations from developing countries have strong links with the US and they put a lot of pressure (because they have a lot of power, these organizations offer food, health care, jobs, etc) on people to be anti-abortion.

The 400,000 was from an article assigned in class, let me try and find it. Ah - I apologise, I read it a month ago - the article (which was in fact the introduction to Daniel Maguire's Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religion) actually cited 200,000:

Quote

Criminalization is also lethal in its effects. It is estimated that 200,000 women die each year from illegal, unsafe abortions, and the number could be higher because many nations do not report maternal mortality statistics to the World Health Organization.

The author cites "The global politics of abortion", an earlier article by a Jacobson; the information may well be outdated. The WHO website currently claims that "An estimated 21.6 million unsafe abortions took place worldwide in 2008, almost all in developing countries." The Wiki page for unsafe abortions claims "Unsafe abortion is believed to result in approximately 69,000 deaths and millions of injuries annually" and the cite is an article titled "Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic" (whether it's accurate or not, that doesn't sound like a conservative estimate to condone abortion restriction.) I also stumbled across this which I have no idea of the accuracy of, but their definition of abortion appears to include miscarriage ("an abortion can occur spontaneously") so is possibly set up to shock visitors rather than provide a realistic estimate of global induced abortions.

But the most recent WHO publication on unsafe abortions states

Quote

Deaths due to unsafe abortion remain close to 13% of all maternal deaths. Unsafe abortion related deaths have, however, reduced to 47 000 in 2008 from 56 000 in 2003 and 69 000 in 1990; corresponding to the decline in the overall number of maternal deaths to 358 000 in 2008 from 546 000 in 1990. Although unsafe abortions are preventable, they continue to pose undue risks to women’s health and lives.

But though deaths have reduced, apparently unsafe abortion rates have risen, and "will continue to increase unless women’s access to safe abortion and contraception – and support to empower women (including their freedom to decide whether and when to have a child) – are put in place and further strengthened."

Here's the five-year change:



Those are very disturbing things you've mentioned -frown- what do you think the solution would be? And is it more important for those potentially (or actually) harmful groups to be there, offering food and health care and jobs, than to have no-one, or less effective/connected groups, or redirect groups that were working elsewhere? Should there be legislation stopping these groups pushing a religious agenda, even though their religion is likely why the group is there helping?

I think it's misleading to use developing world data to discuss developed world issues. It should be noted that, of course, legalizing abortion lowered the number of unsafe abortions in developing countries (e.g. in South Africa), but even where abortions are legal many women simply don't have access to medical staff trained to perform abortions or medical facilities or drugs so their only option is 'unsafe' abortion. This also complicates things because it contradicts the frequently repeated argument that pregnancy is more dangerous that abortion - in developing countries they're both equally dangerous - and, in fact, anti-abortion laws / sentiments date back from a time when abortion was more dangerous than pregnancy, doesn't that make them more legitimate? Well, it doesn't take away their momentous sexism because they still treat women as idiots who can't make choices about their own bodies, but it does make it harder to believe that abortion can't be a bad choice. So, developed world rhetoric doesn't work when you try to use it to discuss anywhere else either.

I don't think legislative restrictions are the answer (if anything because who would impose such restrictions?). For example, currently, the Catholic Church provides health care services for 25% of AIDS sufferers in Africa - what would happen to all those people if religious charities were banned? The problem is the fact that religious charities are necessary itself - and it's a very complicated problem with no immediate, simple solution besides voting for politicians who have a better foreign policy towards developing countries and thoroughly researching charities before you hand them your money. But even that isn't really a solution because Western aid in developing countries itself is such a thorny issue. What I find most troubling about the situation is the way deeply evil organizations are will to commit themselves to doing so much selfless good while the rest of us - the non-evil people because we're not actively try to deny people in developing countries information about sexual health or covering up child sexual abuse - we do absolutely nothing or something very close to nothing.

I guess I'm not for or against.
Although I personally do not think I'd ever do it (never been in the situation to decide, therefore I don't know for sure what I would do) I think it's a personal thing for everyone to choose.

