When I was pregnant with Emma, I started having regular contractions much earlier than I should have. I was worried I might be in early labour and went into the Labour and Delivery clinic at hospital where my prenatal care provider was and where I was due to have my baby. As I sat waiting for the doctor to come back with some information for me, a teenage girl and her mother approached the check-in counter.
“She has an appointment for surgery,” the mother said.
“Of course,” said the nurse. “Can I have her provincial health card please?”
The mother handed over the girl’s card and a few moments later, another nurse came out and led the girl and her mother away to a room. Her parents didn’t have to remortgage their house to pay for the procedure. She didn’t have to push her way through protesters to go into a special clinic. She certainly didn’t have to take what pennies she could scrape up and trust some person with a knife in a dingy motel. She could depend on the fact that the Canada Health Act and the provincial health care plans that stem from it allowed her access to a full range of choices, none of which would cost her money or risk her life.
It is our right.
But I see that right crumbling around us and it makes me scared for my daughter’s generation and scared for all the women and girls who live in parts of the world where they do not have those same rights.
Abortion and health care reform in the United States
The United States passed historic health care legislation this week ensuring affordable access to health insurance for many people who were previously unable to get insurance. This is a huge step forward. But it comes with a huge step backwards for reproductive rights. Abortion is legal in the United States, but the current legislation may make it unaffordable and inaccessible to most women (you can sign a petition to the Democratic Party in support of reproductive rights here). In his post on the six big flaws that need fixing, Jon Walker wrote:
This bill is a massive rollback of a woman’s right to choose. It would take away the abortion coverage of millions of Americans. The system of exchanges and affordability tax credits could easily be modified to ensure federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, while still not taking away the ability of women and small businesses to buy insurance packages that cover abortion. Having an individual mandate that forces women to buy insurance, but also a law that prevents them from getting insurance that covers a legal medical procedure, is a disgusting abuse of women’s rights.
This is certainly only one of the many ways that the new legislation impacts women. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check has an extremely comprehensive post that looks at the wins and losses for women’s health in this health care bill and is well worth a thorough read. She talks about issues like the right to pump breastmilk at work, support for postpartum depression, the elimination of pre-existing conditions, partial (but not complete) removal of gender rating, free preventive care, lack of coverage for immigrant women, and more.
Abortion and Canadian aid for maternal health in developing nations
At the same time as the United States was passing its historic legislation, the Canadian government was debating reproductive rights in its Parliament. No, not the reproductive rights of Canadians, which (for now) will stay intact. Rather, they were debating the details of Canada’s aid package focusing on maternal and newborn health in developing nations. The Conservative government first said that the purpose of the plan was “to be able to save lives” but that it would not include any provisions for contraception or abortion.
The government obviously has a very skewed view of how exactly lives are saved in the world’s poorest countries. Lack of child spacing options and lack of access to safe abortions is what kills mothers and babies in those countries. Eventually they agreed to include birth control in the package, but said that it was out of the question for Canadian government aid to be used to fund abortions.
The opposition parties (which jointly hold a majority of the seats in the house) filed a motion “asking for the Government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women’s right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas.” According to the CBC article Contraception motion defeated, the absence of several pro-life Liberal Members of Parliament, as well as the votes against the motion by several Liberal Members of Parliament led to the defeat of the motion (side note: this looks bad for Liberal leader Ignatieff).
The fact that the Liberal party cannot keep their ranks together to vote on something important like this says a lot about the strength (or lack thereof) of the party and its leader. This makes me even more scared about the possibility of a future majority Conservative government, something which scares plastikgyrl too as she wrote in her post Reproductive Health Care Takes Big Hits in North American Politics This Week:
The Conservative picture of an international maternal health strategy leaves me worried about what happens should they ever get a majority government. If contraception and abortion are issues those in power do not want to fund/support internationally, how long would it be before the 1988 overturning of the abortion law is repealed? What about the contraception components of the omnibus bill passed by the Trudeau government in 1969? Will enough people in this country believe that such decisions are in the best interest of the women of this country?
Very scared.
What is women’s health without reproductive rights?
Is it better to have health care while giving up reproductive rights? Yes and no. Certainly the health care legislation in the United States and Canada’s aid to countries around the world helps many women who desperately need health care and do not need abortions. However, it also puts those women who do need abortions at a greater risk than they were at before. It is polarizing and sets dangerous precedents. Can we rewind to two years ago when Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada? I liked that world view better.
Image credit: Steve Rhodes on flickr
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
I fear for the daughter I am presently choosing to carry . I fear she won’t have the rights I have had, or the choices I never took for granted, but wish I felt I could. I was lucky enough to spend the first 26 years of my life at home in Canada where I never questioned my rights nor had to add stress to any choices by worrying about the cost. Since becoming a mother and carrying a pregnancy to term I am more vehemently pro choice than ever- the stipulations in the healthcare reform regarding abortions really frighten me. Not to mention sadden me that yet again men are trading my rights and what I do with my body as a trading card for their agenda.
I always love your posts Annie! This one certainly hits home because while many focused on the little positive about this new law, I was quite concerned with what it lacks and this post is a huge one. I don’t have a daughter, but I do have a niece and I would hate for her to have to worry about her rights when she is old enough to become pregnant. It just makes me ill.
Heya!
This is a great post. I’m in the U.S., but I, too, worry about the reproductive health of the generations of women after me and the women in countries that rely on USAID and other funding streams from the global north. The entire conceptualization of abortion as a service that can be withheld because of the moral dilemmas it causes funder nations just exudes privilege and judgment, and is unquestionably a death sentence for women in developing nations. It’s heartbreaking to me that our memories are so short that we can’t remember a time when complications of illegal abortion was the leading cause of maternal mortality in even the richest nation on the planet. Even more heartbreaking to see backsliding in Canada, a nation that I have always believed to be committed to functional gender equality. When I was a law student, I gasped to read the opinion in the landmark Morgentaler case, which squarely held that the right to abortion was seated in the right to gender equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — something the US court was unequipped to do when Roe was argued. I hate to think that our rhetoric is rubbing off on the rest of the world.
This post is great, Annie and friends, but just a little bit naive, because although big legal changes follow a political agenda, there are many other things at play behind the scenes, things like passing a bill with some of the changes, as opposed to not passing anything, or keeping financial support from big business for re-election.
Also, abortions are very important, but if people have to choose between not being able to afford health insurance at all and being able to get good cover for cancer, but not abortions, what would they choose?
I hope this bill is a step in a chain of changes for the better and subsequent changes will cover abortions as well. I hope that the health insurance companies will adapt to this change and find a way to provide cover for abortions or to “gently influence” the government’s next moves.
But maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist…
I think those who might have the chance to live because of limited access will be grateful. Put yourself in their “shoes.”
However, I agree with Family Matters: I doubt that abortions will truly end up being restricted despite the language in the bill. Subsequent changes are sure to follow.
Well said. I’m happy this small step was made in the U.S., but doing so at the expense of women’s healthcare is a slap in the face. The fact our president and members of congress were willing to use women’s reproductive rights as a political bargaining chip show they still don’t think of women as full citizens.