I just don't like when people use it as a form of contraception repeatedly.

the reverend.:

I just don't like when people use it as a form of contraception repeatedly.

Why? Not that that's an unusual position - in fact one of the main criticisms I see of abortion is that women use it as contraception, though it's apparently a minority of women doing that. (Though you're obviously not using it as a reason to ban abortion.) (That link is just from an Australian study, not a huge US/UK one, doubt the findings as you see fit.) As this points out, "If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%)" which I think is quite interesting. Anyway obviously this means there is a minority of women who might 'regularly' get abortions, but considering abortions are fairly invasive unpleasant procedures at the best of times, I don't imagine many women are getting 30+ in their lives.

But anyway I did want to ask, if a woman was doing that do herself, though I am not sure anyone does, why are you against it? (I.e. what precisely makes many abortions worse than one or two?)

^
I agree with you. While I don't like the idea of it being used as birth control (too many can lead to sterilization and it's obviously smarter to use preventive measures), I would try to ban it. If someone is so irresponsible that they need to get several dozen abortions, then they aren't going to raise a child properly (most likely) nor (most likely) give it proper prenatal care.

I don't see why think peopl the punishment for irresponsibility should be one of the biggest responsibilities ever. Where's the logic in that?

pravda.:

But anyway I did want to ask, if a woman was doing that do herself, though I am not sure anyone does, why are you against it? (I.e. what precisely makes many abortions worse than one or two?)

If they were to have many abortions then I would question why they were allowed to continually do so.
As you said, a minority have done this, but there are still people who use it as an escape from a pregnancy. Shouldn't they take responsibility for their actions instead of using that as a way out? Also, you have to take into consideration what this would do to the one carrying the child. Would mental health be effected after going through that numerous times? While I wouldn't ban it as such, I think there should be a set amount of times you can have an abortion unless it is absolutely necessary.

Personally I don't even care whether it's used as birth control. It's not the healthiest or safest way to go about contraception, sure, but it's not my place to tell anyone else what they can and can't do. If it's okay in certain situations (rape/incest/one accident at a push) but not in others (consensual adults having sex/having more than one or two terminations) then it's basically another way to punish sluts, that's all, it's not even about babies at that point. And sluts should be free to be sluts if they so choose, in my opinion.

the reverend.:

but there are still people who use it as an escape from a pregnancy. Shouldn't they take responsibility for their actions instead of using that as a way out?

That sounds like you are talking about abortion in general, because obviously abortion is used as an 'escape' from a pregnancy. Isn't it taking responsibility for your actions to pay for a painful and draining experience because you are not emotionally / financially / socially / mentally ready for motherhood? The fact that contraception (and, in a way, artificial insemination) exists signifies that we have acknowledged that pregnancy does not have to be the result of sexual intercourse. Suggesting that a person qualifies for parenthood by virtue of a guy ejaculating into a girl is, in my opinion, naive, oversimplistic, harmful and unnecessary, and the arguments along the lines of adoption and fostering are still turning the child into a punishment, on the incubator we've turned the mother into and on the struggling, overworked system of care in place.

I'm certainly not going to force an abortion on anyone but I do get annoyed by the suggestion that the only 'responsible' thing to do is have a baby (which could mean dropping out of school, or uni, losing your job, losing your partner, losing your parents, losing your friends, losing your mental health, maybe losing your physical health.) I don't think it's responsible to have a baby that you can't provide for, and I don't think it's responsible to add to the numbers of unwanted children by foisting the child onto the state.