The good news in the US is that the so-called pro-life people are furious about the healthcare bill and say that it will actually end up extending coverage for abortions. Here’s an article to that effect from the Washington Post, if you can stand wading through all the anti-choice vitriol. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032302841.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
So all may not be lost.
My husband and I were yelling at the TV as we watched the Republicans, How can they care more for unborn children than they can for sick children? But once again abortion and women’s rights take a back seat to their own (restrictive, backwards, anti-women, pro-religion) agenda. And we are Canadian. I too worry about how are rights are being eroded, Harper’s evasion of even putting birth control in the foreign aid package until he was pressured into it was despicable. And now we are supposed to be grateful for him adding the one thing that affects women’s health more than anything else? When I was in my twenties, fighting for women’s rights I felt so optimistic and empowered and now I wonder if I was just naive…
(interesting to note that I had an anti-abortion commenter post on a few of my blog posts this morning even ones that had nothing to do with politics. I took them all down except the one in the birth control post. Made me all riled up even before I read your thoughtful article). They are everywhere…
“Also, abortions are very important, but if people have to choose between not being able to afford health insurance at all and being able to get good cover for cancer, but not abortions, what would they choose?”
You are absolutely right, but I don’t think that it’s naive to question why, exactly, is this a “choice” that people have to make? It’s only a recent development that 1) abortion is even framed as a matter of health somehow superseded by a moral question, and 2) that the argument that one gets to pick and choose where their tax money goes has gained any traction at all. It makes no sense to me that women are asked to choose between reproductive health and “other types” of health, as though one weren’t a subset of the other. I don’t think ANY form of health care should be used as a bargaining chip. I don’t believe that we actually need to choose to throw anyone under the bus for it to roll along. Because you’re right, when given the false choice of choosing between women and EVERYONE ELSE, folks are going to choose “everyone else.” The only ones who lose are women, who, for some reason, aren’t deserving of comprehensive health care.
I was surprised by todays post … I wouldn’t have thought I’d read about pro-choice here. … not sure why … hmm..
kim:
You didn’t think I would be pro-choice? Or you didn’t think I would write about reproductive rights?
no, i love that you write about everything …
didn’t think you’d be pro-choice …
I think b/c of everything else seems so written towards safety/health best needs for babies …
kim:
Yes, and one of my babies is a girl and I want the best for her. That means having access to reproductive rights.
Kim, reproductive rights IS about “safety/health best needs for babies.” Even abortion, as much as some want to make that an ugly word, is a medical necessity. Sometimes things go wrong with a pregnancy, and a woman needs to have access to all treatment options, even if one of them means terminating a wanted pregnancy because that’s what’s best for the mother and the fetus would not survive either way.
“Pro-choice” is about so much more than abortion, but usually we end up talking about that one point and forget everything else that’s involved in reproductive rights.
If we’re talking about what’s best for babies, wouldn’t the mother’s right to decide when (and with whom) she chooses to get pregnant be a big part of that? That’s where reproductive rights, and “pro-choice,” begin.
I love this post. I, too, am vehemently pro-choice. It surprises people, as I’m expecting my third child right now — but I think the world is a better place when a girl/woman has control over decisions regarding her own health care. One of these choices is whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of her reasoning. It always amazes me when people think that being “pro-kids” equals “anti-choice”. I’ve been pro-choice since I was a young teen and I don’t see that changing. I’d prefer to have government policies change instead.
I’m watching the news from the States apprehensively. There was a good discussion on CBC yesterday morning (The Current, IIRC) about this issue.
I continue to be amazed at a group that recoils at the thought of government control of ANYTHING, of ANY part of your PERSONAL LIFE yet feels it is their DUTY to tell you when you can or can’t have babies (or use birth control, etc). It makes no sense.
I was reading about how now women who want abortion coverage through their insurance will have to write a separate check to go into a separate pool of money to provide that coverage. It’s madness.
And yes, access to safe, legal abortion IS about safety and health for babies. History shows us that when legal abortion is not available, women will use other means. Means that lead to more deaths and damage to both babies and mothers. So in order to ensure the safety and health of mothers and babies, we need to have access to pregnancy prevention (sex ed, contraception) and copious information as to every woman’s options, including legal and safe abortions.
When every child is a wanted child, I bet we’ll find their health and safety both improve greatly.
In addition to that, I’m sure that having an abortion is an extremely difficult thing for most girls and women and being put through administrative hell dealing with your insurance company on top of that is just unnecessarily evil.
Depends on what you mean by “difficult.” Being in a situation where you’re pregnant and really don’t want to be is an extremely difficult thing for most girls and women in that situation, but (and I can provide references to this when I get home, as I developed a resource package on this topic for Planned Parenthood Ottawa) the most common emotion expressed by women/young women after having an abortion is relief that they’re no longer pregnant.
I agree completely, though, that no one should have to jump through hoops to get health care covered.
“When every child is a wanted child, I bet we’ll find their health and safety both improve greatly.”
I think this is over-optimistic. Lots of people think they want babies, but don’t really want to be parents.
I personally do not see how requiring millions of pro-life women (and men) to fund something they consider murder is a positive thing. The debate over abortion in the healthcare bill is not over denying the “right to abortion”, but rather about who is required to pay for it. To many people, paying into a system that funds abortion is equivalent to aiding and abetting a sin. Do the opinions of these women not count?
Also, re: third world countries and child spacing, if the modern methods of natural family planning, like the “sympto-thermal method” were taught and practiced, along with ecological breastfeeding, women in developing nations could space their families as they desired without need for abortions or expensive contraception.
What about the tax dollars I spend that go towards war, and killing innocent mothers and children as part of it? Where’s my say in that? Should we make pro-war tax-payers submit separate checks to the IRS that can be used for funding wars? If I view the killing of people in war as a sin, can I be excused from paying those taxes?
As for family planning, part of what the pro-choice community is striving towards is to provide information about and access to ALL kinds of birth control options out there. As an example, I wasn’t aware of IUDs as a legitimate option for birth control until after I had my son (some research is showing IUDs may be safe for women who haven’t yet been pregnant, BTW). In the US we rely on condoms and birth control pills for most of our contraception– two forms that are the most likely to invite user error. If more women used IUDs (which can also be much less expensive long-term) instead of BC pills, we’d probably have fewer unintended pregnancies. NFP (the sympto-thermal method) is also a good option for those who don’t want to use hormonal methods and/or don’t want to spend money on other contraception (I’m wary of recommending breastfeeding as a contraceptive as I exclusively breastfed my son for 6 months, then continued through his first birthday, but my period returned on a regular cycle starting 3 months post-partum, and know many other women with similar experiences).
And my problem is, it seems a majority of the men and women who decry abortion as murder (and thus not worthy of coverage) also seem to be against spreading this valuable information about family planning, or help fund these preventative methods.
Marcy- from an ethics perspective, I personally think that you should not have to pay for war if you believe it is unjustified. In the world according to me, you wouldn’t have to
. From a political science perspective, the waging of war is one of the basic purposes of a government, and indeed the reason for forming one in many cases, while abortion is not traditionally regarded as the sphere of the government. From an economic perspective, war is a even that effects all members of a society and cannot be carried out with economic support from those who are not in moral support of it. Each abortion is impactful on a much smaller number of individuals that each war, and while it may be expensive, could almost always be funded by the individuals directly involved in it.
I may have been unclear about the breastfeeding, and if so, I apologize, but I agree that by itself it cannot be relied on very long for some women, but that it should be used in conjunction with other natural family planning techniques. For some women though, breastfeeding alone would space children 2-3 years or more apart!
Also, re: third world countries and child spacing, if the modern methods of natural family planning, like the “sympto-thermal method” were taught and practiced, along with ecological breastfeeding, women in developing nations could space their families as they desired without need for abortions or expensive contraception.
As someone who practiced both of those combined with withdrawal, I agree that these options have merit. But all three of these options rely on the other partner to be on-board. If the only contraception options that ANY women have access to are dependent on their male partners’ willingness to respect the method and the woman using it, they’re not going to be effective methods in any part of the world. Women in any nation can only have control over the spacing of their families if they have a say in their exposure to sperm AND if they’re in control of what prevents fertilization/implantation/gestation in their own bodies.
Doesn’t natural family planning also require that your body be extremely regular? Can women with irregular cycles use this method at all?
Also, doesn’t NFP require that you take your cervical temperature and fill out charts to track your ovulation? If you want to be accurate? Is all this equipment and the information on how to use it readily available to all women?
If we lived in a perfect world where all women had regular cycles and men always respected women and never raped them, then yes, we could rely on natural family planning.
If we also lived in a perfect world where there were no complications to any pregnancy ever, then we could live in a world without abortions. Until these things happen, we need to allow women that choice.
The information is relatively simple and the technique not difficult (all it really requires is a good thermometer- can take temps orally, btw– and a place to record the info). And I believe it works ok for women who might have slightly irregular cycles, as long as they keep track of and record all 3 symptoms (cervical position and fluid along with basal body temp).
So it’s a fine system that works for many women.
But it shouldn’t be the only available option, by any means.
What’s wonderful about NFP is that it works for women with irregular cycles. If you’ve learned to use it correctly, it doesn’t matter if your cycle is 25 days or 37 days. When used correctly, NFP is extremely reliable. We used it to get pregnant and then we used it to not get pregnant. I never filled out a chart, and the fanciest equipment it required was a 10 dollar thermometer.
My friend had no periods for two years, then had a period that lasted for a full year. How does NFP work for her? By “irregular periods” I don’t mean “longer or shorter than 28 days but still the same number of days each time,” I mean “irregular as in it’s not the same each time so how can you measure when you’re ovulating when there’s not pattern to the cycle?”
Perhaps NFP works just by taking your temperature every day and knowing when your temperature is at X degrees you’re ovulating so you should not have had sex 2-3 days before and should not 2-3 days after. I remember learning about NFP in my sex ed class in middle school (I moved to Texas for high school, so we didn’t talk about those things), which was a long time ago, but from what I remember the system depended on having a regular cycle so you could predict your ovulation. Maybe I’m wrong and this system really is as wonderful and fail-proof as you say.
Even if it is, women deserve choices. This means access to OTHER forms of birth control.
A period that lasts for a full year is not a period, it’s a sign of something else.
Between my kids, I had very irregular periods, not just the length of my cycle, but some months I didn’t get it at all. But I usually knew that was going to happen because of NFP.
It’s a little more detailed than takin your temperature every day, but instead of a long comment, I’d just point you to “Taking Charge of Your Fertility” by Toni Weschler, which details NFP clearly and succinctly. NFP isn’t for everyone, I eventually got an IUD because my stress levels were high and having to pay such close attention to my cycles was not helping. And I personally have no issues with other forms of birth control. But NFP is a great choice for women who can’t or don’t want to use other forms of BC. I just wanted to point out that the notion that NFP is for women with regular cycles is incorrect.
(My friend would have loved to go to the doctor to find out what was wrong with her that year, but she didn’t have insurance. Which brings us back to the whole health care issue… but I digress.)
I just wanted to point out that because it worked for one woman, or two, or seven, or twenty-seven women, IT’S NOT FOR EVERYONE. Women need CHOICES. They need information about and access to ALL forms of birth control, so they can choose the method that works for them.
This is what we fight for when we fight for reproductive rights. This is why I’m proudly pro-choice.
I’m confused. Because if you look at my previous comment, you’ll see that I said that NFP is not for everyone. It ended up not being for me at this point in time. I’m not disagreeing with you that women should have choices when it comes to BC. I’m simply pointing out that you don’t have to have regular cycles to successfully use NFP.
Yes, in your second comment you do say it’s not for everyone. And I agree with that. I pointed out that was the point I made with every one of my comments about NFP. Other people who have commented on this post seem to think that one size fits all when it comes to reproductive choices and birth control. I am stating as clearly as I can that this is not the case (stating it for everyone reading the comment thread, not just individually to you, Kayris).
I’m glad you agree with that statement. I wish more women understood that not every woman’s body is built the same way or functions the exact same way.
I really enjoy this blog in general, but one aspect of this post (and, in fact, the broader discussions on this that I’ve come across in the media) bothered me, and that is the equation of the terms “reproductive rights”, “family planning”, “contraception”, and “pro-choice” (pro-abortion). While I don’t wish to judge anyone’s opinions on these topics, they are not one and the same!!!! This applies anywhere, but doubly so when trying to help out in places where prevailing attitudes and beliefs may be different than those in the west.
For example, I believe in reproductive rights and family planning. A woman has the right to choose when to start or grow a family (and so when or whether to have sex), which includes the right to obtain the education needed to do this. Family planning is also not only a right, but often an obligation when resources are limited. Fertility awareness methods (e.g., sympto-thermal) are highly effective, and considered moral by most faiths that I know of; artificial methods are more often considered dodgey. Without getting into my views on artificial birth control and abortion, I do believe these need to be considered as separate issues. If a woman’s religious beliefs are that artifical means of birth control are immoral, then handing a condom to her husband does not amount to supporting her reproductive rights!!
Isabelle:
The fact that different people have different beliefs, different opinions and different preferences is the reason that choice needs to be available. No one is going to force anyone to use a condom or force anyone to get an abortion, but those options should be available to people who wish to avail themselves of those options.
Church is against my beliefs, but I believe other people should have the option to go if they want to.
Isabelle, my faith does not have a problem with birth control or abortion. Why do you want there to be laws that prevent me from living my live according to my faith?
If a woman’s religious beliefs are that artificial means of birth control are immoral, and I offer her husband a condom, I am not infringing on that woman’s rights at all. If THE HUSBAND *takes* the condom, and plans to *use* it with his wife, then the woman needs to talk to her husband about her moral beliefs, and the husband needs to respect his wife’s beliefs. I support that woman’s reproductive rights, but I also support every other woman’s reproductive rights. This is why I want to make condoms AVAILABLE to anyone who wants them. This in no way means I, or anyone, will FORCE any woman or man to use condoms or any other form of birth control.