Like Dru said, if a woman was having many abortions (let's say three or more, to narrow it to a mere one-fifth of those getting abortions) why would you want this person to be a parent? I agree that there might be ill-effects on the woman - again, Dru mentioned sterility etc - and as a health concern this should be a matter between an individual woman, her doctor, and the staff at the clinic - to ensure she is not receiving a procedure which will cause undue harm to her person. Same as a person receiving multiple plastic surgery procedures or anyone prescribed a lot of medication, the doctors involved have a duty of care that their services are not doing more damage than good. But that is an amoral judgement; even in the case of a psych assessing the woman's mental health, it is about the woman and her feelings, not about punishing her for being 'irresponsible' or taking the 'easy way out'. I think I read, last year when I was very concerned about an American activity that had come to Australia involving camping outside an abortion clinic for 40 days harassing women as they came in and out, that actually the mental 'anguish' of an abortion is not something inherent, but something that can be brought about and exacerbated by your environment - i.e. people telling you that you are a silly slut who should have known/acted better (not your words, obviously, I'm not attributing them to you in any way) and that you have 'murdered your baby.' Obviously if someone has been encultured with these notions, the act will bother them even with no-one at the time saying anything - except of course that many women getting abortions are those attacking the right, behaving like most humans by condemning the actions of others and finding reasons that justify their own behaviour.

(I really recommend everyone reads that article.)

pravda.:

Obviously if someone has been encultured with these notions, the act will bother them even with no-one at the time saying anything - except of course that many women getting abortions are those attacking the right, behaving like most humans by condemning the actions of others and finding reasons that justify their own behaviour.

(I really recommend everyone reads that article.)

I feel like that article is a bit cruel and unfair because many of the examples of 'hypocrites' are very young women - who were probably driven to pro-life protesting / activism by their families / churches / friends. And even if they weren't, it must still be very painful to be 16 / 17 / 21 and have to convince your pro-life parents to take you to the hospital (because you can't afford to pay for the procedure yourself or are scared to go alone and your partner won't come with you) and commit what you believe to be murder and the article doesn't seem to acknowledge that. In some of the anecdotes it even feels like doctors delight in punishing pro-life women (who sound like they're under a lot of stress and emotional strain) by refusing them medical services.

Pro-life feminists - which, it should be mentioned, usually don't get involved in arguments over the legality of abortion - have such a good point when they say that the circumstances which make many women feel like they have to choose between leading an extremely unhappy life and ending their pregnancy (through a painful and invasive medical procedure) are the problem, not abortion itself. Having a child shouldn't mean that you have to give up on your education and career prospects and become estranged from your family and friends - laws / social attitudes and contexts which support / create this situation are as sexist and, really, anti-women as laws / social attitudes and contexts which deny women's rights to control over their own body. Around 80% of women have children - so it seems obvious that having children is something most women want (eventually), our society needs to stop punishing women for making this choice - as much as we need to stop punishing women for making the choice to have an abortion.

kafka.:

Hm. I disagree that it is cruel or unfair; while it is drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the actions of these people, I think the unhealthy conflict happening between the girls' social circumstances and personal circumstances is what's at the fore - hypocrisy as a place they've been pushed into, not something to condemn them for - I didn't take from it that these individuals were to be judged, more that these were the experiences of a number of abortion clinic workers, observing that dissonance. I'm genuinely shocked that you thought they seemed pleased to reject women care - they refused to outright break laws (i.e. skipping counselling) or commit acts against people who considered the act criminal. These clinics are operating a business; it's in their interests to have people pay for their services, but it is against their interests to push those services upon those who don't actually want it and will come away with a bad experience. Particularly with abortion, I imagine it's personal reference (and proximity) that will be the major influences in where a woman goes - it's not going to be awards or glossy adverts or coupons. But at the same time, the clinicians have chosen that field - I can't imagine why they would spite any of these women, least of all those who may well be facing losing more than most by having a baby out of wedlock / young, why they would want to exacerbate their suffering. Some of the testimony seemed very sympathetic. I don't see the problem with avoiding malpractice - what would you have them do?

I definitely agree with your second paragraph - it's not something I'd really considered - which -wow - illustrates how easy it is to take for granted the messages being pushed - i.e. how much is risked by having a baby, particularly if the woman is young. I would still say those social pressures are regarding but distinct from abortion as an available option, as you say, it's sexism - like the pressure on a young woman (any woman, really) having a baby to be married or in a position to get married, rather than supporting single mothers. But in conclusion I feel startled and educated and you have shifted my position, well done.

pravda.:

Turning away people who believe they are murderers for having an abortion instead of 'sending them off to Psych' (as one patient suggests) or offering counselling and the option to have an abortion at a latter date or just doing something for them seems cruel and unfair. As does putting your own 'uneasy feeling' about performing an abortion on a woman who is anti-abortion above those women's health and safety. I don't think doctors should only provide care to people they like or who like them, I also don't think that any kind of medical facility should be run as a business, making women pay for abortion (so, essentially, banning poor women from having abortions) is a very unfair practice (which is not really the fault of abortion clinics, I don't expect doctors to work for free, it's another issue and has to do with the lack of universal health care).