I know that when the “pro-life” side uses the word “life” they are not using the word they mean (clearly evidenced by the disregard for the mother’s life, death threats from “pro-life” activists/terrorists, murder by these same people, etc.); but when the pro-choice side says “choice” that is what we mean. If you do not want to use a condom, we’re not going to force you. We just want to offer it IF YOU WANT IT.
I believe you may have misunderstood my meaning. Criss, I did not say that I was seeking anti-abortion laws. In fact, if you read my post again you will see that I did not say anything against either abortion or birth control. I merely said that these issues cannot all be tied together as if they were one and the same. Birth control can exist without abortion. Family planning can exist without contraceptives. They don’t necessarily need to, but they can.
One of the main problems with tying all of these issues together is that it can become an “all or nothing” kind of deal. An ultra-conservative region might reject a woman’s education program on child spacing if we request that it include discussion of artificial contraceptives. A health care bill (referring to a theoretical one here, not necessarily the current one–I’m just not familiar enough with the details of the current one) that would benefit women might be struck down if it includes a clause on abortion.
If we forcefully tie all of these issues together, we risk ending up not being able to discuss any of them at all in some cases.
I don’t know how you can separate the issues. Where do you draw the line between one and the other?
“Birth control can exist without abortion” is a problematic statement — it depends on what you consider “birth control” and what you consider “abortion.” Is the morning after pill (Plan B — not RU 486, which is a totally different drug) “abortion”? It’s not, but many anti-choicers say it is. Now, if we say the morning after pill is “abortion,” then what about the regular birth control pill? Most people would call that “birth control,” but you can take a higher dosage of the regular birth control pill after unprotected sex and have the same effect as Plan B, because Plan B is just a higher dosage of the hormones in the regular birth control pill. So, is the regular birth control pill “abortion” now, because it could be used as the morning after pill?
Now, what about people who think birth control is “against God’s will” (or immoral, as you put it)? Does NFP count as “immoral” birth control? It’s not artificial/hormonal… so are condoms “okay,” because they’re not hormonal? But they are “artificial,” because you’re actively doing something to prevent conception… but then isn’t natural family planning also “artificial”? Aren’t you actively doing something to prevent conception? So is that “immoral” as well? Are you defying God’s will by planning sex to avoid ovulation?
There is no easy answer. There is no way to please all people, all beliefs. This is why all options need to be open to everybody, and each woman can choose for herself what is best for her.
That’s what “reproductive rights” and “pro-CHOICE” mean.
The concern is that with this restriction that access to abortion care will be even more severely limited than it is already. The politicians that are behind this are openly anti choice and this is not even a masked attempt at restricting access, it’s their crusade.
One of my biggest questions remains to be how this will effect women who loose wanted pregnancies and then require D&Cs will they be forced to deliver their dead babies vaginally? Will this be their only option, will it depend if they have written that extra check? It’s not just about women looking to end unwanted pregnancies.
Also governments often ask tax payers to contribute to things they are moral opposed to – I am opposed to war and torture. I still have to pay for that…
Let me say first I respect you, I respect your blog and I respect your perspective. That said I do not see how anyone NEEDS an abortion. And before you tell me about the times when it is “for the health of the mother” those are generally so early on (ectopic pregnancies) that they are not even technically considered abortions (even Catholic hospitals do those) or so late that the child can be taken out and go straight to the NICU. A woman who does not want a child does not NEED an abortion. A woman who cannot care for a child does not NEED an abortion. A woman who has a very young baby and is overwhelmed at the idea of having a baby does not NEED an abortion.
Please educate yourself on the reality of complications that can occur during pregnancy. Medically necessary abortions are not “only ectopic pregnancies;” that statement is naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
And what do you mean by “they are not even technically considered abortions (even Catholic hospitals do those)”? An abortion is an abortion. Once the egg is fertilized and implanted, it’s considered a pregnancy. The fact that “even Catholic hospitals do those” does not say anything about the “technicality” of the abortion, but rather about the reality of abortion: IT IS A MEDICAL NECESSITY. My OB/GYN, a Catholic, working for a Baptist hospital, told me that if the tests showed chromosomal abnormalities in my fetus (I’m at 10 weeks), both she and the hospital would recommend an abortion, since the chances of the fetus surviving are so small. The Baptist hospital will gladly perform an abortion on an abnormal fetus after 12 weeks (when we take the test for the chromosomal abnormalities) — are you saying aborting a second-trimester fetus isn’t “tehcnically an abortion” just because a religious hospital says it’s OK to do?
Oh!! So if the baby might die anyway you are considering it “medically necessary” Well, then by all means are pregnancies should end in abortion because all people might get killed in a car accident. So, they are all medically necessary.
What I mean about ectopic pregnancies is that they do not fall under the same medical classification as an abortion. From a legal standpoint. Those would not be in jeapordy even if abortion were illegal.
Please I implore you to show me one case that is not an ectopic pregnancies and is literally medically necessary for the life of the mother.
Very quick Google search found two examples in one article right away:
I’m sure I could find many more, but right now I have to go get dinner for my family. I have to more to say later about what “need” means and will be back later after the kids are in bed.
Well, I suppose my question in those cases is how long could these women carry the babies? Did the pregnancies post problems as soon as they became pregnant? Or were these things (as is most often the case) where it is only the last few weeks of pregnancy that poses the true life threatening risk? If it poses a risk from day one then I suppose you have taught me something. And I am willing to admit that. However, if these women could have carried these babies to a few weeks of the end of their pregnancies and the babies could have been taken out and put in the NICU where (albeit with problems) they most likely would have lived then that would still be an unnecessary abortion as far as I can see.
However, if these women could have carried these babies to a few weeks of the end of their pregnancies and the babies could have been taken out and put in the NICU where (albeit with problems) they most likely would have lived then that would still be an unnecessary abortion as far as I can see.
So you’re advocating putting off potentially life-saving treatment of a woman until “viability” of the fetus, stressing her body out further with labour and delivery and/or surgery, and then expecting this woman whose health has been further compromised by the wait to care for a child who may have significant special needs? Are you also planning to provide this woman with home support to help with the 24/7 care of herself and this child? Are you also planning to provide financial support to compensate the fact that one of the parents (if there even is more than one parent) won’t be able to work outside the home for an untold length of time due to said “problems?” And what of any already-existing children who also need their mother to care for them? Are their needs less important than this fetus? Your cavalier attitude about the seriousness of microprematurity is extremely problematic.
First of all, I said when does the pregnancy actually put the fatal strain on her body. That makes a difference in determining if an abortion is truly in order to save the life of the mother. The conditions you put this baby in are very dramatic. I know women who have had babies at 28 weeks and aside from the NICU stay and the slight (as in 3m) developmental delay they are fine. Also, I NEVER said that this woman was required to take this child home. I said the child deserves life. Even if (s)he is going to have some issues. Even if they are severe. There is no reason that the woman must take the baby home or care for the baby if she chooses not to. Additionally, we do actually provide financial support in situations like these. The family gets disability because mom has to stay home to care for the baby. The baby gets medicare (which will pay for and in house nurse in these situations if necessary) because (s)he was born at a certain gestational period. So, if mom chooses to have the baby and bring (s)he home then there are services in place to help.
However, as I said before I do not actually object to abortions in the case of true medical need. I cannot say and neither can you if the women in the above cases could have made it until 28, 32, 34 or more weeks. We do not know. If they couldn’t then fine. If they could then why not? Why not allow BOTH people to be saved?
Check out Preeclampsia.org to find a great many examples of women with HELLP Syndrome. I had this at 31 weeks with my son and had to deliver immediately to save my life as my liver was rupturing. HELLP ALWAYS necessitates immediate expulsion of the fetus or delivery of the baby because the mother is already in organ failure. Delivery is the only treatment/cure and both mother/fetus/baby will die without it.
Yes, it often comes later in pregnancy, but in those forums you will meet women who had HELLP at 19 and 20 weeks which is definitely before the age of viability.
I also just read a story of a mother who was diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. Her choices were to 1) abort the child and start treatment right away (the fetus would not be able to survive the chemo anyway), or 2) continue with pregnancy and likely die from her cancer.
I have a close friend who faced this choice. It is a reality.
I do too Lindsay. After trying for years, having several miscarriages, she finally had what she thought would be a viable pregnancy and then had to abort it in order to begin treatment. Very sad.
Upstatemomof3:
Okay, as promised I wanted to come back to the issue of NEED. Personally, I think the only person who can determine what is needed is the pregnant woman. She may want some advice from doctors, from clergy, from the guy who got her pregnant or from friends/family. But ultimately, armed with whatever advice and information she has collected, it is up to her to determine what is needed.
- She may need to terminate the pregnancy because carrying a baby to term would likely kill her
- She may need to terminate the pregnancy because the baby would be so severely disabled that she could not care for it
- She may need to terminate the pregnancy because she is in an abusive relationship and fears bringing a child into that (but knows that her abuser would never let her give the baby up)
- She may need to terminate the pregnancy because she knows that she could not give up the baby after carrying it and birthing it, but also knows that she does not have the resources to give a child a good life at this point in her own life (immaturity, financial situation, addiction, etc.)
- She may need to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is the result of a rape
When we look only at medical necessity and ignore the larger picture of the girl or woman’s life, we are only looking at one type of need. If you consider the whole woman, including her state of mind, and not just her physical ability to carry the baby to term, then a whole other spectrum of needs comes into play. Needs that I think are legitimate. Needs that will vary from woman to woman. What one person can soldier through, another may not be able to.
Personally, I think it is more important to ensure that this world is able to better care for the children that are born onto it, than to worry about, regulate, and legislate what a woman chooses to do with her own body.
Well, as I said before I can respect your perspective but I also completely disagree with it. I think everyone deserves the right to live. I think that pretty much all of those situations you listed (aside from medical necessity and as I said before I have learned a little about that today – although, it really does not change my view because I have always said that I do not object to abortions in that case) are situations that the child deserves to live. And quite frankly this – She may need to terminate the pregnancy because she knows that she could not give up the baby after carrying it and birthing it, but also knows that she does not have the resources to give a child a good life at this point in her own life (immaturity, financial situation, addiction, etc.) – always seems like an incredibly selfish and ridiculous thing to me. To say I do not want this child but I do not want anyone else to have it and so I would rather it was dead is insane and selfish to me.
And plain and simple I do not believe it is a matter of a woman’s body I think that baby is a person who deserves to live.
Upstatemom, there are a number of adoptees who feel that abortion would have been less traumatic/kinder for *some* adoptees than adoption. Certainly, they do not speak (nor do they intend to) for all adoptees. There are a number of women who have placed children for adoption who feel that abortion is far less life-changing, traumatic and debilitating than adoption was. They do not speak for all first parents either. However, I think that suggesting that adoption (letting someone else have a child) is an alternative to abortion in the case of an unplanned pregnancy is confusing two separate issues. When somebody chooses to place a child for adoption, they’ve actually made two decisions: 1. to continue the pregnancy and 2. to place the child. Both of these have separate and difficult consequences. Both of them may have positive, but separate, consequences; but the decision to place the child comes long after deciding to continue the pregnancy. It has to be taken after the child is born, even if the intention to make that decision was there from early on.
I’m not denying it is difficult. I am not denying that it is a continuous decision. I am not denying that no matter when a woman decides to give up a child she has to continue deciding to do so until after the adoption is final. I get that. But to say well, it would be too hard on ME to have a child out there that I am not raising is selfish. That child deserves to live. Have a good life or a bad life after that does not matter they deserve the right to live. I know there are adoptees out there who think they would have been better off if they had been aborted. Of course, that is easy to say. In reality they got a life and they can do with it what they will.
Carrying the product of a rape for 9 months after the rape and then delivering it, whether or not that product will be given up for adoption or not, is 9 months of being continuously raped. I believe it is needlessly cruel and damaging to the rape victim to force her to continue that pregnancy by removing her right to choose. I believe it is also needlessly cruel for the child brought into the world as a product of violence.
See and I believe that in that case your own personal tragedy can be someone else’s miracle. I cannot speak to what that would feel like. I cannot say if it would be nine more months of being raped. I can say that even if it was I would still feel that the child deserved life. And I would love to know that this horrible tragedy I went through brought someone else the one thing they have been praying for. It seems almost therapuetic. Not easy – but nothing about a rape is. Is it needlessly cruel for a child to be brought into the world as a product of violence? Yes! But that is the rapists doing not the woman carrying and delivering the child. No matter how that child came to be there they are there and they deserve life not death.
Additionally, less than 1% of rapes lead to pregnancy. So, as much as the pro-choice side likes to tout that as a huge reason for abortion it really is not the main reason abortions are preformed.
Additionally, less than 1% of rapes lead to pregnancy.
Can you please cite this?
Off hand this is the only site I can find. It has a good break down. I realize that people who are pro-choice are going to say that it is not factual since it is a pro-life site but at the moment I cannot find a single pro-choice site that is talking about how many rapes lead to pregnancy. It says that the number is actually more like 1 or 2 out of every thousand. I will acknowledge that it is not including statistics on statuatory rapes – my assumption since it says it is talking about all forcible rapes that it is including things like the fourteen year old girl being raped by her uncle but is not including the 16 years old girl who is dating a 19 year old boy. Anyway here is the site – http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/view.php&articleid=461
This non-partisan site, the Rape and Incest National Network, cites a figure they got from the Justice Dept. saying 5% of rapes resulted in pregnancy. It is possible that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are more likely to report that rape to the government (I’m pretty sure there is some sort if compensation for victims available I’m at least some cases, so perhaps that has something to do with it. I don’t really know though) so I would believe that non governmental organizations accurately got a lower number in their studies.
Lol I guess I shouldn’t type while nursing a baby. Anyway, here is the link:http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
and I had a typo that should be “in some cases” not “I’m some cases”
Additionally, I agree with you. The majority of women who choose abortion do not do so because of pregnancy caused by nonconsensual sex. It doesn’t make their need (yes, need) for access to safe and affordable abortion any less valid.
This document from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group formerly associated with Planned Parenthood but now independent, breaks down the reasons women said they were having an abortion and might be interesting to read in the context of this discussion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
I do not believe that a fetus is a child. I believe a fetus is a potential child. I understand how precious that potential child is when you want to have a baby. But I can also understand wanting to abort that fetus if you do not want to have a baby. I understand that this belief gives me a completely different perspective on things than someone who believes that a fetus is a human being from the time of conception.