Medical staff seem determined to change women's political views about abortion during counselling, e.g.

When a patient comes in with my 'favorite' sentiment: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion,' I try to expand her understanding that a few more of us have had and deserve a 'moral' abortion.

and refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it's not 'the best possible choice' - sometimes it's neither a choice nor what would benefit a woman's health / safety / happiness most . The anecdote that I found most disturbing was this:

I had a 37 year old woman just yesterday who was 13 weeks. She said she and her husband had been discussing this pregnancy for 2-3 months. She was strongly opposed to abortion, 'but my husband is forcing me to do it.' Naturally, I told her that no one could force her into an abortion, and that she had to choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important. I told her I only wanted what was best for her, and I would not do the abortion unless she agreed that it was in her best interest. Once she was faced with actually having to voice her own choice, she said 'Well, I made the appointment and I came here, so go ahead and do it. It's what's best.' At last I think she came to grips with the fact that it really was her decision after all.

It seems unbelievable that a doctor would first refuse to acknowledge the fact that partners do sometimes pressure women into having or not having abortions (we'd all be outraged if this was a husband forbidding his wife to get an abortion, wouldn't we?), then use the same language that I imagine the abusive husband uses - they made her 'choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important' (surely this is not the normal reaction to a woman confessing that she's being pressured into doing something she doesn't want to do by her husband? it would be much more logical to tell the woman that she should put herself before both her husband and her pregnancy? am I misreading everything? is the doctor trying to be sarcastic? I don't understand, this seems unreal) only to conclude that abortion 'really was her decision after all' although she doesn't clearly consent to it. Saying, 'well, I came here so do it' is not clearly consenting when you're desperate to get an abortion because your emotionally abusive husband demands it and your doctor says they'll only perform it if you agree with them that it's 'in your best interest'.

Pro-life feminists fall through the cracks a bit because they're avoided / hated by both mainstream feminism and mainstream pro-life movements, but they do a good job at pointing out some things that more 'mainstream' (Iguess?) views seem to ignore. Not just the societal pressure put on women to have abortions, but also, for example, what does it mean that the Playboy Foundation donates so much to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Is this just an image thing, their trying to cast themselves as more pro-women's rights after so many women complained about the objectification etc of their magazine? Is it an ideology thing - this is really what 'sexual freedom' amounts to for a woman - having your abortion paid for by people who exploit you?

the reverend.:

Shouldn't they take responsibility for their actions instead of using that as a way out?

Should they? Do you think that if I am so irresponsible that I won't use condoms and continously get abortions that I will give the fetus proper prenatal care? And if I keep that child, do you think I'll be a responsible parent? What makes you think someone's complete irresponsibility is going to make them a responsibile person? It doesn't make sense.

kafka.:

Turning away people who believe they are murderers for having an abortion instead of 'sending them off to Psych' (as one patient suggests) or offering counselling and the option to have an abortion at a latter date or just doing something for them seems cruel and unfair. As does putting your own 'uneasy feeling' about performing an abortion on a woman who is anti-abortion above those women's health and safety. I don't think doctors should only provide care to people they like or who like them, I also don't think that any kind of medical facility should be run as a business, making women pay for abortion (so, essentially, banning poor women from having abortions) is a very unfair practice (which is not really the fault of abortion clinics, I don't expect doctors to work for free, it's another issue and has to do with the lack of universal health care).

Medical staff seem determined to change women's political views about abortion during counselling, e.g.

When a patient comes in with my 'favorite' sentiment: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion,' I try to expand her understanding that a few more of us have had and deserve a 'moral' abortion.

and refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it's not 'the best possible choice' - sometimes it's neither a choice nor what would benefit a woman's health / safety / happiness most . The anecdote that I found most disturbing was this:

I had a 37 year old woman just yesterday who was 13 weeks. She said she and her husband had been discussing this pregnancy for 2-3 months. She was strongly opposed to abortion, 'but my husband is forcing me to do it.' Naturally, I told her that no one could force her into an abortion, and that she had to choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important. I told her I only wanted what was best for her, and I would not do the abortion unless she agreed that it was in her best interest. Once she was faced with actually having to voice her own choice, she said 'Well, I made the appointment and I came here, so go ahead and do it. It's what's best.' At last I think she came to grips with the fact that it really was her decision after all.

It seems unbelievable that a doctor would first refuse to acknowledge the fact that partners do sometimes pressure women into having or not having abortions (we'd all be outraged if this was a husband forbidding his wife to get an abortion, wouldn't we?), then use the same language that I imagine the abusive husband uses - they made her 'choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important' (surely this is not the normal reaction to a woman confessing that she's being pressured into doing something she doesn't want to do by her husband? it would be much more logical to tell the woman that she should put herself before both her husband and her pregnancy? am I misreading everything? is the doctor trying to be sarcastic? I don't understand, this seems unreal) only to conclude that abortion 'really was her decision after all' although she doesn't clearly consent to it. Saying, 'well, I came here so do it' is not clearly consenting when you're desperate to get an abortion because your emotionally abusive husband demands it and your doctor says they'll only perform it if you agree with them that it's 'in your best interest'.

Pro-life feminists fall through the cracks a bit because they're avoided / hated by both mainstream feminism and mainstream pro-life movements, but they do a good job at pointing out some things that more 'mainstream' (Iguess?) views seem to ignore. Not just the societal pressure put on women to have abortions, but also, for example, what does it mean that the Playboy Foundation donates so much to organizations like Planned Parenthood? Is this just an image thing, their trying to cast themselves as more pro-women's rights after so many women complained about the objectification etc of their magazine? Is it an ideology thing - this is really what 'sexual freedom' amounts to for a woman - having your abortion paid for by people who exploit you?

That's just sad on so many levels. I don't think people should be put under extra scrutiny or pressure by medical health professionals. That is not their prerogative. As a medical professional, you have to put your own judgements about the person aside and do your job.

dru is a wild thing.:

Should they? Do you think that if I am so irresponsible that I won't use condoms and continously get abortions that I will give the fetus proper prenatal care? And if I keep that child, do you think I'll be a responsible parent? What makes you think someone's complete irresponsibility is going to make them a responsibile person? It doesn't make sense.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. It won't make them responsible if they were to keep it, either. If they don't want a child why are they not taking precautions to avoid having one? If they don't like sex with a condom there are other things they can do.

I guess I just don't see why someone that is continually irresponsible (perhaps irresponsible is the incorrect word) should look to abortion. There a other methods of contraceptive out there, including: the pill, condom and coil, which are accessible and use can stop if they later decide they want a child. If the female was having casual sex and not wanting a child, I think one of these should be considered first instead of nothing at all. Now, I know that pregnancy can still happen as these are not 100% effective but at least they done something to prevent it, right? Which is a whole lot better than just the dependence on abortion or even adoption for that matter. This is what I'm trying to get it, even if it is just a minority of women.

I'm not in any way saying that they should be forced into having the child that they probably cannot care for. I'm just saying that I do not like the idea of abortion when other options where available before pregnancy occurred. I don't know how the health system in the US works, but here tax payers pay for the health care of those that don't work, are considered a child, at school etc. so the contraceptive options above (and any others) would be free and easily accessible to them.

Also, I'd like to mention that here (again, I don't know about the US) an abortion can be carried out up to 24 weeks or even afterwards if the child is severely mentally or physcially disabled. Which I don't agree with at all. Perhaps because the thought is more disturbing due to how the fetus looks at this time. Of course doctors say that the fetus cannot feel pain, but I don't see why they couldn't.