Forcing a woman who became pregnant against her will to put the wishes of prospective adoptive parents ahead of her own bodily rights just doesn’t seem right to me. If someone wants to give that gift, I think that is wonderful. But I don’t think it should be forced on anyone. To do so reminds me way too much of the Handmaid’s Tale.
Well, I think that pretty much ends the conversation. I am not going to convince you to see it as I do. There is not some brilliant thing about life, the cycle of life or the process of life developing that is going to change your mind. I know you have children, I know you have been pregnant and if that did not convince you that the baby growing inside you was a real live living human being there is nothing I can say that will. And in reverse there is nothing you can say to convince me that it isn’t. The only thing I want to say is that (and I assume you know this) I was not implying that ONLY rape victims should be denied abortions. I simply think that ALL abortions (with the exception of ones that would be honestly necessary to save the life of the mother) should be illegal.
That said I will say that while we do not agree and I do not see how we can I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. I appreciate the fact that my comments have no been deleted. I appreciate anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation and does not refuse to acknowledge there is another side. So thanks!
I simply think that ALL abortions (with the exception of ones that would be honestly necessary to save the life of the mother) should be illegal.
And I think that if abortion is criminalized, women will die. Women will not stop seeking out abortion simply because it’s made illegal. It’ll just be a lot harder to access, with no guarantees of safety. You asked above, “Why not allow BOTH people to be saved?”
Your solution accomplishes the exact opposite.
plastikgyrl, The argument that something should be legal just because people will do it anyway if it became illegal does not hold water for me. I do not think we should legalize drugs just so that people are no longer buying it illegally. People make the argument that less people would die from drugs if we were able to test them and make sure they were not laced with other poisons. That does not wash with me and neither does that argument for abortion.
Upstatemomof3: “I cannot speak to what that would feel like. ”
Exactly. YOU cannot speak to what that would feel like for any woman other than yourself. And you cannot say how you would react if you were in that situation until you have lived through that situation yourself.
You cannot tell me how I feel. You cannot tell me that now that I am pregnant, I regret the abortion I had. I do not. I do not feel any differently about that abortion now that I am pregnant, now that I have seen the beating heart of this fetus at 8 weeks (I terminated at 13 weeks, as soon as I found out I was pregnant). FOR ME, abortion was the right choice. (And no, there were no medical issues involved. I made the right choice for me and for that potential child.)
FOR YOU, abortion would probably not have been an option. I support your choice. I support your right to carry your pregnancy to term, IF THAT IS THE CHOICE YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE.
My choice cannot dictate yours, and your choice cannot dictate mine.
You cannot speak for any woman other than yourself.
No, but I can speak for that baby! That baby deserved a life – whether you regret taking it’s life away from it. And no abortion would never be an option for me – no matter what!
Okay, how can you speak for a fetus? There are people walking among us who were born to parents who did not want them. Who abused and neglected them. They have life, but at what cost? And, blah, blah adoption, etc….LIFE is not that simple. It is messy and complicated and nuanced. The bottom line is women should be trusted to do what is best for their life. Trust women, period.
I trust you to do what you think is best for yourself, your sitution, your future. I trust if you become pregnant unexpectantly you will make the decision that feels right for YOU. If that means carrying the pregnancy and becoming a mother, I trust you to do the best you can with that CHOICE. All pro-choice supporters want if for you (and the laws) to trust us in the same way.
When we (the people) allow or encourage laws to exist that take away ANY part of fully bodily autonomy we give ground to the possibility of more laws to take away further rights. If abortion is made illegal, i.e. the government has a legal right to women’s bodies, then what about people who be just as strongly as you do that OVERpopulation is a problem? It’s possible they could wage a campaign and a law could be created limiting how many children women have. Women have a right to full bodily autonomy, and that includes the uterus.
(You should really look up the numbers of women who die or nearly die from back-alley abortions in countries like Venuzuala. Abortion is 100% illegal there no matter what the circumstance. Children are being orphaned because their mother had no access to birth control, could not afford another child and sought out an abortion in desperation.)
Hey Upstatemom,
I’ll speak for myself– to have an abortion was the wisest choice I ever made and I will be eternally grateful that I had the freedom to choose. And no, my pregnancy did not threaten my health, and I’d not been raped, but I was one of many, many people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy whose timing was so wrong. In the seven years since my abortion, I have had my first child and this experience has only underlined my certainty that what I did was right for me– pregnancy is so hard, motherhood is so hard, and to endure these things when I was so unprepared would have compromised the rest of my life (and my ability to mother). Which is selfish, and it is, but I’m sure that choosing *my* life over the potential life of a pre-fetus the size of a grain of rice was so unwise.
I guess it’s easier for you, for whom these issues are a matter of principle, but for those of us who have lived them, it is (and will always be) a infinitely more complicated matter.
Sorry, “was NOT so unwise”
Olivia –
You said “There are people walking among us who were born to parents who did not want them.” You are right! I am one of them. My parents never wanted me. My mother beat me. My mother threw me down stairs. My mother dislocated my ear drum by throwing me into a dresser. I know exactly how hard some people have it. But I do not wish that I had been aborted. I have grown up, gotten past that time of my life and made a great life for myself. So, I can speak to the baby because it is a life – it deserves to live it. You cannot possibly know what that person would have done if given the chance. And really people who say that they themselves should have been aborted (and I have never heard that but I’ll believe you that people feel that way) have a very interesting perspective since any and all good things they have would not exist as they would not exist.
And as for the government and their laws -while I get your point. I do. And I am one to talk about if you give the government an inch they will take a mile plenty. It all boils down to the fact that I believe that it is a baby, a life and therefor we have no right to kill it. I see no difference between abortion and killing a child hours after it was born (morally – obviously I understand that one is legal and one is not).
KC,
I am glad you are happy and comfortable with your decision. I am glad that you are able to live your life and feel like you did the right thing. However, I do not think you should have had that option. Because it is not how you feel about it that I am fighting for. I am fighting for the life of that child. That child deserved the chance to live.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I think the above comment from Criss is something that can and should be applied to all parenting decisions. I am staunchly pro-choice for just this reason. Therefore, I appreciate this post… but I do want to point out the hypocrisy of standing up for a woman’s rights in this respect, but then telling her she doesn’t have the same rights once the baby is out of the womb, in so many different ways…Not that you, PhD, or anyone in particular here is doing that… I just find it puzzling in general that so often the same people are standing up for pro-choice issues and then acting like other parenting decisions – working outside of the home, not breastfeeding, CIO, etc are inherently selfish or irresponsible choices, even when they are done in the name of the parents’ sanity or health.
Just thinking aloud here. Great dialogue though.
Another great point.
Sadly, pro-breastfeeding has kind of turned into anti-formula because the pro-breastfeeding crowd is fighting against the years of anti-breastfeeding propaganda (and the companies that make money by selling you formula and telling women untruths).
But the reality is that some women cannot breastfeed, for whatever reason (biological/genetic reasons like they aren’t producing enough milk or real-life reasons like it’s just not working out with the situations in their lives at that point in time), and the rest of us need to respect that choice.
Same goes with any other parenting choice — what might have worked for you, or your kid (or, in my case, what I think WILL work in the future when I have kids) will not necessarily work for that mother with her kids, because they’re kids not clones. I cannot speak for another woman (or her fetus), so why would I think I can speak for another mother and/or her children. (Yes, there’s a line — abuse is not a “parental choice,” it’s abuse. But these are not the things we’re talking about here.)
People just need to start minding their own beeswax and quit sticking their noses in other people’s lives and choices.
I’m not going to go back-and-forth because I don’t think anyone is going to change anyone’s mind. But I do feel compelled to leave a response.
I am a pro-life Democrat. For me, that means that life is a precious creation and deserves special care from conception through natural death. I also oppose war and the atrocious loss of life that that entails. To me, this is a more consistent moral view than both the religious right (who oppose abortions but are maniacal warmongers) and pro-abortion Democrats (who are hypocrites).
I’ve never met anyone who is pro-abortion. I have, however, met people who are anti-choice.
It’s only hypocritical if you believe that the fetus is equal to the woman carrying it.
I don’t have a political party that I identify with. I suppose I more “right” than “left” but I do not consider myself either Republican or Democrat. But I wanted to add in addition to war the concept that always amazes me is that people can be pro-life and pro death penalty. That I do not get.
I dislike banter on this topic because people are always in one camp or the other and no one is going to change anyone’s mind.
As far as the pro-abortion/anti-choice business goes, except in cases of rape or incest, a choice has already been made. Intercourse produces babies. That is what it does. You choose to have intercourse, there is a chance you will create a baby. That being said, I’m not against most forms of contraception, but people need to realize that they have limitations and there is a chance they will fail, in which case you will either become parent to a child or will need to make an adoption plan.
And, it seems very clear to me that pro”choice” people are pro-abortion. Just look at the sheer number of posts here that are totally devoted to justifying it. And, no, I’m not one of the strict all-or-nothing pro-lifers, but I vehemently despise the notion that simply because you had an “oops!” with or without birth control, you ‘deserve’ to eliminate.
I also am not one of the all-talk-no-walk pro-lifers. Our first child was adopted. We still have open communication/visits etc. with both of the birthparents. We consider both of them to be just like family. They ARE family. Due to private circumstances that are not mine to disclose, they made an adoption plan. We had a home and open arms for a child, and they selected us to be her parents. Later, my husband and I birthed a child as well. So I have had both experiences and they have shown me how all families are beautifully and wonderfully made.
And, Upstatemomof3, I agree totally about the death penalty. I am also anti-death-penalty. I am truly trying to have a very consistent moral view that follows the seamless garment of life. There was a time when I was strongly pro”choice,” but as I grew and matured, I became more enlightened and came to understand that the issue involves more than simply the woman herself. When a woman is pregnant, she has become a new being – the steward of a new life – and thus deserves the utmost care, respect, love, and support. When a fetus is aborted, it is not just the fetus itself who has died. That death affects generations to come. My mother’s birthmother told her that if abortions would have been legal, she would have had one. She instead made an adoption plan, and gave life to my mother, who gave life to me, and I gave life to my daughter.
The original woman’s suffrage movement had nothing at all to do with abortions. Susan B. Anthony herself was strongly opposed to abortions. Here is information on that from about.com: “(“When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.” 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women’s equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women’s rights.”
“And, it seems very clear to me that pro”choice” people are pro-abortion. Just look at the sheer number of posts here that are totally devoted to justifying it.”
Do you also see all the posts devoted to defending and justifying birth control?
I agree that no one is going to change anyone’s mind. Which is why I think we should stop trying to force one group to do it X way. If you do not want to have an abortion, then I don’t want you to have one. I will fight for your right to not have one, no matter what your doctor says, because it is YOUR CHOICE what happens to your body and to your pregnancy.
Why can’t we just respect women enough to allow them to make their own decisions about their bodies? I don’t want to you think exactly the way I do, I want you to allow me to think the way I do. I allow you to think the way you do.
I disagree that pro-choice = pro-abortion.
I don’t like abortions. I could probably never have one myself. From that perspective, if I had to be “pro-abortion” or “anti-abortion”, I guess you could call me “anti-abortion”.
But, I am pro-choice because I do not think it is up to me to impose my preference/will on other women. Just because I don’t like the idea of abortion, doesn’t mean that I think other people’s access to abortions should be restricted.
I feel the same way about abortion as I do about religion. It’s not for me. I don’t like it. But I think everyone should learn about it and have the freedom to access/practice it.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for abortions. This is not a perfect world.
Well, thanks to this law, I am back to considering sterilization. I don’t want kids, and I don’t want to take birth control for the rest of my life assuming it still remains available. so it’s either get myself sterilized or trust that any partner I take would actually use a condom. Since I’m not a trusting sort, it’s the surgical option for me.
You know, this is such a difficult topic, because there are so many layers of definitions behind the words pro-life and pro-choice. And honestly, I’m not sure I even know which term to apply to myself anymore. Being pregnant myself really tempered a lot of my feelings about pregnancy and abortion. And while I agree with Stephanie that life is a precious creation, and my religion teaches that life starts at conception, I also cannot agree with forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her attackers child, or making a woman carry a child when it puts her own life at risk.
That said, I understand why people say they don’t want their tax dollars spent on abortions, but the truth is we get very little say in where our tax dollars go. I don’t want my tax dollars spent on a subway system through my city, and the majority of the rest of the city are against it too. But it doesn’t look like what we wants carries any weight, because plans are still moving forward. That would be like someone without children saying they don’t want their tax dollars to go towards schools because they’ll never use them, or someone without a car not wanting to support construction of roadways.
I agree with whomever said that we need to separate facets of the whole abortion issue before we can come to a solution. Because it’s just too big of an issue to tackle at once.
Kayris:
I completely agree that there are many layers and that is why it is such a difficult decision. People who are pro-life seem to assume that pro-choice advocates support aborting fetuses at will under any circumstances and that they would terminate any unplanned pregnancy of their own. People who are pro-choice seem to assume pro-life advocates believe that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances at all. Certainly there are people at the far ends of the spectrum, but I would like to believe that most people are somewhere in the middle.
(this is becoming no longer just a reply to Kayris, but a general comment on the whole discussion)
Personally, I have never experienced an unwanted pregnancy. That said, I have had sex at times when I was not ready to get pregnant and only used one form of birth control while doing so. If that form of birth control had failed, I could have found myself in the circumstances of having an unwanted pregnancy. My perspective now, as a woman in my thirties with two children in a stable relationship with stable finances, is that I would not have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption. I just cannot imagine doing either. Would my perspective have been different 17 years ago? Perhaps. If I had to choose, I think I would find having an early abortion less difficult than giving up a baby that I had carried for 9 months and birthed. Others may come to a different conclusion.
All that to say, I don’t think it is my place, as a privileged woman, to dictate to other women and girls in difficult situations what is okay and not okay. I think we need to educate women and girls and men and boys more about sex, pregnancy, and contraception. We need to help them to avoid unwanted pregnancies and also work on issues like poverty and domestic violence, so that those babies that are brought into the world are being brought into a better place. But while we are doing that, we need to ensure that those women who find themselves in a desperate situation have a way to get out of it. The man can just run off. The woman is stuck with the consequences.
All that to say, I guess I see myself as both pro-life (I love babies, I cannot imagine having an abortion or giving one up), but also pro-choice (in that it is not my place to decide for anyone else or to judge their reasons).
PhD-just wanted to say thanks for the great post. Obviously there is still huge disagreement about when life begins and when, if ever abortion is justified, not to mention contraception in general and the healthcare bill. But this is one of the most robust discussions of women’s rights I’ve seen in a long time. I especially think it is awesome the level of respect and lack of name calling that seem to be present. I agree to disagree on the abortion issue, but there is no question that I’ll keep reading your blog
I am always concerned when reproductive rights are being discussed and decided by a group of high income / downright wealthy MPs who will never have to worry about surviving childbirth, living past infancy, where their next meal will come from or if they can keep a roof over their head.
Thought provoking post, Annie. I haven’t read the other responses, but my initial thoughts are despite the fact that I am 100% pro-choice, I think that the U.S.’s desperate need of heath care reform takes precedence this time. The heath care bill narrowly passed as is, as expected, and throwing in coverage as controversial as abortion would have nailed it’s coffin. Under the circumstances, I’d rather low-income families have health insurance without abortion coverage than no coverage at all.
I’ve had the military’s version of health insurance all my life, and it has never covered abortion. And I’ve had two abortions in that time. One for the usual reasons (“babydaddy” was a loser, wrong time in life, etc etc) and another because of fetal defects incompatible with life.
You know what? It would have been AWESOME to have had abortion coverage! (particularly the second time around. One can forgive the federal government for not giving a shit about how much of a loser one’s boyfriend is, but c’mon, the second situation was just arbitrary cruelty in action. They were willing to send me to a hospice at government expense for five months, but god forbid they pay for some Pitocin before 38.5 weeks.)
But I’d never ever ever consider dropping my coverage for that failing alone. The same insurance also happily picked up the tab for four full-term live births and extensive prenatal care, and an abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than raising a kid, full stop. Yo.
I agree that, given the choice we were given, yes, the right thing to do was sacrifice reproductive rights for the good of the many.
The issue is how offensive and ridiculous it is that THAT was the choice we were given. Why are women’s rights fair game to bargain with in that way? Would anyone have dared say he was going to kill the bill if it included coverage for AIDS patients? That they “knew what they were getting into” when they had sex? That all those HIV-positive patients should have “just kept their legs crossed”? That people with AIDS are just “teh gayz” anyway and that God hates them so let them die?
Why is it fair to say this to women? (Replace “gayz” with “sluts/whores”)
And how can anyone claim to be “pro-life” and say he’s opposing health care reform for the lives of those fetuses, when he’s so ready to let UNDENIABLE, UNEQUIVOCAL human children and women and men die from lack of health care? What about all the extra-uterine lives that are lost every year because people do not have access to health care? Because insurance drops patients as soon as they develop and expensive condition? Because a newborn is denied a simple, life-saving procedure because the insurance company claims it’s a “pre-existing condition”?
This was not about “protecting life.” This was about controlling women, and not wanting to help the poor/less fortunate. We women continue to be second-class citizens, which is why our rights were the ones chosen to bargain with.
It’s an interesting debate. And it is so often divided into camps. My personal stance, I’m anti-abortion for myself. I don’t even think I could go through with one if my life was in danger or I had been raped.
However I’m pro-choice. As with all things I think we need to make the choice for ourselves.
As long as abortion is legal, I’ll remain pro-choice. If it ever becomes illegal again I’ll have to reevaluate.
As wrt to the American Health Bill. If elective abortions had to be sacrificed in order for it to pass than I think it’s what needed to be done. If it means that families with children suffering from horrid genetic disorders no longer need to hide that disorder from their doctor in order to prevent being diagnosed so that the child can continue to have coverage or that women who want to keep their children can now afford to seek prenatal care and health advice to keep those children healthy and this was the ONLY way it could happen then I’m not going to cry “foul.” Yes, it’s not the best scenario. But neither is abortion. Birth control will now be covered. Medically necessary abortions will now be covered. Other “elective” surgeries will often not.
I don’t think this will result in abortions being made illegal. But it will result in a bill passing that will make a huge difference. And no one had really been sacrificed as women seeking elective abortions have not lost coverage, they just haven’t been given the coverage they hoped for. Ideally would it all be covered? Of course. But if the world operated ideally abortions wouldn’t be neccesary for any reason.
On a side-note, am I the only one that finds it alarming that while we’re struggling to protect our pro-choice rights here in Canada where abortions are covered, the choice to have a child is not covered or protected as fertility treatments are not covered? Will they be covered with the new legislation in the States?
Criss: I also find it very worrying that drugs for ‘erectile dysfunction’ are covered. They’re botique drugs, pure and simple, but because they are aimed at wealthy upper-class men, they’re covered by the health reforms. It would be interesting to see what would happen if those were linked to the Hyde Amendment. I bet it would be repealed post-haste.
Totally random thoughts.
I’m pro-choice. I’m not pro-abortion. I hate abortion – it turns my stomach. But, women *are* going to have them, and I’d rather see them done in a proper medical context than in back alleys. It’s that simple.
Well…actually, it’s not that simple. Women *are* the custodians of the life/potential life inside their womb. They simply are. It’s not up to anyone else to make the decisions about what happens to that life/potential life. The decision about that baby/fetus *will* be made by the mother, because there is nobody else who can make those decisions. I suppose we could restrict pregnant women to supervised quarters and make them eat or drink by IV, if we, as a society, didn’t like the choices they were making, but even that doesn’t result in an outside agent controlling the pregnancy/baby, because maternal stress has an impact on a gestating child, as well. That fetus *is* part of the mother’s body until birth, and there’s nothing we can do to change that biological fact.
And…whenever we’re talking about abortion, there seems to be a “baby’s life vs. mother’s inconvenience” tone to the pro-life arguments. Pregnancy, even a healthy “low risk” pregnancy, does actually carry increased risks to a mother’s life. With good nutrition, hygiene, etc., those risks are pretty low, but they’re still real. I don’t feel that I, or society, have the right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, and then maybe watch her die from a rare complication (eg. amniotic fluid embolism). These things *happen* – they’re rare, but they happen. This is not necessarily a case of “mom has abortion” vs. “mom has baby, gives it up for adoption, then goes on her merry way”. Mom could die. I’ve been very willing to take the risk of something going wrong all eight times I’ve been pregnant (and things have…3 m/c and a term stillbirth), but that’s not a choice that other people can make for me.
And, all that being said…I really do wish people would take the possibility of a woman getting pregnant from sex more seriously than we frequently do. (I’ve lost track of the number of “accidental” pregnancies I’ve encountered in my life, but it’s a lot. A few of those were birth control failure, but most of them were the “I don’t want to get pregnant/get her pregnant, so the magical wish field will prevent it”.)
{ 2 trackbacks }